Volume 703 Week 8 - Tuesday 17 February 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 703 Week 8 - Tuesday 17 February 2015[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 17 February 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersSkycity Convention Centre—Benefits for SkycityRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks—Hon Steven Joyce: Are you announcing?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All in good time Sunshine—all in good time.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not want that sort of interjection coming from my right when I call someone to ask a primary question.1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement in regard to Skycity that “I would hate to see some sort of eyesore constructed downtown.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and the good news is that I do not think that will be the case.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he choose to announce that taxpayer funds may be given to Skycity on 10 February just 1 day before Skycity announced its mid-year results?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not; what I did do is not take any options off the table because negotiations had not been completed. I answered questions from I think in the initial instance Corin Dann Television One’s chief political reporter. I guess the difference between my career and his is that I answer the questions and he does not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case my question is: why did he say “I would hate to see some sort of eyesore constructed downtown.” and make that statement on 10 February—and have full regard for the fact that he controls the press statements from his office not the media itself—when this information was known on 19 December?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I would and because I was asked on 10 February.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he seen the massive increase in the share price for Skycity as a consequence of his precipitate thoughtless comments and what is he doing as Prime Minister as the epicentre for market manipulation?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister either of those supplementary questions.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question no.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many times has he met with Skycity investors and management since they announced on 19 December that they would need more funds?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check formally with my office to be absolutely 100 percent sure but from memory the only person I have seen from Skycity whom I can recall in that period of time from 19 December 2014 to today was Chris Moller because I saw him in his capacity as head of the cricket.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that a deal was struck with Skycity weeks ago and well before he made his comments and that part of that deal was to publicly keep all options open until after Skycity’s mid-year results were announced in order to increase Skycity’s share price?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I wish it were true that a deal was done a few weeks ago. It would have saved me last week’s little hassles.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand how the market would be influenced by comments from his office and why did he make them having regard to the fact that they were likely to boot the price up as they did by a massive $76 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Last week I was asked questions about whether it would be possible in theory for the taxpayer to make some contributions to Skycity on the back of their request. As I said at the time I am not taking anything off the table. In reality a deal was agreed with Skycity on Friday and confirmed by its board over the weekend. That is the sequence of events and that is the way those things happened.Grant Robertson: The board often meets in the weekend.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well they did on that particular occasion when they needed to get things settled down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document prepared by FinData on the movement of this share price as a consequence of the Prime Minister’s statements.Mr SPEAKER: It is marginal whether I should even be putting the leave in that it is information that is available to the public but for the benefit of the House and it may be informative I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice this year you keep making exceptions to a rule that was pretty well established. Those documents are quite public. The point had been made I think during question time so the support of it with a public document is not necessary but the House is not going to decline someone tabling a public document. The purpose of having that come into effect as a sort of Speaker’s ruling was to stop taking the House’s time over stuff that is available to members.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member has made. Perhaps at the start of this year I am being too generous with some members. I will have a look at it. The Minister is quite right to point out that information that is not generally available and will inform the House is the sort of information we expect to have tabled. But at the end of the day when I put the leave it is entirely over to any member of the House to object if they do not think the tabling is going to be relevant.Rt Hon John Key: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the good order of the House as I said to the House earlier in answer to Mr Peters I will need to check with my office absolutely about Skycity people but I do recall that Peter Treacy was at a function I was at about a week or so ago. I assume he would be included as part of the management. But I will get him the full list.Skycity Convention Centre—Negotiation of Costs2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon Steven Joyce given his statement that SkyCity reducing the size of the convention centre by “around 10 percent would not cause the Crown too much concern”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes I do. Steven Joyce did not want to put extra money last week into the convention centre but it looks like Andrew Little did on the radio.Andrew Little: Given the deal lays out precisely detailed gambling concessions in return for a 3500-seat convention centre if the convention centre is smaller will Skycity’s concessions also be reduced?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I think what the deal does is lay out for a $402 million spend and what we can see from Skycity is that it will be spending at least $402 million and probably more.Andrew Little: What has Skycity given in return for being allowed to build a smaller convention centre or is this just a gift from us to it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To start off the plans have not actually been approved by the Government but what the Government has done is acknowledge that some of the points that Skycity makes are fair. There has actually been an escalation in some of the costs but overall Skycity has a very strong interest in building a world-class convention centre despite actually what the member says which is that no one is interested in coming to New Zealand which is an interesting position to take if you one day want to be the Prime Minister. I am pretty confident they actually will.Andrew Little: Can he confirm that under the deal he has negotiated on our behalf New Zealand taxpayers could now get a smaller convention centre for the same regulatory cost as before?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The final convention centre actually has to be agreed by the Government and that is for the purpose of it coming back. What the Government has done is given Skycity the changes in its legislation that account for about $402 million of benefit in return for at least $402 million being spent. That is the salient point.Andrew Little: Will he bring this new downgraded deal back to Parliament given this House approved extra pokies and other concessions in exchange for a 3500-seat convention centre not a smaller one?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member needs to see what Parliament agreed to which was a $402 million convention centre. I would say also that Skycity started with a plan at 33000 square metres and moved it up to 38000 square metres so let us see how it finally goes. But last week from what I could see the member seemed in favour of a free convention centre—actually in favour of putting in a few more million of taxpayers’ money—and after all of that thought that nobody wants to come to New Zealand. Interesting response.Andrew Little: Which 10 percent of the convention centre is actually going to be cut: is it the roof one of the walls the windows—what is going?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I am absolutely confident that Skycity will build a world-class convention centre where many people will come and be part of world-class conventions there. But here is an interesting point. Labour members will be able to kick the tyres on this when they go and visit the Skycity box for their rugby and entertainment because we know that they are going to sneak behind the bike sheds—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not think that answer will help the order of the House.Andrew Little: Why did he go around the country promising a free 3500-seat convention centre when now he cannot deliver it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I did do was go around the country and promise that there would be a world-class convention centre provided without taxpayer support and guess what! That is happening. What I did not do was go on the radio last week and say: “Yeah we could toss them a few million.” What I did not do was go on the radio last week and say: “No one wants to come to New Zealand.” It is going to be a good deal for New Zealand. A world-class convention centre no taxpayer funds—deal done by the National Government.Economic Programme—Budget 20153.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has the Government recently made about Budget 2015?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week I announced that Budget 2015 will be delivered on Thursday 21 May. It will show the Government’s ongoing commitment to protecting the most vulnerable New Zealanders restraining spending and ensuring that our public finances continue to improve and that our economy becomes more productive and yields higher incomes for New Zealanders. We have made good progress on all these areas and we would expect to make further progress in Budget 2015 including on supporting Christchurch’s rebuilding.Simon O’Connor: What progress has been made in achieving the Government’s fiscal goals?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made steady progress over recent years to the point where the deficit has shrunk significantly from a peak of 9 percent of GDP. Net core Crown debt is expected to peak in the current fiscal year at 26.5 percent of GDP and then reduce to under 20 percent by 2020. A residual cash surplus is now expected in 2017-18 a year earlier than previously forecast. We could of course have made more rapid progress on reducing deficits and reducing debt but the Government has pursued a balanced fiscal policy protecting the most vulnerable New Zealanders maintaining public services improving the management of spending and gradually moving towards a fiscal surplus without major disruption.Simon O’Connor: How will Budget 2015 contribute to achieving the Government’s fiscal goals?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is under discussion right now as we move into the Budget process. But I will continue to implement those features of the Government programme that have turned out to be pretty successful and that is continued restraint across public services a strong focus on those factors that drive our spending particularly the New Zealanders with the most complex problems and continued investment in the kinds of innovation that is leading to more economic growth and more jobs. We have an unusual situation this year though where we have solid economic growth but remarkably low inflation. This is restricting the growth of the tax base and therefore Government revenue. This will pose a particular challenge through this Budget round.Simon O’Connor: How is the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management contributing to its wider economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the Government can continue to provide better public services with the same or less money it benefits everybody. It removes pressure in a growing economy that might flow through to higher inflation and higher interest rates and the Government has contributed in that respect to mortgage rates which are currently just above 50-year lows benefiting every household in New Zealand that has a mortgage. Along with the Government’s programme of microeconomic reform through the Business Growth Agenda this is helping to create conditions where business is confident in investment. We see business investment growing and in the long run that is what underpins higher incomes and sustainable jobs.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus and Treasury Forecasts4.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: How many operating surpluses if any using the Total Crown OBEGAL measure has the Government posted in its six years in office?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has not posted any operating surpluses in its 6 years of office starting with the one we inherited in 2008-09 which was a deficit of $3.9 billion left behind by the previous Government and that was when the economy was growing fairly significantly. Since then we have moved steadily as I pointed out before to repair the fiscal damage left by the previous Government but also to deal with recession and earthquakes and we have not made bad progress.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer what is Treasury’s forecast for surplus or deficit in this current financial year the year that he and John Key promised New Zealanders we would finally see a surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury’s forecast for the 2014-15 year I think currently stands at around minus $500 million. That is a small deficit. That is after a number of forecasts of surplus. But it could be that they have taken too much notice of that member who of course has been opposed to every aspect of fiscal restraint exercised by this Government in the last 6 years.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his Government rejected officials’ advice that would have seen ACC levies cut by $658 million given that the worker and earners account is more than fully funded?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think we did reject that advice as we reject a lot of officials’ advice because often officials’ advice is unbalanced and does not take into account all the objectives of the Government. There is no particular item that makes surplus achievable or not achievable. Budgets are put together in the whole counting expenditure on health education corrections innovation science and research and that will continue to be the case in this Budget as well.Grant Robertson: Given that answer is it correct that officials have advised the Government that ACC levies will be $60 a year more for the average household and for businesses with more than 10 staff $1500 more simply to help him manufacture a surplus in his Budget in May?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not be aware of this but all these issues were canvassed in detail I think at the time of the last Budget. I would expect the member to go and do a bit of homework on that Budget. As I said before the Government has made decisions about ACC in the same way as it decides for instance to give schools an increase in their operational budget or allocate $400 million or $500 million to health. It is just part of putting a whole Budget together and ACC is one of many decisions that add up to whether there is a surplus or not a surplus.Grant Robertson: Will he guarantee to New Zealand workers and businesses that they will not be paying more than they need to in ACC levies simply to help him manufacture a Budget surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I can say that. Of course you have got to remember that any decisions about ACC levies are based on forecasts and the forecasts almost always turn out to be wrong. They are either too high or too low and in retrospect you can see that. So this Government has taken a conservative view of both increasing and decreasing ACC levies and along the way has ignored officials’ advice to increase them too far. And we have not always taken notice of officials’ advice to decrease them too far.Joanne Hayes: What was Treasury’s forecast for Crown debt levels when the National-led Government was first elected in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a number of such reports because all sorts of people make it more challenging for the Government to return its finances to surplus. One such report is a photo of a picket-waving protester calling for more Government spending outside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment offices here in Wellington. Another involves a photo of the same protester calling for more Government spending outside Statistics New Zealand here in central Wellington. A third involves the same individual complaining about efficiencies in the public sector. The individual in the photos is Grant Robertson the current finance spokesman for the Labour Party who says we should have made bigger surpluses sooner somehow by spending more Government money.Joanne Hayes: What reports has he seen on policies that would make it even more challenging for the Government to return its finances to surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a range of other reports from Opposition spokespeople not just the Labour Party—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance has no responsibility for Opposition spokespeople which is what he is now going in to describe the words of.Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how the member knows that at this stage. I did not hear that from the Minister. If the Minister is about to attack the Opposition or the Opposition spokesperson then that is not in order. [Interruption] I will allow the Minister to finish his answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not uncommon to find individuals or groups in our community who advocate that the Government should get to surplus sooner and at the same time that it should increase spending against a given amount of revenue. These things cannot both happen at the same time but those are clearly the individual and groups whom Grant Robertson Labour Opposition finance spokesperson is listening to.Cabinet Ministers—Accountability5.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Are Cabinet ministers accountable to the public of New Zealand for their ministerial decisions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.METIRIA TUREI: Have members of his staff advised Ministers to answer “No comment.” to questions in order to shut down reporters who are inquiring into Government scandals?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister in so far as there may be ministerial responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the proposition of the member.Metiria Turei: Well then are Ministers simply following his lead in responding with “No comment.” to political questions after he refused to say when he first heard that the police were investigating Mike Sabin?Mr SPEAKER: I will leave it for the Prime Minister but there is no ministerial responsibility for that.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When Ministers answer questions as the member will be aware from the Cabinet Manual they must have regard for the public interest and sometimes that means it is not in the public interest to discuss some issues at certain points of time. They can include matters of national security foreign affairs personal privacy and matters before the courts. Although in fairness the member has never been in Government and the Greens never have so they probably do not know how it works.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his 2010 decision to publish ministerial credit card usage in the interests of “greater transparency and public scrutiny”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and I think this Government has shown how open and transparent it is.Metiria Turei: Well then how can the public scrutinise Paula Bennett’s management of her ministerial credit card when she responds with “No comment.” to questions about her role and the $1200 misuse of that card?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member misrepresents Paula Bennett. She does not have a ministerial credit card.Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister OK then with the Minister for Economic Development not commenting on questions about a $1 million furniture spend-up at his ministry; if so what does he and Mr Joyce have to hide?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well in the last part of the question nothing; in the first part of the question I understand that he was on a plane and like a good former Minister of Transport he would know the rule is that you do not have your phone on when you are in a plane.Metiria Turei: What does his Government have to hide now that Ministers in charge of billions of dollars of public money are regularly answering with “No comment.” to questions about their spending?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has nothing to hide. There will be times as I pointed out earlier when it is not in the public interest or possible for a Minister to answer but those situations are few and far between if you actually look at the thousands of parliamentary questions Official Information Act requests and various other written questions that we answer. What I find on this side of the House is that we have a team of people who know each other well work together well and get on well. What I notice with the Greens is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is no responsibility.Children—School and Year Start-up Payment6.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to assist children as they head back to school?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Before I answer the question could I just acknowledge the death today of Celia Lashlie who is a woman who worked tirelessly and fearlessly in the social sector. In reply to the question to support those looking after vulnerable children we have paid nearly $4.65 million this year in start-of-year grants to families receiving the unsupported child’s benefit or the orphans benefit. This is helping more than 9500 children right around New Zealand with each carer receiving between $400 and $550. These grants help carers buy essentials like uniforms and stationery and other necessities to help settle children into the new school year. The applications for grants do not close until 28 February. They can apply online and I encourage all those carers who qualify to do so.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How do these grants contribute to the Government’s focus on supporting vulnerable children?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: These payments recognise the valuable role that family carers play by stepping up to help raise vulnerable children often after raising a family of their own. So we want to make their job of raising children as easy as possible and to help with the costs that come with starting a new year is a tangible and practical way to do so. I am really pleased that so many families are applying for these grants. Grandparents and other extended family members do phenomenal work in putting the needs of our vulnerable children ahead of their own and we are giving them a helping hand.State and Social Housing—Housing Stock7.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: What is the projected change in percentage and absolute terms of Housing New Zealand’s land holdings in both area (hectares) and dollar value over the next three years?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): Housing New Zealand advises that over the next 3 years based on its current asset management strategy it expects to acquire around 3900 new homes and divest around 3500 that are primarily the wrong type or in the wrong place. This is part of its business-as-usual programme. Specific properties for divestment and acquisition have not yet been individually identified so I cannot answer the member’s question in detail or confirm changes in land area or value. These figures exclude recent announcements from the Government’s social housing reform programme and they could change because the asset management strategy will be updated in view of the social housing programme after a strategic review in the first half of this year.Phil Twyford: Will he guarantee that all of the up to 8000 State houses he plans to sell by 2017 will be sold to non-profit community housing providers and none to private interests?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No because it may well be for instance that the 1300 or 1400 houses that are unusable—that is because they are earthquake-prone or otherwise they cannot be tenanted—may well be houses that no social housing provider would want. It may be that other stock is simply in a place where there is no demand for social housing. The member needs to bear in mind that in any given year Housing New Zealand sells 300 to 500 houses directly into the private market and we do not see any reason why that should change.Phil Twyford: What proportion of the up to 8000 houses he plans to sell by 2017 does he expect to be sold to private interests as opposed to non-profit community housing providers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: You know if the member is concernedabout for instance the scheme where we sell houses to tenants—in some cases with assistance—we intend to continue doing that. I cannot give the member an answer about what proportion. That will be driven not by some ideological view about how many houses a Government should own; it will be driven by the needs of tenants. If Housing New Zealand owns houses that tenants do not need or that are not appropriate for tenants then it will divest those houses.Phil Twyford: How will he prevent houses sold to community housing providers being sold on and ending up in the hands of private landlords and property speculators?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we get closer to the process of testing the market on selling some tenanted houses to social housing providers there will be a discussion about the extent to which there are safeguards for the tenant. But I would have to say that the Government is not that concerned about retaining forever access to any particular house. That is because of the track record Governments have of making tenants go into houses the Government owns even if they are not that suitable for the tenants. So our overriding priority which that member does find hard to understand is the tenants: looking after their serious housing need giving them security of tenure while their need remains which in some cases is 20 years but also assisting them back into housing independence because many of them do not need to be in a social house for ever.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It concerned whether the Government will be able to prevent houses being onsold. The Minister gave us a seminar on the social housing policy and the reasons for it but did not actually address the question.Mr SPEAKER: If I recall the question right there was also talk about safeguard for tenants and the Minister spent quite some time talking about the tenants being important so on this occasion—well the member can shake his head all he likes but I have determined that the question has been addressed.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that the Government is considering offering a Government guarantee to community housing providers to secure the finance because as everybody knows a bank will not lend money on a house that cannot be onsold?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know what the member is referring to there. The Labour Party may not have noticed but the private ownership of houses is not a deep dark secret in New Zealand. In fact he might find that a vast majority of houses are owned by those nasty profit-making private individuals. I know that it is Labour’s policy to own every house in New Zealand but we take a slightly more balanced view.Phil Twyford: Is he surprised that Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army says he is “irritated” by the Government’s social housing policy when the Prime Minister says things like he would be amazed if the likes of the Salvation Army were hesitant to get involved if it saw a way to make money off the investment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well Major Campbell Roberts has made an outstanding contribution to the development of social housing policy in the last 5 years. He was part of the original advisory group which made it very clear to this Government that the Government was doing a poor job of State housing and that there were much better alternatives for enabling people to live better lives if we dealt with their housing needs more effectively. I have had many discussions with Major Campbell Roberts over the policy. He raises any number of interesting and sometimes difficult questions but there is no doubt that his purpose and ours is the same: to do a better job for New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens and that is what we are setting out to do.Smoking—Cessation Initiatives8.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Associate Minister of Health: What plans does the Government have to achieve smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): The Government is committed to a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025 but we recognise that it will not be achieved by one measure alone. Our Government has worked hard with our partners the Māori Party in this important area and I do want to acknowledge the work done by the previous Minister Tariana Turia. We have introduced significant legislative changes including increasing taxation levels increasing the penalties and fines for those selling to minors as well as removing retailers’ ability to display tobacco products. In fact as a result of some of the changes we have seen an improvement in the daily smoking rate from 18 percent in 2006 under Labour to 15.5 percent in 2013. I am currently taking advice on a wide range of further options and initiatives including further tax increases banning smoking in cars with children media and health promotion campaigns the role of e-cigarettes and many other options for that target.Marama Fox: Given that we are now identified as world leaders in smoking cessation initiatives through the work of the former associate health Minister is the Minister prepared to continue this momentum and commit to banning smoking in cars; if not why not?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am committed to continuing the momentum to reduce the rates of smoking in New Zealand. At this stage there is no plan to legislate to ban smoking in cars. However I have asked officials to prepare advice for Ministers on this particular topic in respect of children passengers along with many other initiatives to achieve our goal to be smoke-free by 2025.Marama Fox: Can the Minister provide any reasons given that he is yet to receive a briefing why banning smoking in cars would not contribute positively to the decrease in effects caused by inhaling second-hand smoke?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said previously I have asked officials to prepare that advice for Ministers on this topic. Once I have that advice I will be able to give a more informed view on the effects of and the extent to which smoking in cars affects other passengers especially children.Fines and Reparation—Enforcement and Driver Licence Stop Orders9.JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Courts: How successful has the Government’s new Driver Licence Stop Orders initiative been in collecting unpaid traffic fines during its first year?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Courts): Last February this Government introduced driver licence stop orders. These give the courts the power to suspend the driver’s licence of people who refuse to pay their overdue traffic fines. In the past year nearly 20000 have either paid or started to pay their overdue traffic fines bringing in $20.4 million to date. With only 27 licences currently suspended along with 11 more that were suspended but have since been cleared it is great to see that people are getting the message that they need to do the right thing and pay their traffic fines before they risk losing their licence.Jono Naylor: What results can she report from other new powers that this Government has given the courts to enforce fines?Hon AMY ADAMS: This Government has added to the powers that the court has to enforce court fines and reparations. This has helped bring down overdue fines from $400 million when we became the Government to around $240 million today. We have introduced new data matching with the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development to help find people dodging their fines. Since we started this programme in 2012 we have collected $207 million. We have also allowed courts to share information with credit agencies when people refuse to pay their fines and this has seen a further $86 million in previously unpaid fines being cleared.Employment Relations—Zero-hour Contracts10.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is the Government planning to ban zero-hour employment contracts; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development)on behalf of theMinister for Workplace Relations and Safety: May I first note for the member that his leader last week claimed that the Minister for Economic Development had responsibility for zero-hour contracts and of course he does not. Although the term zero hours means different things to different people the Government does have concerns with some of the reported aspects of some of the so-called zero-hour contracts and I have asked officials to look into those allegations and report as part of our current review into employment standards. I am primarily concerned with practices where mutual obligations are unbalanced and we will address those as required. However we do not have plans to ban employers and employees from having legitimate casual agreements that suit both parties.Iain Lees-Galloway: Can the Minister describe to the House what he believes a zero-hour contract is and how it differs from a casual agreement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There have always been legitimate working arrangements called casual employment agreements and these arrangements work as and when required. The employer does not guarantee the individual any work but the individual is also not obliged to accept any work or be exclusively available for that employer. Employment relations of course require mutual obligations; where flexibility is important for both employers and employees casual employment arrangements can strike this balance. However there are sometimes practices where there is a relationship of mutual obligations that are inconsistent with good faith. The sorts of things that the Minister has asked officials to report back on specifically include agreements that unnecessarily restrict lower-skilled workers from undertaking alternative employment; rostering practices including short-notice cancellation of shifts; and also other matters that have been brought to attention in recent times including inappropriate pay deductions such as service station attendants having pay docked for customer theft.Iain Lees-Galloway: Will his proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act require permanent employment agreements to include regular hours of work?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It depends on whether the member is referring to permanent part-time fixed-term and full-time employments and those matters are covered in the law today. What we are talking about specifically here is a certain type of casual contract where perhaps—and I stress again that it is being investigated currently—individuals are having onerous requirements placed on them when their contracts are very much on a casual basis. Those are the things we will be investigating and the Minister does not plan to make announcements today on exactly what changes to the legislation would be made at this time.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he appreciate that people on zero-hour contracts do not have the flexibility that a casual contract gives them and does he also appreciate that people who are on zero-hour contracts cannot get a loan or a hire purchase agreement because they cannot demonstrate certainty of income or that they have to rearrange childcare from one week to the next or that they suddenly lose hours without any warning? How does that make life better for people on those contracts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are in danger of violently agreeing on this concern and the simple fact of the matter is that we will be investigating these matters. As I said previously there are legitimate casual agreements but it is important that onerous obligations are not placed on employees when they do not have defined hours in which they will be working and that is the exact stuff that we will be investigating.Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister seen of other unconventional employment contract arrangements?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there are reports that are of ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I saw a report of a particularly strange one just this day. A long-serving self-employed professional was hired for what he describes as a small freelance job. He dutifully carried out the work and provided follow-up notes and also an invoice for payment. The issue in this particular case is that the professional a journalist was not paid. Four months have now passed. Numerous phone calls and emails have been made with apparently no response. This is obviously not a zero-hour contract. It could perhaps be better described as a zero-payment contract—the employer in this case being then leadership aspirant for the Labour Party one Andrew Little the current Labour leader.Businesses—Self-employed and Small BusinessesBRETT HUDSON (National): My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion for the third time I am calling Brett Hudson and I expect silence from my right.11.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What reports has he received on the increased number of self-employed businesses in New Zealand?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Labour market statistics show that self-employed businesses grew by nearly 35000 in the year to December 2014. New Zealand’s 3.2 percent GDP growth is enabling business growth across the country. Small and medium enterprises many of which are self-employed businesses contribute nearly a third of New Zealand’s GDP. Amongst other things the National-led Government has reduced costs by lowering company tax; reduced ACC levies; made it easier to employ staff with the 90-day trial period; will be helping the way small businesses interact with the Government with the New Zealand small business number; has introduced the starting out wage—I could go on but I realise that time is limited.Brett Hudson: What are some of the specific Government initiatives that are helping small businesses?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The voluntary 90-day employment trial period reduces the risk for a business of hiring an employee and has been invaluable for the growth of small businesses. The latest data shows that 64 percent of small and medium enterprises have taken on new staff in the past year using trial periods. The introduction of the starting out wage is another initiative that is lowering the barriers for business to hire young and inexperienced workers.Brett Hudson: What factors might hinder self-employed businesses from employing staff?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Having greater certainty when hiring staff is essential for small and medium enterprises in New Zealand and of course job growth. Dropping the 90-day trial and dropping the starting out wage would be devastating for the growth of New Zealand small businesses and jobs in New Zealand.Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm there were approximately 61000 enterprise births in 2008 under a Labour Government compared with 48000 in 2014 under National?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I do not have the exact figures with me but I can confirm a very large explosion if you like in the development of loss attributing qualifying companies which are small companies set up to exploit tax advantages and distortions set up by the previous Labour Government.Jacinda Ardern: Why when many small businesses are spending more than 10 percent of their turnover on tax compliance has his Government in 7 years done absolutely nothing to assist especially when the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants has laid out a very precise plan of what he could do to assist?Hon CRAIG FOSS: As I noted National actually lowered the tax rate to 28 percent for companies and aligned trusts and various other taxes to remove the distortions under the previous Labour Government. I do note—and the member and the accountants do make a point—that cash flow is very important for small businesses absolutely crucial so it would really help if people paid their bills when due such as invoices received and not pay after 4 months Mr Little.Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012—Amendments12.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he intend to amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 in light of the Environmental Protection Authority rejecting both the ironsands and phosphate seabed mining applications?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am intending to introduce an exclusive economic zone amendment bill tomorrow but the decisions on it do not relate to those two specific applications. The decisions on it were actually made in early December prior to the legal processes on either of the two applications that the member mentions being finalised.Gareth Hughes: Was he one of the Ministers whom Chatham Rock Phosphate’s Managing Director Chris Castle said he met with and who assured him that changes would be made to the Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act; if so was seabed mining discussed at that meeting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not recall meeting on that application and I would have declined to do so because the application by Chatham Rock Phosphate is still subject to appeal. A key component of the exclusive economic zone legislation is the decisions on individual consents being made at arm’s length by the Environmental Protection Authority. I would note though that when the Government passed this law—and this is the first time New Zealand has had any law for environmental protection in the exclusive economic zone—the Green Party voted against it and said that it was a charter for mining.Gareth Hughes: Did the Minister meet with Chris Castle and does the Minister agree with Mr Castle who is quoted in the Otago Daily Times saying: “Changes will be made soon. The wheels are already turning. Then it’s going to get easier.” speculating that his company may be in a position to submit another mining application to his Environmental Protection Authority?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not intend to comment on that application. It is still in the period subject to appeal and it is not appropriate when the decision rests independently with the Environmental Protection Authority for me to comment on anything other than the law for which I am responsible.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge my question had two legs. The second part of the question the Minister said he did not want to address. If that is the case I ask that the first part of the question be addressed.Mr SPEAKER: The rules are quite clear. Supplementary questions should have one question not two. The Minister chose to answer the second one and certainly addressed that. If the member wants to go back and look at Hansard he will actually see that the first question he did ask was answered in the previous question anyway.Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister guarantee that the changes made to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act under his proposed new legislation will not make it easier for seabed miners to gain Environmental Protection Authority approval?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member will note that in the briefing to the incoming Government from both the Environmental Protection Authority and also from the Ministry for the Environment they expressed some concerns about this new legislation. The Government is giving consideration to some amendments but this is a very balanced blue-green Government that wants New Zealand to be able to take the economic opportunities to grow jobs and incomes but to do so in an environmentally responsible way. I can assure the member that if there are amendments to the Act they will be consistent with that philosophy.Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementDebate resumed from 12 February.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): In New Zealand First we believe that health is a really critical investment. We were concerned about the lack of focus on health in the Prime Minister’s speech. We have grave concerns when we compare ourselves with other countries like Australia our nearest neighbour. We know that health outcomes should be very similar in Australia and New Zealand but in reality they are not. New Zealand is falling behind and it is not really good enough. There are so many issues on which we should be competing on a level playing field but the reality is that we are not. Health outcomes are basically a defining feature of our First World status.In New Zealand First we are committed to actions to improve health outcomes in the area of non-communicable diseases like obesity and diabetes as well as to stamping out Third World diseases like rheumatic fever. More needs to be done in these areas. A whole heap more needs to be done. The bottom line is that spending more smartly has to be a focus and this means putting an emphasis on preventive measures like for example our SuperGold Health Check Bill which New Zealand First has in the members’ ballot. We believe that putting a fence at the top of the cliff is far easier than having an ambulance at the bottom and of course it is far far cheaper. The ultimate aim for all New Zealanders is to have certainty about their health care and an assurance that there is access to timely services—quality services.The Government cannot ignore these challenges—they are not going to go away—and with an ageing population and a growing population we are going to have greater challenges than we have ever had before. Thank you.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It has been a terrific summer with great weather barbecues and breaks for many New Zealanders I am sure. But sadly slowly we have all had to come back to normality—to work to picking up our children from school with their empty lunchboxes. It is good actually to see New Zealand First come along with their lunchboxes replete with the Australian flag on them. But we are back to normality in this House as well because the Government is focused resolutely on getting on with the job and with what matters to New Zealanders.Of course the Opposition is focused on pretty much everything else. It is focused on MPs who are no longer MPs and on a convention centre that taxpayers actually do not have to pay for. I will give Phil Twyford credit for something. He actually unlike his colleagues in the Labour Party asked a policy question today. I accept he did struggle to keep up with Bill English in terms of the answers that were given but he asked a policy question. We did not see that from the other members in his party. [Interruption] Well it is hard to know frankly.This is a party that believes that New Zealand has so much to be optimistic about over the next 3 years. We have got a top Prime Minister commonly recognised as such around the world. We have got an economy that is going very well—we acknowledge it can go better—where jobs are up inflation is down growth is up unemployment is down incomes are up interest rates are low and New Zealanders are feeling the benefits of that. We see it—Mr Clayton Mitchell knows—in Tauranga with construction booming with residential properties booming with the kiwifruit industry back on its feet doing well and with that flowing through into the car yards to the publicans and to everyone in the Bay of Plenty economy. That is a fantastic thing to see.What I am being told at the barbecues is that yes we are doing well this is going very well in an uncertain world and there is more that the country wants to see and they are going to get that from us. It is very interesting being overseas. I was briefly talking last night with someone from Britain. There was a sense really of envy at how things are going in this country the good governance that people are getting from the top in this country—and really can I say envy whether they are Australians Brits or wherever they are from—about a Prime Minister and a Cabinet and a caucus entirely united behind and focused on what matters to New Zealanders and getting on. We know quite clearly that this is a Government that over the last 6 years—and we will continue to see it—has been focusing on the finances not on the petty stuff. It is focusing on a productive and competitive economy and better public services and continuing to work hard on rebuilding Canterbury.But we are not resting on our laurels. There is plenty more to come and I see that in the very ambitious work programmes that I am privileged to be involved in through the Business Growth Agenda and through the terrific portfolios that I have taken over in very good shape from other Ministers in energy and transport where we are seeing great infrastructure investment in this country. It is really unprecedented actually. More than that in energy and transport we are working very much to enhance the lives and the lifestyles that New Zealanders can lead in this country through the travel and the options that they have and through the lifestyles that they have in this country. It is allowing us to take action on climate change to do things in that area and to capture the real benefits of huge technological advancement. I know that my friends in the Green Party find technology advancements difficult to deal with. They would rather that we did not have to talk about those things but we are positioning New Zealand at the front of those things capturing the benefits of the best advancements around the world for this country.In energy I am really proud that we continue to focus with success on the development of petroleum and minerals because we do have great potential in this country. We are under-explored. I accept actually and very much think about the need to transition to a lower-carbon economy but what we know without any doubt is that that cannot happen overnight that the world will continue to need petroleum for the foreseeable future and that not all fossil fuels—I know it is a hard one to get your head around Ms Genter but not all fossil fuels are equal. Gas and oil have a beneficial role to play in helping displace coal in this world of ours particularly in Asia and Africa where there is not enough energy to meet people’s energy needs.Minerals—abundant resources in this country. Tough times at the moment with low commodity prices but it is cyclical and we know again that contrary to what our colleagues the Green Party in this Parliament think the smart clean green economy that Russel Norman talks about requires minerals. Whether it is in technology whether it is in information and communications technology whether it is in wind turbines whether it is photovoltaic—all of those technologies require minerals and this Government understands and accepts that reality.In this Government we are taking every opportunity to promote New Zealand’s renewable advantage which is a fantastic advantage that we have in this country and the expertise that we have internationally and that is going to be a real focus in these 3 years. We saw in Contact Energy’s announcement yesterday on its profits that as competition really has heated up here it will look overseas look to the ring of fire countries and export some of the expertise we have to uplift growth in this country. At the moment 81 percent of our electricity system comes from renewables in this country—which is something I think most New Zealanders perhaps would not appreciate or understand; it is surprising when you hear it—compared with 10 or 11 percent in Australia the United Kingdom and many other countries that we compare ourselves to. We have huge experience in geothermal and wind and smart grids. There is a real ability to leverage that overseas and I want to see more of that over this term.I want to ensure competitive pressure on the energy prices. We are already seeing that. Last year there was the biggest lot of new entrants into the retail space in electricity for a very long time with seven new players in that area. I want to support innovation in energy productivity and efficiency whether it is the  the Smart Grid Forum that we have already set up electric vehicles and the like. So although we will be certainly continuing to take a balanced approach where we understand the desirability and the need this world has for petroleum and minerals we will also very much be focusing as well on the real opportunities to lower our emissions in this country in electric vehicles renewables and biofuels.Transport is a fantastic portfolio where we are really going to focus on results for this country. We have spent a huge amount of money and New Zealanders and Aucklanders indeed are going to see the benefits of that. We will really be focusing on public transport. [Interruption] It winds them up. It winds the Opposition up. This Government has spent $2 billion on metropolitan rail in this country. Cycleways—very significant expenditure seeing cycleways in all the major cities of this country. There is a focus on Auckland which we need to be a success. We know it has transport issues and I am committed to working constructively with Auckland for an affordable effective transport system. To repeat again there are big technological advancements overseas that are revolutionising transport. We want to capture those benefits for New Zealand whether it is in electric vehicles whether it is in connected vehicles and the like and supporting an export economy.We are back to normality after a long summer where I accept some of the Opposition members will be feeling a little bit grumpy. But I say to members opposite: stop focusing on the trivia in 2014 because this is a Government that is not going to let its guard down and that is focusing on the things that matter for this country. We are not seat-warming; we have an active and a significant agenda to really enhance New Zealanders’ lives and lifestyles over the next 3 years.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):The Prime Minister’s statement is an opportunity for a Government to show vision. It is an opportunity to spell out a comprehensive plan and to demonstrate that it has a grasp on the challenging issues facing New Zealanders. This Government has failed on all three counts when it comes to the Prime Minister’s statement this year because it has no vision for the brighter future that it promised New Zealanders all those years ago. Instead it is content to manage a low-wage economy indebted to the rest of the world with declining standards of living and an escalating degree of environmental degradation. That is what it is promising New Zealanders. This is not a Government with a plan for the future. It is a Government of short-term wheeling and dealing living for today and not worrying about future generations or what it is leaving behind.This Government will be defined by its dodgy deal with Skycity. Nothing else defines them more than the dodgy deal with Skycity. When even Matthew Hooton is saying that it is corrupt the Government should be standing up and taking notice. It is absolutely wrong. John Key promised New Zealanders a free convention centre that would not cost the taxpayers a cent—aside of course from the increase in problem gambling that was going to go from the concessions that the Government granted to Skycity. He said that the convention centre was going to be free. Then he tried to tell New Zealanders last week that they were going to have to fork out some money or it was going to end up being an eyesore. And then he turned around and said: “Oh no no no. We’re not going to throw in the extra money any more. We’re just going to settle for a convention centre that is 10 percent smaller.”Well I agree with Andrew Little when he said to Skycity that a deal is a deal and that if this Government has signed up to a deal for a convention centre of a certain size in exchange for the concessions it got if Skycity does not front up with that then there is absolutely no guarantee that those concessions will be continuing—there is no guarantee those concessions will be continuing under a Labour Government. A deal is a deal and that is the message that this Government if it had the backbone would be sending Skycity. John Key promised New Zealanders a higher degree of accountability when it came to his MPs and his Ministers and he has failed to deliver on that and he now fails even his own test when it comes to openness and transparency. While the National Party is distracted by all of its internal manoeuvrings and the splits and divisions that are becoming by the day more apparent within the Government it is simply ignoring the big issues facing New Zealanders.The National Party likes to think and likes to tell New Zealanders that it is doing a good job of managing the economy. So let us actually look at that. I went back and found the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update from 2008. So what exactly did the National Party inherit when it came into Government? On page 22 of the fiscal update prior to the election it is there for everyone to see: the net core Crown debt—that is the amount of money overall that the New Zealand Government owes—was zero. The Government when National became Government—we owed nothing. It was zero. It is there for all to see. Of course we were going into the global financial crisis so there were some projections for government debt to increase as you would expect in a massive economic downturn and those estimates suggested that net core Crown debt by 2013 would become $13 billion. That sounds like a lot of money $13 billion. So let us fast forward to last year’s December update and how did things pan out? As of the end of last year 2014 this Government had racked up nearly $60 billion—three times the amount forecast prior to the 2008 election. This Government had amassed four times that amount of debt. These brilliant economic maestros had quadrupled the amount of Government debt in their time in office.I recall Bill English in Michael Cullen’s seventh Budget after he had been Minister of Finance decrying 7 years of surpluses and still no tax cuts. Well I will tell you what I want to hear Bill English stand up in this year’s Budget and admit that he has delivered 7 years of Budgets and still no surplus. Not one surplus after his 7 years in charge of the Government finances. Bill English has clocked up the largest Government debt in New Zealand’s history. Let me repeat that again. Bill English has clocked up the largest Government debt in New Zealand’s history. He has out-borrowed Rob Muldoon. He has even out-borrowed New Zealand’s war effort for the Second World War. These guys Bill English and John Key have borrowed more money than ever before in New Zealand’s history and it has taken them only 7 years—6 years actually. They are now into their seventh year and they have amassed the largest Government debt in New Zealand’s history. That will be their economic track record. If basic economic management is the acid test for Government competence this Government has failed spectacularly.Then let us talk about what that means for New Zealanders. Unemployment was at record low levels under the last Labour Government and it has increased under the National Government. There are 46000 extra New Zealanders unemployed out of work under National than there were when National became Government. That is an absolute disgrace. And what about those who are in work and who can actually find work? Wage growth under National has been stagnant. It has been absolutely stagnant. After 9 years of solid wage growth where those who went out and worked hard had the opportunity to get ahead under National New Zealanders have faced stagnant wage growth. While the cost of living has gone up and while GST has gone up despite John Key’s promise that he would not do that this Government has kept wages low. It has been supressing wages because Bill English—when it comes to openness and transparency at least he was open about this—turned around and said that the low wages in New Zealand were good for us. It was good for us; it gave us a competitive advantage against Australia. Bill English was at least open about that. That is the extent of their aspiration for New Zealanders. I say that is not good enough. New Zealanders who work hard should be able to get ahead.We recognise on this side of the House that the nature of work in New Zealand is changing. At the beginning of the year Andrew Little set out how the nature of work is changing. More people are working in small business than ever before. Some of those huge employers have been broken up and those people are now consultants they are contractors and they are small-business people. The nature of work is changing and the Labour Party is aware of that. We are going to get into that. We are going to make sure that we get behind those small businesses and support them.What is the message from John Key and Steven Joyce? They are saying that anybody who thinks the nature of work has changed does not understand what work is. They are saying to every small-business person in New Zealand that they do not know what work is. I say to them that actually all those small businesses that I talk to on a regular basis in my electorate know exactly what work is. They know exactly what it means to put their necks on the line to create jobs for themselves and create jobs for others. This Government is so arrogant that it tries to tell them that they do not know what work is. Well I say they do know what work is they need a Government that is going to back them and they are not getting that from this National Government. It is so arrogant. It is so arrogant in its approach to small business and I think it is a breath of fresh air that Andrew Little is getting in behind small businesses in New Zealand and saying that the Labour Party is going to help them get ahead.As for the corporate welfare that this Government seems intent on dishing out it cannot find money to support families who are struggling—oh no no it cannot find money for that—it cannot find money for education health and those social issues that we know are so important but it can find hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare for corporates and for famers. Let us not get into the irrigation subsidies the subsidies for polluters or the absolute rort that is known as the Primary Growth Partnership which the Auditor-General says there is no—no—economic benefit from. Let us not get into all that. Let us just deal with the corporate welfare. The Government is quite happy to find money to hand out to corporates and it cannot similarly find money for the families for the things that would really support New Zealand families to get ahead.There is a better way. Let me tell you the Labour Party is on the way back. We are going to back New Zealanders to get ahead. We will bring fairness and decency back into Government. Under Labour New Zealanders will have a Government that will back them to get ahead and they will have a Government that actually upholds some minimum standards of decency which this Government seems to have lost track of. This Government has lost track of them. This Government is simply beset by sleaze scandal and distraction. It has lost track of the big issues that are facing New Zealand. Its economic management is a train wreck. It is a joke. The Labour Party will get things back on track. New Zealanders know they can trust our record: nine surpluses in a row record low unemployment versus sky-rocketing debt and increasing unemployment. I know which way New Zealanders are going to go at the next election and the Labour Party will be back. So do not get too comfortable over there boys.Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): The beginning of the year is always used to get something off your chest so congratulations Mr Hipkins; we hope we do not have to hear that again. There is the challenge that we have with the Labour Party. After 6 long years in Opposition it is still out of touch. Mr Hipkins said that the Labour Party is on its way back. Well if you look at the last election there is not much further back you can go—there is not much further back you can go. New Zealanders pronounced on that. But Mr Hipkins tells a good story.Let us unpack that a little bit. You see when Helen Clark and her Government did a deal with Skycity to build a convention centre in exchange for some pokie machines Mr Hipkins voted for it. That was OK. He voted not as a member of the House—he was over the age of 18 at the time—but as a member of the public. But when John Key does a deal to deliver a $402 million international convention centre for New Zealand at no cost to the taxpayer somehow that is different from what Mr Hipkins voted for previously under Helen Clark. And here is the thing: it is a hypocritical position. It cannot be OK for them back then and different here today.The economy is growing. Employment is increasing. Wages are rising. We have had a good summer. New Zealanders are feeling good. We are a Government that is united behind John Key. We are back in business. We are focused on the things that matter. This will be the sixth time in 7 years that as a member of Parliament I have been able to stand up and say that. The economy is growing employment is increasing wages are rising and the Government is focused on what matters for New Zealand. That is not the rhetoric we heard from the last speaker. Those are not all the things he may wish for on “Planet Labour”; they are the things that matter to New Zealanders and we have a record of working hard and delivering for those New Zealanders. They recognised it at the last two elections. Now we are focusing on moving on and getting on with the job.National has the country back on track and we are growing this country and focusing on things that New Zealanders want whilst the Opposition remains in the wilderness and caught up in sideshows. I will repeat it again: National has a Prime Minister who has the support of his caucus the support of the party the support of the electorate and the support of New Zealanders. The little tweets that have been sent from the Opposition benches about us today are fanciful. They are confusing themselves and they are making things up. Never has this party been as united behind the leader as we are today and as focused on the things that matter.Here are 10 ways our economic plan is helping Kiwis to get ahead. I will go through these quickly because there is so much that the Government has on its agenda that I want to pay tribute to more than just these 10 things. The economy grew by 3.1 percent in the year to September 2014 which is one of the highest rates of growth in the developed world. We hear from Mr Hipkins about all the things we are not doing and about what is going on in these other countries. Well in Australia the picture is so very much worse than here. Indeed when one looks at political management there it reminds me of the Labour Party. That is the challenge that they have. We have got growth rates of 3.2 percent and forecast to be 3 percent as we go forward.As for average wages Mr Hipkins said that there has been no growth at all but actually average wages have increased by 15 percent over the last 5 years. I remind Mr Hipkins that when one looks at the lowest interest rates that we have had sustainably for a long period of time our inflation rate is around about 1 percent. So costs are not going up under this Government by anywhere near the degree that they were under Labour 6 years ago and we have had 15 percent wage growth over the last 5 years.Employment is growing. There are 80000 more people employed than a year ago and 217000 more people employed than 5 years ago. When Bill English stood up in this House and made a commitment with our Prime Minister around job growth the Opposition members screamed and yelled and asked where those jobs were. Well the Opposition members have gone very quiet on that front now just as they have gone very quiet on the number of New Zealanders leaving and going to Australia. Do you remember the football field stadiums full of New Zealanders leaving under their watch? Well that has turned around now and we have New Zealanders not only coming home but coming home into jobs because our economy is stronger than Australia’s.As for cost of living increases inflation was at just 0.8 percent in 2014 well below weekly wage increases of 2.5 percent in the last year. Unemployment remains low at 5.7 percent compared with many countries. It is 6.1 percent in Australia and that 6.1 percent is even with so many New Zealanders leaving and coming back to New Zealand. Our balance of payments deficit—the difference between what New Zealand earns and what we spend around the world—narrowed to just 2.6 percent of GDP in 2014. This is about a third of the deficit of 6 years ago when we came to Government. The Government is working towards achieving a Budget surplus this year and is on track to post increasing surpluses in subsequent years which gives us choices about what we invest in on behalf of New Zealanders.We have heard a lot about debt. Mr Hipkins is one of those who subscribe to the economic policy that says: “Spend more collect less and everything will be OK.” Net Crown debt will fall to 20 percent of GDP by 2020 if we stick to the Government’s plan of economic growth in the country and to being cautious about what we spend money on. New Zealanders are being very cautious about what they are spending their money on. National is a party that believes New Zealanders deserve to keep more of their money than the Government gets. That is not something you will hear often from Opposition members but New Zealanders are being cautious about what they are spending their hard-earned money on. We too must be cautious about what we spend the funding that we get from taxes on.Mortgage interest rates are expected to remain low for longer and there are thousands of New Zealanders renegotiating their mortgages at this very time. They are renegotiating mortgages at under 6 percent. That was not the case when we came to Government. The cost of getting a mortgage was 11 percent towards the end of the Helen Clark legacy—11 percent.Dr Shane Reti: That’s a big number.Hon TODD McCLAY: It is a big number and not one that we hear from them. I guess they are not proud of it. Again Kiwis are voting with their feet. They are coming home and when they come home they are voting with their hands for John Key.I want to touch on a couple of things that I think are very important in the way forward for our economy. In respect of revenue we have a very good system that is treating New Zealanders well and is fit for purpose. It is broad-based and it is low rate. What that means is that we are keeping rates of taxation as low as we can and as broad as possible. Everybody pays their fair share. We know this works because the vast majority of New Zealanders pay their taxes voluntarily without our having to have too much compliance around that. That allows the Inland Revenue Department to focus on those who are not meeting their obligations and rather than the scattergun effect that we hear about from—not Opposition spokespeople but from the odd new member of Parliament who has won one of a few seats for Labour at the last election and who is making a late deputy leadership bid over the holidays; all of the rest of the Labour Party went on holiday and Mr Nash was churning out press release after press release on everybody else’s portfolio in Labour. He has gone quiet since he has come back; I guess they have reeled him back in. But as opposed to what he said we are focusing resources of the taxpayer on those who do not pay their tax. Last year we collected an extra $4 billion over and above what would have been the case without that Government investment. That is using taxpayers’ money well.Finally the bit I want to touch upon is the great work that Tim Groser our Minister of Trade is doing around the world. We have one of the best records of trade agreements anywhere. Some few years ago New Zealand signed an agreement with China.Hon Annette King: 2008 actually.Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes there it goes—the Opposition members say that they signed it. Well here is the thing Mrs King—you should not start something you cannot finish. We put it in place and we are making it work. There was $2 billion worth of trade when we started. Today it is $20 billion worth of trade and that is the work of hard-working New Zealanders. Let us look at a new trade agreement with South Korea that Mr Groser has negotiated and that is ready for signing. The thing about the agreement with South Korea is that it is good for everyday New Zealanders. In the part of the Bay of Plenty where National holds every single seat and you cannot find a list MP anywhere we have a lot of kiwifruit growers. Every kiwifruit grower in the Bay of Plenty on average will get $8500 a year extra in their hand because of the trade agreement that Tim Groser negotiated. There is a tariff rate of 45 percent against New Zealand kiwifruit going into South Korea which will now reduce over a period of time to zero. That is $8500 in the pockets of kiwifruit growers to spend in the shops and to spend in the local economy. That is a win for everyday New Zealanders it is a win for every person in the Bay of Plenty and it is a win for Tim Groser for the great work that he has done.This is a hard-working Government united behind a hard-working Prime Minister. This has the feel of a brand new Government. It feels just like it did 6 years ago. We are focused on the things that matter. When I look across the other side they are focused on things from 20 years ago. It looks like the Labour Party of 20 years ago. As Mr Hipkins said let us bring this year on.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand members that this is a split call within the Green Party. I call Catherine Delahunty.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Having listened to those on the Government benches speaking about the state of the nation I would just like to quote what has inspired me by Lewis Carroll:‘Twas brillig and the slithy tovesDid gyre and gimble in the wabe:All mimsy were the borogrovesAnd the mome raths outgrabe.That sums up the Government’s relationship with the rest of us very nicely. It is pretty brillig around here and they are interestingly slithy toves.I would like to refer to something pretty slithy: the state of our water. It is actually no good talking about the economy without facing up to water. In the Prime Minister’s statement he talked briefly about the issue of fresh water which has sadly become a misnomer. Less and less fresh water exists in a number of places across Aotearoa New Zealand. This is not assisted by the Government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management which is as leaky as a sieve and a very dirty sieve at that. This summer we have seen toxic algae blooms excessive nitrogen causing all kinds of biological effects pathogens that can make people and animals quite sick and sediments choking the macroinvertebrates plus the horrifying statistic from last year which has not improved that two-thirds of our monitored swimming spots are now too polluted to swim in.I followed this up this summer. I went on to the Land Air Water Aotearoa website on a regular basis and I checked catchment after catchment trying to find places where the information showed it was safe to swim and it was not there. So it is a very sad state of affairs when people want to take their kids down to the river. I am fortunate. I live beside a river. I go down to my local river and I see the kids swimming. Our local river unlike so many has clear translucent water; basking tuna torrentfish and kōkopu; the scent of clean water and the pure reflected light in the water column; beauty and energy. It is not washing out to sea as “wasted” water as our Prime Minister once so charmingly expressed it. Showing his usual strong grasp of ecology as a basis for any economy he said that all this water was just flowing away and it was being wasted. My river and hopefully other people’s rivers are not all dammed they are not all sucked up for irrigation and they are not all full of pollution from the 6 million or more cows that we have in terms of density in this country.So we are looking at the most precious resource we have got the most sacred relationships we have with the awa—the water—and a weak political framework. It is weak and random. Low standards are being entrenched. The many good recommendations—I think it was about 158—of the Land and Water Forum are being ignored. It is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well. We are here to protect taonga and the relationship of mana whenua hapū to their awa should be upheld by all of us both in terms of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. But instead we have a Government that is promoting the threatening of the viability of our rivers. So the Crown irrigators were at the select committee this week talking about the Crown and irrigation. It was difficult to explain to them that actually there are a lot of other stakeholders involved in this—it is not just about using rivers for a very narrow definition of what effective farming is.We are threatening the viability of rivers. We are facing climate change. We need to accept that the drought is here now and it could get worse for many a year. We need a strong National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management based on the scientific evidence produced by the actual scientists. Rivers need far greater protection. The Green Party wants to see robust water standards rivers protected negotiation with hapū national environmental standards to look after water and flows and there is a lot of work to be done. There are still ugly sources like Tarawera the point sources of pollution and sewage that rely on discharges of semi-treated or treated water to rivers. Man can get to the moon but we cannot manage our waste without contaminating the water.We have to stop the intensification of agriculture. It does not matter whether you fence every creek—and I am all for that—or plant a tree on every waterway it will not stop those 6 million cows leeching their urine into waterways via the earth. It is not a simple matter of fencing. The other day I spent a day in Northland with Millan Ruka and I went on the Environmental River Patrol. Unlike the Government and indeed many regional councils he is standing up and threatening people to say that they need to clean up water. He encourages them and then he threatens them and sometimes they do it. But the Government is not doing it. We are about to lose some of our most precious resources.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Prime Minister in his statement claimed that there were four priorities of his Government and that policy and legislation would reflect these priorities. The first two priorities—responsibly managing the Government’s finances and building a more competitive and productive economy—are unfortunately being directly undermined by the actual policies that this Government is pursuing.In his speech John Key mentioned his Government’s inexplicable commitment to spending billions and billions of dollars on a few expensive motorways that do not get much value for every dollar spent and will have no positive impact on our economy and certainly will not lead to it being more productive. How is this good financial management? It is not. Take the Ministry of Transport and its own advice to the Minister. This was written in 2013 in preparation for the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. It was not released to us under the Official Information Act until very late last year after the election just before Christmas. What it shows very clearly is that everything the Green Party has been saying for the past few years is true. It backs up exactly what we have been saying. It shows that over the past decade demand for roads has declined considerably. It shows that people getting to work especially in our largest cities are increasingly choosing to take public transport or walk and cycle even though our walking and cycling conditions are very unsafe and even though our buses and train services are of a much poorer standard and much more expensive than overseas.Imagine if the Government actually invested in proper public transport and made it affordable—how many people would take it? We would not have any congestion. The evidence shows that rail freight grew considerably over the past few years while road freight declined considerably. The evidence shows that local roads carry many more vehicles than State highways. Despite all of these very clear trends National shifted money away from local roads away from capital investment in public transport away from rail and sea freight even though all these areas and modes have much greater value for money and they have increasing demand from all sectors private and public.They are not only better for productivity and the economy; they are better for the climate they reduce costs for the Government and they reduce costs for households and businesses. But National supposedly a good fiscal manager instead shifted hundreds of millions of dollars a year into a few expensive gold-plated motorways. It is actually increasing borrowing for some of these projects so we will be paying it back for decades to come.Another policy the Prime Minister signalled in his speech was the wholesale attack on the Resource Management Act. This is our world-leading environmental protection law. I know New Zealanders like myself love our wild places love our wild beaches forests and green spaces in and around our towns and cities. All of these places will be under threat if the Government’s radical proposals to change our law succeed. The alleged purpose of the changes is to create affordable housing. This is absolute rubbish. The purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act have nothing to do with the supply of places to live. Let us just make that very very clear. The purpose and principles have nothing to do with the supply of housing.There are unhelpful rules in district plans that existed prior to the Resource Management Act—in fact I spent most of my career before I came into Parliament trying to raise awareness with this particular Government about some of those unhelpful rules which it was completely uninterested in dealing with. What those unhelpful rules do—rules in district plans which have nothing to do with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act—is to largely prevent the supply of apartments in inner-city suburbs which is where the market is demanding that new dwellings be built and they are not being built. Instead of this Government showing leadership with the actual tools that already exist under the Resource Management Act like national policy statements and national environmental standards it is looking at gutting the law itself. The truth is it does not care about affordable housing. If National cared about affordable housing it would introduce better protection for tenants. It would limit the sale of property to residents and citizens and stem the flood of foreign money coming in and inflating our local housing market. It would introduce a capital gains tax to rectify the perverse incentive to invest in property instead of the productive sector of the economy. And most of all it would build more places to live. In particular it would build high-quality apartments and town houses in the inner suburbs of Auckland and it would invest in high-quality public transport like the City Rail Link which it is holding up and which is desperately needed and the rest of the congestion-free network which the Green Party supports and would build and we know that we have the money to do it. The Government is taking none of the fiscally and economically responsible options that are available to it that would not only help the economy but would address climate change and reduce inequality which are the priorities of the Green Party. We will continue to offer positive practical proven solutions even though this Government will continue to ignore them I suspect.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call between the National Party and the Māori Party.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Well now we know. It is news to me but the Greens are now wanting to ban lifestyle blocks a house with a bit of a section on it so you could have some chickens run a dog kids could run around have a sandpit have grass between the toes. Now they want high-rise apartment blocks everywhere. I find that very interesting. Maybe I have missed something over the last few months but that was a new one to me. We do not really want too many high-rise apartment blocks in Hawkes Bay I say to the member Julie Anne Genter so perhaps we could explore that a bit more.I do agree that this House expresses its confidence in the National-led Government and commends its programme for 2015 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement we heard a little while ago. We will continue the hard work—the hard work—that we have been undertaking for the last two terms as we turn this country to a much brighter future changing the framework and leading us a small but confident nation finding its way through the world trading its way around the world growing jobs looking after our families delivering on those social issues that concern us particularly as Kiwis while at the same time growing our economy.I was not going to go back but a previous speaker started talking about the 2008 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update—that was the one before the election when the National Government came in. Interestingly the same speaker around that time said something like “Labour’s not looking back.” and then he started talking about the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. He raised some of the points in it—fair enough—but listeners should remember that in that same Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update it talked about interest rates it talked about inflation rates and it talked about migration I believe. So given the data that that previous member talked about this is what is not happening under a National Government with our prudent management of the economy and our focus on better public services. That is what is not happening; this is what did happen in the years 2005-08 particularly under the previous Government.Mortgage rates were over 10 percent. Floating mortgage rates were over 10 percent. Working capital for businesses was well through double figures under the Labour Government. Inflation was nudging 5 percent. Inflation was nudging 5 percent under the Labour Government in that Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. It is now almost flat to under 1 percent under this Government. As for migration New Zealand families Kiwis in their droves 30000 to 40000 a year were abandoning the policies of the Labour Government with their feet and moving offshore. Friends whānau family left—some for good. Now that net result is around zero to positive in terms of Kiwis not leaving and coming home. That is the absolute stark difference between this National Government and what we inherited from that Labour Government all those years ago.The previous speaker also talked about small businesses in New Zealand. I quote from Andrew Little’s speech earlier in the year because I agree with him on this one. He said small businesses are “the engine room of job growth” and said that that is what New Zealand is. That is quite correct and he talked about Labour priorities. Fair enough—he can say those things. But as I mentioned in answer to a question today cash flow is king for small businesses. It is in the cash flow struggle that small businesses really struggle and spend so much time. So it is helpful if people pay the bills. In this example here a small business was not paid for 4 months after sending an invoice to one Andrew Little—for 4 months. The person who sent the invoice did get a response. He said: “I wrote up my notes as best I could and sent them off along with an invoice for time spent. Both were received with thanks: ‘Thanks. We got your invoice.’ That was it; 4 months later no payment no part-payment no deposit no engagement nothing.” Cash is king for small businesses and when the leader of the Labour Party does not pay bills due 4 months ago serious serious questions need to be asked not only of its policies but perhaps of the gentleman himself.Small businesses are the engine room of the economy—that is right—and they have gone from strength to strength in the last 6 or 7 years. Labour would drop the 90-day trial; we are keeping it. Labour would drop the starting-out wage; we are keeping it. Labour would bring in big minimum wage increases; we are keeping them as sustainable as we can to pay our people more. I could go on. The point being that the context the environment and the parameters under which small and large businesses have to operate under Labour are not very flash at all. Those same circumstances can be witnessed by the economic matrix before us today be it measured by migration measured by very low inflation or measured by high GDP growth across the OECD in New Zealand. I could go on. Things are looking very very good. We have done a lot of hard work. There is a lot to do and we will continue to focus on those most important things that matter. Thank you.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. Kātahi anō ahau ka hoki mai ki te Whare Pāremata ka tuku i āku mihi mō te Tau Hou ki tēnā ki tēnā o tātau. I a au e tū nei ka tuku ngā kōrero poroporoaki nei ki tērā i takoto mai rā i tōna marae ko Apirana Mahuika tērā i te wiki kua hipa ake. Ko Tama Huata tērā i tuku atu ai ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku ā ka mutu ko Celia Lashlie tērā i tēnei rangi tonu nei. Kua tukuna rātau katoa o rātau wā tātou mate. Tukuna rātau kia haere kia moe anei tātou e hui nei i tēnei rā huri noa tēnā koutou tēna koutou kia ora tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all. I have just returned to Parliament and extend my greetings of the New Year to each of us. As I stand here I extend these tributes of farewell to that one who lay in state upon his courtyard. That was Apirana Mahuika last week. That was Tama Huata who was interred in the bowels of Mother Earth and furthermore Celia Lashlie who passed away just today. They and all of our deaths have been released. Allow them to go to rest. Here we are assembled here and throughout today greetings acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]By way of an introduction to the Prime Minister’s speech last week I say that I unfortunately did not hear it but I hear from the other speakers today that it was pretty good. I was in fact at Tikitiki paying my respects to Dr Apirana Mahuika. I think about him today and in fact three people in the last week or so. I mentioned them earlier as well: Tama Huata on the East Coast on Ngāti Kahungunu land the area the Hon Mr Foss is from and also of course we heard the news about the passing of Celia Lashlie today. Those three people along with many others who have passed on have given a huge contribution to Aotearoa. In terms of Apirana of course he is best known for his absolute belief that there was only one tribe in this country—Ngati Porou—and everything hinged around them. But you cannot blunt his absolute determination to advance the causes of Ngati Porou in the areas of fisheries foreshore and whenua of Ngati Porou and indeed Te Reo Māori me ngā tikanga o roto Ngati Porou [the Māori language and protocols within Ngati Porou]. I might mention Wai 262 as well as the Ngati Porou claim—all advanced by him and he was a huge supporter of Te Reo Māori.We think about Tama Huata. Like Api Tama lived and breathed for his iwi around Ngāti Kahungunu with a particular passion for performing arts. He founded the Kahurangi Māori Dance Theatre in 1983 and charged ahead with a heap of other new initiatives including the Waiata Māori Awards creating the Māori performing arts degree organising a number of huge festivals—Waitangi Day Matariki and for the descendants of Tākitimu waka. In about 2 weeks’ time we all go down to Christchurch for the biggest performing arts festival in Aotearoa: Te Matatini. That will be great and that is part of the legacy that Tama Huata has left to this land.Today we have lost another one whose life was devoted to improving the lives of others—in this case to improving at-risk children and empowering families to find their own solutions to the challenges they face. Celia Lashlie is the first woman to work as a prison officer in a male prison in Aotearoa. She wrote and spoke about and lived her work. Her work within the New Zealand prison service helped her to understand that to unravel the complex issues needing attention within New Zealand’s at-risk families we really need to start with the women. Celia believed that we will see the changes that we have been seeking when these women come to know and to believe that their decisions matter that they hold the destiny of their children in their hands and that they can overcome the impact of their own traumatic childhoods. That is Whānau Ora at its very heart.So what is the common link? I suppose as I said before they all have given huge contributions to Aotearoa but actually they all talked about things that this Māori Party absolutely believes in. In the Prime Minister’s speech he set out the platform for the future and I have been honoured enough to be given the responsibility of taking the lead in terms of Māori development Whānau Ora and associate economic development. Part of that big huge plan is that my priorities will based pretty much on three things. One is whanau. As you would expect the ability to maintain whakapapa is hugely important. Economic development of course must link to that as must strong communities.Whānau Ora for example is at the heart of my thinking. It is at the heart of our Māori Party platform and it is vital to nurturing our children. Whānau are the critical agents for change and this Government will be prompted certainly by the Māori Party to ensure that we broaden the reach of Whānau Ora and make sure that things such as the navigator force that has been out and about really do contribute to the best interests of this country.In terms of Te Reo I am pretty sure that I will be talking to the Māori Affairs Committee tomorrow about plans on that and the view is: “Who better to look after the Māori language than our own people?” but the Crown must still own its responsibilities around that. In terms of Māori regional development at the forefront of those developments will be the review of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and there will be more announcements made about that in the very near future. Suffice it to say that the current Māori economic asset base is now estimated at around $42 billion. That asset base continues to grow. Considerable untapped potential still remains and it is my responsibility to try to move that forward.Lastly at the heart of Māori and regional economic development are strong communities. Strengthening Māori communities is necessary to support our capacity as a strong resource base for whanau hapū and iwi development. I am looking really at the whole notion of community hubs and I will be looking forward to implementing many of these things under the guise of the relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party over the next 3 years. Kia ora tātou.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call between National Party members. I call Scott Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is an absolute privilege to rise in the House at the first opportunity I have had to speak in 2015 to participate in the debate and support the Prime Minister’s speech so eloquently and positively delivered last week. It is also an absolute privilege to be a member of this National Government which after 6 years is entering its third term and making such wonderful progress on behalf of all New Zealanders. The country is in very good heart. We are heading in the right direction. We have lots yet to do but boy have we got a big plan for New Zealand and New Zealanders.It is also a privilege to be the member of Parliament for Coromandel where I am pleased to report that we have had the summer of our childhood memories. It has been a magnificent summer on the peninsula—Hon Annette King: All the National Party’s work.SCOTT SIMPSON: I know that Annette King loves it when I get up each Christmas and talk about how wonderful the Coromandel is and how wonderful business is and how much thousands of New Zealanders who come to holiday over the summer period have enjoyed their stay on the beautiful Coromandel.One of the things I note is that at times over the Christmas break I saw so many members of Parliament around the electorate that I thought there were probably more members in the Coromandel electorate over the summer break than sometimes there are here on a sitting day in Wellington. They came like thousands of other New Zealanders to enjoy the beaches the surf the bush the nice white sand the quality of parliamentary representation while they were holidaying in the electorate and for a whole lot of other good reasons.But they came in noticeably larger numbers this year than the summer before. Why was that? Well partly it was because they are feeling confident about the state of the nation they are feeling confident about the economy and they are feeling confident about their own futures. Petrol prices are lower. That means that they have been able to come and enjoy a wider longer distance around the electorate and they know that the Government is looking after their interests with care and diligence and making sure that their futures are bright and prosperous. So they are spending more time and more money in the electorate than they did last year. I think that is a terrific thing. Small businesses all around the Coromandel have noticed that. They are telling me that they have had a great summer and with a little bit of luck it will run through to Easter. It is true that the farmers are finding that it is about time the lack of rain was remedied and surely soon that will come.I just want to spend a minute talking about my role as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is the committee that this year will be tasked with shepherding through the select committee process the much-needed second phase of reforms that the Hon Nick Smith will be bringing to Parliament in the not too distant future—the reform of the Resource Management Act.The Hon Nick Smith gave a speech in Nelson only a couple of weeks ago and he highlighted the fact that the Resource Management Act since its inception 25 years ago has produced something like 80000 pages of plans and rules across the country’s 78 councils. That is just too cumbersome. It needs some significant work and we have an obligation I think as parliamentarians to steer through this House some legislation to modernise and make more relevant and appropriate the very important foundation stone that is the Resource Management Act in terms of our country’s planning and economic and environmental balance. So the plan is that we will modernise it make it more relevant and make it more practical and we will standardise plans and simplify processes for hard-working New Zealanders who simply want to get on and do things that are logical and sensible but have sometimes been completely bogged down by bureaucracy and by often well-meaning councils that have in fact following year after year of opinion precedent guidance and rules made those rules too hard too difficult and too high a burden for hard-working New Zealanders to get around.There is such a big difference between this Government and the Labour Opposition. We are a united focused hard-working team and we have got a big plan a big vision and a big future for New Zealand. There was a time when people used to know what the Labour Party stood for. They no longer do. I am very pleased to be able to stand here today and support the Prime Minister’s statement and I know that my colleagues will do so with vigour as well.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement in the second half of this 10-minute call and I would like to commend the member who just sat down Scott Simpson—what a fantastic champion he is for Coromandel is he not? I am indeed very jealous that I have not yet been elected as the member for Mt Albert but I am actually getting there. In the tiger country of Mt Albert which is the stronghold of the Labour Party the National Party did win the party vote and I think we actually did very well in the last election.I just want to talk a little bit about the wonderful progress that we have actually made in this country. What a fantastic Minister we have in Tim Groser—in the activities that he actually engages in on behalf of New Zealand by negotiating free-trade agreements up and down and all around the world. The one that I am particularly interested in which I think a member actually spoke about earlier is the free-trade agreement with South Korea. Mr McClay mentioned that every kiwifruit farmer in his electorate is getting $8500 as a result of that free-trade agreement because the tariff that was sitting at 45 percent is now no longer there. It is actually going to be reduced and go to zero. We are able to compete with other countries—for example Latin American countries like Chile that actually export kiwifruit from Chile to Korea. We are going to be on a par with them on an equal footing when it comes to competition. No doubt our kiwifruit is going to be definitely better than the ones from Chile.I also want to make a comment about a comment that I think Julie Anne Genter made about roads not being important—that it was not productive spending from this Government. I would like to urge that member to perhaps talk to the manufacturers and talk to exporters who use our roads with trucks and who put their products on to trucks to the ports to be exported to gain money for the New Zealand economy. I would just like to mention that to that member because it is in fact important.I just want to reflect on the time when Helen Clark used to be the member for Mt Albert back in 2008. Mortgage rates in New Zealand were around 11 percent. Have we not come a long way? Has the National Government not done very well? At the moment I think the mortgage rate is sitting somewhere around 5 percent—somewhere just around there. I am so very pleased that New Zealanders are in fact returning to our country. We do not have the 30000 to 40000 New Zealanders leaving our shores because they could not stand the policies of the Labour Government. We have a National Government and people are returning. We have numbers returning to this country and our unemployment rate is sitting somewhere around 5.7 percent. Compared with Australia which was the country that New Zealanders were going to for the better opportunities and better work opportunities—its unemployment rate is much higher than New Zealand’s. It is sitting at somewhere above 6 percent.Our businesses are doing so well. When we became the Government back in 2008 I actually happened to visit some of the small businesses that were operating in the Mt Albert electorate and when we cut the business tax that 3 percent that they were benefiting from was actually going to research funding that they could not afford as a small business. What a fantastic opportunity that was for small business. New Zealand is in good heart. New Zealand is led by a fantastic Prime Minister and I am so very proud to be part of this John Key - led Government and the National Party.I know that I have actually mentioned this previously but it is always a fantastic thing when we actually look at the performance of our Kiwis overseas like Lydia Ko who is the world’s No. 1 golfer—and what a fantastic result that was—at age 17 years 9 months and 7 days. What a fantastic thing. I know that John Key is a great supporter of Lydia Ko and Lydia Ko is a fantastic supporter of our Prime Minister John Key as well. It was a fantastic speech that the Prime Minister made and I stand to support him in his Prime Minister’s statement. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): That was the sound of the National Party MPs struggling to find 5 minutes’ worth of good things to say about their own Government. We have just heard it from Melissa Lee and from Scott Simpson before her—running out of things to say. New Zealanders listening to those debate speeches must be scratching their heads and wondering whether they are living in the same country because the rose-tinted approach from the National Government just does not bear out in reality—the reality of everyday New Zealanders’ lives and what they are struggling with. According to Scott Simpson the country is in great shape because the members of the National Party caucus all went and spent their Christmas holidays up in the Coromandel. That is the best thing he could come up with—how his Government is apparently somehow relevant to ordinary New Zealanders’ lives. So I think it was very disappointing to hear those two contributions.I missed the Prime Minister’s statement. I was not in the House the day that he set out his vision for the country for the coming year. However it would appear that I did not miss much at all because the Government is completely distracted. Instead of actually focusing on the vision for the brighter future that Government members once used to talk about for this country—has anyone noticed they have stopped saying that? I have noticed they have stopped saying that. In fact they have even stopped saying they are on the cusp of something big. They were saying that just before the election and they have stopped saying that all of a sudden. But instead of addressing those issues they are now distracted. They are completely distracted by issues like their Skycity shambles. They are distracted trying to dodge the Mike Sabin bullet. And they are distracted by their plans to sell off State housing. And none of those things are going very well for them at all.Let us just consider the Skycity shambles. The Prime Minister said that he promised a 3500-seat convention centre—world class—for New Zealand. That is what he said. He said today at question time that it is a done deal by the National Government. Well that done deal turns out to be nothing like 3500 people sitting in a convention centre coming from overseas. It is not going to be the iconic convention centre that the Prime Minister once gloated about. In fact again just like we do not hear them talking about the brighter future much any more just like we do not hear them talking about being on the cusp of something big any more we are not going to hear much about an iconic convention centre from that Government any more. And yet Skycity has done fabulously well out of it. This done deal—the deal done—by the National Government is actually very very good for Skycity because it got 3500 people’s worth of gambling concessions that will actually cause New Zealanders harm. So that is very good for Skycity but it is not good for ordinary New Zealanders.What about the Mike Sabin bullet? Well the Government is not doing very well at dodging that one either. I do not know how those Ministers feel but every time I see Anne Tolley and Michael Woodhouse on TV desperately trying to hide what they knew about the Mike Sabin affair it makes me cringe. I am sure that ordinary New Zealanders watching that performance on the news night in and night out are cringing as well because they know that those Ministers are avoiding telling New Zealanders what they knew and when they knew it. What New Zealanders are asking is: why—why will they not just come clean and say “I knew this on such and such a date.”? Mike Sabin has left Parliament. What is the point in continuing to hide this information? The answer has to be that they are trying to protect the Prime Minister. That can be the only answer but it is not looking very good for them.And the sell-off of State houses? Well in Hamilton it looks like that is going to be a double whammy because we have just had our city council sell off a couple of hundred pensioner housing flats and now what we have learnt is that probably somewhere between 200 and 800 State houses are going to be sold off in the Waikato in the few years ahead. Of course the Government will not tell us how many it is. It seems to be hiding that information as well because it is ashamed that it is going down exactly the same pathway the National Government has always gone down—selling off and flogging off State housing even though in cities like Hamilton we face increasing homelessness.Meanwhile the story that the Government has constructed about itself—about it being a good economic manager—is disintegrating before Government members’ very eyes. We heard earlier from Chris Hipkins—and he is absolutely right—that when Labour left office there was zero net Crown debt. That means we did not owe money. It was a huge thing that the Labour Government did. It took 9 years of being absolutely focused on ensuring that we paid off our debts as a country. Then the global financial crisis came along. The Government changed around about the same time. Treasury predicted that by the end of 2013 the country would be in debt to the tune of about $13 billion. And yes that sounds like a lot of money. But what has happened? It has ballooned under that Government to $60 billion—$60 billion of debt has been accumulated by that Government. That is not good economic management under anyone’s set of rules. So if the Government believes that it is a good economic manager then it is operating under a completely different set of rules from what ordinary New Zealanders would understand as being good economic management.Then today at question time we also learnt that the Government is so bad at managing the economy and so bad at managing the Government’s books that the only way that it will get within cooee of having the surplus it has been promising year after year after year is to dip into the pockets of ordinary working New Zealanders and business owners to over-inflate the levies it is charging on ACC. That is right. That is the grand plan. It does not intend to get to surplus by growing the economy by growing jobs by creating more opportunity. Its only plan for getting to surplus is to rort the ACC levies so that workers are paying more every week through their ACC levies and so are business owners.Today the question was put to Bill English and he would not answer it that that rort—the Government’s inability to bring about economic growth and its inability to address these issues—is going to cost households $60 more a year and businesses $1500 more a year. That is what is propping up Bill English’s surplus. Yet even though the Government has got its hands in the pockets of workers and business owners through its ACC levies guess what? Treasury says that the Government still will not get there—even though the Government has got its hands in the pockets of workers and business owners Treasury says that the Government will still not make surplus. It is going to crash and burn and it is going to come in $500 million under.So what is the plan Mr English? You have already put your hands in the pockets of workers and business owners. You are not going to be able to milk them any more. What is the plan? Because I can tell him that in the Waikato that plan is not going too well. Dairy payouts are down and jobs are going every week from the Waikato. While dairy payouts were at their highest—at their highest level ever—we had 300 jobs going from Ruakura the local research facility; we had hundreds of jobs going from New Zealand Post; we had hundreds of jobs going from the Huntly mines; we had jobs going from Genesis Energy; and we have got jobs still to go from our local hospital kitchen as that Government contracts out their jobs. All of these are jobs that have gone in the Waikato because of decisions made by that Government at a time when dairy payouts were at their very highest. We can only shudder to think what is going to happen to the Waikato economy with those dairy prices plummeting as they have done last year and early into this year as well.So the rosy picture presented opposite is not a picture that is the reality for ordinary New Zealanders. They know that they are not being told the truth by the Government and they are looking forward to the straight-talking honest approach of Andrew Little and the Labour team because that is what people have been telling me. They are saying “What a breath of fresh air. We’ve got the Prime Minister going round and round in circles and not being able to say a straight answer and we’ve got the straight-talking Andrew Little telling it how it is.”Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)Second ReadingDebate resumed from 10 February.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): When the House was last discussing this bill I was outlining that the bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964 so that the benefits system treats people in similar circumstances consistently—because if it is not consistent it is not fair—and the fact that this bill brings in changes because at the moment the Act allows some people who are receiving weekly compensation to be treated differently depending on who is paying that compensation. It also allows some students to get access to a higher rate of accommodation assistance than others.So just dealing with that first issue I was explaining that for one group of people they are having their weekly compensation payments deducted dollar for dollar and another group of people are having their weekly compensation payments treated as income and that is not fair because if those payments were treated as income higher benefit payments would result as income affects the benefit by abatement. So for example under abatement for jobseeker support the first $80 to $100 of other incomes does not result in any reduction of the person’s benefit at all but for each additional dollar after that the benefit is reduced by up to 70c. So the amendments set out in the bill make sure that no group of people who are paid weekly compensation will get a substantially higher benefit payment for the sole reason that they have their weekly compensation paid by an accredited employer rather than ACC.It also means that if a claim for weekly compensation fails after the payments have been made by an accredited employer or by ACC a benefit application can be treated as if it was received at the time of the accident. So the backdated benefit payments offset in that case the amount of weekly compensation that the person has to repay. The Ministry of Social Development has treated all weekly compensation payments the same regardless of who is making the payments but the ministry had before the court decision understood that payments of weekly compensation made by or on behalf of accredited employers ought to be treated the same as payments of weekly compensation by ACC. This bill confirms that practice. One exception to that is the person who won an appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority. That person is protected by the provisions in the bill and will not have to repay the additional benefit money received after that decision.The changes set out in this bill will make sure that the Social Security Act treats two groups of people—the students who are trying to access a higher rate of accommodation assistance through one door rather than the same door that most students are following and then those people who are receiving weekly compensation no matter who is paying them that compensation—in a consistent manner because that is only fair and right.Can I take just a minute as I close before commending this bill to acknowledge as I did very briefly in my answer to a question in the House today the work of a woman whom New Zealand lost last evening and that is Celia Lashlie. She is described as a social campaigner but she is well known in the country through her work with the Good Man project. I actually have someone working in my office who was one of those students in the 25 boys’ schools that Celia worked with throughout the country. That formed the basis of her book He’ll Be OK: Growing Gorgeous Boys into Good Men which is a terrific book particularly for parents of boys. The other book that I think is probably essential reading for anyone who becomes or has aspirations to become the Minister of Corrections is The Journey to Prison: Who Goes and Why. It is a tough read but as I say it is essential reading for anyone who has the responsibility of incarcerating New Zealand citizens.Celia did a lot of work across the social and justice sectors. She worked for the probation services and she worked in corrections for many years. She was a woman who was not afraid to say the things that needed to be said. Sometimes we did not like to hear it but actually she was fearless in standing up for New Zealanders who could not speak for themselves and for some of the New Zealanders who were at most risk in our communities. So we wish her well. We know that she has gone upwards and has gone to a far better place and will be looking down on us. She did not have much time for politicians but we know that she will be looking down on and listening to us.In conclusion this is a good bill and I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): As I rise to speak to the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) I wish to echo the sentiments from the Minister Anne Tolley and also pay my respects to Celia Lashlie. Her contribution to this country will not be forgotten. Certainly as the mother of two teenage sons I really appreciated the contribution that she made to our discussion in this country about our boys who are indeed gorgeous and she provided I guess some level of comfort to parents who might sometimes—not me of course but some parents—look at their teenage boys and wonder what on earth was going on in their minds. Celia certainly was a voice of wisdom that could help us all to deal with those sorts of circumstances.I do want though to spend a little time talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) which is what this debate is about. It is the second reading. It is a Government bill but it is supported by the Labour Party as indeed we do in the majority of circumstances when there is good reason to do so in this House. In supporting this bill though I will just say that our disappointment is that it has taken so long to reach the second reading. This bill has languished on the Order Paper for 4 years at a time when the Government has seen fit to bring all sorts of other measures forward that we did not think were as important—measures like giving Skycity concessions on gambling laws so that problem gambling would become more of an issue in our community. Those sorts of things seem to be rushed through with indecent haste and yet this bill—this simple bill that fixes loopholes that the Government has known about for more than 4 years—is having its second reading after languishing behind some of those other Draconian measures for 4 years.We do support the bill. It does make sensible changes to remove some loopholes in the Social Security Act. As the Minister said the bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. The Labour Party certainly supports that form of equal treatment. In fact I think history will show that the idea that an employercould manage their own accident compensation system if they met certain criteria in terms of health and safety standards was in fact a Labour Party initiative.I think it is important just to remember the background to that because this was an incoming Labour Government that was again fixing up the shambles that a National Government had landed on this country when it completed privatised the ACC system and tried to do it overnight. That Government did it hugely unsuccessfully against the will of the people did not listen and with the arrogance that people have come to see is developing in this National Government. That outgoing National Government in its dying months decided to privatise the ACC system completely without the backing of the New Zealand public.My mother was working in the health system at the time. I remember her in her role as a clerical worker for a general practitioner at the time talking about the paperwork that had multiplied about 10 times because of the privatisation of ACC. One of the responses from the incoming Government—I thought you might like that story about my mother—was that we did see that there was an opportunity for some employers if they had a good track record with health and safety and if they could prove they could manage this well themselves to do so.At that time there was this loophole that has come about which this bill aims to fix up. These employers are normally in a partnership agreement. They are called accredited employers. Workers who are not necessarily going directly to ACC about their workplace accidents but are going through a third-party insurer that has been contracted by their employer will be the people who may have had access to this loophole and will not any longer. I say that they will not any longer but in fact we are up to only the second reading. Goodness knows what other pieces of urgent legislation this Government will find to put in front of this bill getting its third reading. I hope it does not languish for too much longer.The other loophole that this bill intends to close which the Government has known about for at least 4 years is a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where the accommodation supplement is in fact more generous than their student allowance.But I have got to stand up for students a little bit in this debate because they have had a really tough time from this Government. They have had a terribly tough time from this Government. Their student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We are all too familiar with what that has meant for students living in Canterbury and in Auckland where they have suffered the greatest rental increases. But even in student cities like Hamilton it has made student life much more of a struggle than it needs to be.Those student allowance rates are basically flatlining while the cost of rental accommodation goes through the roof. Students have seen their course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year over that same period and they have absorbed the GST increase when the National Government increased the rate to 15 percent. And still their student allowances have just flatlined. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. Student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student loan fee has been tacked on. And still the student allowance rates have flatlined.This loophole that has existed has probably been a bit of a godsend for some of these students quite frankly. I implore the Government as it closes up this loophole—which we support it closing up because it is not the way it was intended to be; it is what we call in this House an unintended consequence—to recognise and understand the plight of tertiary students. It is very real it is very pressing and it is holding our country back. It is holding the future of this country back—that brighter future that the Government once used to talk about. It used to be built into every single speech on the other side of the House but we do not hear it any longer. But I really hope now that I have raised it that perhaps the next speaker from the Government benches who gets up will actually outline what that brighter future is going to look like and how this bill is going to deliver it.The truth of this bill is that it is a useful small piece of legislation. It is not going to improve anyone’s life. In fact it will make some people’s lives a bit tougher. The Labour Party is supporting the bill because these are loopholes that were not intentional and we want to see equal treatment for people. We will support it on that basis. But look we are still pretty much at the beginning of the parliamentary year. Nothing here is actually going to deliver that brighter future that the Government once promised. I would like to see the Government coming forward with some more challenging and exciting bills that will actually deliver on that brighter future but I certainly do hope that it does not bring any more detrimental bills in the way of this bill that despite its simplicity despite how straightforward it is and despite the Government knowing about these loopholes for 4 years has taken 4 long years to get to just its second reading.ALFRED NGARO (National): First of all this is my first speech in the House for 2015 so can I say happy New Year to you Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. Can I also acknowledge your marriage during the break and wish you well. I also want to take time to acknowledge that although it has been a great start to the year there has also been a tinge of sadness. I just want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Mike Sabin who is no longer with us. He will be a loss to the House to the electorate and also I believe to the country for the work and effort that he has put in for Northland as well.Also it is a sad loss—and I know there have been tributes to Celia Lashlie. Can I just briefly acknowledge her work the work that she has put into the community. I have been a part of some of those initiatives particularly when she was in Nelson and the work she did in particular with Nelson College. It was called the Good Man project—working with young male students. I also did quite a bit of work with fathers and sons in that work there and I know that the work that Celia had put through influenced a lot of that. When I met her she came across as quite a tough cookie—took no prisoners in the work that she did. But really she was well respected for that. I think she was a great New Zealander and I want to take just a moment to acknowledge the significant contribution that she has made to New Zealand as well.We are talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The previous speaker Sue Moroney talked about a brighter future and she is absolutely right. I am glad she is saying those words while wearing her bright green jacket—saying that New Zealanders and our students do have a bright future in New Zealand. We hear it all the time. We are seeing it all the time. I know that because my two youngest sons are currently in tertiary study. They are seeing it all the time too. They are seeing students who are seeing the opportunities that are coming to them not only to complete their tertiary studies. If we talk about the completion rate for tertiary studies we can see that—and Kris Faafoi will also know this—for Pasifika we have got the highest rate of completion which is continuing to grow around tertiary studies for young Pasifika students. That is a great future for both Māori and Pasifika students who are coming through which has not happened under previous Governments. So it is definitely a brighter future that we are seeing and students are giving that feedback to us. That is really important as well. So we do keep saying it. We do believe in it.We believe that this Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)—the previous speaker Mrs Moroney was absolutely correct—was introduced back in the 49th Parliament.During that time during the select committee process it was not a huge bill. It is a bill that as was rightly said is closing a loophole and I think that is really important. In that loophole there are some technical issues there that need to be remedied. That recommendation came through. I think there were two submissions that were put forward and only one of those was an oral submission and the New Zealand University Students’ Association made that submission as well. The thing that the submitters wanted to put forward in the bill which also came through in the regulatory impact report was around ensuring that there was fairness and equity around this and that is what this bill is about. It is about fairness it is about equity and it closes a loophole that allows some students and beneficiaries to receive varying levels of income support inside this.One of the things that is also important in the provisions of the bill is that it clarifies weekly compensation which includes weekly compensation whether it is paid by ACC or an accredited employer. We think that is important because the deductions should apply equally to compensation whether it is paid by ACC or an accredited employer. It is inequitable that claimants in essentially the same circumstances are treated differently as well. Just to give you one example: if a DPB recipient is paid $100 in weekly compensation with no other income but the DPB they would have their benefit reduced by $100 if the compensation is from ACC. And if the compensation is paid by an accredited employer their benefit will not be reduced at all. These are just some of the examples that I know of that came through the select committee which talked about some of the inconsistencies that it was seeing as well.I just want to briefly talk about the student allowance component of this bill. This bill does not have many parts to it but there are parts that are important I think to people who are listening and also to students. The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low to middle income people who do not receive a student allowance or a loanwith their accommodation costs. A loophole in the Social Security Act 1964 allows students to access the accommodation supplement if they choose to not receive a student allowance. We believethat for example for a solo parent with two children in Auckland the maximum amount that can be paid in accommodation supplement is around about $225 a week compared with $60 for the accommodation benefit for students on a student allowance. The returns from study accrue to individuals as well as to society so the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the costs with students.Phil Twyford: Are you reading that?ALFRED NGARO: It is important to get those little details right Mr Twyford—who sometimes does not get those details right—because it is important to the people who are listening. They need to know that this is not a large bill but it is a bill that has many little technical issues that are absolutely important to New Zealanders as well.What is also important we think is a retrospective application of the amendment. By changing legislation retrospectively we confirm previous understandings of legislative and administrative policy and practice. We believe that the changes that we are making small as they are to both ACC and also the student allowance will be significant in how they are impacting on our students as well.I know that the previous speaker Mrs Moroney talked about students and the impact on students. Yet again the feedback that we are getting is that although this is not a huge bill for a number of the students what they are seeing though are the opportunities that are growing through opportunities for employment and opportunities that we are seeing constantly for them to further their tertiary studies and to further their opportunities overseas as well and that is really important.Again as I have said the number of Pasifika students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased—just to give a little bit of detail here—from 980 students in 2008 to 1530 students in 2013. That is a 56 percent increase and I know that Mrs Williams and also Mr Faafoi will relish that information and that little statistic as well. In 2013 over 10000 more Māori students achieved qualifications across all levels of tertiary education than in 2008 and over 5300 more Pasifika students did the same. That truly is an achievement that we are very proud of as well which is making a difference.National is committed to increasing achievement in the tertiary sector. Having more people achieving tertiary qualifications means that we are moving to a higher level of skilled people in the labour market—higher skills meaning higher-paying jobs for all New Zealanders and their families. We know that back in the 2000s previous Governments threw more and more money at tertiary education and the number of people achieving degrees stayed at around the 20000 mark. With a focus on performance and results we have lifted that now to almost 26000 degrees with virtually the same amount of funding right across the sector. Overall the total number of qualifications achieved in the year by all students both domestic and international remained at a historically high level at around about 162000 which is more than 20 percent higher than 5 years ago.I want to just summarise some of the parts of my speech and my contribution to this bill the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Just finally on ACC this Government is reducing ACC levies. By 1 July next year we will have put back around $1.5 billion into New Zealand families’ pockets.Hon Member: How much?ALFRED NGARO: $1.5 billion. Mr Twyford might be interested in that. It is a detail. I know that he might not be interested in the details but $1.5 billion is going back into the hands of families—into their pockets.Tracey Martin: Not students.ALFRED NGARO: All families Mrs Martin. This includes reducing the average motor vehicles levy from 1 July this year from around $330 to $195 a year as well leaving more money in your family’s pocket.We believe that this bill though small in nature is significant and we know that it receives support. It is a pity that the rest of the speech from the previous speaker did not continue to be positive about the direction that the Government is taking. It truly is making a difference. We think that the Government is in a great space. It is actually making a brighter future for all students and in particular I want to speak out for Māori and Pasifika students who are really important—I know that Mr Ball being part Kiribati will appreciate that as well—and we are seeing the difference that it is making.The Opposition might not celebrate those results. I do not hear those members talking about and celebrating those numbers but we do because they are making a difference. If those members are serious about those students Māori and Pasifika in particular then why are they not putting out press releases and celebrating not only what the Government is doing but more important the achievement and the results of these students as well? That would be great.Thank you for the opportunity to make this contribution. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): To the member who has just resumed his seat here is a number about students: 4600. That is approximately the number of places in our universities that have been denied this academic year by a Government that without proper consultation with students or parents raised the bar for university entrance from National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 to NCEA level 3. Furthermore it tightened the prerequisites in a number of ways that have left universities like Waikato University and others gasping because they were not consulted and they did not have input. What we have seen now is a gross overreaction by the Government.This party believes in high standards but it also believes that tertiary education is a must-have for all New Zealanders who are able and willing to access it. It is crucial for our economy it is crucial for building a positive future for New Zealand and it is absolutely crucial to ensuring that every Kiwi kid—the kid of a doctor the kid of a driver—can grow up to be the best that they can be.Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard this is also I think my first contribution since the summer break. I would like to congratulate you on your nuptials and also on your role in the Chair. I would like to say that it has been a great summer for New Zealanders or most New Zealanders although we recognise those who have been doing it tough. It is great weather which is tough for the farmers and great now that we are back at work. We do so with a heavy heart today. We acknowledge the passing of Api Mahuika the rangatira of Ngati Porou rūnanga who has made a marked contribution to the progress of that iwi and who has been a tremendous kaitiaki for his rohe and his people. I always enjoyed “Uncle Api’s” company. He was a hard doer—never shy about saying what his iwi needed—but always honourable and always a great participant. So we remember him and his whānau today.I also wish to join with other colleagues in acknowledging the passing today of Celia Lashlie the famous author amongst other things of a book about enabling gorgeous boys to become great young men. As a dad of two gorgeous boys Celia I thank you for your contribution. We mourn your passing and we sit with your whānau today as well.There is something of a paradox in this Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) being brought to the House in one of the first weeks of the sitting session this year. Here is a Government that in its opening Address in Reply debate has been full of sound and fury. Now we see the legislative programme and we realise indeed as Shakespeare would say it signifies nothing because this top-priority bill—and it is frankly a pretty trivial little bill that just takes out two minor loopholes in the social security legislation one on ACC and the other on student allowances which I will comment on shortly—really is just a tidy-up housekeeping piece of legislation.What it really tells New Zealand is this Government has run out of ideas. It is so beset with shambles—the shambles of Skycity. Remember that too-good-to-be-true conference centre that was not going to cost anybody a penny and was going to employ 10000 builders all over Auckland? They will not need social security because the Government was going to have them building casinos but now of course we find out that was all a chimera. The Government rolled the dice and came up short and if it were not for the pressure from the Opposition and the thousands of New Zealanders who petitioned on that matter the Government would have sold us out by another $140 million - odd.Then of course there is the cover-up on Mike Sabin and the great State house sell-off. What a terrible crisis affecting so many—yes come back to the bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member has now gone for nearly half his speech. Can we get through the introduction and on to the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: May I turn to the part of the bill that seeks to close a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where it is more generous.I would like to join with my colleague Sue Moroney in saying that it is very hard to blame students for taking advantage of the law as it currently stands. That is because student allowance rates have barely increased while the prices of rental accommodation have skyrocketed particularly in Auckland and in Christchurch. Students have seen course fees raised consistently by the maximum 4 percent per annum and they have also had to absorb a hike in GST. Student loans have been cut for part-time students and of course the eligibility for student loans has been capped to exclude postgraduate students completing their degrees. The student loan repayment rate minimum has been increased by 20 percent and a new $40 annual student loan fee has been tacked on.All of that goes to show one thing: this Government is out of touch with the reality faced by most New Zealand students today. Students are having to borrow more sweat more and spend more time away from their studies and they are doing it because this Government is making it tougher. This bill does not help. Instead of legislation that could have undertaken the kind of review that the Labour Opposition has promised students a ground up review of student allowances this Government is fiddling while Rome burns—fiddling while Rome burns. As I say what it should be talking about is its mishandling of measures which has seen 4500 students excluded from our universities this year by its bungled implementation of the shift to NCEA level 3.That is covered in section 61EA of the Act and I must say I have very mixed feelings about that part of it. That is going to be something we will cover when in Government in our ground up review of student allowances and budgets. The rest of it amends section 71 of the principal Act to allow Work and Income to backdate benefit payments to applicants who previously received ACC from an accredited employer as well as from ACC itself. This we do support because it harmonises the way that ACC recipients are treated whether they apply directly to the corporation or through their employers. That makes sense.We are not going to oppose the bill notwithstanding the reservations we have on the student component because frankly these kinds of tidy-ups are things that should happen routinely. But New Zealanders are going to be very well aware that in this the second sitting week of the House the Government has come up empty-handed. The Government is so beset with shambles of its own making and so embarrassed about the Prime Minister pirouetting on the head of a pin with every statement he makes looking slipperier and slipperier in the eyes of New Zealanders. It is beset with the shambles on Skycity the Sabin affair the State house sell-off and a general malaise that sees members opposite studying their shoelaces instead of concentrating on the issues that matter to New Zealanders.This legislation is sad because it shows a Government that is out of ideas a Government that has stopped caring a Government that has got way way too used to the baubles of office and one that has entered in very flaccid style its third and final term.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Matt Doocey. I was going to call you Tom. I am sorry.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri):They say I look like him too. It is a privilege to take this call for the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) and a privilege to rise and speak to such a necessary bill. For the many listeners and viewers at home let me set the scene of this very important bill. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964. This bill is about consistency this bill is about fairness and this bill is about equity. They are very similar to the values of this National Government: the values of consistency and better public services the values of fairness and honesty and the Government values of equity and equal opportunity.Can I acknowledge the hard work of this bill’s sponsor theMinister for Social Development the Hon Anne Tolley. She is committed to protecting the vulnerable. I must say last Tuesday I attended the launch of the state of the nation report by the Salvation Army. I went down and what a great report that was. It is the eighth annual report and it is called A Mountain All Can Climb. Yes it is a big mountain to climb but what a great start. Let me see: child poverty—lower; number of children at risk—lower; teenage pregnancies—falling; overall crime—down; imprisonment rate—down; criminal recidivism—down. Employment is up unemployment is down and incomes are rising faster than the cost of living. Could I remind the Opposition that in its last state of the nation report in 2008 it said for all its increased spending and expenditure it did not increase social progress by 1 percent.The Government is clearly working for New Zealand. The Government is focusing on investing in better public services for New Zealanders. So as I was saying the Hon Anne Tolley the Minister for Social Development is committed to protecting the vulnerable. She is committed to ensuring their voice is heard in policy and legislation and she is committed to delivering services that improve lives.So what is this bill about? Well it is about closing loopholes. At the moment we have some students and beneficiaries who are receiving differing levels of income support. So this National Government is amending this legislation because we take the responsibility of managing our country’s finances on behalf of taxpayers seriously. I was not on the Social Services Committee at the time but my understanding is that it did have two submissions. The Social Services Committee did make recommendations for this bill to be passed. Can I also pay tribute to our Social Services Committee chair Alfred Ngaro. My colleague’s collegial approach my colleague’s firm hand and my colleague’s empathy to the issues of focus in this select committee have contributed to a productive committee to date a select committee that is intent on making good law and a select committee that is making a difference.What is the background to this bill? Well very much it is in two parts and the first one is around students. The nub of it is we do have some students who are forgoing student allowance which entitles them to an accommodation supplement of higher value. We were all students once or most of us were and we know that it is entrepreneurial when you are a student. Young people like pushing boundaries but at the end of the day although this is legal or pretty legal or fairly legal it was not the intended outcome of the Social Security Act. I must say how proud I am to live in a country with a Social Security Act and social welfare provision. We all know about the welfare provision post-World War II and the Bretton Woods agreements and with the baby boomers we cannot sustain that level of social welfare but we can provide targeted social welfare support to the vulnerable.It reminds me that I had the opportunity to travel into Zimbabwe in 2003 and its economy had just collapsed. Pretty much you would go to a supermarket and the tellers were scooping money into rubbish bags. Their money was worth nothing. To go out for dinner you had to fill up your backpack full of money to go and buy a meal. And the people were desperate; they were really on edge. They did not have the social welfare provision we have in New Zealand and it just goes to show that for the well-being of people you need strong economic management and this is what the National Government is providing.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member as I interrupted the previous speaker. The member did take about 3 minutes of introduction and then spoke on the bill for about 90 seconds. I am now going to advise him to get back on to the bill that is before the House.MATT DOOCEY: What is the aim of the bill? The aim of the bill is to exclude students who are eligible under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 from receiving the accommodation supplement. The amendments make it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they can receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998. What about the amendment for beneficiaries? What we do know is that some beneficiaries can receive accident compensation payments. Under the Social Security Act compensation payments are deducted dollar for dollar from their benefit and this is very much for ACC payments but does not include compensation paid for by accredited employers. That is very much the argument and the amendment of this legislation. It is closing a current loophole that results in deductions not being equally applied to compensation paid for by ACC or accredited employers which is not a very good incentive to work. I must say in today’s environment we need everyone to work and to get back to work. The Ministry of Social Development is currently deducting payments from both ACC and accredited employers and this bill validates the present and past practice. The total cost of this loophole is $700000 per annum and retrospectively applied is $3.261 million.In conclusion this bill is about consistency. It is about fairness. It is about equity. I acknowledge the hard work of the social development Minister Anne Tolley and the Social Services Committee chair Alfred Ngaro. This bill closes loopholes that allow some students and beneficiaries to receive differing levels of income. This bill will save millions of dollars as our National Government takes seriously its responsibility of managing the country’s finances on behalf of the taxpayer. I commend this bill to the House.JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to join in other comments this evening in acknowledging significant passings in recent times both of Celia Lashlie and also Robin Duff who was the Vice-President of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association and an extraordinary advocate for the lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex communities and students. Celia obviously I think has helped expand our understanding of the world and how it functions and also helped us understand and see the best that is possible in our boys and how to bring that out in them. We are poorer for the loss of both of them.I move on to this bill and it is hard not to want to jump in and respond to the hyperbole of the previous speech which bordered on one of those speeches you give at school to prove you can extend 5 minutes talking about nothing. But the Green Party will be opposing this the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The bill was first introduced into the House by Paula Bennett way back on 16 November 2010. Yes that is over 4 years ago. It finished in the select committee in that same term of Parliament. We did not hear one word of it—well at least I did not—in the last term. There was not one mention to my knowledge.I am left wondering why we did not hear about it then and why the apparent urgency that it has jumped up so high on the Order Paper in this term of Parliament. I do not have any definitive answers to that but I do suspect it is possible that the possibility of saving a few dollars from the Government Budget lines when the looming Budget deficit is pending—maybe it has got that desperate that it needs to claw back $700000 here from people on ACC and a few hundred thousand here from students struggling to get by. This Government is going to stoop to taking money from people retrospectively and clawing back from students trying to get by just to do whatever it can to edge closer to that possibility of surplus that seems to be becoming increasingly unlikely. It really is just a shame that in all too many instances we are seeing in Government policy and legislation that the money put towards achieving that or hoping to get towards that surplus seems to be coming from everyday New Zealanders who are struggling to get by or get ahead.The Government has framed this bill as being about consistency fairness honesty and equity. It sounds good. How could you not support those things? We certainly support those values in the Green Party but I do just want to point out that it depends where your starting point is. Part of the reason for our opposing this is for those very same values which we do not believe what is happening in this legislation is consistent with. It is not fair it is not honest and it is not promoting equity so we are opposing it for those same reasons.What this bill will do is ensure that students eligible for student allowances—whether or not they access them—are not eligible for an accommodation supplement through Work and Income. So a student may say: “OK I’m not going to apply for a student allowance even though I am eligible for it but I will apply for an accommodation supplement because that is worth more and that will help me stay in study and be able to cover my basic costs.” There is a loophole there at the moment so that students who may be eligible for the student allowance but choose not to apply can access that. So this is looking at saying: “OK now you can’t access that. Although that may make you a little bit better off you can’t do it.” The Government is saying it is about fairness whereas we would say actually the fairness is around the ability to access a reasonable amount of money. That is the first part—to be actually able to cover your daily living costs. And we want students. We want people to be studying. We want students to be supported in studying. Actually collectively as a country we have enough resource to be able to do that a bit better than we are at the moment.A previous speaker I think pointed out an example in Auckland where if you were on income support you may be able to access $225 for accommodation I think I heard whereas if you were getting the student allowance it would be $65 in accommodation support. That is not encouraging people to be in study and that does not seem equitable or fair. We were just seeing stories in the New Zealand Herald just about a week ago of students queueing up now with hundreds of people in the queues to get into a flat that is in any way close to their tertiary institutions. They are turning up with CVs with photos of themselves on them to prove that they are going to be desirable tenants. They are turning up with parents. They are offering more money that what is actually being asked for these places. There is so much competition for housing in Auckland and that is something that is echoed in different ways in other parts of the country.Our position is that the fair response to that situation would be for a Government to look at our resources and look at how we can better support students and other New Zealanders into good accommodation and affordable accommodation. The easiest way of doing that in the meantime is to be able to increase the support for people to be able to pay for their accommodation in the short term until we get more housing.And yet this Government’s response to that is to say that it actually thinks these people are accessing a little bit too much money so it is going to close that gapand to make sure that less money is being distributed to help address this problem. So that does not seem fair equitable or consistent and I call the Government out on its own rhetoric on that point. Really again it seems to be the Government choosing to ignore the actual real hardship rather than using our shared resources to ensure the protection and empowerment of everyone equally in this country and I think it is a real shame.I would like to point out another aspect of this bill and speak to the point around ACC which is part of the bill that we do support—the concept in it of the difference between the State-funded ACC provision versus the private schemes. It does not seem to make sense that there would be a difference there. At present benefit payments are deducted from weekly ACC compensation payments on a dollar by dollar basis. However a loophole was discovered through a case in the Social Security Appeal Authority which revealed that in law weekly compensation paid directly by employers accredited with ACC should be treated as income and deducted from benefits at a different more favourable ratio. So the current practice which this bill is seeking to retrospectively validate—and I really do need to point out again that if we are talking about consistency equity and fairness retrospectively validating a practice is not consistent fair or equitable and is repugnant to good legislative practice actually. That will be able to result in someone who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero after an injury.We have heard that—what is it—$3.2 million is going to be recovered from doing that and it is going to be $700000 going forward. So there will be a retrospective factoring in of those costs to help reach the Government’s surplus in a way that is completely inconsistent and unfair I would suggest. The Green Party does not support people being able to double-dip. The dollar for dollar deduction is fair enough if someone’s eligibility for weekly compensation is caused by the same event as his or her eligibility for welfare. But that was not factored into this legislation and in fact when someone is receiving say a sickness benefit in respect of a chronic illness or any other reason but is working part-time it is completely unfair to exclude that and to suggest that that is double-dipping which is what this legislation does in part. So therefore again we find that we are unable to support that aspect of it because again it is not fair it is not consistent and it is not equitable and it is not about helping to create a society where everyone has a fair go where everyone has an equal chance of participating and achieving when we know that that vision of a society is not far-fetched; it is entirely possible. But we need to have the attention to detail in our legislation to ensure that that is what we are providing. Kia ora.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). However I would like to join others and acknowledge the passing of Celia Lashlie. She was a mighty social campaigner and had good works with the Good Man project and obviously a book He’ll Be OK. She has had many positive effects on many young families especially with young boys and I know personally as a father of a 12-year-old who will shortly begoing through the wonderful period of teenage years it willcertainly help me out as well.Phil Twyford: Get ready!DARROCH BALL: Yes. First thing I would just like to say and acknowledge what Sue Moroney also said—the fact that coming to the second reading has been a while in the making. In 2011 it was first read. In fact not only was I not in Parliament but New Zealand First was not in Parliament at that stage. So it has given me a good opportunity to put some fresh eyes on the bill and have a look at it and there are many questions that have come out of that and some concerns and partly some confusion and contrary to popular belief I do not easily get confused.So the first thing I did was to lookat the bill and the intent of the bill in its entirety. Obviously it is to tighten up a few loopholes in two areas one of them being the ACC payments and how they are received and also the loophole for students seeking assistance for accommodation costs. When addressing this bill it is important to remember that for the part of the students or closing the loophole for the student seeking assistance the overall and underlying intent of the bill should really be that it is for the students and for the benefit of those students and not just to tighten up a loophole. But that unfortunately seems to be what is trying to be achieved here by lumping those two very different separate juxtaposed issues together under one umbrella. And on the face of things obviously it is always good to increase efficiency and equitability within legislation and that is what this bill is attempting to do here and that is what the public will likely see this bill as being.But it seems that by putting these very separate issues of ACC and student accommodation issues together it is somewhat designed to lessen the need to look further and in the much greater detail that is needed at the fallout and unintended consequences from such a tightening of those loopholes and the issues that I have highlighted in the process—to the point where if you have a look at the bill we believe that the bill should really have been submitted in two separate submissions. In fact the two distinct separate issues are not even in two different parts within the bill itself.So I would like to concentrate my comments on one issue in particular that we do not think is fair or equitable and that is the part of the attempt to close the loophole on the student accommodation supplement which is clause 4(1) and (2) in Part 1. The explanatory note sums up what it is: “The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1964 to clarify the provisions that exclude students who are eligible for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 from receiving the accommodation supplement. The amendment makes it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they could receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 but choose not to apply for it or if they could receive this assistance but for their own income or the income of their parents spouse or partner.” So there are a few questions that popped out immediately for me and perhaps the Minister could address those in time.So the first is: why has it taken since 2011 for this bill to get through to second reading? Why is this currently a problem for students? If the students are using this loophole why are students in need of more assistance? Why is there such a difference between the two amounts of how much a student would receive in a student allowance and how much they would receive in an accommodation supplement? And if this change does go through how will this benefit help support and enable our current students looking for assistance? The fact is that it does not and it will not. In fact what this bill succeeds in doing is highlighting the very real and current financial struggles that our students face and the issues that our students have in being able to afford not only accommodation but even just the bare essentials. It is New Zealand First’s view that we need to invest in our students and ensure that they are given every opportunity to succeed and every ability to afford a quality education. It is not just education itself that is important but the environment and the ability to live without the need of bare essential items.This proposed change unfortunately highlights the current issues we have with what our students are currently getting. The changes are proposing when it boils down to it that if you are eligible for a student allowance you are not eligible to receive the accommodation supplement even if you do not take the allowance. That may sound fair and equitable to a National Government but what members opposite quite obviously do not see is that there is a need for some students to have to do that in the first instance. If a student can gain more assistance by not taking their student allowance then why are we going down a path where we will ensure they are eligible only for the least amount of assistance instead of maximising it for them? The truth is that these students need all of the assistance that they can get. This bill undermines students and will potentially make it harder for students to afford a tertiary education.To back up what I have been saying I would just like to read out a couple of quotes from an article that came out as recently as September last year. There was a survey that showed that nearly half of all full-time students are in significant financial distress. Two years ago that was one in six final-year students who was living in significant financial distress meaning they did not have enough money for their basic accommodation clothing or food requirements. An even more recent study of 5000 students from both a polytechnic and a university showed that the situation was actually even worse and 44 percent reported that they did not have enough to meet their basic needs. This shows the urgent need to increase support including an increase in student allowance rates and expansion of allowances to those excluded by parental means tests and properly paid summer employment. So Mr Ngaro and Mr Doocey may stand over there and say that everything is peachy for students but these are the actual facts.If we are looking specifically at accommodation costs in particular which this bill is affecting we are looking at experts predicting rents will continue to rapidly rise this year. Auckland’s big tenant influx—when 50000 students start looking for accommodation—is not expected to get into full force until later this month but demand is already outstripping supply in many areas. Students are finding it hard to find affordable accommodation. This bill is going to ensure that students get only the least amount of assistance that is available. New Zealand First does not find that acceptable.One of the words that the Minister used was “equitability”. We need to stop looking at the equitability process as stopping at the bounds of being a student and instead look realistically at the costs that our students incur and how that compares with every other low or middle-income person and how our Government addresses that issue. Instead of looking immediately at the options that stop the students receiving the highest amount of assistance we need to look at the reasons why the students are needing this in the first instance. This bill should show support to our students by fixing the loophole in their favour not against them. This is why New Zealand First does not support this bill.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is an absolute privilege for me to stand up here and give what is essentially my first speech if you exclude the 90 seconds that I was allotted for the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill which is of course a very important bill that is in front of the Social Services Committee. I very much look forward to having the report back of that after we listen to the submitters in the next couple of weeks. So with the exception of those 90 seconds and my maiden speech this is the very first time that I have had the opportunity to get up and say a few words to the House in respect of this particular bill—and in fact on any particular bill.Firstly can I wish you all a very good New Year. I know that for some of you particularly across the other side of the House you are probably looking forward to Christmas already. But look it was a fantastic break. Certainly it was for me and I hope it was for you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. I understand that you occasionally holiday in the beautiful Bay of Plenty. You have been known to do so over the last 65 years and I hope that your last holiday was very enjoyable.On a more sombre note however I do want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of a couple of very special New Zealanders—if I could start particularly with Dr Api Mahuika. I appreciate that there were many in this House probably more qualified than me to talk last week to his contribution to New Zealand and Ngati Porou but I would like to add my small voice to that acclaim. I had the privilege over the last 6 years to be sitting on the Waikato University council with Api. He was an extraordinary person to sit alongside in a governance context. He was a great leader a thoughtful and quite passionate man obviously for Ngati Porou. He will be sadly missed in terms of the representation and leadership that he has given not only his iwi but the wider country.I also want to acknowledge Celia Lashlie. I had met her a couple of times. I was very impressed with both her stature and her forthrightness in what boys in particular look for in good solid family relationships. I am the eldest of four boys. It would be fair to say that I think my parents took a leaf out of her book and perhaps in a small way I am a contribution to her outlook on life.It is very enjoyable to be actually standing up here and talking to this particular piece of legislation the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). When I look at legislation like this—and I note the comments before of fellow MP Darroch Ball being new here and looking at it for the first time. I think his comments around bringing fresh eyes to the debate is one that resonates for me as someone who is brand new to this place. Although we have different eyes Darroch I tried to do the same. Essentially I asked myself three questions. The first is whether this is targeting a demonstrated need. I asked whether it is fair for the applicant and for the taxpayer—those thousands of hard-working New Zealanders whose taxes we have the responsibility to spend effectively and appropriately. I guess ultimately I asked whether it is delivering an improved outcome. In my view I think this bill delivers on all those three thresholds.It is important that we provide assistance to those who need it most. I think everyone understands that that is a key component of who we are as a country. It has underpinned our social services framework for many many decades. But it is just as important that we can give assurances to taxpayers in particular that assistance is being distributed fairly and that any loopholes identified where inequitable disparities can occur are closed. So at the fundamental core of this legislation is a view that we need to do the right thing by those who are seeking to have support from the Government and to do the right thing also by those who are paying taxes to ensure that that tax is being well and effectively spent.It is appropriate in my view that we have a framework that prevents students who are eligible for a student allowance from applying for and receiving the accommodation supplement. So I have found it interesting just listening to the debate over the last 20 or 30 minutes particularly from the Green Party members. I would have to say that I did not quite get at the end really whether they are for it or against it. They spoke on both sides of the argument. I appreciate that when we brought this to the House the first time—and obviously subsequently it then went away through to the select committee process—I was not here and neither were a number of others. But I understood that it had a broad cross-section of party support. So I thought the Green Party members would be able to see this through rational eyes particularly when you consider the sartorial elegance of at least one of them who is sitting over on the other side. I appreciate your choice of tie sir. It is just where it needs to be. I honestly thought that the Green Party when you strip away the rhetoric would have actually said that this is something that deserved its support. I am disappointed that apparently if I heard them correctly it perhaps still does not.The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low to middle income people with accommodation costs not for those who are seeking to lift their skills at a tertiary or vocational institute and who can receive the student benefit. There may well be a debate—Darroch Ball: That’s not equitable.TODD MULLER: I understand you are shaking your head and that is fair enough. It is interesting that when you have a debate around student allowances immediately it goes to saying particularly on the other side that it is not enough and it needs to be improved—it needs to be lifted. There never seems to be an acknowledgment that actually there is a benefit that accrues to the student by going to university. This is a very very generous scheme and it has resulted in more students being involved in tertiary and vocational institutions than ever before. But it is still not good enough. It is still not good enough for members on the other side. Everything should be free. It does not matter how we earn it in this country it should be free.Tracey Martin: Did you get a free education?TODD MULLER: No I did not. And for New Zealanders who work to be able to pay taxes I find it a remarkable remarkable—Tracey Martin: Silent—there you go.TODD MULLER: Well it was not silence—I was talking. I was trying to talk over your constant questioning. Look at this rate I am going to have to sit down before I have got to the main points which would be quite extraordinary.Kris Faafoi: Have you got one?TODD MULLER: I have got a number. So for example for a sole parent in Auckland with two children the maximum amount they can be paid in an accommodation supplement is $225—Tracey Martin: It’s not about them.TODD MULLER: You might learn something if you listen seriously. That is $225 per week compared with $60—[Interruption] oh they have woken up—for an accommodation benefit on the student allowance. The returns from study—as I have said before to members on the other side of the House particularly to New Zealand First members—accrue to individuals as well as to society. So the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the cost between students and the Government. Students should not be reliant on other benefits and grants that result in the Government paying a greater share of student support.This is a very fine piece of legislation and one that deserves our support. I would just like to finish—because it is remarkable how fast the time goes when you are having fun—with some comments in respect of ACC. Again in my view there is a principle at stake here. Any payment received by an ACC recipient should then be deducted dollar for dollar from any benefit they receive. This deduction needs to occur whether the payments are made by ACC or any accredited employer. I think I heard from the other side that there is a general acknowledgment that that is a sound piece of public policy. It is therefore a piece of legislation that should get hopefully pretty universal support. It is inequitable that claimants in essentially the same circumstances can be treated differently.This bill is about getting the incentives right. It is about removing the opportunity to game the system. It is about fairness it is about equity and above all it is about ensuring we have the collective confidence in our social services and compensation frameworks. It is a sound bill. I do want to acknowledge those who have gone before in the Social Services Committee and who have brought this bill to this place. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development. I think that she provides great leadership in this space and I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is an honour to follow Todd Muller in his first contribution in the House. I want to say it loudly I want to say it clearly—because the member was confused where the Green Party stands—that the Green Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed because it is mean because it is unfair and because it ignores the real hardship that students are under. There are two big points. We see with the ACC changes that they are positive and we have talked about that. Jan Logie talked about that. When it comes to the student changes we cannot vote for a law that is targeting students in such a mean unfair way ignoring their hardship.When you look at this bill in a nutshell what it attempts to do is to clean up what the Government calls a loophole. This is not a loophole at all. What we are seeing is that at the moment in New Zealand there is a huge gap between what you can earn as an accommodation supplement depending on whether you are on a student allowance or you are on a benefit. What the Government is trying to do through this change which was first introduced into Parliament in 2010—all those years ago—is make sure that the loophole by which those students who are eligible for a student allowance but do not actually access it can get an accommodation supplement instead of an allowance is closed.I know that is a lot of bureaucratic jargon but the fact is that if you are a student in—let us say—Auckland there the rents have risen $50 a week for the average student over the time National has been in Government. That is 50 bucks a week extra. So if you are on a benefit you would be entitled to $125 a week in accommodation supplement. That is fair because we know how high the housing costs are. We think it is important that people have enough to live on and that kids are raised in appropriate housing. However if you are a student the cap for the accommodation supplement—the cap the maximum a student can earn for the accommodation supplement—was hit 13 years ago. The $40 cap was hit 13 years ago. So the students in let us say Nikki Kaye’s Auckland Central electorate hit their cap 13 years ago and can receive only $40 a week in a supplement yet the fact is that 50 bucks has been the average increase in rent over the last 5 years.That is why I say that it is mean. It is targeting those students on the accommodation allowance those students who do not hit the parental income thresholds. They are obviously not earning a significant amount because of the rules. These are the students who are suffering in real hardship according to the studies and the surveys yet these are the students who are not getting the help they need which other New Zealanders are receiving because of unfair rule change. The fact is—and I have not hear a single National member address this fact—that when this law was introduced in 2010 advice was received that two people—two people—in the country were taking advantage of it. But do you know what? The New Zealand University Students’ Association data shows that one in six students would be better off not getting the student allowance so they can get the maximum accommodation supplement—one in six students. The poorest students are better off not getting what they are entitled to because of the unfair way we treat students vis-à-vis other people receiving support.I know that I do not have much time but I want to share a story of a whole bunch of young mums I met in Palmerston North last year. These were young mums who were trying to get ahead. Some of them had got out of bad relationships. They were raising young kids. All of them were studying at university to get ahead. However because of the housing costs in Palmerston North and the limited financial support available these mothers were not on the accommodation allowance. They were on the benefit—the DPB—raising their kids. It was inspirational seeing how these mums pulled together but they feel ignored by the Government.All across the country in various cities the cap was reached many many years ago—13 years ago in Auckland which is many years ago. So I think New Zealanders are suffering real hardship and particularly students who are seeing their fees go up and their average student loan amount increase massively. They want to see real solutions not this mean unfair ignoring of the real hardship that they are in. They want to see equity. They want to see a fair accommodation supplement that actually reflects the costs of living not just an arbitrary cap that this Government has failed to raise and now is doing its darnedest to close this loophole for any other student. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to join with others firstly to acknowledge the passing of Dr Apirana Mahuika as well as Celia Lashlie and others. I also want to acknowledge a local resident of my electorate Mrs Tavu’i a matriarch of the community who passed away last week. Her family service is tonight and she will be buried tomorrow. She has been around a long long time. She was a long-time teacher at Viscount School a founding member of the Presbyterian Church in Māngere and a staunch supporter of the Labour Party I might add. She has contributed significantly to our community and we will miss her. Ia manuia lau malaga Tavu’i.I want to say that this bill was introduced in November 2010 and given to the Social Services Committee to work on. That committee then reported back to the House with a one-page report right here—a one-page report with a recommendation in 2011 that this House pass this bill. There were no minority views expressed in that report and Labour said then that we would support it and we maintain that we will support it now. It was for a simple reason: the bill was minor with technical changes.There were just a couple of loopholes that the bill was intended to fix up. One was regarding the payment of ACC payments from the employer to ensure that those who were receiving ACC from the employer would be treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. The other loophole is to ensure that students eligible for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 but who choose not to apply for that would also be excluded from receiving the accommodation supplement. That is what the bill is about and for those technical reasons we said we would support it and we maintain that we ought to support it as well.In the select committee there were two submitters. They did not give oral submissions but they gave two general submissions regarding what they considered as the issues of the adequacy of the accommodation assistance provided to students throughout the student support system. They expressed the view that the student accommodation rates are inequitable and we agree. The bill does not address that however. I agree with my colleagues in the Green Party and New Zealand First that those are issues that this Government should have focused on and should have at least included in another bill if not in this one.The bill was introduced in 2011 with a recommendation that Parliament pass it. It has taken 4 years. It is a simple minor bill that should have been put out of the way in order to allow this Government to focus on the more meaty issues that my colleagues have raised. I am angry about that because that is a sign that this Government is inadequate. You could say that it has been totally incompetent with the way it has arranged these particular bills. This bill now stays on the Order Paper after its second reading. We do not know when it will go through the Committee stage or when it will go through the third reading. There are more important issues that have been raised by my colleagues that this Government should have been focused on but instead it has been mired in these allegations of corruption surrounding its deals with Skycity.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I do not say that lightly.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is not appropriate to bring words like “corruption” into this debate. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I ask the member to come back to the content of this debate. It is a very narrow debate and I ask the member to come back to it.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: The bill is very narrow. It focuses on those two loopholes that it was intended to fix up but the broader issues that I am raising were raised by submitters during the submissions process. Those broader issues are the ones that New Zealanders are asking about. They are asking why this piece of legislation minor small and technical as it is is languishing on the Order Paper when this Government should be focusing on the meatier and more important issues like jobs and incomes and addressing the national housing crisis that this Government is presiding over. And why is that? It is because of the incompetence of this Government.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill about the treatment of weekly compensation payments and assistance for students’ accommodation costs makes the legislation sturdy so that we treat people the same way. I do recognise that all Government spending is attached to some form of social value but this is about balance. The bill dictates the closing of loopholes in the Social Security Act which people can use to receive an unfair increase or different levels of support even when they are in exactly the same kinds of circumstances. The passing of this bill will allow for students and beneficiaries in similar circumstances to receive equal levels of monetary support. This is vital as it will allow everyone an equal opportunity and not provide unintentional benefits to those who knowingly or unknowingly see fit to slip through any apparent loopholes. It is vital that this is looked at as a loophole does mean the Act is flawed. We are striving to correct the issue of students and beneficiaries garnering unequal monetary support. As one can imagine this is coming at an extra expense to the taxpayer which is something we should try to minimise.The loophole regarding student payments in the Social Security Act allows students to access the accommodation supplement if they choose not to receive a student allowance. The returns from study accrue to individuals as well as to society so the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the cost between students and the Government. Students should not be reliant on any other benefits and grants that result in the Government paying a greater share of student support.The Social Security Act states that accident compensation payments from ACC should be deducted dollar for dollar from any benefit that a person receives. A loophole in the Act means that it does not include weekly payments coming from an accredited employer. This bill will validate the past and current practices of deducting payments dollar for dollar from benefit payments. For example if a DPB recipient is paid $150 per week in compensation with no other income but the DPB they will have their benefit reduced by $150 if the compensation is from ACC. If the compensation is paid by an accredited employer their benefit will not be reduced at all. The deduction should apply equally to compensation whether it is paid by ACC or by an accredited employer. It would be unfair that a person who receives compensation from an accredited employer would be better off than a person who receives weekly compensation from ACC. That simply would not be fair. So the overall purpose of the bill is to ensure that people in similar circumstances are treated equally.This is also about responsibly managing the Government’s finances so taxes are spent wisely on the services families need. The Ministry of Social Development has estimated the total cost of this loophole at $700000 per annum and a ministry report states that a legislative fix is the only option to maintain the intention of the policy and avoid increased fiscal cost that adds to unequal monetary gain for people in exactly the same situations. The existing provision may reduce the financial incentive to return to work—this is another drawback of this loophole—since the combined income from the benefit and compensation can be higher in some cases. As a Government we are always looking at ways to get people into employment. This is and has been a major goal of ours. The drawbacks of unemployment were made glaringly evident during the recession we had in 2008. The fact that we as a nation have reached an unemployment percentage of 5.6 percent shows the amount of work we have put in and its positive effects on our economy.An increased percentage of people choosing to receive a benefit instead of getting into a job is not good for our nation and our nation’s growth. It is not ideal as the taxpayer becomes responsible for these funds and their money is not able to be used in an efficient and effective manner especially when there is a large number of people on benefits. As well as this those who are unemployed are unable to help better their communities and our country. Their skills and talents are not being used or recognised in a positive manner. Dependence on a benefit creates a decline in the social quality of a person’s life. It does not allow them to make the money they should be earning to adequately provide for themselves and their family let alone any debatable luxuries. The lack of money coming to people in the community also leads to a possible drop in living standards and can hinder the chances of future generations having access to the best possible health-care education and recreational facilities. This can prove to become a great disadvantage to our country in the future.All these things can obviously affect spending habits in a negative manner. We need to avoid the factors that can contribute to this happening at all costs. It is a very gloomy perspective but this is the real possibility of people deciding to be on a benefit by choice.Talking about education students rely on this loophole for monetary gain or monetary support. The National-led Government is focused on improving tertiary education lifting achievement increasing skills and focusing on better outcomes for students and taxpayers. National wants to help students get the qualifications they need to succeed and play their part in growing our economy. Data from the Ministry of Education shows that New Zealand students completed a record number of undergraduate degree qualifications in 2013. In 2013 25800 domestic students completed Bachelor’s degrees an increase of around 400 on the 25400 who completed degrees in 2012. This is 24 percent higher than the 20800 who graduated in 2008.Hon Member: How much percent higher?Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Twenty-four percent higher. It shows National’s focus on achieving results. It also reflects the emphasis we are placing on students achieving qualifications at higher levels that provide them with a stronger financial return on their study. Overall the total number of qualifications achieved in the year by all students—this is including domestic and international—remained at a very high level at 162000 and more than 20 percent higher than 5 years ago. The number of Māori and Pasifika students completing degrees has also climbed. The number of Māori students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased from 1960 back in 2008 to 3180 in 2013—a 62 percent increase. The number of Pasifika students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased from 918 in 2008 to 1530 in 2013—a 56 percent increase. In 2013 over 10000 more Māori students achieved qualifications across all levels of tertiary education than in 2008 and over 5300 more Pasifika students did the same.National is committed to increasing achievement in the tertiary sector. Having more people achieving tertiary qualifications means a more highly skilled labour market. Higher skills mean higher-paying jobs for all New Zealanders and their families. Back in the 2000s the previous Government threw more and more money at tertiary education and the number of people achieving degrees stayed around the 20000 mark. With a focus on performance and results we have lifted that number to almost 26000 degrees with virtually the same amount of funding across the sector. So this shows that students are not relying on this loophole and this monetary gain to achieve education. I was not part of the Social Services Committee when the bill was discussed. I thank the current and past Ministers for this bill and also thank the select committee for the work it has put into this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues from across the House in acknowledging the passing of Celia Lashlie. As a mother of two sons I can say that I have been given that book the book that she wrote about raising sons. Unfortunately it is maybe 16 years too late but it is good for the 2-year-old whom I have and the 17-year-old I can say is OK despite the fact I did not get the book until much later. But she was an amazing woman. She has contributed a lot to New Zealand and I think that is shown by the number of people who today have stood to acknowledge her before they have launched into their speeches.Following on from the previous speaker I just want to point out something that was said—that was Parmjeet Parmar. One of the comments she made was in respect of people choosing to be on benefits. She said that those people are on benefits by choice. There is just a general attitude from so many people on that side of the House—including the Minister for Social Development herself who recently said that those people on the East Coast are getting a little bit of dole a little bit of kai moana and living off their cash crop and actually have quite a good life. That reflects a general attitude from that side of the House in respect of beneficiaries and those who are experiencing hardship. It is not a healthy attitude. To say that someone would choose to be on a benefit or that that lifestyle is in some way a desirable lifestyle is incredibly arrogant of that side of the House because we know that living off $200 or $300 a week is not an easy task. There are a lot of families out there that are living on a minimum amount of money like that trying to raise children not by choice actually—I aim that at the previous speaker—but because of the fact that they cannot find work or because of the fact that their family circumstances do not allow them to go and work. So perhaps that previous National Party speaker needs to rethink some of the lines from its research centre that she reads out before standing up in the House and sharing them with the rest of the country.I say that but actually in going back to the bill it is one of those bills that we agree on with the National Party. We do support this bill just not the general attitude towards beneficiaries and towards New Zealanders experiencing hardship. But we do support the bill. We support this bill as it makes some minor but sensible changes to remove loopholes in the Social Security Act. This bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. Labour supports equal treatment so we do support this bill. As the law stands those people receiving an ACC payment from their employer could also challenge Work and Income to provide them with a full benefit payment.What we do wonder on this side of the House is how many times if any this has occurred in the 4 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. Similarly how much extra has been paid out in accommodation supplements to students over the last 4 years as a result of the loophole this bill intends to close? I point out the 4-year period because as has been mentioned by several of our colleagues today this bill was actually introduced in the House in November 2010. Looking at the National Government how many times during the last 6 or 7 years that it has been in power have we heard National members talking about the need to have a tighter welfare system and to look for ways in which to cut costs across our public sector with regard to all public spending? And yet here we have loopholes that would have cost the country money in some way but they have been allowed to continue for the last 4 years despite the fact that the National Government knew this was happening and despite the fact that this bill was introduced in the House in 2010. I just want to point out the fact that despite that Government’s rhetoric around wanting to save the taxpayer money wanting to cut costs and wanting to protect public spending and everything else there are so many instances like this one where it has allowed things to continue—for 4 years in this instance—which has actually cost the taxpayer money.So going back to the bill we do support the bill. We are disappointed that it has been allowed to languish for the last 4 years but we do support the bill. This may be a small bill but the fact that such easily fixed loopholes have been left unattended for so long does show the ineptitude of this Government.Hon Simon Bridges: Good things take time.CARMEL SEPULONI: It is a Government that has lost its way caught up in MP scandals and casino deals gone wrong instead of doing the basic job of governing. Mr Bridges said that it is a Government that takes its time. Well unfortunately it takes too much time with things that matter and tries to speed through on things that New Zealanders are actually concerned about and that should actually have some time spent on them. As submitters alluded to in the select committee sessions it is a Government that has lost its way—it was the submitters who alluded to that—on support for students and tertiary education.This bill closes a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where it is more generous but frankly who can blame students for looking for a little extra wherever they can as this Government has put the squeeze on this already low-income group over the past 6 years? There are a few instances where I can point out where the squeeze is being put on students in this country—students whom some of the National MPs have been celebrating the successes of but at the same time National has actually made it a lot harder for them to be able to achieve those successes over the last 6 years that National has been in Government.The first example of where the National Government has made it difficult for these students has been where student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We really see that in places like Auckland where the student allowance is almost exactly the same as what it was 6 or 7 years ago but rentals have just gone through the roof. How can these students possibly be expected to pay their rent and to pay all of their expenses when their actual allowance has not increased at all? Another example is students have seen course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year and they have had to absorb that hike. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. We have seen that student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student fee has been tacked on and Steven Joyce has professed his desire as the tertiary education Minister to dampen demand for university—so actually the Government wants to put people off going to university. That is a dismal and short-sighted view for the future and is symptomatic of a Government that has lost its way. That is what the submitters pointed out when they came to the select committee.I want to add just another couple of examples where that Government has not been supportive of students being able to achieve the successes that it wanted to talk about celebrating earlier and that is in respect of students over 55 who have been denied access to living costs or course-related costs. And to be quite frank I actually think that is discrimination. It is discrimination based on age. The Government is saying there that actually once you get to a certain age you do not deserve to learn and you have no further contribution to be able to make to this society. It is actually quite sad because before Labour left office there was a focus—a general focus—around the importance of adult learning and lifetime learning but once National took office that was gone.Another example of where the Government has shown itself to be unsupportive of students is in respect of the time limits it has now placed on how long you can access student allowances for. I want to point that out because the ones who are really affected by that are actually students who come from low-income families. They are the ones who actually cannot afford to pay for their living costs and everything else. Perhaps they want to go on to postgraduate studies after they have finished those undergraduate degrees but because of the time limits that that Government has put on they are no longer given the opportunity to do so. I have heard National MPs point out the fact that “Well they can go and get scholarships. They can go and get all these other things.” Well actually scholarships and access to funding outside the State are not as available as some of those National MPs might think.So we do support this bill but I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that it has not been easy being a student under the National Government over the last 6 or 7 years. Here it is at the moment closing a loophole but what we would really like to see—and I am sure students across New Zealand who are aspirational and trying to get to a better place would like to see—is the National Government actually demonstrate that not only is it supportive of those students once they reach that aspirational level but it is supportive of those students along the journey to becoming successful. That is what that National Government has not shown today. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National): I too would like to start my speech off by joining with my parliamentary colleagues from right across this House in acknowledging today the passing of Celia Lashlie. I was privileged to work alongside Celia when I was a part of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs and she was a really critical component to a lot of the work we did around the country. She did some great work in assisting mayors around New Zealand in the way we were working with young people. She did some great work in so many other fields that others have talked about. She was somebody who was absolutely uncompromising. It was always a challenge to be in a room with her because she challenged the way you were thinking and she challenged the way things were being done. I think she inspired us all to do a better job in New Zealand to decrease the number of young people who find their way into prisons and to decrease the number of families who were having to live in a state of dysfunction. And she was somebody who I think in her own way brought a great deal of encouragement alongside the challenges that she brought as well. New Zealand will be not as good a place for her passing so I think it is fitting that we do acknowledge that. As I said I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues in acknowledging that great work she has done.I want to turn my attention to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Of course it is in two major parts which we have been talking about: the student accommodation allowance and the loopholes there and also accident compensation payments. I want to address each of those in turn. Starting with the area around student accommodation allowances as a parent of two tertiary students part of me thinks it would be great if I could find a loophole so they would be able to generate more money because frankly that would mean that I would be better off because I would not be having to pay for so much. But that said this bill is not about what is good for me; this is about what is good for the whole of New Zealand. This is about what is fair. That is what this bill is about—it is about fairness. So from that perspective I want to address the issue of fairness—what is fair and what is not fair with regard to students in relation to this bill.It is absolutely fair that we have accommodation supplements for people in New Zealand. It is absolutely important that when some people who through whatever circumstances find themselves in a challenging position and unable to pay their rent or pay the costs associated with their accommodation our social security system provides for them. So it is fair that we have accommodation supplements. It is fair that students whether they be from my household where they qualify for loans because of the generosity of the State in providing me with the salary it does—my kids irrelevant—Chris Bishop: Money well spent.JONO NAYLOR: Very well spent I think. Anyway my kids do qualify for loans and that is appropriate so that they are able to get the kind of finance they need to find their way through their studies. It is appropriate for other students who perhaps come from a less fortunate background to access student allowances. The numbers who are able to access them are essentially even and essentially fair and I think that that is good. It is fair that students in this country have access to tertiary education which is to a large part subsidised by the Government. It is a good investment by the Government that we invest in subsidising fees so that New Zealand students can get the education that is going to help them and help our country move forward.What is not fair—what is not fair—is when we have loopholes in our system that some students are able to exploit. We know that it has been a low number but it is not fair when they are using our system to gain an unfair advantage over their peers to be able to qualify for more money. So it has been great to hear the support from most of the other side of the House—[Interruption]—apart from a particular voice which seems to be yelling constantly and not listening to a word I am saying. It is not fair when we have a system in place that ensures that we are not getting fairness in terms of what is happening here.As we move forward with this bill I just want to acknowledge a couple of things that have been said from the other side of the House. It has been interesting that I have heard accusations this afternoon that we do not care about tertiary students. Well we do care about tertiary students and we have managed to ensure that there are still loans and allowances available to students. If students in New Zealand are in such a bad state as has been said by members opposite why is it as my colleagues have outlined today that we are seeing the completion rates of degrees going through the roof? Why is it is that Māori and Pasifika are getting better and better qualifications in this country? If this Government is so bad for students why is it that we are seeing better achievement?This is a minor technical bill and it has been asserted from the other side of the House that we have let it languish for 4 years. But there has been important work for us to do over the last 6 years that this Government has been in place. You simply do not undo the work of 9 long years of a Labour Government in 5 minutes. This Government has been working hard—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I actually would like to hear what is being said.JONO NAYLOR: I would be keen to hear what I was saying myself to be fair. I thought it was great. Anyway as I said you do not undo the work of 9 long years of a Labour Government in 5 minutes so this Government has been working hard for New Zealand over the last 6 years to do this. We have been talking about the minor nature of this bill. Yes it might not have had the priority that other bills have had. It is of a minor nature. It is an important bill and it is one that we will pass and that we will progress. But we have had much more important things to deal with and that is exactly what this Government has been getting on with.I want to turn my attention now to the issues of the ACC payments which have also been brought up in this bill.Kris Faafoi: Oh we’ve been waiting for this.JONO NAYLOR: You have been waiting. I do not want to disappoint members opposite who have been waiting for so long.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the House has resumed. Before the dinner break the House was debating the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Jono Naylor has 2 minutes 25 seconds remaining to speak should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.JONO NAYLOR: I was not sure whether I had 2 minutes 25 seconds or 1 minute 13 seconds such was the confusion at the end of the last session. When we as you said Mr Deputy Speaker concluded the last session before the dinner break we were indeed talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I had been addressing primarily in my speech up to that point issues of the anomalies in the accommodation supplement and allowances and what was proposed there. I was just about to move on in fact to the issues around ACC compensation.Compensation is a very practical logical step for us to take in terms of this bill. This is really I think just something that obviously when it was drafted perhaps had not been thought through. But I think it is fair it is reasonable and it is essentially very logical. If somebody is in fact receiving some sort of compensation via ACC it really should not make any difference whatsoever whether or not they are being paid by ACC directly or by an accredited employer. So this particular change to the legislation ensures that really this inconsistency is put to rest.On balance when I look through all of the facets of this bill all of the things that are trying to be achieved I can quite comfortably look at it and say: “Yes I’m happy to endorse it.” I am happy to ensure that we have a system for our students in terms of the benefits and allowances they qualify for that is entirely consistent across the board. I think that that is easy to support. I am also happy to support these changes around ACC and what provisions are required in terms of the rate at which benefits are abated around these ACC payments. I think this is a logical bill. I think it is a sensible bill. It is yet again another piece of good legislation coming through from this Government and I am happy to endorse it. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.Ayes 95New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 25Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Bill read a second time.Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As a member of the International Energy Agency New Zealand has a treaty obligation to contribute to global oil security by holding oil stock equivalent to 90 days of net imports. The International Energy Agency system helps to protect New Zealand and its trading partners from the economic harm that could result from a sudden increase in oil prices. Oil security is also closely linked to security generally and oil security is a key driver of the foreign and security policies of many OECD countries. The stockholding obligation helps to mitigate the market power of large oil-producing nations and is an important contribution to global oil security.It is also important for New Zealand’s reputation internationally that we fulfil our obligations. This bill expands the purpose of the petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy under the current Act to include the cost of meeting this important oil stockholding - treaty obligation. In doing so it will provide a sustainable funding source and an enduring financial commitment to global oil security that will ultimately benefit New Zealanders with a more secure supply of transport fuels. The bill moves the cost of maintaining the oil security system away from general taxation and on to those consumers who benefit from it. The bill also introduces greater flexibility in the setting of levy rates and regulations which I expect will come into force later this year.A secure supply of energy is critical to businesses and consumers and is an important part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. This bill is the latest in a series of actions that this Government is taking to lift oil security. Encouraging domestic oil production also has the potential to help to continue offsetting our stockholding obligation. This Government is committed to realising our abundant energy resources potential to help grow our economy to increase exports and to create jobs while ensuring that we develop these resources in a safe and environmentally responsible way. The International Energy Agency expects oil and natural gas will continue to account for around half the world’s energy needs until at least 2035. Our approach to our energy future understands this reality. Our hard work in this area has delivered significant levels of activity here by established international players. Spending on exploration development - related activities in New Zealand over the past 2 years has totalled nearly $3 billion.A key to tipping the balance of investment decisions in our favour has been better data. Historically the Government’s focus has been on purchasing data and on targeting it to the market. This has represented a significant albeit costly investment. Last year we changed the data confidentiality provisions in the Crown Minerals Act. This has enabled companies with multiple clients to acquire data and then to onsell it to industry. As a result more data has been acquired with the industry bringing tens of millions of dollars into the mix. In the last 18 months 26000 square kilometres of data has been acquired in this way at no cost to Government.Other work being undertaken to help improve New Zealand’s oil security includes the development of a new oil contingency handbook which outlines responsibilities and procedures to be followed if there is an oil supply disruption; the formation of an oil security working group of all relevant departments and industry participants; a review of regional oil storage and capacity information; and through the health and safety reforms the development of a better understanding of existing hazard prevention and response procedures in the downstream oil sector. This bill represents a significant and more equitable response to our international obligations.Before I conclude I would like to congratulate Dr Fatih Birol on behalf of the New Zealand Government and Parliament on his election by consensus yesterday I think as the new executive director of the International Energy Agency. In my view Dr Birol has the best long-range perspective on energy matters in the world and his election ensures that the world’s premier energy agency is in very good hands indeed. I commend this bill to the House.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Before I start on my speech I would like to echo a number of tributes to Celia Lashlie. Most have talked about her contribution to a book on boys but I remember having a conversation with Celia Lashlie around prison reform. I said to her that I had heard an interview where she said that she believed that in all her time in the prison service she had come across only six men whom she believed could not be rehabilitated. She said to me—Hon Ruth Dyson: Couldn’t?STUART NASH: Could not be rehabilitated. These were six people who should be locked up and the key thrown away. And she said to me: “Did I say six? It’s probably only two.” So she was a great advocate for prison reform. The Sensible Sentencing Trust and everything that that group advocates was anathema to her to be quite honest. She was a very fair woman and she will be missed.But back to this bill. This is a piece of legislation that we do agree on for a number of reasons. First and foremost Labour understands that we need to honour our international obligations—of that there is no doubt—and very rarely will this side of the House argue against a piece of legislation that ensures we do enforce our international obligations. Of course as the Minister talked about we have got to ensure fuel security—there is no doubt about that as well. There are a couple of points though that we brought up during the Committee stage. One in particular that I would like to allude to is the fact that the legislation actually says that the levy recovered in the application of this bill “may be applied for the purpose of meeting the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Crown …”.The concern we have on this side is that when a piece of legislation uses the word “may” there is wriggle room to take any extra money that may be gathered from the taxpayer and put it to other purposes or to put it in the consolidated account. I personally would have loved to see—well I think we should have seen—the word “must” there but it is “may” and I guess we will deal with that. And I guess what we have to do is trust the Government when it says the money that will be raised from this levy will actually be used for the purpose that this legislation is about.There are a couple of other things. There is a slight concern of course with petrol that there are levies upon levies and taxes upon taxes and I know New Zealand First is probably going to elaborate on this. It is a slight concern but when you put it in context if you are filling up a 60-litre tank of gas it comes to about 3c to 4c. So it is not a huge imposition. The Minister of Energy and Resources said that it is user-pays. I suspect that that will not be passed on. I suspect that the oil companies will wear that.One thing that I would be very very concerned about is that once this bill passes which will happen tonight at some point then tomorrow or the next day or by the end of the week we will see oil companies put out a press release that says that the price of petrol is going up at the pump because Parliament passed an Act of legislation that increased the levies we have got to pay. That would be very disingenuous. As mentioned it is about 3c to 4.5c per 60-litre fill-up so there is no excuse whatsoever for petrol companies to put up the price of petrol at the pump because of this piece of legislation.One of the things that the Minister talked about was environmental best practice but one thing he did not talk about was world’s best practice in terms of the operational excellence that we require in this country in terms of oil drilling. The literature is full of examples of how things have gone terribly wrong and the effects that that has caused. That is the last thing that we want in this country; in fact it would go a long way to destroying the global competitive advantage that we have worked so hard over the years to build up and that is “clean green”.However if we start talking about world’s best practice what we find is actually that the companies that are at the forefront of a lot of this exploration in New Zealand like this. The reason I say that is the Todd Corporations of this world for example already operate using world’s best practice but in our country there does not have to be economic development or environmental responsibility. They should go hand in hand—in fact we must demand that they go hand in hand—and this is why we say that any form of extractive industry must use world’s best practice and there are a number of examples around the world where this is put in place. So we are not advocating anything on this side that is world-leading but it is world’s best practice.The other thing that I would like to hear the Government and the Minister speak a little bit more about is what is going to happen to the royalties from oil exploration. Norway is often held up as a country that has done amazing things with the royalties it has earned from oil. In fact I am told—Norway has about 4 million people; similar in population to us—that its wealth sovereign fund funded from oil makes every Norwegian on paper at least a millionaire. It has been very very prudent in the way that it has invested the royalties that come from the oil sector and I would love to see that implemented in this country.There are a couple of other things that I would like to talk about and one is the price of oil at the pump. We have heard from the oil companies in the press that as the price of crude oil has dropped so has the price at the pump. Well between about 2005 and 2010 according to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment statistics the importer margin on oil was about 13c per litre. Well it dropped as low as 3c per litre at one point but in December of 2014 the margin of the importers got up to 40c per litre.To look at the graph of crude oil in New Zealand dollars versus the price at the pump the gap has widened to such an extent that I believe at some point good hard-working Kiwis who fill up their car at the pump are getting ripped off. They are absolutely getting ripped off. As I mentioned in 2005-10 the average was about 13c per litre and in 2010-14 the margin was about 28c a litre. In the last 6 months of 2014 the importer margin according to ministry data was 33c per litre.I have spoken to some of the oil companies about this and asked what is going on here and they have said to me: “The retailers make only about 4c per litre at the pump.” The other thing they have said is that they do not trust the ministry data that is coming out. So at some point we need to get a level of transparency and accountability into this process. What I would actually like is the Finance and Expenditure Committee to undertake an inquiry into the price of oil and the margins all the way along that supply chain. The reason I would like to do that is that I believe there are some points along that supply chain where there are super-profits being made—where there are probably monopolistic profits being made—and we have no idea.When the dollar dropped recently within about 3 days the oil companies had raised the price of petrol. They came out and said: “The dollar’s dropped. Our price has gone up.” Well I can tell you that as someone who imported and traded in petrochemicals for about 8 years the signals in this market are very very clear. When the price is going down it is pretty obvious that these guys should be hedging short; when the price is going up they buy long. This is not a rocket science industry; it is a pure commodity. Everyone knows what the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is doing and everyone knows what is coming out of the United States but for some reason New Zealanders have been sucked into the public relations of the oil companies that says that when the price drops they have hedged long. It takes a long way for that to filter through. But when the price increases within a week the price goes up. I do not think that is fair. I do not think that is transparent. I actually think Parliament has a role to play in finding out what is going on.So what we are going to ask the Finance and Expenditure Committee to do is make an inquiry into this and if Chairman Bennett allows this—and I am sure he will because there is no politics in this. This is about good hard-working Kiwis—good hard-working Kiwis of whom I know there are a number in his Hamilton electorate. If we find that there is some skulduggery going on then there will be no hesitation—will there Mr Bishop—over going to the Commerce Commission and saying: “You need to come down on these guys very very hard.”But just to wind up we do support this piece of legislation partly because it does allow us to meet our international commitments which is very important. There are a few concerns we have. They are not major concerns; they are just a few concerns. I think we have outlined them but I will leave my other colleagues to talk about some of those. But yes we will support this bill and see how we go. Thank you very much.MELISSA LEE (National): I am actually very glad that the member Stuart Nash said as he sat down that he did support the bill and that we are in agreement. This bill enhances New Zealand’s ability to cope with international oil supply disruptions and we all know what could trigger that. The National-led Government is committed to improving New Zealand’s oil security through the Business Growth Agenda and an important part of this is the sustainable and user-pays funding of our oil stockholding obligations with the International Energy Agency. Those are the obligations that the previous member was talking about as well.This bill allows for the cost of meeting New Zealand’s oil stockholding treaty obligations under the Agreement on an International Energy Program to be met through an adjustable levy on fuels. New Zealand has a treaty obligation under the Agreement on an International Energy Program to contribute 90 days of net oil imports to the International Energy Agency oil stockholding. The collective stockholding mitigates the market power of oil-producing countries and releasing stock during an International Energy Agency - declared oil supply emergency helps to moderate extreme price spikes.Normal commercial inventories held by oil companies in New Zealand contribute to New Zealand’s obligations. The remainder of the obligation is met through the Crown entering into ticket contracts with oil companies and traders in other International Energy Agency countries. There is an impending rise in the ticket requirement principally due to a forecast decline in domestic oil production in the medium term. Domestic oil production contributes to the stock that New Zealand is required to actually hold in this country therefore a decrease will contribute to the amount of ticket contracts the Government must hold with other Governments that have met their own 90-day obligation of access to oil reserves.The ticket must be backed up by a Government to Government agreement that stipulates that the host country will not impede the release of the stock in the event of an International Energy Agency emergency. To date New Zealand actually has entered into an agreement and has held tickets in Australia Japan the Netherlands Denmark and the United Kingdom. Stockholding costs have previously been funded through general taxation. As the Minister of Energy and Resources has said in his speech this bill allows for the cost to be met instead through the existing petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy.The forecast cost of the current method of meeting New Zealand’s International Energy Agency stockholding obligation—the ticketing regime as such—will not be fully funded by the existing Vote Energy appropriation. In the absence of further intervention New Zealand would become non-compliant with its International Energy Agency treaty obligations. I guess this whole thing is like quitting your insurance premium. It might alleviate some short-term cash flow problems but it does not do anything for your reputation with the bank that holds your mortgage. So non-compliance with New Zealand’s treaty obligation is likely to result in significant damage to New Zealand’s international reputation. I guess that is one of the reasons why the Opposition supports this bill as well—that we have an international obligation. It is likely that a number of New Zealand’s closest partners would perceive New Zealand to be free-riding on the collective international oil security arrangement and would exert pressure on New Zealand to comply as well. Oil security is closely linked to security generally and oil security is a key driver of the foreign and security policies of many International Energy Agency OECD countries. Non-compliance may for example have implications for our trade agreements that are already in existence or trade agreements that we could go into with those countries.What this bill does is shift the ticket cost from general taxation to a levy of 0.113c per litre on fuels which literally amounts to only about 4.5c for a 40 litre tank. The forecast revenue is roughly around $20 million over the next 3 fiscal years. The root cause of the rising cost of our International Energy Agency obligation is the forecast decline in domestic oil production in the medium term as I earlier alluded to. However I think the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment expects that the recent increase in petroleum exploration activities will result in an upturn in domestic oil production in the medium to long term which will result in the downturn of the ticket costs that we have.This bill provides a sustainable funding source for New Zealand’s International Energy Agency oil stockholding obligations and realigns existing funding mechanisms so that oil consumers rather than general taxpayers apportion the cost. It is important. The modern world relies on vast energy supplies to fuel everything from transportation—I know that some members actually do not agree that transportation is actually important to our economy—and also communication to security and health delivery systems. I actually talked earlier in the day about transport delivering for our exporters as well as our manufacturers.Energy plays an important role in the national security of any given country as a fuel to power the economic engine. Petroleum otherwise known as crude oil has become the resource most used by countries all around the world including Russia China and the United States of America. All 28 members of the International Energy Agency hold the minimum of 90 days of their oil imports. This is about our energy security which affects our economic security. As we all know New Zealand’s economy is actually growing. It is performing way better than other countries. Thank God for the National Government for that.This is our commitment to the international agreement that is currently before us. New Zealand is in fact too small to mitigate the international oil supply disruptions on its own. The collective arrangement under the International Energy Agency is our best option for dealing with such disruptions. The ticket we are talking about is about 150000 tonnes of crude oil and refined petroleum products. We have two new Government to Government agreements that have happened in the last 2 years I think and they are with Denmark and Sweden. We have done a lot of work in this area. I commend this bill to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Firstly with your indulgence Mr Deputy Speaker I too would like to acknowledge the absolutely important contribution of Celia Lashlie to our country and to so many parents—mothers—around this country. Growing Gorgeous Boys into Good Men is a book that I have next to my bed. As I have two 14½-year-old boys it is of great importance in learning how to raise them and listen to them and not to be too pushy. Her passing is a loss to our nation and I am really pleased tonight that so many people have acknowledged her.Secondly I would like to express my disappointment that the Minister of Energy and Resources in his speech did not address one—not one—of the issues that were raised during the Committee stage on this bill and there were a number of really important issues that were raised. What that makes me conclude is that the Minister did not even bother to read the Committee stage speeches or even consider some of those important issues which I am going to list here tonight.Thirdly New Zealand takes very seriously its important role as a good international citizen in our part of the global community. What that means is that we have a sense of our place in the world as being independent and sensible and rational and caring. Meeting our obligations with regard to international treaties such as the oil stockholding obligation relating to this bill is just one of many treaty obligations that we take seriously. But we do that with a sense of knowledge thinking and being clear about why we are fulfilling those obligations. As a nation we are not lapdogs and never should we become lapdogs blindly going and following the path of other countries without really thinking through and debating the reasons for doing so. That is an important point to make in the current context. We on this side of the House have no quibble over fulfilling our international obligations with regard to oil stockholding. It is clear that we have to fulfil those obligations. The point of this bill which is not a major piece of legislation is that we are looking at how we can do that better and how we can do that in a way that is more modern and is an updating of legislation.There was quite a lot of discussion at the Commerce Committee. I am one of the few members speaking on this bill who actually sat through the select committee debates on this which I am going to acknowledge were not massive and were not long and ongoing but there were some important questions asked. One of those questions was around the cost of this bill and the impost on petrol costs and whether that would be significant. We were reassured and told very clearly by officials that this would have a very minimal effect on petrol costs.I would like to acknowledge tonight the important contribution that my colleague Stuart Nash has made around announcing that Labour is calling for an immediate inquiry into the way that petrol costs are actually happening and into the supply chain in this country and into who is actually bearing the cost given that the price of oil has actually gone down and we are not seeing the results of that in our own country. So I am just putting on the record and reinforcing what Stuart Nash has said which is that it is critically important that we watch what happens following the passage of this bill and we must ensure that there is no leeway given for oil companies to use this as an excuse to put up costs in this country in any way to halt the reduction in the cost of petrol or to in some way use this bill as a cover for the anti-competitive practices or practices that we would need to consider in an investigation.The other thing that has not happened as the result of this bill—there was a very big opportunity and the Minister unfortunately has not taken that opportunity—was to look at exceptions. During the discussion on this bill it was pointed out that the cost of airline fuel is excluded in the levy that is being collected as a result of this bill. Officials said that international jet fuel is exempt from taxation under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. It is currently 15 percent of New Zealand’s fuel consumption including the fuel used for international transport. Just as an aside we are also not seeing a reduction in the cost of airline travel despite the reduction in the cost of the fuel and that is another issue that I think is important tonight.But the point of saying that is that during the Committee stage of this debate the importance of biofuels as part of the way that New Zealand will produce fuel in the future was touched on. It was touched on in the discussion on the bill but its importance was never acknowledged. An amendment put forward by my colleague Dr Megan Woods to exempt biofuels from this bill was voted down by the Government members across the Chamber. Why they did that was never discussed because we have never had the opportunity to discuss it.The importance of that part of the industry has certainly been acknowledged. In fact the Government has got some investment in biofuels but in terms of using them—in fact I am just going to read you a bit of the officials’ advice here where they said that “[A] way of reducing New Zealand’s net oil import dependency is through greater efficiency of transport and use of alternate fuels such as domestic biofuels and electric vehicles. … The use of biofuels and electric vehicles in the transport sector is increasing from a small base and has potential to meet a greater proportion of transport energy demand in the future.” Well why then was this not used as an incentive for that sector? Why could this bill not have been used as a way of increasing the incentive for that sector?I guess that goes to the heart of another problem that Labour has with this bill which is that there is no “joined-up-ness” about this bill. There is no sense of it forming part of a bigger picture around energy security generally in this country or of developing alternative energy sources. There has been inaction on a wider energy strategy and therefore it is a bill that sits on its own. It is a piecemeal piece of legislation. Labour is supporting it because we support our commitment to meeting our treaty obligations and because we do not have any particular issue with the change in mechanism that is being used for the levy but we do raise issues around the cost of petrol and the bigger picture around that as to why those costs are not coming down why the Government is not looking at that as part of a bigger picture and why there is not a bigger discussion happening about an alternative energy strategy for New Zealand.Those are the big questions in this debate and this discussion. Unfortunately not once has any member of the Government on the select committee or anyone representing the Government who has knowledge of this sector got up and had a discussion about the bigger picture in this area. Now is the time to do that and although we support this bill we are putting that challenge across the House.BRETT HUDSON (National): First I am absolutely delighted at this opportunity to speak on the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill. But before moving on to the substance of the bill let me please join the chorus of sincere condolences on the passing of Celia Lashlie. I think that as an incredibly strong woman she challenged perceived wisdom around how to deal with the challenges of raising children specifically young boys. I think no one could ever accuse Celia of being soft in her approach. If anything she was very very clear and tough in her expectations. Her passing is a sad loss for New Zealand and for her family and I would like to pass my best wishes on to her family.But tonight the matter at hand is indeed the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill. It is very important to honour our obligations and that is what this bill is all about. Our international energy programme obligations are that we have a stockpile of approximately 90 days of fuels to deal with shocks. This Government considers our obligations to be extraordinarily important and we look to honour those so a 90-day stockpile it is.Unlike some news that we received today—some allegations—there are some people perhaps aspiring Labour leaders who do not have quite the same honouring of obligations and 120 days to pay a bill means nothing to them. But we will honour our obligations around our 90-day stockpiling because it is indeed a very very serious business. It will provide some protection from oil shocks.Let me say that those of us who are of advanced enough years can still remember the times in the 1970s when it seemed that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries controlled the world and its choice about production and pricing sent shocks through every developed nation.Chris Bishop: When was that?BRETT HUDSON: That was in the 1970s. Do you remember that? Do you remember the economic conditions of those times Mr Bishop?Chris Bishop: No I don’t.BRETT HUDSON: Well let me touch upon those. It was also a time of Keynesian economics and stagflation.Chris Bishop: Tell us more Dr Hudson.BRETT HUDSON: Well let me tell you it was a time when growth was backwards and inflation was upwards. I do believe it was a Kirk and Rowling Government at the time.One of the implications of those oil shocks of course and one of the weird cases of regulation in the New Zealand economy and society was when we introduced carless days as a means to try to deal with oil supply shocks and price shocks.Chris Bishop: Winston remembers it.BRETT HUDSON: I am sure he does. But what a rort I have to say. You would be struggling to find a single New Zealander who was not able to find a way to get around it but none the less we felt that you could control the world turn time backwards and manage people’s daily lives. We certainly do not want to go back there. We do not want to go back to those economic conditions. We do not want to go back to areas where we have no protection and no buffer against oil shocks.This stockholding will give us some protection. It is just a buffer. It is not going to be a long-term solution but arguably it permits New Zealand to deal with those unexpected and definitely unwanted shocks. Globally the stockpiling is enormous. According to the US energy administration approximately 4.1 billion barrels of oil are held in strategic reserves. That equates to approximately 650 million cubic metres. I tried to find a reference on that wonderful tool Googleas to what 650 million cubic metres would amount to and I could not find anything of any sanity. I found something like 18 times a certain water capacity for a dam but that did not mean a whole lot either. What I think we can say is that it is an extraordinarily large amount of oil to stockpile and it does in fact reinforce just how serious this is across the globe.What we could look at if we are not complying with our obligations is what that would mean for us. For New Zealand a small country that is wholly reliant on trading with other nations I think we can all agree that it would almost certainly damage our international reputation. It has been well established that oil security is a key driver of the foreign and security policies of many OECD countries. In fact another example this one from the 1990s showed a very clear correlation between oil security and oil shock particularly oil pricing shock. I can remember—because in those days I was briefly employed as a petroleum transference engineer occasionally known as a pump jockey or a forecourt attendant—that around that time in the early 1990s we saw petrol rise from just a bit under 90c a litre to well over $1. Kiwis were finding that really really tough.What was driving that was uncertainty around the security of oil supply out of the Persian Gulf at the time. What it established for New Zealand and has become the rule of thumb in fact for all of the intervening years is thatsecurity of oil supply is a huge driver of price and economic performance particularly in our country but also of supply. So we need to make sure that not only do we have our own stockpile to deal with some shocks as might come around but that we do not damage our international reputation to the extent that we might find it a struggle to do business on the same terms that we have been over recent decades.Damaging our international reputation around our oil stockpiling obligation would also have flow-on impacts on our economy without question. As is the case in every developed country oil and oil products are extraordinarily important to what we produce and how we transport it—how we get it to the markets that we want to sell it to. In fact today what we are seeing and we are seeing it in recent times as other members have highlighted is that in actual fact at the moment we are going through a wonderful time where instead of oil prices going up as we have become accustomed to in recent years they have actually gone down markedly.New Zealanders are feeling that in their back pocket in a very very positive way. In fact it is helping in effect to give us record low inflation—some might say even a period of minor deflation but not a bad one. It is not a bad one that will lead to a spiral of unemployment and price decreases but one that is helping.Chris Bishop: Like a tax break.BRETT HUDSON: It is a bit like a tax break Mr Bishop—that is a wonderful way of putting it—and it is a tax break that impacts positively on almost every New Zealander. In fact even New Zealanders who for instance do not own and drive their own cars are probably using public transport and having some consequential benefit there.So it is an extremely good story there. But we cannot take it for granted. We have to do our bit to be a good global citizen. We have to do our bit to meet obviously our obligations. We are too small on our own to mitigate our oil supply disruption potentials. The way we deal with this and it is a very clever way of dealing with it is that we do not put thousands of barrels on a wharf somewhere in New Zealand. No we buy ticket contracts so that we can in fact get an oil supply in the case of a crisis. In fact in 2013 New Zealand successfully tendered for 150000 tonnes of crude oil tickets. In doing so we established two new Government to Government agreements with Denmark and Sweden which help to provide some risk mitigation across the potential suppliers of our oil. That is a very sensible thing to do.I will just go on to the levy. The levy is in fact the fairest way of funding our obligation. Historically we have dealt with this through general taxation. In some senses general taxation seems to make sense to people. We see it in our education system and in our health system. But what it actually meant was that some people who use little or no petroleum products were still being taxed to meet those obligations. What we are proposing now by putting a per litre levy on those fuels is that we actually impose the cost of our obligation on the consumers of the product and that is most certainly the fairest way to do it.Now we have as I have mentioned in the past to my parliamentary colleague in the Green Party Mr Hughes an actual situation where people who choose for instance to take public transport such as buses—and they may be diesel buses or electric transport such as Wellington’s fine electric trains—are not being hit in effect by a taxation if you will direct or indirect to pay for those obligations. That is a far more sensible way of both meeting our obligations and fairly discharging those obligations or charging for those across our society.There is even more good news though because we can potentially offset some of our obligations through domestic oil production. Our block offer position proposals and the amendments to the Crown minerals regime are going to continue to encourage exploration and harnessing of our oil potential. We cannot know today what those finds might bring exactly because like many things in New Zealand—our country our resources our people—we produce high-quality commodities and high-quality products not to mention our extremely high-quality people. An example of this is aluminium. When the smelter was going great guns as it was for many years it was producing some of the finest grade aluminium in the world. Our Invercargill smelter Tīwai Point was basically producing the aluminium hard-disk drives for the world. Our oil is very similar. Our oil is very high grade. What it means is that we can sell it on the global market for a higher price and that gives us another way of finding funds to meet our obligations. So this is a highly commendable bill. It is very sensible it is very pragmatic it is very practical and I commend it to the House.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to share the condolences of other members for Celia Lashlie. I would like to acknowledge her passing and I send my love to her friends and whānau. I think it is quite clear that she was someone who made our country a better place and I think that if that is the least you can say about anyone it is an amazing achievement they havemade.To draw the two issues together one of her most remarkable feats and one that has had an influence on Kiwis’ lives is the book Growing Gorgeous Boys into Good Men. Reflecting on when I was a boy in high school—and talking about oil which is what this legislation is about—I have got to say that I burnt my fair share of oil up and down Gladstone Road which is Gisborne’s main street. There are a lot of first-term members in the House who may not be aware of this but my passion in high school was my red Mark I Ford Escort. It was lowered it had mag wheels and we had modified the engine. I loved it. So I burnt my fair share of oil driving up and down the main street every Friday night.I am the first to acknowledge oil’s important role in our economy. I used to love nothing better than getting my hands dirty in oil. It was such a bad car to be honest I learnt very fast that you had to work on the engine. In the end I was able to change a gearbox and even a motor not very well but it was still a great experience. I learnt mechanical skills which are so important in our economy.What we know is that oil is the lifeblood of our modern economy. It does not mean that it always will be. It definitely has not always been but it is the situation we find ourselves in now. When you look across the last four decades every major recession or depression has been preceded by a global oil shock.The Green Party supports this bill. We support oil security and having the oil stock ticket system as part of the international arrangement to deal with oil price shortages but I do want to pick up on a couple of points.The first point is from the last member Brett Hudson. He said that the answer to increasing our security and resiliency is to drill for more oil. That is logically inconsistent because what we know is that our oil grade is a totally different type from what we can refine. Even if we found a whole bunch of oil—and despite Simon Bridges’ best endeavours they are still looking—we could not refine it in the current refinery.Brett Hudson: We can sell it.GARETH HUGHES: Even if we found it and they tried to sell it—that is right—we would still be selling it at the global market price. This does not increase our security.The fact is that there is a live debate about what is the best way to pay for the oil security of offshore oil stocks. Should it be stored in New Zealand? I think there is a valid argument. It is a little bit more expensive but we could be guaranteed that the supply would be assured. Should biofuels be allowed as Z Energy has contended and which the Green Party supported—and which sadly the Government members voted against both in the select committee and in the House?What we know is that this security stock has a cost. We know the cost is rising to around $15 million I believe in the 2016-17 financial year. Who is going to pay for it? At the moment it is paid for out of general taxation and the Green Party believes that it is fair in this case that costs fall where they lie. We like the idea that there is transparency—that those people using oil are paying their fair share. There is the equity argument that Mr Hudson talked about which is that those who are taking our fantastic electric trains or buses in Wellington and who are not using oil do not have to pay for it. That is sending a market signal a price signal and incentivising it. I am not saying that it is a large market signal but it is a market signal all the same. This is what the Green Party supports. We have been open about saying that markets have their role in the economy. We think price signals have an important role in a smart Green transition to a greener economy because at the moment those externalities—those costs—are being paid by anyone and no one has that economic incentive to invest in efficient vehicles for example.The analogy I would like to use when it comes to this bill—although supporting it—is that New Zealand is an oil addict. We are one of the most oil-dependent economies in the Western World. It is incredible. We have got one of the oldest vehicle fleets in the developed world. We drive some of the longest kilometres with some of the fewest passengers in some of the oldest least efficient cars in the world. Despite our amazing—and we should celebrate it—three-quarters renewable electricity production when it comes to oil we are still one of the most oil-dependent economies in the world. The analogy is that we are like an alcoholic. When it comes to an alcoholic’s security of getting the next drink with this legislation it is just like an alcoholic storing some bottles at a mate’s place—a place where they know they can always get some bottles. What you should be doing if you are an addict be it an oil addict or an alcoholic is getting treatment acknowledging you have a problem and finding strategies to reduce consumption. What the climate scientists—the doctors—urge us to do is to reduce our consumption to as close to zero as possible.The major missed opportunity of this legislation is that biofuels—sustainable clean biofuels—are still going to get lumped with the same charge. That entirely negates the economic price signals that we should be sending through having a fair transparent mechanism which is what this legislation tries to do—that is costs should fall where they lie when it comes to paying for the oil stocks overseas. To keep the alcoholism analogy going imagine if as part of their treatment the alcoholic was not storing bottles of alcohol at their mate’s place but that they did in fact have better healthier alternatives there so that when they went around to their friend’s house there was something good there that would not lead them to drink. This principle is why we should be encouraging biofuels. It would increase our resiliency it would reduce our dependency on oil and lastly there are all the associated subsidiary benefits of producing jobs developing our regional economy and boosting the national economy.Looking at this legislation we have to ask ourselves why it is in front of the House. Why has this bill been identified by the Government as such an urgent piece of action? This is a great example of third-term tinkering. The Government has run out of ideas. Where is the big picture to deal with the serious strategic and economic challenge of our oil dependency? This is all that the Government has come up with. When we have so many solutions available when technology is changing the world so rapidly and when disruptive technology is having such an impact already National is looking at the small picture.We are a country that imports $8 billion of oil per annum. Effectively the income from our entire tourism sector one of our biggest income earners just gets the oil to New Zealand. It is incredible that a country that is as well-developed as smart and as entrepreneurial as ours is wasting the entire tourism sector income on oil imports. We should be having a discussion on how we grow jobs how we boost the economy and how we do more with less oil.The fact is that we have a huge number of solutions available to us which I want to run through very quickly. We have the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. New Zealand has just imported almost more cars than we have since the early 1970s—it is a record during my lifetime—yet we are still importing relatively fuel-inefficient Japanese imports. We could be doing so much more by upping our fuel economy standards as America Japan and Europe have done which would save the entire country money would save consumers money and would also reduce the hundreds of deaths that are caused by particulate pollution from oil.When it comes to electric vehicles we have a huge opportunity as a country to use our clean green renewable electricity to power our vehicle fleet. For the cost of the oil stocks we could be rolling out a national network of fast-charging stations. There are more Ladas on our road than there are electric cars. There is a chicken and an egg problem. People are not buying electric cars because there are not the charging stations and people are not installing the charging stations at cafes or supermarkets or malls because people are not driving electric cars. There is a chicken and an egg problem. But when you look around the world the growth is phenomenal particularly in countries such as the US and Norway.For the cost of this oil ticket system and security we could be rolling out a State highway network for the 21st century with fast-charging stations. We could be helping New Zealanders get into electric cars. The equivalent of the price of a tank of petrol—you know say 80 or 100 bucks—is about $2.50 in an electric car. We could be rolling out public transport across the country such as what we had in today’s Dominion Post in Wellington which was a five-point plan for better cleaner cheaper buses and the central business district rail link for Auckland. We could be reinvesting in our regional rail network and in cycle infrastructure so that people could cycle aroundsafely. We have got such clean-energy potential—be it solar which is growing at 330 percent in the last 2 years through to wind where there is more than 2000 megawatts just waiting to be built—and we would have the potential to grow jobs and save money and reduce the current account deficit by having an oil reduction plan.When you look across the country there are many many businesses and councilsthat have oil reduction plans and when you look across the world there are militaries and Governments that have oil reduction plans but all we have—and we heard it from Brett Hudson—is an oil production plan. It is time for less third-term tinkering. It is time for some big solutions that are going to make a real difference. That is why despite supporting this bill tonight the Green Party is going to be putting the case to New Zealanders that we can tackle climate change we can grow jobs we can reduce oil imports and we can give people more options to get around the way they want to. Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): May I add my personal commiserations to the family of Celia Lashlie. I have fond memories of working with her as a high school teacher at Rotorua Boys’ High School for an extended period of time as she was developing her book. This is indeed sad news. I do wish to send on behalf of New Zealand First our condolences to her family. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill. I have been sitting here this evening with building frustration at the supposed solutions to this supposed problem. It seems like a short-sighted and naive attempt to fix a problem we do not actually have. This bill seeks to amend the purpose and the amount of petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy that is currently provided for under the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 in section 24. Let us be very very clear. New Zealand First agrees with the obligations to meet our international energy commitments and respects the commitment to improve our oil security. That is a treaty obligation but it is also a common-sense mandate that this country must seek. Some of the members spoke quite eloquently about the secure supply of oil. It is essential.However we currently do meet our obligations through some small stocks held domestically but more significant we currently hold a large amount of so-called tickets to meet our obligations. We have been told that the cost of these ticket obligations is going up. There is a current decrease in the domestic production of oil but as the Minister himself alluded to the exploration activity albeit it in some marine reserves at any given time has increased quite significantly and the aim is to increase domestic production. What I would question and I would ask the Minister is: the select committee was told that the ticket price is increasing but what is the situation with the ticket price currently? We know that we also need to increase the volume of stocks. We are using more oil as alluded to by our Green MP and our fleet is growing. New Zealand First does not dispute any of these facts. We know that we are highly dependent on these stocks and to run out of fuel for whatever reason would be devastating for our domestic economy. To suggest that we should not comply with our international obligations would be inappropriate.But here is where the frustration kicks in on the part of our party. There are so many alternative actions that could be taken rather than just adding another tax on to the New Zealand motorist. We are told that the Vote Energy budget is now insufficient. Why is it insufficient now? Why do we not increase the budget? It is a simple question. I will come back to that point later. What has the Minister actually done to establish whether or not the ticket prices forecast by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment are still increasing? What is the current ticket price? We currently have huge surpluses of oil being manufactured in the US and Canada right now. It is one of the leading determinants of the world retail price at the moment. Also we are informed that the ministry responsible did investigate and did determine that the cost of holding physical stocks in New Zealand was prohibitive.The Minister himself spoke rather eloquently about the need for security. Some of the other National MPs actually spoke really well about the need for secure supply. I put it to the House tonight that the tickets are not necessarily going to be that secure supply that we could necessarily rely on in case of some world crisis that would necessitate the need to leverage our tickets with regard to our 90-day stocks. It does not hold well in my mind. We spoke about these treaty obligations in the Committee of the whole House and we were assured by some of the members that we had treaty obligations with these partners but if they are running out of oil themselves what is their motivation to send oil to New Zealand on the other side of the world? I again question whatthe situation was in terms of asking our oil companies to make that capital investment to hold physical stocks. I know it would be expensive. I acknowledge that. But as I noted in an earlier speech to the House on this issue it is an unusual situation in terms of oil prices such that I genuinely believe that the oil companies could take on much of that cost themselves without having to burden New Zealand motorists with that additional cost that it is argued would be implemented if we were to ask them to take that on.The climate in which this legislation was written has changed and the questions of cost could be reviewed. Does this not give us some time now I would suggest so that we could address the issue of the Vote Energy budget? The reason for this question is that I question the National Government’s supposed motivation for this legislation and the user-pays issue. I question how a crisis that restricts the supply of oil to New Zealand to our country is just an issue for New Zealand motorists. One of the National MPs spoke earlier tonight about how this would be a national disaster if we were not getting our oil and if we did not hold these stocks. How is that just the issue of the New Zealand motorist? In fact the legislation which we are currently seeking to add to speaks to National’s historical acknowledgment that this is an issue for all New Zealanders and not just New Zealand motorists. This burden of supposed “user pays” is in New Zealand First’s mind unfair and unnecessary.The solution to add another tax to New Zealand road users—we currently already have one of the highest levy or tax regimes on oil in the developed world paying 67c per litre on petrol. So at the current price that seems to be I mean an unsustainable component of the retail price. What I suggested earlier and I take this opportunity to suggest again is that currently we have this levy we have all of the other levies that our motorists are burdened with and they currently pay GST on it. What was this committee’s or the Minister’s motivation around—well how about we look at how we could fund this problem our commitments to our international obligations through existing taxation? We have a tax on a tax. Why not look at making good use of that?As noted earlier by one of the members on this side of the House the wording speaks about how the levy may be used for the purposes outlined in this bill. It also speaks about the Minister’s responsibilities to consult and it speaks about his ability to consult with those people whom he would choose to consult with. New Zealand First has a strong opposition to that particular part of the legislation. If New Zealanders want to consult on tax especially petrol tax they are well within their right under our democratic process to come to this Parliament and give their voice on a tax that they are obliged to pay.Also to finish it is with some reservations that we note that although numbers were given to this House on what the levy may be and a formula was suggested it is also within the purview of the Minister to set the rate himself. Then on top of that it was acknowledged earlier also that the length of the imposition of the levy is such that we could have paid our commitments off with regard to our international obligations but continue to impose this levy on the New Zealand motorists. It makes no sense it is open-ended and it is completely unfortunate. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First tonight to oppose this nonsensical legislation. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the third reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill. The fact is that each nation needs to ensure that it can cater to its energy demand without being reliant on others. We in New Zealand too would like to be energy independent in case there is some kind of disruption in supply. This National-led Government wants to ensure that New Zealand’s ability to deal with any disruption internationally gets enhanced.New Zealand’s oil demand has grown steadily since the mid-1980s and has been driven by the demand for transportation fuel such as petrol diesel and jet fuel. Along with the encouraging further exploration and production of oil in New Zealand we can also make oil imports from many secure countries. As New Zealand is too small to mitigate international oil supply disruption on its own the collective arrangement under the International Energy Agency is our best option for dealing with such disruptions.New Zealand currently fulfils its oil stocking obligation by entering into the ticket contract with oil companies and other traders. In 2013 New Zealand successfully tendered for a ticket for about 150000 tonnes of crude oil and refined petroleum products and secured two new Government to Government agreements with Denmark and Sweden increasing the pool of potential suppliers we can look to. When we returned to Government we made a promise to improve New Zealand’s conditions for businesses whether small or large. Like any competitive nation if we are serious about a more competitive and productive economy we need to ensure that we have energy resources to sustain. As these are matters of national importance we want to put forward this legislation to the House which will ensure we are able to fund our energy requirements in a sustainable manner. We want to ensure that New Zealand sticks to its oil stockholding under the International Energy Agency’s obligations.The International Energy Agency provides a critical mechanism for conditional international energy responses among 29 member countries to oil market disruption as well as timely market data. We also want to ensure that our stockholdings are based on the user-pays model. The purpose of having stockholdings is to create balance against the power of large oil-producing nations as well as creating global oil security. Furthermore we are part of the International Energy Agency. We have mitigation measures in place to protect New Zealand and its trading partners from economic harm as a result of volatile situations. With the demand for energy resources such as oil increasing day by day it is vital to ensure that our sources will import oil and that agencies are secure. Of course as a responsible Government we are taking every step to facilitate exploration for oil and gas locally.We also continue to advocate energy efficiency. However as I said earlier energy pricing and consumption are both volatile. The current fuel monitoring levy charged by the Government covers the costs of monitoring fuel quality and the cost charged by the International Energy Agency. By way of legislation we are trying to ensure that the levy fulfils the Crown’s oil stockholding obligation with the International Energy Agency. The purpose behind this as mentioned earlier is to create sustainable funding that is paid for by the users of the service.The last context is to fulfil New Zealand’s financial commitments for ensuring global oil security. By doing so we are securing constant supply of transport fuel. One side benefit the bill also delivers is that those who choose to use public transport will end up paying less compared with those who continue to drive their cars. So apart from adding the New Zealand energy security the bill protects the environment too.The bill is now in its third reading. It was considered by the Commerce Committee of which I am honoured to be a member. The committee has made minor amendments to the bill which we firmly believe will help New Zealand.One important point I would like to share with those who may contemplate opposing this bill is that New Zealand is part of the international community. By not complying with the International Energy Agency’s obligations we are risking our reputation. Further any nation State’s foreign policy is driven by the need for energy. A decision needs to be made keeping in mind our energy needs. By keeping us as part of an international agreement we are being realistic in recognising that as a small nation State we may not be in a position to mitigate any disruption in the international oil supply. However by being a part of a collective agreement we have chosen the best possible option of ensuring that we are able to meet our energy needs.The need for the legislation arose from the 2012 review that this National-led Government undertook. Based on the review we decided that the most cost-effective way for New Zealand to meet its obligation was to implement the user-pays model. Apart from being prepared for international volatility in terms of oil and gas the Government has got the Business Growth Agenda and the Petroleum Action Plan to facilitate and encourage local production. The amendments made by us to the Crown mineral regime and the block offer process will continue to encourage New Zealand to look to our petroleum potential.This National-led Government is committed to realising our abundant energy resources potential to help our economy increase exports and create jobs while ensuring that we develop these resources in a safe and environmentally responsible way. As a member of the Commerce Committee I am grateful to the officials and the submitters who contributed to this legislation. As I said in my speech earlier these are matters of national importance and every New Zealander should engage in them. It is only due to the feedback that we received from all the submitters that we can ensure that this sound legislation can be put in place.Finally all of us have said earlier that this New Zealand-led Government is serious about ensuring that New Zealand’s economy and its people continue to grow and enjoy the lifestyle that we have always had. This bill is another example of positive legislation that we have for New Zealand and its citizens. With these words I commend this bill to the House.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I just wanted once again to reiterate that the Labour Party is supporting this piece of legislation the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill because we feel it is important that we fulfil our obligations under the treaty. Rather than going on about how much this is putting on to a litre of petrol which is about 0.045c I say that it is not significant unlike what New Zealand First was saying. It means that if you have a tank of gas of about 60 or 70 litres you are going to be paying about 3c extra for that tank. Now you might say: “Well that’s another tax.” and you would be absolutely right. But I think what most people in New Zealand are most concerned about is not about this which is about fulfilling our obligations—and is effectively an insurance policy to ensure that we have and continue to have petrol available to us even if there is some world price shock or some sort of manipulation of the market—but about the fact that yesterday prices of petrol went up 4c a litre overall when the price of oil per barrel actually went down $3.I am asking the same question as all other New Zealanders. They are very thankful about the fact that petrol prices have dropped around 50c a litre over the last few months because of the abundance of oil shale oil and all the other issues surrounding what is happening out there in the global market. But really the question is why petrol prices have now gone up 20c from the low they reached a few weeks ago when actually the margins of profit that the oil companies are making are still the same or have even grown. This is something that I believe is in people’s minds and I think it will become more acutely embedded in people’s minds as prices continue to go up. People cannot understand why prices can possibly go up even taking into account the fact that there are taxes on petrol because the taxes are not changing at all. But the price is going up even though the price of oil is going down and the New Zealand dollar has not moved substantively over that time.Stuart Nash in his address this evening talked about the need for an inquiry into the price of our petrol and why it costs so much and I would like to say that as the consumer affairs spokesperson that is absolutely needed and it is what New Zealanders are looking for from this Government. They actually want to see some leadership in standing up for people who are filling up their cars every day in order to get to work. They are thankful for the prices going down but now they see those savings that put a little more money in their pockets being eroded day by day as in when the price per litre went up by 4c today without any real justification for that price increase. That is wrong and we need to have an inquiry. If nothing else that inquiry would at least satisfy people that they are getting a good deal—or not—and we can have that out and it can all be made public.I want to commend the AA—the Automobile Association not Alcoholics Anonymous—for the good work that it has done in this particular area because it has been keeping an eye on this. It is a neutral observer. Obviously it is on the side of motorists but certainly it has been watching this carefully. To paraphrase its spokesperson just the other day it cannot understand why the price of diesel has gone up when the margin that oil companies are making per litre is about 35c. How is it that that price can go up when they have already got very comfortable profit margins from diesel? That increase has an effect right across our industries and our businesses.Coming back to where we are in this bill as I said before the increase in levy that we are putting through—yes at the behest of the Minister of Energy and Resources; the Minister can determine what the price is going to be—is about 0.045c per litre. From the Labour Party’s point of view of course we do not want to see any additional burden being placed on motorists but what this burden is for is a levy that is taken out of general taxation—it would have otherwise come out of your taxes—and is being shifted across and applied to fuel so that effectively the user pays in terms of who actually pays this levy.As many of the other speakers have said tonight this is part of our international obligation. We want to have a stockpile of at least 90 days of fuel that is there in case as somebody mentioned tonight some of the oil-producing countries decide to put the price of oil up. We have at least 90 days in which to see through that shock and mitigate and do something about that shock rather than feel it in our economy. We could actually store it physically in New Zealand but the cost of doing that is actually pretty exorbitant. What we have chosen to do instead is buy tickets or promissory notes if you like that say that out there our oil in various multifarious places will be secured and if we need to draw on it we can draw down 90 days’ supply. To ensure that that is guaranteed and maintained we sign a treaty. We sign the Agreement on an International Energy Program and that ensures that the tickets that we purchased are actually able to be redeemed when we do need that oil. For that service we pay a price and it is that price that we are talking about today because up to now that bill has been met through general taxation—Vote Energy. The proposition in this bill is to ensure that that money instead is coming out of a levy that will be levied on petrol.There are a couple of issues around here that I want to mention because although we agree with the way this is occurring there are some exceptions. There are some exceptions and some anomalies that I believe need to be addressed. For example air transport—jet fuel is exempt. Fuel oil is exempt. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is exempt. Bitumen is exempt—bitumen of course coming from tar etc. coming from oil products. What is not exempt—and I believe this is a major anomaly; it has been talked about—is biofuels and ethanol.The biofuels and ethanol industry is an industry where we have considerable added advantage in New Zealand. The great work that is being done by Scion in Rotorua with what we could do with tree waste with forestry waste in terms of generating ethanol and biofuels—just taking this levy off those products at least gives an indication that we are serious about supporting those particular industries in New Zealand. Instead we have neglected to do that. Yet we provide exceptions in fuel oil jet fuel oil LPG and bitumen. That does not seem right. Dr Megan Woods from the Labour Party put up Supplementary Order Paper 45 to rectify that to make sure that biofuels and ethanol would be exempt. It was voted down by the Government. That really reflects where this Government is going. It is a Government that looks over its shoulder at what is behind it and not forward in thinking what is going to be driving our economy in the future—and it is about those biofuels.Once again I want to come back to where I started. This is a very small amount of money to be applied to the cost of a litre of petrol. It does provide us with security and I believe that that is important but we are not seeing right now the price of petrol coming down as it should be as the price of oil falls. And the price of other products—plastics bitumen road tar etc.—is not coming down as well. We should be seeing a decrease in the price of those oil-based products running right through the economy. In fact that is not happening. There needs to be an inquiry and that is why—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I want to thank members of the House for their speeches tonight which have been very exciting I must admit in regard to this bill.Hon Member: Oh seriously.DAVID BENNETT: Yes including—Hon Member: Especially the last one.DAVID BENNETT: Especially the last speech which was so exciting that the member is now seeking to have another call. This bill as members have said tonight is about providing security for New Zealand’s supply of fuel. Everybody would want to see that happen because as net fuel importers New Zealanders are at the whim of the international market and especially the international supply in the market.Dr David Clark: There’ll be an inquiry at FEC. I can see it.DAVID BENNETT: That member over there the red jacket member of the Labour Party is not dressed in his normal attire tonight but I am sure he will come back once a year with his happy-go-lucky jacket which we like to see. He is into his seventh year of chanting now and we look to him for 11 years of chanting which that member is known for in this House.This is an important bill in the sense that oil supply is something that New Zealanders understand and want to guarantee. This is about an international convention basically where countries have come together and decided that with unity of supply by purchasers they can regulate and control any action that sellers may take with this product trying to dictate supply on the market. That is a very important approach to take especially when you consider that most of the supply comes from regions of the world that are very delicately placed at the moment and have Governments that are in some kind of trouble of one form or another.When we look at the bill we see that all it doesiseffectively shift the cost of that ticketing process. Currently the ticketing which is basically ensuring that you have that supply held at some point is now paid for through the consolidated fund. Basically for every tax dollar you pay a portion of that goes to making sure we have a base supply through this agreement. The change that this bill makes is to reflect that cost in the cost of fuel for the consumer. Rather than central government paying through its central government fund it would do it through the fuel cost for consumers.There are a couple of points we need to discuss in that area. One of them is just what the last member raised about the conjecture around the pricing between international fuel prices and the domestic market. There can be a variety of reasons for that. Although you may see some commodity products reduce in price that does not necessarily reflect in the price of that end value-added product that you get reducing to the same effect because there are a lot of intermediary manufacturing processes shipping processes and the like that do not change to the same degree and that can influence the price differential. So there are a lot of factors in regard to the point that Mr Nash made that need to be taken into account. You can see that in your milk price. That is another indication of a commodity that has had a reduction but the value-added side of it does not necessarily have a reduction in cost. The other—Dr David Clark: Spot the farmer.DAVID BENNETT: Yes well that is the reality of someone who actually produces something in this country not of somebody who sits there and talks about how to transfer money around.The Green Party came into this House and actually supported this bill. It is unique for its members to actually support a Government bill. We thank them for that and may that be a sign of many more things to come. I notice they never mentioned peak oil. When we came into this House 10 years ago every Green speech was about peak oil—“You need to be worried about peak oil. The world’s supply of oil is going to stop.” In fact the world’s supply of oil was supposed to have stopped about now under the Green philosophy. Now we get the Green Party coming in and telling us what the future of the world energy supply will look like. Well it never got it right then it will not get it right now and we do not need that economic plan from the Green Party to come in front of us.The other side is that New Zealand First—and I would not be smiling if I were in New Zealand First—is the only party that is opposing this bill. The neo-communist economic ideology of the New Zealand First Party is something we need to take into account here.Clayton Mitchell: Mr Bennett seriously.DAVID BENNETT: Yes neo-communists—that is what you are; yes. The New Zealand First Party just does not know why it is opposing it. I think Fletcher Tabuteau in his speech sort of talked about it and said: “Well maybe it’s because the Government has to fund it or maybe it’s because the consumer has to fund it.” Maybe there were some other reasons. What were those other reasons?Clayton Mitchell: I said “Very eloquently put.” unlike the waffle that we’re hearing.DAVID BENNETT: “Very eloquently put.” Well Clayton Mitchell did not actually answer it but I can tell you what Fletcher Tabuteau said. He said he wanted the consolidated account of New Zealand the Government of New Zealand to pay not the consumer. That is what New Zealand First is saying in this case. It is the only party in this Parliament saying that. The Labour Party and the Green Party do not agree with New Zealand First in this case and good on them. They actually see the advantage to what we are doing in this bill. There are a lot of reasons that New Zealand First will be taking that approach. It is really just the shallowness of its economic thinking that is probably the fundamental reason. Its attraction to oppose anything is probably the other main reason and its negativity and inability to consider wider issues are probably other reasons that New Zealand First is taking the approach it is.Members of Parliament we have a bill in front of us today that essentially enables New Zealand to sustain its obligations under the international treaty. The way it does that under this bill is to actually pay for that through the consumer through that excise levy rather than through the Government spending money from its consolidated account. That is something that members in this Parliament have considered and decided is in the best interests of New Zealanders going forward.When we look at the global oil supply it is changing. America is now self-sufficient if not a major producer and exporter of energy. The world price of energy has dropped markedly in the sense of that raw commodity product. The value-added product we get is maybe somewhat different. This international obligation we are part of really has at the heart of it a focus on maintaining supply for crude oil. The last speaker from the Labour Party mentioned other types of oil-based products and a lot of those are very value-added specific products. The international obligations are really aimed at countries trying to take advantage of the crude oil supply to try to change that market rather than those more specific value-added products which often are not made in those countries of origin. They export the crude oil and then that is converted into the value-added types of energy products you see. So that may be an answer to the question the Opposition raised around why there are certain exemptions for different types of products. I see a member over there smiling because he is learning something. It is good for him to actually learn in this House.Dr David Clark: Always sitting at the feet of the chair of FEC.DAVID BENNETT: Yes yes. This is a bill that all parties in this House should support. It is a shame that our neo-communists from the New Zealand First Party do not support it. It is good to see the Green Party come to its senses and support it even though it is well off track in its desire to see this as a debate around wider energy issues rather than actually looking at the reality of what New Zealand industry and the economy are based on and their need for the basic crude oil that we have at the moment in our economy. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The member resuming his seat David Bennett made a few laconic remarks and I wish to engage with one or two things. I understand he is a little defensive certainly around the petrol pricing issue where an inquiry is being sought. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee he will have the job of receiving that request and dealing with it fairly. Perhaps the pressure of that is getting to him and making him a little looser-tongued than he otherwise would be. He may also be a little defensive right now.There are other issues that are harming his electorate. Of course there is the Skycity deal which is taking jobs away from Hamilton—from the convention centre industry there. A no longer iconic international centre is proposed but it is one that is competing more in the domestic market. So he will be feeling the pinch and a few loose remarks may result but those things can be put to one side as we talk about the bill that is focused on meeting our international obligations in respect of petroleum reserves the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill.This bill is one that we will be supporting. It is one that makes some sensible steps forward but one of course that we have a few concerns about too. The rising cost of meeting this treaty obligation is something that Labour is concerned about. The cost of petrol of filling up the car at the end of the week is something that New Zealanders feel very directly. This does impose a cost on consumers and that cost must be minimised because after all as a society we want everybody to have access to transport and have the ability to move around and participate in society and we do not want people excluded by unnecessary price increases in petrol. Of course that is why Stuart Nash has put forward this proposal that petrol prices be looked into.The bill itself has that international stockholding treaty obligation it is trying to meet. New Zealand does pride itself on being a good international citizen. Having these kinds of stockholdings also increases the stability of the world markets when responsible countries have stocks in place. We know that energy and politics around energy is a volatile thing. It is a good thing that there are international agreements and treaties to make sure that countries do not find themselves in vulnerable positions.I think there is also a concern around the price signals that are sent here more broadly in terms of energy and energy policy. In a previous life I worked at Treasury on the emissions trading scheme which aimed to—[Interruption] I am not that old I think the member was meaning and it cannot have been a previous life. I was working on the emissions trading scheme. We in New Zealand introduced the first all-sectors all-gases scheme in the world. It was meant to send a signal around fossil fuel prices and give certainty to business about the future path that energy prices would take so that businesses could be sure that in the future renewables were going to be rewarded. And in fact at the time a bill was also passed to ensure that new generation—what is called baseload—would not be from anything but renewable sources and that fossil fuel generation would be outlawed except as spinning reserve in emergencies. This Government got rid of the Act as soon as it came into Government. It was less concerned about price signals ironically than one might think a party that talks a lot about markets would be.At the same time the Government also got rid of the biofuels sales obligation which saw the biofuels industry that was emerging in New Zealand flee the country. That is very sad because New Zealand was on a path to having itself well positioned to take advantage of the renewable resources that we have here to lead the world in new technologies and then to export the intellectual property with that. Instead we saw those industries flee the country as the Government gave more certainty to the oil industry that their interests would be protected.Once again here we are talking about the rising costs and this gives yet more of a buffer for the oil industry where the prices are higher overall and the margins as they come and go are less noticeable. That is of concern because the price signal is something that I would like to come back to and that I would like to see clearly laid out so that we actually have transparent and efficient markets working around fuels more generally.What we know of course is that these energy resources are abundant in New Zealand—the alternatives—and they do compete with petrol when the markets are efficient and in place and working. Things like solar-distributed generation can replace generation from the old-fashioned diesel generators. When geothermal is tapped we have more baseload generation. That means fossil fuels do not need to be tapped into. Likewise in New Zealand we know that most of our major cities on the coastlines have access to wind. There will be a few things here that will be challenging for the Government to get its head around I am sure. Solar may be a challenge to think about in the future because in Auckland the huge shadow cast by the iconic Skycity gambling structure may be putting more clouds on the horizon ruling out thinking of a sunny future there to compete with the oil industry.With that light-hearted comment aside there are great opportunities there and I really think it would be wonderful if the Government was thinking more about those broader price signals as it thinks about our international obligations and with them the climate change obligations that were signalled in the emissions trading scheme I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. We still have those international obligations. Although the emissions trading scheme has been watered down by this Government and does not send the price signal it once did we still have those obligations. The principle of meeting our international obligations is an important one across this legislation as it is across other legislation.That comes back to the concern about our international reputation. New Zealand trades in world markets. We are very proud of that. We are an exporting country and we want to export more as a country so that we can enjoy the prosperity we have now into the future. If we have a diminished international reputation and a diminished ability to trade we will be poorer as a country over time relative to competing countries in the export markets that we participate in.Our other concerns around growing alternative sources of fuel and the international reputation that goes with that I have mentioned. The lack of alternatives that comes with that for businesses for their own business planning and the implications that might have for their prosperity into the future—and with it ours—means that this energy security issue is a serious issue that we do well to debate here. It has been debated. It is something that affects our future prosperity not just in an abstract way but in a very real way as businesses do contingency planning and work out their margins and so on. We want efficient businesses competing in international markets secure in the knowledge that they have the energy sources that they need.So as I said at the beginning we on the Labour side of the House will be supporting this legislation despite our concerns about the rising fuel prices that will go with it. We think that the overall good means that this bill should go through. We think the Government could be doing other things to address those prices like the very sensible suggestion Stuart Nash has of an inquiry into petrol prices. David Shearer raised the issue of transparency in electricity bills which the Electricity Authority supported again in the same general market area. Those kinds of things should be explored. At the moment it feels very much like we have a Government that instead of focusing on those issues is distracted and mired in controversy. The Skycity saga drags on and on and there have been others like Rio Tinto and Novopay before it. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Andrew Bayly—5 minutes.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I am very pleased to be able to rise to support the Minister of Energy and Resources in this third reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill. For me it is a very easy decision and I note that it is great that a number of members from the Opposition do in fact support the thrust of this bill including the members from Labour and interestingly from the Greens which is fabulous. As many of you have noted previously this bill is all about New Zealand meeting its international obligations. We cannot and should not contemplate welshing on our obligations as a State. You do not have to go back too far in history to see when New Zealand was worried about having sufficient physical quantities of oil.At this juncture I want to acknowledge the great New Zealand oil industry most of it centred on the Taranaki region. This region is generating significant amounts of foreign earnings and it is to be commended. That industry generates a lot of jobs and supports a growing New Zealand economy. However although our products that we produce are of high value they are not the right type. That is why we need to look at how we offset that. This bill is about doing that. We need to address the imbalance. The sheer fact is that we need to look for commitments around protecting 150000 tonnes of crude oil and refined products every year.The smart thing about this bill is that we are actually entering into good and innovative procurement processes. Entering into ticketing arrangements means that we get the oil requirements that we need in a proper manner. We have also set in place physical back-to-back arrangements with State Governments and I note that we previously have worked with the Governments of Denmark and Sweden. This is all about reducing our actual risks around these supplier arrangements which is good business.Specifically the bill covers three aspects. First of all it provides for the purpose of the fuel monitoring levy to be extended to quite legitimately cover or meet the Crown’s compliant costs. Secondly it removes the present maximum levy. Thirdly it allows for the levy rate to be set by an Order in Council. Personally I cannot contemplate what would happen if New Zealand did not have sufficient oil reserves. As a Government we have been increasingly focused on other forms of energy. I do note the previous speakers who have talked about the wonderful creative New Zealanders who have been looking at alternative biofuels whether they have been ethanol or tallow based or the good work that has been going on at Scion around timber products. All that is exciting stuff and it shows the dynamism and the inventiveness of New Zealand scientists. But in essence this is about protecting the fuel that we require for our transport industry which is still significant and fundamental. If we do not pass this bill and put in place the adequate measures that we have talked about today then we are undermining the essential element for the well-being and continued growth of the New Zealand economy. I fully commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Smith—5 minutes.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): First of all I would like to mark the passing of Celia Lashlie as has been done by colleagues earlier in the evening. As a father of teenagers I certainly was one of those people who took a lot of note of what she said. She has left her mark on New Zealand and will be long remembered.The Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill is a very important bill and I would like to start by just challenging what was said earlier in the evening about the price and calling for an inquiry into the price of fuel.Carmel Sepuloni: What’s going on? Filibustering going on over there.STUART SMITH: I think if we want to talk a little bit about fuel running out we can hear what happens when an engine runs low on fuel with that spluttering coming from the other side of the House—running quite roughly.As I said price has actually got a lot to do with exchange rates. It has to do with the price of oil. Incidentally it might come as a surprise to members across the House but the oil price is going back up. It is over $61 a barrel today so it is quite considerably higher than when it was in the high forties just a couple of weeks ago. The interesting thing is that the exchange rate is going in the opposite direction to fuel prices. So that has caused a buffering effect and that is why the fuel price has not moved at the pump in the way people would have expected.Anyway having said that I would like to dwell for a little minute also on what would happen should we run out of oil. I think one of the things that is not appreciated should that happen is that most petrol stations around the country do not fill their tanks all the time. What they do is put in the minimum amount for a couple of days’ supply quite simply because they do not want to bank on the price of the day. They want to meet their buy price and sell price and keep that gap at pretty much the same so that they are buying and selling on the same market. So a change in supply would have an impact almost immediately at the fuel pumps and New Zealanders would very quickly find that their car that was on half full would run out in a few days and then they would not be able to fill up because all the fuel supplies around the country would run dry very very quickly. So this bill aims to alleviate that.Also the instability in the Middle East at the moment is something that we should not just sit back and hope will not ever have an impact on us. Although the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a terrible beast at the moment the instability that it is causing over there could quite easily interrupt supply. It is not that hard to imagine things blowing up in the Middle East and New Zealand like the rest of the world going through an oil shock which was alluded to earlier on—like in the 1970s. That was a long time ago I appreciate but carless days did not happen only here in New Zealand. They also happened in Europe in major parts around Europe where you could drive your car only on alternate days I understand. So that would be a pretty difficult thing to imagine today.While it seems for some a utopia to imagine a world dependent on public transport New Zealand is not ideally suited for public transport. We are not densely populated enough to really get the frequency of service that we see around the world in places like the UK Paris and Singapore. Although Singapore has a very similar sized population to New Zealand it is in an area roughly the size of Lake Taupō so you can see how a density of population makes those things work.The ticket contracts are quite an interesting concept in that we do not have to stock a whole lot of barrels on the wharf. I am quite surprised that the Greens were calling for us to actually do that and keep the actual physical supply here because that I would have thought would be of great concern to them. That would carry quite an environmental risk for New Zealand—not one that would be taken lightly. Besides the cost of installing all of that infrastructure to look after those supplies it would really be a great impost on our environment and an environmental risk.There is a lot to be said for domestic production as has been spoken about before but our oil is light sweet crude oil and our refinery at Marsden Point is designed for heavy crude. So on that note I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59;New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 11New Zealand First 11.Bill read a third time.Parole Amendment BillThird ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill implements the Government’s policy to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release. It also includes a range of other measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parole system. There is general agreement that hearings where the offender has yet to address the reasons for their offending and continues to pose a risk to the community serve little purpose. They also cause unnecessary stress for victims for whom parole hearings can often be a significant cause of anxiety. Under the current Parole Act the Parole Board is generally required to consider each offender at least once in every 12 months after they become eligible for parole. On average each offender has three hearings before they are approved for release and a third of all offenders have four or more hearings. It is estimated that in excess of 800 parole hearings that do not need to take place are held each year.The bill increases the maximum interval between the hearings and the general run of cases from 1 year to 2 years. This will give the board greater flexibility in scheduling future hearings and the ability to better align future hearings with the completion of core components of the prisoner’s sentence plan. The bill requires the board when it declines to release an offender on parole to specify when the offender will next be considered for parole. It also gives the board the power to identify any relevant activities that it expects to be completed before the next hearing. To provide an incentive for prisoners to address the reasons for their offending the bill includes a new process for having their cases brought forward where the specified activities are completed earlier than expected.The bill also makes significant changes to the revisions relating to postponement orders. Under the current Act the Parole Board can make one of these orders where it is satisfied that in the absence of a significant change in the offender’s circumstances they will not be suitable for release at the time when they are next due to be considered for parole. Currently the board can make orders for up to 3 years for prisoners serving indeterminate sentences and up to 2 years for other prisoners. The increase in the maximum interval between hearings from 1 to 2 years in the normal run of cases will remove the need for postponement orders for prisoners serving sentences of less than 10 years. The bill therefore restricts postponement orders to prisoners subject to indeterminate sentences—that is life imprisonment and preventive detention—and determinate sentences of 10 years or more. The maximum term of a postponement order will be increased to 5 years accordingly.The Parole Board makes 30 to 40 of these orders each year and they play an important role in parole decision-making. They are commonly made for offenders convicted of the very worst murders who continue to pose a serious risk to the community. Importantly the orders provide comfort to the families of victims. In these cases the board will now be able to make an order postponing the further consideration of an offender for up to 5 years as is appropriate.In addition to these important changes the bill includes a number of other measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parole Board’s operations and to reduce the number of unnecessary hearings. These measures include transferring the power to deal with written applications from prisoners to have their hearings brought forward from a panel of board members to the chairperson or a panel convenor and removing the procedural steps in the Parole Act for deciding whether a hearing should be held as an attended or unattended hearing. The bill takes a more practical approach of specifying the circumstances in which the board can conduct an unattended hearing although the prisoner will have the right to attend if they wish to do so.Parole hearings can cause unnecessary stress and anxiety for victims. This bill is further demonstration of our commitment to put victims at the heart of our justice system. The measures outlined in the bill will better support victims by making significant improvements to the parole system which performs an extremely important role in keeping our communities safe. I commend the bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin as many of my colleagues in the House have done today by paying my respects to the advocate storyteller and ultimately world-changer in her own right who was Celia Lashlie. Many of her works actually sit on my bedside table not least because she was always one of those individuals who managed so carefully to put stories where previously only statistics existed. She reminded us that behind every grim headline and every known story was in and of itself a very grim story and one that is within our power to change. It is an important lesson which I first learnt from my father. She gave us the uncomfortable truth that change for many young people was something that politicians could play a role in too. Although I hold great hope that groups like JustSpeak will continue her fantastic legacy for now it is up to us to pass on our condolences to her family who have not lost a campaigner; they have lost a grandmother and mother.I come now though to the Parole Amendment Bill. This is obviously the last point in our justice system really at which we interface with an offender at a time when they are meant to be transitioning eventually back into the community. I want to acknowledge the origin though of this bill. It was introduced in 2002. It was crafted by Phil Goff who was Minister of Justice at the time. He saw fit for the Parole Board to have one principle as its primary consideration when considering whether or not an offender would be released into the community and that was the safety of the community. That has not changed. Alongside that within the Parole Act are also set out the parameters around when an offender can be deemed to be eligible. Previously there had been automatic release dates built into sentences. That was removed and was instead replaced with the possibility for an offender to be reviewed by a Parole Board every 12 months once they reached a certain point in their sentence. For indeterminate sentences their eligibility is to be reviewed every 3 years and that is appropriate given the severity of the offences that those individuals may have committed.But parole and the Parole Board do play other roles and that is something we have discussed a little bit in the debate on this bill. Probably one of the most significant roles that the Parole Board plays aside from determining whether an offender is to be released or not is checking whether or not milestones as they were originally called are being reached by an offender—and I will add being reached by the Department of Corrections. An offender cannot themselves access a programme without it being facilitated by the department. Those programmes are many. They are drug and alcohol programmes; stopping violence programmes; specialised sexual abuse programmes like those offered at Rolleston Prison which are highly effective; and work-to-release programmes. For instance it is even the role of the Parole Board to check whether a prisoner would have access to adequate housing if they were released. They also check behavioural change. At a meeting they ask prison officers what the interaction with the prisoner has been like in the intervening period. I even sat in on a meeting where a discussion was had as to whether or not the offender had reconnected with their family as an important support group. These are the kinds of questions that the Parole Board will ask. Those are all important mechanisms and when you delay an offender from coming before a Parole Board at regular intervals you remove its ability to check that those things are occurring.I want to come back to that in a moment though because ultimately primarily that was not the driving force behind this bill; it was not about how regularly the Parole Board checks an offender’s progress against those milestones. The primary focus of this bill was to remove unnecessary parole meetings and to focus more on the victim. I understand absolutely those principles and those goals and that is the primary reason why we are supporting this bill because we do believe that there is value in doing that and that perhaps we are not being as efficient as we could be in the way that the Parole Board is currently operating. But we do need to keep it in perspective.Engagement with the Parole Board by victims is somewhat limitedat the moment. That might be for many reasons. It might be because a victim chooses not to be engaged. It might be because the scale of crimes involving victims is as a proportion somewhat smaller. But roughly 7 percent of victims make submissions to the Parole Board and 3 percent are likely to attend. That is not to trivialise the impact that a Parole Board hearing—and frequent Parole Board hearings—has on a victim particularly when there is no hope of release. In fact we heard from many victims who found ongoing repeat Parole Board hearings particularly for those offenders who had indefinite sentences to be a repeat victimisation. They found the hearings extremely traumatic and that is totally understandable. So that is also why we support increasing at the Parole Board’s discretion the possible gap between Parole Board hearings from 3 years to up to 5 years for those offenders at the extreme end. But at the same time it is also important that we are monitoring on behalf of victims the way that the prisoner is engaging with the prison system in the intervening period.One of the things that was raised at the select committee which we discussed was whether it is possible to separate out those two roles. Yes the Parole Board decides whether or not a prisoner should be released but it also checks that the department is doing its job and making sure that the prisoners are attending all of the programmes that are available. If we are not sending a prisoner back to the Parole Board for consideration for release is there a way at least to send them somewhere where there can be some discussion as to whether they are attending programmes—whether they are on track to get back to that Parole Board meeting and demonstrate some engagement at all. At the moment for the Parole Board it seems that by ruling out one option—consideration for release—we are removing the check and balance role that it has played against the Department of Corrections which has had issues in the past.There are scheduling issues with programmes within our prison system. The Auditor-General has raised this and has confirmed it. The scaling up of the availability of programmes has meant that actually there has been a bit of a hitch with all of it in that we are not always getting prisoners into programmes where we should and we are not necessarily timing the programmes for the appropriate time in their sentence pre-release. That is something that is of concern and by doing this we do lose that ability to monitor them.I want to speak just very quickly about a couple of the things that the Law and Order Committee has changed as part of its work which we have traversed a little bit all of which we think are suitable changes. The term “risk milestone”—that is some of the things I have talked about that the Parole Board can set out as needing to be achieved—has been changed to “relevant activity”. This makes total sense. A milestone implies that if you achieve it you are going to be released. Nothing is automatic nor should a Parole Board’s decision be predetermined in that way. Standard release conditions—we made sure that when no set time frame is set out by the Parole Board there is at least a standard default term of 6 months for release conditions.We made a change to references to the Department of Corrections in several clauses of the bill so it reads “the manager of the prison in which the offender is detained”. I have to say I disagree with the rationale that was given for that in the explanatory note of the bill which is that there was a lack of clarity. I think there is plenty of clarity in stating that the Department of Corrections has responsibility. There is less clarity when you just open it up to the manager of a prison because then we are not sure whether or not we are talking about a Serco prison or a Department of Corrections prison. So let us be really honest about why that was changed and broadened in that way. Dates of future parole hearings—we made sure that there was discretion to bring forward meetings if that was deemed appropriate.Finally and very importantly because this bill is about to come up soon we wanted to highlight with the Minister that information sharing with the Parole Boardwas lacking particularly in civil orders. We understand that via the Judicature Modernisation Bill there will be the ability to have a memorandum of understanding to make sure that information is shared. We want to highlight again and put on record that information sharing with the Parole Board is critical to ensure it makes appropriate decisions. Otherwise we do support this bill we think it contains sensible changes and we commend it to the House.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak during the third reading of the Parole Amendment Bill.National is committed to building a safer New Zealand. Presently we have the lowest crime rate in 35 years. Before we took office in 2008 crime was increasing gangs were growing stronger prisons faced a critical shortage of beds P was seriously damaging communities violent repeat offenders were being freed on parole and the courts were congested. National embarked on a comprehensive programme of reforms. We have passed new laws and made some other policy changes to improve public safety and the rights of victims. This has resulted in less crime tougher sentences and parole law more police on the front line a crackdown on illegal drugs and $1 million of seized assets from gangs. We have averted the prison crowding crisis and increased public confidence in law enforcement.The Parole Amendment Bill implements the Government’s plan to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release. The bill also includes ways to improve the effectiveness of other parole systems. The purpose of the parole hearing is to determine whether the offender has managed to address the issues or whether he or she continues to pose a risk. On average each offender has three hearings prior to release but there are four or more hearings in a third of all cases. The exception is where the Parole Board makes a special order postponing further consideration of a case for a longer period.The bill increases the maximum interval between hearings in the general run of cases from 1 year to 2 years. This will give the Parole Board greater flexibility in reducing further hearings. Depending upon the advice that the Parole Board receives from corrections officials it may then prepare for future hearings. The existing law requires a hearing at least once every 12 months. This has without doubt led to a number of problems which this bill will address. A further hearing has to be scheduled in a few months’ time in many cases because the offender is still completing core components of their offenders plan. This bill requires the board when it declines to release an offender on parole to specify whether the offender will next be in consideration for parole or not. It allows the board to specify any particular milestone relating to the offender’s risk that is expected to change before the next hearing.As an incentive for prisoners to address the reasons for their offending the bill includes a process for having their cases brought forward when a milestone is achieved earlier than expected.The person who suffers the most is the victim. Therefore by way of legislation we want to put victims first. We want to deliver on our promise of reforming legislation that may be outdated. Our reforms are targeted at ensuring that we protect our communities reduce crime and put victims first. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Parole Act 2002. I commend the work of the current and previous Ministers of Justice and officials for their initiative and for the progress the bill has made through various levels. We want to put victims first but we also want to ensure that prisoners who show good positive behaviour have every chance of being let out on parole.As I said earlier our intention is to put victims at the heart of the justice system and deliver on our promises. Our plans to reduce unnecessary parole hearings for offenders will reduce stress on the victims of crime. Victims of crime should not have to face the stress of parole hearings year after year when an offender is clearly not safe to be released into the community and has made little or no effort at rehabilitation. As it is the victims of crime who suffer a lot psychologically and emotionally we should try to relieve some of their stress and not add to it. Each year there are about 5000 parole hearings. On average offenders have three hearings before being granted parole. By no means may this be fair on the victims especially when the chances of being granted parole are very slim. Our changes are to bring efficiency into the system and also to protect the victims from ongoing trauma when it is unnecessary for this to happen.Our changes will provide a strong incentive for prisoners to address their offending behaviour and that is a good thing. We have since returning to Government introduced a number of changes that have resulted in positive changes to the lives of prisoners. We have educational plans for prisoners. This has resulted in the number of prisoners gaining qualifications increasing from 197 in 2008-09 to 1833 in 2012-13. In addition an extra 3000 prisoners have enrolled in literacy and numeracy training in 2013-14. This number has increased by 155 percent.It is with great pride that I can share that the drug and alcohol treatment programme has seen a dramatic rise of 1500 percent. The more we can assist prisoners in getting back to a normal lifestyle when they are inside prison the better the chance is that they will not reoffend or commit a crime when they are released. Further with the training and qualifications that they can gain there is a fair chance that most of these prisoners may well become positive contributing members of our society.At the Law and Order Committee we had a good discussion on all these elements of this legislation. The committee felt that we should replace the term “risk milestone” with the words “relevant activity”. Further in a case where the Parole Board did not specify a time frame for the standard release conditions then the default time has to be 6 months. The committee recommended that this clause be inserted in the legislation. The committee also recommended that when a Parole Board application is declined the board may specify a set of activities that the offender must complete before an application is reconsidered. By way of these and other amendments proposed the National-led Government wants to ensure less stress on victims while giving offenders an opportunity to improve their behaviour.Based on the behaviour displayed by offenders the Parole Board may of course set an earlier hearing date. Hearing dates can be aligned with the completion of their rehabilitation programme. By way of making these changes we hope to save the Department of Corrections $700000. I am sure that this amount can be used towards improving services elsewhere. This focus is in line with our goal of prioritising spending and delivering better public services. Most of all we are putting victims first in our attempt to reduce their stress. With these words I commend this bill to the House.Chris Bishop: Oh great speech.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I do not know about that being a great speech as interjected by the member Chris Bishop. I think Mr Bakshi should sack the researcher who carefully drafted those notes that he read out. I do so on the basisthat frankly they are factually incorrect. If the member looks at the facts he will read that crime in New Zealand has in fact been declining in the trend lines since the 1990s. If he looks at the facts—and I can help him with a little institutional memory because I was in Parliament over that period of time—the major pieces of reform of legislation in this area were conducted under the last Government: the Parole Act the Sentencing Act. The very Act that this Parole Amendment Bill amends halved the rate of reoffending of people on parole. If the member does not believe me read the regulatory impact statement in the bill on the Table. It tells him that. The Parole Act toughened the legislation. It said that safety must be the paramount consideration of the Parole Board and that the Parole Board should not take decisions that put the public at undue risk.I made those changes at a certain cost. The cost was that people who should not be released from prison were not released from prison and prison numbers went up. This bill—and I do not condemn it for that—will not increase the days spent in prison by any prisoner in any way at all. I support this bill. But please Mr Bakshi get the facts right. The changes in the prison system about rehabilitation about education about providing work and about dealing with drug and alcohol problems began in the first decade of the 21st century. And to give credit to this Government it continued them. But let us not bend the facts for political purposes.When I say that I want to take a moment to acknowledge as my colleague Jacinda Ardern did the passing of Cecelia Lashlie. She was a woman whom I hugely admired. She was passionate about what she did. She was utterly committed and dedicated. It was a way of life for her to do something to help the people who ended up in our prison system and to keep people out of the prison system. The thing that Cecelia Lashlie would have most condemned is the politicisation of law and order issues to score political points. That is what she deplored—that is what she deplored.Chris Bishop: Oh!Hon PHIL GOFF: Read what she wrote Mr Bishop. You will see for yourself. She looked at this from the eyes of a person who wanted to make life better for the individuals who ended up in the corrections system and so keep New Zealanders safe because she would address the causes of the offending not treat the symptoms. As we consider any piece of legislation like that we should keep her philosophy her principles and her values in mind. I pay tribute to her memory.We support the changes in this bill. We supported them in the first reading of the bill and through the select committee process and through subsequent readings. We support them because these are rational and sensible changes to make. The Parole Board to which we give responsibility to act under this legislation also supports the changes that are being made. It also made the point that if anything this will not extend the time people spend in prison but it may well reduce it. But it will do so on a rational basis.Parole is a controversial area. The Parole Board will make mistakesfrom time to time. It will make mistakes either because it does not have the full information it needs or simply because human behaviour is not always predictable in this area. But generally it will get it right. What was noticeable with the people who appeared before the Law and Order Committee on this bill was that everybody from the hard-liners on law and order—the Sensible Sentencing Trust—right down to people like Kim Workman from Rethinking Crime and Punishment said the Parole Board did a pretty good job.One of the things the Parole Board has remarked upon is that it was seeing people three four five times before it made the decision that the person was ready for release. And because in the original legislation we set the period of time for review by the Parole Board to no more than 12 months—which meant effectively that it would often be looking at the person every 11 months—the offenders were coming before the Parole Board without having completed their rehabilitation programmes. The offender the prison managers and the Parole Board would know that this was not the right time for their release. So this is not a hard-line law and order issue. This is simply saying let us give the Parole Board the flexibility to determine that maybe a person does not need to come before the Parole Board every 12 months; they may come before the Parole Board every 2 years initially. It gives the Parole Board the additional flexibility which I think is really sensible that if a person actually achieves their rehabilitation goals early then they can come before the Parole Board early and be released early.I know there are some people who say there should be no parole. From time to time—from the ACT Party and from the right wing of the National Party—we have had a preaching of these words: “Truth in sentencing. Let them serve to the last day of the sentence and then release them.” It sounds good in the electorate when people are concerned about law and order issues but what actually happens in practice is that it does not work. For a start you end up keeping the vast majority of people in prison who would not reoffend for longer than they need to be there and at a cost of over $90000 per prisoner per year. We are spending a hell of a lot of money to no good public purpose. If a person is ready to be released because they have shown remorse because they have acknowledged the causes of their offending and because they are unlikely to reoffend why would you keep them in prison until the last day of their sentence? It does not make sense at all.But there is another factor and it is this: when offenders are kept until the last day of their sentence and are then released the empirical evidence shows quite clearly that they are much more likely to reoffend. So what do you do? Do you release them from total confinement to total liberty? That is dumb; it is a really stupid thing to do. It increases the rate of reoffending. Or do you put them on parole where they have to report weekly to a probation officer where they are under the close supervision of a probation officer and where they can be directed as to where they live work and with whom they associate? That works and that is the system that we should sustain and this bill actually improves the way that system works. That is why the Labour Party is supporting it.The critical change as I mentioned is that the Parole Board now has the ability—the flexibility—to determine that there will be a wider space between parole hearings where appropriate. The Parole Board can also as I mentioned before bring forward parole hearings and the Parole Board can also issue postponement orders. Postponement orders allow it to extend the period between parole hearings to 5 years compared with the normal restriction of a 2-year period. But that will be done only when a prisoner is serving an indeterminate sentence—a life sentence or preventive detention—or when a person is on a determinate sentence but has more than 10 years in prison. Postponement orders will not be used frequently but they will be available as they were under the last Act but extended to that 5-year period.I think this bill strikes the balance between protection of the community and the rehabilitative needs of those who are in prison and the need for the community to be safe and a rational system that will cut down the number of parole hearings—not in a way that disadvantages the offender but in a way that is rational. I commend the bill to the House.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.