Volume 692 Week 50 - Wednesday 7 August 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 692 Week 50 - Wednesday 7 August 2013[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12431. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 7 August 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsUnited Kingdom—Speaker House of CommonsMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon JohnBercow Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom is present within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.The Rt Hon JohnBercow accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.Questions to MinistersDairy Products Whey Protein—International Market Reaction to Contamination Incident1.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany)to theMinister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about international market reaction to the potential whey protein contamination issue?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The latest global dairy trade auction was held overnight—the first auction since Fonterra confirmed it was dealing with a potential whey protein contamination issue. The online auction is considered a barometer of international dairy prices and Fonterra is the largest seller at the auction. The global dairy price index slipped a modest 2.4 percent compared with the previous sale 2 weeks ago. The total volume of product sold at the auction increased to over 60000 tonnes up from 38000 tonnes 2 weeks earlier. The results confirm there has not been a material market impact onFonterra’s prices from the contamination issue and the international demand for dairy products remains strong.Jami-Lee Ross: How does the latest global dairy auction result compare with previous results?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The 2.4 percent fall in prices is among the smaller price movements up or down. It has been described as relatively small or a mild fall in the wider scheme of things. At the previous auction the price index increased 5 percent and price drops of over 5 percent occurred at auctions in May and June this year. Over the past year the prices have increased by 73 percent so prices for our dairy products remain at elevated levels. Maintaining those elevated levels of course will require the current situation to be handled transparently and effectively.Jami-Lee Ross: What was the initial market analysis of the global dairy trade auction result particularly in respect of indications of future market prices and demand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Economists said that prices and demand for longer-term contracts for delivery from November were encouraging. Fonterra share prices are up today and are overall down less than 2 percent since the Friday close. The indications are that providing the issue of the potential contamination is handled effectively and transparently the direct impact on the New Zealand economy can be contained.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Fonterra’sReaction to Contamination Incident2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in Parliament yesterday that “it does seem very very odd thatFonterra allowed production to carry on and for that infant baby formula to go into the supply chain or into the distribution chain”; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes; because that is the natural question that the public overseas customers ourselves and others will be asking.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the characterisation of the chain of events that Fonterra knew that its product could have the dangerousClostridiumbotulinum in it and yet let it be processed into baby formula in Australia re-imported into New Zealand put on supermarket shelves sold to parents and fed to babies all the while Fonterra knew that it could contain theClostridiumbotulinum in it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I am not sure that I would agree with that characterisation. The member is using the word “knew”. I think that is the issue. Up until the Wednesday of last week I do not think that Fonterra did know.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that once the initial test was done back in March that showed that there was aClostridium in there Fonterra knew that there was some kind ofClostridium but it just was not sure whether it wasClostridiumbotulinum or a different kind ofClostridium ?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I really cannot speak for the company. I do not have ministerial responsibility and secondly I just do not know what the company knew. I know that something showed up in the tests that it undertook in March but I do not know exactly what it understood that to mean and therefore I cannot offer an opinion about whether it was safe for Fonterra to carry on with the processes that carried on from there.Dr Russel Norman: Then why did the Minister yesterday say—and he says he stood by this statement—that he thought it was “very very odd that Fonterra allowed production to carry on …” if he is unsure about it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do think it is odd but I cannot offer a view on what the company absolutely knew. What I know from what I have seen in the public domain is that in March there was something that showed up in the tests that were undertaken. I cannot tell you whether that should have waved lots of red flags or none whatsoever. That is what an inquiry will show us. I do think it is a bit odd that those tests showed something in March of this year and yet production carried on.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister have any further information about this issue that the Government has not yet made public?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking a very broad-ranging question that I cannot answer because I am sure Ministers will have very detailed information about lots of things that would not necessarily have travelled to my office. But if you are asking me whether I have some really specific germane piece of information that really should be in the public domain and is not I have not been advised of anything of that nature.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether Fonterra has breached any regulations in this process?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again no I am not aware. I am aware of the fact that the company has all sorts of legal obligations as does the regulator effectively the Ministry for Primary Industries through food safety. But no at this stage I am not aware whether Fonterra has breached any of those. That is what an inquiry will one day show.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister confident that the regulations that are in place are sufficient; if he is confident that they are have any regulations been breached?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think I have covered off the last part in my earlier answer. In terms of the first one to the best of my knowledge the laws in this area have proven in the past to be sufficient and have worked. Fonterra has been the world’s largest dairyexporter and you have to say on balance and on the whole it has had a very strong consumer record and one of high safety standards. So there is no particular reason that something should have showed up but again that is what an inquiry will show—whether there are any deficiencies.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister know whether the Ministry for Primary Industries has the processes in place that would have identified this potential contamination had the Australian manufacturer not required Fonterra to test for it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I cannot answer that question. It can obviously apply a test but it does not apply every test—there are all sorts of potential things you could test for. I am sure the ministry has the capacity to do that but it does not always carry out those tests. My understanding is that this test was carried out in Australia because in all probability one of the markets was going to require this test.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Contamination Incident and Ministry for Primary Industries3.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.David Shearer: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Primary Industries given that he implemented Budget cuts of $26 million for the Ministry for Primary Industries since his Government came into power?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I have complete confidence in the Minister for Primary Industries.David Shearer: Did his Government cut the budget for the Food Safety Authority from $95 million in 2008 to just $85 million this year or $20 million in real terms; if so has this had any impact on our ability to detect and respond to food safety questions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details with me but it is interesting that we are only 24 hours into it and it looks like Labour is turning on the blame game.David Shearer: Were he and his Ministers warned back in 2010 that amalgamating the Food Safety Authority into what is now the Ministry for Primary Industries risked compromising food safety standards and that food safety is vitally important for our exporters?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that advice with me—if it was presented I would have to go back and look through all of the records—but what I can say is that when the merger was undertaken and the ministry assumed food safety that was done for very good reasons and in my view it has been a successful merger. The laws that actually control the standards that are set and the processes that they go through were not changed.David Shearer: In light of his answer did he consider the independent review of food safety in 2007 which recommended that the Food Safety Authority be established as a stand-alone agency because it is considered world’s best practice; if so was the amalgamation designed simply to cut costs as he stated in his Better Public Services speech last year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The amalgamation of the Food Safety Authority into the Ministry for Primary Industries was not designed to cut costs overall—of course the Government wants efficiencies overall—and no we did not consider the 2007 report but it would have been commissioned by Labour. What we did do was take a series of advice and that advice supported the moves that the Government took.David Shearer: Given that under the 1999 Animals Products Act any producer processor transporter or exporter of animal products must disclose any relevant information that would compromise the integrity and reputation of New Zealand exports does he believe Fonterra complied with the law in the way that it responded?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That will be the purpose of an inquiry—to answer that very question. But as I understand it the obligation as it has been relayed to me is that when there is a known issue—which was on the Wednesday—the company has 24 hours to ensure thatAsureQuality is made aware. That was done as I understand it and thenAsureQuality has a further 24 hours to ensure that the Government through the regulator the Ministry for Primary Industries is informed. That also took place. Whether there should have been earlier disclosures that is all part of an inquiry.David Shearer: Did he ask his Ministers why they were not kept informed of the Fonterra issue given that there is a legislative requirement that they be kept informed; if so what reasons did they give?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To the best of my knowledge they were kept informed. At 12.35 on Friday the Ministry for Primary Industries was advised—I assume by Fonterra—that there was an issue at that point. They have been fully advised as and when information has come in to Fonterra to the best of the knowledge that the Government has.David Shearer: Does the Prime Minister have confidence inAsureQuality given that it gave a clean bill of health to the dairy plant responsible for the contamination?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We will need to go back again as part of an inquiry and look at all of those details. I am not going to jump to conclusions yet but if the question were to be posed the other way round—have I seen any advice that would indicate that I should not have confidence inAsureQuality—then the answer would be to the best of my recollection no I have not seen that advice.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Contamination Incident and Safety of Infant Formula4.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to theMinister for Food Safety: What update can she provide the public on the safety of infant formula?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):A public information campaign is under way to inform parents about the recall of two product linesNutriciaKaricare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula from birth andNutriciaKaricare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula from 6 months. I can confirm that the Government has committed funds towards advertising to assist with this public information campaign. The Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has also advised me that he will be holding a press conference today to provide a further update on the process he has undertaken to resolve this issue. Parents and caregivers should continue to check the Ministry for Primary Industries website for updates and should callPlunketLine andHealthline if they have any health concerns.Paul Foster-Bell: What cross-Government work is happening in terms of public safety relating to infant formula?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries is continuing to work closely with the Ministry of Health to help ensure public safety. The Hon Tony Ryall has informed me that Plunket nurses are today contacting as many Plunket mothers as possible whom they know are using infant formula to ensure they are aware of the recall. The Government also wants to ensure that this message is accessible for mums and dads in New Zealand and abroad. The Ministry for Primary Industries has advised me that there will be documents in different languages relating to the recall available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website.GCSB Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Access to Phone Records5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour)to thePrime Minister: Did his inquiry headed by David Henry request phone call logs for contact between AndreaVance and Hon Peter Dunne; if not how does he explain the email sent from the Henry Inquiry to Parliamentary Service at 5.53 pm on Monday 20 May 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Let me start by saying David Henry has made it quite clear in his own press statement that the inquiry he led “never requested the phone records of journalist Ms Andrea Vance”. Secondly with reference to the email the member is asking about I invite him to read it carefully and—here is a novel idea—read it in full because the email sent at 5.53 p.m. on 20 May requests phone logs and then goes on to say: “Please note we do not want the call logs of the two numbers of interest. That is outside the parameters of our Inquiry.” The numbers of interest were Ms Vance’s numbers which would be why when the member tried to hawk this off through Twitter yesterday everybody who got it thought he was the twit.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: In light of that answer from the Prime Minister can he confirm that the email that he is quoting from says that the Henry inquiry is seeking—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise particularly from that sector of the House. The member can start his question again.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer can the Prime Minister confirm that the email that he was quoting from seeks information about contact between the listed extensions Peter Dunne’s to and from the numbers of interest Andrea Vance’s and is he saying that “to and from” does not mean contact between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know that this can be difficult for some people to grasp but when you make a phone call what happens is that one person rings another person or other people. That involves getting a phone like this one here. You have a number and you ring another number right? And if the other person rings you by the way that is the number that comes in to you. So by definition of course it will show the numbers that for instance Mr Dunne may have made and the numbers that he has received phone calls from but Andrea Vance’s phone records are not part of that and they as Mr Henry quite correctly said do not fall within part of the interest. The phone logs of Andrea Vance were never requested and should not have been received.Grant Robertson: So is the Prime Minister saying that calls from Andrea Vance’s phone are not her phone records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is they are not her phone records; they are Mr Dunne’s records of whom he received a phone call from.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he in his time as Prime Minister ever involved his staff in seeking through an agency of State that a private citizen’s phone records be accessed despite no issues of national security being involved?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. If the member is asking me in terms of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) the SIS and the work that they do there are conditions within their Acts for which their warrants can be established and they must meet those conditions. One of those is national security.Grant Robertson: Who supplied him the email from the inquiry dated 31 May that he used in his answers last week in the House?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They came from my office in preparation for question time.Grant Robertson: How is it that his office and department were able to locate an email that showed that the inquiry was not looking for phone call logs but missed the one from 11 days earlier where it did ask for phone call logs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because as was disclosed in the House by Minister Joyce answering on my behalf on Thursday there were 39 emails but my office was not given those 39 emails. It was given the emails that were germane to answering the questionbecause we do our best in question time to answer the questions even if they are dumb questions.Mr SPEAKER: I am just pointing out to the Prime Minister that those sorts of comments are certainly not helpful to the order of the House. I would appreciate it if he would desist.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that my prior question referred to no national security issues being involved which would rule out the SIS and the GCSB can I ask the Prime Minister again whether he in his time as Prime Minister has ever involved his staff in seeking through an agency of State that a private citizen’s phone records be accessed despite no issues of national security being involved?Mr SPEAKER: That is a question that is very wide of the mark. The Prime Minister answered it the first time. I am going to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the question closed with the statement “despite no issues of national security being involved”. The Prime Minister then answered and said that if the member is referring to the GCSB—and I presume he means the SIS as well—then he would answer in terms of that. I specifically ruled out those two agencies with that statement so now I want to know whether another agency of State has fitted the bill of the question I have now asked the Prime Minister twice.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that the question has been asked twice. I am going to ask the Prime Minister to answer it but I point out that it is a question that is very marginal. It is very wide of the original primary question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it could be interpreted in so many ways I will need to get some advice so I can give the member an answer to it.Grant Robertson: Why will he not take responsibility for the actions of an inquiry that he set up which is now being described in aDominion Post editorial as having the whiff of a cover-up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member should keep up. I did last week in the House when the question was asked by Mr Norman.State and Social Housing—Building and Redevelopment Initiatives6.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie)to theMinister of Housing: What progress is the Government making in building the additional new homes as part of the Asset Management Strategy for Housing New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):This financial year we will directly build more homes than in any year in the last 25 years. Housing New Zealand right now has builders on the ground on 600 different sites around New Zealand constructing new homes. A further 500 are under contract with work due to start in a matter of weeks. This will contribute to Housing New Zealand’s target of at least 2000 new homes by June 2015. In addition to this subsidiary housing Hobsonville Land Co. will deliver around 540 homes the Social Housing Unit is funding the construction of another 700 homes and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is also directly contracting the construction of homes in places like Rangers Park to support Christchurch’s recovery.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What reports can he give of initiatives that will see better utilisation of the Government’s land holdings to increase both social and affordable housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have dozens of redevelopment initiatives under way that increase the overall number of homes on Housing New Zealand land but reduce the overall proportion that are State housing. In the member’s own electorateMaungakiekie in Maria Street we are building 21 homes where there were previously three and retaining six of those for State housing purposes. In northern Glen Innes we are going from 156 homes to 260 homes. The removed houses that were subject to the protest action by the member for Te Tai Tokerau were ironically relocated to his electorate where they are being used for marae housing.District Health Boards—Health Targets and Elderly Patients7.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First)to theMinister of Health: Is he satisfied with the performance of all district health boards?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):I am happy and satisfied with the performance of district health boards helping to deliver record immunisation rates for New Zealand children huge improvement in emergency departments seeing patients within the 6-hour target record numbers of heart and diabetes checks faster cancer services so patients do not need to go to Australia record elective surgery and delivering record access to first specialist assessments. However there is always room for improvement and for district health boards to do better particularly with regard to the occasional individual unacceptable case.Barbara Stewart: Is he satisfied that a 90-year-old woman was kicked out of Tokoroa Hospital at 2.30 a.m. on 23 July and was forced to get a neighbour out of bed to come and return her to her home inPūtāruru?Hon TONY RYALL: No I would not be happy with that. I would have to check that to make sure that the circumstances were correct but I can tell you that that would be unacceptable.Barbara Stewart: Is he satisfied that a patient being referred by his general practitioner to MidCentral District Health Board for a cardiology test was told by the board that he was only a semi-urgent case and that it could not offer him an appointment until January 2014 and told him to see his general practitioner instead?Hon TONY RYALL: If that is the case that I think it is I can advise the member that the district health board provided that patient with incorrect information and they will be getting I understand an appointment much sooner than that.Barbara Stewart: When will we see an end to this treatment of an increasing number of vulnerable elderly patients who under his watch have been shunted out of hospitals in the early hours of the morning and into the night?Hon TONY RYALL: I simply reject that claim. The fact is that under our Government we are providing better emergency department service faster. That member only needs to cast her mind back to the Government that her party supported under Labour where patients—old people—waited in the North Shore Hospital emergency department for 3 days on end under bright fluorescent lights and she continued to support that party.Welfare Reforms—Impact on Sole Parents8.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theMinister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “the investment approach will change the entire focus of the welfare system so that support is invested where it will make the biggest difference”?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):Yes.Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that despite her so-called investment approach the cuts to the training incentive allowance to assist sole parents in training and education remain in place?Hon PAULA BENNETT: They are still working their way through policy as to how money will be spent and allocated but at this stage yes.Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that her welfare reforms will now see sole parent employment contractors receive bonus payments as high as $9500 per person more than double the cost of the training incentive allowance for a whole year?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member is drawing a few dots there and not actually having that add up. What is happening is that some are being contracted out. I do not imagine it is going to be at that cost. The average cost is about $2700.Hon Member: No it’s not.Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we have also done—yes it is. That is the average cost for us to contract it out. What we have also done of course is increase the number of case managers so that they are able to work more intensively. That is making a huge difference. We have a work-focused case management going on a lot more each week. We are seeing more people get into work and that is the reality.Andrew Little: What about the bonus payments?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Calm down young man. You will be all right. Calm down. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from Andrew Little is excessive.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the suggestion of being called a young man might be regarded as a compliment but the suggestion that you should calm down is something that I think—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a helpful point of order. The member will resume his seat.Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that a woman in the exact same position she once was in now gets $100 per week less in training support is required to find more work while studying despite increasing unemployment and high childcare costs and will have recently received a letter telling her that she risks having her benefit cut if she simply misses a Work and Income appointment?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually none of that is true. Women on the DPB now or on the sole parent support are financially better off each week than they ever were in the 1990s when I was actually there. So if you want to go back more than 20 years and have a look at it then that is the truth of it. Actually they are getting more support to get into work their lives and the lives of their children are being changed and I am going to continue to back them into those jobs. That really makes the biggest difference for them every time.Jacinda Ardern: Given her investment approach—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please start her question again.Jacinda Ardern: Can she give a guarantee that all of the 44000 people she has estimated will come off a benefit as a result of her reforms will do so because they have moved into a decent job and not because they missed a letter or a phone call from Work and Income or have been arbitrarily kicked off?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member yet again is misrepresenting. They will not get their benefit cut for missing an appointment. They would have been given opportunity after opportunity to actually step up to their obligations and that is the fact of it. Also for the majority of them if they are sanctioned actually no money comes out of their account—or does not go in—because they can re-comply really really easily before that happens. What they are being given is more support and actually better case management than they have ever had before and we are seeing real results for people and their families on that.Question No. 7 to MinisterBARBARA STEWART (NZ First):I seek leave to table a copy of an email outlining a 90-year-old’s experience at Tokoroa Hospital.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Climate Change Policy—Government Position and Impact9.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green)to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor that “climate change is happening now”?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues):Yes and I personally think this report is the best compilation of science that I have read in recent years from any source.Dr Kennedy Graham: How does he reconcile DrGluckman’s statement with the statement of the Minister of Finance who when asked in March this year whether climate change was real replied: “It may well be.”?Hon TIM GROSER: It may well be—yes indeed it may well be—and I do not see any need to reconcile those statements at all.Dr Kennedy Graham: How does he reconcile this with the statement of the Minister of Science and Innovation who when asked in March this year whether human-induced climate change is happening replied that “It’s open to debate really actually by a whole range of experts.”? [Interruption ]Hon TIM GROSER: Well as my colleague below me has just said we would need to look at the full quote. But the underlying point is this: this Government is treating this as real. This Government acknowledges that there is some room for genuine scientific argument around the metrics around the pace of time around global warming potentials and a host of related science issues. But the underlying point I can assure the member is that yes we are treating it as real—of course.Dr Kennedy Graham: How can he claim that his Government is treating it as real and taking meaningful action on climate change when it has scrapped the moratorium on new fossil fuel generation made cuts to climate research funding scrapped the biofuels sales obligation scrapped car fuel efficiency standards and weakened the emissions trading scheme so much that the price of New Zealand Units has now plummeted from over $20 in 2009 to a couple of dollars today?Hon TIM GROSER: The price of carbon in the international market is functionally unrelated in any real sense to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme and the member knows this. In respect of specific action I could reel off a whole host of actions this Government has undertaken from investing $42 million in advanced biofuels to putting in place a whole series of new guidelines to help councils manage adaptation—and I could probably spend another half an hour on my feet on this matter.Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Minister worried about the impact of New Zealand’s lack of action on climate change on our clean green image and international reputation given that we have the worst emissions track record among developed countries and we are the last to enter a formal target for 2020?Hon TIM GROSER: Right now I am much more concerned about our image through rather more natural events such as the one we have been debating yesterday and I am not the slightest bit concerned about our position on climate change in relation to that matter.Buildings Earthquake-prone—Policy10.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki)to theMinister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to improve the earthquake-prone buildings policy system?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction):Today I announced the Government’s new nationally consistent policy to deal with earthquake-prone buildings. It was clear that the current policy needed to be changed following the Canterbury earthquakes and the subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes which made 36 recommendations in relation to earthquake-prone buildings. The new policy today deals with the 13 outstanding recommendations with the other 23 already being part of the Government’s work programme. Overall the Government’s decisions are broadly in line with the royal commission’s recommendations.Jacqui Dean: What are the key elements of the new policy?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Earthquake-prone buildings will be identified and assessed within 5 years and building owners will then have another 15 years to either strengthen or demolish those buildings. There will be extensions of up to 10 years from the national time frame for some heritage buildings and exemptions will also be available for buildings where the impact of failure is very low. The current strengthening requirements for earthquake-prone buildings will not change. Owners will still have to strengthen to 34 percent of the new building standard. A public register of earthquake-prone buildings will be created by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment so that the public can see firsthand which buildings qualify.Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia orana Mr Speaker. What advice has he received from the Minister for Disability Issues about how the new earthquake-prone buildings policy aligns with the Government’s commitment to progressively improve the accessibility of public buildings?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The decision taken by the Government this week was to allow for regulations to be put in place that would determine what criteria would be required for the triggering of disability access and fire safety standards if indeed a building was also requiring earthquake strengthening. Those criteria have not yet been established and I look forward to the debate on that as we begin to promulgate the regulations for such.Callaghan Innovation—KiwiStarOptics11.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to theMinister of Science and Innovation: What decisions if any have been made by Callaghan Innovation with regard to overseas contracting byKiwiStar Optics and why have those decisions been made?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation):I am advised that Callaghan Innovation has decided not to enter into a proposed subcontract with the Australian Astronomical Observatory for two reasons: firstly because the contract involved was for a fixed fee and is considered high risk; and secondly Callaghan Innovation is itself considering the future options for ownership ofKiwiStar Optics at this time. It is not in its long-term plan to own New Zealand businesses and I know that Industrial Research Ltd itself also quit a number of companies. Callaghan’s plan is to work with all Kiwi firms and help accelerate the commercialisation of innovation of those firms.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he agree with that decision of Callaghan Innovation to veto a contract worth $2.4 million to produce hi-tech lenses for the AustralianAstronomical Observatory with the resulting loss of two $1.8 million contracts with Caltech and Berkeley?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is well ahead of himself there. Firstly there are two things. One I do not think it is right for politicians to be offering opinions on what any organisation Crown entity or company does in terms of whether they should enter into a contract. They have to be in the position to judge the risks as to whether they should proceed. That is why those entities exist. In relation to this one my understanding is that discussions are ongoing with the Australian Astronomical Observatory and so there are a number of things that could yet transpire. I do not think we are in a position to say what the member has said about the effects on the other contracts.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he regard the manufacturing of multimillion-dollar telescope lenses as the type of work that should be abandoned to be done in Australia with the staff transferring the scientific knowledge transferring and the contacts transferring as is now being proposed?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I think Mr Mallard is putting a particular perspective on it. The reality is that Callaghan Innovation is looking at any number of possibilities for the future ofKiwiStar Optics.David Shearer: Rubbish.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is clearly at this point.Hon Trevor Mallard: None of them in the country.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No they are in the country. In terms of what you talk about in terms of lucrative high-value work in this particular instance it is a very high-risk fixed-price contract which may not be in its best interests—and indeed that is what Callaghan Innovation has determined—to enter into.Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister consider Callaghan Innovation’s decision to not sign the $2.4 million contract between the Australian Astronomical Observatory andKiwiStar Optics to be consistent with his view that Callaghan Innovation is to become the high-tech HQ for New Zealand businesses and that it will assist firms across New Zealand to turn their ideas into exportable products and services more quickly providing jobs and growth for New Zealanders?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank that member for that advertisement. I do consider that it is consistent with Callaghan Innovation’s mandate which is to be a high-tech HQ for Kiwi businesses. It does not mean that it should own all those businesses. It means that it should work with New Zealand businesses up and down the country and that is what it is designed to do.Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister agree with formerKiwiStar Optics optical scientist AndrewRakich who is currently working for the European Southern Observatory that ifKiwiStar Optics no longer fits with the mission of Callaghan Innovation then Callaghan Innovation should divest itself ofKiwiStar Optics in a way that ensures its ability to continue to succeed as a stand-alone business entity rather than the ad hoc and rushed cancellation of the contract as has occurred?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member raises some fair questions in that regard. I will make three points in response. I understand the gentleman concerned actually does have a relationship with this organisation still and also some sort of financial relationship with the organisation. That may have an impact on his views. The second point in relation to that is that it is absolutely appropriate as I have made clear to Callaghan Innovation all the way through that if it is considering change it do its absolute best to as he suggests put them into private ownership or perhaps in a couple of cases attach to universities and so on and it is exploring all those options.Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr AndrewRakich to MaryQuin of Callaghan Innovation where he states that in his opinionKiwiStar Optics has the potential to compete on the global market with global companies and the combination of expertise built up over seven decades—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Trevor Mallard: Was there?Mr SPEAKER: There was objection.Hon Trevor Mallard: What action is the Minister prepared to take to ensure that the scientists and technicians currently employed and linking with organisations in India Australia two in the United States and Europe do not transfer to Australia?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I will not be stopping them at the border if that is the member’s suggestion. I have made it clear as I said in the answer to a previous question to the board and management that they should do everything and their best—and they will do—to ensure that any change actually does its absolute best to retain the expertise in this country. But as the member’s colleague herself noted the reality is that actually this is an international discipline. The gentleman who has raised the issue who has a financial interest in the outcome of these contracts who does—David Shearer: Oh come on.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well it is important that we note these things. The gentleman who has raised this issue is himself working in Amsterdam right now on a contract over there.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think members have been cautioned about making what are effectively defamatory statements about people. I want to make it clear that the person who raised the matter with me does not live in Amsterdam.Mr SPEAKER: OK. The member has made that point through a point of order. I am not sure that it was a valid point of order but the point has been made.Health and Safety Workplace—Working Safer Reform Package12.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National)to theMinister of Labour: What recent announcements has he made about health and safety reform in New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):Today I announced the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. The reform package Working Safer represents the most significant changes in health and safety at work in 20 years and is essential to meeting our target of reducing the workplace serious injury and death toll by 25 percent by 2020. Achieving the step change required is not something the Government can do alone; it requires leadership and action from businesses and workers and recognition that good health and safety is an aid to good business practice and improved productivity.Chris Auchinvole: What are some of the major aspects of the Working Safer reform package?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We have broadly accepted all the task force’s recommendations. The reform package includes a new health and safety at work Act; a large increase in funding forWorkSafe New Zealand in order to strengthen enforcement and education; a focus on high-risk areas; a stronger focus on occupational harm and hazardous substances; and stronger penalties enforcement tools and court powers. This reform is the legacy we owe to the Pike River families and the families of the 75 people who are killed each year in our workplaces.Darien Fenton: Are the health and safety reforms compromised by the fact that only 98 out of 158 warranted health and safety inspectors have been recruited and his department is now so desperate it is considering bringing in inspectors from New South Wales at an additional cost of $25000 each per year?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not understand the member’s figures to be correct. From memory the number of health and safety inspectors today is some 116. I think when you include various others including trainees you get to more like 150 or a little more than that within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment health and safety group. It is also I think right to record that I make no apology for the reform process we have gone through because the fact of the matter is that we did need to improve standards and training and that is what we are about doing.General DebateRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business . Within the last 24 hours we have learnt of outrageous activity relating to the police investigation of the so-called teacup tape recorded during the election campaign 2011. A cameraman left a tape recorder on a cafe table where John Key and John Banks sat. It was a media stunt of course in trying to organise a coalition Government. To prevent publication of the tape’s contents John Key complained to the police. The police were under pressure to complete the investigation and we understand that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was kept “in the loop” during the investigation.New Zealand First has learnt that the police recorded discussions to seize the telephone records of a private citizen so that they could lay charges against the cameraman. That citizen was me. That is right—my telephone records were going to be seized in an operation that was sparked by the Prime Minister’s office and monitored by the Prime Minister’s office.This is not Zimbabwe; this is New Zealand. If there had been a security issue at stake I would have handed over my cellphone records and any other records to the authorities immediately but there was not.There is information in a police file that says that police would have taken my phone records to lay charges and make a case against Bradley Ambrose. If MrEagleson Mr Key’s chief of staff was being kept “in the loop” during the investigation it stands to reason that the boss John Key would also have been in the loop as well. That is perhaps the reason he backed off demanding a prosecution: he would have had to admit that his politically motivated use of the police led to a private citizen’s phone records being accessed illegally. And it is the reason why today when asked that critical question he refused to answer without advice.I was nowhere near the cafe. I have far better things to do.There is another element to this gross invasion of privacy—a rather sinister element. Why would a group of people in the Prime Minister’s office funded by the taxpayers be involved in a police investigation during an election campaign? This was not a leak from a State intelligence agency. This was not a matter of national security or even a matter of life and death; it was about a petulant Prime Minister trying to save his face and his backside.Now we have to ask: did he actually sign a warrant or was he prepared to? Did the police look at my phone records anyway? How did they know that they had to seize them to carry out a successful prosecution? Why did the police zero in on me for example?After the recorder was found a voice on the tape broadcast onYouTube pointed out that a guy in a New Zealand First T-shirt was present outside the cafe. That meant thatNew Zealand First was suspected at the outset despite the fact that people wearing T-shirts with “New Zealand First” on them are legion all over the country in their tens of thousands.At the time I was a private citizen. This information is contained in briefing notes handed from the Wellington police to the Auckland police. The officer told his counterpart that whatever they decided to do they were to brief MrEagleson. This is not Zimbabwe. Today I am asking the Prime Minister and the police to come clean and produce all the documents relating to my records and the teacup tape investigation. As we have found out the Prime Minister’s office was donkey deep in violations of privacy and guess what? The same WayneEagleson has his fingerprints and the Prime Minister’s DNA over all the files.In my years in this House under eight Prime Ministers I have never experienced such a personal outrage and an absolute abuse of power by the executive. It had nothing to do with anything other than an election stunt. This was a humble private citizen. This is corruption that goes to the core of this country’s activities under this Prime Minister and every member of this House should be joining New Zealand First in condemning this in the strongest possible terms.Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):The contamination of whey protein concentrate is an issue that has been the key focus of mine and the Government’s over the last 6 or so days. Since it was notified on Friday no other issue has been a priority for this Government. There is a wide range of Ministers who are involved working across their respective areas. Right now the focus is squarely on the health and well-being of our children and families both here in New Zealand and of course in those overseas markets. The Ministry for Primary Industries is continuing to work around the clock seeking to clarify with certainty the extent of the potential contamination. Earlier this week the Ministry for Primary Industries sent staff intoFonterra’s data and distribution centres andNutricia warehouses with their permission to verify the information and gain a complete picture. Ministry of Health officials are working with a range of organisations such as Plunket andHeathline and of course information is regularly available on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ website. We want to ensure that the information is getting out there to the people who need it most.Of course everyone in this House will be aware thatNutricia has initiated a voluntary recall ofNutriciaKaricare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula for babies from birth andNutriciaKaricare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula for babies from 6 months onwards. I acknowledge my ministerial colleagues Minister Ryall Minister Goodhew and indeed Minister Kaye as well who are involved in doing a very good response in this area working very closely across these Government departments to ensure that this information is flowing through to consumers here and indeed in other international markets. If parents or caregivers have any of the recalled product lines at home they should return them to the shop that they have been bought from or return to the place of purchase and seek a refund.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working with its embassies to provide information to international markets. This issue has the potential to affect children in other countries and we want to do what we can to ensure their overall safety. I appreciate that information changed in the first few days and that is now becoming a lot clearer. Although the information has not been completely clear at times officials and the Government have been taking and will continue to take a very conservative precautionary approach. I acknowledge Ministers Groser and McCully for providing that information through to those embassies on a regular and timely time frame. I understand that there are a lot of questions and right now our focus is on ensuring the health and safety of consumers in New Zealand and across the world. I can assureeveryone in the House and the New Zealand public that at the appropriate time I will ask those questions as will the Government to ensure that we get the answers that we all require.This incident also affects our international reputation. It will have an effect but it is hard to measure—very hard to quantify at this stage. The fortnightly global trade online auction last night was of some comfort to some exporters. There was a mild dip back by about 2.4 percent in the auction prices. To me this result indicates that the market has taken a measured response on the current situation. There was strong interest from around 200 bidders and a rise in that in the last auction and although whole-milk powder was back by 1.6 percent and skim-milk powder was back by 3 percent it was very similar when you weigh up that overall the online auction has been moving around quite a bit.As you know Mr Speaker and as the House knows there has been a lot of disappointment about what has happened but New Zealand has a strong history as an exporting food nation for over 100 years. We need to maintain our integrity on the world stage. Something has gone wrong. We need to rectify what has gone wrong and maintain our integrity and our integrity will be measured on how we respond. This is an important issue and I want to conclude by saying that the Government is doing all it can to provide information to New Zealand consumers and international markets.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):Today I want to talk about jobs but before I do I want to say that the allegations that have been raised by Winston Peters in the House today about the accessing of his cellphone records is an extremely serious allegation. It sits alongside the behaviour that we have seen from this Government and from John Key and his office in particular that shows no respect whatsoever for the privacy of New Zealand citizens. Be it a journalist in the form of Andrea Vance be it a politician or be it the Government Communications Security Bureau and all New Zealanders the respect for the rule of law and privacy from this Government is seriously in question today. The fact that the Prime Minister’s office thinks that it can direct Parliamentary Service adds to that. This Government does not respect the privacy of New Zealand citizens and it does not respect the separation between the executive and other parts of the parliamentary complex.The Labour Party was formed on the basis that the value and contribution of workers to the economy need to be recognised. Our guiding beliefs are about the value of work: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. But more than that Labour recognises that in work lie things that are of great significance to New Zealanders to their self-esteem to their ability to provide for their families and care for their families and to their contribution to society. Work and jobs—good safe jobs—are at the heart of Labour’s vision for the society we want to live in. Jobs and work are at the heart of our policy which is why it gives Labour and me no comfort whatsoever to learn today that 153000 New Zealanders are out of work—unemployed. We have no pleasure that in the last 3 months 5000 jobs have been lost. These are not just statistics; these are real people with families to look after and mortgages to pay who are losing their jobs.From Dunedin to Dannevirke from Nelson to Napier jobs are being lost and families’ lives are being put at risk. And these real stories range right across the age groups from the young graduate who came to see me 8 months after graduating who after 100 applications for jobs but no job does not know what to do with his future to the gentleman from Christchurch whom I found sticking his CV under the door of my electorate office having also applied for nearly 100 jobs since leaving Christchurch to come to Wellington. Those jobs are not there for those people.New Zealanders have given the National Party the benefit of the doubt—the global financial crisis the Christchurch earthquakes—but now is the time when NewZealanders should be seeing some hope from this Government that things will get better on the job front. Instead all there isis fear that they will lose their jobs. In actual fact it is the earthquake or rather the recovery from the earthquake that is now propping up the job market. It is no longer possible for this Government to use the excuse of the earthquake. The Government is meant to be helping with the recovery.It is no longer right for this Government to continue to blame the global financial crisis nearly 5 years after it took office. It promised New Zealanders 170000 new jobs. It will fall woefully short of that mark. In the last 2 years only 17000 jobs have been created. That is across 2 whole years. That is simply not enough from this Government. Imagine just how much worse it would be if 200000 Kiwis had not taken flight to Australia. Unemployment would be well over 8 percent.So what does a proper jobs policy look like? Well from Labour what it will mean is giving exporters a fair go getting research and development going making sure that training of workers is a priority giving Kiwi companies a proper go at Government contracts and real regional development policies that focus on industries where there is growth—in manufacturing in information and communications technology—not the National Party’s approach of the search for a silver bullet that simply cannot be found. It is only with Labour that that change to a real jobs policy will happen.I want to finish with an old saying to try to give comfort to some people who are out there looking for work. They say that a recession is when someone you know loses their job and a depression is when you lose your job. The recovery starts when John Key loses his.Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):The events that have unfurled in respect of potentially contaminated infant formula over the last I do not know 72 hours now pose some very very significant challenges for New Zealand pose significant challenges for the Government both at the political level and the official level and pose very significant challenges for Fonterra. They also raise some very serious issues of course for the other smaller dairy companies and we must never overlook the fact that some of these so-called smaller companies are small only in relation to Fonterra; they are quite significant companies by normal New Zealand company standards. Also these events pose significant challenges for our scientists and for the members of our community.I think we realise that so many questions are being raised for which there are not adequate answers but we have tried to follow what I call a very segmented and I think logical approach to handling these issues. By doing so I do want to emphasise that this does not mean that we do not understand the public clamour and the legitimate public need for answers to these questions—I would not use the term “second-tier” questions because they are probably fundamentally important questions—but they are issues that we can come to later when we have the luxury of time after dealing with the immediate issue which we simply cannot put aside.We all know—I know that every member of this House would share this view—that the immediate issue is the safety not just of our infants but of infants in other countries. I think it is a very important thing to communicate beyond because people are listening to what we are saying very carefully. We are just as concerned about the infants of other countries who depend on the safety of the food we send them. I know that I am speaking on behalf of every single member of the House when I say that. That is a very important point because there will be misleading media reports that will play on this. I think it is very important that this House puts that firmly on the record. That has to be frankly the only real concern.Of course in terms of my own responsibilities I have got other major economic concerns in the back of my head but I do not think they are separate. I think that theway in which we handle what I call the immediate issue at hand the first-order issue—which is to find out where potentially contaminated powders may be remove them from the market place in all the countries concerned and deal with any health consequences that may arise; and thank God nothing has happened so far—will determine some longer-term responses. Our ability to deal with the first-order issue will be a matter of substance. I have been saying on several occasions over the last few hours that this is not something that is going to be handled by slick public relations photo opportunities and such matters; this is something that is going to be handled by real substance and professionalism. I think it is very important that we have that firmly in mind.In respect of the overseas responses I have not received any information today. I have heard one story which I am now told is incorrect about Sri Lanka imposing measures. I am told that is not correct and obviously I need to see this chapter and verse. There is still the potential for additional import restrictions new testing measures and so on and so forth because the other regulatory authorities have got the same moral legal and political responsibilities to protect their people in a situation of uncertainty. We have to accept that we are not yet fully in a position—I think we are moving into this position—to give those regulatory authorities the assurances that they absolutely need. It may well happen that the web of restrictions increases but so far it is only in China and I think we have to recognise the incredible professionalism of the Chinese regulatory authorities in taking such a measured approach which is focused just on the actual problem at hand.I hope that the dairy farmers of New Zealand their families and the communities that depend so much on their livelihoods do appreciate what the Chinese regulatory authorities have done. I think we have a lot to be grateful for frankly in the way that regulatory authorities have responded. That may change we accept that that may change and we should accept that as reasonable if it does change and then work away at resolving those issues with solid professionally delivered information and data. Obviously this will leave a series of other steps that we need to reflect on and then develop policy responses. We clearly will need—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):One of the ongoing sources of anger and frustration in my community about the management of the Pike River disaster is that it was the police who took the lead in managing the response to the disaster and who along with PeterWhittall from the Pike River Coal company had responsibility for communicating with the families and with the public. If it had been the Mines Rescue service in charge telling the public that it was not safe to go back into the mine then people would have believed it and would not be angry now at least about that issue. People understand that Mines Rescue is expert in rescuing people from mines and they do not expect police to be. People know that Mines Rescue has no conflict of interest and they trust it.So although I agree with much of what Tim Groser has just told the House about managing this latest issue about contamination of whey powder when it comes to managing the health consequences of that issue—and rather than the 72 hours that Tim Groser has just mentioned actually it is 15 months—and giving parents the information and advice they desperately need a Government that knew what it was doing would have the Ministry of Health leading a major public campaign akin to the one that the ministry ran on swine flu for example. It is the chief medical adviser or the Director of Public Health who needs to be seen talking about this on our television screens every night and in leaflets on every supermarket shelf not the acting Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries.Various Ministers in the House yesterday and indeed today were obviously defensive about this issue reassuring us that the Ministry of Health had been involvedfrom the very start. Someone—and I do not recall which Minister it was—even mentioned that they remembered the director-general speaking at one of these meetings as if that in itself were reassuring to us. With respect that is not the point.Even if the chief medical adviser were giving exactly the same information and advice as the Ministry for Primary Industries has been giving that would be more reassuring to the public. That is because when people need advice about a health issue they want to hear it from health experts not primary industry experts. It is also because the Ministry of Health will be trusted as a source of information and advice whereas the public understands that both Fonterra the company responsible for the situation and the Ministry for Primary Industries the Government agency responsible for regulating the industry and on whose watch this disaster occurred have unavoidable conflicts of interest.This mistaken response to the health consequences goes to the heart of a wider problem about this Government. As exemplified by the lead role that has been played by the “Minister for Obfuscation and Diversions” Steven Joyce this Government’s first instinct—as it has been with the series of scandals around the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Henry inquiry for example—is to manage the political consequences through covering up and distractions. Managing the human consequences seems to be an afterthought.So when John Key talks about an inquiry and getting to the bottom of things I have no faith that that is actually his intent and I cannot help but recall the Department of Labour’s failure to even investigate whether its own actions in respect of Pike River met the Government’s legal obligations. When this Government talks about a hands-off approach to regulating industry the Green Party stands instead for regulation for transparency and for honest politics. We need the Ministry of Health on the front end of this issue and even a white coat would help.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):I follow on from the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy in reflecting on the incident relating to the potential contamination of whey products. The first thing I would say and that all members would I think agree with is that we understand how serious this is. That is why from the moment the Government was informed we have swung into action. There have been many streams of work. The first has been around ensuring that the public is protected. What has been frustrating as has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues is that the information did change. But what I can tell the mums and dads of New Zealand is that we have put significant resource into supporting the company that did the recall to ensure that the public information campaign is there. We have committed money to that and we are doing that.The second thing I want to reassure the public about is that the Director-General of Health and the rest of the response team which covers the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Health and a number of other Government agencies have been working hard to try to resolve this incident. It has been hard because of the changing nature of that information but what I want to assure people about is that today the director-general will be giving an update on the issues of traceability and verification which I believe is really important to ensuring that people have that confidence. This is a time when the Government needs to operate on a few fundamental principles and I believe that we have shown those principles. They are protecting the public and they are transparency and openness but also doing everything that we can regardless of what has been presented to us to ensure as much certainty as possible. So there is a process under way that the Ministry for Primary Industries is focused on.The other important point that has been raised by the Prime Minister and a number of other Ministers is that we understand that for a country that for generations has beenproviding safe food this is a serious incident because it does dent people’s confidence in us. That is why we are committed to asking those questions at the appropriate point and to putting a process in place to ensure that all New Zealanders but also people across the world have that same level of confidence in our food safety systems.What I want to do is make this point. The first thing is that our food safety systems are made up of significant investment in terms of science testing and standards but I do believe there are questions that need to be asked and they will be asked at the appropriate time. What is important to me are a couple of things. One is ensuring that the parents in New Zealand and abroad get the best possible information when we get it to ensure that they can keep their families safe. That is why whether it is through the social media campaign the newspaper advertising that is planned or radio advertising we are doing everything we can to support that company to get that information out there. Also obviously the moment that this was informed to us we began getting information to posts in other countries to ensure that their regulators could do what they could to protect the families abroad. I think that is a really important point.It has been a difficult time. I am confident that we will rebound from this. I do believe that the Government has shown an incredible amount of fortitude in terms of the number of Ministers who have been involved and have worked really hard across the Government to do everything we can to mitigate this incident. I just want to reassure the people of New Zealand that not only do we take it seriously but we are focused on protecting the public. When the appropriate time happens we will ensure that those questions are answered so that we can continue to retain our reputation as one of the most trusted nations in the world in terms of food. Thank you.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):Kia orana. Based on what other parliamentarians have said this afternoon I want to briefly follow up on what the Minister for Food Safety has just said. All parliamentarians in the House today and during the course of the week would endorse that the major focus at the moment ought to be on the families the infants and obviously the households that rely on the product that has developed a very bleak reputation over recent times. Most certainly there are queries and questions about the institution an institution that enjoys an extraordinary level of privilege in the commercial world of New Zealand and holds an inordinately important status as the largest trader of dairy products. These are questions that go to the heart of the economy and go to the heart of key regions around New Zealand. So although the health and the well-being of themokopunas and the families who rely on this product around the world eclipse everything else at the appropriate time very searching questions will be put forward and answers will be demanded. I will just say that.Now let us talk about jobs. I heard the member from Northland Mike Sabin unwisely insult Winston Peters earlier today and say to him that he would not know about Northland because he never goes there. I have sort of found that for a first-term member I am really disappointed that my fellow Northlander has turned on Winston like that. I have got no doubt that as time goes on more senior elements in his own party are going to say: “Oh for goodness’ sake—don’t say that! We have a sort of different view about Winston.” Well Winston has a clear view about them—it is Winston Peters whom I am referring to.But let us talk about jobs. Northland’s job statistics are bleak. They are bleak because there is no specific set of policies designed to turn round the regions of New Zealand. Perversely enough one of the areas that is going to suffer if we do not completely hop on top and solve the issues around the growth potential of our dairy industry is the regions. Why are the regions starving? Well infrastructure has been starved in relation to regions. I am not saying that population concentrations are unimportant but look at where much of the primary produce and look at where much of the export raw materialcomes from. It comes from the regions. So do not undercut KiwiRail for a relatively small amount of money. From Wairoa and Gisborne through to Heretaunga reinvest in that particular portion of our rail infrastructure. Do not neglect those regions and treat those regions as though somehow they are less—that their status as New Zealanders is less important.Secondly a hobby horse of mine: forestry. Why is the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery not making it a priority and ensuring that all Crown projects in respect of the Christchurch rebuild have as a priority the utilisation of timber the utilisation of wood as Jim Anderton and Helen Clark did? That is not to say you exclude concrete you exclude steel—although far be it from me to become a sudden authority on carbon footprints etc. But the reality is that our forestry resource and the secondary and tertiary products from that resource have a great role to play in our own economy. Neglected by the current Minister—well actually the forestry industry does not know who the current Minister is. It realises that Nathan Guy is the Minister for Primary Industries but based on the body language of the front bench today he is not going to last long. Not only will there be losses of personnel—and I quite like him; I met him in the golden oldie Parliamentary Rugby Team—but I think Horowhenua is going to see a great deal more of him unfortunately for Horowhenua.I want to come back to the forestry resource. Why not promote wood so that it takes a place of pride in the $40 billion rebuild and ensure that all major designs and major architecture work have as a model how timber wood and associated industries can be utilised in the Christchurch rebuild to enrich the forestry sector? It is not necessarily going to cost an inordinate amount of dough but it is actually reintroducing something that was there prior to Steven Joyce indiscriminately going through a whole host of policies that Mr Anderton had left for him to advance on. But with Steven Joyce being the narrow-minded partisan know-all that he is MrAnderton’s contributions were soon forgotten about. The final point that I would make—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No you have run out of time unfortunately. You will get it next week.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):On the Ministry for Primary Industries receiving notification from Fonterra about a potential contamination issue relating to whey protein concentrate that had tested positive for food poisoning bacteria that could cause botulism officials immediately swung into action. We in the Government established a ministerial response team and a number of briefings meetings and teleconferences have been held over the past couple of days since the issue first came to the regulator’s attention and was brought to the Government’s attention. The Ministry for Primary Industries had staff atFonterra’sHautapu plant which is the site of the contamination conducting testing and also inNutricia’s offices assisting with the tracking of infant formula that may contain the contaminated whey protein. The ministry has also put officials intoFonterra’s data centres with its agreement and full cooperation to assist in getting absolute clarity on the situation as it has unfolded. The situation continues to remain fluid. Ministers in this debate and speaking previously have outlined their response and reaction. The information changed a number of times. That is why officials and the Government have been taking and will continue to take a conservative precautionary approach until we can get absolute clarity over this situation.Prices dipped overnight atFonterra’s international dairy auction the first to be held since the dairy giant’s milk formula contamination scare—the first time since it became public—but economists have noted that there should be no cause for alarm. Prices dipped a modest 2.4 percent compared with the previous sale 2 weeks ago. The total volume of products sold at auction did increase however to a record 60587 tonnesand that was up slightly. So the results confirmed that there has not been a material market impact onFonterra’s prices from the contamination issue and that international demand for our dairy products remains strong. That does not let us off the hook in any way but it does remind us of the importance of the agricultural sector to the New Zealand economy.I will be unashamedly parochial in my next few comments because the lower South Island—in particular the Waitaki electorate—is one of the major contributors to New Zealand’s economy based on the agricultural sector. The ongoing economic impact of farming activities in South Canterbury North Otago and Central Otago which are all areas within my electorate is significant. Close to home if I think about my house it looks down on the Fonterra milk transfer station. When the milk season is under way there is a continual stream of milk tankers from the south and from the north converging on this milk transfer station inŌāmaru. That continual stream of milk tankers is running day and night 24 hours transferring the milk to the various milk treatment stations.If I go up the valley a little bit the Waitaki Valley 30 years ago was a place of baron dry stony waste. With the introduction of the Upper Waitaki and Lower Waitaki irrigation companies’ activities that landscape has now been transformed. It is green. There are still sheep. There are still deer. There is still cropping. There is an awful lot of dairying. With that dairying come things like houses up roads. Where there was one house there are now 10 houses. With those houses come kids. Those kids go to school. Their parents go into town. They go to the supermarket. They go to the rural supply stores and the vet. The vet comes to them and they go to the vet. The economic activity that is associated with our dairying industry should not be underestimated.If I look at the North Otago Irrigation Co.—10000 hectares under irrigation—in 5 years under irrigation farm expenditure has increased 310 percent. There have been—CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):New Zealanders are an incredibly forgiving and hard-working people. They will forgive their Government many many things. When I go out and talk to people in my electorate of Rimutaka what they say to me is that what they want more than anything else is opportunity. They are willing to work for a better future for themselves and their families. They want the opportunity to do so. What they are disappointed in is this Government’s failure to deliver them that opportunity.Every time we see unemployment statistics come out that show an upturn in unemployment as we did today New Zealanders have a right to feel disappointed in that. As of today there are 153000 New Zealanders unemployed. That is not because they do not want to work. That is not because they are not willing to go and work. It is because the jobs are not there for them to go and do. They want to see this Government take action to ensure that they have the opportunities to work and to get ahead. That has to be the unrelenting focus of any Government and it certainly will be of a future Labour Government.We have already outlined a number of very sensible ideas that will ensure that we can get New Zealanders into work. One of them that I am very proud of is converting the unemployment benefit into a training subsidy for young people. It is far far better for us to pay to have young New Zealanders in jobs and training giving them meaningful skills that will lead to future productive and prosperous employment than have them rotting away on an unemployment benefit. That is something that the Labour Party is committed to and I am incredibly proud of that policy.New Zealanders want to work hard so that they can have and they can purchase their own home. It is a big part of the Kiwi dream. Owning your own home is a big part of being a New Zealander and Kiwis know that they need to work for that. They do not want to have it handed to them on a plate. They are willing to get out there and workhard for it to save for it but they want to get a foot on the ladder. They want to have a chance. At the moment they are seeing their hopes and their prospects crowded out by overseas speculators coming in and buying up all the available houses and they are seeing a Government that is simply willing to turn a blind eye to those things.We in the Labour Party are saying that we acknowledge that it is getting increasingly difficult and has been for some time for New Zealand families to purchase their first home and that is something that we as a future Government are committed to addressing. There are many things that we will do. There is no silver bullet. It is not going to be a problem that can be fixed overnight. We are committed to building 100000 affordable homes to give New Zealanders a chance to get into their first home. We will stop the overseas speculators from coming in and crowding New Zealand families out of the market so that people can get on to the housing ladder.We know that New Zealanders are willing to work for it. New Zealanders are willing to work hard but when I go out into my electorate and I meet people who are working two jobs just to get ahead and they still cannot make ends meet that means that something is wrong. They do not have a Government that is willing to back them. This Government talks about backing people into work but it will not back them once they actually get there. There are people who go out there and do a hard day’s labour—and in many cases they are working evenings too—but who are not getting a pay rate that adequately compensates them for that and I do not think that that is right either. Instead what they have got under this Government is a Government that is committed to eroding their rights even further to making life even more difficult for people who are going out there and working hard to try to get ahead.New Zealanders will forgive their Government many many things and they will give it the benefit of the doubt but they want to know that the Government that they have put in place is responsibly exercising the power and the trust invested in it. They want a Government that cares about their welfare and their well-being. This Government has demonstrated in recent years that it will wield the power of the State in order to protect itself and for its own end. Government members will wield the power of the State to protect their own privacy. So when the privacy of the Prime Minister and Mr Banks was being threatened they did not hesitate to send the police in to raid media outlets. They will wield the power of the State to protect the privacy of Mr Dunne who is quite happy to protect his own personal communications whilst voting for a law that removes the right to privacy for many many other New Zealanders. They will wield the power of the State to protect themselves and their own interests but they are woefully inadequate—silent in fact—when it comes to actually protecting the interests of everyday New Zealanders who want to go out there who want to work hard and who want to create a better future for themselves and for their families.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura):It would be fair to say that the issue that we are confronted with as a nation of managing the contamination scare with the whey was too close for comfort for any person of this country especially any primary producer. So how do we feel? As a rural MP myself and as a member on the Primary Production Committee I must say that it was a breathtaking moment when we heard the story break. One can imagine how those people who have got millions of dollars invested in the primary industries in New Zealand would have felt when that crisis broke. They were all affected in the sense that market access is something that we do value incredibly highly.So what was the potential of this breach of this incursion? When you look at it more often than not what we have in our mind-set is an incursion by a biosecurity breach. But this was not the case. This was a case where potentially one of our own products was the problem and we had to work our way through that. So it was whollyappropriate that the Government moved quickly as it did and credit must also go to the Ministry for Primary Industries. So well done.What was the appropriate focus that the Government had? The focus and response of the Government was to protect families especially the babies. As Minister Tim Groser made the point it was not only for New Zealand families but especially for our overseas families. May I acknowledge at this particular stage the appropriate effort put in by the Prime Minister John Key ably supported by Ministers Joyce Groser Guy Goodhew Ryall and Kaye. Also the officials got alongsideFonterra’sHautapu plant so that there was good information being given to the public. It is also nice to see presently that as the story has unfolded and the facts are established the process has been described from the Government’s point of view as a class act.I venture to say that we in New Zealand need to examine our processes more thoroughly. I am confident that this scare and the resulting examination will result in standards of monitoring that will get better and better through the process and we should welcome that and open ourselves up to such an examination. This reminds me of a very sage statement that we all in the House will remember: “It is the putting right that counts.” I believe that that statement is so very important and appropriate. Having identified the problem having isolated the product we have now got the job of rebuilding the confidence of our partners—the people whose countries we export to—realising that we are the largest cross-border exporter of milk products. We have really got to work at rebuilding that confidence—the putting right of things.Churchill also made a very appropriate comment that “Bad news will travel around the world before good news even gets its pants on.” That is pretty appropriate when you consider that it is a matter that we have got to be very conscious of. Fortunately the Government’s response has been to largely keep up with the developments of this issue as it has unfolded and fortunately New Zealanders have a natural way of doing business overseas as an export nation. Our officials are open and transparent and they along with other Government officials will work really diligently and hard to make sure that that trust is rebuilt.There is a need for inquiries. These inquiries will add robustness to our food safety systems and it is very important that that is the case and that we restore the brand value to the New Zealand brand.To conclude I would just like to address the farmers of New Zealand in the sense that there have been times in the recent past when this Government has put in place necessary regulation and legislation that has made farmers a little bit irate. They feel that we are adding cost to their farming systems without adding value and I am referring there to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act. I would just encourage farmers to focus on the fact that this is very important for biosecurity and food safety. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Kia orana Mr Deputy Speaker. Nobody can deny the seriousness of the food safety situation that New Zealand finds itself in and I do want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge another very serious matter a matter of vital concern to New Zealanders and that is the need for decent jobs and decent incomes—something that this Government ignores. This is a Government that is out of touch and a Prime Minister who is deeply bogged down in covering his tracks again. This time it is on the Dunne email scandal and the Government Communications Security Bureau debacle which is something that New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond has been quite vocal about and has described as a massive breach of trust between Parliament and its citizens.Today we have seen unemployment increase up from 6.2 percent last quarter to 6.4 percent today—that is 48000 more people are unemployed now than when Nationaltook office in 2008. In total 1530000 New Zealanders—that is right 153000—are unemployed and almost daily we hear of more job losses. There have been significant job losses all around New Zealand but jobs and decent incomes are in fact the only way forward for New Zealanders. As others have said New Zealanders are committed to the idea of working hard to get ahead for an opportunity for their family—a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. These are basic New Zealand principles. Jobs are the way that most New Zealanders sustain a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. They are a way for them to contribute their ideas and their labour to grow our economy and to participate in our community.But our Prime Minister is more focused on denying responsibility for anything negative. He constantly is blaming somebody else—blaming Labour—Hon Member: That’s right.CAROL BEAUMONT: —but in fact you have been in Government for 5 years so take responsibility. The Prime Minister and the Government as a whole needs to take responsibility. No longer can you continue to blame the last Government or the global financial crisis. You need to take responsibility and focus on the real issues: the issues of jobs and incomes.But let us look more closely at what is happening to jobs and income shall we? We have 153000 people unemployed a total of 245400 people who are jobless and another 63000 people who are wanting extra hours of work and it is a very tough time to be looking for work.Māori unemployment is at 12.8 percent and actually that is a slight reduction so that is good news. But Pasifika unemployment has increased to 16.3 percent. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga was busy crowing earlier today about the number of jobs that are on job vacancy websites. Well I do not think that is going to deal with the 16.3 percent of Pacific people who are unemployed. And what about wages? Well wages are up by only 1.7 percent and the median for those who actually got a pay increase—and this is the key—was 2.7 percent which is the lowest increase since 2001. But in the last year 45 percent of employees received no pay increase at all. At the same time prices were skyrocketing power prices went up accommodation prices went up and 45 percent of workers got no pay increase.So let us get a renewed focus on creating decent jobs for workers. It is no good saying that the economy is picking up if that benefit is not flowing through to wages and jobs. Our wages remain 34 percent lower than in Australia and yet we have a Government introducing legislation that will drive wages down further. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill will drive wages down even further so we need to do more. We need to do more to focus on growing the number of jobs. The Government needs to take responsibility but we do not believe that it will. It is going to take a Labour Government to get a focus on jobs and on putting in place a really hands-on approach towards job creation and to invest in lifelong learning and upskilling. Members opposite your Government promised in 2011 that it would create 170000 jobs by 2015—170000 jobs by 2015. Well so far that is 1700 so you have got a long way to go—a long way to go.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I have an opportunity to stand here for the second time this week to support this Government’s efforts to ensure that our worldwide reputation does not suffer undue damage as a result ofFonterra’s potential whey contamination matter. I would say just before I get into what I want to say that I want to disappoint one of the previous speakers Shane Jones. He will for many years to come have to put up with Minister Guy and Mike Sabin whether he likes it or not and I shall remind him of that in the future.I think we can be pretty proud of the fact that Fonterra has been able firstly to identify the problem and secondly to trace it. I do not for a moment believe that everycompany in the world could have achieved this. I also want to commend our team of Ministers for a very competent response to a very serious situation for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. Having said that I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation for Fonterra as one of our top food producers for the farmer-shareholders for the country and most critically for the international and national consumers—notably the children and calves who are the most likely consumers of these recalled products.No other country in the world has the reliance on food quality safety and quantity that we have and there is no place on earth where food safety is more important than here in New Zealand. We have traversed many miles in the past few years in respect of food safety but it is clear from the occurrences of the last week that we still have some way to go. I want to spend some time talking about the miles we have travelled and some of the challenges we face as a nation.In New Zealand we know where the calf I referred to earlier was born where it travels to and where it is processed packed shipped and eaten. The challenge for our food industry—as with medicine for example—is that the recipe contains so many ingredients. What we have to ensure is that all of those are safe and that the subsequent mixture—the chemistry so to speak—is compatible. This was of course the challenge that Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries faced with the whey protein product. It is used in many hundreds of mixtures throughout the world. It is manufactured in New Zealand but then travels all over the world. There is no doubt that this is a great challenge to New Zealand because many of our other products are in exactly the same situation.We heard Labour’s agriculture spokesman yesterday and its leader today talking about inadequate funding within the food safety division of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I want to counter this because I think it is irresponsible. As they both should know issues of national significance will always be funded and always have been funded and New Zealand will always be in a position to fund them. They should also know if they have read their books properly that the cuts to the ministry have not been made to the food safety division’s front-line operations. I would also add that I do not believe that a witch-hunt at this stage would serve any purpose and the subsequent inquiries which are necessary will reveal all of the necessary information to allow us to move on and ensure that these types of food safety issues do not arise in the future.My electorate ofRangitīkei is a farming electorate. We rely heavily on our producers of meat milk vegetables fruit even some fish—mostly eels actually—and honey for our living. Animal welfare and food safety are critical to us in theRangitīkei. We have three large meat plants a venison processing plant two milk plants—a Fonterra and a Goodman Fielder plant—and a number of highly technical pharmaceutical-type manufacturers including New Zealand Pharmaceuticals and the recently announcedProliant plant which is moving to Feilding. We are doing well in this country at present with more jobs and better systems services and household incomes. We must ensure that this continues. Food safety animal welfare and better productivity will be vital to our futures in New Zealand. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillInstruction to Commerce CommitteeJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I seek leave for the time by which the Commerce Committee must report the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be extended from 16 August 2013 to 21 August 2013.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. Leave is granted.Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment BillProcedureHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I seek leave for the purposes of the Committee stage of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill for debate on all questions to be taken together for the Committee to move to voting at 9.30 p.m. that it report progress following the voting and that the sitting be suspended at that point.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is everyone clear about that? I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Sullivan Birth Certificate BillFirst ReadingLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia orana Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnā koutou katoa. I moveThat the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.I am proud to be the sponsor of this private bill. The circumstances that have resulted in this bill arose from an email I received during the passage of the marriage equality legislation and that I referred to in my third reading speech. I would like to refresh members’ minds as to what that email stated: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13 my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for and was granted guardianship. When my daughter turned 18 the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately all this happened before she turned 20 because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum legally no longer exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong. If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive then we could have married and our daughter would have both her parents recorded as such.”That email highlighted the difficulty and trauma faced by the promoterRowen Sullivan who was brought into the world and brought up by two parents who both happened to be women but her birth certificate does not record that fact and cannot do so without this bill. Private bills are not often used but are defined by McGee Burrows and Carter as bills that are for the benefit of named individuals and this bill is precisely for that purpose. This bill is for the benefit ofRowen Sullivan and her parents Doreen Shields and the late Diane SullivanRowen’s birth mother.The benefit forRowen is best summed up in her own words. I asked her for a statement for this first reading. She said: “I think it was much harder for my parents to have me in the 1990s than it would be now. There did not seem to be any famous gay people raising children together which makes it more familiar to other people. It was not such a common thing so they had to figure out how to make our family work and deal with people who did not think we were a proper family. I think your family are the people who love you and raise you not necessarily the people who share your blood. Ihave registered my details in case any of my siblings want to make contact but this is just out of curiosity not because I am looking for family. My parents meant to have me. I was not an accident or a mistake. Other people can have both their parents on their birth certificate and they don’t have to choose between having their mum’s name taken off or having no family at all as far as the law is concerned. Some people ask why this matters. It is just a piece of paper. I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her and everything she went through to have me and to stay with me when she got sick. She loved me and I will always love her.”This young woman was placed in a position that no one should ever have to face. She had a birth certificate that recorded her mum’s name only. The reality was that she had two parents who loved her whom she loved. Together they were a family. But when her mum became terminally ill the reality of her legal relationship with her other parent Doreen was brought to the fore.Adoption was not an option at that stage as it would result inRowen’s birth mum’s name being removed from her birth certificate at a time when they were all dealing with Diane’s illness and eventual death. Doreen became a guardian under the Care of Children Act. Her guardianship expired whenRowen turned 18 in 2011. At that pointRowen’s mum had passed away.Rowen and Doreen then decided to apply for an adoption order given that from 23 February 2011 there was no legal recognition of their relationship.Doreen explains that decision in her own statement. She said: “I adoptedRowen so that there would be a legal relationship between us especially if one of us became sick. I also wanted to make a commitment to her that she always had a claim on me no matter what happened in the future. The fact is that I have beenRowen’s parent all her life but Diane was her mum and death has not changed that. Diane fought a hard battle against cancer and survived far longer than anyone expected. That was simply because she wanted to be there for her daughter.Rowen’s birth certificate should tell the truth of where she came from but her mum is missing from it so it is a lie. Her mum never gave her up—never. Death tookRowen’s mum away from her and we can’t change that but the law erased her mum from her birth certificate and that can be put right. Diane deserves to be acknowledged asRowen’s mum andRowen and any children she might have are entitled to an honest record of her family and where she comes from.”This matter can be addressed only by the passing of this private bill. IfRowen were born in New Zealand today both her parents could be recorded on her birth certificate as a result of the 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act 1969 which recognises both partners as parents where there has been a birth as a result of an assisted human reproduction—or AHR—procedure. A birth certificate can then record the birth mother and her partner as the other parent. Under the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 the spouse of a birth parent can jointly adopt a child and therefore the removal of the birth parent’s details would not be required.However these options and avenues are not available toRowen because her mum has passed away and she is now over 20. The only way both of her parents’ names can be on her birth certificate—the one legal document that records her origin and her parents—is by a private bill. I ask that all members support this bill which honours the reality ofRowen’s family and allows her to remember her mum and record it properly when she is asked. Adding Diane Sullivan’s name toRowen’s current birth certificate which records only one parent Doreen may not seem much to ask but it will make a significant difference to this family. Kia ora.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):I rise to speak in favour of progressing the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill which was put forward by Louisa Wall to the Government Administration Committee. This bill would require the Registrar-Generalof Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details ofRowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her birth certificate. I am grateful to be able to follow Louisa Wall in speaking because she gave a very full explanation of the complexities of the bill. It is always difficult when there are a number of names within a bill to consider just to see exactly where the threads are. So I make no apology for pretty much repeating much of what the House has already heard because I think it will not hurt to hear it a second time.The bill is a reminder as well that quite frequently the Government can and does have a very big effect on people’s lives at a very personal level. It is paramount that we in this House do not forget our duty to handle these cases with deference and understanding. With that in mind I would like to again thank Ms Wall for this continuation of the important work she did on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013. Indeed it is pertinent to note that if Ms Wall’s bill had been in effect during the lifetime ofRowen Sullivan’s birth mother this situation would not have arisen and the bill would not be needed.Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan her birth mother—her father was a donor who is anonymous I understand; I am getting agreement from over there—and Diane Sullivan’s female partner Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan died in 2010 whenRowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields had chosen not to adoptRowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name fromRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. It took me a little while to try to work out why that was so but that is the way the law works. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. That did not alter the birth certificate and it gave the parenting effect that was required. But unfortunately this expired onRowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday. Doreen Shields then applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013. However the order required that Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name be removed fromRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Had Diane and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry they would have been able to jointly apply to adoptRowen. If this had occurred they would both have been named as her parents on her record of birth.This may appear on the outside to be a minor issue of bureaucracy and in a way it is—in a way it is. But it is these little things that console us because it is little things that afflict us. We who have those occasional afflictions and we who know that our parents are labelled as such on our birth certificates still cannot claim to understand the emotions this would raise by having them excluded from a birth certificate but we can be understanding of the desire to have this fixed and to have one’s parents properly and respectfully reflected. That is why I will be voting in favour of progressing this bill to the select committee stage. I am a great believer in the select committee process. It is very thorough and I think it is something that New Zealand can be particularly proud of. I have seen a few other legislatures that have similar things but I think our select committee process works well. We will be able to ensure that this bill has its intended honourable effect hopefully without creating unintended consequences or precedents for future cases. Although this type of private bill is not entirely unprecedented the particulars of it are. Excuse me—when one’s nose is more than just an emblem with a cold.Parliament has effected the adoption of individuals through private Acts on six prior occasions. Four Acts involved the posthumous adoption of individuals one involved the adoption of an adult and one directed the issuing of new birth certificates for the adopted children. In each case these private Acts deemed the person to have been adopted by the named parents. The effect of this is that the person was accorded the same rights benefits and status and made subject to the same liabilities andconsequences as if an order of adoption had been made by the court. These examples differ from the current bill which simply requires the details to be recorded on the birth certificate.Progress is being made on ensuring that this type of situation can be more quickly resolved by the Department of Internal Affairs. The Department of Internal Affairs—again in my view a very efficient Government department—is currently making changes to its computer systems to enable same-sex adoptive parents to be included on a person’s birth registration entry. These changes are being made to support the implementation of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 which will come into force on 19 August this year. Births Deaths and Marriages registry staff would therefore be able to add Diane Sullivan toRowen Sullivan’s post-adoptive birth registration entry and for one or more new birth certificates to be issued showing those details in line with this bill’s requirements. This is great news for those who like Ms Sullivan want to pay tribute to their parents by continuing their lineage in the eyes of the State. Where the select committee stage will be vital for the success of this bill is in the realm of clarifying legal requirements and processes.As the bill focuses only on making a change toRowen Sullivan’s birth record it is not clear at this stage what effect the bill would have on her ability to list both mothers as her parents on the notice of her intended marriage or civil union. It is also not clear what practical legal effect progressing this bill through Parliament will have other than simply obtaining a new birth certificate for her own personal record. In this case this may not be a significant concern as Diane Sullivan wasRowen Sullivan’s biological mother. However there is a risk that this could set a precedent for other proposed bills where a deceased individual had not indicated an intention to adopt. If the Government Administration Committee becomes aware of other people in similar circumstances the committee will need to look closely as to whether greater action is required to address these further cases.In spite of these minor technical matters which we will seek to address in the select committee I wholeheartedly support the goals of this bill and look forward to working with Ms Wall and my colleagues on the Government Administration Committee—if that is indeed where it is intended to go—to ensure that we appropriately allow Ms Sullivan to correctly represent to the State the names of those two people who raised her and who are her parents. I commend this bill to the House and call on all members to do the same. Thank you.MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I am very pleased to support the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill a private bill being brought to the House by my friend and colleague Louisa Wall. I think that as we went through the marriage equality legislation process which was also at the Government Administration Committee we really did see the human face of the issue that we were dealing with. Although the politics of the marriage equality debate was very real and ever-present it was during the submission process—where you had to look into the faces of the families of the individuals of the couples and of the children who were directly affected by the change that we were proposing to make—that the rubber really hit the road for the committee.I think even the most hardened of opponents of the marriage equality legislation were moved by some of the submissions. [Interruption ] Mr Auchinvole says maybe not. I think they were. I think that the tenor of the debate was very different because we realised that we were talking about real people. We were talking about their families. We were passing judgment on their families and it was a very respectful debate. I think this bill is yet another reminder of how an issue that might seem to be theoretical for some members actually has a very real impact on people’s lives right down to the point of the State effectively telling someone that someone who has always been their parentsomeone who has loved them and raised them legally has no standing in the eyes of the law in New Zealand because of the laws at the time that they were born.So I hope that all members of the House are going to support this particular bill. I commend the courage ofRowen Sullivan and her family in bringing this bill to the House. I do not underestimate how difficult it must be to put themselves up there personally as a family asking for a change to be made because of discrimination under the law. That cannot be easy but I think that speaks to how important this particular measure is to this family and how strongly they feel that it is in the best interests of their family that this issue be addressed and that this bill pass through Parliament.When we went through the civil union legislation that was really about recognising the partners of same-sex couples. We heard dreadful stories about what happened when one of the partners was for example in an accident or ended up incapacitated in some way. A partner would get to the hospital and because the relationship with the family was strained they would be refused access to their loved one because they had no legal standing under the law. Of course that is a risk for de facto heterosexual couples as well except that you are less likely to have a family in disagreement where the relationship is heterosexual as opposed to where it is a same-sex relationship.The stories we heard were just devastating. We heard about partners being shut out of funeral arrangements. We heard about partners being shut out of care arrangements for the person whom they had loved and cared for—for decades in cases—where the family had been completely absent. Parliament agreed that that was untenable under the law and we passed the civil union legislation. But it did not deal with the issue of adoption. It did not. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has a member’s bill in the ballot to deal with this issue and I sincerely hope that it gets drawn and dealt with in the House. But the civil union legislation did not deal with the issue of adoption. That still remains you could say a grey area—an area of deep uncertainty for all couples who are in civil unions.Given how much time we spend in this House and how much time we as MPs spend out in the community dealing with horrific fallout from having parents not wanting to be engaged in their kids’ lives and not wanting to take legal responsibility for their kids it seems to me utterly repugnant that the State would stand in the way of a parent who says “I want to be there.” or “I want to be on that birth certificate I want to be legally responsible and I want to be the person society sees as having a role in raising that young man or that young woman.” The law should not stand in the way as it has in the past. But the reality is that guardianship was applied for and that is great but your relationship with your parents does not end at age 18. In fact if anything I think it gets better. It goes from a person telling you what to do and a person being told what to do to a friendship to a much deeper relationship. So I entirely understand why beyond 18 it is important that that relationship becomes more than simply guardianship; it becomes legal.I want to end just by making the point that this bill highlights a very real fact which is that until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples there will always be these loopholes. There will always be someone who misses out. There will always be someone put into a horrible situation that those of us who have the luxury of having all these rights afforded to us on birth—we did not earn them; because of our genetics we got them—will not be put into and sometimes we take those rights for granted. But the reality is that until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples we will continue to see issues like this which are very upsetting for the people involved and should be completely unacceptable in a modern Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):It is indeed a great pleasure to support this Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill going to the Government AdministrationCommittee where it might be fully discussed. Might I acknowledge to begin with Louisa Wall who has been the one in charge of the bill firstly for her extraordinary work in the past and again because of the fact that someone has had the confidence in her to come to her and bring this most unusual case. I will not reiterate the circumstances but undoubtedly this bill is driven by a young woman’s overwhelming desire to have the name of her biological mother on her birth certificate. That clearly is something that all of us would want that all of us take for granted. It is nothing exceptional. In fact it is an extraordinary compelling thing or fact of nature that all children want to have the recognition and attachment of their parents so that they can honour them.I was struck very much the other day—I think it was Monday—by a20/20 programme about a young Indian guy who was born in a very poor village or very poor circumstances 2000 kilometres from Calcutta. With his brother he went down to the local railway station to see whether they could get something to help feed the family. His brother left him on the bench at the railway station. He was aged 5. His brother said: “Stay there and I’ll come back. Don’t move until I get you.” He did not come back. The young Indian boy woke up in a panic and in the stress of the moment hopped on the railway train that was going past. It took him 2000 kilometres to Calcutta. He stayed there in Calcutta one of the most challenging cities in the world. He lived there hand to mouth for several months until he was fortunately discovered by an Indian woman who took him into an orphanage and from there he was put in contact with Australian parents who brought him up in Hobart Tasmania.They were loving and wonderful parents but at the back of this young boy’s mind was what was happening to his mum. She was actually a solo mum with several other kids. He deeply wanted to go back but he had no idea whatsoever what to do. It was only when he was in his 20s that someone showed him the Google Earth technology. He was fascinated and saw that this could be the key to how he could go back to the village which he had only a very young 5-year-old’s image of what it looked like. It was an almost impossible task. He spent 6 years sometimes staying awake all night working on the computer to figure out the thousands of combinations and permutations that might lead him to his home village. By chance one night he saw familiar landmarks in a village that he had detected by tracing the train line back from Calcutta. The long and short of the story was that he got home and he found his mother. It was one of the most poignant stories I have ever come across.Every child should have the opportunity to be able to recognise and honour their birth parents. There is no doubt that one of the other things that this particular bill brings up is the fact thatRowen’s mum conceived through artificial insemination. Thirty years ago this was done anonymously. Today it is not done anonymously by and large and I think that is a very good thing. Openness and transparency are something that is so important to ensure we have as the ethos going forward.I am delighted to support this bill. We will find in the select committee perhaps that there are problems with it but that is the opportunity to find them out. Hopefully we can satisfyRowen’s desire to see her mum’s name on her birth certificate.JAN LOGIE (Green):Kia orana. I am pleased to offer the Green Party’s support for the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill tonight and to offer my thanks to Louisa Wall for giving this House the opportunity to fix a situation that I found when you described it in the third reading of the marriage equality legislation so incredibly moving. I am really glad thatRowen and Doreen Shields who I understand is here tonight have given us entrusted us with the job of trying to fix this and I have faith that this House will fix this situation because it is I think plain to most if not all of us that a wrong has been done. It is something that is quite easily within our power to fix.I will go through again along with others and outline what has happened and what we are here to do tonight to start the process of fixing.Rowen Sullivan was born in England to an English mother and her partner a New Zealand woman. Because of the time that they were living in and the fact that they were a same-sex couple they were not able to both have their names on the birth certificate. It was purely a matter of the times. They moved to New Zealand and whenRowen was 17 her mother who was named on the birth certificate died.Rowen decided to change the name on the certificate to that of her living mother but to do so she had to remove the name of her birth mother.I cannot imagine anyone in this House listening to that story and putting themselves in the shoes of a 17-year-old whose Mum had died—whom she was obviously very close to and really attached to—having to choose between the name of her mum who has just died recognising her lineage and the name of the mother who was there with her. To have to choose between those is a choice no person should ever have to make. It is fantastic that this bill is coming here in order for us to fix that situation. I have hope within this process that although you can never rewrite history I do think it is always open for us to be able to apologise for our past ignorance and I think that will be appropriate through that process to offer our apologies toRowen and her family for their having to go through that situation.I also want to share the words that Louisa has already shared tonight because it seems most appropriate for me for this discussion to be primarily led by the words of the family so I will again repeat those for the House. They were in a letter that was sent to Louisa on the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and they are I think from Doreen saying: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13 my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for and was granted guardianship. When my daughter turned 18 the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately all this happened before she turned 20 because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum no longer legally exists.”Well I hope this is the start of the process for this House to acknowledge that Diane Sullivan did indeed exist and still exists asRowen Sullivan’s mother alongside Doreen Shields. We should be celebrating loving parenting and family and this is the House’s chance to do that. Kia ora.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):The Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is a fascinating bill because the circumstances pertaining toRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate are pretty unusual. I would really like to thank Louisa Wall for her explanation behind the background circumstances and the story of Diane Doreen andRowen. It is enormously poignant and heartbreaking and I think everyone in this House can empathise withRowen. It is quite natural that she wants to record the details of her deceased mother—her birth mother—on her birth certificate. That seems ultimately reasonable and a logical request. In fact the most obvious question in this case would be why it is not already there. It does not seem to make any sense so we can understand exactly whyRowen wants to bring this bill to Parliament.When we look at why it is not there it is a very complicated story that emerges. It is a story that revolves around old-fashioned bureaucratic rules and yes discrimination against a same-sex couple and their daughterRowen. In fact asRowen explains same-sex couples—or known same-sex couples—were unusual back in the 1990s andRowen’s family was considered an anomaly. Officially her parents’ relationship was unrecognised. Diane Sullivan and her partner Doreen Shields wereRowen’s parents from birth but the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages did not allow both women to be listed on the birth certificate. Originally Diane Sullivan—that isRowen’s birth mother—had been listed and Doreen Shields would have liked to adoptRowen but two female names could not be allowed on the birth certificate.So the closest that Ms Shields could be linked to her daughter was as an additional guardian which she became but guardianship expires when a child becomes an adult at 18. Then the situation became even more heartbreaking and more complex because Diane Sullivan died whenRowen was 19. Doreen wanting to be publicly linked to her daughter and as the only person left who could be her parent applied for an adoption order. That adoption order was made in January this year. However the adoption order required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s name which was an incredibly tough decision considering it had been only a short time since she had passed away. It seems a dreadfully unfair situation thatRowen could not have had both her parents listed on her birth certificate.Following the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act in 2013 just recently same-sex people are now able to marry and therefore apply to jointly adopt children so this problem has disappeared. Had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry again we would not have had this problem. They would have been able to jointly adoptRowen and both would have been recorded on her birth certificate. As of 19 August coming up very soon same-sex couples will be able to jointly adopt and this issue will no longer arise.National is voting for this bill at its first reading to refer it to a select committee and allow the issues to be considered fully. As we go forward we know that the Department of Internal Affairs is working on computer changes to allow the names of same-sex adoptive parents to be printed on birth certificates so technically this should not be a problem. But we just want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences and so it will be up to the Government Administration Committee to work through the issues and make a wise decision about how this should be handled. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First understands the reasons why the people concerned seek the direction for the entry on to the birth certificate as set out in the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. New Zealand First also accepts the genuine motivation for the bill. But the law as it previously was that prevented the entry of both parents’ names was properly complied with at the time. There is therefore no wrong in the legal sense to be put right. New Zealand First therefore does not accept that it is now necessary or appropriate to pass this bill for one individual. It may be appropriate to change the law generally for people in this position but that is not a matter for the present. For that reason alone New Zealand First feels obliged as a matter of policy to vote against it.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahnnyung ha seyo and good afternoon Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I start by congratulating Louisa Wall on how lucky she is to have had two bills drawn in the ballot when some of us have had bills in there for years and years and years. Lucky you. Congratulations.What this particular bill is essentially seeking is to amend the birth certificate of MissRowen Sullivan and to require the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriagesto record the details of her birth mother on her post-adoptive birth entry. The preamble of the bill explains the circumstances in which Miss Sullivan seeks to record both her birth mother Diane Sullivan and her mother’s same-sex partner Doreen Shields as her parents on the birth certificate as they are the only parents she has ever known. I take this opportunity to send my sincere condolences to Miss Sullivan and Miss Shields on the passing of Diane Sullivan who died due to cancer.It is a sad story. We have heard from different members in the House. It is actually very poignant. If Diane and Doreen were able to have married they would have been able to adoptRowen but Diane died before the marriage amendment legislation was passed leaving Doreen to act as an additional guardian toRowen but that expired whenRowen turned 18—2 years ago. How sad that is. If it happened now since the bill has passed perhaps she might have been able to adopt her.It is uncertain why MissRowen Sullivan is seeking to have this change or the practical legal effect Miss Sullivan is seeking by getting this bill passed through Parliament aside from getting a birth certificate for her own personal records with both Diane’s and Doreen’s names on it. I understand why and I actually empathise with it but I am a little bit cautious as to what other changes or effects this bill’s passing might have on other cases. Does this bill set a precedent for people wanting to make changes on their birth certificate? For example I know of many people whose recorded birth dates are different from their real birth dates maybe because with the difference between the lunar calendar versus the Gregorian calendar the date changes. But once the date is written on an official record people are stuck with that date that is actually incorrect every year that the year rolls round. Some records have been destroyed as a result of war or fire and their birth dates are recorded wrong. And some like me have a completely different date caused by a mistake or lapse in memory.I never really found out why my birth date was wrong but according to my birth certificate I was born in the Year of the Snake—without giving the year so that everybody would know how old I am—but my real birth date is in the Year of the Fire Horse. The difference is only a few months or a couple of weeks but it really makes a huge difference because it is a difference of a year. I am a year older than I really am—I know I do not look it Jonathan. I do not know whether it was because women born in the Year of the Fire Horse are meant to be career orientated and not housebound or maybe it was that mywhānau elders my grandfather actually wanted me to marry and have children. He did not want me to be this work-focused woman. Or maybe it was because I was a sickly child and in and out of hospital and they wanted to make sure that I was viable before they actually registered me. Whatever actually happened I was registered well after I was actually born and by the time they got to register me I got the wrong birth date. And it is a different month too so when people count the star signs I am one star sign but in reality I am another. So when people sort of think “Oh she’s an Aquarius.” or “She’s a Sagittarius.” or “She’s a Leo.” they sort of judge people according to their birth date. I will just keep you guessing as to which is the real one.But the end result regardless of what the reason was is that I was registered incorrectly and I will for ever be a year older than I really am. Does this bill actually mean that I can finally change the recorded birth date to reflect the real birth date? Does that mean that I will become a year younger? I do not know. Should I be allowed to? Whether I want to is another matter. I probably want to be a year younger. On the other hand I can understand that this may be an emotive issue for Miss Sullivan and although the intention of this bill in itself is admirable which is to remember her birth mother and her desire to acknowledge her on her birth certificate there might be other unintended consequences and they might not be immediately apparent. That is the reason I believe that the bill needs to be scrutinised. This bill needs to be investigated tosee whether there is any mischief in it and it needs to be opened up to the public for submissions. That is the reason I support it going to the Government Administration Committee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Darien Fenton.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):Well done Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kia orana.DARIEN FENTON: Kia orana kia orana. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill but I thought I should start by correcting the member Melissa Lee who spoke prior to me about the nature of this bill. It is a private bill; it is not a balloted bill so it did not come from the ballot. It is a private bill which is being sponsored by Louisa Wall on behalf ofRowen Sullivan. In fact private bills are very rare. They have hardly been used in my time in Parliament. I have been here since 2005 and there have been no private bills. Sometimes people get confused and call members’ bills private members’ bills but there have been no private bills. So once again Louisa Wall is making history in this Parliament by bringing something that we rarely see in Parliament and I know that she has been moved to do so by the story ofRowen and her family.Can I say that I completely understand just what it would feel like not to be able to have both your parents’ names on your birth certificate. I do not want to diminish in any way the story ofRowen and her parents but I can think of other examples where this could have happened to people—for example children who have been adopted and find out later who their birth parents are. What a difference that can be for people—understanding who they are and understanding what their identity is. This bill is about confirming identity. It is not going to have any practical outcomes as the previous member was querying. It is an outcome that confirms the real identity of somebody’s two parents and as such it is a very very important bill.There is no other way thatRowen can have both her parents’ names—Diane and Doreen—recorded on her birth certificate. There is no other legislative or administrative means. It seems incredibly unfair that she can have only one of her parents on her birth certificate and I can understand in those circumstances how sad and awful that must have been particularly given that one of her parents was ill and then died and how much pain this woman has been through in this. Can I also say that ifRowen had been born today of course her parents could be married. Well from 19 August they could get married and both of them would be recorded on the birth certificate but that cannot occur because as I said Diane sadly died in 2010.This bill will allowRowen to have both her parents’ names recorded on her formal birth certificate which is the only formal document that records her birth and that is the other special thing about this. We get only one birth certificate. That is the only piece of documentation that says who you are and who your parents are and that sets out the basis of your identity. As such it is very very important.So again I want to say how wonderful it is that Louisa has sponsored this bill particularly as she did mention it during her speech on the marriage equality legislation. She has clearly formed a friendship and a relationship withRowen and felt moved to sponsor this bill on her behalf. I again congratulate her on doing that. I am supporting this bill going to the Government Administration Committee and I look forward to hearing about the discussions at the select committee.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. I am glad to rise and seek a call on this first reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. There has been significant national and in fact international attention on this issue. I counted nofewer than 10 articles online from various news outlets. I would like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Louisa has put this issue forward as a matter of some importance to her and obviously to the individuals concerned and I am always open to discuss matters like this with my parliamentary colleagues.As other members have traversed this particular bill seeks to amend the birth certificate ofRowen Sullivan to reinsert Diane Sullivan as her mother. Diane died as a result of lung cancer a horrific disease to which I have lost friends and family members so I can only sympathise thatRowen at the age of just 17 lost her mother to this disease and her mother’s partner Doreen became her guardian. As Jan Logie from the Green Party noted this was a tragic course of events to go through particularly for someone so young. To find at the age of 18 that you would have no legal relationship with your caregiver despite a lifetime of being cared for by that person I can understand would be particularly upsetting. After having worked overseas and dealing with parents who want to register a new birth and noting that this is usually a happy occasion I did come across cases where for a number of reasons this was complex delicate or a sensitive issue so I appreciate that this bill will bring to the surface some complexities sensitivities and sympathies especially forRowen herself.As previous speakers have noted this bill will require in effect the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details ofRowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry. As we are aware most private bills are for organisations as for the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2012 or the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Act 2010 which have passed through this House in recent years. But in 1989 there was a private bill dealing with the estate of EllenEames and closer to this case in 1985 Parliament passed a law making lawful the marriage between Thomas Stockman and Rosalina Howe despite Mr Stockman being the half-brother of Ms Howe’s mother. I acknowledge that it is therefore not entirely unheard of for this House to be asked to implement changes like the ones that this bill is asking for. It has happened six times before with four of those Acts involving the posthumous adoption of individuals. One involved the adoption of an adult and one directed the Registrar-General to issue new birth certificates for those adopted children but these cases are exceptional and relatively rare. In this case the intention of the bill differs somewhat from these examples as it simply requires the details to be recorded on the birth certificate.I think it is important to note that this issue would not have arisen hadRowen Sullivan’s birth mother been able to marry her long-term partner and I am very glad that this kind of situation will hopefully be avoided in the future following the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 earlier this year. I would again like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall for the role that she played in that legislation. It is also encouraging to hear that the Department of Internal Affairs is making changes to its computer systems to enable same-sex adoptive parents to be included in the details of a person’s official birth entry.As this bill focuses only on making a change toRowen Sullivan’s birth record I am somewhat uncertain about what the effect of the bill would be on her ability to meet other legal requirements and processes in the future. For example shouldRowen marry or enter a civil union it is not clear to me whether she would be entitled to list both of her mothers as parents on the notice of her intended marriage or civil union document. I am interested in learning more about this and the complexities of this case and perhaps I will have the opportunity to do so should the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.Although this issue has an extremely narrow scope—more narrow than any other bill that I have yet spoken on in my relatively short time in this House—there is a risk that this bill could create a precedent but I am willing to support this bill’s referral to the select committee where it can be considered in full. Hopefully this House and the bureaucracy that provides these services to the public can find a better way of fixing problems like this in the future. I commend this bill for further consideration.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson):Meitaki.LOUISA WALL: In concluding this first reading debate I want to focus on a sentence fromRowen’s statement: “Other people can have both their parents on their birth certificate and they don’t have to choose between having their mum’s name taken off or having no family at all as far as the law is concerned.”This Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is fundamentally aboutRowen’s right to her identity which exists within the context of her family. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004—or HART Act—came about because of the changing ideas of family that permeated court decisions from as early as 1990. Those decisions reflected changing social understandings of the structure of the normal New Zealand family. The old understandings of family as genetically related and nuclear collided with new understandings. These new understandings of family involve same-sex couples reproductive material donors and altruistic surrogacy.Since 2004 we have recognised in law these new understandings of family and parenting. The Care of Children Act 2004 widened the practice of guardianship changing from the traditional Western ideology of the nuclear family towards a more traditionalMāori concept of the extended family. The 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act recognised parenting roles where a child is born as a result of an assisted human reproduction procedure. All this legislation reflected the actual realities of families in a modern contemporary society that recognises choice.Rowen is part of a new family. Under the 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act bothRowen’s parents would have been identified as such and accordingly could have been recorded onRowen’s birth certificate. However due to the circumstances of when and whereRowen was conceived this was not possible at that time. However now as a New Zealand citizen with a New Zealand parentRowen is entitled to have a New Zealand birth certificate that records all of who she is.A birth certificate is an official document that contains the registered information about your birth. As the Department of Internal Affairs states on its website the birth certificate states the fact of the birth the place and date of that birth and the name or names registered for the child and establishes a link between a child and its parents.Rowen has a New Zealand birth certificate. It states the date and place of her birth it states her names but it has only one of her parents’ names recorded on it because it is a post-adoption certificate and the law requires that in issuing that certificate her mother’s name must be removed.The passage of this bill would mean thatRowen’s link with both of her parents will be clearly identified on the one document that she will use as evidence of who she is. Her birth certificate would then describe her family in real terms. Kia oratātou katoa.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Government Administration Committee.Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises BillThird ReadingMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I moveThat the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a third time . Kia ora kia orana. Firstly I would like to thank and acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay as the author of this bill and the communities of Murupara and Kawerau who contacted him for help to take a stand against gangs and whose efforts bring us here today for the third and final reading of this bill. I also acknowledge the Law and Order Committee and its chair Jacqui Dean for strengthening the intent of the bill through the select committee process. I also acknowledge our support partners New Zealand First ACT and United Future.The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the Public Service the police Crown entities local authorities and schools. This legislation covers 34 known gangs in New Zealand. These are criminal organisations that are known to harm the fabric of our society. Every day Kiwis are exposed to their intimidation. Today in this Parliament every member who votes in favour of this legislation is standing shoulder to shoulder with these brave Kiwis in saying that enough is enough. The spirit of this bill is sending a clear message to all gang members that what they stand for is not wanted or accepted in New Zealand.To any gang members prospects or associates who may read or watch this speech I would like to send out both a challenge and an invitation. My challenge is for all gang members and prospects to think about the contribution they want to make to New Zealand. At the moment their choice is to rob steal beat and sometimes kill Kiwis who cannot defend themselves. They manufacture and sell drugs and use extortion and stand-over tactics. They rape and they trample over people’s lives like they mean nothing.There are gang members who will be laughing at this speech. Well take a look in the mirror. Behind the tattoos aggression and patches is someone who is either a scared coward who needs to hide in a sea of patches to feel strong or someone who has the courage and strength of character to take the patch off walk away and rejoin a community that needs people to stand up against violent bullies rather than be one of them.To the gang members who have been born and raised in the gang culture break the cycle and want more for the next generation. Every week there are children huddled in the corner of a bedroom late at night on a dirty mattress with a dirty sheet listening to gang members getting drunk the sound of smashing glass and loud abusive voices terrified that their bedroom door will open and one or maybe two drunk or drugged-up gang members will subject them to the pain and fear that no child should be exposed to. Have the intestinal fortitude to protect your children and remove them from the risk of sexual assault and violence which are part of gang culture. Fight to give your children a better start in life.It is not necessary to be a millionaire to keep a home clean and tidy to keep your kids safe or to buy a loaf of bread rather than a joint or a six-pack. Every year millions of New Zealand taxpayer dollars are spent trying to repair the damage and chaos that is caused and inflicted by gangs. This money should be spent on our children and schools or health services for the elderly.I said at the start of my speech that I would make a challenge and an invitation. My invitation is to help any gang member wishing to make a break from a gang. If they have looked in the mirror and what they saw was someone who has the courage and vision to want to get out and be part of building stronger communities rather thanweakening and inflicting harm on them then my door is always open to assist in identifying a safe pathway out. If the reflection shows a violent coward who enjoys hiding behind a patch and hurting people then the best place for you is prison.I would just like to also mention quickly in relation to this bill the fact that there are no other current laws Acts or legislation that cover what this bill covers. Other legislation requires a formal complaint from a member of the public to generate a response from the police. This bill does not require a complaint from a member of the public. When a member of the public is forced into the position where they have to make a formal complaint against a gang member that is intimidating and it can place them in harm’s way. This bill removes that requirement.This bill also removes the requirement—and you will not find this anywhere else in current legislation—that an offence has to be committed whether it be a threat of assault an assault or disorderly behaviour before the police can act. The offence under this legislation is created the minute the gang member puts on a gang patch and walks into a Government building or a school. So this bill removes all of the tension potential conflict and intimidation between gang members and members of the public. It allows the police to act on their own.I would like to finish by sending out a message to our gangs that in New Zealand we do not accept what your gang patches signify. We do not accept the reign of terror intimidation crime and organised criminal activity that you bring to this country. Although this may be a small step it is an important step in us as a country saying: “Leave your patches at home. We don’t want to see them. We don’t accept what they stand for.” This bill is one of many measures that we will continue to take in our fight against gangs and organised criminal groups. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Kia orana. Can I acknowledge Mark Mitchell who has taken over this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill from Todd McClay but respectfully differ from him on the critical comment that he made. That comment was that there is no legislation covering the wearing of gang patches. Mark Mitchell was in the Law and Order Committee when I asked the officials whether right now Ministers or chief executive officers had the power to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government or school premises. The answer to that was yes. So my next question to Mark Mitchell and the National Government is if wearing a gang patch is threatening and offensive in Government premises how many Ministers in the last 5 years have issued the instruction that no gang patches be worn in Government premises? Do you know the answer to that? The answer is zero. Not one Minister—not Minister Coleman or Minister Bridges or any other Minister—has ever issued that instruction. That shows regrettably that this legislation is empty legislation. It adds no new power. The Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of House and select committee time pushing through a piece of legislation that makes absolutely no difference to the current law.Criminal gangs are organisations that set out to condone facilitate or encourage crime and I have zero tolerance for them—I have zero tolerance for them. But there are two responses. One is the response of passing legislation that has a real impact on the presence and the activities of gangs. I am really proud of the fact that as Minister of Justice in 2005 I introduced into this Chamber the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Proceeds of Crime Act did this: it said that where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash or assets held by a gang were the proceeds of crime they could be seized by the police. They could be seized by the police on a court order. That legislation also said that the court would make a judgment about confiscation of those assets not on beyond reasonable doubt grounds but on the balance of probabilities which is the civil standard.The effect of that legislation in the first 2 months after introduction was to take $7.2 million out of the pockets of the gangs and put it under State control. That is real legislation. It made a difference. It hurt gangs where gangs needed to be hurt. Fundamentally they are about making money through criminal activity. The best way of dealing with gangs in that sense is to make sure that the money they make by criminal activity can be and is confiscated from them. That piece of legislation had a real impact. Every minute that the House spent in passing that legislation was money well spent.Another thing the member or his predecessor might have considered doing in this bill is deal with the problem of the association of gang members where those gang members have criminal convictions. If you want to break up a gang then non-association orders would be a very effective way of doing that—not simply on the basis of being gang members but on the basis of being gang members who have committed crime after crime after crime and who should not be able to associate. That would make a difference.What we have in the House today is legislation that actually makes no difference at all. The officials said that. The power exists right now if the Ministers or the chief executives chose to exercise it to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government premises. If the originator of this bill had wanted to make any difference he might have asked about a gang member wearing the patch outside the Government premises and loitering round the entrance of maybe the Ministry of Social Development or whatever. There is no power to remove that gang member—no power under law at all no power to deal with that gang member. But did they do that in this bill? No. They did nothing. That would have at least made a difference. This bill makes no difference at all. It is phoney legislation. It brings no change.I want to raise another point and I hope the National Party speaker who takes the next call will answer it. What we found out at the select committee was that this legislation is inconsistent and it is confusing. Do you know what this law will do? It will say that if you are wearing a gang patch in a swimming pool—not in the pool but in the surrounds of the pool—you are committing an offence under this legislation. But if you are wearing the gang patch up in the Hutt Valley watching the rugby league there is no offence at all—no offence at all. So if you are in the confines of the grounds of a swimming pool it is illegal but if you are watching a game of rugby or rugby league wearing your gang patch it is no problem at all. If you are a gang member wearing a patch and you are standing under a bus shelter you are committing an offence against this bill if it becomes law. But if you step two paces to your left and you are at the bus stop but not under the shelter it is no offence at all. If you are walking down the footpath no offence is committed. But if that footpath is covered by averandah then arguably you might be committing an offence.I say to the member who introduced the bill that good law is law that is clear consistent and enforceable and makes a difference. This law meets none of those criteria—none of those criteria. We even had the situation where the bill as brought to the select committee would have said it is illegal to wear a gang patch on a school property unless it is a charter school. A charter school is 100 percent funded by the taxpayer when it comes about. Well we got them to change that and while they were at it they changed the law on private schools as well.But to give you another example of an inconsistency if you wear your Black Power gang patch into a Government premise you are committing an offence. But if you wear a greasy jacket with a swastika on it that is no offence at all unless it is a gang emblem. If we are talking about wearing a symbol that is offensive and threatening what is more offensive and threatening in this country than the wearing of a swastika and everythingthat that represents? So if you have got a Black Power patch on your jacket it is illegal; if you have got a Nazi symbol it is OK and no offence. Well of course it is not OK. In any Government premise right now you can ban the Black Power jacket and you can ban the swastika. This legislation is phoney. It creates a perception; it does nothing. There is a real problem that something should be done about.If you are talking about behaviour the Summary Offences Act covers this already. Behaviour that is threatening is covered by section 3. It is an imprisonable offence. Behaviour that actually is intimidating is covered by section 21. That is an imprisonable offence as well. I say to the National Government that if it wants to do something about gang members and intimidating behaviour it should make sure the existing law under the Summary Offences Act is actually enforced. But it will not be doing that. One of the reasons as we found in the select committee is that police numbers are down by 446 over the last year. There was no Government announcement about that. Mark Mitchell was on the committee and he has got the written answer which I have got in my hand. There are 446 fewer police officers than this time last year—cuts disguised cuts never-announced cuts but cuts nevertheless.Do you know what else this shows? It shows that the Government is intending to cut the police budget in real terms every year for the next 4 years. The Government is worried about gangs and enforcing the laws against gangs. You do not start by cutting the police budget and cutting their numbers. But I want to say more than that. To deal with gangs you have got to deal with causes. Black Power said recently that John Key was its best friend. Why? Because there are 152000 people unemployed up 5000 today. If you want to create the environment where you can recruit young people into gangs do not give them a chance in life. Do not give them a job. Do not give them a trade skill. The Government if it is worried about this needs to deal with the causes. It needs to be real about its legislation not introducing phoney pretend legislation like this that will make no difference at all and that is why we are opposing it.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure to stand and rise in support of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague Mark Mitchell the MP for Rodney. It is always interesting to follow the Hon Phil Goff a man who has been in this House for a long time—a long time he has been in this House—and yet he has not yet learnt that volume is no substitute for substance. Volume is no substitute for substance because buried deep in the socialist psyche—buried deep in the socialist psyche—is a softness on crime and a softness on criminals. Phil Goff in that speech was nothing more than an apologist for gangs and an apologist for criminal behaviour.This is a bill that proposes to prohibit—Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think any member of this House including yourself would take offence at being told that they were soft on criminals and that they have sympathy for criminals when that clearly is patently untrue of I think every member in this House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. Look I think from time to time this House expresses some quite strong views about other members. I do not see this—Hon Phil Goff: You can’t tell untruths.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well it is a debating point and it is an interpretation of the member’s speech. [Interruption ] Order! I am on my feet. Look I just think we will make more progress if we just leave those kinds of personal assertions behind and get on and debate.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. Could you advise me as to whether the words “being an apologist forcriminals” are offensive? Because that is what was said. It was not—[Interruption ] Can I finish my point of order? It was not even as lenient as Mr Goff put it. They were the words that were said and I think they are offensive.Hon Simon Bridges: This is a House of Representatives with free speech and if those petals on the other side want to get precious—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Excuse me. [Interruption ] Order! The member spoilt it when he made an imputation on the other side when he was making his point of order. That is the problem we get when we personalise it. I have expressed that that is unhelpful. In my view I have heard much worse and members have not taken offence. I do not want to get into ruling words out and a whole lot of situations that make life difficult to police. I have just said to the House to show some decorum. We will leave the personal stuff behind and debate the bill.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue is this: your ruling is tantamount to saying that a member speaking in this debate should not say that another member is soft on crime. It is an absolutely fair comment and the member should be entitled to say that 15 times in his speech if he wants to.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has interpreted my comments as that he has probably energetically interpreted them because the allegations made were a bit stronger than that. I will just—[Interruption ] Look it is time to just move on.SCOTT SIMPSON: Labour is soft on crime. Labour is an apologist for crimes and criminal activity. The Labour Party deep in its psyche has buried the socialist psyche; deep in its psyche is a softness on crime.Once this bill is passed the bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You made a very fair ruling and you told us all to taihoa. That member who jumped up and down twice repeated the words that I used in a flagrant disregard for your ruling. I ask you again to rule on it.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have said we should just move on. If the member noticed I actually diverted my attention over a matter. I do not want to get into ruling things out. Members on the Government side could have taken offence at a number of things the Hon Phil Goff said. That is kind of the nature of this place. I have just said that we get into a position of not making progress when we have all these points of order. Members need to be just a bit conscious of their decorum in the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. Could I perhaps just point out that the interjections are flowing both ways. It is not just one way.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not asserted that any one side is more at error than the other. In fact I took pains to comment on both speeches.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has called me a liar and I take offence at that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard him use the word. I am not sure in what context it was actually said. But that is just an illustration of a member who gets up and makes a point of order about how something is inappropriate and then interjects with something that could be considered to be considerably worse. [Interruption ] I am actually ruling on it. What I am saying is let us just leave all this stuff alone and have a debate on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. Thank you.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Speaking to the point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I have ruled on it and I have said that members across the House are behaving in a way that incites disorder.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Mr Speaker—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well it is just the point that that particular term is known to incite disorder and the convention has been that members are asked to withdraw and apologise. Mr Cosgrove has admitted that he has used it. Mr Bridges has taken offence. I heard him call—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK offence has been taken. The member will withdraw.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: And apologise.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I was asked to withdraw. You were not the Speaker last time I checked. [Interruption ]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am not going to waylay this matter but I invite you to go and reflect on the tape at the dinner break. I accept it and I am not challenging your ruling but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes that is certainly right.SCOTT SIMPSON: Once passed this bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang insignia. Police will have these powers within a few days of the bill being given the Royal assent.Remember that the catalyst of this bill was made by the original sponsor of the bill the Hon Todd McClay. He put the bill into the ballot and he did so in a response to the community marches against gangs in Murupara which took place after the brutal murder of a youth who was murdered for no reason other than the school uniform he wore was the colour of a rival gang from the region. I am told that the Murupara Area School has welcomed the changes this bill will bring. The school itself has already adopted its own zero-tolerance policy to ban the wearing of gang colours. The chair of the school’s board of trustees is reported as saying that the policy has proved very effective. He has acknowledged that this bill will give the school’s principal yet another tool to reduce the influence of gangs on young people in that community. Labour is opposed to giving school principals more tools to cope with the dangerous and socially unacceptable criminal activities of gangs. Labour is opposed to giving school principals the tools that they need to protect our young people from gangs and gang influences. This bill will give school principals the legislative tool they need to call the police and to have their school policy enforced and enforced effectively. It will give policy some teeth and it will be enforced by our police force when and as required.When he rose to speak in the introduction of the bill the Hon Todd McClay said that it was not a silver bullet but that it will reduce the influence of gangs in our communities. I think that he was absolutely right on that point. This bill is drafted in an extremely careful way. It is drafted in a way that will send a message that as a society we do not accept gangs and their thuggish illegal gang behaviour. Gang intimidation will be reduced as a result of the passing of this very good piece of legislation. Law-abiding citizens in our country of New Zealand will be offered greater protection from thug gang members. Victims will be offered greater protection and I am proud to be part of a Government that makes absolutely no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. The focus of this bill is all about further reducing the harm and the very significant misery that gangs cause throughout communities in all parts of New Zealand.I did not sit on the Law and Order Committee which considered the bill but I do note that the Police Association supported the bill saying that it would become part of a suite of changes needed to further undermine the influence of gangs. There was anothersubmission from a community law centre based in Porirua which spoke of the stranglehold that the Mongrel Mob has on that area of this city near Wellington. Two of the law centre’s clients had been murdered by Mongrel Mob members and staff at the centre had worked with a 12-year-old girl who had been pack-raped by gang members. The centre’s submission said that gang patches provided a conduit to fuelling fear in its local community and Labour to its eternal shame opposes this bill.For gang members their patch is absolutely their being. It is the physical manifestation of their lifelong commitment to the gang that they are associated with. All the social ills that gang members attach to it are attached to the physical patch itself. For gang members their patch is not just an item of clothing; it is far more than that. They will fight for it they will die for it and they will most certainly have committed criminal activities to have earned it. The potential impact of this bill its powers of confiscation and the disposal that will then take place will be powerful tools for our police to use in their fight against lawless gangs and their activities. None of us should underestimate at all the powerful influence and impact that the physical disposal of the patch itself will have. The confiscation and disposal are critical to undermining the influence of gangs. Taking away the gang patch takes away the gang member’s mana it takes away their standing within the criminal fraternity and it takes away their influence and their power to intimidate innocent victims and innocent citizens in our society.So I want to thank and congratulate Mark Mitchell and Todd McClay on bringing this very good bill to the House. It is a bill that I support. I know that members on this side will support it. It is a bill that should be passed with a big majority and the huge support of this House. I commend it to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):It is a shame that we had to endure that speech from Scott Simpson after what I thought were two very good speeches to the House around this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. We on this side of the House take great offence to that member saying that we are soft on crime. We are not soft on crime. If the other side of the House looked at this piece of legislation it is something that wants to give the appearance of being tough on crime but that does not do that.Having said that I do want to acknowledge Mark Mitchell the member in charge of the bill. I think he gave a very heartfelt speech. I must admit that I agreed with a lot of it. He did say that the spirit of this bill wants to crack down on a lot of the concerns that I think a lot of the members in this House have around the offending that gangs do in our communities. We do not like any of it. We certainly know as Mr Goff said that gangs are responsible for a lot of the drug dealing that happens in our communities. We know that alcohol-fuelled violence from gangs can be horrific and a number of instances have been mentioned already in this House.But I want to acknowledge that although Mark Mitchell talked about the spirit of the bill on this side of the House we do not believe that the substance of the bill actually attacks the real issue that is at hand which is really cracking down on gangs. Mr Mitchell said that there are 34 known gangs that are targeted within this bill and the bill does have the ability to broaden that out via an Order in Council.I think I am stealing the words of Phil Goff in the minority report from the Labour Party within this bill when I say that Labour has no truck with gangs. For that side of the House to use petty politics to try to accuse this side of the House of being soft on crimes and soft on gangs is offensive.Hon Member: You started it.KRIS FAAFOI: “You started it.”—that is a rather grown-up retort! “You started it.”—that is what we get from the other side of the House.I do agree with Mark Mitchell that a lot of the harm has been caused by gangs in our community but we are not going to do anything substantive about that by changing the dress code of gangs. We are not going to do anything substantive about gangs in our communities by doing that. I think there is a valid concern in our communities about saying to gangs that we are going to change their dress code. It has already been said during this debate—by Mr Goff I believe—that there are already statutes that provide the ability for the likes of the police other Government departments and schools to take action if they do not want gang members arriving on their premises with gang patches.I am not sure whether this reading will be completed by the dinner break but I make an offer to anyone on the other side of the House to get in my car during the dinner break and come with me to the Porirua Police Station where it says when you walk in “No gang patches allowed.” So already there are measures in place. I am quite happy to take Mark Mitchell and anyone else. Scott Simpson might want to come along but he probably will not take up that offer. I invite those members across the other side of the House. If they would like to come with me during the dinner break to the Porirua Police Station I will show them that measures are already available to the police via laws that are already in place to prevent gang patches being taken into Government departments like police stations or schools.I do empathise with the likes of people from the schools in Murupara who came and gave submissions to the Law and Order Committee that gangs in their communities certainly are a problem. They certainly are in my community. I was out watching some league the other day and I got some grief from them. I do not care for gangs—I do not care for gangs at all—but if we are going to take some real substantive action against gangs in our communities we cannot just give our communities this piece of legislation which I think does not do anything substantive towards making sure we crack down on the actions of gangs.One other thing we need to be aware of is that we need to reduce the number of people and especially our young ones who enter our gangs. One of the big factors in recruitment in gangs is youth unemployment. Certainly a concern for me is the high rate of Pacific unemployment. We have seen today that the level of Pacific unemployment has gone up from 15.2 percent to 16.3 percent. If this Government was serious about cracking down on gangs and stopping young people like young Pacific Islanders entering gangs it would do something to give those young people an opportunity for employment—an opportunity for employment—so that those young people did not have to turn to gangs as an alternative to not having a job.I just want to repeat that statistic: Pacific unemployment at the moment is at 16.3 percent—that is nearly one in five Pacific Islanders around this country does not have a job. So if this Government was serious and there is an increasing problem with young Pacific Island people especially getting into gangs in Auckland and in South Auckland—and Mr Mitchell said that this bill was not a silver bullet—it would take much more substantive action than changing the dress code of gangs. It would mean looking at what is driving the membership of gangs and certainly unemployment is one of those drivers.I also want to turn to the ability of the police to police this new law. Mr Goff has already mentioned that the front-line staff numbers have been reduced by somewhere in the area north of 400. We are already seeing front-line police resourcing under extreme pressure and having this heaped on them is another pressure that we are putting on them. The police budget in real terms is going to be cut by somewhere around $110 million over the next 4 years. So we are putting extra pressure on our police and do not forget that this is a police force that Mr John Key at the time of the 2011 election saidhad plenty of time on its hands. That was because it was going and investigating Winston Peters’ phone records. This is a police force that allegedly has got plenty of time on its hands so it is getting fewer cops on the front line and is having its budget cut—budget cut. That is not—ha I am not going to repeat that. So our police are under extreme pressure and this is just something else that they are going to have to do that will be of very little substance to the communities which want some substantive action on gangs.The anomalies that Phil Goff has pointed out are strange. There is the fact that you can be under a council-owned bus stop wearing a patch and that is an offence but if you were to be 2 or 3 metres to the left or the right of that bus stop and not under that bus shelter you would not be committing an offence. So the anomalies in this bill have not been addressed since its introduction. They are still within the bill. That is another reason the farcical nature of this Government’s attempt to try to look tough on crime certainly has not been addressed with this bill.To finish off can I just go back to the contribution from Mark Mitchell. He is someone who has been a police officer and I very much respect that. He is someone in this House whom I very much respect and he has told us of his concerns about the offending that gang members do in our community. We on this side of the House share those concerns Mr Mitchell and I congratulate you on the way in which since you have taken over this bill you have tried to bridge the gap I would say between our differences on this bill. But since then—and certainly since the beginning since Todd McClay introduced this bill—the gulf between what is in this bill and what we would want to see in terms of some serious substantive action against gangs has not been able to be bridged.I just want to reiterate that we on this side of the House have no truck with gangs. We know that they are in our communities selling drugs to people who are certainly disadvantaged and who are the last people who should be targeted to sell drugs to. We know that gangs are committing crimes. But if we are going to be real and take some substantive action against gangs in our community we would want to see something a lot more substantive than this. We do not want to see a piece of legislation that in my opinion serves only a very shallow public political purpose—to try to make it look like this Government is tough on gangs. We should be doing something against gangs not looking like we are doing something against gangs.Debate interrupted.Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation):I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to question No. 11 in the House this afternoon.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This afternoon in the House I said that a gentleman named AndrewRakich had a financial relationship withKiwiStar Optics. I am advised that that statement is incorrect. My understanding is that he is involved with an organisation that may be seeking to do some work withKiwiStar Optics but he does not have a financial interest in theKiwiStar Optics organisation.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The record will show.Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises BillThird ReadingDebate resumed.DAVID CLENDON (Green):We are all familiar with the adage that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly the drafting of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill and those people who are supporting this bill today are demonstrating their inability to learn from indeed quite recent history—10 or 15 years of history. The lessons have not been learnt. The key lesson that has evidently not been learnt is that one-off narrowly focused pieces of legislation are not the solution to complex multifaceted social problems or to the manifestations of those problems. It is not a difficult proposition. It is one that has been demonstrated repeatedly even as recently as since the early and mid-1990s that one-off legislative fixes will not be sufficient to deal with complex social problems. Mr Mitchell has admitted that this is not a silver bullet. Sadly it is not any sort of a bullet. At best it is a blunt instrument. National members might get some superficial satisfaction or perhaps even a degree of short-term political advantage from seeing one or two gang members arrested for either deliberately or accidentally contravening this law because given the farcical nature of some of the provisions of this law it would actually be quite easy to accidentally contravene this law. I support Mr Goff’s comments about the lack of consistency the lack of clarity in it.But to return to the key point we need to look at long-term solutions. We need to deal with the root causes of crime and offending and we need to look at the drivers of why we have gangs why gangs are manifesting in our communities and why they are so embedded in some communities. I see it close up and personal in Northland Kaikohe Moerewa andKaitāia. They are small towns in Northland where gangs are prevalent and where they are influential—very often in a negative way although not always. We do need to address the issues and the problems associated with their behaviours. This bill does not even begin to go anywhere near addressing the causes of the offending and of the existence of these organisations.A whole raft of legislation went through this House in the early to mid-1990s driven by a moral panic that largely came out of this debate about who is hard who is tough on crime and who is soft on crime. I have to say that sitting here watching that interchange of points of order recently about who is tough on crime soft on crime and who is a petal—really we need to get beyond that. Tough on crime soft on crime? How about we be smart on crime? Let us think about smart solutions—21st century real solutions to crime to the problems of gangs in our communities and to the social behaviours that come alongside that. The lesson of the 1990s which clearly has not been learnt by some members of this House is that legislative solutions seldom generate any measurable positive outcomes. We had law passed about criminal association. We had law that enabled local authorities and police to knock down gang fortifications. We saw changes to the liquor law. None of these had any measurable or discernible effect on the long-term deeply seated complex problems about gang membership gangs in our communities and the criminal offending associated with those problems. Why do we not actually want to address the real underlying problems? Mr Faafoi has touched on some of those which are unemployment social disadvantage and alienation.I have made this recommendation in an earlier speech on this bill but I would again recommend that members of the Government parties particularly get hold of a book calledPatched by Jarrod Gilbert which presents evidence and presents a social history of gangs in New Zealand. It points out that gangs in some form or another have beenaround at least since the 1950s. Typically they were groups of young men alienated and rebellious. They joined a gang got themselves into mischief and trouble for a few years and then essentially grew out of it. They would go and get themselves a job they would marry and they would get a house. The patched gangs that are now the cause or the target of this bill are an unusual phenomenon in that rather than the members of those gangs joining for a few years and then thinking better of it discovering there would be better ways to spend their lives than bouncing in and out of trouble with the police and jail and getting on with life in a much more communally acceptable way the difference for those gang members is of course that the 1980s—through the misguided new-right policies of the 1980s—entrenched unemployment.We are now seeing second and third-generation unemployment and second and third-generation gang membership. It is not hard to join the dots to look at the causal links between those—the attack on the structure and the fabric of New Zealand society as it was prior to the new-right so-called revolution of the 1990s and carried on into the 2000s and the fact that we have now got these embedded memberships the multigenerational memberships of gangs. That is a very very difficult problem to overcome and to address. We will not do it by little bits of one-off legislation that put some very limited constraints on the gang movements and behaviours of members of gangs.I would almost guarantee I would almost be willing to wager that there will be legal challenges to this legislation once it is passed. It will be exactly as we saw in the Whanganui gang patch legislation where members of Hell’s Angels deliberately walked around outside the police station flaunting gang insignia. They got themselves arrested and not only went to court but actually won the court case which gave great comfort and added to the mana of gangs rather than diminishing it or taking away from it. Again I think there is a lesson there that has not been learnt. I will wager that there will be legal challenges to this bill and probably successful legal challenges based on all sorts of interesting legal propositions that we have yet to see or hear.I have to say this very day at lunchtime just next door in the Grand Hall there was a launch of the Justice Coalition which is a cluster of progressive NGOs around the justice sector that have come together with common cause to endeavour to offer good solutions to the problems of crime offending imprisonment and all of the other bundle of justice issues if you like. I must say in passing that the Minister of Corrections was there and she announced a very positive policy to have an education strategy for every single inmate in our prisons. I commend the Minister on that. We will look with interest to ensure that the policy as it is on paper is reinforced with resources and funding to make it succeed. That is an example actually of a bit of joined-up thinking about criminal offending and prisons and some of the solutions to them. It is a mile away from the sort of nonsense that we are seeing in the bill we are debating today.I was interested to see how few National MPs were present at that launch. In fact other than the Minister I do not believe that I saw one. I did see Labour members there and Green members were present. It is unfortunate that some of the Government members supporting this bill were not at that launch. I recommend to them that they have a look and learn a little about the Justice Coalition which bases its operations among other things on having a vision about what sort of a New Zealand we want. It has an idea that any legislation or policy should have measurable outcomes. It suggests that justice legislation and justice policy should be evidence-based. I would challenge anybody to put this piece of legislation through that filter. Is it visionary? Will there be measurable outcomes from it? Is it evidence-based? I would suggest that it would fail on all of those measures. It would fail on that filtering if you like.Tough on crime soft on crime—let us be smart on crime. Let us look for real solutions that we know will work. They are complex and they are multifaceted. They will require us to spend money differently. We do not have to spend more money on justice; we just need to spend it differently. We need to engage with the communities. In the drafting of this bill did anybody go out and talk to the gang members about their behaviours and ask them what it would take for them to not behave in these ways? Believe it or not there are some intelligent thinkers in the gangs. Some of the older gang members have turned a corner. They realise the error of their ways. They have joined things like the White Ribbon campaign and some of the anti-violence and anti-drug movements. There is hope by working collaboratively and engaging with these offenders and former offenders rather than pretending that these little one-off pieces of legislation will have any positive effect or any positive outcome at all. It will chew up police time. No doubt it will lead to a few arrests. It will lead to legal challenges. Ultimately it will even lead to enhancing the mana of the gangs as I have said. It will become a point of pride to have one’s gang named in this legislation. This is a very poor piece of legislation. The Greens will continue to oppose it.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I do not know what it is about the Greens but every time they speak in this House it reminds me of that song that goes: “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way” because clearly they have been here for 20-odd years and have never had to put their heads on the block.I just want to comment on the fact that this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill really has been a fascinating study of the legislative process in action. No legislation in this House will ever be perfect. No legislation that can ever be passed will be perfect. No legislation has ever solved all the problems in their entirety. This piece of work is no exception. But contrary to the protestations of Labour and clearly now David Clendon it will make a difference. It will put some curbs on the activities of gangs. It will give our police force another tool in their armoury. It will give some peace of mind to those people working on the front line of our public services. It will give them some protection from intimidation—the intimidation caused when a patched gang member leans on the counter demanding service. I have seen it. I have seen it in public sector buildings I have seen it in councils and it is not pleasant. The bill will enable our schools to ban patches from their grounds.The gang insignia bill was introduced to this House from the members’ ballot by the now Hon Todd McClay in response to issues that were affecting his electorate. Todd McClay then became a Minister and passed the bill to one of our ex-coppers Mark Mitchell. Who better to steer this bill through the House? Who knows better than an ex-copper the damage these gangs cause to our communities?This bill falls clearly into the orbit of the Law and Order Committee and further complements the great result that this Government has achieved through Ministers Tolley Collins and Borrows and formerly Simon Power. The Law and Order Committee by select committee standards I have witnessed in this House operates pretty well. It operates under a very good chair and an equally good deputy chair and frankly we would normally have a very good relationship with the other members of that select committee as well. We generally do not cause Phil Goff to have to shout quite as loudly as he was shouting in this House earlier in the day.The results of the law and order policies of this Government have been spectacular. There has been a 30 percent drop in youth crime a fantastic improvement in police resources through the use of technology on the beat—up to in fact Feilding police station having a saving of 20 percent of the total force inFeilding’s time. That has happened in about 8 months.Kris Faafoi: That’s because you’ve got fewer cops.IANMcKELVIE: We listen to Mr Faafoi bleating on about the reduction in the police budget but those figures make a nonsense of that. We have also seen—Kris Faafoi: I’ll table them then. They’re the Minister’s figures.IANMcKELVIE: You are most certainly welcome to table them. We have also seen vastly improved rehabilitation and retraining of prisoners which is making a big difference to the future of those people. These initiatives and achievements complement the further introduction of legislation in this area including the Bail Amendment Bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill the Corrections Amendment Bill and many more. The gang insignia bill sits right alongside those as another tool in the tool box of the New Zealand Police.Crime is an insidious thing. It can have a dramatic effect on a victim. Equally it can go unnoticed for years. Crime in our communities is often inflicted on the most vulnerable in our society. You see criminals are bullies. They do not pick on those who can fight back. Does that not remind you or me—in fact apologies Mr Deputy Speaker I am not trying to remind you. Does that not remind us of a gang member? They are bullies and that is what they make their livelihoods from. That is what they spend their lives doing—bullying people.I just want to very briefly comment on Mr Goff’s comments on this bill because I cannot believe that someone with his vast experience of inept lawmaking can now criticise a Government member for bringing a bill to this House and say it is inept lawmaking. It is inevitable in the course of making any law that you are going to have inept lawmakers; people whose law does not achieve what it initially set out to do. I think that everyone who brings legislation or proposals to this House particularly members who bring them through the members’ bills process bring them here with the best intentions. I do not think it is our business to necessarily pull those people apart for the manner in which they do that.Intimidating public servants people who work for our Government and cannot dodge people is not a pleasant way to be. In the private sector we can do what we want with those people. We can deal with them as we like. We can ban them. We can trespass them. We do not have to serve them. In the public sector our public servants cannot do that. At Work and Income at post offices at hospitals and at schools they have got to look after those people.Kris Faafoi: You can trespass them.IANMcKELVIE: You may be able to trespass them but you need to look after those people because that is what we are here for. That is what Governments are for. So bill this will give public servants a little bit of an opportunity to manage that a bit better.I want to briefly address MrFaafoi’s Pacific unemployment issue. In Marton which is a town in my electorate I have about 30 to 40 Samoan families a year coming into this country to work in the meat company just down the road. That happens every year so I fail to understand why in places like theRangitīkei electorate large numbers of Pacific Islanders are coming into the country to work and at the other end we have them dropping out of the workforce. That is something we need to address.Before I finish I also want to comment on the latest edition of theListener  which I notice is red and has got “risk” written all over it. I suspect that is where we are at. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):It is with a great deal of satisfaction that I rise to stand in support of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. New Zealand First is proud to support this bill. We are proud to stand in support of this fine bill which is about to become a splendid law. We have been here from the outset from the beginning when Mr McClay introduced his member’s bill; through its first andsecond readings; through the Committee stage when we were able to contribute constructively to the bill and when the Government most generously chose to embrace the spirit of cooperation that New Zealand First brought to it by supporting Supplementary Order Paper 253 which was in my name; through the handover when the newly promoted Minister McClay passed the baton to Mr Mitchell who in turn has ably shepherded the bill through to its conclusion—and so we arrive. We arrive at the culmination of this process of lawmaking by which an inspired thought has given life when one man’s righteous indignation at a perceived injustice grows from the spark of contemplation to become something tangible and when it grows to become the law of the land.This law will be a tool a weapon in the hands of our police and a device by which they may remove the scourge of gangs and of gang members from the eye and the presence of decent people and decent society. That splinter of one man’s mind’s eye has grown to be a shaft of light breaking through the darkness that is the gangs and the gang culture in this country growing to become a sabre of justice in the hands of our law enforcement officers and a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the gangs and their filthy and abhorrent lives and behaviour.The passing of this bill marks the ending of one process and the beginning of another. We are witness we here in this House are witness to the dawn of a new time. This bill and its passing into law mark the beginning of the end for the gangs and the gang culture in New Zealand. Through this bill and through the others that will follow—the laws that are yet to come but which will follow in the wake of the trail that this bill has blazed—we will see the gangs expunged from the fabric of New Zealand life and society. We stand in the dawning of the light of a new day. The darkness is ending. The gangs should be afraid. They should be very afraid. We the decent people of New Zealand are claiming back the night. We are claiming back the streets. We are claiming back the rule of law. The gangs will be consigned to history and they will be driven back. They will be forced to crawl or scuttle or slither back under the rocks and the rotting logs where they belong back to the shadows from whence they came. That shadow will be lifted. That veil of darkness that the gangs have held over New Zealand for these past 40 years will be torn away by this bill and by the others that will follow in its wake.I think it is fitting for us to remember to pay tribute to those who have lived and who continue to live under that shadow. The dark criminality of the gangs has been a curse on too many people’s lives. Too many good people have been defiled and despoiled by the evil filth of gangs gang members gang culture and gang crime. In the mean streets of too many of our cities and towns there are people—good ordinary citizens and families—living in fear of the gangs and their intimidation their threats both real and implied their presence and the very real power over people denoted by the displaying of the patch. Well no longer. This bill will put an end to that intimidation. In time it will put an end to that threat an end to the threat against the safety of good ordinary people and an end to the threat against the safety of our police officers who serve and protect us all.Mr Mitchell himself a former police officer and others from the Government side of the House have reminded us more than once of what the gang patch stands for. They have not let us forget that the patch is the mark of a criminal that its awarding denotes the commission of the vilest of crimes against innocent people—robbery rape and murder—committed for their own sake as much as for personal gain committed to demonstrate to their fellow lowlifes and reprobates that they are worthy of the patch which until now they have worn as a badge of honour but which will now become a badge of shame.We owe a great deal to the brave and honourable men and women who wear the blue uniform. This bill and the law that it is about to become will give them a new and powerful tool with which to remove the ugly menace of the gangs from our cities towns and streets; to remove their presence and their intimidation; and to bring an end to the drugs the crime and the violence that are visited upon good people by the evil that is the gangs. The police in New Zealand welcome this bill. They welcome this new tool and we in New Zealand First are delighted to have been able to play a hand in helping to craft it and in helping to ensure its passage through this House and into law.So we come to an end and to a beginning. I look forward to the grim satisfaction that I am sure we will all feel—all of us who stand in support of this bill and I suspect more than a few of those who profess not to—when the first gang patch to be confiscated under this new law is consigned to its doom in a police incinerator. May that flame may the fire of a burning gang patch serve as a beacon—the flame of justice casting aside the forces of darkness with the light of civilisation. May that light lift the shadow of the gangs from the lives of all the good and innocent people who have lived and who continue to live under their menace. I look forward to that day.In closing then I say to the members of this House that we in New Zealand First are proud to support this bill. We are proud to stand with all those who hold the rights of good and innocent people up above those of criminals and lowlifes. This is a fine bill and it will be a fine law. We welcome it we support it and we commend it to the House. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I do not know quite how to follow that contribution that fineChurchillian contribution by the member opposite Richard Prosser delivered with such passion. But is that not what this House is all about? Is that not what this bill is all about? Is not this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill about New Zealand society caring enough to do something about a part of our society that causes unending problems and heartache for some people? So I want to congratulate Richard Prosser. He has entertained us. It was a wonderful speech but the point is that he is absolutely right. I am so pleased that New Zealand First is supporting the bill in the name of Mark Mitchell because it is a bill that deserves to be supported.The board of trustees from Murupara Area School came to the Law and Order Committee and made some very strong points to us. What they said was that they loved their school as parents and trustees and community members. They loved their school they loved their children and they loved their community. They wanted nothing more for their community than for their children to be able to go to school enjoy their time at school learn and then get home safely. That is what we all want for our children. The problem is that in Murupara they could not do that. Why? Because of the influence of the gangs in the community. That influence was reaching not just through the streets of the town but right into the school right into the playground and they wanted to put a stop to it. It is as simple as that. That community that school community wanted to put a stop to the intimidation of gangs in their community so they came to our committee the Law and Order Committee in support of this bill. They came to our Law and Order Committee in support of giving police the power to seize without warrant gang patches of gang members and then if the gang members were to be found guilty to have the patches destroyed. The police support this bill because they know—they know—that the gang patch is the badge of honour for these people. Taking away that badge of honour leaves them with what? It leaves them with nothing. And that is where we should be with these people in New Zealand.What has been so terribly difficult for the Labour members opposite is that they have found themselves in a trap of having to oppose everything just because they are the Opposition. Members like Phil Goff and Kris Faafoi have found themselves in theposition of having to oppose something that they know fundamentally is a good measure and is welcomed throughout sectors like the police and like communities that really know and understand the impact that gangs have on them. Labour members have found themselves in this awkward position of having to find reasons to oppose the bill. So we have had Phil Goff canvassing that perhaps the bill is ridiculous because you could walk along a walkway but what if it has a roof? Well OK let us just tighten up the definition in the bill. That is no reason to oppose it. It must have been very awkward for Kris Faafoi when members of the Whitireia Community Law Centre from Porirua came to the committee in support of this bill for very good reason. It must have been very difficult for Kris Faafoi to keep opposing this bill when his own constituents—his own constituents his own community—came to the Law and Order Committee in support of this bill.I am proud of this bill. I think Todd McClay did exactly the right thing in introducing this bill to the House. I think the bill has been well taken up by his colleague Mark Mitchell who is also a man who understands fundamentally that the measures in this bill will go a long way to addressing the problem of gangs in New Zealand. Of course it is not going to fix the problem—Richard Prosser wants it to we all want it to and good on him for expressing that thought—but it will send a message in the strongest terms to the gangs of New Zealand that enough is enough and that this Parliament takes the issue seriously. I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take a call on this third reading of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I want to say of the member responsible for this bill Mark Mitchell that he has very quickly in his time in this House—the same time as I have spent in this House—become one of the respected and sensible members of the National Party. The National Party does not have many so it has got to hang on to the ones it has got. But the truth is that he has been given a hospital pass on this bill because deep in his heart of hearts I know I am confident he knows that this is a half measure it is a non-measure and it will not achieve half the things that some of the speakers on the other side of the House have claimed of it. The last speaker Jacqui Dean claimed all sorts of things that this bill was going to do and that we just had to tweak a bit here and tweak a bit there. Well we are past the tweaking stage. This is it. This is the bill. The time of this House is being called upon to pass this bill in its current form—the current meaningless ineffective hopeless form that it is in. It simply will not do those things.I could not go further without acknowledging the words of Richard Prosser whose torch is obviously burning very brightly tonight. His dream clearly is of dancing with Anne Tolley around the beacons of hope for peace and good order and dancing on the crushed vehicles the stomping softened only by the leather obtained from the seized patches of gang members. Well we can all have that dream. We have those sorts of dreams every now and again—or at least some people do. I want to put out to Mr Prosser however that aburka is not a gang patch. So the bill is not going to fulfil some of his personal ambitions in that regard.The truth about this bill is that those in control of Government premises can already take action meaningful action and there is ample evidence before the House and that went before the Law and Order Committee to suggest that. The last time I spoke on this bill in the Committee stage I adduced as evidence a copy of that day’sNew Zealand Herald  that august publication. It had the wit at that time to publish a photograph of the Napier District Court and in that photograph of the Napier District Court entrance was a little sign that said “No gang patches in this building”. Here it was a Government building a little sign saying “No gang patches in this building” and the report saidamongst other things that there were no problems with gangs in that building. It was all done without the benefit of this legislation.Then we had the evidence of the Murupara Area School which people have spoken so fondly of in the debate today. It came and spoke in support of the bill but the truth is that when you look at the facts of its situation it supports the opposite. The school has demonstrated that it can banish gangs and gang patches and leather jackets from its premises without this bill. It did it without the bill. Through good leadership and a good strong community the school demonstrated that it could take control of its Government premises without meaningless legislation like this. It can create the culture it can set the rules it can make the standards it can do it—and it did it. The school community the teachers in it the principal and most important the children in it have now taken control of their place of learning. It is a good healthy place to be and they did it all without this legislation. So the truth is that this legislation will do nothing. This legislation will do nothing.Let us be clear too about what it does not cover because that is just as important. It will not cover organisations like the National Front.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ANDREW LITTLE: Well what an interesting interposition that was. The fascinating thing was that tonight we saw as we see most weeknight evenings the TV3 news broadcast and it had two interesting stories on it. One was about this bill and the other was about a cartoon character called theBurka Avenger. One of the stories was full of facts and was fascinating and interesting; the other was a complete work of fiction. It will stun this House to know that the story on3 News tonight that was a complete work of fiction was the story about this bill. What it did was it gave the impression to any member of the viewing public that this bill is going to somehow clean the streets of New Zealand of gang members and those wearing gang patches. We know and anyone who has taken a moment to read the bill will know that it will do nothing of the sort.I might say—bearing in mind that I began my contribution tonight mentioning theburka—that I was very impressed with theBurka Avenger. If we could have theBurka Avenger the avenging Islamic woman coming down and cleaning up evil wrongdoers and all the rest of it she would have a very important role to play in this country unlike this bill—unlike this bill.The point I was making at the time of the dinner break was that there are plenty of things that this bill will not do. For one thing there are nasty insidious gangs that this bill will not go near. One of them is the National Front. Its members wear a uniform all right. They wear attachments and wear their hair in certain styles—the skinhead. They wear tattoos. They wear dark clothing. They intimidate they stand over and they do evil things but this bill will not do anything about them and these people will continue to turn up in public places and they will do their intimidation. They will do theirstandover stuff. And all the bleating from the members opposite will not make a tinker’s cuss of difference to organisations like that.The reality about the National Party members is that they come to this House they puff out their chests they sound tough they talk tough but they do not know what they are doing and they do not care. They do not care about the vast majority of New Zealanders who want to go about their workaday lives in a safe peaceful community. They want window dressing. They do window dressing. Whether it is the streets of Feilding or whether it is the streets of the far north they will do the window dressing. That will get them a few points in the next poll but it will not fix the real problems of New Zealand.So what about particular areas that this bill covers? Well it says that it covers Government premises. What about kids’ parks? What about the beach? What about those places where you go and have a barbecue on a sunny Sunday evening? It will not touch any of those areas. What about city council - controlled areas like parks that are full of trees and without a single man-made structure? Gangs turn up there when families are trying to have their family picnics. The bill will not make a blind bit of difference to that situation or to those people so the gangs wearing their thuggish patches can carry on and do their thing.We all know the problem about gangs and we do not shy away from that problem. We know that they are criminal enterprises. Some of them are pretty dopey and some of them are very cunning but at the end of the day what underpins the gangs is a criminal enterprise. So what that needs is genuine serious measures to address those problems not flimflamfluffery like this and not puffery that looks like it does something but does nothing. We need real measures. It starts with the people. It starts with the social problems and the economic problems deals with the bad conduct and provides real measures to deal with bad conduct—thestandover tactics the intimidation the theft the violence the burglaries and all the rest of it. It actually takes real measures the sort of stuff that the Hon Phil Goff introduced when he was a Minister of Justice. The one thing that Phil Goff did not do was he did not leave it up to members’ bills to look like and give the appearance of doing something serious about a serious social problem. He took the responsibility himself because he was a good Minister. We have not had a good Minister of Justice for at least the last 5 years and that is part of the problem. We have members—backbenchers—having to parade through this House looking as if they are doing something serious. Well that is not happening. If we want to get real about organised crime and get real about gangs we need real legislation that is going to address the real problems.David Clendon from the Green Party was right—and I was at the Justice Coalition launch this afternoon—it is time to get smart about crime. It is time to get smart about crime and when it comes to the gangs it is about understanding the gangs understanding what drives them dealing with those issues understanding the antisocial conduct they engage in addressing the antisocial conduct and working with communities to make them safer as the Murupara Area School has shown it can do the principal of which tonight said that he was very concerned about this legislation because he did not think it would work. We need to actually take real steps not the half measures that are represented by this bill.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):I rise to unequivocally support the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill which is in the name of my colleague Mark Mitchell the member of Parliament for Rodney. I want to pay tribute to the work that Mark has put into shepherding this bill through the House. It has been interesting for me as a new member to see how he has applied his previous experience as a police officer to inform the very constructive contribution that he has made during the debates on this bill.I should also acknowledge Mike Sabin the member for Northland. It is so great to see members using their practical real-world experience in law enforcement in supporting our communities at the front line which is something that perhaps members on the other side might know a little bit less about. Those National members are using their practical experience to improve the law which deals with some of the most destructive unpleasant and violent entities in New Zealand.I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay who originally introduced this member’s bill to the House and whose stewardship of this legislation was interrupted only by his elevation to the executive.I am delighted to support this bill because it puts the rights of the majority of law-abiding respectful and good citizens of our beautiful country ahead of those of the tiny hard-core criminal minority who terrorise with both their offending and their reputation. It is the reputation in particular of these gangs that this bill seeks to neutralise. This bill strikes the right balance in my view between protecting the public in a practicable way while not going so far as to create unintended consequences or counter-productive situations. For instance gang patches—that is the signs symbols and representations used to commonly denote membership or affiliation with a criminal gang—will not be allowed on the premises or grounds of our Public Service departments courthouses police stations local authority offices and schools. But there is a specific exclusion for Housing New Zealand residential dwellings. The line has been drawn in my view in a very sensible place and we will not see families ejected from their State homes because of admittedly ill-advised associations with gangs.Similarly tattoos or non-removable insignia are not included as grounds for banning under this bill so those with permanent marks of gang affiliations—perhaps as a result of stupid decisions made in their youth—although they may be stigmatised by society are not going to be anathematised for life from setting foot on Government premises. One has to hope that they take the opportunity that this exception provides for to visit a public hospital—the very fine public hospitals we have in this country—and have their gang tattoos removed by laser treatment so that they can rejoin decent society.I want to focus on one particular element of the bill and that is the ban on gang insignia in schools and preschools. I support a ban on gang insignia in all governmental premises in general but I especially endorse the banning of gang insignia in schools and educational institutions. I single these places out because it is crucial that the rangatahi the young people who represent the future of our country are protected as much as possible from falling under the dark thrall of the gangs. In those areas where gangs are present it is crucial that we take a strong and determined approach to crack down on gang culture and all that it represents—the lawlessness the violence the disrespect of other people the ill-treatment of women and children the trade in narcotics and the people-trafficking not even to mention the more petty but still harmful activities that gangs perpetrate—and prevent these ills from being visited upon the next generation of young Kiwis.Unlike the other parties with the exception of those who are supporting this bill—and I acknowledge the member Richard Prosser for his passionate speech in favour of this legislation—I believe that if through this bill one single person is diverted one single child is taken away from a wasted life of crime in the malevolent criminal underbelly of this country then that would make this measure worthwhile. I actually believe that many many kids will benefit from this bill indirectly thanks to the clear message that it sends rejecting the culture of organised criminality. Schools around this country particularly in the most affected areas agree with this.As other members have done before me in this debate I would like to draw a small quote from the submission to the Law and Order Committee by the chairman of the board of trustees of Murupara Area School. Jacob TeKurapa JP the chair said that “Murupara Area School is in support of this Bill for the following reasons: 1. Children and students do not need to see gang insignia plastered about our school they need to be protected from it.” He also said: “The introduction of gang insignia into our premises would create tensions and unnecessary negative behaviour and we want to discourage that type of behaviour from our school. We have our own form of ‘insignia’ and that is the wearing of our uniform something for our children to be proud of.” I am sure most members in this House would agree with those sentiments.I was quite surprised when Kris Faafoi made reference in his previous speech to hearing that submission. He expressed his concern and his sympathy but I think that the people of this country the children of Murupara Area School and all concerned citizens deserve more than concern. They deserve more than fine words. They deserve firm action. That is why I am proud to be part of a Government that is delivering it and proud that I have a colleague like Mark Mitchell who is actually giving the people of New Zealand the action that they deserve and that they need. So I have absolute pleasure in commending this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I rise to take a short call on the Government’s Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. There are some of us in this House who know a thing or two about gangs having worked before coming to this House in our community’s efforts to try to stop gang activity from happening in the community or in our efforts with the community to try to stop our young people from getting involved in gang-related activities whether they be legitimate or not but primarily they have been about drugs violence theft and in the main criminal activities. We on this side of the House as I am sure is the same for many others throughout this House have no patience at all for gangs. I oppose gangs and Labour opposes gangs and Labour opposes this particular bill. I will go through the reasons why.Despite what my colleague Kris Faafoi has said about the sincerity of Mark Mitchell in bringing this bill forward the reality is when you really get down to it this bill really addresses the gang’s dress code. It does not address criminal activities perpetrated by gangs. It does not address the drug dealings that gangs get up to or the use of young people to sell drugs. It does not address the thefts the crimes the violence the beatings that they give or even in some cases rape and murder. This bill does not address any of those serious issues whatsoever. So Labour is saying to this Government and to the New Zealand public that this bill is a waste of time.Regrettably what this bill does and what the community is expecting this Government to do are two different things. Yes this Government has talked tough about criminals. Yes it has talked about how it was going to get tough with gangs but the reality is that this addresses only what gangsters should wear in a Government department. It does not take away or address the substance or the character of the gangster who is wearing the patch and does not address the intimidation that the gangster will impose on members of our public.I do not know whether the member who has now taken up this bill is aware of the changing environment with the gangsters. Most gangsters—most gangsters—no longer wear patches. Yes you would see motorcycle clubs wearing patches but most gangsters do not. Most gangsters are either doing their dealings deep underground or particularly out in the open wearing T-shirts. This is why I have made the point that this law does not address the substantial issue that the community is concerned about—criminal activities by gangsters. It does not address that. So it is a waste of time.Look in 2010 the Otago University did a study of the cost of legislation and found that on average an Act costs around $3.5 million and a regulation costs around $530000. That is how much money that this Government is spending on a piece of legislation that effectively will not address the issues that this community demands of this Government that it address.In fact talking about the links between what this Government is doing and the gang-related activities or the reason why some of our young people continue to go into gangs there is a clear link by the evidence that when there is unemployment whenthere is poverty—and the kinds of unemployment that we have seen recently in the household labour force survey of 16.3 percent unemployment for Pacific and 12.8 percent forMāori—that is the kind of thing that this Government is doing that is perpetuating the kinds of activities that we see. So instead of the Government addressing the hard issues of putting people into jobs and paying them decent wages it just prefers to deal with a dress code—a dress code—which does not address any of the problems that I have outlined which our communities throughout New Zealand are concerned about. Criminal activities—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member’s time has expired.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise as the Green Party spokesperson on human rights to speak to the third reading of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia on Government Premises Bill. The Green Party opposes this bill. It has been designed to feed the existing widespread fear of gangs without any chance of reducing the crime associated with these gangs. This bill says that it seeks to restrict the display of gang insignia “on the premises of Departments of the Public Service Statutory entities and Local authorities in New Zealand.” and it defines “gangs” as “gangs listed within regulation”. The bill will allow police to without warrant arrest a person who the officer has good cause to suspect has displayed a gang insignia on Government premises and seize and remove gang insignia that has been or is being displayed. It also enables the police to stop vehicles to exercise powers of arrest or seizure.We have heard so much vitriol from the Government side of the House about criminality and the evil of gangs yet none of us here is suggesting that gangs are actually benign associations that contribute to our society. I join my Labour colleague in sharing my experiences of working in the community and working in women’s refuges with women who have escaped violence associated with gangs and have had to move cities to be able to find freedom outside of that environment. I have worked in youth health and I have seen young people being recruited by the gangs. I have seen their vulnerability and the danger that the gangs present to them but it is for these reasons and based on these experiences that I oppose this bill and the Green Party opposes this bill and I would like to share some of the reasons why.I am thinking particularly of those young people whom I have worked with. In the recruiting of young people gang patches are not part of the process; colours are. This bill cannot do anything about that and if it sought to actually make the wearing of colours illegal we would see how truly ridiculous this is.Mike Sabin: Colours aren’t a patch.JAN LOGIE: Colours are not a patch—exactly. But they serve the same purpose in the recruitment of young people and the association of that gang. We would see if we outlawed the wearing of red T-shirts how absolutely ludicrous this is.Secondly for me as a youth worker it was really important to be able to see that because it showed me those young people who were at risk. It enabled me to have those conversations with them and also for us to be able to go to the gangs at the time when we saw patterns develop and actually call them on the safety of those young people. If we drive this underground if we hide this then we actually limit our ability to be able to work with those young people to help them actually find safe pathways to their own futures. Thirdly the gangs thrive on their outsider status. The more we take away and demonise the regalia associated with the gangs then the more we build their status as outsiders and the more alluring they become to those who have been ostracised or feel they have been ostracised by society. Fourthly we do not need this legislation. We have the Summary Offences Act. We have numerous examples of police stations and schools being able to say: “No gang patches on this site.” There is no need for it. Thereis an ability to decide as a community about whether the visibility of patches is appropriate in a specific place.The Green Party is not pro-gang but we are pro - solutions that work—not solutions that demonise people but solutions that work with people and communities. This is not one of them.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):That speech from Jan Logie ensured that the Green Party poll next time around will be well under 10 percent. The Green Party says that it does not support this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill but it does supports getting smart on crime. What does that actually mean? What that actually means is the Greens co-leader Metiria Turei getting on television and encouraging families to grow cannabis advocating the growing of cannabis as a legitimate and OK thing to do. That is what they think getting smart on crime is.I want to just touch a little bit on those who have brought this bill to the House Todd McClay initially before becoming a Minister and Mark Mitchell. I want to acknowledge the contribution of both of those members. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the New Zealand Police to making New Zealand the safe society that on the whole it is. The police are a bunch of men and women who do a very very good job for this nation. You do not have to go too far in the world to see that they are a fine body of men and women serving the interests of this country well and I want to acknowledge them.Ninety percent of organised crime in New Zealand is gang related—90 percent of organised crime. Gangs exist for a few reasons but the core of them is to facilitate criminal activity. At the top of the list is drug dealing and right underneath that sit prostitution money-laundering andstandovers and intimidation. Often they all roll into one. That is what gangs are there for. They are not clubs. They are not groups of people who are doing any benefit to society whatsoever; they are outlaws. Everything that Parliament can do to diminish their power to do what they do to society is a positive thing.The gang patch and what it means is more significant to them than anything else. Sometimes it is more significant to them than life itself. To earn a patch gang members will have to inflict on society the most heinous of crimes—robbery grievous bodily harm and rape to name but a few. But if a gang member wants to get an instant patch then it will be a homicide and many have committed homicide simply to get that patch. To them there is some badge-of-honour element to it. There is some badge-of-honour element to it because to them it means everything and trying to take it off them is not a case of just having a sign up.The member Kris Faafoi—ironically his constituency of Mana includes Porirua where the police recruits are trained—tells us the Porirua Police Station has got a sign saying “No gangs” so that is OK and we do not actually need this bill. Courts have those signs as well. But what do police stations and courts generally have? That is right—lots of people involved in enforcement and security. What do school-grounds pools parks and the like have? None of that. This bill will give the police the opportunity to get there and to lock those gang members up. If we followed MrFaafoi’s logic—although I am not sure that logic and Mr Faafoi are two things that would go happily in one sentence—then all we would need to do is have signs around the place about not committing crime: “No robberies here” “No rapes here” and “No murders here” and that would take care of it because signs are going to take care of all criminal activity.He went on to say that what we really should be doing is focusing on stopping youth getting into gangs. I absolutely agree. My question to that member and to those on the Opposition benches is: why do they vote against every initiative that we are putting inplace to give those young people a chance to get into work? Putting aside what we are doing with the economy why do they vote against the welfare reforms that support 16 and 17-year-olds having the chance to have the skills and the wraparound support that they need to get them work-ready? Why do they vote against the youth starting out wage which will give young New Zealanders an opportunity to be employed and help break down the barrier that young people often face? Why do they vote against the 90-day trial?Those members vote against every effort. They will stand over there with their disingenuous chanting and ranting about this Government needing to do this and needing to do that but they will vote against us when we do try to do it. I am saying that members cannot have it both ways. They seem to think they can but the New Zealand public have woken up to that. They are just wandering around in a sort of yesteryear of how the Labour Party used to operate and they do not get that New Zealanders have woken up to that.The member the Hon Phil Goff who has some considerable experience in this area and certainly in Parliament says that this will be an offence at a school pool but it will not be an offence down at the rugby league ground and that it will be an offence under the bus shelter but it will not be on the footpath beside it. Well here is a bit of news for Mr Goff. If he wants to read through the Summary Offences Act and the Crimes Act he will find that there are actually many offences that have location as a specific ingredient OK? This is not unique legislation. I do not see him wanting to repeal all legislation that says something is an offence in a public place but not in a private place.Moana Mackey: That wasn’t his point. The point was that it’s unworkable.MIKE SABIN: Well the point is that Mr Goff does not have a point—he does not have a point. Mr Goff has to oppose because Labour members have painted themselves into a position where all they know is to oppose. If you ask any New Zealander: “Who on earth would oppose this?”—other than the Greens because we expect that because the Greens are sort of pro - criminal rights and forget about the victims that the criminals create—there is no one. There is no one. Well at least the Labour Party can be guaranteed a few votes in the 2014 election from a few gang members—not that they tend to vote very much but it might pick up one or two out of that.Mr Goff also went on about the drivers of crime saying we must address the drivers of crime. Well that member’s party had 9 years to do something about the drivers of crime that have fed gang culture and have ensured that gangs have exploded on to the New Zealand scene in recent years. One was methamphetamine. They sat back there and did nothing saying “Oh no this problem is all under control. Nothing to see here. It will all go away.”What has this Government done? There are just a few things—just a few headliners. There is the Methamphetamine Action Plan banning precursors. The Government has ramped up border controls and strategies around dealing with international transition of precursors and drugs. It has changed search and surveillance laws significantly. It has refocused the police to a focus on prevention and drivers of crime. It has changed bail laws and put the onus on serious criminals to prove that people will be safe. It has got tougher sentencing laws for the most serious crimes. It has introduced drug courts. It has doubled the amount of treatment in prisons—actually we could go on and on.The reality is that Labour Party members will stand up and say “Oh they’ve got to do something about this.” but there is a reason that crime is dropping. There is a reason that crime is dropping. It is not some sort of global trend that is occurring. It is actually about smart prudent policy and about a Government that commits and does. Opposition members have been decidedly defensive about this saying “Oh we don’t want to be getting soft on crime.” Well what else can it be?The thing that I find most astounding is that here is the Labour Party and—well as I say we expect that from the Green Party; that is the watermelon patch way. When we look at the Labour Party it is opposing the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Bill. We are actually fixing up what was actually a loophole left just quietly on the side there by Helen Clark some years ago. We are actually fixing that up and putting tighter scrutiny and controls around this. But no one in the Labour Party would say we need this legislation; they say we need a review. Well it is not about a review. They oppose the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation which is designed to protect us from international terrorism and those in New Zealand who are active in that and they also oppose legislation about domestic terrorism. That is what gangs reap on society.I think that is a fairly sad indictment that the Labour Party has got right out of touch with New Zealand because they are opposing those two pieces of legislation that are very deep in the hearts of New Zealanders. What is the Labour Party actually standing up for? It is not standing up for New Zealanders. And will this bill make a difference? Well damn right it will make a difference. As a former police officer I know how much it will make a difference to be able to take that patch off that gang member and how much it will make a difference to be able to reduce the intimidation that gang members inflict on us. They are nothing more than a parasitical blight on New Zealand society. They are a cancer and they feed off their host and their host is the children of New Zealand citizens.Who else other than the Labour Party and the Green Party would actually think that voting against this was a good idea? Well they are all listed in the bill. There is a whole range of gangs. No one other than those people would vote against this. To me it is a sad indictment and a demonstration that they are out of touch. This is a good bill.Darien Fenton: Spit it out.MIKE SABIN: In a minute. This is a good bill. It will be effective law. The public want it. The police want it. The gangs do not and the message from this Government to the gang members is: “Gang members no morepatchies for you.”A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a third time.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 2; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment BillIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the House is in Committee on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Earlier today the House gave leave for the Committee to hold one debate on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and to commence voting on all questions at 9.30. The Committee will report once voting is complete and the House will adjourn once it has received the report.There are some consequences of that decision that I will inform you about now. Where there are clauses for which no amendments are proposed and which are not to be considered for a personal vote the Chairperson will group the clauses together for asingle vote. There are a number of questions that the Speaker has indicated may be decided by a personal vote. If personal votes are called for the first one will receive a 7-minute bell. All subsequent personal votes will receive a 1-minute bell.So the question is that clauses 1 to 4 and 11 to 19 stand part and all amendments proposing new clauses be agreed to.Clauses 1 to 4 and 11 to 19Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I appreciate the Committee taking what I think is a logical approach to dealing with these amendments as a group rather than trying to work our way through them one at a time in an order when that could take weeks and weeks. I would like to run through in the order they come up in the bill the amendments I am proposing to the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.The first one is to do with when venues are transferred. What we know—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Sorry.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is all right. He is on his way back.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You cannot leave here.Te Ururoa Flavell: Thank you. Sorry about that.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you Mr Chairman. I assume we are going to have some flexibility over time on this anyway. The first point is that when venues are transferred what the practice appears to be is that the transfer occurs from areas that are relatively wealthy to areas that have high foot traffic and areas with a tendency to gambling. What tends to happen is that transfers occur only to areas where people think there is going to be more gambling. What my first amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 291 does is reduce that to no more than 75 percent when there is a transfer. So there has got to be a drop in the number of machines as that transfer occurs in order to try to offset the increased take that is likely to happen as a result of transfer because of course people would not transfer the machines if they did not think they were going to get more money.The next one—and I know this will be especially of interest to metropolitan members—is that when pokie machines are transferred they may not be transferred to an area that has a higher deprivation level. So what we are saying in Supplementary Order Paper 292 is that you can move your pokie machines from poorer areas to rich areas but the practice of focusing pokie machines into poorer areas especially when you have a cap that is taking them down is to stop.Supplementary Order Paper 296 is relatively simple. What it says is that over a decade an increasing proportion moving from 40 to 50 percent of the takings should be distributed. So what we are saying is that as a minimum the amount that goes back out to the community of the profits that are made should move first of all to 40 percent in the financial year after next and then go through to a figure of 50 percent. Frankly that is one that I have done relatively carefully with quite a lot of consultation. It is a bit soft but it is a test for members and it happens at only 1 percent a year.The next one I would like to refer to is Supplementary Order Paper 298 which makes the pre-commitment arrangements mandatory. The objective there is that people decide before they start gambling how much they can afford to lose. They make that decision and that is the amount they are allowed to lose. They cannot keep on coming back for more and more. There will be tracking arrangements in order to ensure that. I might just say Mr Chairman without bringing you into the debate that I understand that some of the arrangements are in the Waikato. Some very good technology has been developed in the Waikato as far as player tracking is concerned with biometric recognition for people.Supplementary Order Paper 299 deals with the matter of trustees’ and directors’ remuneration and sets $100000 for an individual trustee or a director. They are not people who are employed. This is not setting someone’s wages but effectively the fees—“honorarium” is the wrong word at this sort of level—or the amount that can be paid out to trustees or directors.Te Ururoa Flavell: Singularly?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry?Te Ururoa Flavell: Singularly?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Each as an individual. The reason for this is that the Commerce Committee has heard evidence and it has come back by way of questions that some people are getting $200000—$200000 taken from the poorest people in New Zealand—not to work on this stuff but just to sit on the board. That is something that is just outrageous.Moving through there is a much tighter requirement to account for proceeds and payments and a requirement to have an integrated public health approach. There is a requirement for territorial local authorities to have a sinking-lid policy. We are not saying what it should be we are not saying it should go at a particular level in this particular amendment but we are saying just that they have one—that they debate the issue and that they make a movement even if it is something that is very minor.Supplementary Order Paper 303 is one that I think is important. It is to put into the gambling legislation an objective of reducing the number of gaming machines in New Zealand to 10000 by the year 2025. It is a medium to longer term objective to drop out about 35 percent of the current number of gaming machines. I am not going to pretend that that is going to result in a massive drop-off in the money going through the pokies because these machines keep on getting more and more attractive and flasher and they take bigger coins and they do all that sort of thing. But what this would do is reduce the number of those machines.The last one which has actually had a little more publicity is Supplementary Order Paper 326 which would result in what I am describing as a “pokies pause”. Currently this House in its wisdom decided that in order to deal with liquor abuse we would close outlets from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. because it was felt that that would help break the problems of addiction and it would stop some of the harm. My view is that if it is good enough for liquor outlets to have a break from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. then it is good enough for venues that have pokie machines to have a break for the same period. The idea of people staying all night night after night in places like this—frankly the New Zealanders who are doing that are often the poorest people the people who are desperate the people who can least afford it. As a result of that we have people losing their homes. Getting them out for 4 hours hopefully getting them home hopefully getting them to a point where they can have a sleep and they can consider these matters is something that I think is a very worthy thing to do. If we do it for booze then there is even more of a reason for doing it for gaming.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Kia oratātou katoa. This being the first time I have a member’s bill in Parliament under my name it is pretty special—it must be so special that I did not realise I had to stay in the chair all of the time so I apologise to you Mr Chair for that. But it is a real privilege to be able to have an actual bill on the Table of the House of Parliament under my name and in particular under the name of theMāori Party. If I stray a little bit hopefully you will be able to give me a hand Mr Chair.I do not think I want to traverse too many of the negative effects of gambling. They were well traversed in the first and second readings of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill so I will leave those there. Aside from the fact that somehave suggested that the bill might well have been cut well back for my part the great thing about this particular bill from its very inception was the discussion. It brought to the table all of the very many parties who have an interest all across the board whether they be people who ask for money or whether they be controlling the money or distributing the money. The great thing is that it has allowed the debate to happen.I want to thank the Commerce Committee which listened to all of those many submissions. I want to also thank the Minister of Internal Affairs who while we talked through this bill worked with me to look not only at my particular bill but also at the longer vision. So I pay tribute to the Hon Chris Tremain and his office for working with us to look at not just this bill because it does not have to be seen just in this bill alone but also subsequent bills that may well come through from the National Party and indeed from the Minister in the course of time—hopefully before the end of the year.There are a couple of points that I want to make in respect of that original bill. For starters we wanted to cut out racing and racing stake money as an authorised charitable purpose. Our reason for that was that we should not give special consideration to this industry when community organisations are so short of funding. Aside from that it seems such a contradiction that you put money into a machine that coughs up some benefits that supposedly go to the community and yet it ends up going as prize money to racing. It just seems such a huge contradiction which is why we put it inin the first instance. The Government generally disagreed with that saying that it would have too much of a negative impact on the racing industry and others will probably support that view.The second part of that original bill had a condition that at least 80 percent of the funds derived from class 4 gambling would be distributed to the community from which they came. It would be implemented by a condition on the mandatory licence that societies have to apply for to operate gaming machines. Again the Government said that that would not work because societies can challenge the conditions of their licence. But the Government did say that it supported the idea of making sure funds from pokies went back to the communities of origin and that was at the very heart of our particular bill. So we believe that the bill in its current form does in fact allow that to happen although through regulation.The third part of the bill required territorial authorities to take control of distributing proceeds from gaming. There is no longer any need for societies—I believe it was in the select committee process that we heard across the board about a number of exercises in the past where societies had been caught having rorted the system in one form or another. The Government did not necessarily agree—and the vast majority of the submitters did not necessarily agree—that local authorities take up that rein but the Government did say that there is a need for greater transparency of the current grant system taking away the risk of rorts and dodgy dealings. We believe it is partly covered in my bill but will also be followed up in further legislation down the line.If I can just talk to the fourth part of the bill it allowed for public sentiment and evidence of harm to be specific criteria when territorial authorities are developing their venue policies and for those criteria to be a reason for reducing the number of pokie machines in that area. I believe that some of Mr Mallard’s amendments sort of cover that. The Government did not agree with this saying that this would impact unfairly on existing venues but instead it wanted to allow venues with permission from territorial authorities to move their pokie machines out of harm’s way—perhaps to central business districts but not to low-decile areas. I believe that that has been dealt with in the bill.The final part is that the original bill wanted harm minimisation devices like pre-commit cards and player tracking to be put into all gambling machines. I was luckyenough to be invited to go and have a look—I believe it was in Hamilton—at some of these facial recognition machines and see how they worked. To me as somebody coming into that and having a look at it on the face of it they actually worked—Hon Trevor Mallard: So to speak.TE URUROA FLAVELL: —yes—but I have since been told that there are all sorts of difficulties with technology that may well put that in question. Of course I also heard evidence from overseas and Australia in particular that things like pre-commit cards and player tracking have not yet necessarily been tested in full to ensure that there are no hiccups in how those devices are used. So the Government did not agree because of the whole changing of technology over time simply because there was not enough information. But the Minister in working with me did however support the development of regulations to support the implementation of harm minimisation technology which I believe is very much at the heart of the bill.So as we go through the Committee stage today I am happy that there are a large number of amendments to the bill. TheMāori Party took consideration of those. Many of them it will be supporting. Many of them it will not be. But I am pleased that across the House from the Greens and from Labour we have been able to have a number of amendments that will contribute to the discussion if not to the end outcome. I think it is important that we put that on the record. So with that I thank members for their contributions tonight and look forward to the debate. Kia oratātou.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I am going to speak several times tonight I think on different parts of this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I will refrain from getting too far into detail in my first call. I just want to remind the Committee what this bill was about. I thank the member Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House. Its first reading was passed in May last year and it has been quite a journey quite a ride since then.The bill back then was a beacon of hope. That is what I thought. It was designed to reduce the harm from gambling to reduce the rorts that frequently occur around pokie trusts and to get rid of some of the inequalities that happen with pokie machines being concentrated in high-deprivation areas. The Greens liked this bill because it gave councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokies or eliminate them altogether in their areas. It ensured that 80 percent of the distributable funds went back to the communities where the money was gambled. It did some work in attempting to phase out some of the more negative aspects of the pokie trusts by looking for a reorganisation of them and by allowing councils or other transparently elected committees to be set up to allocate that money. It had the intention of removing racing as an authorised purpose for the distribution of funds because it has always been very strange that since the mid-2000s there has been the ability for pokie gambling to fund another form of gambling—in particular stakes for racehorse owners.The bill was about to implement some problem-gambling harm reduction measures like player tracking and pre-commit cards. That would have given some control back to gamblers some ability for them to put some controls on their behaviour. I take the point that Mr Flavell made that this has not been trialled and it was going to be the first time that it would have been trialled which would have been a brave new step for Aotearoa New Zealand.What happened to the bill? Well when it came back to the House for its second reading it was gutted. If we look at it there are pages and pages lines and lines where those good intentions have been destroyed where they have been wiped out. The bill has been replaced with amendments from the Government that basically will not make much difference whatsoever to gambling-related harm.We changed our vote at the second reading because the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation amongst other organisations agreed that the bill would cause more harm than good and that the original intentions had been so warped that it would not be possible for any good to come from this bill. That is a very sad state of affairs for any member to face with their first bill’s passage through the House.However there are clauses one in particular in this bill that will do more damage. That clause is the amendment that the Government has put forward that pokies can be transferred and relocated from one venue to another if councils decide to put that in their gambling policy. I asked specifically about this clause at the Commerce Committee because it came out of nowhere. There were no submissions on this clause. There was no other discussion about this clause. It just suddenly appeared. My question was: if a council already has a relocation policy that means that it will be able to reduce the number of pokies in total when a transferral account occurs will it be able to do that under this clause in this bill? The answer to my question was no they would not.I acknowledge Supplementary Order Paper 290 from Carol Beaumont which actually addresses this issue. I thank her for putting that up because it means that councils will be able to reduce the number of pokies if there is a relocation if they decide that that is what they want in their gambling policy. I know that some councils have actually had that policy in the past because together with Mr Goldsmith from the National Party I was on the gambling policy hearings of the old Auckland City Council when that policy was put into place. I will also actually pay tribute to Mr Mallard and his Supplementary Order Paper 291 which insists that there be a reduction if there is to be a relocation in pokies from one venue to another. He suggested that it should be 25 percent and frankly I agree with him.Hon Trevor Mallard: At least.DENISE ROCHE: At least 25 percent. Thank you. I absolutely agree with that and I think any reasonable person who was attempting to reduce gambling harm would also agree with that.The thing though is will this actually happen? Will pokies move from one high-deprivation area to a low-deprivation area? The justification for it in the select committee was that this would be an incentive. If they did not lose the pokies they would automatically do it. But actually if you look at why pokies are prevalent in high-deprivation areas you have to ask whether it is actually going to happen at all because it is those high-deprivation areas—those areas Mr Flavell where there are a lot ofMāori people living where there are a lot ofMāori people getting hooked on pokies in pubs—that make the money for the pokie industry. I remind this Committee that the figures show that 40 percent of the proceeds from pokie gambling that are distributed to communities comes from people who have no control over their gambling behaviour. I am deeply saddened that the intention of this bill which was to address the fact that people in high-deprivation areas particularlyMāori and Pasifika people will do nothing—nothing—to assist those people and they will still be targeted by the industry. In fact it could well make it worse.There are over 18000 pokies in pubs and clubs in New Zealand. There is around $856 million generated from pokie gambling for distribution and that was the amount in 2011-12 and I think it was fairly similar this year as well. That is an awful lot of money and it is an awful lot of money when you consider that 40 percent of that came from people who could not afford it.We will be supporting many of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward today. In particular we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that are a first attempt or another attempt—basically because this bill has not been successful—to try to bring some transparency to the pokie trusts. The clauses in this billthat were designed to ensure that pokie trusts did not rort the system that the distribution occurred elsewhere have failed and I think we have to recognise that. But Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Papers would actually ensure that there is transparency around how pokie trusts spend the money that they get which is a goodly percentage. The restriction that Mr Mallard has suggested in another one of his Supplementary Order Papers which would put a restriction of $100000 as a limit on what trustees of those pokie trusts can earn is a great idea and another step forward to some transparency.There are other—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):This is the first time I have spoken on this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill so I do want to go back if you like to the very beginning and talk about the harm that is caused by gambling. I think that that is the right place to start when we are looking at this bill and looking at possible amendments to it because I do hope that some members opposite may actually decide to do the right thing and actually tighten up this bill which as my colleague and friend Denise Roche has said has been absolutely gutted from a bill that started out with great intentions and some very very useful provisions. It has been absolutely gutted. Now we have an opportunity to do that but why do we need to do that?Well our role here as members of Parliament is to try to deal with issues of harm in our communities to try to put in place legislation that can help communities and can try to avoid harm. At any given time in this country between 0.3 and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community are likely to score as problem gamblers on standard questionnaires. That is between about 10000 and 60000 people. The harm from their gambling can include poor parenting family violence other crime and suicide and the obvious point is that those harms affect people other than just the gambler. So what you start to get is much bigger numbers. The reasonable ballpark figure may well be that adults and children affected by problem gambling might range to up to 500000 people in our community—500000 people in our community.Overwhelmingly that damage is being done in high-deprivation neighbourhoods. It is being done amongMāori and Pacific peoples—and amongMāori and Pacific women in particular—and it is pokies that are the most harmful form of gambling. The majority of people seeking help with their gambling problems do so because of non-casino pokies. So it is really important that we take seriously the opportunity that we have in looking at this bill and in looking at the suite of amendments that have been put forward.Just in terms of money and the financial cost of this the calculation is that something in the range of $2 billion per year is lost to gambling. That is $5.6 million per day including $2.3 million that goes to non-casino pokies. As I have already said those non-casino pokies are more likely to be found in the more deprived areas of New Zealand rather than in the well-off areas. In fact the ratio of pokies to people in those poorer areas is one pokie machine to 75 people whereas in our wealthy areas the ratio is one pokie machine to 465 people. So quite clearly as Denise Roche was saying there is very very much a targeted problem here: those who are making money from pokies are putting them where they know they will get the most money.As I said it is my first time speaking on this bill and I hope to speak on it several times but I do want to acknowledge the member in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell. I think everybody has recognised that his original bill was very much designed to deal with the sorts of harm that I have just mentioned and it had a range of very good provisions in it. But it has come back to this House absolutely and utterly gutted.As I understand the bill that is now before us there is talk of various provisions possibly being put into regulations at some point. Well the thing is who would trustthis Government to deal with these things in this way? This is a Government—as we know and as I am sure will be mentioned on more than one occasion tonight—that has done all sorts of deals with Skycity to actually increase the harm from gambling. But I think the people I would trust are people like the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army. They have very clearly said that this bill as it has now come back to the House is essentially not a helpful bill and will not have an impact on gambling.The Salvation Army has come out criticising the changes and saying that they will do nothing for problem gamblers those at risk or communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. I am quoting here now from Campbell Roberts: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill on balance will make matters worse.” So not only will it not help but it will make matters worse. That is a very strong statement to be made by an organisation like the Salvation Army which I think every member in this House would recognise as being a very measured organisation that does not go out on a limb lightly. So there are real concerns about what has happened.I am glad to say that there is a range of amendments being put forward on this bill and I have one of those amendments in my name. That is a comprehensive suite. The Hon Trevor Mallard has been through a number of the amendments that are in his name.I just want to talk specifically about one of those amendments—and again Denise Roche has mentioned this one—Supplementary Order Paper 291 relating to transfers of licences. That will provide that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy must include a relocation policy that must specify the maximum percentage of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue. This percentage must be no more than 100 percent of the gaming machines that were permitted to operate at the old venue immediately before the licence relating to the old venue is cancelled.This amendment also provides that if a class 4 venue licence is to be transferred the maximum number of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue at the time when the new class 4 venue licence takes effect shall be no more than the percentage specified in the territorial authority’s relocation policy. So again that looks to try to give the authority the ability to reduce the numbers and certainly not to assume that the current number of machines will be transferred over.I think that that is an attempt to help improve this bill. There is as I said a range of other Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward here tonight and I really do hope that members opposite do honestly and carefully consider these amendments because you know this is an opportunity to actually restore some of the measures that were in Te UruroaFlavell’s bill to try to make this a bill that will reduce harm in our communities. I think that I want to give people the benefit of the doubt here—that they are not just you know basically gutting it so that their mates can get what they want out of this and that the National MPs are not motivated by those sorts of issues. The opportunity really is to rise and speak on this bill and to look closely at the amendments and to attempt to replace some of the matters that are in the bill.I think that in looking at the second reading speeches and at some of the comments that people have made I did find it really interesting to see that the National Government—or certainly one National MP and that was Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—felt that somehow this Government has actually done something to reduce the number of pokie machines.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yeah we have.CAROL BEAUMONT: Well I am sorry but that is called spin. That is called claiming something that is nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the Government but everything to do with sinking-lid policies that local authorities have actually put in place. So I thought that it was really rich to hear in fact quite a lengthy piece about thenumber of machines being reduced and the amount of money that was being taken by pokies. Well thank you to all the local authorities that actually have sinking-lid policies for that outcome but it was certainly nothing to do with the National Government.Again though this is the same MP who talks about the gambling scourge that needs to be addressed and about all the difficulties that gambling causes—this is our Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He said: “This is a scourge—this gambling scourge—that certainly needs to be addressed”. He talks about it in terms of the number of constituents he sees in his electorate office the kids who have gone without essentials the broken families and the broken relationships. Those are all true statements but the member actually needs to do something to make that real and not just make statements like that and then operate in a way that does exactly the opposite. So he could certainly start by supporting some of the amendments here and of course later on he will have another opportunity when the Skycity legislation is up.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):It is my pleasure to take a call on this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. It is the first call I have taken on this bill. It is also my pleasure to be a member of a party that is going to exercise its conscience on these issues tonight. I feel sorry for many of the members opposite. Clearly their rhetorical flourishes show that they feel something different from what their party is whipping them to vote for. I do really feel a deal of sadness in the Chamber tonight as we debate this bill knowing that there are members here who are going to have to vote against their conscience. Actually the exercise of conscience is something that MPs should do more than a little bit. It is something that is crucial to our role as local representatives and it is something that is fundamental to our justification for being in Parliament.As I said this is the first call that I have taken on this bill and I have not traversed many of the grounds that many colleagues have on this bill and that have been well rehearsed. These are very important points about the harm that gambling particularly pokie machines does in our communities. I guess I was first alerted to the kinds of social harms that pokie machines can bring about in a community when I was first elected as a community board member in Christchurch in 2004 in a reasonably large ward that was made up of one very high socio-economic area and one very low socio-economic area. The high socio-economic area had not one pokie machine in it. The low socio-economic half of my ward was rife with pokie machines. This was nothing but a hope tax in poor suburbs. These machines were nothing but machines put there to give people who had no economic hope some hope in their lives and to exploit them along the way.Talking to my constituents whom I represented as a community board member is something that I will remember for the rest of my political life when we come to consider these issues. I think it is very important to consider these issues from a very grassroots community-up kind of basis. We have heard tonight about a large number of agencies that have talked about what has happened to this bill in its passage through Parliament how it really has been hijacked by the Government to push through its own aims and that it does not resemble the bill that first came to the House. The Salvation Army an organisation that is absolutely committed to reducing the harm of problem gambling in our communities has come out and criticised many of the changes saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers and those at risk or for communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. It is this kind of efficacy and the ability to reduce those harms that I am looking for in legislation that purports to be about addressing this very real danger that we have in many of our communities.I want to talk specifically about a couple of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been brought by colleagues. One of these is Supplementary Order Paper 290 inthe name of Carol Beaumont which she talked about in her previous speech and the other one is Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. Both of these Supplementary Order Papers talk about the transfer of licences and deal with those issues. In the case of Supplementary Order Paper 290 this provides “that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy must include a relocation policy.” which must specify the maximum percentage. It goes on in quite a bit more detail. Then Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Trevor Mallard talks about ensuring that “no class 4 venue licence may be transferred to an area that has higher deprivation than the old venue.”To many members these may seem like very strict rules put on a piece of paper and things that will never come into play but I would like to share with the Committee and enter on the record what happened with class 4 gambling venues post-earthquakes in Christchurch. As a city our city council and our community boards had to confront the very real issue that 36 class 4 gambling venues were destroyed in the earthquakes and were inoperable. I would like to point out that that is 36 venues not 36 machines. Despite the fact that we had a reduced number of machines operating in our city the circumstances of the earthquakes and the emotional stress that was brought about as a result saw a spike in gambling in our city. Along with alcohol consumption gambling increased after the earthquakes. So the city council had to wrestle with a very real problem. I am proud to come from a city that despite these issues and a lot of pressure that was put on it post the earthquakes in Christchurch to change its policy—because it had to come to review its gambling policy in February 2012 earlier than the due date of the August 2012 review—had to come and review this policy and decide. Some very real decisions had to be made. We had operators who were struggling for survival who said that they wanted to transfer these machines to areas that had not been damaged by the earthquakes. They put forward the argument for which I think everybody including the councillors who heard the submissions and subsequently voted to keep the sinking lid had a great deal of empathy that if it were not for the earthquakes they could still be operating these machines that are a part of their business.But sometimes communities and political leaders have to take a stand. Our community leaders and local body politicians in Christchurch made a call that we were not going to rebuild a city on the back of a poverty tax in our poorest suburbs and that we were going to have political leadership in our city that said that the earthquakes have given us an opportunity to clear some of our communities of some of this harm. And we took that opportunity. I think this is actually something that Christchurch when it looks back on the wake of the earthquakes should be hugely proud of. It should be something that we celebrate. This is the kind of leadership we need. We need people who act on their conscience and who understand the harm that these machines can do in their community. They understand that it is a vexed issue but that ultimately they need to put the health and the well-being of their communities first.I urge Government members to vote with their conscience tonight to look at the harms that these machines do in their communities and to exercise their conscience in a way that we as elected members are voted in by our communities to do. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am going to take a very brief call on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I have to say that there is a certain sense of irony in that the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill as this is called is now actually widely accepted outside of Parliament as in fact increasing harm associated with gambling rather than decreasing it. So perhaps we should spend quite a lot of time debating whether in fact the bill is appropriately titled because clearly it is not. Groups like the Salvation Army are arguing that—and this is a direct quote—“For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machinesevery day this bill on balance will make matters worse.” The Problem Gambling Foundation is saying: “I think what we are seeing is a proposed radical rewrite of the bill and I don’t think it will do a great deal for harm minimisation at all.” I could go on.I had some big concerns about the bill when it was first introduced. I thought it went too far in some areas and in fact there were concerns about whether the bill would even have been enforceable in the form that it was introduced. I had a lot of feedback from local authorities in my area for example which were saying that they did not really want the responsibility for the distribution of pokie machine proceeds. So the bill as introduced definitely needed a major change. What has happened though is that that major change has basically completely removed the bill’s original intent.There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers put forward by members that I will certainly support. The ones that I have some concern about and therefore will not be voting in favour of are those that specify a certain percentage of pokie machine proceeds that must be distributed within the geographical area from which they are taken. The reason that I am concerned about that is the potential effect that may have on national organisations. Actually there are a number of very very valuable genuinely charitable community organisations that do not necessarily work within a defined geographical area but in fact operate throughout the country.One of the concerns that I have is if you say—and it is a fair argument to make—that this money is taken out of this particular community and therefore should be invested back into the community. That is something that I strongly believe in but by saying that the only organisations that contribute back to that community are those that are based within that community is wrong because actually some of the—[Interruption ]—Trevor Mallard is suggesting that I put in a further amendment. Some of the organisations that contribute very positively to some low socio-economic communities for example might actually be based—have their head offices or whatever—in wealthier areas. That does not necessarily mean that they are not contributing. Well in fact in many many cases they are contributing very positively to other communities. I would hate to see an amendment passed in this Committee that would prevent the proceeds from pokie machines going into those organisations that are doing such valuable work. I am going to be voting against that set of amendments. There are a variety of them that have been put forward.Ultimately problem gambling has a big impact on many people in the community. It is a small group of problem gamblers who have a really really big problem but we need to be very mindful of the massive social harm that that causes and the ripple effect. So it might be a small group of people who actually have the problem with gambling but the effect of that problem gambling ripples out to a large number of people—their friends their family and their employers. It really does have a big impact in the community. So whenever we make decisions about gambling law and policy in this House we need to be very mindful of that. I think that there is going to be another debate coming up very shortly where we are going to be talking about problem gambling and the opportunity to increase problem gambling. That is the one that I am very much looking forward to debating.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Committee stage of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. May I also join my parliamentary colleagues in acknowledging Te Ururoa Flavell for the work that he did on this bill certainly working with the Government to put in place measures for harm reduction. I just want to acknowledge the hard work that he did. We heard a number of submissions on this bill. Certainly the Government has taken up a number of the recommendations and certainly some of the submissions to reduce harm.As I said in my second reading speech this is a legally permitted activity. It might be an activity that some of us or many of us in this country disagree with. However this bill is about harm minimisation. It is about reducing harm and reducing access but it is also about education. Not one member across the aisle there talked about education and about allowing those people with problems to get access to resources that will allow them to do away with their addiction and do away with their problem gambling.To address the Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled tonight—and I had a first view of them tonight although I was invited by Mr Mallard on Twitter to consider the Supplementary Order Papers. It would be nice to pick up the phone and call us if you want us to have a discussion about these bills but I did read these tonight on entering the Chamber. Supplementary Order Paper 292 talks about not having any transfers to higher-deprivation areas. The Commerce Committee changed this already and says that councils need to have regard to “the social impact of gambling in high-deprivation communities” when developing venue transfer policies. So this Supplementary Order Paper is superfluous. It is superfluous because it has already been taken into account in the deliberations of the select committee. It would also—and Mr Mallard should think about this—preclude class 4 venue licences from being transferred from less desirable suburban areas into central business districts and commercial areas. Some of them tend to have high-deprivation indices.I turn now to the Supplementary Order Papers—there are three of them actually—that deal with the distribution of proceeds within regional council areas and within local territorial authorities. Iain Lees-Galloway tabled Supplementary Order Paper 293 Ruth Dyson tabled Supplementary Order Paper 294 and Dr Rajen Prasad tabled Supplementary Order Paper 295. Again I say to members opposite that the bill as amended by the select committee already enables regulations to be developed to this effect. Mr Mallard knows this.Hon Trevor Mallard: Who trusts Chris Tremain?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I hear you Mr Mallard. I have been consistent in this House in saying that I would prefer that laws be passed in primary legislation but only to the extent that a better law or a better set of regulations can be promulgated in a consultation process which is what the bill develops and what it states. It already enables regulations to be developed to this effect. It is important that these are flexible and they are not set through legislation. Mr Mallard knows this.And I add that the Supplementary Order Papers say only in the same regional council or territorial authority district—the same as what? What happens when an organisation or a society has machines in different areas? How do you distribute those funds?Chris Hipkins: Pro rata.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Is it pro rata? Are they calculated—no no again there are no answers because again these Supplementary Order Papers have not been developed with any thought and consideration to the consequences. I say to members opposite: think about putting this through regulation think about having a consultation period with those in the industry and—Hon Trevor Mallard: I agree with the member. On those ones I agree with him and I am allowed to vote the other way.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Oh you do? So Mr Mallard agrees with me on that. I thank Mr Mallard for acknowledging that his colleagues were wrong—that one two threemuppets were wrong. Iain Lees-Galloway is sitting at the back—you are wrong. Where is Ruth Dyson? She is wrong. [Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I just want to hear Mr Mallard rather than coming in this Chamber and embarrassing his three colleagues actually pick up the phone againand tell these guys to withdraw the Supplementary Order Papers because they are superfluous they are redundant they do not make sense and they were not thoughtfully considered.I now move to Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 296 where he states that there must be a minimum rate of return of 40 percent in 2014-15 increasing by 1 percent each year. Again I say to the member and he is an experienced member but he obviously had not thought this Supplementary Order Paper through because again the Government is able to make these through regulation. We have already signalled publicly that these will be changed by regulation and most important—and Mr Mallard knows this—is that we have signalled our intention but this is better done through consultation with the industry. I think Mr Mallard would accept that—I think Mr Mallard would accept that.Having said all that I could go on about the Supplementary Order Papers that are tabled here. I have given you some clear examples. I have given this Committee and the public of New Zealand clear examples of why these Supplementary Order Papers have not been thought through. They are redundant and superfluous and I am sorry but the members need to think about these before they come to the Chamber again.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to follow Sam Lotu-Iiga whose contribution this evening was full of weasel words and full of fluff and nonsense to be honest. It sounded to me like a member who knows how out of touch he is with his electorate on this issue. He is a man who is desperately trying to perhaps I do not know—it is not quite dog whistling but trying to send the message to his electorate that he does not toe the party line on this position on this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. But of course he has been whipped—he has been whipped. He would like the people of Maungakiekie to believe that somehow or other Sam Lotu-Iiga is on their side and that he might be lobbying the Government for the soft regulations that he referred to that might be the way to get the changes they really want through because he is not supporting what the people of Maungakiekie want to see happen with this legislation.I say to Sam Lotu-Iiga that he should turn back to his party and say: “Allow me to use my conscience National Party. Allow me to vote the way I want to. Allow me to vote the way the people of Maungakiekie want me to.” The Labour Party is giving its members the chance to do that. The Labour Party is saying that gambling is a conscience issue and so the Labour Party will have members express a range of views on the Supplementary Order Papers that have been offered up but it sure will not happen from the National Party.What has really happened here is that we have seen how the National Party views democracy. It certainly does not want to give its own members the democratic right to express their views on this bill and it certainly did not want to give its coalition partner Te Ururoa Flavell his democratic right to pass the legislation that he wanted to pass.Te Ururoa Flavell is looking at me. He is glaring at me as though he does not know what I mean. I say to Te Ururoa Flavell that if that member is glaring at me and wondering what I mean I mean the fact that everything after clause 4 of the original bill that that member took to the Commerce Committee has been crossed out by the National Party and it has all been changed to something that does the complete opposite of what that member originally intended. That is the way the National Party views democracy. That is its view on democracy—to cross out anything it does not agree with and like the Borg just expect all its members to toe the party line on a piece of legislation that now increases the harm caused by gambling.Te Ururoa Flavell—that member knows it. The member in the chair knows that as a result of what the National Party has done to his bill it now increases the harm causedby gambling. I do not understand why that member has not withdrawn this bill from the Order Paper because it now does the exact opposite of what he originally intended. As other members have said a lot of us who voted for the bill to go to the select committee wanted to see some changes but we did not expect to see the National Party change it to the extent that it has.Just referring to some of the Supplementary Order Papers I hope that members will support my Supplementary Order Paper 293 which I think is the balanced approach to keeping—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Trevor doesn’t agree.Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Look Trevor Mallard disagrees with me and on this side of the Chamber we are allowed to do that. It is called democracy Sam Lotu-Iiga. You might want to try it sometime. But I hope that some members will support this because this is the balanced approach to keeping funds within the region from which they were raised.Coming back to my home town I am sure there are plenty of people from IanMcKelvie’s electorate who come into Palmerston North do their gambling there and then go back home. It would be wrong for those people not to be able to access the funds from that gambling if they were distributed out to community organisations say in Feilding MartonAshhurst or up in Taihape. So what my Supplementary Order Paper does is that it allows those funds to be distributed not just in the territorial authority area in which they were raised but also to the wider region because there is no doubt that people from the wider region will be moving around and doing their gambling in different parts of that region—Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):I rise to speak to this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. I commend Te Ururoa for his original intention on this bill. Without a doubt it was a heartfelt intention. He has seen at close hand just what kind of damage gambling does to families particularly those in areas of greater deprivation whose only hope it seems particularly with this Government’s employment policies—or lack of them—of bettering their lives is to play the pokies. I commend Te Ururoa for bringing the bill before the House but I am sad to see it in the state that it now is. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway just said the whole thing has been so emasculated that it is a wonder that Te Ururoa Flavell has not chosen to withdraw the bill rather than have something be presented that is at high risk of causing greater harm than less harm. That is contrary to what I know MrFlavell’s intentions were in the first instance.I want to speak to three Supplementary Order Papers in particular and they are all Supplementary Order Papers that I am going to oppose. I want to demonstrate that we on this side of the Chamber clearly are able to make up our own minds about these issues because gambling has always been a conscience issue—it just is not today not with this Government. So we are seeing people who would normally vote otherwise such as Jonathan Young or Sam Lotu-Iiga having to vote in ways that I think probably are contrary to their consciences and they have to explain that to their electorates. That is a tragedy really because these men are compromising principles they hold dear. They may not be the same principles as mine but I think they are principles that these men hold dear and therefore they have a separate and independent opinion on this issue which they are not allowed to express on this occasion.I want to say in response to a point that Sam Lotu-Iiga raised earlier when he said that the regulations allow flexibility for the law that I am not sure whether he understands that that is actually a mistake for legislation. If legislation provides for regulations that may be used to thwart or subvert the original intention of the primary legislation that is not good lawmaking. For that member to say “Here is a very flexiblelaw.” or “The regulations allow it to be flexible.” I am sorry but he is going to run foul of the Regulations Review Committee if regulations are promulgated that undermine the primary purpose of the legislation. Flexible law Mr Lotu-Iiga is not what we do here. We try to get the law right so that it cannot be subverted by a process that does not get parliamentary scrutiny later on.I just want to say in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Trevor Mallard that I absolutely support it because that would ensure that “no class 4 venue licence may be transferred to an area that has higher deprivation than the old venue.” That goes to the point I made earlier about areas of deprivation and the false hope that these ghastly machines give people. I would also like to support Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway because it is moderate it is a thoughtful amendment and so is Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of Ruth Dyson. But then it came to Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Rajen Prasad. I drew the line because we were seeing these amendments then scale back the amount that a corporate society must apply of net proceeds from “class 4 gambling to societies or for purposes located in the same territorial authority district.” or an adjacent one.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I am going to spend this call talking about my Supplementary Order Paper 325 which I am really hoping the member in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell will actually support as well. It is an amendment to the original Gambling Act and a restoration of what was in the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was put forward by Mr Flavell which is to take racing and race meetings out of what are known as the authorised purposes of the Act.I think we need to think about what the Gambling Act is actually about. The Gambling Act 2003 says that the only reason we have pokies in New Zealand is to contribute funds for community purposes or for authorised purposes and those authorised purposes are a charitable purpose or a non-commercial purpose that is beneficial to the whole or a section of the community. Then somewhere in the mid-2000s after the 2003 Act came into being there was an amendment to it that said that promoting controlling and conducting race meetings under the Racing Act including the payment of stakes became an authorised purpose as well. The original intent of the 2003 Act was to support community organisations and to support good charitable organisations that do great things for their community and that do not make money in other ways.I am not sure about anyone else in this Committee but from my point of view those people who own racehorses do not strike me as being charities. I think that it is anathema to most people to know that the proceeds of one form of gambling are supporting another form of gambling particularly when you take into account the millions that pass through the New Zealand Racing Board from its own gambling so I hope that there will be some support particularly from theMāori Party members for this Supplementary Order Paper tonight.What is really interesting about the authorised purposes is that pokie trusts tend to forget that the only reason they exist actually is to distribute that money for authorised purposes. They frequently act as if they own that money and that it is their largesse that they distribute. It was really offensive to me to find out that during the submission process a couple of pokie trusts were using the money that they got from that gambling money that was for community purposes to lobby to hold workshops for community organisations and to scare them into putting in submissions against MrFlavell’s bill. I am not sure about anybody else in this Committee but using community purpose money to lobby or to influence a select committee strikes me as something that is meddling terribly with democracy and democracy frankly should not be bought.It is for this reason that I am opposed to the Government’s suggestion that we put some of the harm minimisation attributes of this bill into the regulations. As Mr Lotu-Iiga said that will mean that there will be further consultation with the industry and what we know is that the pokie industry scared community organisations into opposing this bill. We had over 30000 submissions—30000—most from community organisations fearing that they were going to lose money. I take on board what Mr Hipkins said about national organisations fearing that they would not be able to access funds but with the original intention of an 80:20 percent split—that 20 percent of the proceeds could go elsewhere—I do not believe there would have been many national organisations that would suffer or lose money. We have created an addiction. We have created a society in which our community organisations are addicted to pokie money.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):Talofa lava Mr Chairman and thank you for the opportunity. I will take a short call on this the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I want to say to Mr Te Ururoa Flavell that when he first drafted the bill and sent it around to members of the House for support I was one of perhaps many in this House who indicated that yes we would support it. I recall also that there was widespread support from community organisations on the ground at the grassroots level that were dealing with the problems and harm that gambling causes. In fact I was lobbied and no doubt many in this Committee were lobbied by organisations that supported the original bill that you had drafted.Sadly that mood has changed because after the work of the Commerce Committee it seems that there were many clauses in that original bill of yours that have been removed and so organisations like the Problem Gambling Foundation no longer feel that your original bill is intended to reduce harm as the title of the bill states. In fact the Salvation Army in my meetings more recently with it is also concerned about the continued harm that this bill now appears to actually promote. So like my colleague the Hon Maryan Street I too wonder whether the member whose name is on this bill has not considered withdrawing the bill altogether given that its original intent has been so watered down by this particular Government.I want to talk also with reference to a comment made by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga about the consultation with the industry. I absolutely agree with the last speaker from the Green Party Denise Roche that the feedback that I am now getting from those community organisations whose sole work is to reduce the harm that gambling causes in our community is that they are in fact being threatened by the industry—threatened by the industry—if they raise any opposition not only to this particular bill but also to the Government’s Skycity convention centre bill which increases the number of pokie machines.I want to refer to the Supplementary Order Papers that resonate with me. Supplementary Order Paper 290 on the transfer of licences in the name of Carol Beaumont has value I think in that it provides that “a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy must include a relocation policy.” What I would hate to see is what we see in other countries of the world where it seems like those communities that are most deprived are the communities with a huge amount of gambling as well as alcohol being used etc. I think that that amendment gives some meat to territorial authorities to ensure that their policies do include words to the effect of how they would control the relocation of licences.Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard on the transfer of licences again resonates with our community in that it ensures that “no class 4 venue licence may be transferred to an area that has higher deprivation than the old venue.” I am somebody who lives inMāngere and has grown up and lived in Manukau City almost my entire life. We were perhaps one of the first communities to advocate quite strongly in petitions to the council and to central government that we did not seethe need for an increase in pokie machines in our communities. We were the ones who were the first to advocate quite strongly. Manukau City Council before it was rudely swallowed up by the super-city was one of the first to have a sinking-lid policy. That is a policy that has now been adopted by the entire Auckland region. Again if anybody in this Committee doubts the sincerity and the passionate desire of the Auckland region to say that pokie machines do cause harm and that we do not want any more pokie machines they simply need to look at the pattern of what the authorities and leaders of that community have advocated for—no more pokie machines. We held strongly—TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki):Tēnā koe Mr Chairperson. Kia orana. Kia oratātou katoa. Knowing that time is running out I thought I would take the opportunity having put our case at the start of this debate to respond to some of the issues that have been put in front of the Committee tonight.The first one I want to take up is from my colleague from the Green Party and whanaunga fromNgāti Raukawa Denise Roche. She sort of put the heat on me by saying that withMāori communities and Pasifika communities—I really got the feeling that she was having a jab at me—did I really know what they feel? I have got to tell her that I do know what they feel. I understand what they feel. I have seen family members who have lost their marriages their partners their husbands their wives and their houses. I know what they feel. I want to tell her that.The second part that she talked about was that our bill will do nothing. I can say in front of this Committee that the motivation for this bill was against that background of a real desire to do something about the effects of pokie machines on our communities and I will not resile from that position for anyone.The third part so that she knows—and I take her point in respect of the racing industry—is that I accept her amendment and will be supporting it because we are allowed to do that. We will see what the outcome of that discussion is.To Mr Hipkins I understand his issue in respect of national organisations but you have heard the response back from the Green member and I leave it there. But I understand the issue around national organisations. It would have been good for him to put in an amendment if he wanted to really shake that one up.To Mr Iain Lees-Gallowaytēnā koe. The first thing I want to say to him is that the word is Taihape not “Tai-ha-pee” or “Tai-happy”—just to help him out if he happens to visit his constituency. And one of the things—Hon Member: Well said.TE URUROA FLAVELL: Sorry I did not mean it like that. I meant if you are moving into that area. Sorry about that—my apologies.Hon Member: You never know what boundaries will move.TE URUROA FLAVELL: You do not know. I did want to say that Mr Lees-Galloway and a number of members have talked about democracy a lot tonight. We have got the two major parties and it is all very well when we talk numbers but in this case I do not think it takes too much imagination to understand that as a small party that is getting one or two opportunities to place bills in front of this House you have got to work with whoever is in line or else forget it. Some people have said that we should have withdrawn the bill. I say “No way!”. It was put up with the right intentions and sure we did not get everything we wanted not at this point in time but the good thing is that we have been able to negotiate as I said earlier with the Hon Chris Tremain to be able to move things into the future and into future bills for the Minister. I am pleased about that because it will still achieve the goal and we have been looking long term into the future. As three members in this Parliament for us that is how democracy works. You have got to play the game you have got to understand the game and I will not resile from the opportunity that we had to place the bill in front of this Parliament.It is interesting that those people opposite might disagree with theMāori Party and say we should have done more but I have not heard of any bills from the Labour Party in respect of this issue over the time that I have been in Parliament. I have not heard of any of that. I looked at the last Order Paper and I did not see any paper in respect of gambling. So please do not preach to me about what I should do. That is the next part.To the Hon Maryan Street I am fine with her discussion. That was all right.ToSu’a William Sio he talked about some of the organisations being a little bit disappointed that it did not go far enough; in fact they said it did not do anything. I reject that. I reject that on the basis that as I say you have got to put it in the bigger picture about the long-term goal.I would just say I suppose in closing that theMāori Party will be supporting some of the amendments as I declared at the start of this debate because they were a part of the original intent. We did not get all of the things that we wanted. We got some not all. That is well known. So we will be supporting some of those amendments. Others we will not be supporting and we will see what happens when we go through the vote in a short space of time. I just wanted to wrap that up to make sure that everybody is clear about what we are doing. However I appreciate generally the comments and the acknowledgments that have been made in respect of this bill. Hopefully we will get another one drawn very soon. Kia oratātou.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 4A be agreed to.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33Ardern J (P)FlavellMallardTurei (P)BeaumontGenter (P)Mathers (P)Turia (P)Browning (P)GrahamMoroneyWalkerClarkHagueNorman (P)Wall (P)Clendon (P)Harawira (P)Sage (P)WoodsDelahunty (P)Hughes (P)Sharples (P)Dyson (P)Lees-GallowayShearer (P)FaafoiLogieSioTeller:FentonMackeyStreetRocheNoes 79Adams (P)Finlayson (P)King CRyallArdern S (P)Foss (P)Lee (P)Sabin (P)Auchinvole (P)Foster-Bell (P)LittleShanks (P)BakshiGoldsmith (P)Lole-TaylorSimpson (P)Banks (P)Goodhew (P)Lotu-IigaSmith (P)Barry (P)Groser (P)MartinStewartBennett D (P)Guy (P)McClay (P)TirikateneBennett P (P)Hauiti (P)McCully (P)Tisch (P)Borrows (P)Hayes (P)McKelvieTolley (P)Bridges (P)Heatley (P)MitchellTremain (P)Brownlee (P)Henare (P)Ngaro (P)Upston (P)Calder (P)HipkinsO’Connor DWagner (P)Carter (P)Horan (P)O’Connor S (P)Wilkinson (P)Coleman (P)HuoO’Rourke (P)Williams (P)Collins (P)Hutchison (P)ParataWilliamson (P)CosgroveJonesPeters (P)Woodhouse (P)CurranJoyceProsserYangDalziel (P)Kaye (P)Robertson R (P)YoungDean (P)Key (P)RossTeller:English (P)King ARoy (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 290 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 13 be agreed to.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 53Ardern J (P)HagueMoroneyStewartBrowning (P)Harawira (P)Norman (P)StreetClendon (P)HipkinsO’Connor D (P)Tirikatene (P)Cosgrove (P)Horan (P)O’Rourke (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)Hughes (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Huo (P)Peters (P)WalkerDalziel (P)Jones (P)Prasad (P)Wall (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)ProsserWhaitiri (P)Dyson (P)Lees-GallowayRobertson G (P)Williams (P)Faafoi (P)LogieRobertson RWoodsFenton (P)Lole-TaylorRocheGenter (P)Mackey (P)Sage (P)Goff (P)MartinShearer (P)Teller:Graham (P)Mathers (P)Sio (P)BeaumontNoes 68Adams (P)English (P)King CSimpson (P)Ardern S (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Smith (P)Auchinvole (P)FlavellLittle (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)Foss (P)Lotu-IigaTolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)MacindoeTremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)MallardTuria (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McClay (P)Upston (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)McCully (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)McKelvieWilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)MitchellWilliamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Ngaro (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)O’Connor S (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Parata (P)YoungClark (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)JonesRyallCollins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)Teller:Dunne (P)Key (P)Sharples (P)RossAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 291 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 13 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 13 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 31 (Ardern J Beaumont Clark Cosgrove Cunliffe Curran Dalziel Dyson Faafoi Fenton Goff Hipkins Huo Jones King A Lees-Galloway Mackey Moroney O’Connor D Parker Prasad Robertson G Robertson R Sio Shearer Street Tirikatene Twyford Wall Whaitiri Woods ); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes62New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 1 (Little ); ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 13 agreed to.Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 290 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes53New Zealand Labour 30 (Ardern J Beaumont Cosgrove Cunliffe Curran Dalziel Dyson Faafoi Fenton Goff Hipkins Huo Jones King A Lees-Galloway Mackey Moroney O’Connor D Parker Prasad Robertson G Robertson R Sio Shearer Street Tirikatene Twyford Wall Whaitiri Woods ); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes66New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 2 (Clark Little );Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne; Other: Mallard.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 16 agreed to.Clause 17 agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that clause 18 stand part but before we do that we have a number of amendments. The first one is in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. It is an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 294. Supplementary Order Paper 294 Dr Prasad’s amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 295 and the Hon Trevor Mallard’s amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 297 are ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.Clause 18 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 19 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 30 (Ardern J Beaumont Clark Cosgrove Cunliffe Curran Dalziel Dyson Faafoi Fenton Goff Hipkins Huo Jones King A Lees-Galloway Little Mackey Moroney O’Connor D Prasad Robertson G Robertson R Sio Shearer Tirikatene Twyford Wall Whaitiri Woods ); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes63New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 2 (Parker Street ); ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 19 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Dr Rajen Prasad to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 296 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 300 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 303 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 326 in the name of Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 20 be agreed to.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 59Ardern J (P)Goff (P)MartinShearer (P)BeaumontGraham (P)Mathers (P)Sio (P)Browning (P)HagueMoroney (P)StewartClark (P)Harawira (P)Norman (P)Street (P)Clendon (P)HipkinsO’Connor D (P)Tirikatene (P)Cosgrove (P)Horan (P)O’Rourke (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)Hughes (P)Parker (P)Turia (P)Curran(P)Huo (P)Peters (P)Twyford (P)Dalziel (P)Jones (P)Prasad (P)WalkerDelahunty (P)King A (P)ProsserWall (P)Dyson (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Robertson G (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Little (P)Robertson RWilliams (P)FentonLogieRocheWoodsFlavellLole-TaylorSage (P)Teller:Genter (P)Mackey (P)Sharples (P)MallardNoes 61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee(P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)Foss (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Upston (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)RossYoung (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)RyallCollins (P)Joyce (P)Sabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 21 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 21 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 326 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to add new clause 21 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 10.09 p.m.