Volume 681 Week 16 - Wednesday 18 July 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 681 Week 16 - Wednesday 18 July 2012 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3617. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 18 July 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Housing Affordability—Prime Minister’s Statements on Housing Market 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement of 19 March this year that the housing market is “going to take off”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes in the context in which it was made. The housing market had been pretty flat for some time and I was expressing my opinion that things would pick up. In fact we are already starting to see that. Quotable Value reports that sales activity has been significantly higher in the last few months than had been the case for several years especially in Auckland. For the member’s benefit I was not talking about a housing boom of the sort of price bubble that we saw in the mid-2000s though. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that we have a situation where house prices are rising at four times the rate of inflation and twice as fast as wages according to official data are we facing a situation of market failure that is seeing homeownership become impossible for more and more Kiwi families? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I mean one thing I think we can rejoice in is that interest rates are at a 50-year low and that is one of the big factors that assist people in terms of their homeownership. But there are recommendations from the Productivity Commission in relation to its most recent report on housing that I think would be worthy of Government attention. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that house prices are out of reach for typical New Zealand families on typical New Zealand wages and that this is a major factor that is driving people overseas and forcing a generation of New Zealanders to watch their grandchildren grow up on Skype? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and if the member wants to visit Sydney or Melbourne he will come to realise that house prices are significantly cheaper in most parts of New Zealand than in Australia. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government not taking measures to increase the supply of new affordable well-insulated housing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the member’s question. The member may start again. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government not taking measures to increase the supply of new affordable well-insulated housing to address the market failure to provide enough housing that ordinary Kiwi families can afford to buy? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is absolutely no market failure when it comes to insulating housing and I am surprised the member raised that because we happened to work together as political parties to see more homes insulated in the last 3 or 4 years of a National-led Government than had been seen for decades virtually I would suggest under previous Governments. In terms of making houses more affordable and attainable to New Zealanders one way not to do that would be to put a capital gains tax on them as the member wants to do. But if the member wants to support us in reform of the Resource Management Act so that we can— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the Prime Minister has gone on sufficiently there. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did the Prime Minister hear the remarks from Fran O’Sullivan at the Local Government New Zealand conference where Ms O’Sullivan particularly referred to the market failure around housing supply being a major intergenerational issue whereby older New Zealanders have seen their house prices go up very considerably but a younger generation of New Zealanders are struggling to be able to afford to buy their first home? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think if you went and spoke to any generation of New Zealanders they would say that it is always quite difficult to purchase one’s first home. That is the case for most New Zealanders. They struggle and they save. But fortunately this generation of New Zealanders has the economic leadership of a National Government that is ensuring that interest rates are at their lows that there has been reform of the Resource Management Act and that there is Maurice Williamson’s great work around licensed building practitioners etc. etc.—all making the Kiwi dream of buying a home possible. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I say to the Labour front benches I want to hear Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that housing affordability has not changed over the last 10 to 15 years and that it is not much harder for younger New Zealand families to get on to the housing ownership ladder than it was 10 to 15 years ago? The Government has a responsibility to address that problem. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I think it got a lot worse under Labour. That is because it just did not know how to do anything else other than spend taxpayers’ money force up inflation and drive up interest rates. It failed to respond by adjusting the bits of the economy that would make housing more affordable outside of interest rates like the Resource Management Act. And that member every time this Government wants to reform the Resource Management Act and make it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who passed the RMA? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You passed it and it was a complete and utter mess Trevor. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When will the Prime Minister stop blaming the last Government and accept that we have a housing affordability crisis right now in this country that young people are struggling to buy their first house and are leaving the country to get better opportunities somewhere else and that his Government has a responsibility to do something about it rather than just blame the Labour Party? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If that member really thinks we have a housing bubble at the moment in the way that we had one under the previous Labour Government then firstly he is deluded and secondly he might want to ask the then Labour Government why it bothered to commission a whole report on housing affordability of which it followed very little. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us which party brought in the Resource Management Act about which he is always complaining? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well we brought in the legislation drafted by the previous Labour Government. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members will be silent. I do not want anyone to have an early shower today. 
Interest Rates—Performance and Effect on Household and Business Debt 
2. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How have New Zealand interest rates performed over recent years and what impact is this having on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In the last week 10-year Government bond rates have fallen to a record low of 3.38 percent compared with 5.75 percent 3 years ago. This reflects a general fall in global interest rates. New Zealand 10-year bond rates have maintained around a 2 percentage point margin over US interest rates and that has been reasonably consistent over recent years. Of course part of the reason for these lower interest rates is poor growth performance across the developed world. The Government also believes that its policies have contributed to sound economic fundamentals such as setting a path back to surplus. These rates are enabling households and businesses to save more and to pay off their debt. 
Todd McClay 
: What impact are low interest rates having on New Zealand households? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The latest Reserve Bank figures show that the average residential floating mortgage rate is around 5.9 percent. This compares with almost 11 percent in late 2008. For a family with a $200000 mortgage that is a saving of around $200 a week or $10000 a year. Lower interest rates are helping households to reduce their debt and increase their savings. As a result total household debt has fallen from just over 155 percent of disposable income 3 years ago to 140 percent of disposable income now. This is positive but New Zealand household debt levels have a long way to go to get to reasonable levels. 
Todd McClay 
: How are low interest rates impacting New Zealand businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Interest rates on corporate debt issues have generally fallen in line with lower interest rates overall. The average business lending rate has fallen to 6.04 percent as at May 2012 compared with 9.4 percent in late 2008. As with households this is helping businesses to repay their debt strengthen their balance sheets and get through difficult trading conditions which for some businesses have now lasted 3 or 4 years. For those businesses that are doing better it is helping to give them the confidence to invest and grow employ new staff and provide more jobs. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Reserve Bank increase the official cash rate to restrain demand when economic activity is strong and reduce interest rates when economic activity slows; if so why is he so proud of low interest rates which are the result of an economy that under his watch is barely growing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand actually has moderate growth. It is not a matter of whether—[ 
Interruption 
] These are simply the facts and the facts are pretty straightforward. Partly because of subdued economic growth around the globe interest rates are low. It happens that that is useful for New Zealand households because in the last 10 years they ran up record household debt to very high levels. Low interest rates are helping them to reduce that debt and I would have thought that the member would be pleased about that. 
Government—Relationship with Support Partners 
3. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still stand by his statement “National will deliver a strong and stable Government”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement that “National will deliver a strong and stable Government—and build a stronger economy with less debt and more jobs.” 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe the claim by the co-leader of his support party that his recent comments were “insulting” and “dissing” the Waitangi Tribunal and is this helping him to deliver on his promise of a strong and stable Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not agree that those comments were of that nature but what I do agree with is that the Maori Party in Government with National has provided a great addition to the Government. I think it has been strong. I think it has delivered great measures. Actually it is no wonder the Maori members of the Labour caucus are so embarrassed because they have achieved nothing compared with what the Maori Party has in Government. 
David Shearer 
: In light of that answer does he believe his description of his meeting with the Maori Party tonight as a “regular one” matches that of the Maori Party which says that walking away from its relationship with the Government is “something we’ll have to consider after the meeting” and is it possible that the Government’s split has these sorts of meetings regularly when dealing with the support parties? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We do have regular meetings with our partners but at least the advantage for National is that we have got people who actually want to work with us as opposed to the Labour Party. 
David Shearer 
: If John Banks is charged with electoral fraud will he stand him down as Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is asking a hypothetical question. Let us be honest: the only person who is going to end up in court is Trevor Mallard. 
David Shearer 
: Hypothetically then if one of his Ministers was charged with fraud would he stand them down as Minister because they violate his ethical standards which he stood up for? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is asking hypothetical questions and I do not answer hypothetical questions. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that was a reasonable question. I did actually flag that that was a hypothetical question and I was genuinely interested—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
David Shearer 
: —in whether the Prime Minister would apply that standard to his own ethical standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is quite a tricky one this one because members will know that we cannot actually insist that Ministers answer hypothetical questions. I accept that on this occasion the member was testing a principle but I cannot really force a Prime Minister or Minister to answer a hypothetical question because it is a matter that may or may not occur. It is a difficult one. The member is entitled to ask the question and the public can judge the answer that is given but I cannot insist on a specific answer to a hypothetical question. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe he is delivering strong and stable government when one of his support partners is threatening to walk away and another could be charged by the police? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Again the member is making assumptions I do not think he should make. But let me say this. We have been the Government now for the better part of nearly 4 years. In that time I think New Zealanders are taking great confidence that we have strong and stable government that we have a strong agenda for New Zealand and that we are delivering economic growth as we have seen. With the greatest of respect if anyone thinks that Labour and the Greens will be a strong and stable Government they had better think again. 
Health Services—OECD Report on Public Health Spending 
4. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received the latest OECD report on public health spending trends over the past decade and how does New Zealand compare with the other 27 countries surveyed? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen the latest OECD report which shows that from 2000 to 2009 before the impact of the world economic crisis the OECD real average growth in health spending was nearly 5 percent and New Zealand’s was 6 percent. With the financial crisis hitting the world in the 2009-10 year the average increase in health spending for the OECD countries fell to zero with many including Norway Ireland Greece and Denmark actually cutting their public health spending. Despite the tight times this Government has been determined to protect and grow our public health service and as a result in the 2009-10 year the latest year for which comparative data is available I am pleased to advise that in total contrast to this dramatic reduction in average OECD spending New Zealand had a 3.4 percent increase in real health spending—the third-highest of the 27 countries. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What does the OECD say about improved services New Zealand patients have got from the increased funding even though the funding increases are lower than during the boom times? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Across the OECD reductions in health spending have often translated into reductions in services for patients. Despite the tough economic times and the slowing of the rate of increase in health spending according to the latest OECD data New Zealand has had one of the largest increases in the number of patients being cared for or getting operations in our public hospitals. This stands in contrast to the position under the previous Government which doubled the health budget and in real terms fewer people got operations. 
Budget 2012—Treasury Modelling on Student Loans 
5. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did he or any of his staff ask the Treasury to model the impact of adding interest on student loans as part of Budget 2012 preparations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As far as I can recall no. As we made clear in the Budget the Government’s policy is to keep student loans interest-free. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why then did Treasury develop the aide-mémoire dated 18 January “Savings Associated with Adding 2% Interest to Student Loans” given the Government’s clear indication it was not going to reintroduce student loans? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think Treasury has produced a similar aide-mémoire every Budget because every Budget round starts with Treasury saying that we should save several billions more than the Government plans to save. The list of savings becomes somewhat familiar from year to year. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why if he did not ask Treasury to undertake the work on adding interest to student loans did Treasury say in the aide-mémoire that it does not have the data or the experience in modelling student loans to give anything more than preliminary information? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I suppose Treasury said that because it was true. 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Is it true that the recommendations for savings that Treasury brought to the Minister were all policies that had been implemented by the Labour Government and does that not speak volumes about what Treasury thinks of Labour’s economic management? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well Treasury maybe has a nuanced view of Labour’s economic management but the public have a very clear view of it which is that it is reckless and they do not want a bar of it. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he still agree with the Prime Minister’s view that interest-free student loans are economic vandalism and that he will fight them with every bone in his body? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s policy has been quite clear— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. It has I think long been out of order to refer to any member especially the Prime Minister as being a jellyfish. That is just not on and the member should be required to withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! And it is just not on to make points of order like that either. The Speaker will be the judge of such matters. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Through the recession the Government has continued to support New Zealand households through maintaining interest-free student loans Working for Families and significant growth in early childhood subsidies. Because of the Prime Minister’s view that in times of uncertainty New Zealand households need security we have kept those policies in place. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he guarantee that while he is the Minister of Finance interest will not be reintroduced on student loans? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes and I can guarantee that that member in his capacity as tertiary spokesman will not raise one single significant issue related to the portfolio either. 
Child Protection—Additional Social Workers in Schools 
6. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What announcements has she recently made on the Government’s expansion of Social Workers in Schools? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I am pleased that the first 50 of 149 extra social workers in schools will begin as schools start back this term. The first 50 additional social workers will cover 95 schools in Northland South Auckland and Hawke’s Bay. We announced the expansion of Social Workers in Schools to all decile 1 to 3 schools last year expanding the coverage from 285 to 675 schools by mid—[ 
Interruption 
] Hey are you done? [ 
Interruption 
] A bit more? Let us go. [ 
Interruption 
] Are you ready? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I would ask members to be just a little more respectful please. The Minister is only feet away from me and I struggled to hear her answer. I just ask that interjections be a little more reasonable. I call Scott Simpson. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No I just thought I would take a moment to—I have not quite finished my answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But the Speaker determined the Minister had. 
Scott Simpson 
: What role will the social workers play within the school community? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To be fair and make sure that the Speaker can hear me and know when I have actually finished the school staff can be the first to notice when something is not right with a child and with problems increasingly complex and difficult our new social workers in schools will work with children and their families to address these issues. I think it is really important to note that we will have social workers in the schools of over 131000 children. This will cost the Government an extra $11.1 million but actually I think it is an investment that is well worth it for those children who need it so badly. 
Scott Simpson 
: How does this initiative contribute to the Government’s focus on protecting our children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This forms a significant part of our vulnerable children programme of action. Over the last 3 years we have taken significant steps to better protect our most vulnerable children. The addition of more social workers to more schools is part of this work. Complimenting this we also announced an additional 96 Child Youth and Family care and protection front-line social workers 16 of whom will be supervisors. This expansion of front-line social workers will be so that we can work more intensely with those children who need it most. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why has not even one of the first 50 new social workers been deployed in west Auckland even though she announced the policy with great fanfare at a west Auckland school last year and a full one-third of the schools in west Auckland are eligible? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I believe they are in the second tranche but it is the ministry itself that did an analysis of where the need was most immediate. Not wanting to sort of have patronage and have them actually go where I would like them to be first I have taken its advice on where they should be. 
Schools Class Sizes—Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all her statements on class-size increases? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is it correct that the aide-mémoire dated 15 May entitled “Budget 2012: distribution of the impacts of staffing changes across schools” which she received the day before she announced the policy was in fact the first time she had seen a breakdown of how many schools would lose teachers under her class size policy? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can she confirm her statement in the Education and Science Committee in public session today that she did not receive any information about a change in student-teacher ratios prior to her becoming the Minister of Education and the first time she worked on this issue was in December 2011? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she satisfied that she had properly considered the impacts of scrapping the technology teacher staffing; if so why did ministry officials advise her a week after her announcement and the day before the actual Budget that she may want to consider options to improve the implementation of this policy change? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes; and to the second part of the question they were operational refinements. 
Jobs—Retention 
8. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I want to move quickly to help save jobs”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. That statement was made as I was announcing the 9-day fortnight scheme in March 2009. The scheme aimed to help keep people in jobs during the worst of the recession. I am advised that a total of 54 employers signed up to the scheme supporting 4702 employees. It saved an estimated 699 jobs. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that it was concerning the statement a job support scheme does he plan to use any part of the announced savings from the cancellation of the Otaki-Levin expressway to save the 220 jobs that KiwiRail plans to cut due to budget constraints; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position yet to confirm exactly the changes that KiwiRail may or may not make. That is an operational matter for it to ultimately announce. What I can say is that the Government is very supportive of KiwiRail. That is why we have put three-quarters of a billion dollars into the turn-round scheme. That is why the Government is forgoing a dividend from KiwiRail. It is part of a $4 billion turn-round for the company. It is also important from the Government’s perspective that it allows the management to get on and run the company as it sees fit. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If he is therefore so supportive of KiwiRail will he intervene to stop the South Australian company Speno from being contracted to maintain 2800 kilometres of New Zealand track at the expense of local jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have any details on that particular contract but what I would say is that it would be against CER I would have thought for us to actually ban an Australian company from doing something in New Zealand. And it would not be in New Zealand’s interest because New Zealand companies do an awful lot of work in Australia and you certainly would not want to get into a tit-for-tat situation on that front. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister prepared to hand out tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to people in Hollywood but not prepared to find $14 million to keep hundreds of New Zealanders in employment permanently in this country?  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly in terms of the first point that is simply not correct. What happened was the Government certainly changed the law to clarify the definition of a contractor so that the  
Hobbit  
movies could be made in New Zealand. And that is a thing to rejoice about: 3000 jobs from the  
Hobbit 
 and two hopefully blockbuster movies—maybe a third one. I tell you what the Labour Party and probably his caucus will be out there with their tongues out begging for a ticket when it comes to the premiere on 28 November— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I say to both sides of the House that when I am on my feet there will be silence. The Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The poor chap is hallucinating. Given that KiwiRail is buying rail wagons from China rather than building them in our own workshops in this country and is now outsourcing in respect of the Speno contract—again to an overseas company from Australia—what does he propose to do to stand up to his statement that he seeks to save New Zealand jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said in answer to the primary question the particular comment around saving jobs was in relation to the 9-day fortnight and we saved 699 jobs doing that. In terms of building the locomotives he is talking about at Hillside in Dunedin I think most people would accept that that workshop probably does not have the capability to do it on a cost-efficient basis. It certainly can make other things—and it has. Hopefully when it goes through the expressions of interest process it will find a buyer. But when it comes to saving jobs—or in this case saving a job—can I congratulate David Shearer because my goodness the changes made to Labour’s caucus— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The right honourable Prime Minister has no responsibility for the Labour caucus. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House has had some fun but we need to conduct question time with reasonable demeanour. 
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse—Call for Royal Commission 
9. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported comments that the Government would need to seek advice before deciding whether a Royal Commission into domestic violence and child abuse which Owen Glenn has offered to fund was necessary? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my actual response to the question which was “We need to consider all of the issues of what might come out of the royal commission.” That is something I have not taken advice on yet. 
Jan Logie 
: Why does the green paper not deal directly with domestic violence given that every year police attend 73000 domestic violence call-outs and report that 70 percent of these cases also involve child abuse? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think if the member wants a very detailed answer she really should put the question down to the Minister for Social Development. But what I can say is that the green paper on vulnerable children actually tangentially deals with that issue because by definition vulnerable children are often subject to domestic violence.  
Jan Logie 
: How can he tell this House that the Government is serious about domestic violence when it has recently closed the family violence unit in the Ministry of Social Development cut funding to domestic violence education programmes and reduced funding for the family violence sector to a state of chaos? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I reject the statements made by the member. I would not even put them as questions; I really would put them as statements. But let me just say this: in terms of the work we have undertaken in 2012 alone the white paper on vulnerable children which will be released later this year has had over 10000 submissions which we will be looking closely at. The Health Committee has initiated an inquiry into preventing child abuse and improving children’s health outcomes. Obviously there is the ministerial committee that is being led and co-chaired by Bill English and Tariana Turia and there is an Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. They are examples of just some of the background work we are doing that is informing the policies that the Government has been operating. 
Jan Logie 
: Given all the international evidence indicates—as well as our local police statistics indicate—a direct link between domestic violence and child abuse given the evident severity of this problem in New Zealand which is getting worse and given the evident poor institutional response how can the Prime Minister not commit to support an inquiry to find a long-term sustainable solution to domestic violence including child abuse? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think we take issue with the statement by the member that it is getting worse. The information we have is it is probably levelling off. In terms of the work the Government has been doing there are many many strands of that. But if the purpose of the member’s question is to ask whether the Government supports Owen Glenn using part of the very generous $80 million donation he has made to fund a royal commission of inquiry then the answer to that is no we do not support that. The reason for that is that it is my own view that that is an incredibly generous act from Owen Glenn but he would be better to spend the money on on-the-ground solutions within at-risk communities because frankly this country has had a lot of inquiries over the last decade and we need to move towards some practical solutions. He should use his money for that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he agree then that the inquiry into the determinants of well-being for Maori children by the Maori Affairs Committee the inquiry into preventing child abuse and improving children’s health outcomes by the Health Committee the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty—the Children’s Commissioner’s expert’s group—and the green paper process on vulnerable children mean we have the evidence we need but the issue lies in the Minister allocating in the Budget a mere $6 million to respond to all of this work? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. What I think is that there are a variety of different strands of information gathering and inquiring going on. And frankly having another one is probably not going to take us very far. This country has an issue when it comes to domestic violence it has an issue when it comes to child abuse but actually if Owen Glenn wants to spend $80 million—and it is an incredibly generous donation—I think if he went out to South Auckland and spent that money on the ground in that community he would make a bigger difference. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Performance and “Smarter. Fairer. Faster.” 
10. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent reports has he received on Housing New Zealand’s Smarter. Faster. Fairer. housing service? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The Minister receives regular reports about the progress implementation and evaluation of the corporation’s new service delivery model. These reports include updates on the corporation’s customer services centre which show there has been recently a vast improvement in the level of service customers are receiving. For example the average time to answer a call in July to date is just 1 minute and 54 seconds compared with 6 minutes and 53 seconds in April. Pre-assessments are now done at the customer services centre. This is a much more efficient process. The number of pre-assessments has more than doubled since the launch of the customer services centre programme. This shows that changes that the corporation is making are modernising the way it does business and making it quicker and easier for its customers to engage with the corporation. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is it smarter faster or fairer to house people in squalor and for the Minister to never seek a briefing on the slum conditions some of his tenants are living in to never seek an investigation into the many complaints about those conditions and to never question the safety of his tenants? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No because that is not the case. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he been advised that King Cobras gang members have accessed empty Housing New Zealand Corporation flats in Auckland are squatting in them and selling drugs and are frightening the neighbours and that the flats are now without proper security or a resident caretaker because of his “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” policy changes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Nothing in the brief I received today mentions the King Cobras gang. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table written answers from the Minister of Housing telling me that he has never sought— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members know we do not table answers to written questions in the House. All members have access to those. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Under his “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” policy what priority would a family of five including two sick children living in a damp poorly sealed caravan parked in a relative’s driveway for the past 6 months receive from the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The Minister is advised that all cases reported to the Housing New Zealand Corporation are prioritised based on the level of need. It is a triage process that has worked for a long time and those people who are in real need are dealt with quickly. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Is he satisfied that the Crown is a good landlord given the state of overcrowding in poor-quality housing and what will he be doing to improve the conditions of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes particularly recognising that those living in crowded homes in crowded conditions have increased risk of the transmission of certain infectious diseases? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes the Minister is satisfied but he thinks the Crown could always do better through the Housing New Zealand Corporation. However the Minister wants to share some numbers with the House. The average money spent on maintenance of Housing New Zealand Corporation properties nationwide since 2008 has been $202 million. That is far more than the average spend of the Labour Government which for a similar period was about $133 million. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Has he ever sat down with agencies and individuals working on the ground in the housing sector—such as the Baptist Church and other Churches health workers and the Salvation Army—to see whether the Government can work with them to fix the housing crisis in Christchurch? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is always difficult to answer a specific question like that but I am certain the Minister has sat down with a number of organisations and talked through the issues just as most members in this House have done. 
Drugs Illegal—Police Operations 
11. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What recent successes have the Police had in targeting illegal drugs? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 More good news. I am pleased to advise the House that a 6-month campaign by the police targeting cannabis growers and dealers throughout New Zealand has been a resounding success. As a result of the operation the police seized and destroyed over 130000 cannabis plants with a potential value of $130 million; seized over 280 kilograms of dried cannabis with an estimated value of $5.6 million; made 2500 arrests; confiscated 327 firearms; and seized large quantities of methamphetamine LSD tabs Ecstasy pills and large amounts of cash. I would like to congratulate all the policemen and policewomen involved in this operation and thank them for the work they are doing to keep our communities safe. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 12 Darien Fenton. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I think you might have overlooked Mr McKelvie seeking to get a supplementary question on the last question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No members must rise to their feet if they wish to ask a supplementary question. I waited a moment and I did not see the member rising to his feet and— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We did see him start to rise and he will not get his rubber stamp if— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat or the member will not get his rubber stamp either. 
Mine Safety—Inspectors in Underground Mines and Health and Safety Representatives 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Why has the Government not required the use of check inspectors in underground mines? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Because advice I have received is that check inspectors would not necessarily improve mine safety. A 2008 review of underground mining did not recommend check inspectors. Also advice given to the Labour Government back in 2007 did not recommend check inspectors. Indeed that report said: “Providing for a check inspector regime raises a number of difficulties” and that “the check inspector proposal is potentially in conflict with the scheme of the HSE Act more generally such as in its interaction with the duties of employers.” I presume this line of advice is also the reason why Labour did not institute check inspectors in its 9 years of Government. Having said that I note that the royal commission is considering this matter and is due to report back in September.  
Darien Fenton 
: Why is it acceptable that despite several dangerous incidents in underground mines since the Pike River mine disaster New Zealand laws and regulations remain essentially the same and the newly established High Hazards Unit has no decent standards to enforce? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I call the Minister did the Minister hear the question because I must confess it was not—did the Minister hear the question?  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the High Hazards Unit has actually proved its success as a $1.5 million investment. Even that member noted yesterday that the health and safety systems appear to have worked well at the Waihi goldmine. I think what is happening out there is that the High Hazards Unit is sending that very clear message that workplace safety matters. Can I also refer to a report by the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union that says what we have got all of a sudden is a far higher threshold in terms of interpreting the current law in New Zealand. I think that is good news.  
Andrew Little 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] When the members are ready. In light of the establishment—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members can see that making comments like that is not that helpful to order.  
Andrew Little 
: Apologies Your Honour. [ 
Interruption 
] We are rehearsing on this side Mr Speaker. We are well-rehearsed. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The House has had its moment of fun.  
Andrew Little 
: In light of the establishment of the High Hazards Unit last year and its work with underground coalmines what action has it taken to ensure there are functioning health and safety committees and health and safety representatives at underground metalliferous mines as contemplated by the Health and Safety in Employment Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think you will find that with the operation of the High Hazards Unit there has been increased interaction with worker representatives and I think the member will find that his own union actually states that safety standards in New Zealand are finally being taken to levels comparable with those in Australia. What I cannot understand though is why Labour members do not accept good news why they have to be negative all the time and why they have to say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think that was not essential to answering the question at all.  
Darien Fenton 
: Why will she not listen to the miners including the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which after this latest incident in a series since the Pike River Mine tragedy has again called for check inspectors and urgent improvements to mine safety regulations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have already said the royal commission of inquiry will be addressing the issue of check inspectors as will the independent task force that we appointed just recently to have a look into that matter. I await those considerations. But I have had suggestions that we could wait until the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy reports back. I have also had suggestions that the Government must act now. Both those suggestions have come from that member Darien Fenton. She cannot have it both ways.  
Question No. 10 to Minister 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for us to go back to question No. 10 in case any members did not get the opportunity to ask their supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Dr Seuss said: “All alone!”—[ 
Interruption 
] I am a good leader—“Whether you like it or not alone is something you’ll be quite a lot.” I found that quote which I thought was reminiscent of the Labour leader. I thought that summed up Mr Shearer perfectly but actually now I am thinking that that quote also applies to two of the Labour members sitting there on the bench together as to how they are going to feel— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: 
Co-defendants. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: —the co-defendants—in the court case. So maybe we could apply Dr Seuss’ quote about being all alone to the whole— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I take it seeing as you are allowing this member to refer to the court case that we can talk about John Key’s appearance as a witness here? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I must confess the noise was so loud I could not actually hear what the Minister was saying. All I would ask is for the House please to come to reasonable order. The House has had a few laughs but it is time now to be able to hear members in this general debate. I cannot rule if I cannot hear them. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In continuing that line from Dr Seuss about being all alone he also said: “You can get help from teachers but you are going to have to learn a lot by yourself sitting alone in a room.” Can I suggest that that is a good lesson—a good lesson—for the leader of the Labour Party especially in light of the changes that have recently been made to the party’s constitution. 
I do not want to spend any more time talking about the other side of the House; I am really pleased to be standing as a member of the National Government led by John Key whose economic leadership has placed this country and its people in a very strong position. One percent inflation—the lowest level in 12 years— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s the debt level? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The lowest level of inflation in 12 years. This means that the everyday cost of living as measured by our Consumers Price Index is increasing at its slowest rate in 12 years. At the same time we are seeing floating mortgage rates at about 5.7 percent—at their lowest level for 45 years. Those figures cannot be—cannot be—disputed by anyone in this House and that means that under the economic leadership of this Government New Zealanders are seeing that they are able to save more they are able to pay down debt and they are able to get ahead. 
While inflation has been falling the economy is starting to grow moderately: in the last quarter it grew by 1.1 percent. So the future is looking brighter for New Zealanders under a John Key - led Government. And of course we know that John Key set out for this Government recently 10 areas under Better Public Services—10 results that he wants to see this Government achieve by 2017. 
I just want to talk a little bit about what is happening for crime because we have set for ourselves a target to see that crime is falling and our communities are safer. We want to see a reduction in the crime rate by 15 percent the violent crime rate by 20 percent the number of youth appearing in the youth courts by 5 percent and the rate of reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. 
The announcement today of the work that the police are doing in addressing the growing drug problem in this country shows that we are well on track—we are well on track—to achieving those targets. As a result of that operation today the police seized under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 14 residential properties worth over $4.5 million; eight cars worth $260000; nine bank accounts worth an estimated $353000; and also a boat worth $40000. So this message is sent by the police: follow the money. You have got to follow the money. If we want to address crime and these criminal organisations we have to follow the money. This shows the work that our policemen and policewomen are doing. 
In addition to that of course I announced yesterday as part of the work that the Department of Corrections is doing that record numbers of prisoners are involved in education and record numbers are involved in work and in employment learning those skills that they need in order to go back out into our communities because the majority of our prisoners do come back into our communities. The majority of them do come back. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is always good to follow the former Minister of Education Anne Tolley quoting Dr Seuss. Probably her bedtime reading was  
Green Eggs and Ham 
 and there is a reason why she is now the police Minister and not the education Minister. She failed her own national standard and that is why she is there. This week has seen an enormous train wreck of a Government that purports to have brought us strong government and stable government. These are some of the ideas it has come up with in the last few months: the mining of our national parks an utter failure; a financial services hub—whatever happened to that financial services hub? And there was a convention centre funded by pokie machines. But the big kahuna of an idea was always going to be the asset sales. This was going solve the debt crisis. Spending in schools on health services on children—the entire gamut of Government expenditure was going to be solved simply by selling off our State-owned assets against the will of the public and the reason that the benefits started to grow and grow and grow was that the public did not actually believe for a minute that the sale of assets was going to do that.  
But now as a result of these asset sales we now have a complete train wreck where there once was a shiny bright great idea by the National Party. The shiny bright idea—the brighter future that was supposed to be brought by selling assets—is now languishing and likely to be delayed. The Prime Minister said that there is a possibility of it being delayed and then the next day he came out and said that the delay is actually about as likely as a meteorite hitting the Earth. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s true then? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Well what is true? One day he says something and then the next day he says something else but I can tell you one thing: the thing that is coming down faster than a meteorite is the share price of these assets because I can tell you right now that not many people are lining up to buy these shares when they believe that they are going to actually fall in value.  
Not only that but we actually find out this week that the Government despite what it says is actually thinking about listing them on the Australian Stock Exchange. This goes right against all the promises that the shares are going to be held by New Zealanders—against the promise that New Zealanders are going to hold these. What is going to happen is not that mums and dads are going to buy these shares—no. What is going to happen is that the mums and dads are going to have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the compensation that this train wreck is going to bring about. It is the people who are not going to buy shares who are actually going to have to fund the compensation and all the damages that are going to result from this flawed policy this ridiculous policy of selling off our State-owned assets.  
 So here we have it: a kahuna of an idea that has just flopped into a train wreck. We have the Maori Party threatening to walk away and destabilise the Government we have the ACT leader who may have to face charges brought by the police and this Government says that it will bring strong and stable government. It has a big idea that has flopped its Budget is in tatters there is complete instability from its coalition partners and this is what it says is going to be strong and stable government. I can tell you that 6 months out from the election this Government is in tatters in absolute tatters and I cannot see how it is going to recover from this. This is a shambles. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e hoa ma i roto i te Whare Paremata. A te wiki e tu mai nei ka whakanuia ko te ahuatanga o Te Reo Maori Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. I putatera i roto i te tohe i nga tau kuahipaake ko nga Maori kua eke atu ki roto i ngakooti o te whenua o tawahiraanomo Te Reo Maori te take. No reira nei au e tuake ki te aki i a tatau ki te whakariterite i a tatauanoramo te wiki e tu mai nei. Kia kaha tatau ki te atatitiro ki te atakorero i te ahuatanga o Te Reo Maori ki tona taumata.  
Me te mohioano hoki ko te nuinga o koutou o tenei Whare kare i te tino mohio ki te ahuatanga o Te Reo Maori. Ko takuinoike kia paku aro ki Te Reo Maori. Mena kai te mohio koe ki nga kupu e rua a te wiki e tu mai nei me whakamomonaake kia wha. Mena kai te mohio koe ki te mihi atu ki te tangata kai te pai teraengari me patai a kai te pehea koe? Kia whakamomonaake kia whakarahiake ko te ahuatanga o totatou reo.  
No reira ahakoateneikorerokuahuri ki te reo Pakehamo te wa kia taeaai e au te aki te wero i a tatau katoa o tenei Whare Paremata otira o Poneke ka mutu o te motu kia aro nui ki tenei o nga kaupapa na te aha? Narunga i te mea i putatenei wiki. Ko te tumanako he watonakua tangata whenua totatau reo i teneikainga o tatau ka mutu kai te mohiotonu araanongauauatanga kai mua i te aroaro.  
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and acknowledgments to all of us colleagues in the House of Parliament. Next week the state of the Maori language and Maori Language Week will be celebrated. It emerged through a protest in years past through Maori making an issue of the Maori language in the courts of the land and away overseas as well. I rise therefore to encourage and ready us for the week ahead. We must be robust as we carefully examine and comment on the state of the Maori language at its highest level.  
I am aware as well that the majority of you in this House really do not understand the plight of the Maori language. My real plea is for a tiny piece of consideration towards the Maori language. If you know a couple of Maori words next week make it grow into four. If you know how to acknowledge a person that is great but then ask how they are. Make it grow; extend the state of our language.  
Despite this remark I would turn therefore to English for a period so I am able to urge and challenge all of us of this House of Parliament of Wellington particularly and of the nation to give this matter the greatest attention and for what reason? It is because this week has become a reality. The expectation is that there will come a time in the future when this language of ours will become localised in this homeland of ours but I am equally aware of the great number of difficulties ahead of us. 
] 
This year marks 25 years since the Maori Language Act 1987 was first enacted to give effect to Te Reo Maori as an official language of Aotearoa. In doing so Parliament recognised the significance of Te Reo Maori as a taonga guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Reo Maori as we know I hope and accept as a precious part of the heritage of Aotearoa is something a right that the children of this country must inherit. It is a vital investment in our future and we need to do all we can to protect and preserve the language as a foundation of our identity as Maori and as a country.  
This year’s theme “Arohatia te Reo” challenges us to cherish the language as the unique voice of this country of ours Aotearoa. We have an urgent imperative to strengthen Te Reo Maori because less than 25 percent of homes where Maori children reside have access to a Maori language speaker. To increase the number of Maori language speakers in the community all of us need to sign up to a mission of Maori language that is both living and an ordinary means of communication.  
In my opportunity this afternoon I say that although we might focus for only 5 days on Te Reo Maori and we have our opportunity to celebrate the Samoan language as well it would be good that we reflect on this in 1 week’s time when we come back next Tuesday and that we take extra care on the pronunciation of Maori words. I am sure there will be a karakia in Maori and I am hoping that members of Parliament all of our workers here—all of the staff—and indeed the people of Poneke and the country embrace Maori language as something that we can all own and be a part of.  
It has been a bit of a concern for me as I get on to the plane some mornings that we have of course many mispronunciations of words like Rotorua and so on. I will not go on because that is in the negative; we have to keep it positive. I am asking not only parliamentarians but the whole country whether you be air hostesses bus drivers or workers around Parliament—or wherever you might be. I suppose for all parliamentarians the challenge is next week. Let us give it heaps with regard to celebrating Te Reo Maori but hopefully it does not just end at the end of the week but in fact carries on in the weeks to come. That is the challenge as we intend to save this language from extinction. We are in a good space at the moment but we should not be complacent. There is so much to do and all of us—all of us—can contribute to that korero. No reira kia kaha tatau ki te korero i Te Reo Maori a te wiki e tu mai nei arohia Te Reo kia mau kia ita kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Therefore let us make an effort to talk in Maori next week; pay attention to the language to ensure it is retained and secured so we survive. 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 What a strange day it is indeed when in Parliament a Government Minister gets up in this House and quotes Dr Seuss. Unbelievable! She did not even make a proper quote. That type of start to a debate speech requires a response from Bugs Bunny who said “That’s all folks!”. That is all it is going to take for this Government to continue to head on the train track to a crash because it is on the wrong track.  
Time after time in this term of Parliament we have seen this Government make decisions that are fundamental errors and are eroding the confidence of New Zealanders throughout the country. Mining in national parks! Who would have believed it? Well actually everyone believed that National would do it but who would have believed that against opposition in many small communities like Coromandel the Government would pursue its desire to mine national parks and cut up the heritage that people believe is really important. In the Coromandel it is trying to put schedule 4 lands on the block to carve it up—no good. People throughout the communities did not want it. This is a really important issue to many people in communities like the Coromandel. What did National do? It closed its ears.  
Then we have things like a convention centre funded by more pokies when all the evidence suggests that in disadvantaged small communities more pokie machines mean more problem gambling for those most disadvantaged whom that Government purports to make the best decisions for. A convention centre funded by pokies—really? Is that what New Zealand wants? I do not think so. People know that we need a convention centre in Auckland but not one that is funded by pokies. For the Prime Minister to kind of imply that this is a preference deal by not ensuring that an open tender process takes place I think erodes confidence in the Government. 
 The ACC bungle. Well this was a case where one green bottle was followed by another green bottle followed by another green bottle that kept falling off the shelf. People are leaving the board of ACC because the previous Minister for ACC had to acknowledge that this was a bungle of epic proportions. Unbelievable!  
The sale of State-owned assets. Again against a huge broad mandate of many Kiwis throughout the country who did not want to see State assets sold headed by groups like Grey Power the Government continues on its train that is heading for a wreck because nobody wants to see those State-owned assets sold. There is a petition that is currently going around—in many communities it has been signed up to in droves—to caution the Government about this.  
Well if that is not enough now Maori have taken the step through the New Zealand Maori Council of getting the Waitangi Tribunal to hear the nature of the interest that Maori have in water as a means to further caution the Government that it has made a fundamental error. It is at that point that I think the Maori Party should be held to account. I applaud the speech by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell who said that Te Reo Maori should be promoted ambitiously throughout this country but we cannot get away from the fact that the Maori Party is propping up National to continue its programme of action which is severely hurting many New Zealanders around the country. The sale of State-owned assets is just one part of it.  
The New Zealand Maori Council is testing the nature of the interest that Maori have in water before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Prime Minister is rubbishing the tribunal process and is implicitly rubbishing the leadership of the New Zealand Maori Council headed by former High Court judge Sir Eddie Durie. That is unbelievable at a time when the Government should be considering very carefully the nature of the interest that Maori currently have in water.  
I would argue that actually National needs the Maori Party and I suspect that the Maori Party will not leave at all. But I heard this morning from a friend who caught a plane from Auckland that there were members of the Maori Party coming down on the plane to join its members of Parliament in the 8 o’clock meeting tonight. They are trying to ensure that pressure is put on this Government— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: They won’t go. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: No they will not go. They will not go and I will tell you why they will not go: they cannot go. They cannot go because they do not want to go. But the real issue here is that the Maori Party is trying to caution the Government to taihoa he kupu Maori tenei—taihoa just hold tight on selling State-owned assets—because there are too many important issues on the table. I suspect the Maori Party will not go. It should go but it will not go and it needs to reconsider its coalition deal with National. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 We have heard Dr Seuss quoted with great effect by the Hon Anne Tolley and by David Shearer who was talking about  
Green Eggs and Ham 
. Well I have a quote here from Dr Seuss: “We are all a little weird and life’s a little weird and when we find someone whose weirdness is compatible with ours we join up with them and fall in mutual weirdness and call it love.” Who would have thought that Dr Seuss had prophesied the current New Zealand Labour Party so successfully? 
I know that the Labour Party is currently a little preoccupied. We have got Trevor Mallard over there and Andrew Little who are clearly preoccupied wondering how they will pay for it. We have got Grant Robertson and David Parker clearly preoccupied—both thinking about the 25 reasons why they would be better than David Shearer. We have got the Opposition over here who are also thinking exactly the same thing Grant Robertson is thinking: “I would be so much better than David Shearer.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This member should be a Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: Amazingly he is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh he’s not! 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well it is an apprenticeship—it is an apprenticeship. 
I want to speak about public services. I want to speak about public services and I want to talk about what we have said many many times on this side of the House: the fact that there is a global financial crisis and how since that there has been no lolly scramble. There is no lolly scramble today. It is a lesson however that Labour and the Greens have not picked up on. Labour and the Greens of course still have this old-fashioned view that in the 2000s we have a “spend-athon” going on. [ 
Interruption 
] Well telethons died long ago and so did “spend-athons” Grant Robertson. Actually on this side of the House we know that we cannot do that. When it comes to public spending we cannot just keep on going and going spending billions of additional money extra each and every year. From 2000 to 2008 we saw that happen and it proved that more money does not equal more and better public services. 
One of the great lessons I have seen since National has been in Government has been that leadership both political and organisational in public services really matters and can really make a difference. It is not about as I have said spending; it is often about focus prioritisation— 
Grant Robertson 
: This speech won’t help the member’s leadership. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is a long way off Grant. Yours is not—yours is not buddy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker should not be included in the debate. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: I apologise. Better public services can be achieved from focus prioritisation and targets and we have got some ambitious public targets that have been made by the Prime Minister very recently. Look they will not be easy to achieve but we are working very hard on them. 
I want to talk about specific areas. We will hear very soon from Dr Paul Hutchison on health and the better public services we are providing there and from Nikki Kaye on education. But I do know actually and I have seen it in my own constituency with elective services that the focus and leadership provided by Tony Ryall there has without necessarily a whole lot more money resulted in better results. I know in my short time as a member of Parliament that although at the start of my time there were many people coming to see me about health issues and complaints and delays they are simply not coming any more. 
Another lesson that I think is very important to learn when it comes to better public services can be seen very well I think in some of the portfolios that I am involved with. And that is this lesson: not all regulation of course is bad; some is very good. And it works particularly well where we are working with industry listening to them and letting them actually tell us what they think is needed and where we work to reduce unnecessary costs and compliance. We did not see that under the Labour Government from 2000 to 2008 but we are seeing it very much now in my area. In transport we have seen that particularly well. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address the small matter of the future of the planet. While the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development did not push Tom Cruise’s marital woes off the front pages Rio+20 was none the less of passing significance to the future of humankind. In 1992 the first Earth Summit agreed on the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and framework conventions for climate change and biodiversity. But binding obligations that followed have been inadequate to meet the global challenges. In fact since 1992 we see negative progress towards the imperative of global sustainability.  
Five critical facts record a planet in decline. Global population rose from 5.5 billion to 7 billion. Our global ecological overshoot rose from 18 percent to 50 percent. Greenhouse emissions rose from 42 gigatonnes to 50. Of the nine planetary boundaries we already exceed three. Biodiversity loss has intensified to a range of 100 to 1000 times above the natural rate. Despite the action programme from the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development the global population is projected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050. Despite the Kyoto Protocol global emissions are projected to rise further to 56 gigatonnes by 2020. The voluntary pledges total half of that required for the 2-degree threshold. None of this was explicitly addressed at the Rio+20 conference. Instead we got 283 paragraphs of painfully negotiated platitudes. Let us be honest—this document will not adequately meet the global challenge.  
We actually face two crises neither of which is formally acknowledged by the international community. We face a global ecological crisis and we face a global governance crisis—the inability of the international community to properly resolve the interrelated problems. New Zealand by and large keeps its head down. We have no appetite for grim challenge under this Government. We have no readiness to take a lead. We fall back upon national platitudes about our clean green image. An image of course is just that. This Government has discreetly—lest anyone notice—reverted to the phrase “sustainable development” and the word “sustainability” again after a brief and frenzied purge in 2009. So New Zealand trotted it out again at the Rio+20 conference.  
Back in 1992 National’s then Minister for the Environment the Hon Rob Storey was moved to assert at the first Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro: “Sustainable development is the strong thread that will weave … the tapestry of our common future.” New Zealand accepted he said the need for extra financial resources for sustainable development. He said: “We have joined others in pledging our commitment to do this.” On climate change we signed the framework convention and he said: “We look forward to its … entry-into-force. International action is only effective if it is coupled with strong national action. I pledge New Zealand to such action.” And finally he said: “We have to remember that this gathering is but a first step in a journey that will take us together into the 21st century. … We need to look to the future with hope determination and commitment to change values behaviour and actions.”  
The words of National’s Amy Adams last month rang out with less passion and conviction. This is because New Zealand in the intervening time has decisively not delivered. She thought better than to acknowledge our failure to live up to the commitments we made in 1992 and that we have not yet changed our values our behaviour and our actions. She forgot to mention the global ecological overshoot of our own national footprint outpacing the global average and exceeding our share of the planet’s resourcing capacity more than twofold. Ms Adams found time to tweet on Brittany Trilford’s speech. It did not occur to her to acknowledge that with our excessive ecological footprint we are incurring permanent theft from Brittany’s generation. She failed to apologise for the fact that despite our pledge in 1992 to take strong national action our gross emissions have increased by 16 percent from 62 to 72 million tonnes. She failed to acknowledge that despite Mr Storey’s ringing promise our official development assistance percentage remained static at around 0.28 percent. We once were warriors; a proud nation attaching importance to honouring the international commitments we made. The mana of our people has since the beginning of time depended on us doing what we say we will. At Rio we failed. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I would firstly like to say a few words regarding the very sad and untimely death during the adjournment of one of Parliament’s long-serving security guards David Ernest Allanson. Like so many of his colleagues David demonstrated great professionalism courteousness and kindness and was always willing to go the extra mile for the public. I have known him from the first fifteen in the Onslow College rugby scrum and have known him to be a very keen and enthusiastic outdoors man. On the night he died he opted to ride his bike home from Parliament and tragically collided with a car. His popularity and respect is demonstrated by the fact that already the third condolence book at Parliament’s rubber door is almost filled in. Our thoughts and sympathy go out to his widow and his two sons.  
On another note Labour’s new leadership voting arrangements look very very messy: 40 percent caucus vote 40 percent members’ vote and 20 percent affiliated vote. We can think of Andrew Little. He has probably got a few of the affiliated Labour union votes—a few of them anyway—but he has other distractions so he is out. Then we have the three Davids. David Cunliffe of course is a man of the people. He is studiously going around getting the people’s vote and he has unique methodology. As we all know he lives in the very affluent area of St Marys Bay but occasionally every month or so he goes to the cupboard and picks out these old jeans and he goes down to mingle with the good people his constituents in Grey Lynn. He selects them on Sunday afternoon and he picks out those whom he is going to have to afternoon tea. So he has got the people’s vote. Then of course there is David Parker. He is a little bit more thin on the ground than all three of them.  
But then we have got the present incumbent David Shearer. David Shearer is his name and indeed David Shearer—well he has got the caucus vote for now. I also understand from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that he has got the votes of a few wandering warlords from Somalia not to mention Liberian cannibals who happen to be refugees. So he is right. But he has got Grant Robertson breathing down his neck. And they have all got the Greens who want to take over.  
I have got some advice for them—I have got some advice for them. They have got this idea that they have secured this three-voting system. But I reckon they can outgun the Greens by having three co-leaders—three co-leaders for the Labour Party. Can we imagine the combinations and permutations of Andrew Little Grant Robertson and the three Davids all vying for leadership or co-leadership of the Labour Party? What absolute mayhem that would cause.  
I want to talk to you just a little bit about what the really good news is in this Parliament and that is the fantastic leadership that National has had in the health field. Spending of $14.1 billion in the last Budget represents the most spent ever and is $2 billion more than in 2008. We heard in question time today that New Zealand is literally leading the way in health despite tough times globally. Under National New Zealand has the third-highest growth in health spending of 28 OECD nations for 2009-10 according to that OECD report. It is very relevant to point out that some OECD countries like the UK like Denmark and like Norway which Labour is always talking about have had reduced spending. We have the fifth-highest level of public health spending as a proportion of GDP in the OECD. I could go on with more and more good news in the area of health brought about by the National Government. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 There was a politician who once said: “There are doctors who make you well and there are those who make you sick.” I think Dr Hutchison has just made a very interesting contribution and I thank him for the words that he said about our former security guard here in this Parliament. That was a very very good thought.  
But unfortunately the National Government led off the Wednesday general debate with the brains trust Anne Tolley who started by quoting Dr Seuss. Well I think she would be better off going back and reading  
Alice in Wonderland 
. There is a very appropriate saying that I could use at this point. The March Hare said: “I have an excellent idea. Let’s change the subject.” I say to the National Government: “How about changing the subject?”. The whole day has been spent talking about Labour. Look I know we are a fascinating party but how about after 4 years talking about some of the things that National is doing in Government?  
One of the advantages of being a backbencher sitting where I am is that I have had the opportunity to observe the behaviour of the Government benches. I have to tell you I have been watching very closely and listening very closely. Those members are becoming more bizarre by the day. As soon as they can get out of this place the Ministers scurry out the door their coats flapping their feet spinning because they are increasingly impatient about being held to account by the Speaker and by the Opposition in this Parliament. They are finding it a nuisance and it is all rather pesky being questioned by the Opposition.  
What is interesting to me is to watch the Prime Minister. He has changed very much since he has been in Government in the last 3 years. He has increasingly become very slap-happy in his answers and has increasingly become slapstick; he puts on a comic show for the public every day. When he cracks a joke he looks around at his party and every now and then he gets a lone clap from some hapless backbencher. Then he looks up to the press gallery. Are they admiring him? The Prime Minister is putting more heads down in National than ever before. Yet we have got Ministers who are busy being busy rushing here and rushing there.  
But the truth is that National is increasingly becoming a party that is divided on itself. You have got the insiders and you have got the outsiders; you have got the onsiders and the offsiders. And then you have got divided leadership. You see smouldering away there are the hopes and aspirations of Bill English who really thinks he ought to be the leader. Then you have got divided priorities: those who want social change and those who do not. Then you have got a divided Government—divided into these little parties that support the Government which are being sent off because they cannot agree with the Government.  
All the while the Prime Minister has been saying that everything is very stable. There are no worries. He has said that that they provide strong and stable government: “we’re working hard to take the country forward and deliver strong and stable government just as we did over the last three years.” Well I have to say we have a more unstable Government now than we have had in many many years. People are starting to notice it. The commentators are starting to notice it. They have started to notice that the Prime Minister has lost his touch; his ability that he had to pull those little parties towards him and hold them in a Government he is losing that touch. He is losing his touch with the public. I was interested to read in  
New Zealand Management 
 magazine very recently— 
New Zealand Management 
 magazine normally supports the National Party—“Key’s disinclination to share his vision suggests a lack of willingness to commit and reluctance to be honest about future intentions. That in turn suggests a leadership approach based on knowing what’s best and believing that what’s best is not for sharing.” That is what we are increasingly seeing from the Prime Minister.  
The Government is increasingly getting out of touch with the public as well. I tell members to read the latest Housing New Zealand Corporation newsletter which came out today. It is so out of date that it has provided a lovely little recipe for carrot and ginger soup for all its clients but no information as to how it can be contacted. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in this general debate. Can I start by just acknowledging the speech from Annette King. She gave a great speech except that it was a speech about the Labour Party which is fractured has no leadership and has no policy. I just want to demonstrate that we are a team. I also want to quote Dr Seuss. Here is my quote from Dr Seuss: “Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.” That sums up how ineffective the Opposition is. We sit here in question time we see David Shearer making absolutely no hits on our team and we see that there are several people vying for the leadership of the Labour Party. My colleague Paul Hutchison has talked about the fact that Labour Party members are not focused on a vision for New Zealand and alternative policies; they are focused on themselves. That is right: the biggest thing in the Labour Party at the moment is how its members elect their leader. I have got news for them: they actually have a leader but he is pretty invisible. The reality is that he is getting no air time because his members do not have confidence in him. If you compare that with our Prime Minister John Key the last time I looked he was actually doing pretty well in the polls. I also want to say that the big difference between us and that side of the House is that we have policy and a good record. In the area of education—I am chair of the Education and Science Committee—let us look back at Labour’s record. 
Hon Annette King 
: So why do you talk about the Labour Party all the time? 
NIKKI KAYE 
: The reason I want to address Annette King’s comments and the reason we want to talk about Labour is that the record and the comparison are appalling. Labour’s record was appalling. Here are some interesting facts for you: under 9 years of Labour it ignored the fact that one in five children was leaving school without basic skills under Labour 16 and 17-year-olds were dropping out with fewer options and there was lower literacy and under Labour the number of degree-level graduates did not improve between 2000 and 2008. If you compare that with an education agenda under this Government which has seen under four successive Budgets increases in education— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: You’ve got nothing to talk about—no success no plan to talk about at all. Not a thing. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I will address Iain Lees-Galloway. Actually under four successive Budgets there were increases in education. The increase in the last Budget was $511 million. We have seen significant investment in some of our most disadvantaged children. For instance we have seen significant investments through the Budget in terms of Maori and Pacific Island participation in early childhood education. We are also focused on ensuring that we have good data for parents and teachers around how their kids are doing. That is about national standards. That is also about ensuring that we have targeted programmes for those kids who under the last administration did not come out of our school system with basic National Certificate of Educational Achievement qualifications. That is why we are investing in Youth Guarantee. We are putting in 12930 more Youth Guarantee places and I have personally visited and met many of the kids who are going through that programme.  
We are also incredibly focused on ensuring that we have reform of our tertiary education system. That is about acknowledging that we spend a huge amount on student support but not enough on research. We also have a huge number of qualifications in this country so we are reducing the number of qualifications from 6000 to 1200 which means that when our students go around the world or come back to New Zealand and study here employers can recognise in a meaningful way what their qualifications are. We are focused on modernising our school system to ensure that our kids are some of the most digitally literate in the world. That is why we are spending $1.5 billion on ultra-fast broadband and that is why we have put $1 billion as part of the mixed-ownership model the Future Investment Fund to put New Zealand schoolchildren ahead.  
The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is its record is leadership and is actual policy. That is why New Zealanders are still supporting National in droves. That is the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House: we have a record we have policy and we have leadership. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I would like to start by acknowledging the comments made here today by the Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges who rightly pointed out that there are opportunities to not throw billions of dollars at wasteful projects and to have more intelligent targeted spending that results in the same benefits. So the question is when the Government will apply that logic to its transport spending because it is not applying that logic to its transport spending at the moment. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport about the cancellation of the Otaki to Levin expressway and the Minister said some really intriguing things like—I will quote this from  
Hansard 
—“The Otaki to Levin expressway is not one of the roads of national significance.”  
Far be it from me to question what the Minister is saying but I do have a report here from the New Zealand Transport Agency and it says: “Project update: roads of national significance: Otaki to north of Levin”. Then it says right here: “The Otaki to Levin project is a section of the Wellington Northern Corridor Road of National Significance.” This document is dated 3 July 2012 so it is very up to date and recent but I am sure that if you go back to 2009 when the roads of national significance were first announced it was in fact the Levin to airport road of national significance. So there is really no way anyone could conceive that the Otaki to Levin expressway was not part of the roads of national significance. What the New Zealand Transport Agency does say is that it has found that the best option is to target improvements on existing State highways because this offers better value for money than building a new expressway away from the existing road. I think that is very logical and the Government has been able to save $300 million this way—a reduction in cost of 75 percent.  
Why will the Government not be applying that same logic to the Kapiti expressway? Just earlier today I was on the steps of Parliament and we saw a community group from Kapiti present a cheque for $450 million to the Wizard of Christchurch. That is the difference in cost between the Kapiti local connector road that had been agreed by the New Zealand Transport Agency and by the community before this Government come into power and the new expressway that the Government plans to ram through that area at an enormous cost—actually three times the cost of a local road that would achieve the exact same benefits perhaps greater benefits at lower cost. When are we going to see some economic rationality from the Minister of Transport and from the National Government when it comes to transport spending? This situation is really like the 
emperor’s new clothes when it comes to transport spending because I think that perhaps Government members do not feel empowered to actually look into the business cases; they just assume that if you throw billions of dollars at a motorway it is going to result in economic benefit. I would be happy to sit down with them and explain why that is not the case. In fact as the Minister pointed out yesterday I do have a background in transport economics and have been paid to do research at a very low cost compared with the cost of planning roads that will never be built.  
What worries me about what the Minister of Transport said yesterday is that he said he was going to direct the Transport Agency not to undertake economic research into transport projects. This is what we are hearing from the Government: rather than spending a small amount of money on research that could save the country hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars and get better economic outcomes it would rather throw those hundreds of millions of dollars—in fact $14 billion—at building projects for which there is not one shred of evidence that they will have a positive impact on the economy. That is concerning and what is worse is that the Minister does not even see fit to come to question time prepared to answer honestly and correctly when I pose questions to him. I have some grave concerns about that.  
The Green Party is quite happy to work towards a smarter transport future with the Government. We are happy to sit down any time and have a non-ideological conversation about how we can save billions of dollars. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I must reply to the Green member and say that when it comes to economic rationale it is a frightening thought for all New Zealanders to consider the economic stupidity that would result from a Greens-Labour Government. It is very illogical to be able to stand in the House here when you just talk about some of the things that the Opposition would do to this country’s economy. It would bring in place a capital gains tax it would charge people for water it would increase the emissions trading scheme it would increase the personal tax rate and it would cap the number of dairy farmers. We have heard from the other side of the House that those members would reverse the Crown pastoral lease laws and they would use the tenure review to force farmers to pay more than their good share of what is fair and reasonable.  
But on this side of the House I want to concentrate for my remaining time in this debate on the five positive things that this Government is going to do the targets that it has set. One of them is reducing long-term welfare dependency. When we stop and think about that that is going to be a very positive step because the sooner we can get people off living on handouts the more positive they will be and the more potential they will realise. It is very important that we have to reverse the mentality that was instilled into the population of New Zealand over the 9 years of a Labour Government.  
We will do more to support vulnerable children. We will make sure that 98 percent—an aspirational target but a positive one—of children go to early childhood education. When you stop and think of that it will set them up to realise their potential get into the compulsory education system and be very successful. Those are just two very positive thoughts that we are going to be working towards.  
By 2017 we aim to have 95 percent of our children fully immunised by the age of 8 months old. You hear a lot about reverting back to Third World health conditions but the standard of immunisation under Labour was as low as 67 percent. A really worthwhile goal on this side of the House is to ensure that we do everything to prevent those preventable diseases.  
We are going to make sure that we reduce the incidence of child abuse by more than 1000 from 4000 down to 3000. That is a very admirable aim to have. There is so much discussion on the other side of the House about why there is not more being done because really nothing was done over their 9 years. There was a lot of talk; very very little action. We are very pleased on this side of the House that we have got a Minister for Social Development who has commenced the white paper process. We have come to a stage now where there are many thousands of submissions to be heard. They will all be read individually and what will come out at the other end is a very unified thought about how we approach this very difficult situation.  
But what is more we are talking about boosting skills and employment. The rest of the OECD is troubled with the levels of unemployment for those between 18 years old and 25 years old. One of the major aims on this side of the House is to ensure that those at the age of 18 leave with the necessary level of education—National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2—so that they can realise their potential. That has been identified because on the very fundamental basis of it if you want to be able to realise your potential and to be able to move across various fields whether it be trades or university you need that independent ability to be able to learn extramurally. I see that as a very important aim to have. We want 55 percent of our 25 to 34-year-olds to be achieving at level 4 and above. That is very important too because we are in a world today competing with all the other people in the many other countries.  
We are doing remarkably well but this Government is determined to do better. So it is a wonderful privilege to be on this side of the House with a Prime Minister of the nature and calibre of John Key. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a copy of a speech by Lawrence Yule the president of Local Government New Zealand to the conference on Monday 16 July. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Well is that not interesting. If the Government does not want to receive a copy of the speech by the president of Local Government New Zealand then I will have to refer to it. I am not surprised that the Government would not want to have a copy of that speech in the Parliament today because the president Lawrence Yule in the presence of the Minister of Local Government and in the presence of the Prime Minister basically said that this Government in many respects to local government had it wrong—had it wrong. So I will refer to some of the things. The president Yule said: “Local Government New Zealand does have some concerns with the Government’s Better Local Government reform agenda. … LGNZ questions the proposal to refocus the purpose of local government in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill 2012 with the removal of the four wellbeings. We believe this fundamentally undermines the integrity of the relationship the local authorities have with their communities. Part of the purpose of the current Act ensures outcomes must be delivered to communities. If one of the reasons for the changes is to limit the role of local government then we question this approach.” 
It is interesting that this Government has made out that it has buy-in from local government in terms of the reforms of the Local Government Act. The Minister of Local Government David Carter on  
Q+A 
 on 20 May said: “I’ve spent a lot of time talking to local government people right around New Zealand over the last six weeks and frankly most”—and this is the word—“local government politicians are very supportive of these reforms. At the moment they get caught with requests from their ratepayers for them to be involved in all sorts of projects which are often difficult to turn down because of the very wide purpose statement in the act passed in 2002. So local government people tend to want these reforms.”  
Well is it not interesting that this week 78 councils attended the local government conference in Queenstown. It was held in Queenstown because it was going to be held in Christchurch but because of the earthquake it had to be transferred to Queenstown. Some people have criticised local government for having it there but it was as a result from having to move it from Christchurch. But it is interesting that all 78 councils unanimously voted that they wanted the Government to rethink its attitude towards the review of the local government bill.  
 So is it not interesting that the Minister can go on New Zealand public television—we do not have public television any more; the closest to it is Television New Zealand—on  
Q+A 
 and say that he has got buy-in from all around New Zealand from local government on this. Also Nicky Wagner the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee which is considering this bill and I am on that same committee said on 12 June in this House: “local government Ministers”—and she was referring to the former Minister Nick Smith and the current one David Carter—“have met with Local Government New Zealand mayors right across the country regional council chairs regional chief executive officers and numerous ratepayer groups in order to understand the issues and to formulate these amendments.” Well is it not interesting that on one hand we are being told by both the Minister and the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee that they have widely consulted and they have buy-in from local government and that this is supported by local government yet here is a media release from the president of Local Government New Zealand following the conference saying that 78 councils voted unanimously that this needed to be rethought by this Government.  
This is another case of this Government not being in touch with what is happening out there in reality. It is another case of the Government being very economic with the truth and making out that it has widely consulted making out that it has buy-in on this and making out that it has support for this but around New Zealand there are councils there are communities and there are many many organisations that are very dependent on the support of their local authorities—they are very dependent on the cooperation of their local authorities for their communities—which are greatly greatly concerned at what is proposed in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. I sit on that select committee and we will certainly be asking the hard questions of this Government. Is this just another one of its Dr Seuss - type fantasies? Has this been dreamt up from one of its  
Fantasy Island 
 books—that it wants to have these radical reforms of local government? Or is it just another case of the Government using excuses to move in on local government to centralise power to Wellington to have an autocracy and a— 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 17 July. 
Part 3 Substantive provisions taking effect on 15 October 2012 ( 
continued 
) 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee. Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good afternoon honourable members. We are in Committee on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Therefore the Committee is resumed. Members when we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 3. I want to take the opportunity to inform members that the Government has exercised its power of financial veto in respect of amendments in the name of Holly Walker and Jan Logie set out on Supplementary Order Papers 77 and 78 respectively. Those amendments are therefore out of order.  
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to request further information from the Chair. Were those amendments relating to Part 3 of the bill or were they from Part 1? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: They are from Part 3. Of course it is a financial veto which the Government is entitled to do. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance as a new member seeking some advice about how to proceed. I am fairly certain that the amendment that has been put up in my name to Part 3 of the bill bears no financial cost so I am uncertain as to the rationale of the financial veto being exercised in respect of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am not aware of that but we can certainly have it checked. If there are any financial implications in the Supplementary Order Paper that you have put up then the Government does have the right to put in place a financial veto and it has done so.  
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Chairperson. If there are no financial implications what course of action is available to me at this point? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think what we have to do first of all is to find out where the financial implications are because the Government has indicated that it wants to apply its veto. So we need to check that now and we could perhaps go on with the debate until such time—[ 
Interruption 
] Have we got something here? OK I am told that there is a certificate on the Table that outlines the financial impact. It says here what the reasons are for the Government not concurring: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period. In the government’s view these effects have more than a minor impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates and for this reason the government does not concur in the amendments specified above.” So it will apply its financial veto. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is that explanation available to members of the Committee to consider? Is it on the Table? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually on the Table Mr Lees-Galloway. You are entitled to have a look. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 When we left last night I was discussing Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill the implications of that and the changes that were coming up. We were particularly talking about childcare and the different types of childcare that are available particularly for those mums and dads of course who have to go back into work and the changes that are happening. I had run through the changes. Currently when your youngest child is 6 you are expected to look for part-time work. The difference is that that is going to 5 years. There will now be a full-time work test when your youngest is 14-years-old.  
It is quite interesting to see the number of both sole mums and partnered mothers who are currently working. For those whose youngest child is 14-plus years actually 68 percent of sole mothers are working and 83 percent of those who are partnered are working. So we constantly hear this call that they cannot go out to work. We are asking them simply to be work-available and looking so if suitable employment is not there they will not be punished. There is not a sanction for those who are out there actively looking. But certainly from all the evidence that we have seen we think it is quite fair and reasonable for there to be that work expectation. But beyond fair and reasonable actually is the point that all evidence points out that those who are in work have better outcomes for them and their children. This of course is vitally important to us as we move forward— 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I had been planning to use this call to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 77 and to offer it in fact in the spirit of cross-party cooperation and constructiveness as an additional protection for children from the sanctions imposed by this legislation. Given that we have just heard that this Supplementary Order Paper has been ruled out of order because the Government has chosen to exercise its financial veto I would like to speak a little bit to that and perhaps invite the Minister for Social Development if she is prepared to take a call to outline the financial impacts of the Supplementary Order Paper and the rationale behind the use of that veto.  
If I perhaps can just spend a minute or two outlining what it is that this Supplementary Order Paper would have done. I was going to in fact thank and congratulate the Minister on her constructive engagement with my questions about the impact of sanctions on children in this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill during the debate on Part 1 last night and this relates to what is on the Table now in Part 3 acknowledging that beneficiaries will be sanctioned only by up to 50 percent in an acknowledgment that their children need to be protected from the loss of income that a sanction imposed on them may incur. The Minister was quite constructive with her comments about that last night and agreed I think that the last thing that this legislation wants to do or is designed to do is have detrimental impacts unintended consequences on the very children whom it is setting out to assist.  
So this Supplementary Order Paper which has very strangely been ruled out of order was going to give the chief executive the additional discretion not to impose a sanction or not to attempt to recover a debt if it was deemed by the chief executive that to do so may deprive the child of food or shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the well-being of the child. So what it would have done is add an additional layer of protection there; an additional discretion for Work and Income not to impose the sanctions. It does not actually change anything materially about the bill. It does not change the sanctions themselves. It does not change the policy behind the bill or any of the other material provisions of the bill. It simply inserts a protection and a discretion on the part of Work and Income not to apply the sanctions that the bill allows. If it can be shown that a child is put at severe risk—that their food or shelter or otherwise their general well-being would be put at such risk by the imposition of a sanction on their parents—it would give the chief executive the discretion not to apply that sanction.  
What I think I can understand by the Government’s decision to rule this out based on the financial veto—and I see that the number of $128 million has been quoted here and I would be very interested to hear how that figure was arrived at—and what I assume it means is that the Government would be anticipating imposing that $128 million worth of sanctions under this bill and is anticipating that that is the level of sanctioning it will be doing of parents. That is very concerning if that is the case because that is a significant amount of money and it is a significant amount of sanctions and there are large numbers of children potentially affected by the sanctioning of their parents’ income. I would like to invite the Minister to take a call—if she could—to explain perhaps the rationale behind that $128 million figure and whether in fact we can take that in the Committee to be if you like a guarantee by the Government that that is the level of sanctioning that it is expecting to apply because that seems very significant to me.  
I must say that while the Greens do take issue with many of the substantive provisions of this bill this Supplementary Order Paper was in fact simply seeking to add in an additional level of protection. I would have thought it was something that all members of this House could support or at least see the merit in given that all it does is provide discretion—not even requiring the chief executive of Work and Income to exercise this discretion but simply gives them the option not to apply the sanction if it could be deemed not to be in the best interests of that child. That seems to me very important both from the perspective of child well-being but also to comply with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and I am referring here to article 27 which talks about the rights of the affected citizen in need of social security to be able to support themselves and their children. There is a risk I think that if we allow this bill to pass— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I wanted just to respond to the member Holly Walker around the financial veto for her Supplementary Order Paper 77. She called it a discretion. The first thing I would say is that the way it has been interpreted is that it is not really a discretion as such particularly in respect of not recovering any sum comprising part of a debt. I am referring to clause 35A to insert a new section 86 (9C): “(a) the debtor has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive …”. We do not see that as a discretion. It actually will limit our ability at some level and it will be suspending debt recovery. So that is a big part of the financial veto and it is because of the way that it is written that we cannot accept it. The advice I have had is that there would be a substantial long-term financial impact if we did not recover any debts or overpayments from someone. We actually do have a huge amount of overpayments that happen sometimes because someone does not alert us soon enough that they have got a job or that their situations have changed; sometimes it is the systems themselves. As you can all understand we usually try to err on the side of the beneficiary getting their money and sometimes that means we overpay them by a week or two. We are better off to recover that and let that happen. Most of our overpayments are actually only for about a week so they are not the huge debts that some people think that they are but they accumulate and they are incredibly high.  
To be fair around the sanctions as well the estimates that I have had from the department—even though the Minister of Finance with his advice from Treasury has gone for the figure of $128 million—the advice that I have had is that it could cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if we did not impose sanctions on anyone and with that debt recovery. The other reason is the behavioural changes and that is why we have sanctions quite frankly. We have sanctions so that we get behavioural changes and so that the obligations are actually fulfilled. If that was not so then quite frankly we would not sanction because it is for no other reason than to have those obligations fulfilled and to see the changes that we are looking for.  
The other thing I would bring to the member’s attention is that actually the protection that she is talking about and that level of discretion already exists. It is in the legislation; it has to be good and sufficient reason. As such I would say that there is the discretion and it is actually used as well. To give an actual example of that there are many cases where someone does not make an appointment does not turn up to an interview does not turn up to training or something that they were supposed to and they do not give us a reason until we go to sanction them. Then they inform us that a child was sick or that there was a good reason and for that reason we do not sanction them. So they have not actually done the activity they were supposed to; however we see good and sufficient reason not to actually administer that sanction. I can tell you that in literally thousands of cases we do not for those very reasons. There is a level of discretion. It is used quite rightly and that will remain.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would ask you to look at Standing Order 317 that relates to the financial veto certificate that has been tabled relating to two Supplementary Order Papers from Jan Logie and Holly Walker. I would like you to look at what the Standing Order says and then look at the certificates that have been provided by the Minister of Finance. We have just had an explanation from the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development as to why a veto has been applied and that is all very well. But when you read the Standing Order it says the certificate by the Government “must state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregate or aggregates concerned and the reason why the Government does not concur in the bill amendment or motion.” If you read the certificates they do not give any explanation at all. While it is very nice for the Minister to tell the members of this Committee why there is a veto I do not believe these certificates are adequate in informing the Committee in line with Standing Order 317. Just to say that it is going to have an impact on the operating expense and give a number but no explanation in my view does not meet the test that is meant to be applied in Standing Order 317. I would ask you to look at it. I believe these ought to be withdrawn and rewritten to meet the Standing Order because as they are there is no explanation or particularity in their reasons given to this Committee.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member for her dissertation on the situation regarding the Government’s financial veto. I am advised that it is covered under Standing Order 322(1) and (2) and in fact what we have here that has been lodged by the Minister is the standard form for any proposals to implement a financial veto. This is the standard form.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that it may have been a standard way a certificate has been provided for a financial veto but I am asking you to look as to whether in fact we have been doing it appropriately in this House. Maybe it has never been brought to attention before but I do not believe it meets any of the Standing Orders including the ones you have just quoted Mr Chairman. It does not provide what the Standing Order asks it to provide. If it has been done like this in the past then in my view it has not been done correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised looking at the certification upon Standing Order 322 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in a Committee of the whole House that under the standard format supplied there is a paragraph here which I would point out to the member. It is under “Impact on fiscal aggregate(s) concerned and reason for the government not concurring:”. It reads: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period.” That is why the Government has implemented its veto because of the increase in costs to the Crown.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two matters. One is to endorse what my colleague Annette King has said about the question of what due particularity is but I also wonder whether these certificates are in order at all because they begin by citing Standing Order 317. Standing Order 317 as I read it in what I think are the latest Standing Orders is in fact a Standing Order that relates to disallowance motions from the Regulations Review Committee. The headline mentions Standing Order 322 but I do not actually believe Standing Order 317 is at all relevant to this particular matter and I would suggest to you Mr Chair that these certificates are in fact completely out of order because they are not given to the Committee under the correct Standing Order.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can only relate again the advice that I have been given and that is about the financial impact to the Crown of $128 million over the forecast period. I have been advised that also in this particular lodgment from the Government where it refers to Standing Order 317 it is in fact a typographical error. That is what I have been advised. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It may well be a typographical error but I think that means that the certificate is out of order. It does not achieve the purpose that the Government wants. A certification clearly would have to state the Standing Order under which it is being put in and I believe that that typographical or otherwise means that these certificates are not in order and therefore do not apply. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 If it would so please the Committee I would be happy to go away and take advice and make sure that we have the correct Standing Order there and make sure it is at the attention of the Committee. We have got plenty of time to do that. The Committee will go about its business and we could remedy that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the member I have been advised that instead of Standing Order 317 it should be Standing Order 322. That is a fact. So the member has made a very valid point. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I was just going to point that out. I think an old edition of the Standing Orders from 2008 was used instead of the most recent one. But I would still ask for advice to come back to this Committee via the Chair or an official of the Committee as to whether there is enough particularity given by just saying: “It’s going to be this amount of money—we veto it.” I do not think that meets the test of “some particularity”; it is just a figure. There is nothing given to us as to how they added it up and what they included in it and I would like us to have a considered ruling on that at some stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member. What we will do is we will check with  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand  
and we will certainly come back and inform the member the situation as it currently is. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to thank you and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development for undertaking to correct the certification. Can we then take it that for the time being while this debate is under way the Supplementary Order Papers from Holly Walker and Jan Logie remain on the Table? Can I take it from you that they are now live subject to the Minister returning to the Committee? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has indicated that that is fair enough. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 While Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper remains live one question I want to raise is whether or not perhaps the member may consider splitting the two clauses that are sought to be amended in this Supplementary Order Paper. It seems that at present the financial veto hangs quite closely to the recovery of payments made in excess of authorised rates—the section 86 amendment. The Minister for Social Development has given an explanation that suggests that the financial veto is because this provision would incur a cost on the Crown because of its inability to do debt recovery. I think that sits quite separately to clause 37A because debt recovery allows the discretion of recouping costs from an individual at a very low rate over a particular period of time whereas clause 37A in contrast instead gives the discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction—and a sanction is quite a bit more onerous in terms of the amount of money it would remove from an individual than for instance debt recovery.  
This Supplementary Order Paper talks about giving discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction on an individual if they have not complied with their work obligations if the chief executive determines that that sanction would deprive a child of food or shelter or would be otherwise detrimental to the well-being of a child. The Minister when she referred to this amendment suggested that that could come at a cost to the Crown of between $200 million and $300 million. That was not stated in the financial veto so I would expect that if the department is going to go away and rework that financial veto if that indeed is the cost of this discretionary provision that could be incurred by the Crown that should be included in the financial veto. I would be extremely surprised if using the sanctions set out in section 117 of the Social Security Act meant that $200 million to $300 million per annum in sanctions was being imposed on those on the domestic purposes benefit with a dependent child. If that is the case this Committee should know about that.  
We are not talking about incremental sanctions here. What we are talking about is if an individual on a domestic purposes benefit refuses to take up work—for instance when their child is 1 year old potentially if they have had a second child if they refuse to take up part-time work as instructed by the Ministry of Social Development under the Social Security Act section 117 the sanctions that the chief executive must apply in respect of those failures is: “(i) the person’s benefit must be reduced by 50% until the person recomplies; and (ii) if the person has not recomplied within 4 weeks after the date on which the reduction took effect the person’s benefit must be reduced by a further 50% (so that the total reduction is 100%) …”. A second failure and a third failure finally means the cancellation of a benefit. These are not incremental sanctions; they are significant.  
If the Minister is telling me from the chair that imposing the ability of a chief executive to have discretion over the use of those sanctions where a child is involved would cost the Crown $200 million to $300 million per year then I would be interested in that. If that is not true I invite the Minister to clarify her statement when she rises from the chair because otherwise I would have assumed that the cost to the Crown of giving discretion to a chief executive would not be that significant—certainly not enough to warrant a financial veto—because it is ultimately a discretionary power because it relies on the individual circumstances being taken into account. What we are asking is that the chief executive take into account whether or not the sanction would have an undue impact on a child if involved where a sanction is being imposed. I think it was a very reasonable amendment. I would like to see it considered separately to the amendment relating to the recovery of payments and perhaps if the Supplementary Order Paper is still live the member may have a chance to submit that amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper separately and it may therefore be salvaged from a financial veto unless the Minister can explain where those figures she used came from.  
I would like in my remaining time to speak to a couple of other parts of Part 3. Of course these are the substantive parts around work-testing provisions. We have already—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Jacinda Ardern. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Thank you. I am pleased to finish my substantive points on Part 3. Obviously this part brings in work-testing provisions and is an extension on the Government’s existing programme. Future Focus was the first tranche of work-testing reforms that the Minister brought in so we do already have some evidence to suggest what is happening particularly with those on the domestic purposes benefit around declared earnings because that is basically the measure we can use to assess whether or not those on the domestic purposes benefit when extra work-testing is being applied are moving into part-time work.  
Interestingly enough the figures when Future Focus was introduced sat at around 16 percent of those on a domestic purposes benefit having some declared earnings. Although there have been some incremental changes it has not moved away from being roughly between 16 and 17 percent. So that does suggest that work-testing provisions are still very heavily dependent on the nature of work available. When you are in a recessionary environment obviously the availability of work is affected but so is the nature of the work that is available. In particular demand—we have seen from the household labour force survey—for additional hours has increased significantly. The number of people taking on part-time work has increased. Therefore the number of available part-time jobs for those who are having part-time work tests against them—that pool of jobs—is reduced. I would say that that would be my assessment of why we have even when new work-testing regimes are being introduced very little movement around those who are declaring additional earnings. In fact if you want to see where there was a significant increase in declared earnings the last time—and I am going from memory here—we saw it sitting higher than that was roughly 2006-07 when from memory it was sitting at about 20 percent.  
The economy and the nature of the job market certainly matters and we have implored the Government all the way through here to consider allowing greater flexibility in the imposition of sanctions because of the nature of the economic environment in which these measures are being imposed. So that is why I would contend that Supplementary Order Papers like those from Holly Walker are very fitting given what the evidence suggests is happening in our job market at present.  
The second point that I want to raise in Part 3 is that given the nature of the economic climate matters given the ability to demonstrate the education and skills required for the jobs available and given that the third issue we know that affects the ability to fulfil work-test obligations is childcare arrangements I am interested as to whether or not the Minister for Social Development considered the extension of the subsidy for childcare which she has—I think rightly—extended for teen parents. So the subsidy now sits at $6 which we are told by the Ministry of Education should substantively cover the cost of childcare for those teen parents. Did she consider extending that to a wider range of domestic purposes benefit recipients? I do commend the Government for that subsidy increase but there are a large number of DPB recipients who would have benefited enormously from that extension being applied to them also. Was it simply a fiscal consideration? Was it not considered necessary for the over 90000 who have sole parent obligations? I would be interested in that from the Minister.  
I also have a question for the Minister around the discretion used by Work and Income when it is making a decision over a part-time work-test obligation versus plans establishing planning for employment and whether or not there is a hierarchy between the two. I would like to give an example. I recently had a case brought to my attention where a DPB recipient wanted to enter into training in order to complete a nursing diploma. She needed to seek some assistance from Work and Income in order to enter into that programme. The information she received from Work and Income was that it was not interested in assisting with that because she was already in part-time work and as far as it was concerned that was the goal that it had for her as a welfare recipient. She was still dependent on the domestic purposes benefit. She had only 10 hours of work per week and it was not enough to sustain her and her child. She felt that without getting the training required to move her into a higher-wage job she would for ever remain dependent while her child was of school age at least. Minister I would be interested to see whether or not— 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 As a former police officer I rise to take a call on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill with a degree of pride in the way the Minister for Social Development has gone about addressing some of the substantive issues that our welfare system has brought upon our communities in recent decades.  
Part 3 largely deals with work testing and obligations and there are some very positive changes being made in this bill in this particular space. Essentially it goes to the core of what this bill is really about—that is if you can work you should work. In particular with young teen mothers when the work is suitable and available then that is exactly what should be happening. We have heard very much from the other side during the Social Services Committee’s hearing of submissions—not surprisingly—about poor young mothers being forced into work because of this bill. We have also heard about how harmful this will be to their children and to the mother and that being forced into work against their will is something counter-productive to both. That would be fine if that mother did not expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for her lifestyle on an ongoing basis. It also asserts a somewhat romantic notion that these teen mothers are all model parents and always act in the best interests of their children. That may be one end of the continuum but I can tell you now as a former police officer the other end— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MIKE SABIN 
: Sorry Mr Chair. I can tell members as a former police officer that the other end of the continuum is not nearly as rosy. Far beyond that the sad reality is that many young 15-year-old girls at school now see having a child and a taxpayer-funded benefit as a legitimate career option. Just as many will go on to think that having subsequent children is a means to perpetuate that particular lifestyle. This end of the continuum is where children are having children and is where so much of the child abuse and neglect that this country has developed a reputation for occurs. If the members on the other side of the Chamber making noise now do not agree with what I am saying then I would suggest that they should hop in a patrol car every now and then and take a ride-along and see what they see out there. The quicker we can get these young mothers into work and their children into childcare the better they will be and we all will be.  
Part 3 deals with the obligations and a far stronger work focus for these young people with 100000 sole parents on the DPB with 50 percent having a child over 5 with some 11000 children over the age of 14 and 29 percent of women having second and subsequent children while on the benefit. This bill introduces work testing for part-time work for mothers on the DPB with children aged 5 and over. It also brings in full-time work-testing for those with children 14 and over. This part of the bill also requires sole parents who have a second and subsequent child while on the benefit to be available for work after 1 year. That caused some degree of concern from those on the other side as it did with some submitters. It was almost inhumane we heard and terribly damaging to both child and mother. Well how is that any different from a mother who returns to work after a year of maternity leave and goes back into the workforce? How is that any different? Are those mothers abandoning their children? Are they poor mothers because of those decisions? Or is it that they are just getting on with what they do and earning their way in this world?  
An expectation to be preparing for work to be ready for work and of being work tested and providing obligations and a better balance between the rights and responsibilities are all things that I believe are long overdue and I support and applaud the Minister on her effort in this bill in that regard. These are steps that send the right signals that help change the culture. This bill has been about the first substantive move that has been made in welfare for a significant amount of time and the smiles from the other side of the Chamber really indicate to me that there is a party that would have done exactly the same thing had they had— 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you for a wise decision—another one. Well I think Mr Sabin is right. I think he is absolutely right and I think he spills the beans. He spills the beans on the perspective of this Government that is driving this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.  
I want the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development to tell Mr Sabin and tell this Committee how many 15-year-olds have had babies. How many Mr Sabin? How many does that member know of—just quickly? I wonder how many there are but he applies his prejudice. He applies his prejudice; he gives the lie to this Government’s perspective. I just wonder whether he has really thought about this because this is really the evidence that what drives this measure is not a better outcome for our children a better outcome for our young people or a better outcome for our mothers.  
What drives this measure is the punitive attitude that Mr Sabin personifies in this House. If the Minister for Social Development does not agree with it I invite her to comment on that speech—that that speech indeed is not a speech that the Minister would endorse. The Minister should in this Chamber now dissociate herself and her Government from that pathetic speech—because it is actually quite damaging. However that is his prejudice and his bias. 
Let us start with the comments of the Minister for Social Development. The Minister quoted figures last night and she started with them again today. This also in a sense is an anchoring evidence base that the Minister speaks so much about for some of the provisions of Part 3 around work testing when the child is of a particular age. The Minister said that 68 percent of sole mothers with children aged 14 currently work and it is 83 percent in respect of those in partner relationships.  
This is the evidence that says that therefore it is OK to apply that same test to sole mums in every case. That is the test in every case. But by the Minister’s own figures 32 percent or one in three sole parents find it necessary to stay home and look after their children. Possibly the percentage of others may be even greater—I do not know. But at least 32 percent or one in three sole mothers decide on the basis of their knowledge of their children their knowledge of the needs of their own young adolescents and their knowledge of what is available in the communities in which they live that they ought to be at home with their young children.  
What this Government is doing is actually taking away that option from people who for a period rely on benefits to live. For somebody with a child who is 14 it is probably not too long before they get into full-time work anyway. So 32 percent actually find it necessary to stay at home to look after their children. The Minister ought to know that because her ministry has done the figures. Who are these people? What are the conditions in which they find it necessary to stay home and be with their 14-year-olds? That needs some explanation as well.  
You see what is wrong with this particular approach which is reflected in the provisions of Part 3 is that there is no sustained logic as to how this can be applied in a way that will achieve the kinds of results the Minister wants to achieve. The Minister talks a lot about evidence—about evidence-based work and evidence-based policy. But at a critical time in a young person’s development age 14 one can expect or guess at least that for some of these parents—and I use the Minister’s figure of 32 percent—their children would have developmental needs and those parents are meeting those needs by being there.  
The Minister is saying no that option is not available any more under the provisions of Part 3 of this bill. I think that is something that is particularly worrying to this side of the Chamber. It is not only worrying but it is why we are not supporting these provisions with a lot of passion I tell Mr Sabin—because our experiences are quite different. I want to talk a little bit more about the Government’s approach— 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chair to speak a little bit further to Supplementary Order Paper 77 which has been such a point of contention so far in the debate. I want to thank the member Jacinda Ardern for her contribution earlier and for her suggestion about splitting the amendment into two separate Supplementary Order Papers which I have done and will table in the Committee at the conclusion of my call. The reason for doing that as outlined by Jacinda Ardern relates to the justification given by the Minister for Social Employment for the financial veto. It seemed to me that a large emphasis was placed in that justification on the changes relating to what would be new clause 35A in respect of the recovery of debts so I have separated that amendment into a separate Supplementary Order Paper. If the Minister would like to use her discretion as we would like to offer the same discretion to the Chief Executive of Work and Income to take into account the impact on children then she is able to do so in considering these two amendments separately.  
I just want to speak a little bit to the implications of what it means if the Government decides to apply its financial veto to both of these amendments and to extrapolate out and perhaps tease out a little bit for the benefit of the Committee and those listening what exactly the Government has conceded in choosing to apply the financial veto to the amendments. As we have heard from the Minister she believes that I think in relation to both the recovery of debt and the imposition of sanctions if Work and Income was not able do those things—to recover those debts or to impose those sanctions—there would be a financial cost to the department. That is true and I accept the Minister’s rationale on that but I think it is very important that we tease out the conditions in which sanctions or that debt recovery would not be applied.  
If we look at the Supplementary Order Paper it refers to situations when a sanction “may deprive the child of food and shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The Minister has assumed that this Supplementary Order Paper would not allow Work and Income to apply sanctions or recover debt in any situation ever. She has assumed that it would rule out all circumstances of Work and Income being able to do that. What that means is that the Government has effectively acknowledged in exercising its financial veto that to do so would deprive the child of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.  
What the Government has basically admitted is that the provisions in the bill as it is currently drafted before the Committee—the sanctions that it would impose on sole parents—would be detrimental to the well-being of children because if we had an amendment that gave Work and Income the discretion not to do it the Government has assumed that it would not do it. Let us think about that for a minute. If we gave Work and Income the discretion not to apply sanctions because it might be harmful to children the Government has assumed that Work and Income would take that discretion and not apply those sanctions. Well what does that tell you about the sanctions in the bill? It tells you that they would deprive children of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of children. That is what the Government has admitted in choosing to use its financial veto on these provisions.  
That is significant. That means the Government despite using the rationale of trying to improve outcomes for children as part of the rationale for even making these welfare reforms in the first place has acknowledged by way of this financial veto that in fact the sanctions are detrimental to children and would deprive them of such basics as food and shelter. That is extremely concerning both from a child’s perspective and as I mentioned earlier from the perspective of making sure that we meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that the affected citizen in need of social security needs to be able to support themselves and their children.  
What we have effectively had from the Government is an admission that the sanctions in this bill deprive people of the ability to supply the basics for their children. That is very concerning. That means that when the sanctions regime outlined in this bill is applied parents will no longer be able to supply their children with the basics—with food with shelter with a warm dry home with clothes with shoes with raincoats.  
I am looking forward later on tonight to hearing from Julie Chapman née Helson who is the Chief Executive of KidsCan who is coming to speak to a cross-party group of MPs. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I wanted to speak to a couple of things that have come up in the debate so far and just sort of see where we are. In response to Mr Prasad I just want to say that actually there is an exemption for high-needs children. It does not answer all of his questions but there actually is. There is an absolute exemption there that does acknowledge those who are over 14 who are at home and need a parent there; they can get that.  
In response to Holly Walker as well—and I will just get her Supplementary Order Paper so I am giving the wording correctly—she says: “the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive the child of food or shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The actual problem we have with that is a case manager cannot make that judgment either sitting at the desk with the person in front of them or many times without them in front of them. They cannot make that kind of call so they will eschew doing it. That is the truth of it. So you are quite right when you said they are likely to fall on the part of but it is not because they are necessarily concerned about the deprivation; they just cannot make that judgment based on the information that they have. So as a consequence they will not. I can go through the financial details if you like but to be fair in terms of the sanctions the estimate that they have is that it would cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if they do not impose those sanctions. As I say the practical effect of this change would be to largely prevent Work and Income from applying sanctions and undertaking debt recovery for anyone with dependent children.  
I also wanted to go into other parts of this part which are relatively substantial; we have been making our way through them I think very well. That is certainly so around having subsequent children while on benefit which is a topic all in itself as we know. To give some of the facts around having subsequent children while on benefit data shows that 28 percent of those receiving the DPB included additional newborn children in their benefits. Actually 5 percent had two subsequent children 2 percent had three and 5 percent had four or more children while on the DPB. As at November 2011 26000 women receiving DPB had included an additional newborn child in their benefit at least once since 1993. So looking at that when we say there is not a problem the reality—and I do not have this figure right in front of me—and from what I was seeing as well is that there were about 5000 births for those on DPB as well in recent months.  
The effect we have here and the reason for it is that—like I am sure many members of this Committee—we are quite concerned about particularly those mothers and their children. I do not think anyone sits here and thinks that it is a life of luxury on the DPB and that those on it are doing incredibly well. I do not think that is the premise and it is certainly not where I am coming from as Minister when I look at this. But the reality is that the longer they keep having children on benefit staying there the longer they are likely to be there and be living in that kind of hardship tough as it can be. So the best thing we can actually do for them is see them getting ahead in life and having options other than just welfare. A big part of this is making sure that there is childcare available and a significant amount of money—in fact around $80 million—is going into making sure that there is additional childcare for those mothers and certainly for those teen parents as well which I think is going to make a significant difference in making sure we have the support around them.  
I want to talk about that work expectation stuff too and getting work-ready. I suppose I have this kind of vision of when it has gone through for a while because the reality is it is going to take a lot of time for it all to go through. As you see when someone’s youngest is 3 or 4 years old and in 20 hours’ free childcare they are able to get that training and they will be able to get that upskilling so that when their child is actually 5 years old they can go into that job and they have got a skill that they can give. It is worthwhile and it has given them time to get ready. So there are substantial changes in this part of the bill but ones that we think give that balance back to work testing.  
There are also the changes for widows and women alone. That certainly was not made lightly but when you look at a modern welfare system—and quite frankly some of this when I looked at how archaic I think our system can be—there was a call that the widows benefit and the women alone benefit be changed and be brought into the new benefit categories. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for this chance to speak to Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Again there is quite a lot to say. I would just also like to follow up on my colleague Holly Walker’s previous speech talking about the financial veto the use of that and the cost of the sanctions. Although the Minister for Social Development has responded quite constructively around the issues of the Work and Income workers not being able to make that assessment in terms of the well-being of the child I think that does not undermine the point my colleague was making about the welfare of the child.  
I think we need to recognise that the Regional Public Health survey around healthy food costs which came out earlier this year showed that somebody on the DPB with two children after paying the average rent in eastern Porirua and providing the very basics of a healthy food diet would have $100 a week left. That was looking at an income of the DPB the accommodation supplement and other tax credits. A hundred dollars a week would be left. It is not hard to see that a cut to a benefit—any cut to a benefit let alone a cut of 50 percent—is going to affect a parent’s ability to feed clothe and adequately care for their child. I think that the Government’s admission of seeking savings combined with that response is quite clear evidence of that and I think all of us in the House who have a real concern in terms of child poverty should be taking that quite seriously.  
I would also like to just address the statement that has been offered many times about parents and families being better off in work. I think we have to really question why that is because we know that two out of five families living in poverty in this country are working families. We know that families on welfare are living in poverty. That is without a question. But the response to that is not necessarily to push people into work. Maybe the sensible response to that is actually to lift things up from our base to improve welfare payments and by virtue of doing that to improve work conditions. That may be a more sustainable way of addressing child poverty rather than cutting the base and pushing more people into the job market when there are not extra jobs a situation that will actually undermine people’s ability to negotiate for the better wages and better conditions that would enable them to stay in work for longer. This bill is setting up for people an unsustainable vicious cycle which is going to keep them trapped in poverty and that should be of concern to every member in this House.  
I would also just like to speak to how these changes are a furthering of the Future Focus amendments in terms of work testing for parents on the DPB and how that seems to have been creating a bit more of a culture of disentitlement within the department. We are seeing that through an increased number of cases that are going to appeal where the original decision has been overturned and through the anecdotal stories that we are hearing from people who are not being told about the discretion and not being told of their actual basic entitlements. We are just hearing far too many of those stories for that not to seem to be a symptom of a culture of work testing—this belief that people should be in work at all costs.  
I have raised it before and I am going to continue to raise the issue of discretion and domestic violence. There is a work-test exemption that is available for victims of violence. In February I think it was 22 people had been given that exemption. I know there are more than that— 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Malo le soifua. I just want to address Part 3 clause 29 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Clause 29 amends some definitions in section 3 of the Social Security Act and brings changes to introduce work availability expectation essentially work testing. It provides the range of 10 to 20 hours a week for part-time work or the range of 20 to 40 hours a week for full-time work. Sole parents must now after their youngest child reaches the age of 5 find work within those ranges of hours. I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development whether she believes that a sole parent working 10 hours part-time would be able to sustain that sole parent’s family on working those hours. You see I have a problem with that. I maintain that families who are on the benefit want to work and they want to work in a job where the pay enables them to sustain their families. And that is not what we are getting. I reiterate the report from the Inland Revenue Department yesterday which said that 66 percent of women are looking for work but cannot find work that enables them to receive a pay that sustains their families. So when a range of working hours of 20 to 40 hours is regarded as full-time work that causes me concern and would cause many sole parents concern because 20 hours at the minimum wage at the moment just would not be able to help that family meet their obligations with rent and electricity—and we all know that the increase in electricity prices is at the point where families are just not able to meet them.  
The other concern I have is the number of employers out there who are prepared to provide that so-called flexibility to enable sole parents to be able to work those flexible hours. I suppose the question has to be—and this is a question that came from many submitters—whether the Government if it is going to obligate those sole parents to find work in order to sustain themselves should be obligated to guarantee those jobs and to guarantee an income to enable a parent to sustain themselves.  
You know I suspiciously think despite the Minister’s sincerity that we have heard that the focus on this small group of people just begs the question of dog-whistle politics again. When you make a comparison of the costs that surround sole parents with the cost of superannuation you see that superannuation takes about 50 percent of the total social spending whereas the domestic purposes benefit takes only about 7.9 percent of social spending. So the Minister’s Government is deciding to turn a blind eye to the increasing superannuation costs and is instead focusing on the cost of solo parents—and by the way in December 2011 only 2.8 percent of those receiving the domestic purposes benefit were under 20 years of age so the argument about more and more young people going on the domestic purposes benefit just does not fit for the many submitters who have made submissions.  
But I come back to clause 29. The number of hours that sole parents would be required to work just does not make me confident that a sole parent working 20 or 30 hours a week is going to be able to sustain that particular family when you recognise the high cost of rent the high cost of electricity petrol costs and the number of available jobs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I need to make a ruling because a point of order was raised regarding the true validity of the certificates of financial veto that were tabled by the Government. Two points have been raised. Firstly the certificates cite the wrong Standing Order in the text. Although this typographical error does not invalidate the certificates I understand that the Minister has lodged replacement certificates correcting this error.  
The second point is that the certificates have not satisfied the requirement to state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregates and the reason why the Government does not concur with the amendment. I note that  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by David McGee states at page 450: “Provided that the certificate complies with formal requirements by stating with some particularity the nature of the fiscal impact the Speaker or chairperson will not permit the Government’s judgment to be contradicted on a point of order.” In this case the formal requirement has been satisfied. The impact on the fiscal aggregates is clearly stated. The reason for not concurring with the amendment is one and the same—that it increases the Crown’s total operating expenses. My ruling is that the formal requirement of particularity has been satisfied. The Government has calculated a figure. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 It seems that on the other side of the Chamber there is a concern that this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill will just be like a blunt instrument and used in a way that could again cause concern for a number of our communities. But that quite clearly is not the intent of this Government and never has been. What this Government has focused on in this bill is introducing a new system a system of support obligations and financial assistance for its young people and the bill does these two things: it extends work availability requirements and work preparation obligations for sole parents widows women alone partners and people requiring a main benefit. So in essence it is increasing work expectations because prior to National’s Future Focus changes 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations. This figure is now about 64 percent and will reduce to 60 percent with the changes introduced in this bill.  
Currently 12 percent of our working-age population is on the benefit. We know that right across this Chamber we share the common goal of wanting to help support and create opportunities. This bill is National’s attempt—our exercising as a Government—to do this. It is important what we are doing here. National’s investment is based on its approach to the benefit system and it is shifting the focus to what people can do not what they cannot do. One hundred and seventy thousand New Zealanders spent the majority of the past decade on benefits. That is bad for our children bad for our families bad for individuals and bad for our economy as well.  
The things that are important are these. People have asked me what the results are so here are some of the results just to remind those here. There are 10400 fewer New Zealanders on welfare; 2300 more on the DPB took up part-time work so there is work available. There are not a lot of jobs and yes we are trying to stimulate the economy but there is work. A total of 13000 people went off the DPB and into work. Fifty percent of beneficiaries did not require a single hardship grant. We keep hearing: “Where are the jobs?” and again we have to keep on doing this just to remind the other side of the Chamber. There are 11500 jobs on TradeMe and 15000 jobs on SEEK. Work and Income receives 1300 to 1500 vacancies a week from employers. There are jobs available. This bill is focused on one thing—changing the opportunities. It is saying that these work-test obligations in Part 3 of this bill are simply to create better opportunities.  
Finally as I finish this short call one of the concerns I have been hearing from the Greens is about children. Well we care about children—absolutely. There are supplements available such as the accommodation supplement. There is the community services card. That is there. There are a number of supplements. And can I just remind the Greens that in one sense a number of our practitioners on the front line working for Work and Income do have a care and concern for the children to ensure that their needs are met. They will have discretion. No child should actually enter into those situations that the members have talked about. Instead the greatest example that you can give to your children is to be the best that you can be. This is encouraging parents and caregivers to take up those opportunities of training and of employment as well. I commend this part of the bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order refers to the Government’s application of the financial veto to the two amendments in the Green members’ names. It is a new point so it in no way challenges your ruling. I just wonder whether you would be able to give us a definition of “more than a minor impact”.  
Particularly looking at Jan Logie’s proposed amendments the Government states that this will impact the total operating expenses by between $5.9 million and $15 million per annum. Those are figures that can be underspent overspent or shifted in Budget documents without so much as any explanation as to why. I would think that by that definition it would be minor changes to the Government’s fiscal aggregates. I wonder Mr Chair—and you may want to take some time about this—whether you could give the Committee some indication as to what the definition of “more than a minor impact” in reference to Standing Order 322 would be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for your reference to Standing Order 322. Can I inform the Committee and the member that it is not for the Chairman to make that deliberation as to what the actual number or amount should be. It is a matter for the Government. In this case the Government has made that decision. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 When I sat down earlier the question I had asked the Minister for Social Development was in terms of her projections and how many sole parents she expects through work testing will receive part-time work and how many sole mothers will receive full-time work within the range of hours that her bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill identifies—10 to 20 hours for part-time work and 20 to 40 hours for full-time work—as noted in clause 29. I want to also ask her about clauses 31 33 and 36 which talk about the pre-benefit requirements. Sole parents will now be required to undertake activities prior to receiving the benefit. This is what we were advised by the officials as to pre-benefit activities. One was to undertake one or more of the stated pre-benefit activities—for example firstly attend and participate in an employment-related seminar or planning session; and secondly at any time before the benefit commences attend and participate in interviews to which they are referred by Work and Income and to accept any offer of suitable employment. It seems to me that if the Government is going to require people to do those sorts of things then the public has the right to be asking this Minister how many sole parents will be guaranteed jobs that they can enter into. At the moment if this is the pre-benefit activity that is designed it simply means that they are being coerced bullied and pushed into it without any guarantee that a job is going to be available. 
The experience of some beneficiaries whom I have encountered is that they simply go from employer to employer and ask those employers: “Can you sign that you don’t have a job or that you will not accept myself applying for the job?”. To me that does not provide any hope for people who want to work who want to get off the benefit and they are being pushed into jobs by this Government. There is nothing in the bill that says these sole parents or these people will get a job that will pay them a wage that can sustain their families. The fear is that if they go through this process but cannot get a job then there is a strong possibility under this bill that they would be sanctioned and they would lose the benefit that they should receive. 
Members on the other side seem to believe that a benefit for a sole mum a sole parent is a bad thing. Yet if you look again at the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act the fundamental purpose of that Act is to provide support and help to those people who have care responsibilities. In this case sole parents have care responsibilities to children—to children whom I consider to be the future leaders of this country. But obviously if a young mum or sole mum does not have a job does not have an income how on earth are we expecting them to live and to provide for their families? We are already seeing the ramifications of the austerity measures of this Government on people who do not have homes who are living in caravans who are living in poor squalid conditions and who even live in cars I say to the Minister but who do not qualify for any Government support under this particular Government. If this Government is going to push people into jobs why does it not then obligate itself by ensuring that the jobs are there and by ensuring that if a mother is to find part-time work she will be guaranteed an income? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koutou katoa. Tena koe Mr Chair. I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because I feel like there is something missing and there is an education that obviously whoever drafted it missed out on. Where are the men? Do the people who drafted this bill know how children are conceived? The responsibility has not been clearly explained in the bill. All we hear is “bad woman bad woman bad beneficiary bad mother”. That is the mien that is around the bill.  
Whatever the intention what Part 3 has achieved with the sanctions and the work testing is “bad mother” because dad was not anything to do with it. There is no father in this picture. She conceived immaculately. She must take responsibility for having more than one child on the DPB and that all by herself she got pregnant. There are no two people in this story. There is one and she will pay.  
Having worked with beneficiaries on a regular basis with sole mothers I would just like to say to the women out there who are listening that the Green Party does not hate you for having more than one child while on the benefit. Nor do we think that you did it by yourself nor do we think that if you are not in work you are failing your children nor do we think that staying at home with your children is a waste of time and nor do we think that breastfeeding a child over the age of 1 is a bad thing. In fact the World Health Organization says it is a really good thing. We would like to support you mothers to do just that. We do not happen to think that because you do not have a partner who can support you you are a bad mother if you do not want to go out to work when you have a 1-year-old a 3-year-old a 6-year-old or a 7-year-old and you are a sole parent.  
I know hundreds of women who are being mum and dad. Everyone in this House knows them. They are doing double the work. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. They are doing the work that two-parent families do. They are doing twice the work. If they have got an extended family or whanau who can back them up maybe going to work is a great option for them if they can find a job. That is fabulous. I have lived in Tai Rawhiti and have seen woman after woman coming to our benefit service. All they want is to do a good job as a parent but they cannot afford to feed their kids because not only is the benefit system too low but they are being work tested and there is no work.  
I invite the members who think it is easy to go and walk down the street of many of our small towns and ask for a job that is going to fit with your four or five kids if you are a sole parent. Go and ask for it because that is what they are doing when they are work tested. They are going door to door they are asking for a job and they are ticking the box. But they are not getting a job because there are only so many that fit neatly with the actual responsibility of being a good parent. If you decide that you will be home at 3 o’clock for your children is that a failure? If you decide that your baby is going to be fed past 1 year old are you a bad parent? And if you cannot get a job and you get sanctioned who is going to benefit? No one is going to benefit at all.  
Our whole society when we attack mothers and children fails. This afternoon I went to a seminar with KidsCan which is an independent charity that says that one in 11 children is living in poverty. The organisation says that 15000 children do not get enough food. Many of their parents are not bad people; they are people who do not have enough money and job creation does not exist to help them get out of poverty. Instead of the Government focusing on how it can make Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper too expensive it would be really good if the Government recognised that there are many situations in the benefit system where the word “discretion” is very important.  
When we had the special benefit—when case managers were encouraged to be human rather than punitive—there was room to acknowledge the situation. I have probably spent more time in the Work and Income office than many people in this Chamber. I have spent a lot of time there advocating alongside people who found it really difficult to say: “I am not a bad mother. I want to stay home with my children and I need to stay home with them because one of them has asthma every third week another one has a learning disability and I’m feeding a baby.”  
I do not know what world people come from when they think that motherhood when you are a sole parent and you have got more than one child is somehow a lifestyle. A lifestyle—that is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard when I know the struggles of these women to try to live and to try to provide their kids with what I am glad to have provided for my daughter. I am a fortunate one I am a blessed one that I was able to get an education and to work. I have met so many women just as committed to being a parent as me who are now being punished. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is an honour to speak in this Chamber. That speech from Catherine Delahunty about this legislation the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill attacking women coming from a woman totally misrepresents the intent of this legislation and totally misrepresents the intent of the National Government to actually help those who are in need. I encourage that member to actually read the bill to participate in the process—as she leaves the Chamber—and see what this is about. Work testing is about obligations. 
Holly Walker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that it is a convention of the House not to refer to the absence of a member and the member just did that in his speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member will take that into account. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I said “as she leaves the Chamber.” I did not note her absence. She was on her way out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I have ruled and the member cannot refer to the ruling once I have ruled. The member must withdraw and apologise for that. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I have ruled. Just withdraw and apologise. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I apologise and withdraw. May I continue? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I asked him to withdraw and apologise and he did. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he did it backwards and there is a required format. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That does not matter. The intent was clear. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Thank you sir. Thank you Mr Mallard. What we heard was an attack on women which this bill does not actually do. This bill has work testing as an obligation because we know the evidence shows that work is good that work can be good and that work actually leads to better outcomes—not just for those women but also for the children those women support. We have heard today where the jobs are. Before I came to the Chamber I looked on SEEK and saw that there are 16364 jobs out there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many jobs? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: There are 16364 jobs. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many full time? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Full time—Mr Cosgrove wants full time: 13149. Mr Cosgrove might want part time: 1028. Mr Cosgrove might then ask about temporary jobs: 2038. The fact is those jobs are there. They are there but some of those jobs require skills and that is why in this bill we require as an aspirational goal National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where did you get the info Sam? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is also clear from the statistics—and I encourage the member to look at Statistics New Zealand—that 2135000 people are working as at 31 March. More people are working in this country than at any time in our history— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ha ha! 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —and Mr Cosgrove knows that. He laughs about it. He knows it. He knows that this Government has grown the economy 1.1 percent in the first quarter. He knows that historically we have got some of the lowest interest rates in our history. He knows that the inflation figures released this week have shown one of the lowest inflation rates. He knows that this Government is doing a great job of looking after our people.  
We heard the arguments from Mr Sio around rent and electricity but what we did not hear is that people also receive other benefits like Working for Families. There are— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have not been in the Chamber and I acknowledge that in my absence there might have been an agreement to have a broader debate but my understanding is that we are on Part 3 of the bill. I am just waiting for a reference to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am monitoring it very closely yes. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: We were talking about work testing. Debate has been robust in terms of jobs. We have had members opposite ask where the jobs are. I have had to help them with some information and help them with some facts because— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who made these numbers up? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Those numbers are real Mr Mallard. They are as real as “Charlie” block at Paremoremo where you and your mate might end up. They are real numbers and I suggest that those members go to Statistics New Zealand and actually read what is going on in this country. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is inappropriate to call a member “chicken”. I will ask the member to withdraw that comment.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise and withdraw. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I did not hear the comment. I did not see how I was abused. I am going to move along. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in this Committee stage on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Specifically I want to talk to clause 35 of this bill and I want to talk about what it is that Work and Income is going to require sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit to do. What we have is a bill that introduces tougher obligations for sole parents to be in work on the basis of there being outdated views of what people can and should do. We are being told that this is just a change to the system. We are seeing very much in this legislation the Welfare Working Group’s premise that sole parents have low rates of employment compared with the norms in other countries. That is reflected in this legislation. Well what we do have—let us have a look at the reality of it—is more than 65 percent of those people who are on the domestic purposes benefit staying on that benefit for less than 4 years. Most people do not want to be on this benefit and most people do not choose to stay on this benefit. Most people contrary to what some members opposite think do not see this as a lifestyle in which to revel in.  
So let us actually have a look at what the reality of the problem is here and what it is that this legislation seeks to do. We in Labour are opposing this legislation because we maintain that if employment opportunities are to be promoted for single parents there are major issues that we need to confront and that we need to have a really real and realistic conversation about. Those issues are around the quality of the part-time work that is being offered whether or not the flexible work options really do exist in reality affordable access to early childhood education—and quality early childhood education—and importantly access to education and training opportunities for people who find themselves on this benefit.  
 We were told by the person who had looked up the interweb and found all these thousands of jobs out there that there are all these jobs out there but the only fish-hook is that you might need some skills and training because some of them required you to have some qualifications. What do we see about these jobs being offered out there on the internet on Seek.com and Trademe.co.nz the now official site for New Zealand employment statistics according to the member opposite? What we have is a piece of legislation that does not have the commitment—the real commitment—to the training required and the opportunities required to get people into quality work and into the quality work that will put them on the path of being able to provide a good income for their families into the future.  
We have a whole lot of rhetoric around this from members opposite. But what we see when push comes to shove is what we saw yesterday when I put up a very reasonable amendment to Part 1 of this legislation that simply asked to include as one of the options that Work and Income could direct young New Zealanders to some of the courses being offered under the Skills for Canterbury package. But no what we have are members opposite who stand there and say: “We’re committed to getting young people to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.” Well actually what do you mean in reality?  
We put up an amendment that was going to offer people some real choice some real opportunity and the real option to get ahead and what we are seeing under clause 35 in Part 3 of this legislation is a whole lot of rhetoric around people on the domestic purposes benefit being compelled and there being obligations on these people within this clause to go out and seek work and training opportunities. But what we are seeing when it is put to the test with members opposite is that there is not a commitment to real and meaningful—real and meaningful—training and work opportunities that will get these people back into work. It just does not stack up and the rhetoric does not meet it.  
We also have within this clause “a general obligation [for people on the domestic purposes benefit] to take all steps that are reasonably practicable in his or her particular circumstances to prepare for employment …”. Part of taking those practical steps when you are a sole parent is having adequate access to early childhood education. This is adequate— 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow on a little bit from that last speech from Megan Woods looking at that commitment to getting people into work and what we consider work. I would like to remind the Committee of an ex - National Party member of Parliament Marilyn Waring and a book she wrote in 1999 called  
Counting for Nothing 
 which looks at how we value work and also how we look at setting up our Government accounts. I would like to read a quote from an interview with Marilyn: “Purchasing domestic services for a household is productive; doing them yourself is not. ‘It’s so ironic—no it’s not it’s sick’ she said. If a man marries his housekeeper the GDP goes down.”  
I think it is worth noting in the context of parenting and in the context of running a home that parents on the DPB are working—they are working. I had this feedback directly from some young people who were in relationships and had children who were very conscious that they were being disincentivised from co-parenting by our current system. The way our system is set up they are better off being on the DPB than they are on the unemployment benefit and co-parenting. That is pretty bizarre and that is a factor in this reform. I think we should as a country really think about going back to some of those basics about the things we value. I think parenting is something that we should value and we should put the money behind it. To say that paid work is everything—I think really we need to review that a little bit.  
I would also like to add my voice to the critique of the idea about how many jobs are available and the idea that anyone can get a job if they want. To give an example from Christchurch earlier this year the Canterbury District Health Board had 345 jobs going that they advertised and they had 6500 applications for those jobs. When I asked how many of the people who got those jobs had come off benefits I was told that one person had been referred to those jobs by Work and Income and was not suitable. They did not have the qualifications.  
I think that is a pretty clear example of how those figures that have been thrown out that there are jobs available actually hide the complexity of the situation. For some people there are not jobs available and particularly not jobs that support them to be good parents as well as be in employment. I think for us as a country and for the future welfare of our entire country the priority should be looking after your children rather than getting paid work. I think if you can do both fantastic. That is a really really good thing. You do not need obligations to do that. People who are able to do that and who choose to do that do that of their own volition. Most people want to work either in an unpaid capacity that has meaning and is valued or in paid work. 
Mike Sabin 
: We want to support them to work. 
JAN LOGIE 
: Well obligations are not necessary to support that. We see people transition into paid work when they are ready. We have also been told by the Ministry of Social Development when we look at childcare that having standards around childcare would be patronising because parents should be able to choose. Yet if they are choosing to stay at home and be around their children that choice does not count. Where is the irony in that? It does not make sense; it is inconsistent.  
I would like to also speak to the financial veto on my Supplementary Order Paper 78 to reinstate the training incentive allowance—$5 million to $15 million we are being told it will cost. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to some of the comments made by the latter speakers on the Government side. For Alfred Ngaro it was: “Do not worry this is just a new system and everything else is fine.” That is so simplistic—“It is just a new system and everything else is fine.” Of course we all know that for Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga there are plenty of jobs out there but I think he said there are only about 1000 part-time jobs. If that is so then gosh there is not much for 20 hours is there?  
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: They were casual. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Yes. Of course “all is well” is the message but when you look at this this is social engineering. They are words that that side use. You know it is what Mike Sabin has been saying. That is the kind of social engineering he wants and the Minister for Social Development has not repudiated him yet. The moment she does I will stop this criticism of Mike Sabin. But it is nanny State. It is like this: look folks if you are poor go out and get a job; if you have got children tough put them out somewhere else. That is what it is saying. 
But essentially I think Jan Logie really said something that I want to develop a wee bit more and she is absolutely right. What is the nature of work and why is it so difficult for this Minister and members opposite to accept that bringing up children is work? It is difficult work. It is demanding it is difficult and we ought to support the people who are bringing up those kids. The fact that the children have been born is where we start. I say to Mr Sabin that there is no point punishing those children because their parents had them on their own in the sense of having to rely on State support. 
Mike Sabin 
: How is going into childcare a punishment? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is not the time to really punish those children. I will come back to that in a minute Mr Sabin. That is where the approach is punitive and it actually has perverse effects. There is no leadership in all of this. This is not going to work. How do parents— 
Mike Sabin 
: Go back to Jan Logie; she made more sense.  
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Mr Sabin how do parents parent? I want to talk about a family I know—in fact my own grandchildren. My own grandchildren are 3½ and 9 months. My daughter is at home at the moment on maternity leave and looking after the two of them and it takes her all her time. With a partner at work it takes her all her time running day and night almost to keep those two kids to give them the best that she can. Fortunately they are doing particularly well. But to think that if a person like her was a solo parent then she would have this work test. That work test would just be so punitive towards the great job she is doing at the moment and the children she is bringing up. Of course the Minister said: “But we’ve got exemptions.” They are for high and complex needs. Minister I want to remind you that this actually is a high test. It is a very high threshold for those high and complex needs tests and if that is to be applied then that is going to be a problem.  
So here we are. This is a time when we know from all the studies that bonding is important children’s brains develop so much and parents being there gives them that opportunity. Anybody here who has had children knows that; knows that it was OK for us. It was OK for us but because these children are as Jan Logie says the children of the poor and because they are poor then it is not good enough for them. I would just like to ask the members opposite to actually have a look inside your soul. Have a look inside your soul and do that.  
But then finally the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Have a good look have a good look. But then I invite members to just take what the Minister has been saying. The Minister is saying she is into an investment approach. If this is an investment then I do not know what kind of investment she is talking about. But if we did have an investment approach let us get to these young people. Let us get to them sooner. Let us make an investment in them to understand about forming relationships how to keep themselves safe and how to do the kinds of things to prepare for a life of the type that you and I will all want for our children. Invest in that. That would be an investment and that would be giving our children the best start in life. But no the investment here in childcare is going to be in something like what the Minister said yesterday. She said: “Well of course the parents are in the best place to decide.” So if the only option we can give them is what is it babysitting clubs— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 There are several clauses in Part 3. I now come to section 60P(c) in clause 35 which says the purpose of this section is “to improve social and economic outcomes for them and their dependent children.” I think we all agree in this Chamber that to improve social and economic outcomes you have to provide an income to families so that they can support themselves first and foremost. Secondly to improve social outcomes for sole parents with children you have got to have a parent who is available to young children full stop. That is the argument that some of my colleagues have been putting forward. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill by this Government does not recognise when it should recognise that the role or the job of parenting of looking after children is critical. This Government does not recognise that. So that is the first point. It comes back to the argument we have advanced that for this Government to achieve an improvement in social and economic outcomes it has got to provide jobs. It is as simple as that. But not just any job; it has to be jobs that provide incomes for families to sustain themselves. That is the point that has to be made. 
If you look at section 60Q(3) in clause 35 it lays out the list of activities that will be required of people on benefits—sole parents in particular—and what the bill enables the chief executive to do to sole parents. The first point is “(a) to undertake planning for employment:”. Well that is fine—planning for employment. But the big question is whether planning for employment will guarantee that a sole parent or a person on a benefit arrives at a job that will support their families. That is the question. 
The second point—paragraph (b)—is that the chief executive will determine what activities the beneficiary should participate in and the first activity listed is work assessment. All right; you assess the person for the kinds of skills they have then try to match that person with a job. I submit that if it is true what the other side is saying about supposedly 60000 vacancies being available online then how come if there are those opportunities we still have got 160000 people unemployed? How come women’s unemployment rate is 7.1 percent? I am referring to that particular activity of assessing people for work; it does not guarantee the person a job. 
Paragraph (b) also suggests “a programme or seminar to increase particular skills or enhance motivation:”. That suggests to me that this Government does not think that sole parents or the unemployed are motivated enough to go and find work. Well I do not accept that and I think the Government is wrong. Another activity is “(iii) a work-experience or work-exploration activity:”. What does that mean—work experience or work exploration activity? Subparagraph (vi) allows “any other activity (including rehabilitation) …”. Why is that? Then subparagraph (v) provides for “an education programme:” and (iv) provides for “employment-related training:”. The question I would ask is whether the Government and the department will ensure that any sole parent who is wanting to progress themselves through an education programme that will lead to the achievement of a degree— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A bit like the Minister. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes. Well that is right. Once upon a time she was the beneficiary of support by the Government by the State of the education degree that she received. For any other sole parent wanting an education programme as stated in subsection (3)(b)(v) will the Government pay for it? Will the Government support a sole mother who wants a degree? Because if it will then good— 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 36 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to Holly Walker’s typescript amendments to insert new clauses 37A and 35A as also set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77. These have been ruled out of order as the Government has exercised its financial veto. We now move to Jan Logie’s amendment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78. This amendment is ruled out of order as the Government has exercised its financial veto.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 35 be agreed to: 
after new section 60Q(3) insert: 
(4)Where obligations under this section are placed on beneficiaries and their spouses and partners the chief executive must make quality child care per subsection (5) and early childhood education per subsection (6) available to the beneficiary and/or their spouses and partners.  
(5)Quality child care is defined as one that provides healthy environment that meet standards prescribed by regulation the availability of registered professionals and the appropriate ratio of caregivers to children prescribed. 
(6)Where the child is 3 or over the parent (beneficiary and their spouses and/or partners) must have access to registered early childhood education requiring services to be widely available in their area of residence prior to the obligations in section 60(Q) are applied to the beneficiary and their spouses and partners. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 34 be agreed to: 
delete this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 37 be agreed to: 
after subclause (2) insert: 
(3) In section 105(1) after “from complying with section 60HA” insert “or where the beneficiary has a dependent child who has a disability has been deemed to have significant behavioural issues and/or has been excluded from school”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Consequential provisions taking effect on 15 October 2012 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 This part Part 4 has got consequential provisions that take effect when this part of the bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill comes in on 15 October. It is for those who are predominantly having those changes with the DPB the women alone benefit and the widows benefit. It is a relatively small part of the bill—we have seen the two major substantial parts—however of course it is important otherwise we would not be doing it. 
These provisions replace the references to employment plan expectations and sanctions which is what we have had. We are moving more to work preparation expectations and a difference in sanctions so it is as much about language as it is anything else. It means the regulation-making power in the Act allows for the development of regulations setting out exemptions. At the moment we want them to be able to go through the regulations instead of through the legislation all the time. That makes sense and it makes it easier for people and means that we can have those kinds of exemptions when they are needed for people in exceptional circumstances.  
If there is anything that we recognise it is that actually whenever you are making changes it is not about necessarily a big group of people; it is about a number of individuals who have different circumstances and wherever possible we need to take them into consideration. It is quite straightforward and ensures that on the date the bill comes into force all employment plans reviews of employment plans requirements set out in employment plans notices issues related to the employment plans and any sanctions related to the employment plans cease to have any effect so that the new ones come in on that date. That is this part.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and give a contribution on the title and commencement clauses of this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. As you called for speeches on this I was actually just making some notes on the commencement clause. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development on the commencement date in particular. We have seen movement around the commencement date for the provisions that relate to youth services in particular. My understanding is that now the commencement date is for late August for those provisions. I know that the Minister has made brief references in parts of this debate—or at least she did in question time—around why the commencement date has shifted for the youth services measures of the bill. I would be interested in a slightly more fulsome answer because I have received conflicting advice from the Ministry of Education around whether or not the schools are indeed ready to pick up the provisions set out in Part 1 of this bill in particular because of course this bill will require greater information sharing from schools to the Ministry of Social Development. 
My understanding is that the Ministry of Education at this point says that there are two management systems that might be used to get information either ENROL or the student management system. They are quite different systems. ENROL it is my understanding does not capture all of the information that the Ministry of Social Development would require in order for it to carry out the basics of for instance contacting a school leaver to find out whether they require youth services in order to place them into further education training or work. I ask the Minister to give assurances to the Committee that the commencement date for this bill is realistic and that the Ministry of Education is liaising appropriately with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that the right IT systems are in place—and I believe that up to $17 million has been spent on those IT systems. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is a significant piece of work. I believe $17 million has been spent on IT for this bill. So if there has been movement in the commencement date I assume that is because things are not quite as rosy as they would need to be in order to kick off. If there is some explanation around that I would welcome the Minister sharing that with us because a substantial amount of taxpayer money has gone into that part of the bill and what I have seen out of the Ministry of Education suggests that it is not exactly clear what is going to be happening with its information flows into the Ministry of Social Development.  
I also note that the commencement date for the provisions that relate to work testing kicks in in October. I would be interested in the Minister sharing the rationale for how much time is required for Work and Income to make such significant policy changes. I assume that this is based on advice from officials that October gives relevant time to advise case managers of how the new system will operate. If indeed that is the case what is the difference between a substantial change around work testing and the probably more substantial change of Work and Income no longer dealing with anyone under the age of 19? Youth services with no prior training in this area will have to pick up that work and they are getting substantially less time from the commencement of this bill to establish the right training and policies in their organisations having never worked in this area before than Work and Income gets. Youth services get to kick off in August when the rubber hits the road for whole new practices whereas Work and Income is getting right through to October even though it is much more its bread and butter. So I would be interested in the differences around commencement dates there.  
I come then to the title of this bill. The current title is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Some listeners out there who may have been observing the debate around this bill may be confused that actually the title is quite a narrow title: “Youth Support and Work Focus”. To be fair actually that title probably captures what this bill does. It is heavily focused on those under the age of 19 many of whom are not actually drawing down on any Government support at present. We have had that discussion: roughly 1000 young people are on the independent youth benefit and roughly 1500 are on what will become a teen parent payment. That is the focus: those who are on Government support who are being targeted by this bill predominantly. They are the ones who will experience the most change in the way that they are dealt with as a consequence of this bill.  
For the remainder the “Work Focus” part of this title is then the reference point for the remainder of this bill. As anyone who listened to the debate around Part 3 of this bill will know for the remainder—the 112000 on the domestic purposes benefit the almost 50000 on the unemployment benefit and the tens of thousands on the invalids benefit and sickness benefit; actually it is even narrower than that it is mostly just for the DPB and widows etc.—the only change they will see as a consequence of this bill is additional work testing. So when you break it down it is the “Social Security (Youth Support)” which is 2500 people “(and Work Focus)” which is the rest. That actually probably is not a bad descriptor. But you would not have garnered that from the debate that you have heard in this Chamber which I think to be fair overstated the impact this bill would have for the majority of people on Government support currently.  
So perhaps it would be more appropriate—maybe we could say the “Predominantly Youth Support Social Security Bill” or the “Narrow Target - Based Youth Support Bill”. I guess the reason I would throw in the “Narrow Target” is that that I think encapsulates the significant debate that has happened around what is happening to our Youth Transition Services. At the moment we have a very broad-based community-based delivery model that is coming into a more narrowly focused—and the Minister as she said makes no apology for this—attempt to work with roughly 14000 young people. As we have continued to point out there are over 80000 young people not in employment education or training. Our preference has always been to build on the existing community-based Youth Transition Services that are already out there. It would have been cheaper it would have picked up more young people and it would not have just locked in on 16 and 17-year-olds; it would have been 16 and 17 plus. That has been our contention through this debate.  
But also if we were to be slightly more realistic about the “Work Focus” part of the title of this bill it would be the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”. This is not just rhetoric. I mean this is fact. I can see the chair of the Social Services Committee is getting agitated by my use of evidence. I know it is a pesky thing! Facts—never let them get in the way of some useful rhetoric! But almost 18000 people were drawing down an unemployment benefit at the time that the Government came in. Granted a recession kicked in; we have always acknowledged that. We are now sitting at closer to roughly 50000. But to bring in a bill that is so heavily focused on work testing when the environment has changed—and the Government acknowledges the environment has changed. In fact it has been its excuse for the unemployment figures that we have. On the one hand it is acceptable to use the recession as an excuse for the Government’s record on the unemployment benefit and the unemployment rate but it is not an excuse for people to say: “I can’t find a job.” So we have always had this complete contradiction throughout this bill. I think it is important that perhaps we look at the title acknowledging that the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”.  
Finally there is one other title I wish to consider. At the very beginning of course it is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because all of this is based on the original Social Security Act that came in in the 1930s. But as has been raised in this debate by my colleague Su’a William Sio I think it is timely to go back to what the roots of social security were in New Zealand. It has been pointed out that Michael Joseph Savage never intended for it simply to be a subsistence payment that did not acknowledge the wider context in which the person existed. He always said that social security should exist alongside appropriate health education and a pension scheme. That was always the context in which he referred to this. We have lost the context. We now focus so heavily on the payment realm of this—the existence on social security—that we forget that actually it should be used as a springboard to try to get people into a better life. That means sustainable work. 
Mike Sabin 
: That’s what the bill’s all about. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Mr Sabin explain to me how work testing does anything other than say to someone: “Go out with a booklet come back at the end of the week and show me 100 signatures that show you asked 100 people for a job.” What if that person does not have the skills? What if that person has not been in the workforce for 5 years and has no job skills to get into further employment? The welfare system should not be static— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I stand to talk to the title commencement and amendment of the principal Act. I do say to the member who has just finished Jacinda Ardern that like her I look forward to bill No. 2 and the changes that are coming through. I hear constantly that she is ready for the massive substantial changes to the welfare system and I can assure her that that work has been done and that it is coming. This is the first stage. We certainly have heard what has been talked about as far as the title of this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and I can say that this is substantial but is by no means the biggest part of changes that are coming along.  
The member did raise questions around data systems and information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development. I think they are quite valid questions. I can assure her that that has already been tested twice. It works; we are ready to go. I can assure her that the delay with taking the commencement to 20 August just makes sure that we are getting to those young people and we are giving them that little bit of extra time to adjust which I think is fair and reasonable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Before the break we were talking about data information-sharing and the member Ms Ardern had raised as a concern how we were going to share that information with the Ministry of Education did we know what information did we have the systems in place—I think that was the kind of thrust of where she was at. What we have done is we have actually tested it now twice and the information works and we are getting the right information in the right time. I am quite pleased to say that it has been tested it does work. The reason we have changed to that commencement date is firstly around that testing. Also we have now got to go through the third reading and Order in Council and we wanted to make sure that those who were going to have those sorts of changes also had a reasonable amount of time and notice of being written to so that they could actually get them through.  
The title of this bill absolutely does sum up where it is. It is around youth support and it is around a work focus. I have heard some things in the debate—this evening in particular—around that work focus being punitive and that people can lose benefits if they do not find jobs and things like that. That is not true. All we are asking is that people are available for work and that there is a new work preparation. So around that title having that work focus is actually fair. It is already in place as we know. It is in place for those whose youngest child is 6 and we are moving it to the youngest child being 5 for part-time work.  
There have also been some questions around the length of time and the hours that someone can work. We have given more flexibility there. We have had cases where we could see that with that work focus it was quite ridiculous that someone who was working 10 or 11 or 12 hours perhaps doing two shifts was still being work tested and that was not counted as such by the department. They were kind of being hassled a little and I did not think that was right actually. If it was a few hours either side there should be that level of flexibility. For it to be economically viable I can tell you that at 10 hours you are getting more money. At the end of the day particularly for those on the DPB the abatement is at 30 percent. That means on top of Working for Families and accommodation supplements and others that they get they are financially better off. Also at 20 hours one can just about pretty much go off the benefit. By the time you add in accommodation supplements—and actually about 40 percent of those who get accommodation supplements are not on welfare they are those in work; fully in work and off the benefit completely. There is a little gap in there and there is a gap of about anything from 17 18 19 hours where you are not substantially better off so once you get to that 20 hours there are absolutely no two ways about it: you can see a real benefit. Having that work focus which of course is in the title makes real sense and puts that attention there.  
I cannot reiterate it enough that if you have not found a job you will not be punished. You know there is no punitive measure; there is no sanction. The requirement is to be work available and the requirement is to be in that position so that you are actually actively looking. The reality is if you are looking then you know you have got a much better chance of getting one.  
As far as the youth support network focus is concerned I just want to give an example as well of a 17-year-old whom I met quite recently who had left school early had been out of work for a year had not been doing anything and had not actually been on a benefit either but had got to a stage where she sort of said: “What am I going to do?”. She took the jewellery out of her nose and dressed herself up a bit got some advice from someone on how she would interview and went round the Henderson mall with her CV and knocked on doors. It is a true story that she came out with three jobs. She came out with three retail opportunities and of those opportunities that she came out with she was at the stage where she was to do work experience for all three so she did. She went in and worked for a few hours at each of them. At the end of that all three of them offered her a job and she chose one of them. That was about 3 or 4 months ago and she is still in work and she is doing OK.  
Now that is one example I give you but to say that there is no work available simply is not true. Let me give you an example as well. As members will know during the recession we saw I was actually very proud that we had a welfare system that was there to support those who needed it. I get some grief for numbers going up—well so they should actually: that is when people are walking through the door and they need help. We should be giving it to them as efficiently and as promptly and in as much of a respectful manner as we can—and we did. You know I heard horror stories overseas and I am still hearing them of queues outside doors and people having to wait absolutely weeks and even months to get appointments let alone get the help that they need. We were able to address those needs up front but now here we are. In January 2010 we had the unemployment benefit at over 68000 people and we now have it at 50000. I would like to see it at less than 50000 and that is what we are working towards but the reality is we have seen 18000 people come off that benefit in the last couple of years due to in part the lessening of the recession without a doubt—and actually more jobs are available and that is why they are getting there—but also that kind of focus. We are seeing that kind of balance there. You can throw up your hands and just say that there are not opportunities for people but really by putting the right support around them and also giving them the right kinds of incentives and putting obligations in there is absolutely no doubt—and all evidence points to it—that you will get better results for people and they will have better opportunities.  
 You are financially better off whether you are in part-time work or in full-time work but I end by also saying that part-time work is also quite a great confidence-builder. There are those who have been either out of work for ever or out of work for a short time and are actually getting a part-time job of one or two shifts a week and it might be in retail or something else—we just recently placed 63 people off the benefit and into a call centre in Auckland guys. That is 63 people off benefit and into a call centre in Auckland. For all of them it is all different shifts and everything else. Some will be part-time most of them are full-time but I tell you what I bet their confidence grows and when that next job comes along or that opportunity to get ahead in that job they will do that.  
When it comes to the commencement we have got some parts of the bill that are happening as I say on 20 August when it comes to the youth package and others are coming through in October which just makes sense to stage that through but bill No. 2 is on its way as well which will see fundamental changes and will get us towards our next change. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I do not think the Minister for Social Development will find anyone on this side of the Chamber who would disagree when she says that work is important and work is valued. I think by and large all New Zealanders value work. We live in a society where work becomes important but it is also about the wages that those jobs provide. For the Minister to argue that the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement will enable sole mothers to receive an income where they can work defeats I think Minister the whole purpose of your bill because you are using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement to subsidise the employers and to subsidise the landlord whereas the whole purpose of this bill is the focus on work—focus on work where solo mums and solo dads or young people are going to be pushed into work are able to support themselves. But your argument of using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement seems to me to concede the fact that there are jobs out there that are not going to be able to sustain a solo parent or sustain a beneficiary who wants to get into a job.  
The title of the bill is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an amendment bill to the Social Security Act 1964 but as submitters have said before the purpose of this amendment bill and the original purpose of the original Act just do not connect. They are miles apart. The suggestion by many submitters is that really this bill should not be there. It is the wrong bill to introduce if the Minister is genuine about her concern in addressing these particular issues. In fact it should really be the “Repeal of the Social Security Act Bill” rather than an amendment bill as it shows. If the focus of the bill is about jobs then this bill is really doing everything other than the provision of a job yet it provides sanctions which in my mind are a threat that if people do not get a job then they are going to lose out on something. 
 There is another significant shift that this bill introduces. It introduces a youth package that permits the use of third parties or private organisations. That is a significant shift from what currently occurs where a third party—whether it be a business or a community trust or whatever organisation—is going to be the representative of the Government department in the delivery of benefits in the delivery of any sanctions and in the provision of any of the pre-benefit activities that the bill suggests the chief executive has because the chief executive is not going to be the one sitting down with every beneficiary who comes through the doors of Work and Income. When the bill allows for third parties to be involved in the relationship between the beneficiary and the Government I think that debate still needs to be had because there are significant risks associated with the third parties involved in the relationship there.  
The bill also although it says in the title “Youth Support and Work Focus” does not highlight the fact that there is significant change for the beneficiary which falls on solo parents on widows and on sole parents. When a bill suggests one thing but does something else you really have to ask yourself whether we are being honest with the public out there. The fact that the entire bill introduces work testing—again the work focus gives a different suggestion to the public who will read the bill and think “OK this will enable me to get a job.” but it does not. Despite what the backbenchers say about the vacancy opportunities online we still have today 160000 people unemployed—6.7 percent. Women who predominantly make up the sole parent category are 7.1 percent unemployed which is higher than the national average. So again I do not think that the bill is being honest by allowing the general public to be fully aware of what will happen.  
The bill also introduces sanctions. I—and most people—take sanctions as a threat and there has been significant power now being placed upon the shoulders of the chief executive. It will be the chief executive who will determine whether a person is eligible for a benefit and what benefit. It will be the chief executive who will determine which pre-benefit activities for the applicant will apply. It will be the chief executive who will determine what educational activity the applicant can apply for. Again this is a significant shift from the original legislation which I do not think that we have had enough time to debate.  
The other points I make are on childcare because when this bill introduces the provision that sole parents will be work-tested when a child is 5 years old—it used to be 6 the bill now reduces it to 5—for part-time work I still have genuine concerns. If they are working in a job that does not pay sufficient to provide care for the child at home or at an educational facility then the Minister has suggested that we will continue to provide the childcare subsidy. I think that is wrong because that means that the focus really is about subsidising employers and subsidising landlords to the detriment of taxpayers and to the detriment of sole parents or beneficiaries who will have to continue to work for low-paid jobs. How can you live and provide a decent quality standard of living if this is the rate of affairs that this Government seems to be content on proposing? 
Again the jobs. If I really wanted to be mean to the backbenchers I would say that this bill ought to be called the “Kick in the Guts for Beneficiaries Bill”. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well that is what this is all about. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They think it’s funny. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right and they do not take this seriously. The Minister above all members on that side should know that the children of beneficiaries should be our primary concern. The children of sole parents should be our primary concern. If the Minister was in attendance when the public made submissions she would have heard from a range of significant organisations and significant individuals who responded and gave evidence that their paramount concern is that this bill does nothing—does nothing whatsoever—to protect the most vulnerable in our society: the children of sole parents. To leave a 14-year-old child at home really this perpetuates what we are doing. When a 14-year-old child is at home because mum is forced to go to work or they will be sanctioned and have nothing on the table—nothing to pay the rent with—what will that do to that young person? So I think if the Minister is genuine—and I accept that she is genuine about this—then really what she is doing with this amendment bill is not simply tinkering with the main Act; she is providing a significant shift to the whole Social Security Act. Both the purpose of this bill and the purpose of the Social Security Act— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Social engineering. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely. If we were in Government they would say this is nanny State. That is what they would have called it. We are not saying that one iota whatsoever. I simply say that she fails in this bill to address what will happen to children left alone and to mothers who because they will be sanctioned if they do not try to find work may not be able to afford childcare. The subsidy provided for childcare is $6 per child. Compare that with the cost of sending a child to school. You cannot send a child to school for $6. So I think she fails to address children. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to now talk to the title of the bill which is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and to take us back in time a little bit to actually look at what the original Social Security Act was about so that we have a bit more of a sense of the context of this.  
Back in 1972 the National Government put together a Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand. This commission after extensive thinking and consultation advocated that as a country we move from security to welfare—to quote it—“to ensure … that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much like that of the rest of the community and thus is able to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community;”. In the commission’s thinking there was a need to shift from the very basic safety net against unforeseen or unavoidable misfortune. Welfare was to be an agency for the promotion of the welfare of every one of our citizens. Although I can hear the Government saying that we just want to go back in time it is not true. I would note that in this bill and the previous Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill it has been the Government that has been regressing even further back in time almost back to the 1950s. To me it harks back to a time when single mothers were scorned and put under undue economic pressure to stay in bad relationships and to a time when women who dared to speak up were slapped right back down again. But back in the 1970s they seemed to have understood a basic truth that this Government seems to have lost—that we all benefit socially and economically when we invest in our people. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two matters under the Standing Orders: not relevant and reading from a text. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is the presiding officer’s prerogative to make those calls. The reason for that and the Standing Orders at the select committee made it quite clear is that such mechanisms can be used to interrupt a speech. So it is the prerogative of the presiding officer. 
JAN LOGIE 
: And we have recent research that backs this up. University of Otago research published just this year in  
Social Science and Medicine 
 investigated the impacts of family poverty on children up to the ages of 10 and how this reflected in later life. It showed that poverty and low income during childhood is associated in adolescence and adulthood with poorer educational achievement lower earnings and higher rates of welfare dependency up to the age of 30. The results held true even when a range of childhood and other family factors were taken into account. For this cohort of 987 individuals the major effects of being brought up in a poor family appear to be a significant reduction in both educational achievement and earning opportunities that is still evident at 30 noted the professor. In contrast the children of families who were in the top 25 percent of income earners were more likely to leave school with high qualifications and more likely to go to university and have higher incomes. These results reflect a wide range of other international studies demonstrating the impact of childhood poverty on later life outcomes.  
So for the purpose of this bill to say it is about social security about a work focus and in the content of the bill to be extending work sanctions and for the Government not to be willing to accept our Supplementary Order Papers on the training incentive allowance or the absolute protection for children to ensure that they are fed clothed and their well-being is taken care of to me seems to be pretty much of a guarantee that we are going to keep on seeing these negative outcomes flow through for people later in life. This is the absolute opposite of an investment approach. We are introducing a deficit analysis and approach to our young people. This Government’s approach is a wilful ignorance of the need for money to function in our society. The only mention of financial support in this bill is the preference not to provide it. We do not want anyone stuck on a benefit. In fact we absolutely believe that most people want to work and contribute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Dr Rajen Prasad—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I do not know what to make of that little groan from the crew over there led by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and company. I think the title of a bill should actually say something quite particular about what the bill is really about. Clearly the title that we currently have does not quite cut it and lots of alternative titles can be suggested. Of course usually they can be quite humorous but I do not think there is much humour in any alternative title for this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because there is so much wrong with this bill and I think the title should reflect that.  
I think it should be called the “Anti - Young Persons Bill” because the presumption about young people in this bill is that they are incompetent. We do not even allow them to make mistakes. We say: “You can’t manage your money so we will manage it for you. We will give you a little bit at a time until you finally earn the right to have it all back.” We do not bring up our children like that. Nobody in this Chamber brings up their children like that so why is it that these young people are being put in that position? The presumption is of incompetence so maybe it should be the “Social Security (Presumption of Incompetence) Amendment Bill”. Then the young people can relate to it as a bill that is theirs. Certainly that gives us a lot of scope for this particular bill.  
The “Anti-Adolescent Bill” would be another one—that is an alternative title—because now a single parent has to go back to full-time work when their child turns 14 or come off benefit. So what is it that makes it so that all of a sudden our 14-year-olds are being asked to manage themselves? The Minister for Social Development’s argument has been that 68 percent of parents do and therefore everybody who is a beneficiary must. The Minister has not explained anything about the figures she has used or some contextualising about the nature of the two groups of parents. The Minister said nothing. She simply has taken that and it has been her driving argument here for making 14 years of age the cut-off point when parents must be available for full-time work. Most people in this Chamber know that that adolescent period is demanding—not for everybody but certainly for a group of parents their adolescents are so demanding that they require their full-time attention. But of course anybody who has been on a benefit and could do that will now not be able to do that. So it is an anti-adolescent bill and that should be the title: the “Social Security (Anti-Adolescent) Bill”. That would be a title that would be quite appropriate in this particular case.  
The Minister has defended it saying it is not punitive that there is nothing punitive in this bill; it is all enabling. The Minister’s demeanour throughout all the calls she has taken is to play the line that we are simply enabling our young people and our beneficiaries to avail themselves of the facilities available. But you know the measures are punitive and it actually does produce perverse effects. There can be situations with two solo mums both with a 6-year-old and a 1-year-old when one would have access to the benefit and the other would not. That is entirely possible and yet the Minister says there is nothing punitive in this. There are punitive provisions in this particular bill as well.  
Who supports this bill? Certainly professional after professional after professional came to the Social Services Committee and they did not support this bill. They found so many things wrong with it and that was the overwhelming nature of submissions to the select committee. So the bill’s title could reflect that professionals do not support this—[ 
Bell rung 
]—Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Rajen Prasad. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Thank you. That has been the second time in 2 days that my favourite Chairman has recognised that the person has something more to say. I can see things are looking up at last. Maybe it is something about the second row that does it. But certainly back to the serious point I was looking to hear the views of the professionals who came. You would expect them to have understood what the bill was trying to do. You would expect them to reflect from their experiences why this bill would work and why these provisions would work. But they did not and of course nobody has listened to what they said; hardly any of that has been taken into account. So it could be the “Nobody Believes the Government Bill” because the submitters certainly did not.  
It certainly is a “Government Knows Best Bill” because that is what it has been. It has been that the Government has made up its mind and therefore that will prevail and it has forced this through the House. But of course it could easily be the “Mike Sabin Bill” because he articulated in his one call which I recall in Part 3 what the Government’s perspective was. It actually was the most punitive statement that any member has made in the time I have been in this House—the comment that these are lifestyle choices these women make. I did challenge the Minister to repudiate that statement and to stand aside from it. She did not. Therefore I am entitled to draw from that that it is indeed the Minister’s view and that demonstrates the punitive approach to sole parents and to bringing up children.  
Who are the people who will avail themselves of the provisions in this bill? It has been said quite consistently that it is the poor and it is the poor who are in this position. So this is an anti-poor bill because it is not really designed to make life great for them. It is designed to actually put a whole series of blocks in their way and that also begins to reflect this bill.  
Turning to another line of thinking the bill has been poorly handled. When we go to the commencement date we see that the Minister has had to change that commencement date. Right from the beginning it was a rushed process and maybe that explains the commencement date—I am referring to the commencement date Mr Chairman. It has been poorly handled. The date has had to be changed. The deadlines have not been met. People have not had enough time to submit in a detailed kind of way. Perhaps one of the consequences of that has also been that the information-sharing system which is still being designed is going through another select committee and the two systems have not been synchronised. And now this one survives for 3 years with a review and things will happen. I know the Minister says that it has been tested and it works well but the Privacy Commissioner appeared before us and others from the legal fraternity did as well and these are questions they raised. So the commencement date is a problem and it has had to be changed. One of the consequences of that has been that the information-sharing provisions of this bill are wrong.  
There are just so many things wrong with this bill and I think there is scope for the title to reflect that. We have got a provision for what the alternative title ought to be.  
Finally there has been a lot of reference to quality childcare. The arguments are not convincing. The Minister shakes her head but they are not convincing. That quality childcare should be available is a constant theme from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. If we are going to use these provisions then quality childcare must be made available. As to that 68 percent that the Minister quotes maybe they do have access to that and can afford it by some means but certainly many cannot. Babysitting clubs are not a substitute for quality childcare when mums have to go out. I have given the case of a person having to deal with the demands of two young children and when the 5-year-old goes to school then the parent does have a little bit of time.  
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. I am going to take a very brief call on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because I think it is very important. The title of the bill I think should be something like the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I think that should be the title of this bill. It is a very important— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Chairperson. The member has referred to Minister Bennett as “Minister Benefit”. I object to that. In this House the rules are that you have actually got to refer to members by name specifically. Using that slur is— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have a point of order. You wish to speak to the point of order? 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Thank you. Maybe so but certainly that reference to “Paula Benefit” was made at the Social Services Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I have heard enough. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. This is not the select committee and there are clear rules in this House where all members must be referred to by their appropriate names and titles. The member who was making her speech should do so. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Thank you. Just so that it is clear I was not actually referring to the Minister; I was actually referring to the actual title— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Chairperson. She is arguing the point of order. The point has been made and we have got to move on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Once a point of order has been ruled on we move on and the member should not refer to it. The member should continue with her speech. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Thank you Mr Chair. As I was saying before the title of the bill which is what I was saying should be the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I was referring to a title of a bill. The reason why I am saying that is that it is important for us to know that the private delivery of a State function simply based on a profit motive creates no savings for the public or the taxpayers and it is something that this Government should not be allowed to do. I hope that the chair of the Social Services Committee is listening to this. Ninety-nine percent of submitters are opposed to this bill. It is important that we make sure the people of New Zealand are aware of what this bill is actually about.  
Tim Macindoe 
: Which bill are you taking about? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: We are talking about the title. Yes that is right Tim Macindoe. I can hear you. That member has got a black and white memory. I mean that member has got a far-away look. And the further away you are when I look at you the better you look Tim Macindoe. 
I will now come back to the bill in front of us. I am baffled that after the Minister for Social Development released the Green Paper For Vulnerable Children she would suggest that solo parents are to work part-time when a child reaches the age of 5. That is a concern and that is to do with the actual title of this bill. Would it not then be fair to say that this is a form of institutionalised—I say that again—institutionalised child abuse? Did you get that Mr Peseta Lotu-Iiga? 
Tim Macindoe 
: I bet he gets that. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Of course. The dynamic of being a solo parent is hard enough let alone facing a non-existent job market. All right? So I have said it before and I will do it again. This bill has a really good idea. There are a lot of really good ideas behind it. The intention is good. The problem is that we do not have jobs. There are no jobs available for the parents. Overall we all want people to come off the benefit. I understand that. I acknowledge that. We do not want them to be on a benefit forever. But we must make sure that there are jobs for them to move to. There is no point telling them to get off the benefit if you do not provide them with a safety net. Where is the safety net in this bill? Where is it? 
Tim Macindoe 
: If there’s no job nothing will change. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: There is nothing and there is no strategy Tim Macindoe to ensure that there is continuity when they get off the benefit and go into jobs or job training. It is all very well to say there are 1000 jobs out there but as mentioned by some of the members before they require specific skills. You do not ask an engineer to go and do childcare jobs. You do not ask mothers who have been on a benefit for 50 years or so to go and look for office work because that would be ridiculous—absolutely ridiculous.  
I hope that those members across the Chamber actually ensure that their own families from Penrose and Glenn Innes and Maungakiekie are not all in the same boat because I believe that the majority of Maori and Pacific Island people in that area especially the Cook Island people will be the ones who will be heavily affected by this bill.  
This was a brief call I wanted to make. I wanted to make sure that New Zealand First got its view across. Our minority report has been tabled and it clearly states where we stand with this bill. The title is completely deceiving and people need to understand that. What we want to make sure of and what we are suggesting is that the bill needs to provide a safety net for women coming off the benefit to do community work and community initiatives. They need to be involved in some community work. They need to be given projects and in that way they are contributing to the community in a positive way. That way they can also feel better about receiving the benefit on the other hand because they know they are doing something for the community. From there they will be able to get some skills and relevant experience in order for them to be employed by some of our local businesses.  
To the Minister for Social Development I would like you to consider this. Perhaps it is time for you to engage and get a buy-in from local businesses and employers who will then provide opportunities for these people when they come off the benefit. Yes it is a very realistic approach because if you want our votes you need to consider this genuinely. A more one-on-one relationship is crucial in the future of any child too. It is not fair to expect a mother when a child reaches the age of 5 to go and have a job because nowadays you cannot expect just anybody to take care of your child. There are a lot of things that we talk about such as child abuse. We have also been talking about abuse in so many environments in different areas. This is what we need to also look at because that is what can happen as well.  
So Minister I think it is a very good suggestion that I am making. Also it is important that you give these people a fair go especially those people from South Auckland because that is where there is a large number of people who will be affected. Yes I do want them to come off the benefit and get into some very good jobs that will ensure long-term sustainability for their welfare as well as for their families. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Report adopted. 
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 June. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in its second reading. Just perhaps to settle the House down and to note the purpose of the bill it sets up an environmental management regime for New Zealand’s economic zone which of course is the part between the 12-mile limit and the 200-mile limit and also the continental shelf. What the bill does is provide a legislative framework that is lacking at the moment—in fact it is missing altogether—and puts processes in place to assess and to manage environmental effects in our oceans to provide greater certainty to investors of which there are a few and also existing interests of which there also are a few. It is also there to assist in meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill aims and I believe achieves in its aim to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. It is this Government’s desire in the absence of legislation for the exclusive economic zone area to do this without delay.  
This bill is not and is not intended to be the Resource Management Act of the seas if you like. The Resource Management Act was designed prominently as a piece of legislation relating to land-based issues. That piece of legislation the Resource Management Act reflects a multitude of interacting parties and interacting issues so therefore it would not make sense in our relatively uncrowded—and it is relatively uncrowded—marine environment. Current levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are low and indications are that New Zealand will not see a large number of new operations in the next 10 years. In fact the number of activities needing consent will amount to say a handful in each year. 
 Clause 19 which I just want to briefly talk about sets out a general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation regulations and consent conditions as well as sufficient resources and also to establish appropriate management systems. These things are critical in the management of our exclusive economic zone. An impact assessment will form the basis for all consent applications so that the Environmental Protection Agency—the EPA—can assess the effects on the environment and also on existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker for marine consents and that is the difference from land-based activities which are governed by the Resource Management Act. In this instance it is the Environmental Protection Authority that will be the decision maker for all marine consents.  
Finally in my brief intervention in this debate it is interesting to note that between 1999 and 2008 46 wells were drilled in the exclusive economic zone with no legislation in place to protect the environment. It is disappointing therefore that both Labour and the Greens intend to vote against this bill. They obviously prefer a legislative vacuum. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its current form. Although we see many positive aspects of the bill in that it will provide a long-overdue environmental management regime for New Zealand’s 200-mile limit known as the EEZ or the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf we do have concerns about some aspects of the bill.  
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea known as UNCLOS New Zealand has an obligation to manage and protect the natural resources of this 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This is an area 20 times larger than the land mass of New Zealand. It is the fifth-largest economic zone in the world. It is enormous. New Zealand with only 4.5 million people is fortunate to have such a large area of ocean and seabed under our environmental management. This bill will include the environmental management of activities such as mining of the seabed energy generation carbon capture and storage oil exploration and extraction and also marine farming.  
New Zealand First does however have concerns in relation to the fundamental purpose of the bill as did many submitters on the bill who came to the select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I have filed a New Zealand First minority report as have other Opposition members of the select committee arguing that the purpose of this bill is a contradiction in terms. The purpose of the bill states that it “seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and economic development” which are two countervailing and at times totally contradictory forces. The bill would have it that there is a balance and that these two factors will compete on a level playing field as if it is a 50:50 proposition.  
For instance it allows deep sea drilling of oil gas and minerals provided that its contribution to economic development outweighs its adverse environmental effects. How would you quantify that proposition? What if the proposition is determined to be greatly in favour of the economic benefits but with significant adverse environmental effects say on a 70:30 split for example? What would that sort of balance achieve in terms of the outcomes? Would this Government then steamroll it through—as it does in so many areas—because it would say: “Oh it’s still balanced. It’s 70 percent in favour of the economic returns. Therefore you know the economic returns are balanced out by the effects on the environment.”?  
We have seen too often with this Government that there is an eagerness to grab the short-term dollar such as with the asset sales over the long-term adverse effects on the New Zealand economy and the people of New Zealand. After all this Government is happy to steamroll through all those State assets when polls show that at the present time something in the order of more than 70 percent of New Zealanders oppose those asset sales. Would this Government conveniently ignore those adverse environmental effects because the dollar signs all look so tantalisingly appealing? Would it do that? Would it sell out the environment for a quick money trader’s buck? You betcha it would. You betcha it would.  
New Zealand First believes that the default setting should not be a balance but should be robust environmental protection introducing economic development strategies conditional upon minimal environmental risk. This should be non-negotiable. New Zealand First is not against economic development if it is environmentally sustainable but this bill could allow intensive exploration of offshore oil gas and minerals to push the boundaries overriding environmental risk calculations. The risk of environmental catastrophe is huge. Insurance and financial penalties are not high enough deterrents as the Gulf of Mexico disaster clearly demonstrated.  
In times of economic recession as we have now there is also huge pressure to create jobs pay off debt sell off assets increase value in financial returns and exploit natural resources. There is also a subtle difference between writing legislation not to create barriers to investors and actually encouraging foreign investment. Again the bill would seem to tilt the balance in favour of fiscal advantage over our environmental endowment. The financial benefits are readily quantifiable in dollar terms now. This is instant gratification against the long-term devastation of New Zealand’s environmental and economic future. The idea that the Government can pick winners has been proven wrong time and time again.  
New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to what is known—and this is a term that is internationally recognised—as a resource curse scenario. This is the easy fix temptation to focus on exploitation of natural resources which could deplete skills employment and investment money from other major sectors. For instance under a resource curse scenario the real long-term economic advantages of tourism could suffer as could New Zealand’s pristine image because of short-term exploitation of our marine environment.  
The bill should replace malleable concepts such as “sustainable development” “precautionary approach” “favour caution” and “adaptive management” to eliminate unintentional ambiguity. Giving too much room for movement could backfire in appeals to the High Court and the inevitable court battles. The legal fraternity have pointed out to the select committee inconsistencies with international law so this bill could be a field day for lawyers in the future in terms of our 200-mile zone.  
In view of the above concerns New Zealand First is unable to support this bill in its present form because it potentially lowers the environmental protection threshold in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. New Zealand cannot afford to jeopardise its extraordinary marine environment. We must get this bill right because it has huge implications for our nation. If we get it wrong we might see New Zealand’s favoured geographic position on the globe in the clean waters of the South Pacific Ocean being subjected to huge environmental risk the consequences of which could have far-reaching effects on our marine environment on our coastline and on our “100% Pure New Zealand” image as a tourist destination.  
New Zealand is a maritime nation. The marine environment with its ecosystem sustains thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in income each year from a wealth of industries—tourism fisheries and energy being just some of them. New Zealand has a unique association with the marine environment dating back to the initial arrival of Maori and more recently Europeans. Throughout the history of New Zealand it has been a source of pleasure of food and of transport. The oceans around New Zealand and around the world are increasingly being exploited for their huge mineral and food wealth. New Zealand First in its election manifesto clearly stated that we support urgent introduction of interim standards for drilling and exploratory work in New Zealand waters a requirement that all drilling and exploration projects in New Zealand waters be subject to public consultation and setting up and training appropriate to the risk rapid response teams to deal with maritime environmental emergencies that can be deployed at short notice in New Zealand or abroad.  
New Zealand First will oppose this bill in its present form and urges the Minister for the Environment to agree to amendments that will provide the greater environmental safeguards being sought by New Zealand First and other Opposition parties while still allowing for economic development within the 200-mile zone but ensuring that the environmental risks are put there as paramount as first safeguards in the process. Thank you. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on this legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee but particularly the chair Nicky Wagner who I think has done an outstanding job often negotiating between members of the Opposition and Government members. I just want to acknowledge her here this evening.  
Overall I want to start off by saying that I think one of the issues that the select committee had to grapple with was a difference in philosophy between certain members. I would challenge some of the speakers whom we have seen regarding this bill to come up with a tangible risk-based system rather than what I think we have heard throughout the select committee process as well as in this House which is rhetoric.  
Members on this side of the House do believe that there is an ability through this legislation to not just improve the status quo. We have heard that there have been 46 wells drilled in this area. We believe we are improving the situation. We are actually putting a decent management regime in. But secondly we are providing an appropriate balance that enables New Zealand to improve our economic development and also have an adequate protection and risk-management regime in place. We are confident that we are able to provide that balance through this legislation. 
I want to talk through some specifics around that. I want to make the point at the outset that we always hear the rhetoric from the Opposition but when you look at the practical things and some of the things that it proposes it is really just opposing economic development. We believe that as I said before not only are we going to improve the situation because we have had no regulation in this area with already 46 wells being drilled but we also think that we can get the appropriate balance from an economic development perspective.  
I want to cover a few things off. The first thing is that what is unique about New Zealand is the fact that the area of ocean is 20 times New Zealand’s land area. So part of what is interesting about this legislation coming to the House is that Parliament for many decades has focused a lot on what is land-based activity but as someone in the environmental movement said to me when I was first elected there is still a need in the oceans area to have better environmental policies. And what this bill is a reflection of is the Parliament saying that for an area of ocean that is 20 times New Zealand’s land area we have to do more and we have to have a better risk-management regime in place.  
So when we look at what this bill actually covers I think we have to cover several areas. The first is that we have to look at what the activities are. As I said before we have heard a number of scaremongering things from some members within the House but some of the advice that we have had is twofold. One is that if we look at some of the activities that are going to happen not all of it is about mineral exploration. We are also talking about marine farming we are talking about energy generation we are talking about carbon capture and storage and we are talking about seismic surveying and cable laying so it is not all about mineral exploration.  
The second thing that I would say in terms of activities that are covered is that when we went through the select committee process and looked at some of the changes that potentially needed to be made we did put a number of protections in. I just want to cover some of them. Clause 19 sets out a very general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. The second thing that I would say is that from the advice we have we do believe that the levels of activity in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf are pretty low and this is going to bring me on to the reason why we did not choose to go down the Resource Management Act line in terms of the legislation. The levels of activity are pretty low and indications we believe suggest that we will not see a large number of operations in the next 10 years.  
A big debate that came to the select committee was about why we do not just extend the Resource Management Act. What we are confident of is that this is different that this is the marine environment and that we have provided a management regime that enables regional councils to not only still have involvement but I understand have involvement under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and consenting activities in the territorial sea. But when it comes to some activities—a small number—this bill will apply. That is a good thing for New Zealand because what it means is more jobs through greater economic development. What it means too is reducing risk around some of these activities because we know the framework is not in place now.  
But finally what it also I think says to New Zealand is that we are going to provide greater clarity in terms of investors and existing interests that are there and we will also ensure that decisions are made in a very timely manner. That has been a hallmark of National’s previous Resource Management Act reforms. It is not necessarily about changing what has been in the past under the previous Resource Management Act changes—the test from an environmental perspective—it was about ensuring that decisions were made in a timely manner and were cost-effective to ensure that we do have greater economic development.  
So what members on this side of the House are saying is that we have provided a cost-effective approach that is about reducing risk but also ensuring that in that area where there is very little management at the moment we have an improved situation. I think that is a very rational approach and I think that we need to be careful of some of the scaremongering that happens because there are many other activities like marine farming and energy generation that this will apply to. And I think that is a very rational balanced environmental policy.  
I am very pleased to support this bill to the House. I want to reiterate the hard work of all the members on the select committee on both sides of the House in particular the chair Nicky Wagner. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I would like to begin my contribution on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill—have I got any time left; it is a long name on this bill—by reiterating the points that the member who has just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye concluded with and that is to acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who have examined this bill and the officials who worked pretty rigorously to try to make improvements. But unfortunately they were not able to make enough improvements for us to support the bill and that is a huge regret to me.  
I am really sorry that is the case in an area where legislation was clearly needed where all parties throughout the House—even I understand the ACT Party—have identified that there is a gap in our legislative framework. We did not have environmental protections and also the security for work to be done in the exclusive economic zone without any huge litigation. We did not have that regime in place as we do on land with the Resource Management Act. Yet here was the opportunity for that legislation to fill that vacuum and it was found to be fundamentally flawed.  
 The reason for that was that in the purpose clause clause 10. Rather than setting out what would meet our meet our international obligations in what in my view is not only a legal but also a moral responsibility of a Government to ensure as a primary focus the protection of our environment this bill does that old National Party trick which is to talk about providing a balance. Well actually that is not what a protective regime is about. A protective regime is saying that something has to come first and for us it is the environment.  
We want economic activity as the member for Auckland Central has indicated—we are supportive of that—but not at the cost of our environment because you have only one chance. Some things cannot be repaired. Some things cannot be returned to the way they were. Therefore you have a regime in place that says: “Yes we want economic activity but we will not do it to the detriment of our environment.” That comes first and this legislation gives that opportunity away. So it is with some sadness that I say we cannot support this bill.  
What a delight it would be to have every party in Parliament giving a clear message to people who want to have economic development in the exclusive economic zone. For those—I guess all of us—who seek to ensure that that special environment is protected what a wonderful thing it would be for every party in Parliament to say that this is the way to do it and to support it. But instead despite the huge efforts of the various parties we have this bill. I want to acknowledge Andrew Williams who has just resumed his seat and I have heard Eugenie Sage speak on this bill as well as my parliamentary Labour colleagues. I want to acknowledge their hard work in trying to get some genuine progress made so that we could offer support to this bill as it progresses. I am sure that the environmental groups who have today made public a letter to the current Minister for the Environment Amy Adams feel a deep sadness as well. This is an opportunity lost. So today the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation have released an open letter expressing their sadness. They have even said that they have proposed alternative wording for the bill to the Minister which would mean they could celebrate and support its progress. But for some reason the Minister said no and I do not understand it. Perhaps she has not yet got the confidence in her new portfolio that she had in previous ones.  
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society conservation advocate Claire Browning actually said in the release that accompanied the society’s open letter: “We are not opposed to economic development in our EEZ provided we have in place environmental legislation that will properly manage the environmental effects and risks associated with those activities especially in our deep oceans.” Who could argue with that? Well it sounds like every single member of the National Government and perhaps even John Banks who I know has a strong commitment to environmental protection as well as to economic development and understands that you cannot just trade off one for the other and that some things are beyond repair once they are damaged and those are the things that we have a responsibility to protect.  
When I read through the letter that I just referred to from the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation it was with a lot of sadness because those organisations all made submissions on the bill. They did not come along and say: “We oppose everything.” as National has portrayed them. They did not come along and say: “We don’t care about unemployment because we are so anti-development.” as National has portrayed them. Those are not the submissions that they made to the select committee. They submitted to the select committee that not only they understood economic development in these areas but also they supported it but it had to be after the environmental protection regime was in place.  
I heard the Minister and in fact some members refer to the international obligations we have. The Minister was quite dismissive actually and basically said: “Well if a bunch of fringe tree-huggers want to come along and say we don’t comply with international obligations I as a lawyer”—this was the Minister speaking sorry; I certainly do not want to imply that I am a lawyer heaven forbid—“don’t agree with them.” [ 
Interruption 
] Apologies to one of your professions I say to the Hon Chester Borrows. But it was not any fringe or extreme groups at all that said that under this legislation we will fail to comply with our international obligations; it was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment amongst many others who quoted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. She said that this is what it says: “States have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.” It is not a balance—the protection. The duty of protection of the marine environment is paramount. It must come first. It must be in the purpose clause of this legislation and it is not.  
Then we had—and I suppose the Hon Amy Adams will dismiss this fringe tree-hugging group as well—a group called the New Zealand Law Society. I notice my colleague Charles Chauvel inclining his head at the mention of its name. It came along and said in its submission that “The right to develop resources within the EEZ and on the Continental Shelf (conferred under the LOSC and customary international law) is subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment”. I draw the House’s attention to the specific words “subject to obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment”.  
This is not a balancing act. This is not a situation where some organisation will come along and say: “We want to work we want to extract we want to put in place any economic activity in the EEZ or on the continental shelf and perhaps in return we could make a sizable donation. We could buy some land. We could expand a national park.” This is not a balancing act. This is not a trade-off. This is our moral and legal duty and obligation to preserve the environment. That is what we signed up to and that is where this bill fails. So the purpose clause of the bill is wrong. Had the Minister listened to the submitters and the urges of other parties in this regard we would have supported amending the purpose clause and consequential amendments throughout the bill and we would have then been very happy to support it.  
As I said at the beginning of my contribution the lack of protection of the environment in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and the lack of security and confidence—the lack of a regulatory regime for those who wish to have economic development activities in this area—is a failing. It is a shortfall; we should have both. We should ensure that people who want to have economic development in this area know the rules. They should know that if they proceed along x y and z grounds they will be fine. They will be able to do that work without any litigation. It will not cost them a lot in court fees and arguments. They will know the regulatory regime. But most of all we have to have the environmental protections put in place.  
The purpose clause remains as it is and therefore Labour as we did right at the very beginning of this process said that with great—[ 
Interruption 
] We were the only party that said that from the outset. We said we wanted this legislation to be in place but it is flawed to the point of us being unable to do that. There is a vacuum in our legislative regime. We would like to have filled it with legislation that did understand our legal and moral obligations to protect the environment first. Unlike National we do not think of it as a balancing act or as a trading-off. We know that some things once damaged cannot be repaired and that is too high a price for us to pay.  
We had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We had the Law Society. We had local authorities. We had iwi. We had environmental groups. We had the spectrum of people interested in this issue and overwhelmingly submitters expressed their great sorrow and concern that this bill just does not cut the mustard. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. It is an important bill. There is some agreement that a bill was needed. There was a legislative gap because this is after all a vast area of ocean—20 times New Zealand’s land area. So legislation was clearly needed and I believe that the gap has been very adequately filled by this piece of legislation. It is a robust process that we went through as some of us here tonight know as far as the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned—there were 125 submissions—exhaustive even. There was robust discussion amongst the committee members actually. If you listened to the Opposition you would think that no changes were made and that nothing was listened to. This is completely incorrect. The committee members made many positive changes that were recommended including exact clarification of what decision makers must consider and whether they want to favour caution and environmental protection when the information is unknown or the facts are uncertain. So favouring caution was a very important thing and clarification of that was tightened up in the wording.  
Also the select committee changed clause 14 which dealt with the Treaty of Waitangi. There were much stronger requirements in fact after the select committee process to take the Treaty of Waitangi into account. There was also much wider reference to our international obligations—and let us be really clear on the provisions because members on the opposing side have tended to gloss over this and say that we did not pay attention to our international obligations. I am not sure where they were when we were discussing this in the select committee. Some of them were sort of ring-ins and— 
Dr Jian Yang 
: Asleep. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: —possibly asleep indeed and not particularly engaged. But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is something that we have taken very seriously as well. As my colleague Nikki Kaye pointed out earlier we actually put this through the lawyers—the legal team of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and they agreed. It was very much confirmed by a number of other legally qualified submitters to the select committee including from the New Zealand Law Society which we paid close attention to. So the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives New Zealand the right to explore and exploit marine resources in our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf but—and here is the but and it came out in the select committee very strongly—it also provides the obligation to preserve and protect the environment. The word “obligation” is a very important one. It is one that we in the National Government take very seriously. It is a moral and a legal obligation.  
 Other measures that the select committee had a really significant input into—and changes were made as a result of this—was to give effect to international obligations other than the Law of the Sea. I mean by this the Convention on Biological Diversity and to clarify that intention clause 14 of the bill was amended to refer much more generally to New Zealand’s international obligations in the marine environment.  
The select committee also recommended changes for a wider range of enforcement tools. They should be available to the public as well as to the Environmental Protection Authority. The committee recommended that any person—any individual—is able to apply to the Environment Court for an enforcement order to remedy or address any breach under the legislation. As others have pointed out with this legislation there needed to be more information and there needed to be more rigorous opportunities to engage if there was something that was not correct and that has been done. Those are the sorts of changes that have been brought in.  
New transitional provisions have also been put into place—again that was something that the select committee made a valuable contribution to. This Government is absolutely committed to making this legislation workable and to making sure that there are adequate environmental protections in place in the short term and the long term.  
Some people have argued tonight that the Resource Management Act should be applied to this to the oceans. It is not possible. When you look at it closely the complexity and the framing network—the network around the Resource Management Act—would be overkill. We are talking about a relatively uncrowded offshore environment in the marine area and really I think that the Opposition has missed the point here. Under that law of the sea New Zealand does not enjoy the full sovereign rights that we have on the land. It would actually be extremely difficult to apply the Resource Management Act in light of those rights duties and responsibilities. Other countries have those obligations and responsibilities within that zone. So there are a number of complexities around this and make no mistake about it: these waters are a vital part of our environment and they absolutely need protecting. I believe this legislation provides adequate protection.  
But also looking at these waters—and we must in these difficult times—they do offer significant economic opportunities. So covered by this bill there are activities including seabed mining the building of construction platforms for oil and gas exploration and drilling marine farming energy generation carbon capture and storage seismic surveying and cable laying. These are all extremely useful activities and under this legislation and under the regulations and under the rigorous system that we have laid out in this legislation I believe that we will be able to undertake the activities that I have outlined in a safe way and not have any adverse effects on the environment.  
Regional councils of course will still have a role. They will be responsible under the Resource Management Act for regional coastal plans and also for consenting in any areas in that territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles offshore. In my view having sat through the 125 submissions having looked at the bill and listened to the submitters very carefully—unlike other people perhaps who were calling in occasionally to the select committee—I would have to say that I absolutely support this piece of legislation. I think that Amy Adams has done a great job. I commend our chair Nicky Wagner. I commend the hard-working members of the select committee as well. So I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. Thank you.  
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill should be one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to be considered by the House this year. It should be as significant as the Resource Management Act was when it was passed in 1991 because it establishes a long-overdue environmental management regime for our oceans. Yet I am not proud to be speaking on this bill because it is bereft of a commitment to the sustainable management of our oceans. The serious concerns about the bill on this side of the House mean that unless there are major changes in the Committee stage the bill is unlikely to be enduring as a piece of legislation so there is no certainty for the industry that the pro-development regime that is in this bill will outlast a change of Government. The National Government has praised the Land and Water Forum as a collaborative process but there has been no similar effort to find common ground in relation to the management of our oceans despite their strategic importance to New Zealand.  
The whole debate around this bill starts with the purpose clause. It is at the heart of the bill and the criteria and process that the bill sets up for both the Environmental Protection Authority and the responsible Minister to consider marine consent applications and regulations are deeply flawed. The Minister for the Environment was honest when she said that the bill was about unlocking the economic potential of the exclusive economic zone but the Green Party disputes the Minister’s view that the bill is environmentally responsible. When you have a purpose clause that requires decision makers to “achieve a balance” between economic development and the protection of the environment the environment loses virtually every time. That is because jobs and dollars trump those things that are much harder to measure: the decline in the population of a species or the contraction of its range.  
The Hon Ruth Dyson referred to an open letter that New Zealand’s major environmental NGOs released today. They expressed in that letter profound concerns to the Minister Amy Adams about the bill. They said that its purpose clause is “certain to lead to the degradation of the marine environment. It is also likely to lead to extensive litigation and uncertainty for industry looking to invest in offshore exploration.” This whole concept of balancing and trading off the environment against the economic gains jobs and dollars is outdated 1970s thinking. It is as if the Rio Earth Summit and the Brundtland Commission never happened. Sustainable management which members of the opposite side of the House object to in relation to the oceans is about allowing economic activity to provide for human well-being while safeguarding the life-supporting capacities of natural ecosystems and the ability of present and future generations to provide for their needs. But this bill has no environmental bottom-line and no obligation to require users to avoid environmental harm. That is why it is contrary to our international obligations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because there is a requirement in that treaty to protect and preserve the marine environment and to make economic use subject to that protection and preservation provision.  
One of the bill’s other major flaws is that there is no hierarchy of matters that the Minister must consider in developing regulations and the Environmental Protection Authority must consider when deciding applications for marine consents. That leaves far too much discretion to the Environmental Protection Authority and to how it is going to balance off environmental protection against economic development. That risks decisions being very expedient and pragmatic. Again as the NGOs said in their letter to Minister Adams the absence of a set of environmental principles to guide decision makers means that the bill remains “directionless woolly and will invite extensive litigation.”  
We had a number of submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee making very constructive suggestions as to how the bill could be improved. But the fact that the mining industry was very supportive of the bill and that the Straterra representative said it was a very very good bill shows that the bill is obviously biased in favour of development and does not provide for sustainable management.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to congratulate the member who has just resumed her seat Eugenie Sage on her contribution and to thank her for setting out so lucidly the case for opposition to this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am pleased that the Green Party has decided to join Labour in voting against the bill because Labour members opposed this legislation from the start for the reasons by and large that Eugenie Sage has just set out.  
There are six reasons why this bill should not proceed. The first is the point that has been made about its inconsistency with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The entire purpose of this legislation is expressly to achieve a “balance” between the environmental and the economic. Well that is not the regime we signed up to when we became party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is an inconsistent way in which to deal with those obligations where the right to exploit resources is accompanied by a very strong duty in international law to protect and preserve the marine environment and that will not be possible if this legislation becomes law in its current terms.  
 The second reason that this bill is opposed by my colleagues and me is that it creates a regime that is substantially weaker than that contained in the Resource Management Act. There should be consistency between those two regimes. The difference between regulating the marine environment and regulating the environment on land is simply jurisdictional; it is not substantive. Local and regional authorities have already got years and years of experience and case law in terms of managing the activities that are within their purview including oil and gas exploration in our territorial waters under the Resource Management Act. In fact my colleagues tell me that some industry submitters the select committee heard from actually supported a closer alignment between this regime and the Resource Management Act regime on the basis that business would then at least have some certainty—they would understand what rules and standards were going to be required of them. But instead we have an entirely new regime that lawyers and judges are going to be arguing about for years—business is going to pay for that—and that uncertainty comes from the fact that the Government has decided to legislate inconsistently with our obligations. The difference will also likely lead to litigation over the years so there is not just a cost and an uncertainty issue; there is the transactional waste that all that activity represents.  
The third reason that we oppose the bill is that the process for issuing marine consents under it needs to be much more transparent than it would be if the bill passes in its current form. We are concerned that there are significantly more restrictions and barriers for submitters than there are for applicants. That is not fair it is not right and it is actually not healthy in terms of the sort of final outcome that would be desirable. The bill’s blocking appeals to the Environment Court is a major issue as far as access to justice and transparency are concerned.  
The fourth reason that Labour opposes the bill is that iwi were not consulted in the drafting of this legislation and that became quite apparent at the select committee. I heard some extraordinary stories about exchanges between iwi leaders and the committee and the committee chair. We are concerned that the involvement of iwi throughout the process outlined in this bill is only optional and at the discretion of the Environmental Protection Authority.  
The submission that was made during the select committee process that the bill should be amended to include reference to Maori and Moriori and tikanga Maori and tikane Moriori throughout the bill is absolutely right. We objected to the limited Treaty clause clause 14. It does not impose a general obligation on the Crown to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. 
Finally we are very concerned that the provisions covering penalties and cost recovery for breach of the Act are completely inadequate.  
Eugenie Sage and the Hon Ruth Dyson referred to an open letter to Amy Adams from the Environmental Defence Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Ecologic Foundation. It is an open letter to the Minister. It is a very very important letter and it is worth a read. I hope that all members particularly members opposite will have a look at that open letter. With that I conclude my contribution but I do by way of point of order seek to table the letter that has been sent to the Minister on an open basis. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak at this the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill which sets up an environment management regime for New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. I would like to state at the outset that this Government believes that our natural environment is our greatest asset and that successful economic and environmental policies can and must go hand in hand. New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf are among the largest in the world and they offer significant economic opportunities and unknown bounty and could sustain and improve our living standards. But they are also an important part of our environment and need protecting. This bill fills a regulatory gap that currently exists in managing the environmental effects of offshore activities like petroleum exploration and mining in this area of the sea. So we go from open slather to a new regime.  
I think it is a very politically interesting bill because it neatly divides the House. On the one side we have got the Greens—one of what I refer to as the extremist parties and I suppose Mana might be in the same camp—who basically do not want anything to happen at all. The idea of balancing economic gain and environmental preservation is anathema to them. By their logic if there is any risk you do not do it. Lord knows how they pluck up the courage to get into a car every day because you have to take risks in life. Any negative effect on the environment is reason not to do something new and for that reason they oppose new dairy farms they oppose salmon farms and basically they are keen to wind down the dairy industry because of the effect it has on the environment. Well that might be nice as a slogan but I do not think we all really want to lower our living standards to the degree that would be effected by their policies if they got an opportunity to bring them in. Amazingly the Greens still talk about New Zealand’s living standards and housing affordability and they worry about New Zealanders leaving to go to Australia but when it really comes down to it their instinct is to put roadblocks in the way of progress. You cannot have it both ways.  
Then we have the Labour Party which basically on this bill is a light version of the Greens. Labour members are torn. They know that most New Zealanders realise that we have to make a living in this country and they like it. They know that we cannot opt out of the competitive world and that our kids generally want to live in dynamic and exciting countries with strong economies and good job prospects. They know these things and yet they do not want to be outdone by the Greens. So their position is basically the same: do not do anything and bind up the process in a thick web of consultation and endless opportunities for litigation delay and uncertainty. Then when it comes to New Zealand First—well I cannot find anything coherent in its minority view. In fact I defy anybody to make any sense out of what it is saying there. It appears that “New Zealand stands on the verge of succumbing to a resource curse scenario.” according to New Zealand First. It sounds quite nice actually “succumbing to a resource curse scenario.” I do not know; I am not sure where it comes from.  
But where we stand in the National Party is getting on with bringing in legislation to fill a gap in our regulatory environment and doing so in a practical and workable way that recognises that New Zealanders want and demand an effective economy which means being open to using our natural resources. At the same time they treasure our natural environment and expect that our legislation seeks to strike a reasonable balance and practical balance and I have every confidence—I have every confidence—that the Environmental Protection Authority will make the judgments rationally and with due caution as is outlined in this legislation. It is worth remembering that up till now the environmental effects of activities within this area have been very narrowly considered and the Resource Management Act provides environmental protection only to the 12-mile limit. This bill extends that protection right out to 200 miles and to the continental shelf which is a major advance.  
The bill provides a strong and effective framework to ensure that the processes are in place to assess and manage adverse environmental effects in our oceans to provide greater certainty to investors and existing interests to meet New Zealand’s international obligations—notwithstanding the complaints made on the other side—and to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. The bill does not intend to be a Resource Management Act of the seas. The Resource Management Act was designed for predominantly land-based issues reflecting a multitude of interacting parties. It would not make sense when you are dealing with maybe a dozen such cases in an area that is 20 times the size of New Zealand and indeed is the fourth or fifth largest area in the world in terms of an exclusive economic zone. The current levels of activity on the continental shelf are low and indications as I said suggest that we might not have more than 10 applications. To this end clause 19 sets out a general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. This includes a duty to provide training and supervision to all employees to ensure compliance with the legislation regulations and consent conditions as well as sufficient resources and establishing appropriate management systems. An impact assessment will form the basis of all consent applications so that the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority—can assess the effects of the environment and existing interests. The Environmental Protection Authority will be the decision maker.  
All in all I think this bill is a major advance in terms of the environmental legislation in this country. It does strike an effective balance. It shows that the Government does understand that we live in a real world where we have to make a living. We have to make some use of the resources that we have available to us. It just shows you know that some parties are aware of that and other parties talk about catching up with Australia and growing the economy but when it comes down to it when pieces of legislation comes into the House they are always in favour of ones that put roadblocks in the way of every bit of economic progress that this country needs and deserves. I stand for this and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are you calling me? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Hello! Mr Chairman! 
Hon Member 
: Earth to the Chair! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Oh thank you. I call the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the good efforts of my colleagues! They do not always want me in the House but on this occasion they saw some value in bringing me back in so I appreciate that. 
Labour will support this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is important. It is a bill that was actually developed in concept by the Labour Government. It came out of the sad and sorry state around the varroa mite infestation coming into this country. The response from the bee industry at that time was a bit muddled to be nice about it I guess. We saw the need for a coordinated and collaborative approach from industry sectors should that kind of thing occur in the future hence the concept of Government-industry agreements. This is at the heart of the bill. 
The bill does cover other areas. Part 1 in particular which we are debating here covers technical aspects of updating systems of biosecurity to ensure that Biosecurity New Zealand or the Ministry for Primary Industries or whatever the Minister for Primary Industries wants to call it now has the technical capability to transfer knowledge in order for people to find out about these things in the best way possible. 
In supporting the bill though I have to put on record—as we have done before—our concerns. In fact since the bill has been in the House we have had every reason to be further concerned about the biosecurity systems in this country. So in supporting the bill we are not in any way endorsing the biosecurity system as it is at this point in this country. I think it is sadly lacking I think there are insufficient resources and there is huge risk to our economy every single day. The passage of this bill will hopefully assist in reducing the risk of unwanted pests and organisms coming into this country and the more we reduce the risks the better for us as a country. 
I will through the debate refer to points made by industry sector leaders about the Government-industry agreements. I hope the Minister will get up and explain. He has put before the House a Supplementary Order Paper that goes some way we understand to address the concerns of the industry sectors. When we were last debating this bill they were concerned that they were not going to be properly consulted. That the Government-industry agreements focused on cost-sharing should an incursion take place was one thing but an information approach and a collaborative approach to prevention was something that they were locked out of. The intent of Supplementary Order Paper 27 is that each sector will be part of the consideration but I am told not necessarily the decision-making process. The Minister may want to get up and explain why that is the case. 
I think there is some ideological belief that the sectors are self-interested—and that is probably not far from the truth—and that they do not have an ability to balance the requirements of open trade and biosecurity protection. I do not buy into that. Most producers in this country are fully aware of the need for open trade internationally. They understand we cannot close our borders unnecessarily but they do rely on science-based evidence to have fair risk assessment and risk analysis. What we have seen in recent times—I have here  
A Review of Import Requirements and Border Processes in Light of the Entry of Psa into New Zealand 
. It is very disturbing reading. It points to flaws in the science flaws in the risk analysis flaws in the communication in biosecurity. 
Producer groups or sector groups are concerned that they are not able to not only be part of the process but also be part of the decision making and the final risk analysis because their lives and their sectors are on the line here. The one thing about a biosecurity incursion more often than not is that once it occurs it is irreversible. You cannot turn back the clock. Varroa is here to stay. Didymo is here to stay. In the case of a military intervention we would hopefully chase the army away. In the case of drugs coming over the border we often catch them destroy them and we move on. When a biosecurity breach of our borders occurs more often than not we are stuck with it. Sectors such as avocados for example or summer fruits or kiwifruits in the case of Psa incur the cost from now into the future of all the additional prevention measures including the replacement of plants and whatever else might occur. I do not even want to mention foot-and-mouth. The cost to our economy would be astronomical. 
So in supporting this piece of legislation we are doing so with a view to improving the system. We are not in any way admitting that the system is right at the moment. We hear the chief executive officer of the Ministry for Primary Industries saying that we have a world-class biosecurity system. I do not believe him. We have a reasonable system and we have worked on it but the resources have been squeezed and the risks have increased. It is the same as our thinking we have got a First World economy. By many measures we are actually approaching Third World status—our level of debt and some of the challenges in front of us. We always try to be optimistic. In the area of biosecurity being optimistic is not good enough. We actually have to guarantee that we have got secure borders. That is why we are going to push the Government on this. We are going to ask the hard questions. 
In fact the bill as originally introduced by the Government had major flaws in it. I would like to acknowledge once again the good work of the Primary Production Committee chair Shane Ardern. You should be a Minister Shane—shame about that. I know I am not helping you but nonetheless— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’d be recognising talent and that’s not a good thing for the Nats to do. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No it is not and unfortunately he has had his last chance because we will be in Government next time with a bit of luck and a bit of good hard work. Who knows? It may be very very soon depending on the outcome of a meeting taking place now. Anyone heard a report? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is that the police meeting or is that the Maori Party meeting? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It could be either one. I think there are two coalition partners in trouble as we speak. 
We hope that we can take charge of the biosecurity system. We doubled the funding for biosecurity when we were in power from $94 million to $187 million. That was the commitment of the Labour Government to biosecurity. In its first Budget in 2009 the National Government cut the funding for biosecurity and cut the number of jobs. In fact the flow-on from that is that close to 90 jobs are now gone. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are they the ones who cut the dogs as well? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It has cut the dogs. There has not been a dog at Wellington Airport since October of last year. 
John Hayes 
: Not true. There was one there the other day. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: You saw one the other day? 
John Hayes 
: Yep. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right they may have borrowed one from Auckland or Christchurch. In fact I think one was going to be brought up from Christchurch just to satisfy a few politicians coming back from Australia. But unfortunately it is not permanent yet. 
The system has huge gaps in it. People are writing to me and they are writing to the Minister and saying there are huge gaps in the biosecurity system. If the officials stand up and say we have a world-class system and it is all hunky-dory they are wrong. I understand they have to work with the limited resources the National Government gives them but you cannot kid yourself that we have a world-class biosecurity system. If this bill passes and I guess it will—we are certainly supporting it—then it will take us some way forward but the guts of the Government-industry agreements is actually around how you manage an incursion once it has happened. Well in fact good biosecurity systems will prevent incursions and that is the area we need more focus on. Although the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does assist in that area there is still a long way to go to make sure that all sectors big and small in this country are listened to and are able to participate in the risk assessments and the whole process—not just sharing the costs but actually ensuring that firstly we prevent anything from coming into the country and then should it occur that each and every person involved from the Government and from the sectors is working efficiently. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I am sure you will come to understand that that was a very good call over the next few minutes. The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is a very very important piece of legislation for this Parliament. In fact one of the things I do agree with the previous speaker on is that biosecurity is one of the most if not the most important issue facing New Zealand in terms of securing a sound economic base and a solid economy to go forward on. In fact increasing trade and travel volumes represent enormous challenges to this Government agency. Around 170000 items a day come across our borders an enormous amount of traffic both in and out of New Zealand and all with the opportunity and potential to have a threat to our border.  
Can I congratulate and thank the officials for the fine work they did during the select committee committee process. It was one of those times when there was a very good cross-party approach to it and quite a good collegial understanding of the importance of it. The Primary Production Committee made some substantial recommendations which I am pleased to say—and I thank the Minister—were accepted by the Government. The bill will now introduce a number of different things that were not in the original proposal. One of those is to recognise the I guess status of land ownership whether it be Government private or local government and the lack of effect that has on a potential biosecurity breach. There was a large amount of concern about the different policies for different types of land ownership structure prior to this bill. I am hoping that that will overcome some of those concerns. 
The biggest debate in the sector for the last 5 years has been the notion of a Government-sector partnership. Certainly right at the beginning of the debate there was quite a bit of reluctance on the part of various industry players to be part of discussions in that. But if there is a lesson to be learnt from the recent kiwifruit  
Pseudomonas syringae 
pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) incursion and the report that subsequently came from that it is that most of the institutional knowledge or intellectual property if you like in regards to what can be done when and how is in a lot of cases contained within the industry itself. The Government actually had a very good track record of working closely with the industry at that stage. There is quite an irony I think at this point looking at that report to note that it was actually the horticultural industry that put up some of the strongest opposition to the idea of a Government-industry partnership in the first stages. I am not sure whether it still holds that view and certainly most of the evidence would suggest that it probably does not now. So allowing that to happen and making sure there is a legislative framework for a credible process to move forward and negotiate with the various sectors as to which part the industry will cover or hold the intellectual property rights in and the pre-incursion discussions that must take place and agreements that must be reached certainly in my view are going to enhance that. 
It is not a new idea. It is unique in some aspects but it is not a new idea. In fact in Australia they have been doing it in certain states for quite a while. I think that New Zealand can only benefit from introducing these Government-industry partnerships. I look forward to the discussions there.  
I heard the member who spoke before me mention foot-and-mouth. Clearly most industries would believe that if there was a major incursion that is well known with the type of economic effect that such an incursion as foot-and-mouth would have on New Zealand then there would be an expectation a very high expectation that the State would be there to respond quickly. But in terms of some of the lesser known and somewhat obscure incursions that are unlikely to have such a substantial effect on the New Zealand economy but can have a devastating effect on an individual industry most of the knowledge around what that might be or how to respond to it quickly and what the response should be which in some cases is very much debated at the time of the incursion is held within industry. It is impossible for the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry which is now the Ministry for Primary Industries to have all the intellectual property that is necessary on every single aspect of every single incursion that may affect a sector of our primary sector. In my view it is absolutely essential that that information is made available to the State through these industry agreements and that that takes place before the incursions take place as well so that a predetermined agreement can be put in place. 
There are many other parts of this bill that I could speak on and many other recommendations that were made by the select committee but I know that my whip or the Minister will not thank me for taking up any more of the Committee’s time. To that end I think it is a very good day that we are reaching cross-party agreement on this. I look forward to the passage of the bill through Parliament. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is always a shame to see the very good member Shane Ardern silenced by his Government colleagues. Here is a member who has more farming experience in his little finger than the rest of the National caucus has in total yet he cannot even take his full call because Government members and his whips want him to sit down. I want to reiterate the comment made by my colleague Damien O’Connor about what a shame it is that this member is not a Minister. As chair of the Primary Production Committee he has always been very good to deal with. For those members who have not served on the Primary Production Committee it really has a completely different culture from a lot of other select committees. It is very enjoyable it is very collegial. The Minister for Primary Industries himself was also a very good chair of the Primary Production Committee and as a member of the committee that considered this legislation I say that it is indeed a pleasure to be able to take a call.  
Of course Labour will be supporting this legislation but I do reiterate some of the concerns that my colleagues have made and that were made in the second reading of this bill which are that all the legislation in the world is fantastic but if you do not have the people on the ground to ensure that it is carried out and that the objectives are met then it does not really mean much at all. There is no point having great legislation to deal with an incursion once it has happened if we are not putting as much effort as possible into ensuring that these incursions never occur in the first place.  
New Zealand is an island nation and I guess has a number of advantages in that it is less likely that these incursions are going to take place. But since the original Biosecurity Act which is being amended was drafted in 1993 obviously the world has changed dramatically. We are now dealing with far more international passenger traffic and international freight than we were dealing with at that time and it is right that the legislation be brought up to date and with the times. But as we have seen with the varroa mite as we have seen with  
Pseudomonas syringae 
pv 
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) we are not immune from these incursions and to see the kinds of cuts that have happened in the biosecurity budget is very very disappointing.  
What we have seen in biosecurity is kind of a pattern that we have seen with the National Government across a number of portfolios which is that in the initial years of its Government it makes major cuts and then slowly dribbles some of that support back and expects everybody to be grateful for it and it expects the public to believe that that is actually an increase. But as the public know and certainly as the sector which deals in this area knows it is not an increase. We have seen a decrease in bodies at the border dealing with biosecurity and ensuring that the very basis of our economy is protected. I completely agree with the member Shane Ardern when he says that in terms of the legislation we pass in this House a lot of it is very important but this legislation around biosecurity comes to the very fundamental protection of our economy. That is why cross-party support is important but is also why we need to ensure that we have the capability as a public service in New Zealand to actually give force to legislation that we pass in this House and that is where Labour does have some concerns.  
I am very pleased with the provision that the Crown is duty-bound to abide by regional pest management strategies. You know I work in the Bay of Plenty and have been dealing with the local authorities there. I was very pleased to take the Labour leader David Shearer to the Bay of Plenty to talk to orchardists about the Psa outbreak. I think it is really important that parliamentarians talk to those people on the ground about where they see the failings in the system as they have happened. That is no criticism necessarily of any Government; every Government when something goes wrong should be prepared to stand up and take stock of what happened where the gaps were and learn from that. And certainly in the Bay of Plenty there has been a lot of frustration around how the Psa outbreak could have been handled differently about whether some of the cuts in biosecurity might have led to the Psa incursion.  
It is a bit of a cautionary tale I think because if I look at my own portfolio of climate change we have a very monocultural forestry industry in this country around  
Pinus radiata 
. There are a number of pests that would be devastating to our forestry industry. Some of those pests are already in New Zealand. They have been benign so far and let us hope absolutely touch wood—no pun intended—that they remain benign. But there are also a number of pests internationally that could very very easily—as was the case with Psa—enter New Zealand. When you look at how monocultural our forestry industry is that is a real concern. That is why this legislation and why support and funding for biosecurity are so crucial because if you simply want to look narrowly at our international obligations under Kyoto under this Government our greenhouse gas gross emissions are continuing to rise. The Government says it is focusing on net emissions—well that relies on mitigation. The only mitigation we have in New Zealand is forestry. So if we were to lose a significant proportion of our forestry because of pest incursion it would mean a massive liability for the Government. We literally have all of our eggs in that one basket; not just in terms of forestry but in terms of  
Pinus radiata 
. So although sometimes it may feel we are debating ethereally about some of this stuff in reality this is just about as crucial as it gets in terms of the New Zealand economy.  
I want to make some comments on Part 1 because it amends a number of principal Acts. One of the Acts that it amends is the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. One of my concerns across a number of areas with this National Government is all these changes being made to different Acts where the left hand and the right hand really do not seem to know what each other is doing. We have a piece of legislation at select committee at the moment the Game Animal Council legislation and when I read the changes that we are making here in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to that piece of legislation they seem to run right up against the changes that the Government has made to the Game Animal Council legislation because of its confidence and supply agreement with Peter Dunne. I hope that the Minister is taking into consideration the very worthy reasons that he has given around possums and wallabies and that the need to control those species is not undermined by some of the changes that are being made at select committee at the moment. And we have heard a number of submitters including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who submitted specifically on this issue and who is concerned about the loss of sovereignty from the Department of Conservation in terms of animal pest control particularly with possums and the 1080 strategy by handing that over to some kind of independent separate-from-Government body and that there may be a loss of the ability for the Government to ensure that pest management is adequately controlled. So I sincerely hope that the Minister has taken into account the effect of that piece of legislation on the ability of this particular legislation to deliver what it is promising. 
 The other thing that I found particularly interesting especially given the previous bill that we have just been debating is that this bill extends the application of the Biosecurity Act into the exclusive economic zone. I find this particularly interesting because we have had a long-running debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee and indeed during the second reading of the exclusive economic zone legislation in this House about whether or not legislation that governs New Zealand’s sovereign territory can be extended out into our exclusive economic zone where we do not have the same level of sovereignty and where we are guided by international conventions. We keep being told by the Government that when it comes to the Resource Management Act we just cannot do that—we just cannot do that because that is not our sovereign territory. This is our sovereign territory. Here we are the very next bill we are debating and apparently the Biosecurity Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone. We also know that the Health and Safety in Employment Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone. We also know that the Maritime Transport Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone so the question has to be asked why the Resource Management Act is apparently the only piece of legislation in New Zealand that cannot operate in the exclusive economic zone. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Bad timing. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is very bad timing because it shows up the deficiencies of the Government’s argument in the previous legislation which is “You can’t possibly do that because of the issues around sovereignty.” That is not true. It is simply that the Government did not want to have those kinds of well-known well-understood well-tested legal tests in the exclusive economic zone. But I would welcome the Biosecurity Act being extended into the exclusive economic zone. Labour wishes that the Government would show a little bit more consistency on this. I know that the Minister of Energy and Resources is in the Chamber. He is squinting a little bit. I know it is tough; it is 20 to 10 Minister and it is well past your bedtime but you might want to take note of this—because this is the Minister who is in charge of ramping up this activity in the exclusive economic zone without protections and who argues that this legislation cannot be extended into the exclusive economic zone. He is now sitting in the Chamber listening to his Cabinet colleague David Carter and to his parliamentary colleagues talking about the fact that it is so important that the Biosecurity Act be extended into the exclusive economic zone. All we would ask Minister is for some consistency from this National Government. But Labour is happy to support this piece of legislation. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. Pulling myself away from very important business I thought I would come down and just add to the debate the colourful debate and talk in particular on this Part 1 of this particular bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. If members were able to have a look at this fine Supplementary Order Paper 87 they would see that there is a particular sort of drive in my Supplementary Order Paper. The Supplementary Order Paper as you will see is “to provide improved levels of consultation with tangata whenua.” That is an important topic as we sit here tonight in Parliament. At the very core of that discussion is the whole notion about te Tiriti o Waitangi as being at the very principle of equal partnership. This means meaningful and effective involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making table. Too often Maori are brought into the fray by Government departments too late in the process. More often than not the fundamentals of a decision have pretty much been made already. And so it is largely some might say a box-ticking exercise at that point which benefits no one especially iwi Maori. The Government can do better with this. Maori need to be involved when the decisions are being made not after the decision has been reached.  
Experience with the  
Rena 
 disaster as we well remember—I was up there and involved with that as were various Ministers—tells us that we must increase our capacity to both prevent and respond very quickly to incidents that have the potential to do really serious environmental and economic damage to this country. I know from personal experience of the tangata whenua of Motiti Matakana Tauranga Moana Papamoa all the way down to Opotiki Whakatohea Ngati Awa and Te Whanau-a-Apanui that they continue to be affected by the damage done in their tribal waters. They talk about it in trips as we go up and down the coast and particularly at tangi that I have attended recently. Te Moana-a-Toi Iwi Leaders Forum represents the interests of more than 16 iwi their tribal waters their fishery assets and the people who were affected by tonnes of oil the containers and the debris from the broken cargo ship. The impressive thing about that was that they were involved in every capacity. Whether it was the shoreline clean-up or the assessment teams working all up and down the east coast identifying priority sites for oil spill response activity the people were there.  
But there were many incidents unfortunately where mana whenua should have been involved much earlier. Even in terms of the  
Rena 
 response it took a bit of time but we got there. It took a bit of time but we did get iwi involvement in terms of the clean-up and so on. In January there was considerable anxiety over the issue of Corexit 9500 a serious toxic chemical to break down oil from the vessel. Of course several species of fish including the kokiri the puffer fish stingray and shark etc. were washing up on the islands’ beaches—those ones that I talked about Motiti Matakana and so on—and the people obviously had huge concerns. But it was up to the people of Motiti to ask the powers that be including Maritime New Zealand and the public health authorities to look more seriously into the concerns by getting independent experts to carry out more thorough and comprehensive tests. The jury is out on the short-term lethal effects versus the long-term effects of the chemical on the food chain and ecology.  
I give these examples—and of course while that was going on the iwi of those islands put a rahui in place to stop food gathering on Motiti. My point is—this is getting to the crunch Mr Chair—who better to ask about the impacts on land and people than the people of the land in the first place; those who take up the role and the responsibilities of tangata kaitiaki. I want to see the active involvement of tangata whenua in the protection of cultural values to protect the native plants animals and other resources that are what we talk about as taonga ki te iwi Maori. In order to achieve this very important goal Maori need to be involved in the decision making at all levels and Government needs to be bold. The Maori Party believes that the provisions that we have sought throughout this Supplementary Order Paper are sufficient to allow that to happen. Legislation should provide for the role of tangata whenua’s tangata kaitiaki when developing and implementing regional policy statements and district plans associated with biosecurity. Sustainable success in border risk management marine biology security readiness and response pest management compliance and enforcement all depend at the decision-making level on decision making. That is where we believe Maori tangata whenua should be.  
I will close with perhaps a lead in this. A blueprint of how this partnership could work is actually the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act of 2010 which says that iwi have equal representation at the decision-making and management bodies as well as allowing for manu whenua iwi to develop their own objective vision strategy for the river. This reflects a very strong and important Treaty relationship at the regional level. I say again that the blueprint is really the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010. I know it is a long one but nevertheless the general intent of it is bringing together iwi being involved at the very high end of management and involvement in terms of developing plans and the management of that river. There is the starting point and we believe it actually acts out the Supplementary Order Paper that I have in place.  
I suppose just to wrap it up the general gist of this Supplementary Order Paper as I say is that we want to ensure there is regular and informed consultation with tangata whenua as it relates to protecting and enhancing areas and habitats that have a huge significance to Maori people. I hope that members of the Committee tonight will be able to give my Supplementary Order Paper on behalf of the Maori Party some serious consideration and I look forward to the vote on that particular aspect. Thank you very much. Kia ora tatou. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chair. You have a wonderful way of greeting MPs at this late stage of the night so thank you.  
This bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is not a very sexy bill. I hate to think that it reflects the personality of any of the people here but I just want in the short time that I am taking this call to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Damien O’Connor. I suspect that the Minister on the other side of the Chamber will accept that the Hon Damien O’Connor has provided a very considered mature and genuine desire to protect our biosecurity here in New Zealand.  
Throughout this bill in its first reading and its second reading we have always stated quite clearly led by the Hon Damien O’Connor that our priority was the protection of our industry and that it was of concern to us the way that this Government had reduced the number of staff at our border controls. But despite those concerns you have heard tonight from the Hon Damien O’Connor a very considered and mature response to try to work with this Government for the sake of protecting our most valuable industries. So whilst we support this bill because we think and we hope that the measures and the systems that this bill outlines and provides for will provide some preventive measures to control our pest and disease incursions we still have genuine concern around the Government-industry agreements.  
This bill is timely of course when you consider the recent finding of the Queensland fruit fly in Auckland a pest that could destroy our $3 billion a year horticultural industry and this is on top of the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
pv 
. Actinidiae 
outbreak in kiwifruit which is likely to incur costs in the region of $75 million. These incursions are a stark reminder that the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach to biosecurity is not cost-effective. 
 As I said at the beginning this is not necessarily a very sexy kind of legislation for us to be talking about. My grandfather was a pig farmer in the Islands. He taught us that the minute you stepped on pig droppings it did not matter how much you wiped them off you had to bathe yourself consistently for that day. It did not matter how much perfume; it was still going to smell.  
But the other day visiting farms up north with the Hon Damien O’Connor and Shane Jones I learnt that the smell of pig droppings and the smell of cow droppings was the smell of money. The point there is that it is an industry that is very very important for the future of our country. We are working together on the basis that it is our hope and desire led by the Hon Damien O’Connor that we do all that we can do to ensure that the industry is protected because whatever happens whatever incursions might occur if it affects the farming industry if it affects our kiwifruit industry or if it affects our wine industry it will have a rippling effect throughout. Thank you for that time. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for the Committee to report progress.  
Hon David Carter 
: No you can’t. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Why? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has to be done on the call. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to be suspended a few minutes early in order that the next Government order of the day may commence tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 9.54 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)