Volume 694 Week 57 - Tuesday 22 October 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 57 - Tuesday 22 October 2013[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 22 October 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersTax System Changes—Impact1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: What impact have the Government’s across the board tax cuts and other tax changes in 2010 had on income tax paid by higher and lower income households?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Estimates of net income tax paid by household income indicate that the tax system has become more progressive since the Government’s tax changes in 2010. Households earning less than $60000 a year are expected to pay less in percentage terms towards net tax this year than they were paying in 2008-09. Households earning more than $150000 a year are generally expected to pay more of the total net income tax this year than they did 5 years ago. Only 6 percent of taxpayers earn over $100000 a year. They pay around 37 percent of total income tax. Three years ago they paid around 29 percent of total income tax. That is why calls to increase the top tax rate are misguided because by dropping the top tax rate and closing the loopholes higher-income earners are paying proportionately more tax.Maggie Barry: What changes has the Government made to income tax rates and other taxes to help families get ahead?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package in 2010 reduced tax on work and savings and increased taxes on consumption and property speculation. In particular it reduced the top tax rate from 39c to 33c and closed the loopholes that had been left wide open by the gap between the top tax rate and the company tax rate which allowed high-income earners to avoid paying 39c in the dollar. Now that we have cut the top tax rate to 33c higher-income earners are paying proportionately more tax than they did when the rate was higher.Maggie Barry: How significantly do the income tax and income support systems redistribute incomes for New Zealand households?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax and income support systems provide a significant amount of income redistribution—in fact a bit more redistribution now than 4 or 5 years ago. Households earning over $150000—that is the top 12 percent of households by income—will pay 46 percent of income tax. When benefit payments Working for Families paid parental leave and accommodation support are taken into account households earning over $150000 will pay 76 percent of the net income tax. Households earning under $60000 a year—half of all households—are expected to pay around 11 percent of income tax. So households earning over $150000 pay 76 percent of net income tax and households earning under $60000 pay 11 percent of income tax.Maggie Barry: What broader measures has the Government taken to support families most in need particularly to ensure that the tax and income support systems are fairer?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has despite a recession and large deficits maintained the large-scale income support measures for low and middle income families. But of course measures of gross income are not the only measure of the welfare of a family. Over the last two Budgets the Government has invested more than $470 million in helping more New Zealanders out of welfare dependency and intowork because even though that is not a cash transfer to the individuals concerned it greatly improves their prospects and improves equality if people move from welfare dependency into work.Dr David Clark: No matter how much he tortures the statistics do not the figures actually show—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to assist the order of the House by phrasing his question more correctly and starting with a question. Otherwise it leads to the sort of disorder that I then have to deal with. If the member could attempt to do so I would appreciate that. In the meantime the front bench on my right-hand side will stay quiet while the question is asked.Dr David Clark: Do not the figures actually show that his 2010 tax changes are a measure that has cemented a gap between rich and poor which is higher under this Government than it ever was under the previous Government and made worse by unemployment still being higher than it was during the global financial crisis and by wage growth being at its lowest in over a decade?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No no and no. The recent Ministry of Social Development social report shows inequality in New Zealand reducing. It shows it reducing from a peak of inequality under the Labour Government. It does not matter how often Labour members want to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer they are wrong. Inequality is reducing.Prime Minister—Statements onKiwiFund and Support Partners2.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he make a misleading statement onTVNZ’sBreakfast yesterday which I quote: “I know that these guys are on this track at the moment … to … nationalise building nationalise our management funds they’ll be nationalising supermarkets and petrol stations and everything else soon.” when New Zealand First has never suggested nationalising the existing KiwiSaver scheme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is true and I was just using the opportunity to make a policy announcement for New Zealand First in case it does not get enough air time to do it itself.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he say the “KiwiFund” policy would take out competition when New Zealanders will still have the choice of which provider to belong to or does he think that the interests of high-charging KiwiSaver providers are more important thanKiwiSavers themselves?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding that the member was typically extremely vague in his speech what I will say is that what he seemed to be saying in his speech is that under New Zealand First the Government-run KiwiSaver provider would Government-guarantee the returns—in other words there would be no losses—there would be assumedly no fees and on that basis how could anybody compete with that?Rt Hon Winston Peters: What undertakings has the National Party made to the members of the Financial Services Council apart from providing the chairperson?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot recall making any but what we are keen to do is promote competition. There is $16 billion in KiwiSaver at the moment. That $16 billion is well serviced by 20 providers. They provide different strategies in different risk profiles. As theNew Zealand Herald editorial pointed out this morning having one provider would not be a good thing. I think the member should do this: I think he should stop worrying about mucking around with KiwiSaver which is operating well and start worrying about Colin Craig. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because of the noise I couldn’t hear the end of that answer. Could I hear it again?Mr SPEAKER: The member is lucky. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry Mr Speaker I could not hear you either when you gave the ruling.Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister finished his question by saying something around how he might be better if a man called Colin Craig got more air time that sort of thing. [Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he maintain that private providers are the best managers of pension funds bearing in mind a company called Merrill Lynch lost $53.5 billion in pension funds in 2001 as he was bailing out from the company?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I might point out that when I was with Merrill Lynch it was good. The difference between me and that member is that Merrill Lynch wanted me to work for it; it never wanted Winston Peters from what I can recall.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A point of order and it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a projected cumulative investment management fees chart that arises from the Parliamentary Library taking into account projections by Treasury and Infometrics; the second is a NinaMontagu-Smith 4 June 2002 report of a massive loss the previous year by pension funds manager Merrill Lynch Mr Key’s firm of course; another article byMontagu-Smith as well; and just to make sure he does not duck out of it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just give us the information.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —theWikipedia record of this man’s performance and work history the Prime Minister of this country.Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the sake of clarity we will put all of the leave together. Leave is sought to table about four documents. Is there any objection to it?Hon Gerry Brownlee: We would have to object to the lot because some of it’s publicly available.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Objection is made.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have put the leave.Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did not say no; he said we would have to check the lot which assumes that he wants to see them.Mr SPEAKER: No no no. He said he was objecting when leave was put. That is what the member said.Metiria Turei:Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that there is no reason why John Banks should not vote on the Skycity bill given his previous attacks on Labour for using Taito Phillip Field’s vote while that former Minister was also facing a criminal charge?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and the interesting thing will be to see whether Labour votes for the Skycity bill now.Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister remember making this statement in relation to the then Prime Minister Helen Clark: she “was prepared to cynically cling to power by continuing to exercise Mr Field’s vote no matter what. She would have used any excuse to not act against him to maintain her slim one-vote majority.” and will he stick to his own high principles and refuse to exercise Mr Banks’ vote at least on the Skycity deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member seems to be forgetting something either conveniently or otherwise. Taito Phillip Field was a member of the Labour Party and the Labour Party exercised their vote. Mr Banks is a member of the ACT Party and hedecides whether he votes or not—[Interruption] Look the question is whether you guys are going to vote for it because we all know what you are saying around Auckland.Government—Relationship with Support Partners3.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Why did he accept the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister on 16 October 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because I agreed with the Hon John Banks that the court case would be a distraction for the Government if he was to continue as a Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement that “to make a contribution you have to have integrity and to have integrity there has to be a directness and fullness in your answers.”; if so how did John Banks meet that test?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to even read the police report when Mr Banks had taken a helicopter ride to the most expensive mansion in his own electorate to meet with a nearly 7-foot-tall German—whose wife he described as the most beautiful woman in the world—and from whom he solicited donations which he then said he had mysteriously forgotten?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is worth recalling the situation. The police looked at it and decided there was no case to answer. I accepted the member at his word and I continue to accept him at his word.Hon David Cunliffe: Will he now tell New Zealand the reasons for Richard Worth’s resignation which he has hitherto refused to give?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Hon David Cunliffe: Will he reinstate the Hon John Banks as a Minister in his Government if he is cleared of the charges he is currently facing in court?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Will he reinstate the Hon Peter Dunne as a Minister in his Government if he is cleared by the Privileges Committee inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite possibly.Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Prime Minister received any advice on the viability of his Government’s proposed Resource Management Act reforms should theMāori Party and Peter Dunne not support them?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I am sorry—looking at that question it is not in any way related to the original primary question. I will allow the member another question.Hon David Cunliffe: I will amend it slightly. Has the Prime Minister received any advice on the viability of the Government’s proposed Resource Management Act reforms should the Hon John Banks not be available to vote for it and theMāori Party and Peter Dunne not support it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly Mr Banks is quite able to vote as he will be voting on other things that we have been indicating. Secondly we are a minority Government and like any minority Government we need to work to build a majority as we go along. We are in discussions with our partners about whether we can get support for the Resource Management Act legislation. We might possibly be able to do that.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister now face “the prospect of being held to ransom by potentially unreliable political allies as each attempts to extract their pound of flesh from the new dynamic.” which is a quote from his good self?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well we are a minority Government and so when we go to—Grant Robertson: And getting more minority by the day.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well it is actually not changing funnily enough. We are a minority Government and as we go about our desire to pass legislation we have to build a parliamentary majority. But if anyone is going to be held to ransom it could easily be David Cunliffe by the Greens who are clearly opposed to the Skycity deal even if Labour is now not opposed to the Skycity deal.Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he received written advice from John Banks while John Banks was still a Minister of his Government concerning a conflict of interest over the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and the fact that the Skycity Chief Executive Officer Nigel Morrison was to give evidence affecting him in court; if not does he believe that a conflict of interest exists?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check that but conflicts of interest are generally managed by the Cabinet Office so I would need to check whether it has anything.Apprenticeships and Trades Training—Reboot Scheme and Other Initiatives4.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How many new apprentices have signed up under the Government’s Apprenticeship Reboot scheme?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): The Government announced in January this year that it would provide a $1000 payment to the first 10000 new apprentices and their employer towards the cost of tools and training or $2000 each for the priority trades. I am pleased to advise the House that the reboot scheme has already signed up 8000 new apprentices in only 7 months. This compares with the normal sign-up rate of 7000 for a full year. The reboot has resulted in a 67 percent increase in the number of people starting apprenticeships compared with the same period last year and two-thirds of all of those signed up—Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —have been in the designated priority trades such as construction engineering infrastructure andelectrotechnology. And to be helpful to that member over there to have an apprenticeship you actually do have to have a job.Colin King: What other steps is the Government taking to improve industry training systems?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well we inherited a mess in industry training from the previous Government. Even though funding trebled there were up to 100000 phantom trainees in industry training who had achieved no credits. We have sorted out a lot of that mess and introduced a suite of measures to improve the opportunities for in-work training for all Kiwis. For example we have established New Zealand Apprenticeships which provides the same level of support and the same level of subsidy for all apprentices regardless of their age. We have also boosted the educational content of apprenticeships and increased the funding. With the reboot and these other changes we have estimated that around 14000 extra new apprentices will start training over the next 5 years over and above the normal numbers. We are now running ahead of that target.Colin King: What steps is the Government taking to expand trades training in Canterbury?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As well as the apprenticeship reboot the Government has now invested some $65 million in specific skills for Canterbury training initiatives over the last couple of years. In addition I have recently announced a further capital injection of $18.9 million for the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology to enable it to further expand its trades training capacity as part of its campus rebuild following the earthquakes. That capital injection means that Christchurch Polytechnic will be able to further expand its Sullivan Avenue facilities taking on an additional 400 equivalentfull-time students or up to 1000 additional places a year through until 2018. That is on top of the 1000 it has already added. This further increase in trades training is very important to the Canterbury rebuild and to the wider Canterbury economy. The Government is delighted to support it.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table statistics from the Tertiary Education Commission that show in the first 3 years of National’s period in Government the number of apprentices—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to clarify that the Tertiary Education Commission report is not a published—Grant Robertson: Those statistics are very hard to get.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that they are hard to get I will allow the leave to be put. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There was objection. It will not be tabled.Regional Economies—Employment5.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding the employees of theTachikawa sawmill that the “opportunity for those workers will be better than it has been at any time in the last six or seven years”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes because we are seeing encouraging signs of higher business confidence better investment and hiring intentions. I could draw to the member’s attention that in every 3 months between 100000 and 200000 jobs in the New Zealand economy disappear and a slightly greater number of jobs are created with the effect that there are now 65000 more jobs in the economy than 2 years ago. But there are always jobs disappearing in the economy. That is why it is so important that they are replaced by businesses that are confident enough to invest.Hon David Parker: Given that the level ofMāori unemployment is now at 12.8 percent double what it was 6 years ago and that the majority of the Rotorua sawmill workers areMāori how is opportunity for those workers or the workers at the Shannon fellmongery better than it has been at any time in the last 6 or 7 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well first of all we do not think that beingMāori destines you to unemployment. I know that that is what Labour thinks—that because these workers areMāori they do not have much chance of getting another job but actually that is wrong.Jami-Lee Ross: What policies would damage the prospects of theTachikawa Forest Products workers and other job seekers in regional New Zealand for finding new jobs?Mr SPEAKER: In as far as that is his ministerial responsibility I call the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: New jobs are created when businesses have the confidence to invest another dollar and hire another person so anything that undermines that confidence makes it less likely that workers who lose their jobs will find another one. For instance the abolition of the 90-day trial period would make it more difficult for people who have lost their jobs to get another one. Imposing an emissions trading scheme tax at twice the level it currently is would have the same effect and those are Labour’s and the Greens’ policies.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the very end of that answer the Minister of Finance introduced material that he is not responsible for and that was not relevant to the question that he was asked. I ask that you ask him not to do that and rule that out.Mr SPEAKER: No I will just make a ruling on Grant Robertson’s point because I think it is a reasonable point. It certainly is not reasonable to use question time as a means of attacking an Opposition. The question was asked about policies and although the Minister in my opinion is quite legitimately able to outline those policies to then deviate to an attack on another political party is an unnecessary situation and will lead to disorder in the House.Hon David Parker: Is the level ofMāori unemployment now 12.8 percent and is that double what it was 6 years ago?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot verify that number except to say that 6 years ago was prior to the global financial crisis and the recession but it was at a time when the New Zealand export economy had gone into recession because of excessive Government spending and very poor economic policy on the part of the Labour Government. So 6 years agoMāori unemployment would have been rising.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr English remarkably could not answer a very direct question and then went on to include a lot of irrelevant material.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I as Speaker will determine when the answer is long enough.Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister seen any reports that the labour markets are actually very fluid and that in any given 3-month period there are 100000 to 200000 jobs lost or created and that that has been true for a very long period of time and has he seen any particular reports about job losses in the regions in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the case that there is a continual process of some jobs being lost and new jobs being created. For instance for a sample in the second half of 2008 three Feltex plants were closed—170 jobs lost. There were 430 jobs lost at Fisher and Paykel Appliances and 466 jobs were lost at theŌringi freezing works. I think that is in the regions. There were 249 jobs lost at Silver Fern Farms. That is in the regions. There were 323 jobs lost at Sealord. That is in the regions. There were 145 jobs lost at Cadbury and 316 jobs lost at Carter Holt Harvey. And those are just the ones I found in about 10 minutes of looking.Hon David Parker: Given his knowledge of these statistics can he tell the House what is the total number of job losses in the timber processing industry since he took office?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot.Hon David Parker: Why did he suggest that workers losing their jobs at the Rotorua sawmill should find construction jobs in Auckland and Christchurch and does not this demonstrate the complete lack of vision this Government has for the regions?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and as the member will know if he sees a transcript of the interview I specifically rebutted the idea the interviewer had that that was what had to happen. But I did point out that the growth of construction in Christchurch and in Auckland now that we are getting on top of the planning law will create jobs across the whole country and that there is hope for those people who have lost jobs. We do not share Labour’s view that because those people areMāori they cannot get jobs.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What recourse does a member have when in the face of doublingMāori unemployment we are accused of being uncaring?Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order is that the member is raising I am sorry. If the member wants to—I think we will move on to question No. 6.Skycity Convention Centre—Compensation Provisions6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Economic Development: Has he received any advice that a future Government could dismantletheSkyCity convention centre deal without paying compensation; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes and I have to say to the member that this is not new news. As the member may be aware from her Law 101 classes in New Zealand’s constitution Parliament is sovereign and can pass any law it likes. I do not think that this is news today or any other day. Whether it is a good idea for one Parliament to start ripping up contracts with outside organisations entered into by a previous Parliament is entirely another question as any number of contracts extend past the life of just one Parliament. However that does not change the fact that Parliament is always sovereign.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister warned Skycity to the possibility that a future Government could legislate to protect the public from the deal that he has worked out with Skycity and that Skycity would not receive compensation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well that was discussed in the public arena before the agreement was signed and it is not news. I do not know why the member thinks that this is some great revelation. This is just reality. How strange.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him whether he had alerted Skycity to the possibility. He has not answered that question.Mr SPEAKER: I think that between that answer and the previous answer he did. He just said that it is common knowledge that a Government has sovereign right. If a Government of the future wants to change anything it can do so. So he has not specifically notified Skycity of that possibility.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do believe that that was a reasonably direct question from the member asking whether or not the Minister had alerted Skycity. You put two answers together. That is very difficult for the Opposition in terms of what is on the record of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I am quite comfortable with my ruling. The Minister attempted to address the question satisfactorily. It may not be to the member’s satisfaction; that is happening relatively frequently in this place. [Interruption] Order! My job is to see that the question has been addressed and to my satisfaction it has been.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister both accept and agree that future Governments have every right to legislate to overturn a deal that effectively sells our laws to the highest bidder and causes harm to the wider community?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I disagree completely with the premise of that member’s question. The arrangement if she cared to look at it is an exchange of some regulatory concessions in return for the building of a $400 million convention centre for Auckland and New Zealand. So yes a subsequent Parliament could rip that up and jeopardise the thousand jobs in construction of and the 800 jobs in operating that particular convention centre. It could do that but I think that it would be marked by the public as irresponsible. I think it would be marked by the public as frankly scurrilous in terms of the approach it took and I think that it should be very careful before it did that.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that a Government that sells the gambling laws to a casino in exchange for building a convention centre is a morally compromised Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not agree with the member. If she thinks that she should really look in the mirror because the Green Party was absolutely silent when a similar arrangement was struck by the Labour Government back in 2001. When that deal was done the Minister of Tourism of the day lauded the deal the Prime Minister lauded the deal and the Greens were as quiet as church mice.Hon Shane Jones: Why were officials from Treasury the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs muzzled and forbidden from providing advice about gambling harm to the select committee dealing with the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the workings of the select committee are over to the select committee. I have no responsibility for them.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking a question to the Minister responsible for the stewardship and the sponsorship of a bill.Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister responded that he had no responsibility for that. That is the Minister’s answer. That is for the Minister to determine. He quite emphatically said: “Well that’s not my responsibility.”Metiria Turei: Would the current compensation provisions in the deal be triggered if Skycity was required to use pre-commitment and player-tracking technology across all its electronic gambling machines in a way that reduced its pokie machine revenue—would the compensation provisions apply?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a hypothetical question. But in relation to the legislation as drafted Parliament has the right to regulate gambling and to deal with problem gambling in the way it sees fit and that would not trigger compensation in that regard. So I think the member is raising a hypothetical issue in terms of the measures she talks about. But Parliament does have the right to regulate gambling and to regulate problem gaming in a way that it sees fit and that is not changed by this legislation.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister release the Crown Law Office advice sought by the officials advising the Commerce Committee as those officials referred to and paraphrased that advice in the departmental report said they had attached that advice to the departmental report and then subsequently advised that that was a big mistake?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the tradition is that the Crown holds its legal advice so if it needs it at any stage it is able to act on it.Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Completion and New Programme7.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: What update can he give on the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart is now drawing to its planned completion and has broken all targets set for the home insulation scheme. Originally we had a target of 188500 insulations by 2013 revised to 230000. In fact the programme will see in excess of 235000 homes insulated. A strong insulation industry has been built as a result of the programme and the benefits of home insulation are now well known. I want to thank third-party funders the insulation service providers and local authorities who have worked together with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to help make Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart such a success.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How is the new programme Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes progressing?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The new programme announced in this year’s Budget will offer free ceiling and underfloor insulation for low-income households particularly families with children and high health needs. It is expected that the programme will insulate at least 46000 homes over 3 years. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has already announced the first round of projects with generous third-party funding support spanning Northland to Southland.Screen Production Industry—Performance and Challenges8.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the statement he made on behalf of the Minister of Finance that “New Zealand has a vibrant screen industry which directly supports more than 2700 businesses”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): In the context ofThe Hobbit movies which was the topic of the question in the House to which that statement relates yes which is why on this side of the House we worked so hard to keepThe Hobbit movies in New Zealand while members opposite tried to scuttle the deal and drive the film offshore.Jacinda Ardern: Is he aware that the screen industry is experiencing a massive downturn especially in Auckland where up to 70 percent of production is based as a direct result of issues like a high Kiwi dollar essentially cancelling out the incentive regime and decimating the industry; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes I am aware of concerns in the Auckland industry and have been working with the industry on that. Some companies are finding it difficult because of the size of the dollar at the moment. Those who own their intellectual property are doing fairly well but those who are effectively like toll producers if you like are struggling. It is important to point out that we have spent something like $411 million on incentives for the film industry since 2008-09—$411 million. So we are just working through those issues with the industry.Jacinda Ardern: Why are venues like Studio Auckland which was 100 percent full until a few years ago now the quietest it has ever been and why is Studio West which was fully tenanted for much of the past 12 years now getting one booking query a month with the owner stating that this is the worst he has seen the local industry in 20 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I say I acknowledge that some companies are finding it a little bit difficult. I understand though in relation to one of the venues the member raises that one of the particular issues is that it is associated with a railway line nearby and of course Auckland Transport has increased the frequency of trains hugely so it is not as popular as it once was. But I have to say it is a little ironic to be questioned by that party on the health of the screen industry when it was that party that wanted—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That answer was sufficient.Jacinda Ardern: If he is aware that skilled workers one of the draw cards his Government uses to promote New Zealand as a film destination are leaving the industry and the country with companies like Film Effects experiencing the biggest downturn in 10 years and that many on the payroll with a UK passport have already gone what is he doing about this loss of skills—or is that the trains’ fault as well?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The reality is that New Zealand’s value proposition to attract screen businesses is not just about the size of its incentive and that is one of the challenges. We have to be able to offer more than that and we do. We offer a great place to do business a skilled and capable workforce flexible employment law proven expertise in post-production natural scenery and competitive labour costs. But that does not mean that you win every production and this industry is one that does go through ebbs and flows depending on large productions that are sometimes available and sometimes not.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the statement of the Hon Chris Finlayson that this is the golden age for the arts in New Zealand; if so why does it seem like the film industry is going into an ice age as the majority of screen production dies under the weight of an apathetic Government that is doing absolutely nothing?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member might be auditioning for a role in some sort of production—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —with that form of amazing hyperbole. The reality is that New Zealand is going through a very strong period with the arts. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage is doing a fantastic job in investing in infrastructure and maintaining the Government assets in the arts and culture space despite the toughest financial times since the Great Depression. He is doing a tremendous job in that regard and I think the member would do well to acknowledge it.Health Services—Access and National Patient Survey9.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to theMinister of Health: What progress is the Government making on using patient feedback to improve the quality of health care?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Government announced that a new national patient survey will be rolled out to all New Zealand public hospitals from the middle of next year. Patient feedback is a vital indicator of how well health services are working for patients and their families and the new national patient survey will provide invaluable information for the district health boards about what they are doing well and what areas can improve. This will add to the widely reported health target information published quarterly by district health boards which have already played an important part in lifting health services for patients such as the big improvement seen in emergency department waiting times.Shane Ardern: What are the main areas of health services that the survey will be focused on?Hon TONY RYALL: The survey questions will be modelled on international best practice and will look at four key areas. These will involve firstly communication partnership coordination and finally physical and emotional needs. For example questions could include “When you had important questions to ask your doctor or nurse did you get answers that you could understand?” or “Did doctors or nurses talk in front of you as if you weren’t there?”. This information will help district health boards to make improvements to patient care on direct feedback. This initiative builds on our Open for Better Care campaign which challenges health professionals to be open to feedback in order to continually improve. The survey will be piloted in two district health boards later this year.Hon Annette King: What progress has he made on the feedback he received from the president of Grey Power Hastings and Districts who wrote to him 1 month ago to “plead” for an elderly man to get surgery at Hawke’s Bay Hospital and who concluded the letter by saying: “The health goals of National must change to stop discrimination against the elderly.”?Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have the response to that gentleman with me but I am sure we would want to point out to him that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has received an extra $73 million under this National Government and this Government is providing more elective surgery to more older New Zealanders than ever before.Kevin Hague: In the patient feedback that the Minister has described what steps specifically is he taking to include the views of those patients who do not get through the door to access the health services they need such as some of the poorest New Zealanders who are now missing out on accessing Very Low Cost Access primary care?Hon TONY RYALL: This survey will be specifically aimed at this stage at those patients who have attended public hospitals. But in respect of Very Low Cost Access there are more patients getting access to Very Low Cost Access practices than at anytime previously. We have put record amounts of funding into that. What is even more exciting is that this Government has funded free after-hours primary care for under-sixes—something that was not done even during the best of economic times.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was some interesting detail that the Minister gave but he did not address the fundamental question of those patients who are missing out on accessing the health services they need. He simply said that the survey was restricted to district health board consumers. He could have given an answer that related to patients who needed services provided by district health boards and did not get them.Mr SPEAKER: Yes I accept that the Minister could have but he chose to address the member’s question about a collection of feedback information from patients. You asked about what feedback information would be for patients who did not get into hospitals etc. He said that that is not the design of the system. He has addressed the question maybe not to the member’s satisfaction but it has certainly been addressed.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the letter from Grey Power Hastings and Districts. I received it as did the Minister. I have a plea for an elderly gentleman to receive surgery and as far as I know he has not received it yet.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The letter has been described adequately. Leave is sought to table this particular letter written by Grey Power. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Regional Economies—Employment10.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to theMinister of Finance: Does he recall his statement that “Anyone who can take a business away has a community over a barrel and has its workforce over a barrel”; and will the Government take steps to intervene in Rotorua and Shannon to help protect jobs like it did in Southland with the threatened closure of theTiwai Point aluminium smelter?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I do recall the statement and in answer to the second part of the question no. The Government obviously is not going to step in to support businesses in every case of a job loss. On the other hand it is not satisfactory to ignore every single episode of jobs losses. In the case of theTīwai aluminium smelter the Government at the time outlined the specific reasons why it intervened there in a situation it regarded as one of national interest.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he recall his statement on the same day 8 August that “this is a Government which is pretty pragmatic” noting that the Government had also offered assistance to other sectors such as the kiwifruit sector after thePsa virus; on that basis does he agree it would be pragmatic to support hundreds ofwhānau members in Rotorua and Shannon who are looking at the prospects of a very bleak Christmas unless the Government puts a recovery plan in place?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Without looking into every detail of those particular businesses it is simply not feasible for the Government to put a recovery plan in place. If you just take for instance the fellmongery in Shannon there have been significant changes in meat industry processing that are necessitated by the fact that the national sheep flock has been shrinking while the national dairy herd has been growing. We have felt the impact of that in my electorate where over 300 people lost their jobs at the Mataura freezing works in the last couple of years. The best thing we can do is to ensure that we have an environment where businesses are investing in other industries that are growing. The indications are that this economy is pretty positive jobs are being created and there will be opportunities for those who are losing their jobs.Te Ururoa Flavell: Will the Government consider forming partnerships with iwiMāori organisations to save or maintain businesses such asTachikawa Forest Products (NZ) in Rotorua where over 120 workers will lose their jobs and also a plant will become redundant to ensure that unemployment lines do not get any longer especially forMāori?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As a general point unemployment lines are tending to get shorter as the number of new jobs in the economy continues to grow. The Government is happy to work with anyone who can assist in creating an environment where businesses will invest and employ. However the use of the term “partnerships” does not explain much about what is proposed. The Government is very unlikely for instance to invest in particular businesses when they are loss-making businesses because that would be frittering away the hard-earned taxes of others who are working hard and paying their taxes every day. We are happy to have the discussion but those discussions have to be substantive and responsible. It is very unlikely that in these cases the Government would intervene in what is a pretty normal process of businesses under pressure going under jobs being lost and other jobs being created.TeKōhanga Reo National Trust—Financial Management11.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to theAssociate Minister of Education: When did he first receive any advice regarding inappropriate spending associated with the National TeKōhanga Reo Trust?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education): I first received advice regarding the alleged inappropriate spending associated with the National TeKōhanga Reo Trust on Monday 14 December 2013. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon Pita Sharples like to repeat that. I think that he may have transposed a date that may be significant. I ask the Minister just to answer the question again.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am sorry—14 October. Thank you.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When did he or his office first become aware thatMāori Television was planning to publish a story on inappropriate spending and financial mismanagement at the trust and its subsidiary TePātakaŌhanga?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My answer is still the same. It was on 14 October. I was in Auckland and I was contacted from here when the airport was closed so I did not come down and that is the first time I heard of such allegations of inappropriate spending.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When did he first discuss issues of financial mismanagement and inappropriate spending at the trust and its subsidiaries with the Minister of Education?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: It was the following day. I heard about it on 14 October and on 15 October Minister Parata and I convened a meeting with the trust and we discussed it that very next day. It was on that occasion that we decided that we needed an in-depth look at the matter.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does he think that it is acceptable for TePātakaŌhanga to provide internal loans to its trustees and why did the reporting and monitoring system not identify this as a risk earlier?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: TePātakaŌhanga is a private company. It is not administered or funded from the ministry. That is part of the terms of reference of the inquiry so we should find out about that.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the scope of the independent review that the Minister referred to for the National TeKōhanga Reo Trust extend retrospectively to all spendingat TePātakaŌhanga by the trustees and staff for the period for which allegations of financial mismanagement have occurred; if not why not?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The inquiry will concern all matters concerned with Government funding to the National TeKōhanga Reo Trust. It will also look at the matters raised with TePātakaŌhanga.Television Switch-over to Digital—Progress12.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): There is just 1 month to go until all of New Zealand has digital TV. The upper North Island will be the final region to make the switch to digital on 1 December. The digital switch-over is one of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda objectives to help develop innovation infrastructure. Although awareness to go digital in the upper North Island is at around 95 percent more than 60000 homes in that region are still not ready and will be unable to view television unless those people make the necessary changes.Mark Mitchell: How can people find out more information on whether they need to go digital? [Interruption]Hon CRAIG FOSS: Listen carefully members. The Going Digital team will be boosting its presence across Auckland over the coming weeks to provide more information as to how to go digital. I would encourage people who have already gone digital to check on their family friends and neighbours to make sure that they have done the same. Anyone—I say to members opposite—needing more information can visit the Going Digital website or call 0800 838 800.Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 17 October.Clauses 1 and 2(continued)The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Kia oratātounō reira e te Whare engā iwi engā reo engā hau ewhā.Tēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnātātou katoa. The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. When we last considered the bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2. The honourable member Ian McKelvie had the call and has 3 minutes 53 seconds remaining if he so wishes to take the call. I call the honourable member Clare Curran.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for doing this. You might not have seen the member; he is behind a member. He is standing up. He is there.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): We come to the part of this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill that gets down to the real nuts and bolts of what the serious problems are with this piece of legislation. We have had a long-running debate in this Committee—well certainly on this side of the Chamber right across this side of the Chamber; that side of the Chamber has barely contributed to the debate on this extremely important piece of legislation. But now we get to the part of the bill the title and commencement clauses where we really consider what the serious issues are with this piece of legislation.Labour has two amendments to this part of the bill. One of those amendments concerns the rights of New Zealanders and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process for legislation which Labour contends with regard particularly to this bill has been very flawed and very cursory. I do ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police and also the relevant Minister associated with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process to pay particular interest to this part of the discussion on this bill. I want to return us to the Human Rights Commission and what the commission said around both the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation and the “TICS” bill as it is called in this House the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which we are discussing today.The commission said in its extraordinary report to the Prime Minister that it considered that what was proposed by both the GCSB legislation and this bill was “too wide-reaching. It does not provide adequate oversight and makes inadequate provision for ensuring appropriate transparency and accountability of those who administer the legislation. It does not provide for a legal regime containing sufficient safeguards against abuse of power and to facilitate a proportional approach.” The commission said that it “recognises that some level of surveillance is inevitable and can be justified in contemporary democratic society.”Labour would agree with that statement absolutely. There is no doubt—and there has never been any contention during the debate on this bill—that there is a need for legislation for oversight in surveillance in a democratic society. But it is a question of balance and it is a question of tipping the balance which is what this legislation does and what the Human Rights Commission—which that Minister should be taking account of—has warned of in a very serious warning to the Prime Minister and to this Parliament about the implications of that. We should all be taking account of that.The commission went on to say that there was “nothing to suggest that surveillance in a democratic society such as New Zealand cannot be subject to human rights principles and consistent with an approach that protects human rights by limiting rights in a manner which is proportionate and justified in accordance with law.” This legislation before us today does not do that.InternetNZ’s submission called for this bill to undergo a thorough test against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission on the GCSB legislation called for the same—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is supposed to be a very tight debate on the schedules and title etc. That speech is certainly straying very wide of that. I appreciate that the Chair is the only judge of relevance but it does not prevent—does not prevent—anywhere in the Standing Orders any member raising the issue of relevance with the Chair.CLARE CURRAN: Speaking to the point of order if that member had been listening to the debate he would have known that I was referring to one of the amendments that Labour has put up on this part of the bill the title and commencement clauses that is about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I cannot find it now but can I just remind members that there was a review of the Standing Orders in I think 2008 or 2011. What actually happened was that we said that debate on these particular clauses would be wide ranging. I cannot find it but I know that it is there.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Chair. I will continue where I left off and perhaps the member could pay more attention.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I’m going to leave the House.Hon Phil Goff: There won’t be any loss by the House.CLARE CURRAN: There will not be any loss. As the submissions byInternetNZ the New Zealand Law Society and the Human Rights Commission have all said thesebills fail to provide adequate safeguards for people’s privacy and to balance the intrusive power of the State to collect the private information of New Zealanders. We also contend that the issue particularly with this bill is the curtailing of the rights of private companies and their ability to protect their information because of the lack of adequate checks and balances. So we reiterate that this bill did not receive more than a cursory vetting—a once-over-lightly—in its examination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe that that was taken seriously.Secondly we believe that the bill as amended has been substantially changed in many cases in ways that are untested and where the impact of those changes on the rights to privacy of New Zealand citizens and businesses is under question. Therefore we have put in an amendment on this part of the bill being that this bill may only be submitted for Royal assent if a select committee has reconsidered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Rubbish.CLARE CURRAN: If the member over there actually has an issue with this then I invite him to get to his feet and take a call and tell this Parliament why there should not be another vetting under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and whether or not there has been a thorough vetting of the original bill in the first place. That would be a useful contribution for the Attorney-General to make to this House. We have seen a consistent pattern of rubber-stamping of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not only on this bill. At the beginning of the previous term of this Parliament there was an indication by the Attorney-General that he would take that process seriously which is an extremely important part of our democratic process. For a few bills it seemed that this was the case but now that has all gone out the window. It is all cursory vetting rubber-stamping and unfortunately not taking account of what august organisations such as the Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society andInternetNZ have said in the Law and Order Committee on this process—and they have certainly said it publicly.We contend that there should be a rights-based approach whenever there is a piece of legislation that deals with surveillance and curtailing rights. There should be a corresponding rights-based approach. It certainly does appear that there is a gap in our law around the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses in the digital environment. We think that that is worth taking seriously. The Human Rights Commission certainly believes that it is worth taking seriously. It says: “In the case of the TICS Bill the rights of concern in relation to the proposed legislation were the right to freedom of expression the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to natural justice … The analysis”—the cursory analysis—“concluded that all could be justified. The Commission does not agree with this conclusion.” and neither does the Labour Party agree with that conclusion.We believe that there should be a rights-based approach and that there should be—as I have repeated a number of times during the debate on this bill—along with surveillance a rights-based approach to New Zealand’s privacy. This is absolutely critical to a functioning and healthy democracy. This should include the freedom of expression of thought; freedom of conscience; freedom of religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; freedom to determine whom a person shares information with and to terminate involvement with a provider; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure where everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure whether of the person property or correspondence for example emails; the right to privacy based on the principles of the Privacy Act a comprehensive—GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As you indicated yourself in your ruling earlier on Mr Chair this title and commencement debate is an opportunity for members of the Committee to bring together some of the threads of the discussion. I am deeply disappointed that Mr McKelvie—who had made a great start the other evening when we were debating this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—did not share his wisdom with us any further on the question of why he supports—Ian McKelvie: The speeches are the ones that are not given Grant.GRANT ROBERTSON: In this case of Mr McKelvie that is definitely true because they often are not given but he did not share with us why he actually does support this legislation. We have not really heard anything about that from the Government members about why they actually support this legislation. They have not answered the questions that have been raised on this side of the Chamber—legitimate questions around the extent of the powers granted under this bill around the additional costs that are being placed on business and around the potential stifling of innovation that will be caused by this legislation. None of that has merited a response from the National Party’s side of the Chamber.To entertain Mr Finlayson I will speak on both the title and the commencement clauses of the bill and it is interesting—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Entertain away.GRANT ROBERTSON: I am here for your benefit Mr Finlayson. It is interesting when we do look at the title of the bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill that the addition in terms of the legislation that is repealed by this bill is the addition of the word “security”. So we have had legislation called the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act before.What the Government is doing here is introducing the notion of security. As has been stated several times during this debate there is a balance to be had between the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders—in this case to communicate with one another via a variety of technologies—and the security of New Zealand.Nobody on this side of the Chamber is denying the fact that we need legislation that upholds that balance but the problem we have is that this bill alongside the other piece of security legislation that goes with it the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act unbalances that equation. The fact is that the fundamental rights and freedoms that New Zealanders expect to havehave been undermined and the introduction here—and the word “security” is there in the title—is designed to make New Zealanders feel that the Government has brought forward legislation that will enhance their lives and it will ensure that they will be safer. But in reality that is not what this legislation will do or certainly the case for that has not been made out.That is what then leads me to the amendment to clause 2 proposed by Clare Curran on Supplementary Order Paper 370. The first subclause of that amendment relates directly to the fact that this is now not only about the ability to intercept communications and why that might be required but that it is now fundamentally part of New Zealand’s security framework—a security framework that is governed and controlled in New Zealand by legislation that we on this side of the Chamber believe to be wrong—and also by agencies that are in turmoil. That is the effect of the amendment to clause 2 that Clare Curran is proposing. The effect is that this bill comes into force only once there has been an independent review of New Zealand’s security agencies and the recommendations from that review have been incorporated into any bill that is put forward for a third reading in this House.This needs to happen because the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) which plays a critical role in this legislation is the agency that is responsiblefor large tracts of the implementation of this legislation. It is an agency whose name has been muddied over the last couple of years and in which New Zealanders have quite simply lost confidence. The independent review that is being called for here will enable New Zealanders to understand the role the GCSB can play in a changing world and there is no doubt that in a changing world cyber-security is important. So it is not a denial that that is a role that the GCSB should have but given the state of play with the GCSB—the fact that it has been discredited and the fact that there has been so much of a lack of clarity around the law that governs its work—this amendment from Clare Curran is undoubtedly justified because unless we can rebuild New Zealanders’ confidence in the GCSB its role in implementing this legislation I believe cannot be upheld.Dr David Clark: Who’s the Minister?GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minister responsible for the GCSB? Yes well that would be the Prime Minister John Key. When he stood in this House during the debate on the GCSB bill and told New Zealanders that we just had to trust him on how aspects of the bill would be implemented—Dr David Clark: 26 percent do.GRANT ROBERTSON: —that is right and 26 percent of New Zealanders somehow or other still trust him—and we just had to trust him on the way in which he would issue warrants that was the moment when New Zealanders must have known that the role the GCSB plays had to be reviewed. It has to be reviewed alongside all other security agencies and it has to be reviewed in light of the wider responsibilities that they are being asked to undertake under this piece of legislation and that is why Clare Curran has proposed the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 370.The other amendment to clause 2 that Clare Curran has proposed is the question around whether or not this bill should be reconsidered under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It would be useful if the Attorney-General might choose to take a call and justify to this Committee whether he believes that the vetting of this bill in terms of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been sufficient because many other people do not believe that.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very well done.GRANT ROBERTSON: The Attorney-General who is very reluctant to praise himself says that this was very well done. Well the reality is that many other agencies do not believe that and secondly a lot has happened to this legislation as it has progressed through the select committee. A substantive but not particularly relevant Supplementary Order Paper has come forward from the Government. That has not been tested under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it is worthy of note that the Human Rights Commission exercised its statutory power to directly report to the Prime Minister on this piece of legislation and its companion legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill. That is a power it has rarely exercised in its existence—less than half a dozen times I think—so that indicates the level of importance the Human Rights Commission puts on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. The commission noted in its submission on the bill that it is particularly concerned about the ability—and we discussed this in one of the earlier parts—of those who end up being caught up in the Act to be able to be in court when matters involving them are heard or at least to be represented in court. The commission is concerned that this breaches the right to natural justice in section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.There is a specific concern for the Attorney-General to respond to as to whether or not this bill has had adequate vetting. The Human Rights Commission believes that the right to natural justice is compromised by the clauses in this bill that do notautomatically allow defendants to be present when matters pertaining to them are in front of the court. I am not a lawyer—Mr Finlayson will be glad to hear that I am sure—but what I know about the law is that you have a right to be present when matters pertaining to you are heard before a court and you have a right to be represented. That—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t say “you”.GRANT ROBERTSON: One has a right to be present when matters pertaining to that person are heard before the court and that is a right to natural justice. That has not been upheld. That means that Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Clare Curran which says that this bill can be submitted for Royal assent only if it has been reconsidered under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is totally justified in my view because the overall question around surveillance and human rights is one that is very much in the minds of New Zealanders and people around the world.Just today in France the French Government is calling in United States officials to ask them what has been going on in terms of mass surveillance. The question of surveillance and human rights is one of the most current questions of our time and on this side of the Chamber we do not say that because we do not believe that the State has the right to undertake these kinds of operations; it is actually because we want to protect the fact that the State may need to do that from time to time and to balance that with the rights of New Zealanders to go about their business.Under this Government that balance has been lost. Trust in the agencies that undertake that work has been lost. That lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister who has evaded answering questions—direct questions—about the role of the GCSB under his watch. The GCSB gets extended powers under this bill and New Zealanders have a right to know that that has been thoroughly checked against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that their basic rights and freedoms are being protected. Not once in this debate have members of the Government got on their feet and said to this House: “We believe the balance is right.” because it is not.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill looking at the title and the commencement date. When this bill was introduced I criticised the title quite a bit I note. I thought it ought to really be the “TELCO Spying on Kiwis Bill” or the “TELCO Let’s Get Hacked Bill”. I do not actually move away from that too much particularly this aspect of hacking.This bill sets up the mechanism to allow spying agencies but also others to gain access to communications and networks in New Zealand. Just today we heard mention of France calling in US officials because of further revelations of what the National Security Agency has done in conjunction with New Zealand and some other countries. The National Security Agency does not do it only on its own; it does it in conjunction with New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) through the “Five Eyes” Waihopai system. So when we look at the timing of this we also look at the timing of what is actually happening out in the globe regarding this very issue.I mentioned last week the fact that the Brazilians are setting up a new system that is totally different from a lot of the normal providers to ensure that they do not get hacked any more by us and the National Security Agency. Mexico is another country in the news today that is saying it has had a gutsful of what is happening with spying from the National Security Agency and those PRISM systems.This bill is a sham. This bill may allow that access for when we need it for some legitimate surveillance but it is a sham as well because of the surveillance that is going on besides. I do not think that the media and certainly a number of the members on the other side in this House sometimes actually get it. They just do not get that we aresetting up to add even more—or maybe they do. Maybe they do not mind that we are setting up to look after American foreign policy and some others of the big mega corporates in the world by allowing the route into New Zealand’s electronic data communications through this system.Right back when the original version of this bill was formed we the Green Party with Keith Locke produced stuff with regard to some of the hacking that was happening coming back through those conduits of spying. We also realised that this bill is not complete in terms of scrutiny—redacting as they call it a lovely word that seems to have been introduced in recent times of the amount of information that has been withheld. How could this be given serious scrutiny especially on the basis that we have never had a proper independent investigation into the whole issue of security services in New Zealand? There is so much missing from the regulatory impact statement that it does not allow it. So what do we do? We get information from overseas from people who have been courageous enough to go out and leak the material that they see that they are so offended by ethically in realising that this stuff should not be kept secret any more. It needs to be opened to the world to let the world know what is going on. Unfortunately we are very much a part of that.When this bill got introduced the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill its mate got introduced as well. I pointed out at the time in my first reading speech on it that on that very day we were having the five-nations meeting of Attorneys-General. There was also a meeting of the heads of the different police forces from the “Five Eyes” fraternity—all meeting in New Zealand on that very same day. It was a gift from the Prime Minister the Minister responsible for the GCSB who also chose the director of the GCSB. He made that appointment. He flouted it seems the systems of appointment to get his man his schoolmate in.We know—it has been proven—that there is spying going on and that it is not something New Zealanders agree with. There was no investigation to see what they wanted and overall New Zealanders disagree with the concept of it. There is the issue of privacy but there is also the question of what we are doing with our sovereignty. But the Prime Minister has the ultimate power. What the Mexicans for example are worried about right at this moment is the fact that the National Security Agency spied on the former President when he was still in Opposition and on other Opposition members. The agency was looking at their emails and looking at their text messages and the same systems the same conduits that we are setting up here will allow the same thing.So I wonder what we in the Opposition here should really be thinking of when we have a Prime Minister we are having a little bit of difficulty with in terms of the integrity of his appointments process and getting his mates in and in terms of giving him the conduits so he can do it even more easily. We have had the internal stuff we have had the issue around the Henry inquiry and we have had the illegal spying that was carried on as well. So we have a major question. We insist that we have a totally independent investigation into these processes. We take cognisance of the Human Rights Commission and the issues around appeals without proper real representation—the persons themselves not being there. There is a bundle of issues that affect human rights privacy and our level of what we are prepared to trade off around the issues of security. These things all need thorough investigation.We need to extract ourselves from the “Five Eyes” mechanism and have stuff that is actually relevant to our communities here. Any security and surveillance should be relevant in a way that the community agrees with. We need to separate ourselves from the international stuff that brings us into international wars and conflicts that we do not choose as a community. This conduit needs to be looked at far more thoroughly and ithas to be done in a holistic sense with the Human Rights Act with the GCSB legislation and with the Search and Surveillance Act to look at the whole thing completely. So clearly we will carry on opposing this. We look forward to the opportunity to initiate a full independent inquiry and investigation of those services. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): You know it is interesting that for a bill that has such fundamental implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and the right of private companies to be protected from intrusive powers by the State the National Government members even those on the Law and Order Committee only take a call that the motion be now put. They do not want this legislation with all its inadequacies exposed to the public of New Zealand.I want to talk to clause 2 “Commencement” of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This bill is not ready to come into force. It is not ready to be implemented. It has been rushed. It has been subjected to inadequate consultation. It is technically error-ridden—technically error-ridden to the extent that as late as the second reading of this bill the Minister brought in Supplementary Order Paper 366 which is on the Table of this House and says that a major clause should be struck from the bill.That major clause clause 39 which is about the Government being able to stop telecommunications companies working in New Zealand if they do not have interception capability was defended to the death by Jacqui Dean and the other members of the select committee. They supported that clause all the way through only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology who finally recognised that yet another central aspect of her bill was technically and in terms of principle inappropriate and unworkable. That is an example of why this bill should not come into force.I support Supplementary Order Paper 370 moved by my colleague Clare Curran which makes the point that Royal assent should be given only to a bill that has been subject to a full and independent public inquiry. That point and the need for a full and independent public inquiry was recognised in Australian legislation dealing with Australia’s security services. It was recognised by a member of the Prime Minister’s staff who came to talk to me about this bill. The Australians did it the right way. They did an independent inquiry they found out what powers were justified they found out what safeguards were needed to prevent the abuse of those powers and then they passed the legislation. This Government has not had the conviction or the intestinal fortitude to actually do that.This bill is a companion piece to the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act. It facilitates technically the implementation of that. But the first thing that you would ask about legislation that gives enormously intrusive powers to a Government is whether there is a justification for those powers. Jacqui Dean in a rare call asked why the Labour Party is opposing this bill when we passed the original Act in 2003. It is for the reason that in that original Act the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was not allowed to spy on New Zealanders—not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. It intercepted foreign intelligence dealing with foreign persons.Now we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers and it has not been justified. It has not been justified to the extent that when we on the select committee and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for the police the Security Intelligence Service and the GCSB to come before the committee to justify why there should be these powers—we did that with an open mind—the Government refused to allow those agencies to give evidence to the select committee. It refused toallow them to give it in public in private or even in secret. We have an outrage in that we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers and that will be utilised in secret and without accountability and no justification was given or even attempted to be given to the select committee as to why those powers should exist.The second concern we have is that if you are going to give those sorts of powers to agencies you want to be sure that there are adequate safeguards in place to stop those agencies abusing the powers. Why is this in this GCSB legislation before this Parliament? Because of the very fact that the GCSB did abuse its powers in relation to Kim Dotcom and the fact that theKitteridge report found that it potentially did that on 88 different occasions. So we have new legislation when we have had abuse of powers—SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to give the honourable member David Clark a call.Hon Phil Goff: What!Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I welcome the support from my colleagues. The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill seeks to protect individual rights and freedoms. Some of the principles outlined in this bill are ones that we could support on this side of the Chamber but as soon as we get into the detail we find that it fails to strike the appropriate balance between privacy and security as far we can tell. It is a permissive sloppy piece of legislation that will see New Zealanders able to be spied on in their homes without the checks and balances one would expect of this kind of major legislation going through the House. It is the partner bill to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation but it adds the powers that make this bill able to be carried out in a fuller way. The bill does not meet the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. It has not passed the test of legislation that should be in this House. It gives Ministers extraordinary powers and it should not pass.It is not clear in many aspects of the bill what is actually meant by the bill. The definitions are poor. We are told that “national security” has been added. “Security” has been added to the title of the bill. We find the word “security” there and yet “national security” is not defined in the bill other than to say that it relates to economic interest. When it comes to economic interest we are not told how that is defined and indeed debates on matters of economic interest were not allowed to happen in the Law and Order Committee. So we can see that the intention of the Government is to shut down the debate to not define the terms to grant extra powers to the Government to spy on New Zealanders in their homes and to fail to provide the checks and balances that would bring this inin a way that is acceptable for New Zealanders.New Zealanders do value their security. Do not get me wrong—New Zealanders do value their security but they value their privacy also. Ordinary New Zealanders want checks and balances in the system so that they can know that when they conduct their activities online when they conduct their activities on the telephone and when they go about their ordinary business relating to their families and relating to their business contacts they are not being spied on unnecessarily and in a way that they cannot respond to nor defend themselves against.This is a terrible piece of legislation. We find that the Ministers receiving Draconian powers are referred to in clause 13. They are the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service—Mr Key whom we have found to perhaps be a little untrustworthy in this legislation’s arena—the Minister responsible for the GCSB andthe Minister of Police. Any one of these Ministers without any real check or balance can enact this legislation to spy on just about anyone.We have heard in the broader debate the questions raised about what constitutes a network provision and who can be spied on and who cannot. That is poorly defined in the legislation. It seems that any school network any classroom network can be spied upon at the whim of a Minister without any recourse to those involved defending themselves or raising legitimate questions before an independent panel.We have already seen with the GCSB legislation a range of activities take place that were just beyond the pale for ordinary New Zealanders. The spying on Kim Dotcom was legalised by this Government. The appointment process around the head of the GCSB contained a number of anomalies that have not made for comfortable exchanges in this House and the person overseeing all of these and the many memory lapses is the Prime Minister John Key who is responsible for the GCSB and the intelligence services.We know in this Committee that these powers that we are enacting here ought to come with accountability. This Parliament here has the responsibility of enacting legislation that has appropriate accountabilities in it. We carry that burden. Members on this side of the Chamber have made the argument over and over and over again that this legislation needs to be tidied up so that it can be passed in a way that looks out for the security interests of New Zealanders without crossing that bridge into being an unnecessary breach of their right to privacy in their own homes.We cannot support this legislation in its current form. We cannot see that this Government is doing due diligence nor that it is actually caring about the concerns of ordinary New Zealanders. It is typical of a Government that is increasingly out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We saw Government members today in the House trying to say that things were getting better for ordinary New Zealanders at the same time as they were saying that tax had gone down for the very wealthiest Zealanders whilst overall the tax take was going down.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I would like to start with in particular in Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Clare Curran the amendment to clause 2 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. The amendment is relatively simple and has two parts. I am pleased that the Attorney-General is present although he is uncharacteristically mute at the moment because there is a new subclause (4) which indicates that the bill may be submitted for Royal assent only if a select committee has considered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The problem that we have is that there have been massive changes introduced to this bill since the time that it was at the Law and Order Committee but there has not been a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration of those changes.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Read section 7.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well he mutters on. He mutters from his seat. He mumbles—Clare Curran: Has he read it?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh I am sure that he has read it and probably in the Greek but that will not get him on to his hind legs. It will not get him on to his hind legs in order to make a contribution to this.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Read section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member can prattle on for all he likes about section 10 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in the end if there is substantial change any Attorney-General with a sense of ethics would have a look and get another vet. Did this one do it? No he did not. No he did not because he knows that the rightsto privacy of New Zealanders are being taken away under this bill with some sort of argument around security that frankly does not hold any water at all.I want to say to the member on my right as she generally is that that particular subclause that she is suggesting is actually not very radical at all. It is a relatively minor very reasonable approach and if there was any sort of ethical sense on the side of the Government it would say yes.I now want to go to the subclause that she suggested before that and that is the insertion of subclause (3) after clause 2(2). It indicates that “This Bill may only be submitted for Royal assent if an independent review of New Zealand’s security agencies has been conducted and the recommendations incorporated into this Bill prior to the third reading of the Bill.”I do not think I am breaching any confidences because I think the Prime Minister has referred to this in the past. I was along with at least one and probably two of my colleagues one of the members consulted by the Prime Minister’s department around a proposed review of the SIS—in fact the beginnings of a review of the SIS—from memory relatively early last year. I think that at the time the Prime Minister and his department had it more or less right that the SIS was a good place to start but the interrelationship between the SIS and the other agencies—the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in particular and the New Zealand Police—would be on the edge of that review and could be taken into account.What happened then was quite a lot of publicity around Kim Dotcom and what I think is a relatively unhealthy rush to get some very narrow specific legislation there for the GCSB. But then what happened was that that narrow legislation got widened out to something that is quite unreasonable and unacceptable to many many members of Parliament. In fact I would say it is unacceptable to every member of Parliament who has read it and understood it. I just want to say that from the contributions opposite I am not convinced that there is a member on the other side of the Chamber who has read and understood properly the legislation that we are currently considering.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that the honourable member Clare Curran’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 be agreed to. I am sorry to advise the honourable member that it is out of order as it does not fall within the definition of a preliminary clause.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I moveThat the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the report be adopted.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Report adopted.Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillSecond ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of thePrime Minister: I moveThat the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill be now read a second time. This bill improves the law relating to elected members’ remuneration and entitlements to services. It was referred to the Government Administration Committee in March 2012. The committee completed its examination of the bill in June 2013 unanimously recommending that it be passed as amended.The bill deserves nothing less than careful and detailed consideration by the Government Administration Committee and the House for it establishes a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. With modifications it implements many of the recommendations in the Law Commission’sReview of the Civil List Act 1979 — Members of Parliament and Ministers. The bill repeals the Civil List Act and modernises and modifies the law relating to the salaries and the allowances of members of Parliament; support services provided for members of Parliament Ministers and certain electoral candidates; annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers; and benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament and I see you are very interested in that part of it Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson.In relation to Part 3 of the bill concerning services to members of Parliament the Remuneration Authority is responsible for determining accommodation services for MPs and Ministers and also travel services for family members of MPs. The Speaker is responsible for setting directions on travel and communication services for MPs and party and member support funding and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is responsible for determining any additional travel services for Ministers over and above those set by the Speaker for members of Parliament.Some submissions to the Government Administration Committee expressed concern for the Remuneration Authority setting travel services for MPs and Ministers as was proposed under the original bill. It was considered that the proposed reforms did notreflect the principle that the House has the exclusive privilege to control its own operations. The select committee acknowledged that domestic travel by MPs is critical to the effective functioning of the House. The committee considered that concerns for a non-parliamentary body setting travel entitlements for MPs can be addressed by amending the bill to provide that the Speaker continues to determine travel services for members of Parliament. This should allay concerns about the authority making a determination limiting the ability of MPs to travel and therefore limiting their ability to do their job.There are some intersecting interests here. One is having entitlements determined independently from those who receive them and the other is the democratic interest and the proper operation of the House and the ability of members to carry out their functions. The democratic interest is of fundamental importance and is worthy of being protected from any risk of decision making that could undermine that interest. Under this bill travel by spouses and family members would remain within the exclusive purview of the Remuneration Authority as that travel cannot be said to directly carry the risk of limiting the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their roles.The Remuneration Authority would continue to determine accommodation services for MPs and Ministers. Although accommodation entitlements are important in supporting MPs to carry out their roles on balance travel is seen as more significant. The reality is that MPs need to be accommodated while attending to their duties such as in this House. Any additional travel services excluding international travel and accommodation for Ministers would be determined by the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.The bill as reported back from the select committee introduces a number of other reforms additional to Part 3. It updates the legislative framework for the setting of salaries and allowances for MPs and Ministers. This will allow members who start mid-term following the vacancy of a seat previously held by a list member of Parliament to be paid lawfully. The bill validates that commencement of salaries paid to mid-term list MPs since 1996 without further costs to the Crown.The financial penalty for members who are absent from the House without permission is substantially increased with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence. The amount deducted reflects the member’s actual salary rather than the salary of an ordinary member. The financial penalty for absent members used to be based on an ordinary MP’s salary; now in the bill it is based on the actual salary of the member and it commences after 3 days of absence rather than the 9 days in the original bill.A new financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House will apply. This reflects the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee. A legislative obligation on the Remuneration Authority is imposed to include in any determination of salaries and allowances a statement setting out how it has taken into account the personal benefit or potential personal benefit of any other entitlement when determining those salaries and allowances. Additionally entitlements to services are to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments.The bill codifies moves made in recent years to improve transparency around costs to the House. It imposes a statutory obligation on the General Manager of Parliamentary Service and on the Department of Internal Affairs to publish quarterly reports on travel and accommodation costs for MPs and Ministers. It also imposes a statutory obligation on the Clerk of the House to publish quarterly reports on MPs’ and parties’ use of the inter-parliamentary relations programme. The operation of the scheme providing certain former members with entitlements is addressed. As recommended by the Law Commission the bill legislates for the former-member travel entitlements of MPselected before 1999 making those entitlements transparent and changeable only through legislative amendment.A new statutory regime will set out how travel entitlements can be lost including for various offences. A statutory obligation is imposed on Parliamentary Service to publish the travel expenses of former members of Parliament annually. And the bill tightens up the law around the making of superannuation contributions by MPs. It also includes a statutory review clause meaning that the Act’s operations must be reviewed after two full determination cycles. This will allow the House to assess how well the changes contained in this bill are meeting its aims and purposes.These are not radical or modest changes to the regime for setting entitlements for MPs and members of the executive. These are sensible but significant changes that will ensure that this House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I rise to support the Attorney-General in so far as this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill is concerned. I am not quite as enthusiastic as to the results as he is. In fact it might now be seen as a bit of a muddling bill a bill that has fallen halfway between the Law Commission and the current situation. I will get back to that. But what it does do and I agree with the Attorney-General is that it makes the law with regard to the payment of salaries and matters relating to the business expenses of members of Parliament including members of the executive clearer and more workable. There is I think quite a lot of public apprehension around the setting of members’ salaries and allowances and the repayment of their expenses. I think that many members of the public think we in this House decide the level. Frankly the constant expression of opinion by the Prime Minister as to what the changes should be does not help very much. I think the public tend to think that the Remuneration Authority is not independent and that there is some sort of obligation for it to listen to the Prime Minister when he makes those comments.There are a number of changes here. I want to say that new clause 17(1)(ab) provides for the arrangements for services to take into account particular requirements of members who have physical or sensory impairments. I think it is important that we get that specifically into the legislation in a way that is clear but flexible because there will be a wide variety of needs of members with impairments but it makes it clear that there are obligations in place. I think there will be a number of members of the House who will be somewhat surprised by the fact that up until now there has been no provision to pay members of Parliament who come in from the list in the middle of a term. We have had a number of people for whom that has occurred and on a couple of occasions for some of those individuals and up until now there has been no provision to pay them. They have of course been paid. They would have complained if they had not been. What this bill does is make sure that in the future anyone who is in that situation is able to get paid and retrospectively. I think it is an OK use of retrospective legislation. It retrospectively validates the payments that have previously been made although there are one or two of them where I would say that it might have been better if we had not.There are provisions with regard to the deduction of members’ salaries. The Government Administration Committee took some time to harden up the legislation in this particular area in two ways. We did take into account a number of members who I think might be described as sort of lackadaisical in their attendance to the parliamentary part of their duties as members of Parliament. What we the committee have suggested and I think the House will agree is that unlike the 9 days of absence that the Prime Minister had previously suggested deductions should occur after 3 days. We are alsolooking at the salary level of the particular member rather than the salary level of a backbench member for those deductions.There will also be a pay deduction when a member is suspended from the House. I want to say that I have been around for a while and I have worked on the assumption—Hon Anne Tolley: And been suspended a few times.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have never been suspended. Is that not amazing? I had always thought that a financial penalty applied to people. I thought that if they were out for a day they lost a day; if they were out for a week they lost a week; and if they were out till the end of the year they lost the rest of their pay—not that that has happened in the time I have been here. I think the maximum that I have known of is someone who has been out for just a day. But this bill makes it clear that if you get suspended you lose a day’s pay. I think that is what the public would expect and I think that is fine.There has also been what I would describe as a bit of a rort where other members I understand have been working with these rules that are to do with members’ superannuation. Most of us when we join a superannuation scheme using the arrangements as part of our remuneration and remembering that the contributions come effectively from our gross remuneration as determined by the Remuneration Authority put the money in out of our fortnightly pay by way of deductions. There have been some members who have made a decision to do it considerably later accumulate the interest on that or other investments top it up right at the end of a period and thereby get an advantage that was not otherwise considered. We do not think that is right and this bill will mean that the subsidy will not be payable to members. It will not be able to be backdated for more than 12 months. I think that is fair enough.The one proviso I will say is that I do not have total confidence in Parliamentary Service to get it right. I myself have had experience with superannuation deductions that it unilaterally stopped. We then had to sort it out. In fact—Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What?Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well Parliamentary Service might have thought I had gone. In fact I have got quite a lack of confidence even in the current day with Parliamentary Service and its handling of reimbursement arrangements for members. Parliamentary Service sent my bank account details to Vodafone recently. It sent the slip that we get with the reimbursement of our travel arrangements along with my bank account numbers off to Vodafone. I was quite surprised when I found that out. I was not happy.I do want to say that there is a bit of a muddle in this arrangement now and I want to give the example of when a Minister—say the Prime Minister—was in Wellington travelled to Christchurch and stayed overnight before going on an overseas trip. The arrangements for the flight from Wellington to Christchurch or Auckland to Christchurch would be determined by and be the responsibility of the Speaker. The overnight accommodation in Christchurch while waiting for the early flight to go out the next morning would be the responsibility of the Remuneration Authority. The overseas travel the next morning would be the responsibility of Ministerial Services. I think it is fair to say that is a bit of a muddle and it will in the end lead to confusion.My last comment I want to make is to the Greens. I want to make it in particular to the co-leader Metiria Turei and say to her that she voted in the select committee for every clause and every amendment that was made. She voted for it. I say to her that to come to the House now having not given a peep in opposition—not a peep in opposition so she was a lamb in the committee—Hon Tau Henare: Not a word not a whisper.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not a word not a whisper—not a whisper. To come to this House now with a set of amendments attempting to reverse that is an indication of someone who is either not properly on top of their job or is a political grandstander. I say to her that if you have got the courage of your convictions vote in the select committee. If the member believes in something vote that way in the select committee. Be consistent. Do not come to the House and change your mind.Debate interrupted.Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to make a personal explanation for the purposes of correcting an answer I made during question time.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The Minister may do so.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I was asked today when I or my office first became aware thatMāori Television was planning to publish a story on inappropriate spending and financial mismanagement at the TeKōhanga Reo National Trust and its subsidiary TePātakaŌhanga. In my statement this afternoon I said it was 14 October. I wish to correct this. My office received an email on 24 September 2013 seeking comment on alleged irregularities in expenditure. It was 14 October when I first received advice as I answered correctly to the primary question. Thank you.Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand and to speak on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill debate notes and to follow on from—Hon Trevor Mallard: Debate notes! Ha ha!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I beg your pardon—with debate notes. It is a pleasure to follow on from such a well-prepared speech as was given by the Attorney-General and the perhaps more spontaneous speech given by Mr Mallard who might have been a little assisted had he had some notes.Hon Ruth Dyson: Debate notes.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He could have had debate notes yes. It could have been useful. None the less I do actually concur with the point that he made that the work done by the Government Administration Committee should not be taken lightly and indeed should not be diluted by subsequent decisions to bring forth amendments to make changes. There was ample opportunity at the committee level to get things into order.Mr Mallard did say in his speech that he felt that the bill was betwixt and between rather than a definite thing. Well to my mind I think this is a significant step in the Government’s commitment to having Ministers’ and MPs’ entitlements determined in a transparent independent non-partisan manner.Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe than a step.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Pardon me?Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well yes you know—a bit between where it needs to be. If we look at where it could be there is a public perception which was certainly voiced to members of the committee and came through fairly clearly. The public perception probably varies between thinking that we decide it all ourselves for our own benefit—and perhaps that might be considered to have been the case in the past—but also there is another perception that thinks that all MP pay and conditions should be subordinated to a higher authority and not left to any discretion of anyone in this particular organisation. That is when we come to the point about Parliament being sovereign in the management of its own affairs and being the master of its own destiny. Really if you think it through that is a very significant part of New Zealand’s history and development.This bill drawn from the Law Commission report called for reforms and these were addressed by the select committee. The select committee to me is one of the best bits I think of the process that we have in this Parliament. It is a very significant process and a very important part. It interfaces with the public and also it is through having the select committee process that we can have a single House structure of Parliament because we do have that recourse to consideration of views. We received the submissions. The committee concentrates on consulting and considering fairly widely from official reports and from expressed views that come to it. I think that was particularly the case with this bill. So it would be unreasonable for any potential critic to say that the bill was changed. Well that is what the bill is actually considered for so that there are not unforeseen circumstances so that it will have the effect that it was designed to give and so that it will not be a misfit with practice.The Government Administration Committee I must say is a balanced committee. No one particular party has—Grant Robertson: Well chaired.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is well chaired actually particularly on this bill. It was well discussed. I will go further. It was well chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson who was not always there of course. Some of us had to fill in.Hon Trevor Mallard: She was there for the bits that we got right.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed. It also though was a bill that caused a lot of consideration and a very concentrated amount of examination. I would like to just pay tribute to the level of advice we received and the level of consideration that was given to the pertinent parts of this bill. I think as a member of that committee that we can honestly say that the work was earnestly done that it was very well considered and in fact that it will be a very satisfactory bill. But like all bills of this nature it is part of a developing journey as the requirements of members of Parliament in fulfilling their function and meeting the requirements of Parliament will change. They change with technology they change with communications systems and they change with the state that the country is in at any particular time.It is interesting to read the history of Parliament. It is a rich history. Of course MPs used to travel here by train and stay here for a number of months. The conditions do have to change.Hon Trevor Mallard: Sailing ships.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes indeed. I think what we have is a very good process. There is a large amount of independence in setting the salaries. It is not at the behest of parliamentarians any more. Travel has been considered. It is something that needs to be with the Speaker and the committee recommended that change to the bill. The Clerk made the recommendation because travel by MPs is critical to the effective functioning of the House and is of fundamental democratic importance. Those of us from large electorates—and I can claim to live in one of the largest I think and I notice that the costs of travel are reflected by my colleagues in other parties who come from the samearea. It is just a matter of fact that it is expensive to travel within an electorate as well as from it to here.I leave the select committee stage at this second reading very comfortable that full consideration has been given to the aspects of this bill that were controversial and that the outcome will be satisfactory. I commend this bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to be speaking on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and I want to acknowledge all the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. We had Chris Auchinvole Eric Roy Kanwaljit Bakshi Trevor Mallard and Metiria Turei. The membership changes sometimes on the committee depending on the bill. There was unanimous agreement reached on the bill and that is not unusual for that committee but it is unusual given the complexity of issues in this.I want to just echo the words of my colleague Trevor Mallard and say that I am surprised when we had reached unanimity on issues like this and worked actually very hard to get unanimity that we now have a Supplementary Order Paper. That unanimity was because we heard from a lot of submitters who were experts in this area we heard different views and we talked about it a lot. There was no rushing of this. We wanted to try to get it right in the interests of transparency and workability of these provisions. We got an extension of time for the report back of the bill in order to do that so I am surprised that we now have a Supplementary Order Paper which alters the bill fundamentally presented by Metiria Turei a member of the committee which unanimously agreed to the provisions of this bill. It is unusual and I just want to put on the record my concern about that as being slightly out of the usual process when we are thinking about this bill.A lot of people get very excited when Parliament is debating remuneration for its own members of Parliament and I understand that. We do earn very high salaries compared with people who work as hard and often for as long hours as we do so I am not surprised that members of the public are interested in this. I have heard some media reports this week that during this debate we would be determining our salary rate and that is not true. Thank goodness Parliament no longer determines the salary of members of Parliament and Ministers. That so-called right has long ago gone. It is the job of the Remuneration Authority and it should never come back to this Parliament. People in this position of power should have the responsibility of exercising that power carefully. Determining your own salary does not have a role in that regime as far as I am concerned so I am delighted that the Remuneration Authority has that responsibility.What this bill does is actually many things but one of the critical aspects of this bill is who determines the support services and travel allowances and other business expenses that members of Parliament incur. Whose job is that? Is that a job for the Speaker is that a job for the Minister responsible or is it the job of the Remuneration Authority? That question is in relation to accommodation services in relation to travel services—not just to members of Parliament but also to our families—resolution of issues about those services and ongoing travel entitlements as they are known to former members of Parliament. In that package this bill has transferred to the Remuneration Authority those determinations that are currently with the Speaker or the Minister.There was one area that was not contentious within the members on the committee so much as that the members were being offered very good information and advice from different submitters and they conflicted. So we had to say out of these two different views both of which had a lot of merit which one we would choose. We chose toamend the bill that had been referred to us in this one regard and that was in relation to the travel services provided to members of Parliament.It is our view that travel services are a fundamental part of a member of Parliament being able to operate properly and being able to do their job and therefore that the determination of those travel services should rest with the Speaker whose job it is to make sure that every member of Parliament has the resources available to them to do their job properly. It is clearly not a perk. I was going to say nobody would say that travelling from their home to the capital was a perk. Perhaps the member of Parliament for Wellington Central in whose electorate this fine building resides considers that it is a big privilege for members from throughout the rest of the country to travel to Wellington but seriously travel is a fundamental part of our job.All of us whether constituency members or list members of Parliament are elected to represent that voice in Parliament and in order to do that for about 32 weeks of the year we spend 3 days a week in the capital. Of course both for Ministers and for members of Parliament there are other responsibilities that we have as well as coming to Parliament that involve travel. I remember that when I was the Minister for Senior Citizens I made a pledge to Grey Power that should they invite me to any branch of Grey Power throughout the country I would go to their meeting. They warmly welcomed that offer. I did not realise at the time that there were 77 branches of Grey Power throughout the country and over my time as Minister for Senior Citizens I visited over 55 of those 77 branches. I am making up for the remaining 20 in my time as Opposition spokesperson on senior citizens. But I did not consider that as anything other than a legitimate part of my job. It was a responsibility that I had taken up in that position and that is why I do think it is appropriate for that determination to be part of the legitimate role of a member of Parliament. But that does not extend to family members so in that regard the select committee agreed that the determination of travel services for family members should properly sit with the Remuneration Authority.We have done a few other things in this bill. One of the ones that I think the committee was most proud of—if that is the right term—was to ensure that it was very clear in the law that the support for members of Parliament with physical or sensory impairments is properly the responsibility of the House and not of the political party that that person happens to be representing. I hope that this sends a very strong and clear message to the disabled members of our communities who may have been put off seeking membership of this Parliament as an elected member and who were concerned that they might have to bear the responsibility for support services themselves.This very same select committee that looked at this bill also has an inquiry into the accessibility of Parliament as a whole. This message from the committee will help in that consideration because it is a very clear stance in terms of members of Parliament but our inquiry is looking even more broadly than that at what access to information and services from members of Parliament can disabled members of our community expect.My colleague Trevor Mallard mentioned the fact that it did not seem to be clear in the law that list members of Parliament who came in as a result of another list MP leaving and came in part-way through the term were entitled to be paid. We had a bit of a debate about that but we decided that we would include that coverage for every list member who came in part-way through the term. Obviously that has been the practice anyway so as the Attorney-General said it was not an additional incurrence of any expenditure to the Crown—they had been getting paid.There were also some opportunities in the most negative sense of that word for potential double-dipping and we wanted to use this opportunity to make sure that double-dipping did not occur. We do not think it has in the past; it was certainly notreported to us as having been the case and we did ask. But we wanted to close down any opportunity for that in relation to members of Parliament who might get the 3-months’ post-retirement payment but then come in quite soon after that as a list MP. We did not want that sort of opportunity to be exploited. It is clearly not the intention of this Parliament that any member of Parliament deserves two bites at the cherry.We have tried to make the rules very clear very transparent and workable. As I said earlier on I was really impressed with the effort and energy that all members of the select committee put into dealing with some quite complex issues and I thank them all for that.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I was able to participate in the Government Administration Committee which considered the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and I want to thank the select committee and Ruth Dyson for her chairing of that committee. The committee took a very practical approach to the issues which have—over a number of years—been very very hotly debated within committees in various forms and in the public. The public has a real interest in transparency—in their confidence that MPs will not be the deciders of the perks that we might have and in there being real transparency in the process for how it is decided and some real independence. So it was good to be part of that discussion.It is also true that we worked very hard. The Greens put up some real arguments about the changes to the bill that we did not agree to. We did not agree with the submission from the Clerk of the House which was to change the bill so that the decision making for travel services for members of Parliament would be retained by the Speaker of the House. We do not agree with that position. We put that position to the select committee. We spent some weeks discussing whether that was the right or wrong thing to do.What I was really pleased about as a member of the committee in those discussions is that—regardless of the fact that I lost the debate on that particular issue—there has no doubt been a shift in the way that MPs’ allowances and those that might affect their families have been decided. They are being decided more independently as a result of this legislation. That is a good thing. It is good to support progress when we do make progress because Lord knows—anybody who has been watching this debate over the last 5 6 or 10 years now—there can be a lot of heat and very very little light when it comes to the issue of MPs’ expenses and allowances.I would also just say that the Green Party has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 369 on this legislation. I think all members understand that select committees are not the arbiters of the final form of legislation—in fact Parliament is. Parliament agreed at the first reading that this bill ought to include the provision for the Remuneration Authority to decide on the travel services for MPs. We are quite prepared and we think it is our responsibility to put that proposition back to Parliament as a whole even though the Government Administration Committee decided in the end for understandable reasons to take it out. So we have a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table—Hon Trevor Mallard: Unanimously.METIRIA TUREI: —and that is what we are going to do. Absolutely.Hon Tau Henare: Does that answer Mr Mallard’s question?METIRIA TUREI: Yes it does answer Mr Mallard’s question. So the Greens have been champions for transparency for well over 10 years now. It was started by Rod Donald our lovely co-leader. The call for transparency and reform in MPs’ pay and allowances—our campaign on these issues has led to real change. I think that has been really significant. We now have MPs’ travel and accommodation disclosed publicly every quarter. That followed the Greens’ campaign in 2009 where we made our owncommitment to that disclosure. I do want to just recognise Speaker Lockwood Smith who took the model that the Green Party was using and had proposed and applied that across the board to all MPs. So now we do have that disclosure.At the time of that debate about whether it should apply to everybody there was enormous resistance from MPs. There was a great deal of fear that if this information was disclosed MPs would suffer month after month attacks—public attacks and attacks in the media—about the money that was being spent. What we have seen over time is that it is of interest to some people and some people may comment but the fact of having transparency has given the public some confidence at least that we are prepared to tell them what it is that we are doing. So all of the heat that was initially in that debate and all of the fear that MPs expressed over that disclosure were ultimately shown to be untrue.Part of the difficulty we have around the decision that the select committee made to keep the decisions around travel allowances with the Speaker is that the argument for that too was an argument around fear and mistrust—that the Remuneration Authority would not understand the travel requirements of MPs and might make changes to those allowances that would not give MPs the ability to be able to come to Parliament to do their work here or to be able to travel to other places to do their work there. There was a great sense I think of mistrust in that debate. That mistrust is just not justified. I think that in all of the work we have done to try to reform our allowances and remuneration systems it has been proven time and time again that the public want to know but they also understand that we do an important job and need the resources to do it. The Remuneration Authority does take these issues seriously and will not make unnecessary reform. There is no justification for that fear or mistrust. That is one other reason why we are bringing back to Parliament the ability to decide to move the travel allowances to the Remuneration Authority rather than keeping it with the Speaker.We are also very pleased with the bill to the extent that it is a step towards putting in practice I guess a motion that I had put to the Parliamentary Service Commission some time before. I put a motion to the Parliamentary Service Commission that we advise the Speaker to establish an independent body to review MPs’ expenses and allowances including travel allowances with a view to the separation of what is personal and what is genuinely parliamentary and that a further independent body be established or identified whose role would be to set MPs allowances and expenses including travel.So to the extent that this bill was actually part of that debate and that there was an open opportunity for the public to have a say about independence and the separation between personal and parliamentary we were able to hear very directly the views of the Clerk of the House who keeps her views to herself most of the time. She too had an open opportunity to express what she thought about these changes. We went some way towards genuinely having an open debate about it. We were very pleased to see that that process happened because at the Parliamentary Service Commission of course my motion to have those two things happen was declined by the MPs who were there. So we are seeing slow but continual change. That is why we will support the bill.I would note that the Law Commission also supports our position of having the travel allowances moved out of the decision making of the Speaker to the Remuneration Authority and that it expressed some disappointment that the bill that has come back does not do that. Again I think what we are seeing here is an evolutionary process of change. We are trying as best as possible to take as many people as many MPs actually as we can—the whole parliamentary system—with us on the debate to genuine transformation and independence. That will take some time and is taking quite a bit of time. It has been 4 years since the 2009 debate on transparency. So it is good to see progress albeit that it is slow.We too are very pleased to see that the bill recognises the need to have independent funding for those who have impairments to make sure that an MP who has an impairment is in no way prejudiced in their ability to engage in their duties simply because of that impairment. As Ruth Dyson quite rightly said this is about making sure all New Zealanders—and there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with all sorts of different kinds of impairments that may lead them to feel that they have no role or place in Parliament that they have no role in the decision making at this highest level. Every step we take to make it clear to our community that they deserve to be genuinely represented—to be represented by members of their own community in this place—and to have their own voices heard in this place is critically important. So we are very pleased to see that we could make a change in this bill that expressly provided for MPs with impairments.We are seeing that in other parts of the reform around Parliamentary Service too as more and more MPs and as the system itself become more aware of the need to be open to accessibility issues. Again this is an evolutionary process. We are seeing this change happen slowly but we are very pleased that it is happening. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute during the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. This legislation provides a new framework under which members of Parliament and members of the executive earn their entitlements. The current legislation is at times considered to be lacking in clarity transparency and independence. Based on recommendations the National Government has provided a bill that establishes the system for determining services to be provided to members of Parliament.Members of Parliament and the executive need to have proper support and people need to have confidence in Parliament. By introducing this legislation we hope to clarify any grey areas around travel and accommodation services which have to date caused most public concerns. By introducing this bill we will be improving the independence of the determination of those services.This bill represents a significant improvement in the law under which elected members earn their remuneration and entitlements to services. We in the National Party want to ensure that our entitlements are set independently and are transparent. With these words I commend this bill to the House.Hon TAU HENARE (National): The entitlements of MPs and Ministers in this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill will be transparent independent and non-partisan. That gives a level of confidence and trust for the public to have in a regime that has been—not picked on over the past few years but I think it has needed that sort of trust put back into the community.There is more power than ever before in the hands of an independent decision maker. I think that goes a long way to instilling some trust and some confidence on the part of the community in their elected representatives. The bill not only improves what has taken place before but enhances those measures taken by the Prime Minister and by a number of other people.I will not take too long in the House but I do want to say and echo the comments that have been made that this bill has—so far—travelled through its stages in a non-partisan manner. Now we are faced with many amendments that were never ever raised in the Government Administration Committee. I have heard Metiria Turei comment on the reasons why. I think that in the spirit of bipartisan work she should have raised those issues in the select committee. I think that those issues should have been ironed out in the select committee. What it looks like now is a bit of grandstanding. Having said all that I do commend the bill to the House and hope that there will be more bipartisan work across the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. Obviously a number of people have referred to the work of the Government Administration Committee on this bill and to the way that the select committee members worked together. I too would like to acknowledge the chair of that select committee the Hon Ruth Dyson who I think is well known as an extremely good chair. The Government Administration Committee received and considered 18 submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard seven submissions. The bill we are now debating is of course strengthened by the submissions and contributions of those people.This bill seeks to establish a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament. It is a bill that has four main parts to it and considers a range of elements. Part 1 is just the preliminary provisions. We then go through from there to salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. Just to be crystal clear this is not about what members of Parliament are getting; this is about the how—how these matters are set. Part 3 is around services and Part 4 is around the entitlements of former members and miscellaneous matters.I think one of the important factors to note is that this bill in seeking to set up that new framework is implementing subject to some modifications most of the recommendations of the Law Commission’s reportReview of the Civil List Act 1979—Members of Parliament and Ministers. Essentially the bill is recommending that the Remuneration Authority should determine accommodation services to members travel services to members’ families and resolution of issues about these services and the ongoing travel entitlements of former members. Those are currently determined by the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.The important point here is that moving those things to the Remuneration Authority is really part of a process of increasing transparency and clarity and also I guess of managing the competing interests of ensuring that members of Parliament are properly supported in carrying out their functions but also maintaining confidence in the integrity of Parliament. That balance is really important. All of us in this Chamber will know that members of Parliament are not universally well regarded by the public and that many people consider that we have many flaws and that we are probably overpaid for not doing a job well.We know that members of Parliament generally—and I would say across the House—enter this place for the right reasons. They want to make a difference want to represent New Zealanders and want to help change things and scrutinise things in the right manner. Clearly members of Parliament need to be adequately resourced to do that job and have the services that they need to be able to do that work. As the Hon Ruth Dyson outlined when she was talking about travel provisions the fact of that matter is that it is not just about coming from your home town to this place in Wellington and being here in the debating chamber and then going back. Doing the job properly requires members of Parliament to have the ability to travel where New Zealanders are and to fulfil their responsibilities in terms of portfolio responsibilities. For example the Hon Ruth Dyson was talking about her commitment to—I think it was—Grey Power and then finding out how many locations around New Zealand that they were in. Likewise—and I am sure that others could identify examples—the ability to do the job is the ability to talk to relevant people wherever they are in New Zealand. In my own case I have been talking to budget services up and down New Zealand about what they are seeing New Zealanders experiencing the difficulties that they are having and the level of debt that they are carrying. It is important to look at that from the point of view of different places within this country. So it is a part of doing the job to be able to dothat. It is certainly not a perk. I just want to emphasise again though that this bill is about how these matters are sorted and set rather than the what.I do want to comment on two things in particular. As I have said the bill is about increasing the transparency and clarity of the requirements for reporting members’ and former members’ entitlements to travel and accommodation services and of the provision of members’ superannuation. We must be transparent. We must be clear about what those things are and willing and able to confidently assert those to the public and for the public to see that they have been set in a reasonable and independent manner independent from ourselves.The other matter that I particularly wanted to identify was the support for members with physical or sensory impairments. I think this is a really positive step forward for this Parliament. In doing this we are providing for entitlements to services to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments. At this point I want to acknowledge the Green MP Mojo Mathers for her role in ensuring that these matters have really come to be seen as important and that they require dealing with. This bill is part of that. We need to ensure that this House is truly representative and that any member of Parliament who is here has the right support and the ability to do their job of representing New Zealanders and I think that it is a very positive thing indeed that the provisions have been made within this bill.I would also just note that I think this was done in a reasonably cross-party manner as well. This is separate from this bill but I just comment that recently work was done around the needs of members of Parliament with family responsibilities and I recently saw an article about Holly Walker and her baby. I guess that while I am talking about Holly I will congratulate her on that. I acknowledge that she is getting leave to look after her new baby which I think is a very positive thing indeed. We want to ensure—Hon Trevor Mallard: The baby frequents thePētone cafes.CAROL BEAUMONT: The baby frequents cafes? At such a young age too. But it is positive that we can ensure that this place is truly representative and the fact that people can come into Parliament and you know have their families and still do their job is a positive thing and one that should be acknowledged. As I have said members of Parliament with physical or sensory impairments as is provided for in this bill are also able to come to this House and do their job.I think that we sought—and the select committee worked hard on this I understand—to ensure that the bill does achieve that appropriate balance between the interests of ensuring that members do get properly supported in carrying out their roles and functions and maintaining the confidence of Parliament on the other hand. Moving many of the matters to the Remuneration Authority which is independent from members of Parliament rather than having matters be determined primarily by the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has I believe improved that. With that I would like to commend this bill to the House.Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to take a very brief call on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. It is important that the public has confidence in the regime for setting the entitlements of members of Parliament and Ministers. This bill puts more power in the hands of independent decision makers. The Government is committed to having MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements determined in a transparent independent and non-partisan manner and the Government has already taken action to improve transparency including the regular disclosure of travel and documentation costs.This action is being taken a step further by making disclosure a requirement in this bill. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is my fault that the member has had to hurry back to his seat—we were conversing. This is down for a 5-minute call so I am calling Grant Robertson. I do not know whether the Green Party is taking a split call on this bill. Is it?Gareth Hughes: We are.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK. So it is 5-minute call to Grant Robertson.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and my apologies to the House for having to sort out some matters of logistics there with the Assistant Speaker.Hon Paula Bennett: Good to see you run.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. My only exercise for the day Ms Bennett—I will do my best. The important points I wanted to get across about this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill are the extent to which this is actually about the how of remuneration not the what. I think that an important consideration for members of the public who are watching this debate is that what is being debated today is the way in which the salaries of members of Parliament the allowances for members of Parliament and other matters are dealt with rather than the exact amount that members of Parliament are paid or the exact amount of travel entitlements—or travel privileges rather—that we may have.Hon Trevor Mallard: Travel expenses.GRANT ROBERTSON: Business expenses in fact as my colleague Trevor Mallard says and he is very right in that regard. Something that I think members of the public perhaps sometimes find difficult to understand about the way in which parliamentarians are serviced and resourced and how they are paid is around that question of travel.Obviously what the bill does is make some changes to the arrangements whereby the Remuneration Authority will be responsible for accommodation the travel of family members and the travel privileges for former members while the Speaker retains the responsibility for MPs’ travel. The reason from the Government Administration Committee for that as I understand it is that MPs’ travel is essentially a business expense—it is a business role. The reason for travel by MPs is to undertake our duties.I have often thought that one of the issues here is that when most people go on an aeroplane or travel they are going on holiday and that is what they associate the act of travelling on an aeroplane with. Not me as the MP for Wellington Central—there are no flights from Wilton down to Parliament—but most of the members of Parliament who are here get on an aeroplane to go to work and for MPs the 1-hour commute from Auckland to Wellington is like driving on the motorway in Auckland. I know and I can understand and appreciate why members of the public who generally find themselves on flights when they are lucky enough to be able to go on holiday might associate air travel in a way that is somehow or other to do with holidays. It is not in this particular instance; it is to do with our role as parliamentarians.I further understand that part of the justification given by the select committee for not moving MPs’ travel to the Remuneration Authority is that the potential end result of doing that could be that a member of Parliament was unable to fulfil their duty as a parliamentarian. They would effectively breach privilege and not be here as a parliamentarian potentially as the result of a decision by the Remuneration Authority and that is what distinguishes travel by MPs from the other privileges that are now being handed over to the Remuneration Authority.I have to say that from a personal point of view I find this whole thing unsatisfactory. Labour will be voting for this bill because it is the consensus that was come to by parties at the select committee and it is important on issues like this that we work on the basis of a consensus and a unanimous approach but I personally believe that the whole issue requires further work.There were other proposals provided that I personally think could merit consideration. I have heard proposals that the salaries of MPs are set at the start of the 3-year term and it is left as that for that whole 3-year term and everybody has the same expectations about what those salaries would be. They would be set by the previous Parliament potentially and then be carried on by a new Parliament. Another idea is the one that you could index the payments to inflation. I think there are a lot of other ways.For me this is a very awkward piece of legislation. It tries to fix some problems which I think it does quite well particularly around MPs with physical and sensory impairments. It deals with the question of the absences of MPs and the deduction of salaries in a much better way which actually acknowledges the fact that if people are absent without the authorised leave they should suffer a proper penalty for that. I think the bill has dealt well with those matters. What I am less comfortable about is that we have got a bit of a muddle of arrangements around the privileges and travel and I do believe that we will probably end up revisiting this. However this is the consensus and we are prepared to support it on that basis.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak in support of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I do not think there is anything that probably excites the talkback callers and gives the newspaper cartoonists more creative ideas than MPs’ remuneration and so-called perks. If we are going to have a public that have confidence in our Parliament and our elected representatives it is critical that we get this right. The Green Party believes we are making a step in the right direction with this bill and that is why we will be supporting it.Obviously it is something that we have talked about for an awfully long time in this Parliament. For 10 years or more the Greens have been the ones championing having a transparent regime when it comes to expenses when it comes to travel and when it comes to pay because not only is it the right thing and the reason that the public could have more confidence in us but it is also the way that we can make the right decisions in our daily lives. We have seen it on the front pages of the papers in New Zealand and around the world particularly in the UK. It is critical that we get this right. Transparency and sunlight are an important part of it. Ultimately it comes down to your principles and the Green Party’s core principle is appropriate decision-making.When you see the cartoons of the pigs with their heads in the trough it is obviously not appropriate to have those who are benefiting from the decisions being the ones making them. That is why for a long time we have called for an independent body to set our pay our travel and our accommodation entitlements so that we can do our work.I would like to say that the Greens can quite proudly take a bit of credit for some of the movement we have seen in New Zealand. At the time of the superannuation scandals that we saw in this Parliament it was the Greens who voluntarily decided in 2009 to release publicly our expense accounts. Now Parliament has followed suit which is a very positive step. Metiria Turei back in around 2009 I think it was put a motion to the Parliamentary Service Commission which is part of the reason that we are here today. It was great to see the Law Commission’s report in 2009.What we see in this bill are some steps in the right direction. We see the so-called Chris Carter clause—the $10 maximum penalty per day for MPs absent without leave—finally being increased to a meaningful amount. We see the voluntary disclosure regimefor MPs’ travel and accommodation become statutory. And quite rightly we celebrate with other parties in Parliament new clause 17(1)(ab) where entitlements to services should be determined in a way that has regard to the particular requirements of any members in Parliament with physical or sensory impairments.It was a bit of a battle behind the scenes to get the appropriate services so that Mojo Mathers could do her job as New Zealand’s first profoundly deaf MP. It is unfortunate that we had to push and we had to struggle to get there but I am glad that our Parliament has got there and now we are doing the right thing in terms of this legislation. I am sure that we will deal with that in the Standing Orders review as well. We are doing the right thing because any MP with an impairment be it physical or sensory should be able to represent their community their electors in this Parliament. What this Parliament should not be doing is sending the message to those Kiwis with those sensory or physical impairments that it is going to be harder for your party or your colleagues if you are in the House. That is why we think it is important that a strong message is sent. Their voices are valued in this House of Representatives and it is great to see that in this legislation.Where we had difficulty with this legislation was in the original proposal both by the Law Commission and in the original first reading copy of the bill and that was to have the travel and accommodation entitlements dealt with by the Remuneration Authority. We still believe that that is the appropriate venue for this. We do not think it is appropriate to put that back on the Speaker’s shoulders. Obviously I think that transparency and appropriate decision-making are critical. That is why Metiria Turei has Supplementary Order Paper 369 in front of this House to try to ameliorate this.I think the arguments around MPs’ travel to and from Wellington are spurious. Obviously MPs have to do it. But the core of the matter is who makes the decisions who sets the rates. Instead of the Speaker of Parliament setting them it should be an independent authority. It is critically important that Parliament sorts out these issues so that the public can have confidence in us and so we can have appropriate decision-making. That is why I think we obviously need to have an independent body to set our travel and accommodation entitlements.I think it is high time that this Parliament and members of this House got rid of their voluntary personal travel perk. It is a perk. I voluntarily renounced it when I entered this Parliament in 2009. What we need to do is make Parliamentary Service travel expenses able to be requested under the Official Information Act and obviously we need to do a lot more to clean up the system. Kia ora.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of theMinister of Labour: I moveThat the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair David Bennett for dealing with this important bill so swiftly and efficiently and for reporting it back to the House earlier than scheduled. I would also like to thank those who made submissions on the bill. The select committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments and I agree with the amendments proposed.This bill is the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy by the end of this year. The first part of the bill establishes the stand-alone agencyWorkSafe New Zealand. In relation to the board ofWorkSafe submitters were unclear as to whom the phrase “workplace participants” referred. Some were concerned that knowledge and experience of the workers’ perspectives were not clearly stated in the skill set for the board. This clause has been amended to refer to perspectives of workers and perspectives of employers to provide clarity. The objective ofWorkSafe has also been amended to align with the Australian Model Work Health and Safety Act which will be the basis for new legislation that will replace the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 as was announced in August.WorkSafe’s main objective will be to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces. This sends a strong signal ofWorkSafe’s intent in the health and safety system from the outset.Part 2 of the bill provides the necessary statutory support for the new mining regulations. The issue that attracted the most attention from submitters both in response to the Safe mines: safe workers consultation document and in response to the bill was whether quarries should be included in the new regulatory regime. There are about 1000 quarries in New Zealand and by far the majority of them are small operations with just a handful of employees. The Government supports the conclusion that quarries and alluvial mining operations do not entail the same level of hazard as other mining operations and should be removed from the definition of a mining operation. However the quarry industry recognises that it needs to raise health and safety standards and it is commencing work with officials to develop in the first instance a set of guidelines for health and safety. The intention is that these will form the basis for quarry-specific regulations in the future.Several key changes have also been made to the functions and powers of site health and safety representatives. Many submitters argued that the bill should explicitly set out all the functions and powers necessary for site health and safety representatives to do an effective job. Accordingly two new functions have been added. These are a general function to represent mine workers in matters relating to health and safety and a function carried over from the current health and safety framework to promote the interests of mine workers who are harmed at work. To exercise the powers relating to inspection and stopping work site health and safety representatives are required to meet certain prescribed competency standards. This has not changed. What has changed is that site representatives will not have to hold these competencies before they put themselves up for election. It was felt that this would unnecessarily limit candidates for the role. Instead the representatives will not be able to exercise these particular powers until they have received the necessary training. To address concerns relating to information that health and safety representatives will have access to as they carry out their functions as raised by some industry submitters a confidentiality provision has been added.Other changes include adding an immunity from liability provision for health and safety representatives adding a positive duty on mine operators to ensure that site representatives have sufficient time and access to facilities to enable them to carry out their functions and exercise their powers and permitting mine workers to elect a temporary health and safety representative while an appeal against the removal of a representative is under way.The committee heard a range of views from submitters on the issue of the scope of industry health and safety representatives otherwise known as check inspectors. We agree with the committee that they are appointed only for the underground coalmining sector as was recommended by the Pike River royal commission. Although all themining operations that are proposed to be covered by the new regime have principal hazards there is a substantial additional risk in the underground coal sector that relates to the presence of methane. The vast majority of multiple fatality incidents in the mining industry in the past 100 years has occurred in this sector. The Government considers that this is where the resource of industry health and safety representatives—the extra set of eyes and ears the extra line of defence—that the royal commission spoke of is best targeted. The final part of the bill ensures that the legislation that supports the mine’s rescue service is fit for purpose and minor amendments have been recommended by the committee.The changes recommended by the committee reflect a balanced and careful consideration of the wide range of comments made by submitters. They clarify the provisions establishingWorkSafe New Zealand they reflect a sensible conclusion on which sectors of the mining industry should be included in the scope of the legislation and they further strengthen the worker participation arrangements at mining operations.I would like to take this opportunity to signal the intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. The proposed changes will support the proposed inter-agency protocol for responding to major underground mining emergencies in particular by recognising the functions of the incident controller who will take the lead in determining how the emergency response proceeds. This protocol has been developed in response to a recommendation of the royal commission. These issues were not able to be included in the bill as introduced as the protocol was still in development and had yet to be tested which occurred earlier this month. The Supplementary Order Paper will also include an amendment that will enable any surplus levy collected to cover the costs of the mine’s rescue service to be used when necessary to build up and maintain the trust’s reserve fund for dealing with mining emergencies.Once again I would like to thank the select committee and all those involved in expediting the progress of this important bill. We owe this to the workers who lost their lives at Pike River to their families and to all current and future workers in the mining industry. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and to acknowledge that although this bill has been motivated and activated by the tragic and disastrous events of Pike River the issues underpinning it actually predate that dreadful event.I refer to a paper prepared by the Department of Labour in September 2008 in which it analysed the problems with the current framework for health and safety. One of the problems it identified was what it described as “a lack of procedural guidance on employee participation” which “leaves underground mining potentially open to commercial pressures and day-to-day worksite management decisions”. So it is right to look at this bill it having now been through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee against the problem that was identified even 2 years before the Pike River tragedy.Although there are many aspects of this bill that we find favour with—and on that basis we will be supporting it—there are nevertheless some concerns that we continue to have. It is good that the bill legislates for an independent stand-alone health and safety agency. It is something that for some time had been called for. That is in place in the form ofWorkSafe New Zealand.The disappointing aspect of the bill at present is the governance ofWorkSafe New Zealand and not just the governance but the power to establish advisory groups in it. In putting the board ofWorkSafe New Zealand together the relevant Minister is required to “have regard to the need to ensure” that the body has certain people amongst itsmembership. There is no requirement to have any specific category of person or a person from a relevant organisation; it is simply that the Minister has regard to the need.And then there are the particular classes of skill or competency described in clause 7 of the bill. After it talks about public sector governance and central government processes—we need people experienced in those—it goes on to describe people who have “perspectives of workers:” and people who have “perspectives of employers:”. We are now so diluting exactly what we are trying to get to here. This was modelled on the British Health and Safety Executive. When that was established in 1974 it was absolutely clear that they were people who came out of employers’ organisations people who came out of unions and workers’ organisations and people who were there to represent the Government. That is what we should have. That was in the 1974 British legislation about setting up a genuinely tripartite process.This bill in its current wording does not do that. It does not speak to tripartism. It speaks to the old neo-liberal public management theory which we have had for the last 30 years. In my submission it is inadequate and if it progresses in this current form and indeed this is the basis on whichWorkSafe New Zealand is established it will be found to be inadequate.The bill goes on to say under clause 8 that the governing board ofWorkSafe New Zealand can establish advisory groups. They are described as providing “a forum for dialogue … between the Government employers and workers”. So that is the level of tripartism. It is not about genuinely sharing decision making; it is about providing a forum for dialogue. So we think that the bill does not go far enough in providing a genuinely tripartite process and a shared decision-making process for employers and for workers through their unions.The next aspect that I want to draw attention to relates to the scope of the bill particularly in relation to the new workplace health and safety procedures—the establishment of what are now described as “site health and safety representatives” and “industry health and safety representatives”. When it comes to site health and safety representatives it is interesting that that part of it and indeed the entire bill now excludes quarrying which originally was included in the bill.Quarries are still unsafe places or at least are hazardous places. There are plenty of hazards in quarries no matter how big or small an employer the quarry owner might be. I have to say we take no comfort from the representations of the member Michael Woodhouse who just spoke on behalf of the Minister of Labour and seems to draw a distinction between the big employer and the small employer. When you are a worker the size of the workforce does not matter; it is the work that you do that is hazardous or dangerous not the size of your employer. So drawing these artificial distinctions is not helpful.We take no comfort from the fact that quarrying and indeed gold mining and other alluvial mining are to be excluded from this legislation. It is encouraging to see that tunnelling is still included at least in so far as site health and safety representatives are included. We should bear in mind that it is only a matter of a few weeks ago that we saw the aftermath of probably one of the worst tunnelling accidents we have had in this country where gas that had accumulated in a tunnel in an urban area ignited and blew up. It killed one person it blew the legs off another and it endangered and injured many others. So we should not see that tunnelling is any safer than indeed underground coalmining. It is still capable of being unsafe because of the build-up of gases whether they are natural piped or whatever.The unfortunate thing is that although tunnelling is covered by the site health and safety representative provisions of this bill the industry health and safety representative provisions do not include tunnelling. They are confined solely to undergroundcoalmining. There is no question that the piece of legislation animated and inspired by the tragic events of Pike River is of course going to cover underground coalmining. But as the royal commission takes pains to point out in its report the reality is that although it is talking about an incident an event a tragedy that arose in the underground coalmining industry—Pike River—many of its findings have a wider application. So it is disappointing that when it comes to a very innovative provision—at least innovative for New Zealand; not innovative for other parts of the world—it has been confined to that very small part of the industry underground coalmining.Nevertheless it is good to see that where workers and their unions are of a mind to do so they can appoint an industry health and safety representative. That will have some real power and ability to make some real difference and do some real things. If I can go back it is encouraging actually to see that the site health and safety representative will have some real power as well—some power to intervene and to stop work where necessary subject to requirements of good faith and subject to the obligation to communicate clearly and effectively with the employer. A site health and safety representative elected by workers will have the power to go directly to inspectors—go outside the business—and also to directly take steps to stop work where it is regarded as unsafe and unhealthy. I think that is a welcome provision.It is going to be interesting to see how well-supported that is particularly byWorkSafe New Zealand and its staff—its inspectors. If there was one thing that was consistent in the flavour of many of the submissions by employers that went to the select committee it was “Oh yes we think we need to do a lot more about health and safety but we don’t want anybody having these sorts of powers.” Employers particularly those that do not have unions or union representatives in the workplace appear to be in their submissions concerned about this possibility. They should not be concerned. If anything it is the workforces in those places that should feel encouraged and at least now have a greater sense of safety and a greater sense of confidence that they can go about their work knowing that somebody working shoulder to shoulder with them knows what is going on and has the power now to make meaningful steps to ensure health and safety in the workplace. So we welcome those things. We will have some slight changes to make in the Committee stage of this bill to improve I think these aspects.Just one final point on the mines rescue provisions of the bill is that it is disappointing to see that no provision has been made to confirm that the Mines Rescue trust controls a future incident.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to follow on from the first two speeches on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill in its second reading. I thought that we had two very good speeches from the Minister and also from Andrew Little. I would just like to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the way that they have engaged in working through this bill. Mike Sabin did a great job as deputy chairperson. Other members of the committee travelled throughout the country. We went to Westport to hear firsthand from the community and families down there. I just want to acknowledge Damien O’Connor who was there with us that day and pay respect to the community and to the families involved.That tragedy has led to this bill effectively coming before the House. There are three main strands in the bill. The first area is the creation ofWorkSafe New Zealand. This is a new workplace health and safety agency a Crown entity that I think all parties in this Parliament will see a lot of benefit from. There may be some debate around how it is comprised and some of its effectiveness in the sense of the rules around how it applies to certain situations. It is a huge initiative in the health and safety area and Ithink all parties here will acknowledge that it is a major change in health and safety in New Zealand a change that we all support and we look forward to its implementation over time. It will also necessarily evolve and will take different forms as it goes through its different functions but we have a very strong starting point at this time.The second part of the bill amends the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 to support new initiatives around the management of hazards in the mining industry. The major change here since the select committee hearing has been in regard to the differentiation between coal and other forms of mining. The guts of it is that in a coalmine there is the potential for methane gas to build up. That then creates the potential for an explosion which then creates the potential for loss of life and injury. In the situation of a coalmine it is reflected in the higher standard of rules that are required from other types of mining where there is not such a perceived risk because there is not the build-up of methane. So essentially that is the Australian approach and it is the one that has been adopted in this bill. It is something that is practical but it also serves the purpose of dealing with the issue of methane build-up in coalmines. Part 3 of the bill creates a new Mines Rescue Act 2013 replacing the Mines Rescue Trust Act of 1992. As has been noted by other speakers that involves a number of procedural issues around making the role and functions of the Mines Rescue Trust better reflect the current environment.So overall this is very solid bill. I would once again like to thank all members of this House and the parties for the way that they have conducted the inquiry and also looking at the rules to make sure that we get the best result for our communities and also for our industries that are involved. This is a successful bill that reflects that. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I would like to firstly say that whether by good design or divine intervention—whatever—it is appropriate that the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill comes into the House today after we have seen for a day or so down on the West Coast an operation that starts the process of re-entering the mine to try to firstly recover any of the bodies of the 29 men who may be in the drift and secondly find out more information that may contribute to understanding what happened almost 3 years ago down at Pike River. I think the families who will be closely monitoring what is happening on the coast and may be monitoring what is happening in the House here should be comforted in some small way by the fact that that terrible tragedy has led to this legislation and it has taught each and every one of us in Parliament some lessons and hopefully I guess the whole of New Zealand some lessons. One thing that the families have come to accept for some time is that all the wonderful words that come from Parliament mean nothing and all the best legislation means nothing unless it is implemented with some sound mind with some practical implementation and with a proper level of resourcing.The bill is as has been said by previous speakers in three parts. It is a good piece of progressive legislation. It is not the answer to all health and safety in New Zealand. Indeed we are going to have to do a lot from Parliament all the way down through the system including resourcing to ensure that we have better health and safety in this country across all industries not just in mining. The reality is that we have an abysmal record. There are too many families—not just 29 from Pike River but in fact tens and tens of families across this country—every year who lose their loved ones through workplace health and safety accidents. We each have a responsibility in Parliament here to do whatever we can to stop that.In 1992 there was a naive piece of legislation passed one that effectively relied on the market and on industry to implement the highest standards of health and safety that we expected—well that we should expect in a First World country. All the testing andteasing and prodding of that legislation the Health and Safety in Employment Act over a number of years really did not give rise to any major change. I received a response from the Minister in 2010 prior to the terrible tragedy at Pike River and I will quote it because it does reflect the attitude that prevailed from 1992 until 2010: “The legislation reflects the fact that employers”—whom I am talking about—“are in a good position to understand the hazards arising in the workplace and are best placed to take steps to control them.” Well there is probably a lot of truth in that statement. The question was when they did not control them what then? Unfortunately that is what happened at Pike River. The risks were known to so many. The day-to-day deficiencies were known to the company but action was not taken. So what this piece of legislation is doing in part is starting to bring back in a regulatory regime that will place clear impositions and responsibilities on employers and employees too to make sure that action is taken where risks are identified. The sad response that I got which I read from time to time is hopefully a response that no one should ever see from a Government Minister again.We have had a number of inquiries—the royal commission—and we have had a long and agonising process for the families and we have had some sound wisdom lessons and recommendations come from that process. As I say the families should be comforted in some small way that their loss has not meant inaction. Their loss has not been wasted in any way on the collective wisdom that should be brought to Parliament. I acknowledge the Government for getting on with the job of changing legislation. But if you go to the proposals for reform coming from the summary document here one of the things that was said is that “The Pike River tragedy was preventable but administrative and regulatory reforms are urgently needed to reduce the likelihood of further tragedies.” We are almost 3 years on. I would not call it urgent. It has taken some time. I acknowledge that the bill is here and that there is some other stuff to come before Parliament but we have been told these things before and it is the responsibility of any Government—at this point it is the National Government—to get on and do things in a more timely manner.Dare I say there are some lessons around forestry that we are hearing on a regular basis and we have yet to see action in that area. This legislation will help but actually we will need more acute focus on forestry to prevent people being killed in that industry on a very regular basis. So the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy must be applied across the board. Urgent action is required. I do not want to have to as a parliamentarian face any more families with comfort with my sympathy and with all the support I can offer but not with the replacement of their loved person who has been killed in a workplace accident.The recommendations are sound and I am hoping that the Government keeps to them. The next proposal which refers to the need for administrative reforms says: “Oversight of health and safety planning should start early in the life cycle of a mining project.” There are mining projects proposed in fact offKaikōura for example deep-sea drilling and we have got Bathurst Resources on the West Coast and I need to be reassured that health and safety is right up alongside capital raising and basic environmental planning because it is worthy of that first-line consideration. Unfortunately what we saw was that everything else was planned for and the lessons of Pike River are clear but health and safety was just an add-on. It cannot be like that. Just as we have incorporated environmental planning into the first part of any mining project any building project and any economic project in this country health and safety must be part of that as well.I hope that the legislation in the setting up ofWorkSafe New Zealand sets up an agency that is well resourced that can check on every proposed project and that can ensure that health and safety is part of the planning alongside capital and alongsideenvironmental management. I hope that the Government follows through with the resourcing to ensure that happens.The other two parts incorporated into the legislation to amend the 1992 Act take into account the unique aspects of mining and all underground operations and quarrying. I think that is essential and that has been widely acknowledged. Can I say that in Part 3 the setting up of Mines Rescue or giving it more authority and more autonomy and the need for more resources is just as urgent. Some of the problems that occurred at Pike River at the time of the accident were because of uncertain authority through Mines Rescue. That cannot ever happen again. The people with the wisdom and the knowledge who are on the ground should be the ones making the decisions not some person sitting on their chuff in Wellington as happened with the Pike River tragedy. It would never have brought back the lives of those 29 men but it is imperative upon each and every one of us that we support this legislation to make sure that prevention occurs at every step of the workplace operations and that whenever an accident occurs we have the right systems in place to deal with it.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Can I begin by expressing my gratitude for the hard work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee officials and officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment who supported the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in our work. I thank all those who made submissions. I thank David Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I thank other committee members especially for the trip the committee made to Greymouth to hear submissions. It was an arduous trip because of the circumstances on the day but it was one that I know my community particularly appreciated.The Green Party will be supporting the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill at its second reading but we are doing so disturbed by the failure of the Government to grasp in a wholehearted way the opportunity that existed to meet this challenge. As members know I live close to the site of the Pike River mine and I have been closely involved in the aftermath of the tragedy. I have had three main objectives: firstly to recover the bodies of the 29 men who were killed in the disaster if that is at all possible; secondly to investigate and get to the bottom of what occurred or what caused that tragedy; and thirdly to improve the systems that we use in order that such tragedies can be avoided in the future in so far as we are able to do that.As Damien O’Connor said as we sit here in the House today debating this bill a helicopter clatters over the mine site on the coast doing the preparatory work to begin a recovery operation finally 3 long agonising years after the disaster occurred. We hope that it may be possible to recover at least some of the men. We hope also that it may be possible to recover some evidence to fill some of the gaps that still exist in our understanding of what exactly happened what went wrong and how that might be prevented in the future. I call on the House to consider what we owe those men and their families and to live up to those responsibilities.The royal commission of inquiry met its responsibilities and it can be well satisfied with a truly excellent job. But what of us in this House? With the honourable exception of the brief period when the Hon Chris Finlayson acted as the Minister of Labour the Government has dragged the chain and I believe shamed the House at every point.First of all John Key tried to defend the Government’s performance on mine safety saying that our standards were no less than those in Australia and that our safety record was very good. All of the subsequent facts that have emerged have illustrated just how contemptibly wide of the mark those claims were but typical of a Government whose first reaction to anything that goes wrong is the Bart Simpson - like “It wasn’t me. It’s not my fault. You can’t prove a thing.” Then to restore the mines inspectorate to morethan a pathetic capacity with a High Hazards Unit took literally months and months of determined pressure on the former Minister of Labour even though that was a measure that had near unanimous endorsement from everyone except the Government.The Government’s next stall was on the review of legislation and regulation something else that should have been an absolute no-brainer. But to give Kate Wilkinson some credit she did set up a genuine process and she did seek to inform and involve Opposition parties. I wonder now whether that is the reason for her demotion by John Key. She was too open to a genuine review of legislation and regulations in this area. I was certainly astonished when the Prime Minister in response to my questions in the House indicated that contrary to the conclusions of the royal commission and the Hon Chris Finlayson he did not accept that deregulation had played a crucial role in creating the environment where the Pike River disaster could occur. In fact the Prime Minister demonstrates his adherence to the same discredited neo-liberal agenda that caused the problem in the first place.Experienced miners and mine safety experts warned—they were extremely clear at the time—that the Bill Birch and Max Bradford theory that the State should just leave private companies to get on with health and safety would lead to deaths in mine disasters and they were right. The problem that the Government now has is that with 29 men lying dead in Pike River mine it is hard for it to wriggle out of implementing the recommendations of either the royal commission or the health and safety task force so instead we hear grand words about honour but implementation falls short of what is really needed.This is a Government that is still committed to the neo-liberal agenda. It is viscerally opposed to greater State control over the operation of private businesses and it despises the idea of greater regulation or greater say for unions on behalf of working people. Working people are supposed to be just a labour input into the firm. That is what lies at the heart of the shortcomings of this bill. It does many good things but falls well short of what is required and I have addressed some of the main points in my minority view in the select committee report.For example officials struggled to explain why a representative tripartite structure was not adopted for the board ofWorkSafe New Zealand. I do not recall a single submission opposing it and there were certainly plenty strongly endorsing it from both unions and business leaders. It was recommended very strongly by the task force. Actually the reason it is not in this bill has nothing to do with rational analysis of the submissions and everything to do with a Government that is strongly opposed to tripartism with its implications of shared power and shared accountability with business and especially with working people.This central flaw is compounded by giving the board powers that fall short of those recommended by the task force and fall short of givingWorkSafe adequate teeth to deal with employers who are not persuaded to meet their legal health and safety duties. Indeed as I said in my minority view the functions in this bill are a pretty good description of the way the Department of Labour mines inspectors went about their job at the time of the Pike River disaster which resulted of course in catastrophic failure to detect and correct the many and glaring faults in the systems of Pike River Coal Ltd.I am also deeply disturbed that the Government has caved in response to pressure from quarrying companies and narrowed the scope of operations covered by the reinstatement of the triangle of safety set out in Part 2 of the bill. For anyone who sat through the evidence heard by the royal commission or who has read the royal commission’s report one of the clearest conclusions was that the disaster was not the result of a single risk factor; rather the disaster occurred because multiple failings lined up on the day. Defences against harm in legislation regulation enforcement companypolicy company operating procedures training worker behaviour equipment and many other areas all contain the potential for error and the disaster was the result of some combination of these. So to now take one single risk factor the risk of explosion and say that where this risk exists we will bolster safety systems with check inspectors but in other analogous situations where that particular risk does not exist we are going to do nothing is a total failure to understand even the most basic conclusion from the royal commission.In my first reading speech I quoted Bill Brazil a mining safety expert who said in 1995: “Furthermore the [Health and Safety in Employment] Act is being used as a manipulative device to eliminate management structures and many historically formed mining codes of practice that were firmly established in the heart of previous legislation much of which has proved successful over 100 years. Should this situation be allowed to continue without intervention the end result can only be the escalation of potential for further disaster.” I would say that in the failures by this Government to wholeheartedly implement the recommendations of the royal commission and the task force the Government instead aligns itself with those responsible for that fatal manipulation of health and safety law in the first place. The 29 men deserve better.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I just want to acknowledge the contributions of Damien O’Connor and Mr Little on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Both are people with knowledge and experience in this area and I appreciate the contributions they made to the House. I would just point out though that Mr O’Connor mentioned the 3 years that have passed since the Pike River disaster. It is a valid comment but it would not have been sensible or in fact proper to put legislation in place before the royal commission of inquiry came out in October of last year. I think the Government certainly has moved to take heed of that inquiry. Indeed we will still find out in the months and years to come what has come about as a result of the terrible Pike River disaster.I also want to comment on what Mr O’Connor said and as has been alluded to by others that there was no one failing in this. The legacy of that disaster is threaded through this legislation but actually in any workplace tragedy looking back rearward as we must do it is important to identify a number of factors. Of course a lot of those factors are human. A lot of those factors are outside control. Some of the factors are inside control. What I think this bill actually looks to do is put in place some of those hard lessons learnt and not only honour those who lost their lives in that tragedy but also make sure that as many of thosecontrollables as possible can be lined up and responded to. But I must stress that with this or any other matter when it comes to the workplace it will always be a collection of a number of factors that contribute to things going badly wrong. This bill is one part of a solution—an enduring part of a solution I hope—but there are many others. I am happy to commend it to the House.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. We welcome the changes that this will make to our mining sector. We know that it is the start of change and we look forward to further change throughout. Health and safety in a workplace is absolutely paramount. Every worker has the right to return home at the end of their working day and to return home unharmed. We firmly believe that. In New Zealand First we agree like every other party in the House with much of the royal commission report on the Pike River tragedy and we are happy to now see that many of the recommendations have been heard and are to be implemented. We must commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done on this bill. We welcome the changes that have been suggested and we look forward to the Committee stage where the Minister of Labour has indicated that there will be furtherchanges. Labour has also indicated that it has got some changes to suggest. We will look forward to reading those and considering those.However as I said in my first reading speech on this bill we are very sad that it took such a devastating tragedy and 29 deaths to make the necessary changes to improve the health and safety regulations in the mining sector. We extend our thoughts and our sympathies again to the friends and families of those involved in the Pike River tragedy and we look forward to this legislation which will help to make improvements in order to minimise the occurrence of any such tragedy in the future. Of course we realise that a bill can never ever eliminate a tragedy of this nature from occurring again but the focus on health and safety will be increased and this will help with what is currently happening. The current position is totally unacceptable. We need to give workers a greater sense of safety in their own workplaces.TheWorkSafe New Zealand agency which is going to be established under this bill is a good step forward. We like how it has been absolutely listed in this particular bill how the board is to be made up—at least five members and no more than nine—and the list of the criteria that the members of the board must have has been clearly outlined in the legislation. We do need to ensure that these people on the board are not party political and that it does follow these guidelines so that whenever there is a change of Government there is not a total change of theWorkSafe board. So we were happy with that. We did have some concerns about the agency but we are pleased that the recommendations have been clearly set out. We particularly support the recommendation to change the wording aroundWorkSafe’s main objectives in clause 9(1): “WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective is to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” We believe that this is a step forward from the wording originally in this Bill. This means that this agency will take a stronger role in protecting the safety of workers and that is absolutely essential. A sole Government agency of this nature ought to have centralised responsibility for ensuring responsible health and safety practices are undertaken and these amendments actually underline that necessity.The bill also provides amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act of 1992. The change will see clear new mining regulations such as processes for better managing hazards increasing the minimum standards requirements for health and safety standards and strengthened training and competency requirements. I am very passionate about that latter requirement. The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy focus on this was principally on underground mines. However the changes in this bill will make it focus more on all of the mine operations due to the particular hazards that they present. The royal commission saw a number of contributing factors to the Pike River mine disaster and we have heard how there was a coming together of many different factors that resulted in this disaster.The amendments of the committee have reduced the coverage of Part 2 of the bill in line with the suggestion from the royal commission that this should be expanded rather than narrowed. We are also aware that unions have voiced their concerns around this issue. In New Zealand First we have always supported an increase in health and safety regulations for our workers including broad coverage. Having read through the royal commission report New Zealand First is inclined to agree that there were quite a number of safety issues that went unaddressed. Failures across a number of Government departments and sections of Pike River management contributed to this tragedy. To this end New Zealand First believes that it would be counter-productive to identify any factor that resulted in the Pike River tragedy. We have welcomed the royal commission’s findings and now this bill and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee amendments which on the whole greatly improve the bill.Again New Zealand First extends our utmost sympathies to the family and friends of the deceased. We will be supporting this bill to make a much-needed improvement to the mining sector and we believe that it is a great step forward towards protecting the health and safety of our workers here in New Zealand.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a great honour to speak on the second reading of this particular bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill coinciding as it does with the commencement yesterday of drift re-entry at Pike River. This omnibus bill enacts recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It establishesWorkSafe New Zealand a new workplace health and safety agency; it amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; and it creates a new Mines Rescue Act 2013.There are many physical memorials to those who lost their lives at Pike River. These memorials each express dignity grief remorse and loss. I like to think that the effects of this bill which incorporates the recommendations of the royal commission will be as enduring as granite and as lasting as a carbon memorial. The implementation of this bill will bring us closer to ensuring that mining—risky adventurous profitable occupation that it is—will continue to be one of New Zealand’s economic building blocks and not the stumbling block that some have perceived it to be. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I am joining with the others in speaking on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill in its second reading and saying that of course Labour supports this bill but we do so with some reservations. As my colleague Andrew Little has said in the Committee stage we will be looking at a number of Supplementary Order Papers. Obviously the purpose of this bill is absolutely to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and to a large extent that is what is happening. That is appropriate and important. The main elements are the setting up of the new workplace health and safety agencyWorkSafe New Zealand; amending the Health and Safety in Employment Act to better manage hazards in the mining industry; and creating a new Mines Rescue Act which will update the regime for how mine rescues are carried out.I want to start by acknowledging the extent of the tragedy of 19 November 2010 when 29 workers lost their lives and the ongoing suffering of their families. But also as colleagues from the West Coast have noted we are debating this bill at a time when work is now going on to try to re-enter the mine and to retrieve the bodies of those workers. I am sure that we all hope that that is a successful operation. This tragedy was huge It was one of the worst health and safety tragedies we have had in this country. It is worth noting as we debate this bill that when people go to work they should expect to return home safely and their families should expect that they will return home safely even if they are working in dangerous industries like mining or quarrying. Legislation like this is important. Particularly in the legislation the focus around worker participation in ensuring health and safety is absolutely fundamental. To that extent it is really pleasing to see the emphasis on that because in many ways this tragedy was the result of deregulation of failing to ensure that workers had strong voices around health and safety and of failing to ensure that people who were contractors or subcontractors were involved in health and safety decisions.By way of preliminary comments I want to say that we should acknowledge those who have fought so hard to stand up for workers’ health and safety rights and there are many people. Two I want to acknowledge in this contribution have both been presidents of the Council of Trade Unions: former president Ross Wilson who devoted much of his working life to trying to progress health and safety rights and the current presidentHelen Kelly who I think is doing an amazing job in drawing to this country’s attention the tragedy of what is going on in the forestry industry and how unsafe that industry is.I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which considered this bill but in reading the report from the select committee I think I was particularly interested in the comments around the contributions that the Pike River families made to the select committee. They expressed to the committee the inexperience and lack of training of the workers operating and monitoring sophisticated machinery the use of unproven technology—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CAROL BEAUMONT: Before the dinner break I was acknowledging the work of the select committee and talking particularly about how its members spoke in Greymouth with the Pike River families. I was noting that the key concerns expressed to the select committee by the families included the inexperience and lack of training of workers operating and monitoring sophisticated machinery the use of unproven technology a lack of communication and coordination high staff turnover and the adverse incentives and pressures engendered by remuneration arrangements in which bonuses featured predominantly.I have to say that I think that is a very important part of the report because actually health and safety happen in a context. They happen in a context of how work is organised. They happen in a context of whether or not there are workers who feel empowered to have their say. They happen in a context of the arrangements around people’s working time. I thought that that was a very important comment made by the Pike River families and I want to acknowledge them for contributing that to the report. We can only hope that in particular the part of this bill that amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act and provides for greater worker participation will assist with some of the matters referred to by the Pike River families. I also would like to thank all of the people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this very important piece of legislation. There were 41 submissions made and there was oral evidence from 11 as well as as I have just mentioned from the representatives of the families of the 29 men who died in the Pike River disaster.Essentially we do support the bill as I have said which does implement some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy but we do have some reservations. This bill is a good start but it also represents a missed opportunity to create a world-class health and safety regime for the most hazardous of work. In particular we were concerned about the provisions in Part 1 of the bill that talk about setting up the board ofWorkSafe New Zealand in that the board does not necessarily capture the empowered tripartite arrangements that we would have liked to see and that is actually what world-class health and safety requires. It does require people who represent the voice of Government and Government agencies of employees and of employers.As it stands at the moment the board is selected by the Minister of Labour and clause 7 talks about selecting people with the “(d) perspectives of workers:” and “(da) perspectives of employers:” but we are concerned that there is a weakness there. With health and safety the change of culture that is required is fundamentally important and in many ways—and I think even members opposite would acknowledge this—this requires a strong voice for the workers in any workplace to first get their buy-in but secondly have their say on how the work is organised on the things that put pressure on them and on the things that would make a difference to their working lives and theirability to focus on health and safety issues. The functions ofWorkSafe New Zealand are set out in clause 10 and are similar to but are not the recommended functions from the royal commission. There does not seem to be any good reason for departing from those recommendations so we also just raise that as one of our concerns.Part 2 of the bill is a very important part around worker representation and what we are concerned about is why there has been a narrowing of this part. Why is it that instead of all of the original industries that were covered it has been narrowed specifically to underground mining? We are concerned about that. It seems inappropriate and misses the point about what happened at Pike River and we certainly do not think that that should have been narrowed in that way. But there are good things in this part of the legislation. Providing for both the workplace health and safety representatives and also the industry health and safety representatives or the check inspectors is important and we are glad about that. One of the specific features in this part is that where there is not an agreed process around health and safety representatives there is a default process that is to be determined. So at the moment that is unknown and we are certainly concerned that that is a useful and meaningful process.There has been a sense that this has not happened quickly enough and that there was a real urgency to fast tracking the implementation of the commission. Finally can I say again that we support this bill with reservations and we will look at Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage. Thank you.Dr CAM CALDER (National): I rise to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and I want to acknowledge the contributions made by all parties on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under the excellent chairmanship of David Bennett. This is a poignant moment as preliminary work is taking place in the area to enable safe entry into the drift.This is an omnibus bill that as we have heard enacts the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It establishesWorkSafe New Zealand a new workplace health and safety agency; it amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; and it creates a new Mines Rescue Act. In a strange way—and this was eloquently alluded to by my colleague Mr Chris Auchinvole—this legislation will be an enduring reminder of the disaster and indirectly a memorial to those whose lives were so tragically lost.We are committed to improving workplace safety so we have set a firm target of a 25 percent reduction in the rate of workplace fatalities and serious injuries by 2020. This is a significant step in the Government’s workplace health and safety reform programme. and I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. I call Darien Fenton—5 minutes.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading debate on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and in my 5 minutes I want to address the three issues that the Labour Party continues to have concerns about. In doing so I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in particular the families of Pike River and I observe of course what is happening at Pike River at the moment.We continue to be disappointed about the make-up ofWorkSafe New Zealand’s board. Remember that this agencyWorkSafe is not just for Pike River mines or mining generally.WorkSafe will become the agency that is responsible for all health and safety throughout New Zealand. So there is more legislation to come in the future—apparently it is going to be introduced by the end of the year and will cover health and safety for all workers. SoWorkSafe is a completely new agency that will haveresponsibility for every worker’s health and safety not just the health and safety of those who work in underground mines.The issue about the board members was canvassed at length in the select committee and what I found very interesting was that the National Party members could not seem to get their head around what “tripartite” means. In fact it is the recommendation ofWorkSafe New Zealand that the board be tripartite. “Tripartite” means that it is made up of representatives of employers representatives of unions and representatives of the Government—that is what it means.National members could not get their heads around that. They were enormously suspicious. Although I acknowledge that there have been some changes to the wording in the make-up of theWorkSafe board—in clause 7(2)(d) it has gone from “perspectives of workplace participants” which no one knew the meaning of to “perspectives of workers”—it simply does not cut the mustard in terms of recommendations of the Pike River mine commission of inquiry. In fact the health and safety task force has also recommended thatWorkSafe be a tripartite board.So we do not understand why the Government is ignoring the task force’s recommendation—it is not a good place to start. As I have saidWorkSafe is an agency that will set health and safety in place not only for underground mines and highly dangerous industries but for all workers. It is a completely new agency. It is the beginning of a new start for health and safety in New Zealand which is entirely necessary given our awful record of health and safety. So it is a bad start actually. It is a real shame and I understand that my colleague Andrew Little will put forward an amendment during the Committee stage. Let us see whether we can get it right for goodness’ sake. We all know that this has to be done. Let us do it right and let us not be ideological about opposing the idea that we could actually have representatives of unions employers and the Government on a board.The second issue is about the powers and functions ofWorkSafe New Zealand. Again although they are similar to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry and the task force they are not the same. There are real issues about that. We do not understand why we went to the trouble of having a royal commission of inquiry and a health and safety task force if we are going to ignore the recommendations and all the work that went into that.Finally our other concern is the scope of this legislation—the fact that it started out having a wide application including quarrying and some types of tunnelling. We believe that was appropriate but along the way the scope has been narrowed so now it applies only to underground mines. That is significant. I think that has significantly undermined this legislation. Again we will be putting forward some amendments during the Committee stage. As I said before about all of these things let us get it right. Let us do this properly. We are all committed to it. We all believe that this has to be done. Let us get this right. Let us fix this up. Let us follow the task force’s recommendations.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the call for the Greens on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. It is timely that this bill is in the House today given that yesterday we saw the first stage of the recovery process to attempt to recover the bodies of the 29 men who were left in the Pike River mine after the dreadful explosion in 2010. The Greens took up the call for a commission of inquiry into the factors that led up to that dreadful explosion and that tragedy and this is where this legislation picks up. We note that this legislation as it was introduced to the House and further as it comes back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee today does not pick up all the recommendations that came from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Although we support this bill we think that thisbill could be strengthened and that those recommendations could certainly be picked up so that we have better health and safety in mines across Aotearoa New Zealand.There are three particular areas that we are concerned about. One is the scope of the legislation. The bill as it has been reported back actually reduces the scope of the legislation restricting how the legislation can be applied to various parts of the industry so that it applies only to underground mines. The justification for that I believe is that it is underground mines that carry a greater risk of explosions. But our view is that Part 2 of the bill should cover a wider sector of the industry. We do support of course the creation of the stand-alone agencyWorkSafe New Zealand. We fully endorse that. However we do have some concerns about the way its functions have been watered down. The legislation does not pick up on all the recommendations from the commission of inquiry about the functions. In fact the functions of the agency as set out in the legislation as it has been reported back look scarily a lot like what those of the Department of Labour looked like with the mine inspectorate there before the Pike River tragedy. The legislation says for example that mine inspectors will work alongside mine operators and encourage good health and safety practices but we know from what happened at Pike River that that was not enough to stop the mine operator cutting corners. Encouraging mine operators is all very well but you need very strong regulation and enforcement of regulation in order to improve health and safety in the workforce when there are strong financial imperatives to cut corners.This takes me to the third point which is the make-up of the board ofWorkSafe New Zealand. In Australia and other countries with good health and safety records a tripartite situation or a tripartite conversation is what is needed in order to provide best practice and a trusting relationship for health and safety regulations. That was the recommendation from the royal commission of inquiry as well. It suggested that the Government employers and workers—in this case union representatives—appoint their own representatives to work together to develop good health and safety practices. The legislation as it comes back to the House says only that the Minister will make the appointments and that they will have regard to those areas. That does not necessarily build a trusting environment in which to create really good health and safety practices. So it is the Green Party’s view that we should follow the task force’s recommendation that we need our workers to have a voice around this because they are the ones with their eyes on the job. They are the ones who need to be able to speak up.This legislation although it is very well intentioned needs to be I believe beefed up. We should certainly not be introducing the amendments in the Employment Relations Act which are going to mean that workers have less of a voice in the workplace. We will be supporting the bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to speak briefly to the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill here on its second reading. I want to acknowledge as I think others in the House have the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think all of us were very aware of the context in which this bill has come about and the hard work that has resulted in this bill as it progresses to bring about the recommendations of the royal commission. One of my National Party colleagues said earlier that this bill is in some ways an indirect memorial so I do not intend to say any more than to acknowledge of course the passing of those 29 men and ask that this bill pass in their honour too.Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.Bill read a second time.Veterans’ Support BillFirst ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I moveThat the Veterans’ Support Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee report back to the House on or before 27 March 2014. New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom and democracy around the world—from the Second Boer War when New Zealand decided to help fight for the empire making that war New Zealand’s first overseas military campaign; to the Great War and the Gallipoli campaign where forces fought for the first time as a New Zealand contingent; to Passchendaele where New Zealand suffered the most grievous losses in our nation’s history; and to so many other theatres and conflicts thereafter. That freedom and the legacy of service to our country does however come at a significant cost. Many lives have been lost in defence of that freedom and even more injured.We members of Parliament sit in this House every day surrounded by the names of those theatres of war and campaigns—the Somme LeQuesnoy the Battle of River PlateCassino the Battle of Britain Viet Nam Malaya and a host of others. These are names that act as a constant reminder of the burden of any decision we make to send our young men and women into harm’s way. In July this year this House dedicated three more plaques commemorating service in Afghanistan East Timor and in missions in support of peace. It was a poignant reminder that more than 20000 modern Defence Force personnel are now veterans and of the need to have a legislative framework that supports all our veterans including our recent and our future veterans.In 2007 the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. The foreword to the Law Commission’s finding stated that the review was commissioned in realisation of the fact that the 1954 Act was outdated unwieldy and no longer fitted the needs of the veterans it was intended to serve. It was designed to deal with the physical risks associated with deployments but did not cover the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. It also focused on compensation for disability but was silent on the provision of rehabilitation. Lastly the 1954 Act had not been adequately amended to take into account that although some veterans qualify only for entitlements under the war pensions scheme others qualify for entitlements under both the war pensions scheme and ACC.The Law Commission reported in 2010 with 170 recommendations. The Government adopted 132 of those recommendations in full or in part as part of a $60 million package of changes of which this bill forms the material part. Most of the recommendations not taken up related to administrative structures not related to veterans’ entitlements. The process of rewriting a 59-year-old Act and implementing all 132 recommendations has been a long one but I make no apology for this. I was much more interested in getting it right than in getting it done early. I want to thank officials from Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand the New Zealand Defence Force and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their diligent hard work in preparing the bill—under I must say considerable pressure from the Minister.The Veterans’ Support Bill will replace the 1954 Act and the associated subordinate legislation. Although there are significant changes to some entitlements the key foundations remain the same. The key principle of benevolence including relaxed evidential provisions will continue in this new bill as will the service eligibility criteria. Furthermore all deployments currently covered under the 1954 Act will retaincoverage under the new Act and medical treatment will continue to be funded for all service-related impairments.The new legislation contains two schemes which I would now like to focus on in a bit more detail. Scheme one will cover veterans who served from the Second World War through to and including the Viet Nam War. Until 1 July 2015 it will cover all veterans as a transitional measure. After that time scheme one will cover veterans with service prior to 1 April 1974. The scheme is based on the entitlements available under the 1954 Act and it covers approximately 10000 veterans and 5500 surviving spouses and partners of deceased veterans. Veterans will continue to receive periodic disablement pension payments for impairments of 5 percent or greater. Veterans who are under the age of retirement and unable to work will have the option of receiving weekly income compensation which will be paid at a rate of 80 percent of the average weekly wage. This is significantly higher than the current entitlement they receive. However entitlements for spouses or partners and children will remain the same. Scheme two will cover veterans who have served since 1 April 1974. This includes deployments such as Cambodia East Timor and Afghanistan. The entitlements available under this scheme will be based on entitlements available through ACC with a top-up that is additional to ACC entitlements and that recognises the special nature of military service.Veterans who are of working age and who are unable to work due to service-related impairment will be eligible for weekly compensation. This will be payable at 100 percent of their pre-injury earnings for the first year of their incapacity and 85 percent for the period thereafter. It is higher than the 80 percent compensation paid by ACC to other New Zealanders and retains the benevolence shown in the current Act. Scheme two will provide impairment compensation to veterans in the form of lump-sum payments. The lump-sum rates will be set at the equivalent rate payable by ACC plus an additional 20 percent. In addition the scale will be broader than the ACC’s scale and will provide for compensation of 5 percent to 100 percent of whole person impairment to match the rates of impairment compensation provided for in a 1954 Act payment. Compensation for the spouse or partner and children of eligible deceased veterans will also be based on ACC entitlements. A one-off survivor’s grant will be payable in the form of a lump sum as well as ongoing weekly compensation. The spouse or partner will receive 60 percent of the veteran’s earnings prior to death and the children will share 20 percent. This is a slightly higher rate than that paid by ACC.There will also be a number of common provisions available to veterans of both schemes. Veterans covered under either scheme will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. The veteran’s pension for over-65s will be retained from the 1954 Act. This is an equivalent of New Zealand superannuation with some additional entitlements. Other common provisions include access to support services such as home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions and the provision of funeral grants for veterans with a service-related death. The Veterans’ Support Bill also includes a new provision for a code of veterans’ and other claimants’ rights. It also establishes a specialist medical advisory panel the functions of which will include providing advice on specified matters relating to service veterans’ health and entitlements under this Act.The Government recognises the significant sacrifice and contribution our veterans have made in serving our country over the years. The replacement of the War Pensions Act with the introduction of the updated and modern Veterans’ Support Bill demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to those who have given service to our country. Our veterans deserve no less. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): On behalf of the Labour Party I want to support the Veterans’ Support Bill and I thank the Minister for giving me an early draft copy of it. I too join with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs as I stand in this Chamber and look at the memorial plaques around the Chamber to remember those who sacrificed their lives and those who served this country in a way that no current member of this House has been required to do. I look across and I seeMessines and we have a plaque for Passchendaele.On 12 October I joined the Minister to lay a wreath at the Auckland War Memorial hall to commemorate the appalling tragedy of Passchendaele where 2400 New Zealand men were casualties in the first 4 hours of the battle—2400. We stand on the shoulders of those men who made that sacrifice and of those men and women who served our country in that war and subsequent wars. I am also conscious that just a matter of months ago we had new plaques put on the wall commemorating Timor and Afghanistan. The 14 years that our troops served in Timor and the more than 10 years in Afghanistan and in the Solomons—and originally in Timor at battalion strength—means that there will be a need for the provisions of this legislation for many years to come.It is right to say that this bill has indeed been a long time coming. The fact is that by far the largest group of veterans entitled to its provisions is still that group that served in the Second World War and the ranks of those veterans thin with each day that passes. There is no World War II veteran younger than their late 80s now. Most like my father are in their 90s. Regrettably by the time we pass this legislation and it comes into effect in 2014-15 many more hundreds if not thousands of those veterans will have passed away.I as the Minister of Defence was involved in the initial discussions and the decision to review the War Pensions Act 1954. We were aware that the Act was at that stage more than 50 years old. It was outdated it was inaccessible and it was badly in need of change. We believed that we should first of all be providing better support for our veterans—those who served in the Second World War in J-force in Korea in Malaya and in Viet Nam—and we also believed that we needed new and updated provisions for a younger generation of veterans.The natural cut-off point to distinguish between those two groups was the passage under the third Labour Government of the Accident Compensation Act in 1974. ACC makes good provision for injured people but we believed as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has said that in respect of those who are injured in the course of service to their country there needed to be a margin over and above the payments that were made to other New Zealanders who are injured in the course of their work or their leisure or at home.We believed that it was not enough simply to make payments—we needed a modern 21st century approach to rehabilitation in order to wherever possible enable people to get back into work and to have early intervention to provide recovery. We looked around the world. We looked at Australia the United Kingdom and Canada in particular and in each of those countries there were new models of support that we believed would be good models for New Zealand to follow. As a result of that we requested that the Law Commission independently review the provisions of the War Pensions Act 1954 and we included that in the memorandum of understanding with both the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association.That was not the only important thing that we did in that memorandum. It was an interesting gathering as we negotiated that memorandum. On one side were those in the Government of my generation who had been anti-war protesters at the time of the VietNam War and on the other side were the men who had actually fought there. But there was no rancour and there was a full agreement from our side under the Labour Government that whereas we did not agree with the war in Viet Nam it was not the veterans who made the decision to go there; it was the Government that sent them there. But tragically the flack—for want of a better term—that followed a war that became deeply unpopular as it was seen as ineffectual and unjust fell on the veterans themselves.We determined out of that memorandum of understanding Tribute 08 where for the first time those veterans were given the honour and the respect that they deserved for the honourable discharge of their duties and the courage they showed. The one outstanding factor that was left was the question of a review of the War Pensions Act and it is important that we now make every progress to try to advance that.In late 2008 Sir Geoffrey Palmer who then headed the Law Commission came up with a 280-page document. It was a very substantial piece of work—[Interruption]—a discussion paper; yes there was a lot to discuss—and then there was a very good consultative process. The Law Commission went around the military bases of New Zealand it went around theRSAs it talked to veterans and it talked to current service personnel. It finally reported in May 2010 by which time there had been a change of Government and the report came to the new National Government.The commission had done the bulk of the work. It had a quite detailed blueprint for what it believed needed to replace the War Pensions Act but it had not done the costings and it had not put it in draft legislative form so there was still work to do. But I regret that it has taken 3 years and 5 months from the time that that document was given to the Government to the introduction of the bill in this House. As I say the tragedy of that is and will be that in the next maybe 12 to 18 months many more servicemen and servicewomen will die without them or their families getting the benefit of the more generous provisions that will come through this legislation.I say to the Minister that at the Social Services Committee we will be seeking an explanation for the changes that were made where what the Government has put into legislation differs from what the Law Commission proposed. I am conscious of the fact that the proposals in this bill are much much cheaper than what the Law Commission recommended. I want to go into that with an open mind. There may be some good reasons why not every recommendation of the Law Commission was followed. But what I do want to say is that we will be determined to find out whether those cuts can be justified or whether they are unfairly to the detriment of our veterans.With so many veterans now dying I think it is time to err on the side of generosity for those who are still surviving. Men of that generation spent years of their lives out of this country away from their families. Many who returned suffered from physical injury and just as important from psychological injury and nothing was done in those days to address the latter form of injury. So we owe these veterans and we owe it to them Minister to be as generous as we possibly can be. This bill and the Act that follows it needs to be about honouring those veterans and their families and frankly it would be hypocrisy for us to sell them short.To be fair the Government has announced some additional funding as the Minister has said. There is some $60 million to be spent over the next 5 years in addition to those payments. That means about another extra $12 million a year. I welcome the increase in the war disablement pension and the surviving spouse pension rates of 5 percent. I think that is a step in the right direction. I welcome the increased eligibility for services such as home care and lawnmowing and so on. For the younger veterans who are unable to work I welcome the fact that if they are still under the retirement age they will be paidan income of 80 percent of the average wage. It will help only a small number but it will be worthwhile for those who are beneficiaries of it.Veterans post 1974 will get all of the relevant ACC assistance and also as the Minister explained a margin on top of that and I think that that is justified by their service and by their sacrifice for our country. We support this bill and at the select committee we will ensure that it delivers what is needed and what was promised.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): In late February 2011 I attended the funeral of PrivateKirifi Mila in South Auckland. He was a member of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Like me he was born in Samoa and like me he came to New Zealand for a better life. But unlike me he will not see a long life in this country because Private Mila gave his life for his country in the service of our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand like thousands of others who have given service to this country.This bill is a recognition of the great debt that we owe to our veterans across this country. This National-led Government is committed to honouring the service of not just those who have passed away in the service of our country but also those who survived in the service of our country. The Veterans’ Support Bill enables the Government to better meet the needs both of older veterans who require assistance as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Hon Phil Goff have pointed out to remain in their homes and veterans of modern-day deployments. This is a $60 million package to support new legislation. It is part of a package that increases war disablement pensions and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year on top of inflation.We have got a proud history and both of those speakers have alluded to the recognition of not just our fallen servicemen and servicewomen but also those who have survived those events in our history that are rather tragic but also ones that we are proud of. We recognise them through our museums. We recognise them through ourRSAs which many of us are members of. We recognise them through my gym which is a war memorial gym. On Anzac Day we all celebrate those very touching moments the reflections of the history and the tradition of this country. Again I say that we owe a great deal a debt to our veterans.So as the Minister has already pointed out this bill was referred to the Law Commission for a review. The findings of that review stated quite clearly that the War Pension Act 1954 was outdated. It was unwieldy. It no longer fitted the times or the needs of veterans whom it was intended to serve. So this bill aims to reform some of the measures that were taken many decades ago. It is all-encompassing. It covers two schemes which Minister Woodhouse has articulated in his speech in terms of access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions.I want to acknowledge Margaret Burke a woman who has tirelessly fought for this bill in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I want to acknowledge the presidents of myRSAs—Tom Kerr in Onehunga as well as Leon Matthews in Panmure and Mount Wellington. They have talked to me as I have been an MP about the need to reform this area. For those who are listening and watching out there I salute you and all the other returned servicemen and servicewomen who have advocated for this bill.It contains many of the same provisions of the current Act; the service eligibility criteria will remain the same. All veterans currently covered under the current Act will have coverage under this new legislation. We are talking about more than 20000 modern Defence Force personnel who are now veterans and all of them need that support as veterans.The Prime Minister Phil Goff and I were also at the opening of the Ranfurly units. Again that is another example of how we salute and recognise those who have returned from service overseas. That development I think is a shining example of what we cando not just through legislation but also in our communities when the resources are put to looking after those returned servicemen and servicewomen.I am proud of this comprehensive package. I like the Minister look forward to the Social Services Committee deliberations because it does honour a group in our society—and their families I might add—who have given much sacrifice and commitment to those of us who can enjoy the freedoms and liberties of our current State. I commend this bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is impossible when discussing in this Chamber anything to do with the defence force or veterans not to recognise the plaques around the building and the past conflicts. There are well-known names like Alamein Crete the River Plate Gallipoli is just up here to my right and over the far side there is MonteCassino. They are names that evoke strong emotions in the New Zealand psyche. They are places where in many ways the national identity has been forged. Increasingly in this century New Zealanders are turning to Anzac Day in particular and other commemorations of those events as days to look towards one another as a community to reflect on what it is to be New Zealanders and to reflect on our nation. Also look at other names like Korea Viet Nam and Afghanistan which perhaps sometimes for some people evoke a slightly different response—questioning the Government’s decisions to participate in those conflicts questioning what the reasoning was for being part of them and questioning the reason why there was an action occurring in those places in the first place. To those people who may or may not be listening this evening I say that what we are talking about are veterans.A veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what conflict they were involved in. A veteran is a person who at the request of their Government went to a foreign land and fought on our behalf in the belief that it was in our nation’s interests that they do so. Whether it be in the defence of our freedom whether it be in the defence of our democracy or whether it be to advance our principles of peace and freedom that is why every single veteran who has served our nation has served. That is why it is important that we pass this Veterans’ Support Bill and that we address the situation that has been allowed to develop—that the support system for veterans in New Zealand has become outdated and outmoded.Looking down to the far corner to my left we see Viet Nam Timor-Leste Afghanistan and recognition of the peacekeeping duties. That is an appropriate corner to glance at while we are discussing this because Viet Nam was the final conflict before the ACC laws and the ACC scheme were introduced in New Zealand. Following that we have the other conflicts that we have been involved in. In a way we have two sets of veterans who deserve to be treated in an equitable fashion but in order to do so we require two different schemes that recognise the two different situations that those veterans face. That is what is established here in this legislation. This legislation will do a number of things to improve the support systems for veterans but right at the heart of it is the establishment of two schemes. One is for veterans who served before ACC came into place and another is for veterans who are covered by the provisions of ACC.As the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs mentioned the current law is getting close to 60 years old. That is why as far back as 2006 the Labour Government and in particular Labour Ministers like Phil Goff and Rick Barker looked at what needed to change in order to bring the support mechanisms for veterans into the 21st century. It was after that initiation that the matter was referred to the Law Commission. It began its work under Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 2007 and an issues paper was developed for discussion and brought to the House in 2008. There was then a long period. That was the appropriate time that was needed to be taken in order to get the recommendations right. The Law Commission embarked on a lengthy period of consultation with various veteransgroups not least the RSA with the families of veterans with veterans themselves with veterans of conflicts from long ago with veterans of more recent conflicts and with the New Zealand Defence Force to talk about the future needs of veterans.After that lengthy period of consultation and an election and change of Government the Law Commission reported back on 1 June 2010. That was a 2-year period to get this right and that was appropriate. I hear what the Minister said—that we needed to make sure we got this right. I suppose that was his explanation for the length of time that it has taken. I guess that on this side of the House we say that a long period of time was taken to get the recommendations right. They were reported back to this House 3½ years ago and those 3½ years have frankly been too long for this legislation to be introduced to Parliament. For a period of time I was the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party. It was a role that I enjoyed because it gave me the opportunity to visitRSAs up and down the country. That is not a bad way to spend your time actually. In every single RSA that I visited the first topic for discussion was around what was happening with the Veterans’ Support Bill: “What is happening with the Law Commission report? When is that going to come before Parliament? When is it going to be progressed? When are we going to see the change that we have been promised for so very long?”.I know that veterans up and down the country will be very pleased that we have finally got to this stage this evening. I have got no doubt that many of them will come to the select committee to offer their views and opinions. They will as my colleague Phil Goff pointed out probably want to raise some questions about the difference between this draft legislation and the original recommendations in the Law Commission report. I imagine that there will be a robust and collaborative discussion at the select committee. I hope that the select committee has the opportunity to make amendments that will strengthen the legislation and that we will come back to the Chamber with a much better piece of legislation because it is not something that we need to play party politics over at all. It is something that I am sure will have broad support around the Chamber. It will be an opportunity for members of Parliament from all parties to work constructively towards putting in place the best possible legislation to underpin the best possible system to ensure that the needs of veterans both of conflicts long passed and of conflicts in which we may need to engage in the future are treated in an equitable fashion. We certainly support as I said earlier the establishment of two separate schemes to recognise the difference between veterans who are covered and those who are not covered by ACC. We support the other extensions of coverage and the other improvements to entitlements and provisions that are held within this legislation.With that I have some final words to say. Labour wholeheartedly supports the efforts—getting on to over a couple of decades now—of the various veterans’ groups to ensure that this legislative change has happened congratulates them on ensuring that we have got to this point and encourages everybody who has an interest in this legislation to participate in it and to come to the select committee to make sure that we get this right for our veterans and future defence force personnel.JAN LOGIE (Green): I also rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Veterans’ Support Bill to go to the Social Services Committee. I must admit that I have not had the opportunity yet to read the full 247-page Law Commission report which has prompted this 259-page bill which I also have not quite managed to get through yet. Call me a slacker but that is how it is. I am not quite there yet but I am pretty sure from what I have read that we can offer our support for it to go to the select committee. In the select committee we will be looking to the principles the delivery on the Law Commission’s recommendations and of course most important the views of those affected or likely to be affected by this bill.But I cannot speak responsibly as a Green Party MP on anything to do with war without making a clear statement. As the Green Party we have four core charter principles and one of those is non-violence. So for us whenever we are talking about war it is necessary to make a statement that we dream of and are working towards a world where there is no need for war—a world where armed conflict is not necessary because Governments are upholding human rights and disputes are settled peacefully. We wish to see the support of this country going towards creating that world. Priority for us must always be given to non-violent means of resolving conflict between countries. If armed force is necessary to protect New Zealand citizens and public resources or to help other countries protect their citizens then for us the use of force must be sanctioned by the people of this country and by international law.But although I make that statement it has nothing against this bill. I am making that statement because that is the context that this bill works within and that is who we are as my colleagues have said. But in some ways that strengthens our commitment to veterans particularly of the wars where there has not necessarily been that national agreement or the valuing or the protection of human rights at the heart of the conflict. Those soldiers who were forced to go to those wars possibly deserve our protection and support even more so in terms of their rehabilitation as they deal with the results of those wars.This bill replaces the War Pensions Act 1954 and has arisen from the Law Commission’s recommendations and report. The original Act primarily dealt with physical injuries that occur in a war environment. Now the introduction of this bill will extend that to also recognising the psychological and environmental risks of war which is incredibly important as I will talk about a little bit more later because so much of our learning from Viet Nam was I think around the lifelong generational consequences of the environmental toxic poisoning that happened to the soldiers in that war.The 1954 Act was not updated with the introduction of the ACC scheme in 1974. The ACC scheme applies to serving and former members of the New Zealand Defence Force. A key objective of this bill is to bring a rehabilitation focus as well as providing monetary and other forms of support. That I guess is just updating our approach to fit with this modern world and the understanding that we can actually help with the right systems people to rehabilitate and be able to increase their mobility or whatever participation.As per the Law Commission’s recommendation this bill introduces two schemes for support. Scheme one will cover veterans in service prior to 1 April 1974 so it is including Viet Nam War veterans. It continues the original Act’s practice of paying a periodic pension to veterans with service-related impairments and provides compensation to spouses children and dependants.I would just like to remind the House of some of the consequences that we saw from Viet Nam. There was a report that was released just this year by Otago University that found that New Zealand Viet Nam veterans deployed in a “toxic war environment” were exposed to a significantly higher risk of leukaemia and that “most veterans deployed in the NuiDat area ofPhuocTuy province experienced a ‘toxic environment’ because of the widespread use of 2 4 5-T and 24-D as defoliant herbicides. This mixture is more commonly known to most of us in the world as agent orange and was contaminated with a carcinogen a dioxin. The research from the Otago University study examined from 1998 to 2008 the health records of 2752 of the nearly 3400 New Zealand military personnel who served in Viet Nam and it was the first cohort study done in New Zealand of Viet Nam veterans to assess the long-term health effects of serving in that kind of combat zone. It found “a doubling of the risk of mortality from cancers of the head and neck as well as an increase in oral cancers of the pharynx andlarynx. Lung cancer contributed the greatest burden of deaths in both New Zealand and Australian veterans.”I mention this because I think it brings to life—for me at least—some of the real horror of those wars and the ongoing consequences. And here we are with research in 2013 nearly 40 years later that is just starting to understand the consequences of that war. Those are the veterans with whom my colleague Catherine Delahunty was out protesting for a very long time to get access to treatment and recognition by the State of that toxicity and the harm created by it. That is just a tragic situation and I really do hope that with this bill and that recognition of the psychological and environmental impacts of war no veteran will ever have to fight so hard for an acknowledgment of such harm.Scheme two within this bill covers veterans after the date of the introduction of ACC and it will focus on that provision of medical psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation. It describes rehabilitation as “the gateway to other assistance such as income compensation and lump sum” payments. The Minister went into quite a bit of detail around some of the provisions in that and it sounded very good to me on the first hearing of it. I do recognise that he did say that some of the recommendations of the Law Commission are primarily administrative ones and have not been implemented in this bill and I certainly will be looking at those closely. We know that this sits within the Ministry of Social Development and some of the processes for appeal within that system are definitely proving problematic at the moment. We would not want to see those problems replicated for our veterans and neither would we want to see some of the struggle to have access to ACC replicated for veterans. Our hope would be that if this is a generous scheme as mentioned by the Minister that hopefully that will have a bleed-out effect into the Ministry of Social Development and ACC in return so that all New Zealanders can get the assistance they need to be able to participate fully in our country.But ultimately I will finish this speech again with my hope that one day in the future there will be no more need for anyone else to access the entitlements in this bill and that we have peaceful ways of resolving conflicts. I am not so naive to believe that that is going to happen quickly but we will keep working towards it.MELISSA LEE (National): I am wholeheartedly and respectfully in total support of the Veterans’ Support Bill and I congratulate the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Michael Woodhouse on bringing this bill to this House for its first reading. Earlier this year in July I had the great pleasure of returning to my birth country with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Michael Woodhouse to attend the 60th commemoration of the Korean War. You see New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom and democracy around the world. I am one of those beneficiaries.In 1950 63 years ago on 25 June at dawn at around 5 o’clock North Korea invaded South Korea. I do get a little bit emotional about this because it does affect my family. I recall my mother talking about not having enough food in the family and yet they took in 10 other refugees so that they had a roof over their heads. They all had to return down south toPusan the only city that North Korea never invaded. My grandfather was shot dead by the North Koreans because he was educated at university. There were a lot of atrocities that actually happened. I am grateful for the advancement of South Korea because without the veterans who went to the call of the UN who actually asked for the veterans to come from around the world I may not be standing here proudly as a member of Parliament in this great country of ours in New Zealand. I apologise for my emotional state but New Zealand owes a great debt to our veterans. I personally owe agreat debt to the Korean veterans the Korea Veterans Association the K-force that actually went to the call of Korea.A total of 3974 soldiers went to the call in Korea in 1950. New Zealand was one of the first countries that went to Korea. There were 1300 navy servicemen who went to Korea as well. A total of 33 New Zealanders died in that war. Although the numbers were not as large as other contingents from around the world we were a proud fighting force that actually fought very very bravely in one of the bloodiest wars we have seen in recent times. When Jim Newman the president of the Korea Veterans Association and all of the veterans whom I lovingly refer to as my dads talk about this bill they talk about the hardship that they actually faced. They gave up their youth to fight for something that they did not even have anything to do with in a foreign country. They were all aged 18 19 20—early in their years. They forsook their education to go and serve in a country that they had nothing to do with. They fought in—and some of them even recall—the coldest winter they had ever known. New Zealand has never seen a winter like that. They talk about their boots and their clothes and that they were not prepared for the kind of cold they had. When their boots actually touched the ground inKapyong they simply broke apart and they split. The veterans did not actually understand the harshness of the conditions they were fighting in.Yet the veterans when they returned to this country still remembered the country that they served in and they are very proud of the developments in the last 60 years of the Korea that has become a leading nation in the world. It has become an economic power around the world. Everybody uses Samsung. Everybody knows aboutGoldStar. Everybody knows about Kia and Hyundai. That growth was made possible by the sacrifices of our very own veterans. I totally totally support this bill because it benefits our veterans who made it possible for me to stand in this House. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken 3 years to finally get to this Chamber and to Parliament but it is better late than never. Unfortunately it is too late for many veterans who would have liked to see this a long time ago. The 1954 War Pensions Act was designed to meet the needs of Second World War veterans and it is time for it to be replaced with this bill to bring it into the more modern era in terms of legislation.What this bill does is acknowledge community responsibility for injury illness or death of veterans as a result of being placed in harm’s way in the service of New Zealand. It also ensures there is a provision for veterans with fair entitlement. It promotes equal treatment of equal claims and it promotes a benevolent approach to claims.It is split into two schemes because ACC was introduced in 1974. So as a result the entitlements pre-1974 apply under scheme one in this bill and post-1974 in the ACC era under scheme two. It ensures that Viet Nam veterans and those before them are still fully covered under the original Act and are not in any way disadvantaged because of the post-1974 ACC situation. This also ensures that spouse and partner entitlement will be approved through this bill and that is a very good thing. In many areas the spouses and partners of veterans have great difficulty and extreme hardship and this bill goes a long way to addressing that. Veterans from both schemes will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. They will have access to home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions. There will also be funeral grants for service-related deaths.Two boards are being established under this bill. The War Pensions Advisory Board is replaced by the Veterans’ Advisory Board and a Specialist Medical Advisory Panel will be established. This panel will assume responsibility for making grants and awards. It is good that a specialist medical panel will be involved with this because for so many of the veterans it is very much in a medical area that they are seeking assistance where they need to be identified for the impacts that they have suffered as a result of going to service for this country and where they do require medical support and medical attention. We are increasingly seeing that situation as a result of those who served in Viet Nam with agent orange those who were in the Pacific with nuclear contamination and those who have been in other areas of war around the world where there has been contamination or where they have been subjected to conditions that have resulted in their having very poor health in later life.New Zealand First has always been a strong advocate for our veterans. New Zealand First places great value and recognition on the service given by our veterans. Our nation has a special obligation to them particularly to those who have suffered as a result of their service. In this respect New Zealand First has a number of principles that we put forward and stand by. We will ensure that veterans’ pensions maintain relativity plus an additional 10 percent in recognition of their sacrifice. We will implement the recommendation of the Law Commission’s review of the War Pensions Act absolutely 100 percent because we believe the work that the Law Commission did was very thorough very worthy and should not have taken this amount of time to be implemented. We will work with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association towards providing veterans with a sustainable health-care package.New Zealand First when we were in cooperation with the Labour Government negotiated $1 million for RSA social support and health services and we are committed to ensuring the ongoing financial support for that which is in the order of $250000 a year. This Government has reduced that to $150000 per year. We are committed to putting that back up to the full extent of that $250000 per year to support veterans with health and social services which are most important. That includes helping veterans get to hospitals helping volunteers to be supported to take veterans for medical attention and that sort of thing. That $100000 difference that the Government has cut out of that fund per year is a huge amount because that directly impacts on many many volunteers and people who support the veterans in their time of need.New Zealand First will also increase the radiation-related health conditions listed on the veterans’ affairs presumptive list to include all cancers because we believe that this country and this Government should be covering those veterans for all cancers involved whether from agent orange or from nuclear radiation and for whatever cancers have been formed as a result of being in the theatre of war. We will support claims by veterans and their children who have been affected by agent orange and any other such issues. We are also fully committed to supporting all areas of the RSA including the likes of the National War Memorial park in Wellington to recognise the service and sacrifices of the veterans to this country.This bill is an important bill. It affects so many people throughout New Zealand. We are constantly hearing very sad stories about the conditions and the lives of veterans who have gone to war who have gone to serve this country and who are now struggling and also of their families their children and their loved ones who are suffering. And many of them are having to take care of those veterans during their later years.I think it is a sad indictment that it has taken so long for this bill to come to the House. It is a very lengthy document. I am looking forward to it coming through to the Social Services Committee so that when it is fully considered when the submissionscome in—and I am sure that there will be many hundreds of them from all over New Zealand—this Parliament will give huge weight to this document will pass it and in fact will increase the provisions that are shown in this document to the full extent that is possible.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill and as my colleagues have said we will support the bill to the Social Services Committee with the aim of ensuring that all the recommendations from the Law Commission’s report are fulfilled. There is no doubt about it; the 1954 Act is outdated. That is why when we were in Government we commissioned the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the War Pensions Act 1954 which is the basis of this bill. Also as some of my colleagues have observed since 2006 when this process began a number of veterans have sadly passed away and we need to ensure that this bill is proceeded with quickly so that more veterans and their families do not miss out on what they deserve and what we owe them. The bill is long overdue and it is something that Labour was striving to deliver when we were in Government. That is because veterans hold a special place in New Zealand society and rightly so.Recently I visited Flanders with some other parliamentary colleagues and went toMessines and to the battlefields of Passchendaele where 2400 of our young men died in one day. I also stood at the Mennen Gate while the “Last Post” was blown. My colleague Tau Henare placed a wreath on behalf of the New Zealand Parliament. We also went to visit theMessines memorial and there is the most heartbreaking quote on that memorial about the New Zealand soldiers who came toMessines and died “from the uttermost ends of the Earth”. How heartbreaking is that? Last year I also visitedMessines with Mr Speaker and my colleague Melissa Lee. She will remember this because when we were inMessines a soldier from the First World War had been found and identified as a New Zealand soldier almost 100 years after the Battle ofMessines. They managed to narrow it down to six families but because there are no descendants of those families they have not been able to do a DNA test so that soldier is still unidentified. But Melissa Lee might like to know that when I was inMessines this time we visited a cemetery where that soldier has now been buried. They had a special ceremony for him and a proper recognition of his contribution. But the sad sad thing on his sad epitaph is “Known only unto God.”No one can visit Flanders and the battlefields of World War I or for that matter World War II and not be moved and at the same time horrified. In World War I there were 100444 deployments from New Zealand of whom 2688 wereMāori with 16697 killed in action and 41317 wounded. That is a 58 percent casualty rate for New Zealand at that time. We had only 1 million people in New Zealand so it is no wonder that these things touch us. But what I want to mention—because it is worth knowing as we are coming up to the anniversary of the First World War and there will be a lot happening in the next 4 years and certainly they are preparing for that in Flanders—is that this inspired me to go and look at my own history as many of us do. I have family who fought in both the First World War and the Second World War. It is worth letting people know that all of the records from the First World War are now on the database of the Auckland War Memorial Museum cenotaph. So you can look that up on the internet.I found some missing relatives. It was really sad to see a photo of a great-uncle of mine whom I never met obviously. He was a legend in our family. He was called Uncle Dan and everyone used to talk about how lovely he was. He went to war. He fought in Gallipoli was wounded and sent home and then died of the Spanish flu not long after that. When I looked it up on the database there was a photo of Uncle Dan. I had never seen his photo before. It brought him to life. He was a young man. He was just 20 years old. I want to encourage families and members to make use of thatwonderful resource that has been developed and is under way now with the Auckland War Memorial Museum the cenotaph database because it is our history. That is why this bill is so important and this is why I say that veterans hold a special place in New Zealand and rightly so.Of course it is our responsibility to protect the servicemen and women who have been put in harm’s way. They have been sent to defend our country and to meet our international obligations and they deserve both our respect and our gratitude but also our lasting memories. I think that in the next few years the centenary anniversary recognition will be a very very moving time for many New Zealanders. The other thing we did when we were inMessines was we went to visit the grave site of some of theMāori Battalion. The Hon Tau Henare who was with us actually recognised somewhānau. It is unbelievable stuff. So I understand Melissa Lee’s passion and emotion about that because the blood in the soil ofMessines of Flanders is our blood and you cannot help but recognise what an awful thing that war was what an unnecessary war it was how many people suffered and how many veterans came home and lived without the support of this type of legislation.As others have said the Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report which recommends a new support scheme for veterans of military service to replace the War Pensions Act 1954. As noted by many the 1954 Act has not changed significantly since its enactment and it does need to be replaced with modern legislation designed to deal with not only the physical risks associated with deployments but also the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. I think that is a new understanding that has grown from more recent conflicts because I certainly know from most World War I veterans that the psychological impacts and the effect it had on their lives were never recognised. It was covered up in many instances. I think that is a very very important part of this bill. It also obviously updates accident compensation in accordance with the accident compensation scheme and continues the principles and decision-making presumptions of the 1954 Act which are in common with veterans support legislation in other countries.I wanted to just mention though that Sam Lotu-Iiga talked about the Ranfurly War Veterans Home opening recently. This is another important thing that I do not want to let go by in this debate. The Ranfurly War Veterans Home was established for veterans in 1904 and was run for years and years and years by the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board and then the Ranfurly War Veterans Trust and it has just recently been sold to a developer. We have seen some stories in the news about the dissatisfaction of the veterans who are in that particular home. I do not want to comment particularly on that because I am not qualified to comment on that but what I do know is that the carers in that home had to fight to keep their pay when the home changed hands. I would want to put in a plea while we are talking about looking after our veterans that those who actually care for them in homes like Ranfurly are paid a living wage so that we recognise and honour our veterans by actually paying the carers properly. I know that the people who live in the Ranfurly War Veterans Home actually came out to support those workers.I support this bill. We look forward to the select committee but I end with that plea about a living wage. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): As colleagues have said New Zealand has got a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom across the globe and other democracies. Other members here have outlined family members whom they have had who have fought for our country and the countries of others. I do not have immediate family members who have been through that but I doacknowledge the families of all those across the House who have given so much to our country. In 2007 it was a good idea that the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. This Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report recommending a new support scheme for veterans in military service.We owe a great deal a great debt to our veterans. The National-led Government is committing to honouring their service and this bill in part delivers on our election promises. The Government has committed $60 million for a package to support the new legislation. As part of this package we also increased the war disablement and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year on top of inflation. That is why I support this bill. I look forward to hearing select committee submissions to the Social Services Committee and making sure that the mood of this House is reflected in the final legislation.ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1915 the HonMāuiPōmare was commissioned as the member for WesternMāori but also as the Minister responsible for the Cook Islands and other Pacific Islands. He went out through to the Pacific and to the Cook Islands and Niue where he managed to get 150 Niuean soldiers and also 45 from the Cook Islands who came over to New Zealand. They were there also to be deployed to Gallipoli to strengthen thePioneer Battalion in 1917. They actually came down here to Parliament and paraded in front of Parliament before they went up to Narrow Neck up in Auckland where they trained and then were sent over to the Western Front at that time. I mention that because in the last 2 years I have been to the commemorative services for the Niuean community and I suppose there are a number of people to whom this bill the Veterans’ Support Bill becomes important. A number of New Zealanders right across the country have family members who have been part of the veterans community. I commend this bill to the House. This is a good bill. This new Veterans’ Support Bill aligns with the importance of all-encompassing medical treatment and rehabilitation. I commend this bill to the House.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnātātou katoae te Whare etunei. It is a great honour to take a short call on this very important bill the Veterans’ Support Bill. Can I say that there is nothing more humbling or that creates a sense of pride than remembering our veterans who have served our great nation not just on Anzac Day but at times like this when we are supporting an important bill like this.My dad was 8 years old when World War II broke out and 14 when World War II ended. Unlike his older brother and his uncle who joined the28thMāori Battalion my dad had to wait for the Korean War. I just want to stand on my feet and acknowledge the member Melissa Lee. I acknowledge you for your moving speech Melissa and for your recognition of our veterans who served in Korea. My dad served there so I take your word and say kia ora sister. It is a serious issue that we have in front of us.I was sharing the personal stories of finding myself in Rome in 2010. My whole intent of travelling there was to do two things. One was to track down the carver of thePānia of the Reefstatue inCarrara city and the other was to visit my dad’s brother and uncle in their grave sites. It is amazing to me that I needed to go to the grave sites so I journeyed up to the mid-eastern side of Italy not knowing that both my uncle and grand-uncle died on 15 December 1944 at the tender age of 22 passing away on the same day but buried in two different graves inForli andFaenza. I want to acknowledge the 28thMāori Battalion website because without that website I would have had no idea where to locate my uncle and my grand-uncle.I say to the Speaker and to this House that it is one of the most moving occasions to walk along row upon row of young Kiwi soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrificein giving their lives for freedom liberty and justice for all. That was a sobering time in my time in Italy but one that will remain with me. In coming back and sharing that story with my father I know he was very proud that somebody was able to go to the grave sites of his brother and his uncle whom he remembers fondly as a young boy growing up.In terms of personal relationships my dad was fortunate enough to travel back to Korea 50 years after serving there for 2 and a bit years. His sharing of his time there as Melissa Lee quite rightly shared with the House is the remembrance of a very very cold harsh Korean winter. My dad served as a gunner. Back in those days—and I am glad this bill is addressing not just physical but psychological and environmental risks—my dad suffered hearing problems. Sitting on gunners he never had any ear protection so I am standing in his honour and memory and for all the other veterans who suffered during their time serving this great country. I join with this side of the House in recommending that this bill go to the Social Services Committee and I look forward to the closer scrutiny that will require. Kia oratātou.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just inform the House that this is a split call.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill is beginning to wind down but not the commitment of this Parliament to its objective and its principles. I rise just to reaffirm the Green Party’s support for this bill. We will see it referred to the select committee. It has been a while in coming—3½ years since it was reported back to the House—but as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs himself said it is important to get it right and I assure the Minister that the Green Party will work constructively with him to that end.It is always an interesting characteristic of debates and bills pertaining to national security and veterans’ sacrifice that they bring out a personal commitment and personal recollections on the part of members of Parliament. We have heard the very moving speech from Melissa Lee and I think there is no individual member of Parliament here who is without some form of personal relationship to sacrifice in this country. Certainly I had an uncle whom I never met who fell in Egypt during World War II. My father-in-law who served in the RNZAF in the United Kingdom and was stationed over at an RNZAF base died just 3 years ago leaving behind his widow—my mother-in-law—who is still with us but who has very very very little time left with us.We certainly endorse the principles in this bill. I think they are sufficient for the purpose: community responsibility fair entitlement equal treatment and beneficial approach. I think with those that we apply into practical manifestation we will indeed get this right.Just to conclude on a philosophical note my colleague Jan Logie identified the fourth principle in the Green Charter which is non-violence which effectively means that conflict needs to be settled in a non-violent way. For that to happen you basically need a mechanism I think of peace—a fabric for peace. I think it is not so much turning round or presuming to turn round human behaviour. If we wish to avoid the nightmare of fallen loved ones and people returning as veterans with physical and psychological scars then we need to develop with greater determination and insight than we have in even the last half century a fabric for peace. In fact it was Melissa Lee on behalf of herself and her countrymen and women who referred to the United Nations coming to the aid of South Korea at the time and I would endorse that. It was probably the clearest case of the United Nations rising to the challenge in terms of aggression and effectively making this the critical contribution to restoring peace.Coming out of that however the fabric for peace that you need—which is there in theAgenda For Peace; the United Nations is developing this slowly agonisingly but itis getting there—is preventative diplomacy pacific settlement conflict resolution peacekeeping and peacemaking. That requires—especially the last one peacemaking—the legitimate use of force. The pathway to a world without war is the strengthening of international law and the legitimate use of force. A world without force would require a change of human nature but a world without war simply requires a change in human principles and institutions. I do not think it is in any way impossible naive or unrealistic to look for a world without war while fully recognising that human nature does not need to change. We just need to be more insightful more determined to get it right.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I want to finish the debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill by acknowledging the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and by acknowledging members across the House for the support they have shown. I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made. This is a very important bill because the men and women who have served this country many of whom lost their lives in the service of this country are very important people and will always be in our hearts minds and otherwise. It is important for this Parliament to recognise the contributions veterans have made and those men and women of the New Zealand armed services who paid the price with their lives.I am a former naval officer. My father spent a significant amount of time in the Royal New Zealand Navy as well as my uncle and so matters of this nature do resonate very strongly with me. I also just want to take a short opportunity to acknowledge someone who has made a significant contribution to the interests of veterans in New Zealand and that is a former senior army officer Ross Miller who was a constituent of my electorate. He worked very closely with successive Ministers including the current Minister of Veterans’ Affairs to advance the very important interests of veterans and to contribute to a huge body of work that has gone on in reviewing what is a very significant piece of legislation and the need to recognise and address the issues that have been brought forward by veterans. So I just acknowledge Ross Miller and his contribution to this process. I commend the work that he has done.I acknowledge all the veterans who have also contributed to the process that has brought us to this point where the bill is now in the House. I think the House can enjoy moving it forward in the spirit which we must all acknowledge that reflects the importance of these citizens to our nation lest we forget. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Social Services Committee.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I moveThat the Veterans’ Support Bill be reported back to the House by 27 March 2014.Motion agreed to.Human Rights Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 11 December 2012.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have got here that Tim Macindoe was speaking. He has 6 minutes remaining to speak if he so wishes to but given that the honourable Andrew Little has called I will call him.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Perhaps my speech will be taken as being on behalf of Mr Macindoe himself anyway because I am sure he would concur with what I haveto say. This is not a frivolous matter. This is a matter to do with human rights not only domestic human rights but our international human rights as well. The Human Rights Commission plays a very important role not only in administering our Human Rights Act and the very important role that that piece of legislation plays in our country but also in being the voice perhaps the conscience if you like of the nation when it comes to matters of human rights issues of discrimination and issues of fairness and equity whether between races and ethnicities whether between sexes or on any other ground. So we take this issue very seriously.The motivating force as I see it behind the Human Rights Amendment Bill—having read both the bill and the regulatory impact statement which I might say I thought was somewhat inadequate; it set out options and then simply chose an option without a great deal of analysis—is efficiency. But it is clear from that document and from the bill itself that this is once again a very important piece of legislation carrying with it very important principles and carrying with it a very important institution which is beingfaffed around with on grounds of efficiency alone. It says “efficiency and effectiveness” but it is really about cost-cutting. One of the things that the bill does is that it reduces the number of commissioners. It concentrates the role of commissioner under the Human Rights Act into full-time roles as opposed to the flexibility that is available at the moment with a combination of full-time and part-time roles. So there is a real question about whether or not that is going to add to the effectiveness of the administration of the requirements of the Act. It will almost certainly be efficient. It will allow costs to be cut but whether it will allow it to be effective remains another point.There is a very important change a very subtle-looking change that the bill makes in clause 5 which amends section 5 of the present Act the Human Rights Act in particular subsection (2)(k). Presently section 5 “Functions of Commission” talks about a range of things. One of those functions is “to report to the Prime Minister on …”—and one of the three things it can report to the Prime Minister on is—“(iii) the implications of any proposed legislation (including subordinate legislation) or proposed policy of the Government that the Commission considers may affect human rights:”. Most members of the House will recall of course that it was that section that was invoked by the commission only some months ago as the Government passed its legislation on the rights of the family caregivers of disabled people. When the commission intervened in the way that the statute clearly contemplated in full compliance of its rights in the Act that prompted the Prime Minister to respond by effectively threatening its funding. So we look at this provision in the Human Rights Act and we consider that it needs to be jealously guarded.The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent. It is meant to express independence and that is confirmed in sections 7 and 19 of the current Act. Section 7(1) says of the commission in determining the general nature of its activities: “Subject to the role of the Minister in the process of setting and monitoring the strategic direction and targets of the Commission under … the Crown Entities Act 2004 the members of the Commission acting together determine the strategic direction of the general nature of activities undertaken in performance of the Commission’s functions.” It is up to the commissioners to decide what its strategic priorities are and what the issues are that it chooses to engage in and embark on. That is confirmed in section 19 of the present Act which is headed interestingly “Duty to act independently”. We know that when a Crown entity has a requirement to act independently it is acting independently of the Government of the day. That is indeed what section 19 says: “the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties”.There is a good reason for that and that is because although there are many countries around the world where human rights are given short shrift they are abused and peopleare treated shabbily we do not exactly have that experience here. But the reality is that Governments even in the worst countries and even in the best countries can find themselves not complying with and in breach of basic human rights. It is important that we see human rights as something that is separate from the political fray and as something that is not open to the horse-trading of the political system. That is why we say that the Human Rights Commission is independent and must be independent. That is why when our Prime Minister threatened our Human Rights Commission on the basis of funding because it chose to exercise its statutory right to report on a matter that it considered was in breach of the Human Rights Act that was a matter that ought to have horrified—and indeed did horrify—many New Zealanders. That is why the independence of the Human Rights Commission is so important.So when we see parts of this bill that suggest that its independence is under threat we must be concerned. We see in clause 6 new subsection (1B) of section 8 which says: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” I am concerned at the reference to the involvement of the Minister now going beyond just setting its budget to now interfering in the decisions that commissioners must make about the priority work that the commission must do because sometimes the priority work might be challenging the Government telling the Government that legislation that it has on its book or bills that it is proposing to push through the House are in breach of citizens’ human rights. That is a role that a properly supported and well-resourced Human Rights Commission ought to do. Ours does it and it has attracted the wrath of the Government of the day. That is not good. That is not a healthy development at all.So we look askance at this bill and we say that we hear the language of efficiency and effectiveness but when we look at the fine details of the bill this starts to look like legislative measures at undermining the role of the Human Rights Commission not only in upholding the rights of the citizens of New Zealand but challenging those institutions that might threaten it. Some of those institutions will be private but some will be public and the institution of course with the greatest power and the most resources that can threaten citizens’ rights if it is not this House is certainly the rest of Government.We need to know that the Human Rights Commission is properly supported and is well resourced and when it does challenge the Government of the day—whether it is a National Government whether it is a Labour-led Government whatever the hue of the Government—the institution of the Human Rights Commission is there has the correct statutory powers and can interfere and intervene in accordance with its powers and its duties to do so. So it is for that reason that we are looking very closely at this legislation. It is not just simple legislation truncating the number of commissioners or consolidating their roles; it goes beyond that. So we will have a close examination of the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will ask the questions. Hopefully we will get good advice from the officials beyond just what has gone into the regulatory impact statement and we will find out whether or not this is actually necessary in order to have a Human Rights Commission that can fully acquit itself of its role. We will do that. We will support this bill to the select committee so that we can undertake that examination because it behoves all of us to ensure that of the many important institutions in Government those institutions that directly affect citizens’ rights and their place are protected and looked after and we want to make sure that the Human Rights Act continues to do that.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Human Rights Commission was set up as a bodyto investigate promote and protect human rights. Having a dedicated Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission reinforces this Government’s commitment to promoting and monitoring mechanisms that will really make a difference to the lives of disabled people. New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 25 September 2008. This bill not only supports this convention but also the direction of the Government.I look forward to this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee to hearing submissions and to furthering the course of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.JAN LOGIE (Green): The decision by the Government to create the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was prompted by the pulling from the ballot in 2010 of a member’s bill from my colleague Catherine Delahunty the Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. Catherine withdrew her bill in good faith when the Government announced that it would be creating the role of the Disability Rights Commissioner. This was done under the assumption that any bill establishing such a position would be along similar lines to her bill.Following the withdrawal of Catherine’s bill we were pleased that the Government moved quickly to appoint New Zealand’s first Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission Paul Gibson. Like many in the disability community we welcomed Paul’s appointment because Paul was so clearly the right person for the job. Not only did he have a proven track record as an advocate for the disability community and a wealth of knowledge and expertise on disability issues he also brought to the role a lived experience of disability and a strong commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to welcoming Paul’s appointment we were celebrating that there was finally a full-time designated Disability Rights Commissioner which was something that the disability community had pushed forfor such a long time.Given this background the Green Party had hoped to be supporting this bill tonight as we had expected something along similar lines to Catherine’s bill—something that would deliver for the disability communities. So it was with some dismay to say the least that we found that not only does this bill fail to create the role of a specialised disability commissioner in the way that was provided for in Catherine’s bill but also it proposes a restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and its role which has consequences for its future work. Instead of creating a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside existing specialist designations as we had expected this bill actually removes the specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner from the Human Rights Act. Instead it adds these to the list of functions of the commission.Although this bill does add disability rights to that list of functions and stipulates that there must be a commissioner designated by the chief commissioner to lead work in disability along with other priority areas we are very concerned about the impact of this larger restructuring on the focus of these roles particularly as commissioners will be expected to work in more than one priority area. We believe that the effect of this move will inevitably weaken the focus on these areas. Commissioners will become human rights commissioners with primary responsibility to the work of the commission as a whole rather than to the work that they are leading. This has worrying implications particularly for disability where there is so much work to be done. There is so much work that has to be caught up on after decades of being kept in the dark—being kept out of the policy debate.In contrast to this bill Catherine’s bill was clear and specific to disability. In addition to creating a designated disability commissioner it also spelt out specific criteria for their appointment and an extensive list of functions specific to a disability commissioner. This list was developed in extensive consultation with the disability community and reflected the significant input that it had into it. That bill outlined 13 functions for a disability commissioner and included a number of important elements that are missing from this bill including explicit requirements for the disability commissioner to actively engage with different communities of persons living with impairments to act as an advocate for their interests rights and well-being and to assist the Government with work towards the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. None of these functions is in the much-simplified list of functions in clause 12 of this bill.This bill is not delivering for the disability community and it will not be delivering for the other communities that will also have their needs watered down by this bill. The restructuring and reframing of the roles with a shift to more broad and generalist skills will affect the choice of people being appointed to the lead commission work and priority area. Someone with a broad understanding of human rights may not and probably will not bring with them the specific knowledge understanding and background in disability that is so urgently needed in this country for this role to be effective in making a difference for disabled people.Also the criteria for their appointment in clause 12 do not include a key one: knowledge of the various communities of people living with impairments in New Zealand. This in our view is absolutely essential for an effective disability commissioner. There was a strong push from the disability sector for a disability commissioner with lived experience of disability and a proven track record as a disability advocate and that is not just symbolic. In our party we have seen the difference that Mojo Mathers has made in providing a link to people in a variety of disability communities in the country. They know that they do not have to explain to her—that she gets it—because she has had that experience and she has that role of advocacy. This bill is robbing the disability communities of the guarantee of that person and it is a shame.Furthermore although the bill stipulates that there must be a commissioner appointed to lead the work in the three priorities it does not guarantee that they will get to work full time on these issues.This bill is a wholesale review of the Human Rights Commission done by stealth. If we are going to have a full-time position for a disability commissioner then let us do it and not just say we are doing it which is what this Government has been doing. This is also happening within the context of the Government’s decision to freeze funding for the Human Rights Commission until 2020. That decision has resulted in a 15 percent staffing cut at the commission.This Government has very few checks on the power of government and has minimal tools to fight discrimination. By the response to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 we know that people in this country care about human rights. This bill is letting them down. Over the past 2 years I have seen far too many pieces of legislation that are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We need a strong institution to uphold human rights in this country. We have a long way to go for people with disabilities particularly to be able to achieve equality in this country and they deserve an institution and people representing them who are able to understand them and who will strongly advocate into this place for their rights to be realised. We will be strongly opposing this bill as an undermining of those rights and aspirations.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill the Human Rights Amendment Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We generally support the scheme of the bill because it gives effect to New Zealand’s international human rights obligations but we do have a number of reservations. The Minister of Justice said that the bill replaces the current mix of full-time and part-time human rights commissioners with full-time commissioners only but the bill does not specify whether the appointments must be full-time or part-time. New Zealand First wants to see a specific provision in the bill for full-time commissioners. If that is what the Minister intended then that is what the bill should say. So we will be seeking an amendment along those lines.Concerning the roles of commissioners instead of a particular role identification in the bill which would mean that a commissioner has sole responsibility for a priority area and would be unavailable for other work the bill provides that there must be a commissioner appointed other than the chief commissioner to lead the work of each of the priority areas which are race relations equal employment opportunities and the new role in the area of disability rights. The chief commissioner is also able to designate a commissioner to lead the work in other priority areas of human rights after consultation with the Minister of Justice and the Human Rights Commission itself. But the areas of race relations equal employment opportunities and disability rights are still explicitly recognised as priority issues for the commission. New Zealand First does agree with that approach. It allows for the specialisation needed in the three priority areas while allowing for the flexibility needed to ensure that the other areas are well provided for too.But New Zealand First is concerned that there is no special priority area for age-related human rights issues. There are many such issues. Ageism is rife in New Zealand. People are discriminated against on the basis of age right across the employment spectrum. Their plight is largely ignored in this country except of course by New Zealand First. We will hold the line against any increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation for example. No other party can be relied on to do so. Labour has already commenced the attack. There is also ageism in ACC benefits. People who reach 65 years have their ACC compensation confiscated from them upon application for New Zealand superannuation at age 65. That can occur even shortly after the compensation was granted. This shows that the Government does not understand that New Zealand superannuation and ACC are entitlements not social security benefits. New Zealand First wants to see age discrimination identified as a human rights issue. We know that this Government does not care but we in New Zealand First do.Concerning the number of commissioners the bill provides for a minimum of four and a maximum of five commissioners including the chief commissioner. Will this be sufficient with the extra workload resulting from the disability area and the growing workload of the commission? It seems unlikely to me that five will in fact be enough. And even if it is enough now it is unlikely to be sufficient within a relatively short period of time. Human rights issues and human rights work is a growing area in our legal system and must be properly resourced. It would be wise I think to legislate for a maximum of seven commissioners so that their number can be increased if needed and when needed without the need for further legislation. We think this is justified because as I have said this is a rapidly increasing area in our legal system and it needs to be properly provided for. I look forward to discussion on that issue at the select committee stage.As to the need for the appointment of suitable people for the lead areas I note that the chief commissioner has said: “… as there will be fewer Commissioners those who appoint Commissioners will need to ensure those in key roles reflect the diversity ofNew Zealand.” I agree with that but I also note with satisfaction that in new section 13 under clause 9 and in addition to the criteria in section 11 of the principal Act the Minister must have regard to the candidate’s “(a) understanding of the principles and practice of the priority area in question … (b) appreciation of issues trends and developments … internationally … (c) ability to perform the functions stated in section 16.” Section 16 itself is amended in clause 12 to ensure skills in leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate. That is a very important part of the function of these commissioners. I think that these provisions are pretty well-thought-out. They will ensure that commissioners are better able to promote and participate constructively in debate and the commission will not be the sort of ivory tower that we have seen it be in the past.Turning now to the functions powers and responsibilities of the commission there are changes to these in clause 5 of the bill. I think they provide more certainty about the commission’s mandate to undertake its activities and they provide for promotion of compliance with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Concerning statements I think this is an important new provision. The bill makes explicit in clause 5(3) that the commission may make public statements on any matter concerning human rights and in particular may comment on the position of the Government in relation to matters that may affect or infringe on human rights and that is not clear in the current Act. It is very important that this clearly be allowed and I congratulate the Government on putting this provision in the bill. It will be helpful to everyone interested in human rights issues in New Zealand.The bill also provides that the commission must report on existing or proposed legislation including subordinate legislation; administrative provision; or policy of the Government that the commission considers may affect human rights. And it must report not only to the Prime Minister but also to the Minister responsible. I welcome that new provision as well. It will mean that the commission will have an open and clear responsibility to inform the public irrespective of what the Government policy may be.Lastly concerning equal employment opportunities the bill provides functions for the commission in relation to equal employment opportunities including the use of benchmarks to evaluate the roles that certain instruments play in promoting equal employment opportunities and also to lead the development of guidelines and voluntary codes of practice and to work with other bodies promoting equal employment opportunities too. I think that those are important provisions as well and they will provide another aspect to the work of the commission.There is much to commend this bill but as I have said there are also areas where amendment is indicated. However for the time being New Zealand First will vote for the bill to proceed to the select committee.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill tonight. This bill does change the role and structure of the Human Rights Commission to strengthen its performance. It also allows it to be more versatile and to change as times change as well and to keep up to date.I do want to just quickly touch on one part of the bill in a bit more detail which is about the Disability Rights Commissioner. I think it is a long time coming actually that the disability sector is getting a commissioner. I remember back in about 2008 the Social Services Committee had an inquiry into disability services. We heard from hundreds of submitters that they felt they did not have a voice they felt they were not represented they felt they were the poor cousin to health in many instances and they were overlooked and overseen. So I think that this has been a long time coming actually and it is good to see that those people are going to have a voice they are going to be heard and they are going to be represented and the Human Rights Commission isexactly the right place for them to be. When we were looking at how we could enhance their voice and how we could get them better representation this was one of the suggestions along with a number of other suggestions about what we could do for them. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the select committee process and to hearing from submitters. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure actually to rise to speak to the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I think that this bill is to be welcomed despite the fact that we have some concerns about it but one would hope that the process of the Justice and Electoral Committee would see many of those concerns addressed and removed. But my reason for supporting it in particular is that it gives this House an opportunity to have a look again at those processes of developing confirming ratifying implementing and monitoring human rights both domestically and internationally and I do not think we have paid enough attention to that in the past.First of all I would hope that this legislation would generate a better understanding of human rights in Parliament and thereafter a better understanding of human rights out amongst civil society. Here in New Zealand we do have a creditable history of contributing to the international human rights framework and acknowledging many of our own human rights challenges. My party was instrumental in advancing the UN human rights agenda during and after World War II. The National Government ratified the international covenants on human rights in 1978 giving us as a country international legal obligations to respect protect and fulfil human rights. This has in the past been a bipartisan commitment between the two major parties and I hope that it will become a multipartisan commitment across this MMP Parliament.We need to assist the public I think in understanding that we are legally bound to respect protect and fulfil rights to an adequate standard of living for health and well-being education work under decent conditions—all of those things that relate to the everyday life of New Zealanders. But beyond that we are legally bound also to observe and implement those conventions on human rights that we have seen fit to sign up to but may not yet have ratified. I welcome this bill for the opportunities that it gives us to explore these things and I hope that in the course of debating this bill we will be able to strengthen executive and parliamentary human rights mechanisms.In addition to that I hope that in the context of this bill we will be able to argue for human rights education. I hope that as part of civics education within the school curricula human rights education as envisaged in the World Programme for Human Rights Education be included in our school curricula in the education system and in the professional development of public servants. So to start with those are my general comments about the opportunities that this bill actually provides us.I want to come to some of the concerns that we have about it. Our major concern on this side of the House is that the amendment bill removes the three designated specialist commissioners already in place and their functions in preference for the ability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to delegate all or part of these functions to one or more commissioners. In the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Justice it is clear that it has recommended this position. It recommends replacing the current three full-time commissioners and five part-time commissioners with no fewer than four and no more than five full-time commissioners and for the roles to be changed around. But one of the things that is going to be important in the consideration by the select committee is what we lose in the course of that if we do not have a designated Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner a designated Disability Rights Commissioner or a designated Race Relations Commissioner. What is to be lost in the course of removing these tagged and designated roles and subsuming them intothe role of a commissioner who is responsible for these things—amongst others? There are risks in that and the Labour Party is concerned about those risks.I want to highlight one other point that my colleague Andrew Little made very well but that bears repetition and that is in new section 8(1B) inserted by clause 6 which says that “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” One of the purposes of the Human Rights Commission is to uphold standards and human rights both domestic and international standards of human rights and to hold the Government to those standards. It has to be independent. Its determination of what is a priority work area should not be determined by a Minister.I understand the phrase “after consultation with” but it says “only after consultation with the Minister …”. I understand that the Minister might want to be consulted when priority areas of disability equal employment opportunities and race relations are set down in the legislation as priority areas even though we no longer have a tagged commissioner with that designated responsibility. But I am concerned that we have already seen one example from the Prime Minister no less who has threatened the Human Rights Commission with a loss of funding for speaking out against the Government’s position on the Government Communications Security Bureau.The Prime Minister thought it was OK to do that because he thinks he is running a company not a country. He thinks that if he is running a company he can instruct employees on what to do. This is a more complex exercise being the Prime Minister than being the chief executive officer of a company. I would have thought that 5 years in the job would teach him that. So the first moment when the Human Rights Commission exercises its legislated right to report directly to the Government—to report directly as it is allowed to do under legislation—the Prime Minister takes a swipe at the commission and says “Watch out for your funding guys. If you’re going to turn up with reports like that you’ll have to watch out for your funding.” That completely demonstrates the Prime Minister’s—and I suspect the National Party’s—lack of understanding about the importance of the independence of the Human Rights Commission.The Human Rights Commission is there to defend the human rights of New Zealand citizens especially when the Government does not observe them. It is absolutely beholden on the Human Rights Commission to tell the Government when it is not observing its own citizens’ human rights. In addition to that it is the Human Rights Commission’s job to promote international human rights and to promote the understanding of those in New Zealand. So I am pleased that there are a couple of clauses in the bill that make the independence of the Human Rights Commission more explicit but please would somebody show the Prime Minister those clauses.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a privilege to rise to take a brief call in this important first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I am going to carry on in the generosity of spirit of the first half of the Hon Maryan Street’s previous speech and acknowledge the very good work done by a previous Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson in shepherding through New Zealand’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. Having been at that time on a diplomatic posting in the Islamic Republic of Iran with human rights being a significant part of my portfolio in that job it was interesting to see the reaction in a country that was very unlike New Zealand to that effort. We were seen as a world leader. I am very glad that we are continuing to look at ways that we can improve the status of disabled people in New Zealand.An interesting anecdote was that we were surprised in having to explain to the Iranian Government why at Auckland Airport there was a priority lane for disabled people where they were getting advance treatment but Government officials were not. That is in New Zealand; it is the opposite situation in some countries. We on this side of the House believe very strongly that people are born free and equal in dignity and are entitled to having those human rights observed and I am very glad that we will be creating a full-time human rights commissioner role with leadership in disability issues. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the House that this is a split call.Hon Maryan Street: No.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not a split call? Then I call the honourable Dr Rajen—Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a split call as I understand.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. That is what I have just said yes. In that case then I call the honourable Dr Rajen Prasad.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure taking a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill particularly because I did have the role of human rights commissioner for 5 years and have lived through the previous manifestations of some of the things that are coming through here. But first it is important to say that this side of the House is not averse to improving human rights legislation and for that reason alone we will support this to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when the environment has changed so much that an Act as important as the Human Rights Act needs to be modernised and if that is what this amendment bill is trying to do then there is every reason why we should support it.However I would say this: in the area of human rights it is important for Parliament to reach consensus because these human rights are the rights we have by virtue of being human and there ought to be no dispute and no difference amongst the various sides of this House about the instrument we develop to promote those rights for our citizens. So we will work very hard in the select committee to achieve that consensus but fair warning is served by the Greens and also by us that we will want certain changes to this bill before it comes back in a form where we will support it. We will debate those matters at length during the select committee process.It is interesting that this bill recommends changes to the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Again there are no strong views that I have as to whether or not the structure proposed is a better one but it is certainly worth experimenting with. However what is to be reflected on is that the structure that is recommended in this bill is the old structure—the structure that was changed in 2000 by an amendment bill. The arguments made then were the exact opposite of the arguments being made here. The arguments were that we wanted to reduce the commissioners to a governance role and therefore part-time commissioners would be much better. That was part of the argument that the consultants made to give us the very structure that is now being changed. What is being recommended here is to go back to the old structure. Well if that is the experience of the Human Rights Commission then we should follow it. We want to hear the arguments in the select committee.But the regulatory impact statement however makes a very interesting argument. It says that the present way of appointing commissioners actually is inflexible and in fact this compromises the Minister to some extent. Well I will need some convincing that that is to be so. The regulatory impact statement actually says that the Minister himself—herself in this case—in determining who are to be the designatedcommissioners does not enable flexibility within the commission and it actually compromises the role of the Minister. Well it does not. I refuse to see that. However this is an argument that the Ministry of Justice has pursued for a long time. It has not liked the independent commissioners. In the 2000 reforms the only bit of my recommendation that was followed by the then Government was to retain the specialist commissioners and they have served us well. So the part-time commissioner change—we will see. Let us hear the arguments let us hear what is proposed and if this is a better governance structure then we will have no difficulties with that particular one.But there is another issue here. The explanatory note of the bill says this and I read: “a full-time position of Disability Rights Commissioner within the Commission will be established.” The bill does no such thing. It actually does not do that. So why does the explanatory note say that that is what the bill does? The bill actually distinguishes no specialist commissioners. What it does is it establishes generic commissioners to be given designated roles but they will not be called those roles; they will simply have a generic responsibility. That is where we begin to dig into the reasons behind some of the changes being proposed here and we do not support just generic commissioners. We support the specialist commissioners because in every case those specialist commissioners have been very very effective—incredibly effective. Look at the work of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. She was one of the most successful—Sue Moroney: The previous one.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —the previous one—commissioners we have had. She was so successful. Why are we doing away with that? The sector that advocates the particular area actually in a sense identified with that role and had ownership with it. The same can be said for race relations people. At a time when New Zealand society is diversifying to the extent that it is and there is so much identification amongst the diverse communities with that particular role this Government is trying to do away with that role. Why? It is for no reason. The Disability Rights Commissioner is the same. That role must be retained—I agree with the Greens. So we will argue for that in the select committee.We wonder why it is that the Government is doing this because the real issue in this commission is not the specialist commissioners. The real issue is the inability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to actually manage this commission in such a way that it all works well. So there is a governance problem—the problem of the role of the chief commissioner—that is being addressed in one of the most dramatic ways possible by doing away with the very roles in the commission that are the most effective. I would rather the select committee really tussled with how to underscore the responsibility of the chief commissioner. I would like to see that role strengthened if that is the real issue. So we will be asking the select committee why the changes and what it is they are expected to achieve. If we can be convinced then we will want the officials to rewrite this piece so that that role is strengthened—the role of the chief commissioner. It does have an implication for the Minister to appoint chief commissioners who have a human rights background. In order for us to have a commission to operate in the way in which these recommendations seek then indeed that particular role has to be changed appropriately.There is a lot here that is below the surface. As is typical of the Ministry of Justice it has proposed a structural change. It has written its regulatory impact statements and in fact there is still much more to be thought through and done in order to keep those things in this commission that are good which are the specialist commissioners. We have no objection to the number of full-time commissioners. That is fine. The role of the chief commissioner—let us face that head-on and ask why we need to strengthenthat; if so what is the best way of doing it? What we do not want is for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater because if we did that we would lose the very things that are important to us. So with those comments I bring my speech to an end. Thank you.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)