Volume 704 Week 13 - Wednesday 1 April 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 704 Week 13 - Wednesday 1 April 2015[Sitting date: 01 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2785. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 1 April 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MotionsNuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review ConferenceHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek the leave of the House to move without notice and without debate a motion relating to the forthcoming Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference asking the nuclear States to meet their commitments.Mr SPEAKER: I will just put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? The Hon Phil Goff.Hon PHIL GOFF: I move That this House urge nuclear weapons States at this year’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York in April to fulfil their side of the bargain they struck 45 years ago in signing a treaty to eliminate their nuclear weapons in exchange for other nations not proliferating nuclear weapons and call on them to now act to honour their unequivocal undertaking to disarm under Article 6 of the treaty.Motion agreed to.Points of OrderCriminal Procedure (Removing Paedophile Name Suppression) Amendment Bill—Leave to IntroduceRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for a bill the Criminal Procedure (Removing Paedophile Name Suppression) Amendment Bill to be introduced and debated on the next members’ day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. There is objection.Questions to MinistersRoading Northland—Bridges Upgrade1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Northland by-election?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes in the context they were given.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement regarding the 10 one-lane bridges that “these bridges need upgrading and they will be.”; if so how does he explain a massive variation in costings of between $32 million and $69 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes; in answer to the second part of the question not all the work has been done to be absolutely sure of what the final costs will be. That is standard whenever we do procurement around new infrastructure like roading.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whose idea was it to double lane the 10 bridges and on what date was he informed that the announcement would be made?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question Cabinet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well how does he square that answer with the Northland National Party candidate’s statement that it was his idea? Who is not telling the truth here?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member did not ask me where the idea originated from.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you study the Hansard of questions and answers and I know that you are fully aware that these questions were asked on 10 March and on 17 March and that the Ministers and Cabinet particularly the Minister of Transport have had all that time to get these answers right and to be able to answer them truthfully in the House. I ask that you require them to do that.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure that is a point of order but if the member thinks that an answer has been given in this House that is incorrect there is an appropriate way to deal with that and it is not via a point of order.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. But surely it would be far cheaper for the taxpayer if we do not go through—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is certainly not a clarification and it is not a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he in favour of the “Darby and Joan” Bridge being double-laned considering that it would require cutting down two landmark protected native kauri trees and that very low numbers of vehicles actually use the bridge—often just to see those kauri trees?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am advised that the member is incorrect in the assumptions he made in his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What has happened here is that the Prime Minister has got up and challenged the very veracity of the question which simply was that it is a landmark bridge—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and it got an environmental award because it harmonises with the two kauri trees and he says I am incorrect with my assumptions.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance from the member. The member asked a question. The Prime Minister disputed the facts that are in that question. That is the right of the Prime Minister. The way forward is supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I have ruled on this matter. I am not putting up with a repetition of yesterday where my points—[Interruption] Would the member sit down. [Interruption] Order! I am very tempted to be asking the member to leave. The member can continue asking his supplementary questions if he has some left but I have ruled that the question that was asked has been addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When I said that somebody was in favour of the “Darby and Joan” Bridge being double-laned and that it would end the landmark historical and environmental award given to this bridge because of the kauri trees that have to be cut down which one of those assumptions was wrong?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That was not the question the member asked me.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have studied the Westminster system all around the world and I have never seen—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called. I will listen to it and I expect to listen to it in silence. Would the member quickly get to his point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that I am asking the Prime Minister to outline what assumptions he says we have got wrong in our questions on this matter.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the problem here is that had Mr Peters been able to table a full design specification for the renewed “Darby and Joan” Bridge he might be able to make the assertions he has but he cannot and he does not need to make these assertions until that is the case.Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that helps us forward in this case. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has now been—Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I am on my feet. He has repeated now a question that is not the question he asked and that is the difficulty. The question was a very long-winded question. The Prime Minister has addressed that question—I accept not to the member’s satisfaction. [Interruption] Order! The way forward is further supplementary questions. It is not to then question the answer that has been given.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked this question No. 4 in one way and the answer was that I got the assumptions wrong. I asked the question in a different way—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I have dealt with this. Sit down. The member asked the question. The Prime Minister addressed the question—I have said to my satisfaction; I accept it is not to the member’s satisfaction. The way forward is further supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he in favour of the “Darby and Joan” Bridge being double-laned considering that it would require cutting down two landmark protected native kauri trees and that very low numbers of vehicles actually use the bridge—often just to see those trees?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question the member is wrong. The trees will not be cut down.Economy—Impact on Families2.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing how the performance of the New Zealand economy is translating into benefits for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday ANZ released its economic outlook report for March. It indicated that the momentum of last year’s economic growth is likely to continue into this year and it expects 3 percent growth for this year. It points out that there are risks to the New Zealand economy related to low energy and low commodity prices but it expects job growth wage growth and continued low interest rates which for households means job security moderate wage increases and a greater ability to repay debt rather than pay higher interest rates.Alastair Scott: What measures come into effect today that will directly benefit New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The prospect of sustainable economic growth means that the Government is able to act to support families. So from 1 April paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks and by another 2 weeks on 1 April next year. The parental tax credit will rise from $150 a week to $220 and the entitlement will increase from 8 to 10 weeks. Average ACC work levies will fall to 90 cents from 95 cents. The HomeStart scheme starts on 1 April which will enable around 90000 New Zealanders to be assisted to buy their first homes. New Zealand superannuation will increase by another 2 percent meaning that it has increased by 31 percent since April 2008 more than double the inflation rate.Dr David Clark: In light of the primary question when considering how the performance of the New Zealand economy is translating into benefits for New Zealand families has he considered the household labour force survey which shows growing unemployment in every region of New Zealand since his Government came to power?Hon BILL ENGLISH: On “Planet Labour” there was no global financial crisis but in New Zealand there was. So just to remind the member: unemployment went up pretty sharply in 2008 2009 and 2010 and it has been dropping fairly consistently since. It is still too high although I might notice that it is significantly lower than Australia’s where unemployment is rising which accounts for the fact that many New Zealanders are voting with their feet and staying home and coming home because they have a good prospect of getting a job here.David Seymour: How is it that the Government can afford to hand out so much money and index so many benefits on 1 April and yet does nothing to index tax thresholds to inflation for the benefit of the people paying for it all?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a fair question and as I think was indicated by my colleague the Minister for Economic Development last week that is something that will be discussed in the context of future options for moderate tax reductions for New Zealanders. But I might say that at the moment inflation is around zero and that is enforcing a discipline on the Government because we are not collecting more tax because of fiscal drag which is a very unusual if not unique set of circumstances. But this Government is a responsible manager of the Government’s finances and we will try to deal with that pressure.David Seymour: In light of the Minister’s reference to a unique set of circumstances where fiscal drag is low is this not the perfect time to make the switch and index tax brackets to inflation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No it is not the perfect time but it is the perfect time to start such a discussion.Alastair Scott: How is the Government able to deliver to households the benefits of sustained growth in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We can deliver some benefits of sustained growth but I must say that for most households it is their workplace that is delivering those benefits such as more job security in a growing economy; moderate wage increases year on year which over time will lift our average wage by $5000 to $6000 over the next 4 years; and of course the general economy in which interest rates are lower than they might otherwise have been and that gives households more opportunity to pay off debt. The Government can contribute of course through its fiscal policy where we believe that the measures such as those that are coming in on 1 April are moderate but supportive of families and that is some of the benefit that they get from a well-managed economy.Alastair Scott: What did the ANZ report say about risks to the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it pointed out some of the risks that have been discussed in the House before. Part of that is very important and it is around the outlook for our trading partners. So with China and Australia both economies have some question marks as to their rates of growth. There are also question marks over the current low commodity prices particularly in the dairy industry and the extent to which they stay low or bounce back to what we would regard as a long-run acceptable and normal price level. Fortunately the New Zealand economy is resilient. It has proven it can deal with headwinds as it has done over the last 4 or 5 years quite successfully and we have every confidence that even if some of these risks eventuate we will be able to handle them.Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies and Impact on Government Financial Position3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “falling off a high horse in Northland can force ACC levies up”; if so is that why the Government has set work and earners levies above the levels recommended by ACC?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I say to the junior leader of the Opposition—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —yes and no.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is that sort of start to the answer that does not help the order of this House.Andrew Little: Is his concern about horses in Northland really about high horses or well-run thoroughbreds?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All I know is that in 2014 like in 2011 and 2008 we went off to the races and we won big time.Andrew Little: Given that ACC itself has recommended against the $350 million overcharge why is National forcing Kiwi businesses and workers to pay excess ACC levies that even ACC says it does not want or need?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would remind the member firstly that the ACC board often makes a range of recommendations. In 2010-11 the Government actually increased ACC levies by $1.137 billion less than what was recommended by ACC. Today actually I read an interesting quote that said the following: “The Employers’ levy remains the same at an average of 90 cents per $100 of payroll. Although ACC recommended a reduced levy rate of 85 cents the government decided there was a need to give employers more stability in levy rates from year to year as well as building up reserves.” That was from Lianne Dalziel Labour’s ACC Minister in 2002-03.Andrew Little: Moving on 13 years to this year is it in the public interest particularly the interests of levy payers for ACC to take more in levies than it needs and more than it wants when its work and earners accounts are already overflowing; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I take it from the member that he is thinking that we should do as he says not as Labour has done. That seems to be the subtext of his question. I go back to the point I made earlier. Over time the ACC board has made a series of recommendations. The Government adopts what it thinks is right. It is on track to do that. As you know from 1 April—today—there have been further cuts. There will be more on 1 July I think from memory. It is on track for about $1.5 billion worth of cuts in the last 12 to 18 months alone.Andrew Little: Given his failure to end his ACC rip-off this year will he now commit to cutting next year’s ACC levies by at least $350 million in the coming Budget; if not why on earth not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the Government will do is get a further set of recommendations as is required by law from the ACC board and consider those in context. But I would make a couple of points and that is that if one looks at ACC and the factors that drive its levy recommendations one sees that there are a number of moving factors in there including the discount rate. So the member just better be a little bit careful what he wishes for because the ACC board may well come out with a recommendation he does not like.Andrew Little: Why did he fail to tell New Zealanders that most of his ACC reductions were just reversing his Government’s earlier levy hikes put in place because of Nick Smith’s creative and fake crisis as the smokescreen for privatisation? Why does he not reverse those? Tell the truth.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is true that this Government put up ACC levies when we first came into office. [Interruption] Interestingly enough the member says “unnecessarily”. The recommendation from the board which by the way he wants us to adopt this year was to put them up by $1.3 billion and the reason the board wanted them to go up by so much was that Labour left ACC unfunded and broke. What a disgrace from the Labour Opposition. What a disgrace.Housing Market—Subsidies and Median House Prices4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s advice in relation to proposed changes to the Welcome Home Loan Scheme and KiwiSaver Subsidies that “over the longer term subsidies have the potential to add to existing house price pressure in what is a highly overvalued market”; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The member overlooks two important facts in the advice from the Reserve Bank Governor. The first is that it was dated 18 June and was directed at an earlier version of the HomeStart package in which it was proposed to increase grants for buying existing homes by 50 percent. The final HomeStart package agreed by Cabinet on 18 August took this advice into account and left the grants for existing homes as is. The second fact is that the member does not include the Reserve Bank Governor’s complete advice in which he said: “The targeting of a higher subsidy for new homes would be expected to have a positive effect on new housing supply.” Consistent with this advice the final package doubled only the subsidies for new housing supply.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to new housing supply does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that increasing these subsidies will result in “higher margins for developers and builders”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Again the member is being cute with his quotation. He forgot the word “might”—forgot the word “might”. Actually it is our view that by providing a grant to the homeowner we can have confidence that they will shop around and get themselves the very best deal. We do not agree with those members’ policy and that is that they do not trust homeowners and they want the State to build the houses they think homeowners want.Dr Russel Norman: By how much have median house prices risen in Auckland since his Government took office?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is new data on house prices out today. It shows that in the course of the 6 years of this Government house prices in Auckland have gone up by an average of 5 percent per year. It is interesting to compare that with what house prices went up by on average under the previous Government where the average was 10 percent per year or double—that is house prices were going up an average of double during the previous Government’s 9 years.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that the median house price in Auckland has gone up under his Government by more than $250000 and does he think that is sustainable?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not think it is sustainable. That is why this Government has passed more legislation in respect of housing than any Government in the last 20 years.Phil Twyford: Tinkering and photo ops.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says that it is tinkering. I would suggest that the special housing areas legislation—which has opened up land for 34000 houses; more land has been opened up in Auckland in the last 12 months than in the last 10 years—is the sort of policy that is required. The biggest cost increase in Auckland has been in the price of the section and it is actually the sort of policy that is advocated around a tight metropolitan urban limit which the Green Party supported that is at the core of Auckland’s house prices.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the fact that this Government has now been in office for more than 6 years what responsibility does he take for the fact that median house prices in Auckland have increased by more than a quarter of a million dollars and how on earth are people supposed to afford those kinds of house price increases?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make is that when we came to Government New Zealand was building 1000 houses per month. The latest figures which came out yesterday show that we are building 2000 houses per month and an increased supply is at the core. I had also missed this: New Zealand is a much more popular country to live in. We do not have 50000 people a year leaving to Australia. As a consequence there is more demand. We on this side of the House welcome that but we also accept the challenge that we have to build a lot more houses given that we are now a much more popular country to live in.Dr Russel Norman: Does he think that giving $10000 or $20000 subsidies to a couple to buy their first home outweighs the $250000 increase in the price of housing in Auckland and is it not only a drop in the bucket compared with that price increase?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In 2007 the previous Government introduced the subsidies for people to buy a house—at that point $10000. In that year house price increases were faster than they are now. The Green Party is on record in 2007 saying that grants for first home owners were a great thing. It seems the consistency of the Green Party is that when the previous Government provides a grant for first home owners it is a great idea but somehow when we do that it is not a good idea. That does not sound very principled to me.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the $250000 increase in the median price of houses in Auckland under this Government will he reconsider his policies of taking no action to restrict demand from investment buyers through a capital gains tax or from offshore demand through non-resident foreign buyers?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The evidence is very clear particularly in the Productivity Commission’s comprehensive report that the biggest contributor to increased house prices is sections in Auckland. They have gone from $100000 each in 2000 to $350000. The key driver of that has been the metropolitan urban limit. That is why this Government has made the No. 1 priority breaking that metropolitan urban limit which we have done with our special housing areas. I wish the member would simply accept that link between dumb planning policies and high house prices.Resource Management Act Reforms—Auckland Housing Market5.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he like the Prime Minister relaxed about the effect of dropping major RMA reforms on new housing supply and does he agree with the Prime Minister that there are “mixed views” about how much his reforms would have addressed Auckland’s housing shortage?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I have checked and the Prime Minister’s comments were specifically in respect of the changes to sections 6 and 7 of which there are mixed views. The Prime Minister equally made the point: “the procedural changes are very important.” For instance the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act which bypassed the more clumsy procedural parts of the Resource Management Act has freed up land supply for 43000 homes in Auckland. This law expires in September next year and our Resource Management Act reforms need to ensure ongoing land supply and residential development.Phil Twyford: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that there are mixed views about how his Resource Management Act reforms would have addressed the Auckland housing shortage was this because Nick Smith says that the Resource Management Act is to blame for the rising cost of housing and hardly anyone else agrees?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Every member of this House knows that the Resource Management Act is the primary law that governs the creation of sections. The price of sections in Auckland has gone from $100000 in 2000 to an average of $375000 today. If we are serious about improving house prices we have to focus on section prices and the Resource Management Act is critical to resolving that issue.Phil Twyford: Which quote best describes his Resource Management Act announcement in January: “An attempt to manipulate public sentiment with unsubstantiated claims rhetoric and at times misleading analysis.” that was the Listener; “[jumbled] together anecdote and slogans commonsense and windy abstractions.” that was the Dominion Post; or “A blunderbuss attempt to obliterate the RMA.” that was Radio New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I could cite hundreds of sources that received this Government’s Resource Management Act reforms very positively and I actually even note—Hon Members: Name one!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —oh name one—that Labour’s environment spokesperson says that Resource Management Act changes are important. So even Labour accepts that if we are serious about addressing housing affordability Resource Management Act reform is an important part of the package.Joanne Hayes: Have any changes been made to the Resource Management Act that have negatively impacted on land supply and housing affordability in Auckland; if so when were those changes made?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At the heart of the Auckland housing issue is land supply and the rigid boundary imposed by the former Auckland Regional Council’s metropolitan urban limit. That has seen section prices in Auckland go up by 300 percent. District and city councils had to have regard only for the metropolitan limit under the original Resource Management Act but changes made in 2004 meant that regional councils’ plans trumped local council rules. This change turned the metropolitan urban limit into a straitjacket saw section availability drop dramatically and saw undeveloped land prices inside the metropolitan urban limit increase in some cases by a hundredfold.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald that he was using the Resource Management Act as a smokescreen; if so was he using housing to disguise his weakening of the Resource Management Act’s environmental principles or was he using the Resource Management Act to distract from his failure to fix the housing crisis?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Productivity Commission produced a comprehensive report on housing affordability. It said that at the core of what this Parliament must address if it is serious about making housing more affordable is those planning rules within the Resource Management Act. I simply say to the member opposite that sections can be developed only through the Resource Management Act. Section prices are at the core of this issue and if we are serious about addressing that reform of the Resource Management Act is critical.Phil Twyford: Will he release the detail of his housing-related Resource Management Act changes so that parties on this side of the House can assess them given Andrew Little’s commitment that we will look at supporting them if they stack up?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: All in good time. The Government is going to consult with its support parties—the Māori Party the ACT Party and United Future. When we have a bill in good shape we will introduce it to the House and we would welcome the support of members opposite.Superannuation—2015 Annual General Adjustment6.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to support people receiving superannuation in retirement?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Today superannuation and veterans pension payments have increased by 2.07 percent as a result of the annual general adjustment. This increase will see married superannuitants receiving an extra $11.68 each week while those living alone will receive an extra $7.59. This Government has committed to keeping the married couples superannuation rate to at least 66 percent of the average wage and this increase is the result of rising wages in a growing economy. Since 2008 superannuation and veterans pension payments have increased by 31 percent double the rate of inflation allowing superannuitants to enjoy a better standard of living in their retirement.Todd Muller: What impact does the annual general adjustment have on beneficiaries?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In 2011 this Government passed legislation to increase benefits annually in line with inflation. As a result benefit payments to around 440000 New Zealanders will also increase today by 0.51 percent. The thresholds for the community services card have also increased. This increase benefits thousands of New Zealanders receiving a range of assistance through Work and Income and StudyLink and it ensures that benefits keep pace with increased living costs.Regional Economies—Northland7.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he says of the people of Northland: “They want more. They want to go faster”; if so does he believe that this view on the economy is unique to the people of Northland?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): This question is nearly identical to the member’s question No. 8 in the House yesterday. I have checked my Hansard and I am very happy with the answer yesterday which applies today.Mr SPEAKER: It would help if you would re-answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Repeat the answer? Well what I said yesterday was that I do agree with the Prime Minister. In fact I told Q+Aon the weekend that there is an impatience in Northland to do more and frankly I share that impatience. Although we have had some positive economic growth and employment growth in the Northland region in recent times we recognise there is more to be done. That is why we are fast tracking critical infrastructure like regional roading projects the roads of national significance ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband. That is why we are working with other parties to reform the Resource Management Act in order to cut red tape and encourage investment in the region.Dr David Clark: Is the issue of lack of work unique to Northland given that the household labour force survey shows that the number of people looking for work in every single region of New Zealand is higher than when the Government took office in 2008?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a couple of points here. One is that again—as the member earlier this afternoon tried to ignore—there has been a thing called the global financial crisis and in fact all over the—Dr David Clark: It finished quite a few years ago Steven.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well actually it has not finished. It has not in Spain it has not in Greece it has not in Europe it has not in Australia it has not in the UK it has not in the US and it has not in Canada. I appreciate that the member wants to ignore it in the context of New Zealand but New Zealand has one of the lower unemployment rates in the OECD New Zealand employment is recovering well and the New Zealand economy is now one of the fastest growing in the developed world.Dr David Clark: Is the issue of squeezed income unique to Northland given that the New Zealand Income Survey shows that real median household incomes have decreased in Auckland Waikato Bay of Plenty Gisborne Hawke’s Bay Manawatū Wanganui Tasman Nelson Marlborough and the West Coast since his Government came to office?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to go back and check the member’s numbers but actually again the global financial crisis happened in this country. The good news is that when we arrived in office unfortunately the previous Government had inflation growing faster than incomes. Now we have incomes growing faster than inflation and I know which New Zealanders prefer.Dr David Clark: Is the issue of poorly maintained roads unique to Northland given New Zealand Transport Agency funding has decreased over the past 6 years not only in Northland but also in Gisborne Hawke’s Bay Taranaki Manawatū Wanganui Tasman Nelson Marlborough and on the West Coast?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is why the House has some difficulty I am sure believing the member because in that question he is completely wrong as he is in others.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table the data that supports the assertions in my question.Hon Steven Joyce: What is it?Dr David Clark: It is off the New Zealand Transport Agency website provided by the Parliamentary Library.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If it is off the website it is available to all members. Does the Minister wish to complete an answer? Supplementary question Dr David Clark.Dr David Clark: Does he intend to do as much to confront the issues of lack of work squeezed incomes underfunding of local roads and falling home affordability in other regions of New Zealand as he has done in Northland in the past 6 years and does he expect similar results?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I am sorry but the member is incorrect. He talks about falling home affordability and that is obviously a challenge in Auckland but actually in regional New Zealand that is not so much of a challenge. I know that the member takes a very broad-brush approach. There are unique problems in different regions and Northland has some more intractable problems that have been difficult for politicians on both sides of the House for decades. We will continue to work on them and will continue to apply the appropriate policy mixes to each region of the country. New Zealand as a whole will continue to grow strongly over the next few years and that is predicted by the Reserve Bank and Treasury. We will continue to work on that growth.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table census data showing that homeownership has—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Again census data is freely available—Dr David Clark: It has been compiled by the Parliamentary Library for the purpose of illustrating the point over that time period for the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that it is now information from the Parliamentary Library I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular table prepared by the Parliamentary Library.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to put this leave first. Leave is sought to table the information asked for by Dr David Clark. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the AMP housing affordability survey issued yesterday showing that housing affordability has improved in every single region—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. Is it a document that has been distributed to all MPs?Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.Mr SPEAKER: Is it publicly available on the website?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: It is; then I will not put the leave.Income Gap Parity with Australia—Minimum Wage8.DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the size of the gap between the New Zealand minimum wage hourly rate and the Australian national minimum wage hourly rate?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I am pleased to advise that today the gap between the two countries has closed thanks to the increase in the minimum wage which will put $1000 a year in the pockets of minimum-wage earners. An absolute measure of the gap between Australia and New Zealand is a little difficult due to changes in the exchange rate and the fact that Australia has minimum rates for youth and the disabled. But if we take the adult minimum wage of both countries today the gap is about $2.50. That compares with $4.16 in April 2008 after the last Labour-Green Government’s minimum-wage increase.Denise Roche: Has his Government dropped its 2008 goal to achieve pay parity with Australia; if not why has the average weekly earnings gap increased by $45.38 under National?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would need to check the member’s data because they are not the same as mine. The gap in both the adult minimum wage and the average and median wages is closing as we committed to. The member does not need to take my word for it. She can take the word of the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who realise the grass is actually greener on this side of the Ditch and they are coming home.Denise Roche: I seek leave to table this document showing that the average weekly earnings gap between New Zealand and Australia adjusted for—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The source of the document is now all I require.Denise Roche: It was put together for me by the Parliamentary Library.Mr SPEAKER: We have started a pattern here that I might well regret. I will put the leave and it will be over to the House. Leave is sought to table that Parliamentary Library document. Is there any objection? No.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Denise Roche: How much would the average earnings gap between Australia and New Zealand reduce if his Government simply paid the same minimum wage as Australia?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have that data to hand because the primary question was actually about the minimum wage but what I can tell the member is that if the minimum wage moved to the adult Australian minimum wage the cost would be 15000 jobs—15000 jobs. This Government is not prepared to throw people on the scrap heap just for a whim.Denise Roche: Would he agree that if New Zealand’s economy relies on paying 300000 people wages so low that they are trapped below the poverty line it is not really an economy that is working for all of us?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would agree with the member that the goal is to create an economy that means that all employees are paid appropriately for their skills and experience and I also note that under this Government the adult minimum wage has gone up by more than $110 a week. That is $5700 a year. But you cannot get higher wages with the stroke of a pen. Otherwise you would be putting the minimum wage up to $30 $40 $50 an hour.Paid Parental Leave—Increases9.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the Government helping to support new parents?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): As part of Budget 2014’s $500 million investment in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families we announced that the Government would improve paid parental leave to help young families get ahead. This is happening in two steps and the first came into effect today with paid parental leave increasing from 14 to 16 weeks. From 1 April next year this will be increased by a further 2 weeks to a total of 18 weeks’ paid leave. This Government wants to support families in making the choices that are best for them so we have increased the parental tax credit which has not been raised since 1999. The tax credit is paid when low and middle-income working families who are not on a benefit and who do not receive paid parental leave have a new child. From today that parental tax credit increases from $150 a week to $220 and the payment period has been extended from 8 weeks to 10 weeks.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other changes are in the pipeline with paid parental leave?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will be introducing legislation to the House this year that will extend paid parental leave eligibility to more workers and increase the flexibility of the scheme. These changes will include extending parental leave payments to non-standard workers such as casual staff and those who have recently changed jobs; extending entitlements to primary carers other than biological parents such as permanent guardians Home for Life carers whāngai and grandparents; and enabling employees to take their leave more flexibly by mutual agreement with the employer. Each year more than 26000 people take paid parental leave. Our changes will make it easier for thousands of New Zealand parents to take more time off work to spend with their newborn child if they wish and will provide extra support for young families at an important and challenging time.Sue Moroney: Why did National vote against funding 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for babies born with a disability those born prematurely or to the parents of multiple births at a cost of just $6 million when only 3 weeks later the Government found $70 million to fund the Northland bridges election bribe?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is already a great deal of assistance for parents of multiple-birth children. The Government currently provides payments for home help to assist with multiple births Working for Families tax credits provide four types of payments for families with dependent children and there is a whole range of extra financial support for families in special circumstances such as accommodation childcare and other grants. For families with a new baby with a disability there is a child disability allowance to help parents meet the additional costs and a whole range of initiatives from disability support services that provide wraparound services for these families.Corrections Facilities—Safety10.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Is he satisfied that staff-to-prisoner ratios are adequate for staff safety in all of New Zealand’s corrections facilities?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes I am.Mahesh Bindra: Given that there is no specific ratio model for staffing at the privately run prisons and given the recent death of a prisoner in custody—with condolences to the family—what mechanisms are in place in all of New Zealand’s corrections facilities both public and privately run to keep staff and prisoners safe from prison assaults?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As the member knows staffing levels for residential units and operational support functions at each publicly managed prison were set in 2001. Those ratios looked at the staff-to-prisoner ratios for remand prisons which were set at 1:15; for high to medium prisons at 1:15; and as well for youth prisons at 1:9.Tracey Martin: What about Serco?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: For Serco—I am getting to that ma’am—it is based on the output and the outcomes that Serco is able to do. In the last prison performance table might I just add Serco’s Mt Eden Corrections Facility was the most exceptional prison based on core security internal procedures and its rehabilitation score. So it is clear that despite the fact that we have that private prison it is one of the highest-performing prisons in New Zealand.Kelvin Davis: So what is being done to reduce the numbers of assaults on both inmates and staff in correctional facilities?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As that member knows prisons are extremely difficult and demanding work environments for our staff. Over the last few years the Government has introduced stab-resistant body armour spit hoods batons and pepper spray progressively from 2010. We have also rolled out extensive training on de-escalation techniques to all front-line officers. We have trialled on-body cameras and a tender is now out for their roll-out. And we are implementing a pilot site emergency response team at Spring Hill prison which was implemented today.Kelvin Davis: What internal reviews have been or will be done in regards to the near fatal assault on an inmate in a Hawke’s Bay correctional facility on the weekend; the assault on prison guards at Rimutaka Prison on Monday; and the bashing of an inmate in Christchurch Prison which yesterday proved fatal?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: With regards to the last incident it is sad that Mr Parata died in custody. There is an ongoing police investigation. The chief inspector will be following that up with his own investigation. Far be it from me to comment further on that matter.Tax System—Reforms for Businesses11.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Small Business: How will small and medium businesses benefit from the Government’s proposals to simplify the tax system?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Small and medium sized businesses will benefit from a simpler and modernised tax system. The Government is considering possible improvements to simplify the tax system for businesses by streamlining the collection and calculation of PAYE GST and related information by integrating these obligations into various business processes—things such as leveraging new technology and simplifying calculation for provisional tax based perhaps on real-time information. I encourage small and medium enterprises to make a submission on these very good proposals. These initiatives will make for a more modern efficient and flexible tax system once again demonstrating why this Government is better for business.Ian McKelvie: How are small and medium businesses benefiting from the changes the Government has made to the tax system?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Small and medium businesses whether in rural areas in the city on the farm or in the factory have already benefited from changes that this Government has made to the tax system including lower company tax rates lower personal income tax rates and making tax compliance easier for businesses through initiatives such as myIR online accounts. Small and medium businesses are also benefiting from other changes by removing unnecessary reporting requirements cutting red tape and improving infrastructure.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Over several days there have been questions from Government members to this Minister which he has answered with a prepared short speech. Although there are no rules that prevent Ministers from reading answers it does seem to be a waste of the House’s time to get short speeches to patsy questions.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Small business is the heart of the New Zealand economy and I am disgusted that the Labour Party members should say it is a waste of the House’s time to consider their interests. [Interruption]Ron Mark: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope it is a fresh point of order from Ron Mark.Ron Mark: Firstly that was not a point of order and I have been sat down on numerous occasions by you for making points of order that—Mr SPEAKER: Can the member make his point of order quickly.Ron Mark: OK. The point of order draws you specifically to Standing Order 383 in particular Standing Order 383(1) and (2) and questions are meant to be short. The point raised by the whip for Labour is very well made. You yourself and other Speakers in the Chair have said that we should not be giving speeches. If a person cannot give their answer orally then they should be sat down.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is there a further point of order being raised by Chris Hipkins or has he caused enough trouble?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any more assistance from the member. Members should know that questions are allocated and the Government gets a share of those questions. Government members have every right to ask a question about how small and medium sized businesses will benefit by proposed tax changes. I did not think the list that was read out was unduly long. I am certainly aware that the Minister on many occasions is long with some of his answers. On this occasion I did not think he was at all.Ian McKelvie: This will be very good. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Equally all members have a right to ask a supplementary question.Ian McKelvie: What reports has the Minister seen on proposed changes that will not simplify the tax system for small and medium businesses? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that the answer does not comment on another political party’s policy the Minister can answer the supplementary question.Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen a report: “Overly burdensome tax compliance must be addressed. It is an avoidable drag on the productivity of our small businesses.” I absolutely agree with that statement but I have also seen a report from the same author that proposes complex new taxes and burdens on small businesses. The author of those two reports cannot have it both ways. The author of those reports is the Labour Party. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I am going to take this opportunity to ask that Minister to look carefully at Speaker’s ruling 154/2A. It is not reasonable to use a question from the governing party to simply attack other members of this House or other political parties. It is to cease from that Minister.Iraq Military Deployment—Safety of Personnel12.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his response yesterday “well why would you?” when asked if he would publicly release details regarding the level of protection afforded to New Zealand personnel in the upcoming deployment to Iraq?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): In the context that the question was asked yes.Hon Phil Goff: When details about legal protection have not been suppressed in the past is the lack of transparency in this case because in fact he has achieved less protection for our New Zealand soldiers in Iraq; if not what is the reason?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is an unreasonable suggestion from the person asking the question that there has been less legal protection achieved for our people who will be deployed to Iraq but I would go on to suggest to him that he look back at recent history—2001 2003 2006 and 2009—and note that such agreements were not released on those occasions. On at least one of those occasions I believe he was the Minister of Defence.Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave from the House to table the status of forces agreement in regard to the Solomon Islands in 2003 and in fact the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described; it does not need further description. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Phil Goff: With regard to transparency why did his office yesterday mislead journalists by telling them that New Zealand soldiers were not in Australia training for deployment only to correct that later in the day after it was exposed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is using his own interpretation of circumstances to create a picture that is simply untrue. I was asked about the issue at about a quarter to 10 yesterday morning and I confirmed to them that there were troops training in Australia. The really ironic thing here is that the Labour Party thinks it is odd that our troops should train for a mission before they go. I seek leave to table a document showing that it was the Solomon Islands Government that passed special legislation in 2003 that enabled the arrangement to be put in place that Mr Goff speaks of. It was not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is—[Interruption] Order! Would both Mr Mark and Mr Brownlee continue their conversation after question time? [Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Phil Goff: Why has Mr Brownlee refused to be transparent when asked and tell this House what the level of risk is in the area that we are deploying New Zealand troops to when the Australian Government by comparison has been open about the fact that it is high risk and when the New Zealand Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Keating told the select committee that the place we are going to is an “extremely dangerous place”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Once again the member asking the question puts together an assertion and suggests that it is fact. It is not. I have always maintained that we need to exercise a high degree of caution in the way in which we engage around this particular deployment because it is risky. And anyone who watches their television on an evening will know that.Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Minister repeatedly failed to be open honest and transparent around the questions of legal protection for our deployed troops around risk levels for the Iraq deployment and even about our soldiers training for deployment in Australia when answering honestly any of those questions does not involve any security risk for our people?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well Mr Speaker I am actually quite surprised that you allowed that question given the fact that—Mr SPEAKER: I am giving plenty of licence to the answer.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —it was full of all sorts of accusations manufactured in the mind of Phil Goff. I have always been open about the nature of this particular involvement but I have said that there are particular concerns around this deployment that will mean that we do not say some things publicly. If the member cannot work it out I would suggest he spends a little bit of time with some of the families who have got members who will be part of this deployment. Of course for his own political reasons he does not care about that. He has got no interest in protecting those people. He has got an interest only in trying to get a little bit of public position that might put him back into contention against his old mate Andrew Little—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The general debate will start shortly.Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table the United States status of forces agreement with Iraq which is available on the internet.Mr SPEAKER: If it is available on the internet I will not be putting the leave.General DebateHon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I intend in my call today to reflect on New Zealand’s WW100 programme. The centenary of the First World War officially commenced in August last year and is going to be continuing through until 2019. It will commemorate a range of events that are international and national and that are also community based. There are some 850 community events that have been organised so far and the details are on the website for WW100 which comes out of my ministry.One hundred years on the centenary of the First World War is an immensely significant event. It was really the beginning of the Anzacs—the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps—and the ties that bind New Zealand and Australia were formed at that time. It has been said of both countries that our nationhood is built on the war effort and on the sacrifice of our forebears 100 years ago.The effect that the First World War had on this country is apparent in very many ways from our individual family histories to how we see ourselves as a nation and how we are seen by others. The so-called Great War is the cornerstone of our friendship with Australia. Strengthened at Gallipoli in the Middle East and on the Western Front the Anzac bond is a fundamental part of the identity of both of our nations. In the official history of Australia in the Great War the Australian historian Charles Bean wrote of the diggers—and it equally applies I feel to the New Zealand soldiers—that their creed was the miners’ and the bushmen’s: “Stand by your mate”. Cricket games notwithstanding we have done that ever since. Our partnership which was forged in adversity is as strong as it ever was. A hundred years on the centenary of the First World War is an immensely significant event to all of us.Hon Members: Why are you reading this?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is something that we need to take note of and with some respect which is not shown currently by the members opposite. When we reflect on the legacy of service and sacrifice and on how that war made an impact on the society we know today we need to reflect very carefully on the number of New Zealanders that went across to Europe: 100000 New Zealand men went across to Europe. At the time that was around 10 percent of our population. We went the farthest and our casualties were high. Our rates were something like 60 percent of those who went. They were wounded they were killed they came back and some of them died as a result of their injuries. More than 18500 men lost their lives. That is a truly chilling and staggering figure and I think that as we commemorate the next 4 years it is a figure that we need to keep in our minds.The soldiers though who returned from the wars did not necessarily tell their stories to their families or to the people whom they knew and loved. They found their experiences far too hard to talk about and for those people—some of them who could never share their stories—that challenge has been taken up now by some of the commemorative events that are being featured in New Zealand over the next 4 years.I give you one example: Sir Peter Jackson’s The Great War Exhibition which is going to be at Wellington’s old Dominion Museum. I have seen a preview of it. It is a truly sensational exhibition and there is much in that to be proud of. It tells the story of the individual men and women—the men who went away to the war and the women who stayed behind and kept the home fires burning. When you look at these unspoken stories through the theatricality of the Hollywood creative genius of Sir Peter Jackson we see essentially that our nation reveals itself as the men and women who were the way we were and who are the way we have become.So we look at the Pukeahu National War Memorial Park in Wellington. That is officially opening on 18 April 2015. I was at the dawn ceremony last week. It is a very special place and in it there will be a context of what we call the war memorial gardens. The Australian one—it is fitting—is the first of those. We will have the Prime Minister of Australia along with our Prime Minister present at the official opening. That will be followed by gardens and memorial tributes from the United Kingdom from the United States from Canada from France and also from other countries that we are in discussion with. Expect over the next 4 years and then beyond that many of the conflicts that our New Zealanders have been involved with over a very long period of time will be commemorated there.The ceremonies that will take place on 20 April really set the tone for what will happen through an action-packed Anzac week when people will come from all over the world to stand with us to commemorate our role and our experiences in the war. As the Minister responsible for the World War I commemorations I have been deeply impressed by the work that has been done at Pukeahu. It is our major commitment to the legacy projects of World War I but it not our only project. More than $10 million has been spent on the programme—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): It is a privilege to be back as the member of Parliament for Northland. Five weeks ago the PM said that we would not stand. Then when we did he said that we had zero chance of winning. And then some of my media friends said that it was a joke and a stunt—some have had the good grace of course to recant since then.So let us start with an olive branch to Mr Key and the Government. If their Resource Management Act reforms are in the interests of New Zealand’s growth and environment and the hard-working people who make up our brilliant primary industries and the forgotten regions then we in New Zealand First will give them serious consideration.The problem is that they have never—not once—had the decency to call us despite their Michelle Boag’s deplorable attempt on Q+A to say otherwise. So we warn them that if these reforms stoke the Auckland property bubble that is keeping interest rates high and with it the New Zealand dollar—a dollar that is crucifying our productive sector being close to parity with the Aussie at record highs against the euro at 8-year highs against the yen and stuck in the high 70c range against the greenback—then Messrs Key Smith et al. We will not and we cannot help you.Last Saturday Northlanders went up to this Government’s flagstaff and chopped it down. In doing so they sent a message on behalf of Southland the West Coast Marlborough Whanganui Manawatū Wairarapa Hawke’s Bay Gisborne the Bay of Plenty the Waikato and elsewhere. That message is this: “It’s the economy stupid.” It is not a two-tiered economy. It is not all about Auckland. New Zealand excels when our regions excel but if they are treated like second-class citizens despite generating this country’s wealth they are going to rebel.Look at Northland’s neglect: the lowest median income in New Zealand; over 778 one-lane bridges; 1100 kilometres of unsealed roads in Kaipara with 70 percent of the roads in the far north unsealed and with the people who complain being threatened by bully-boy National MPs; a rail line that is so bad that it takes almost 5 hours to shift goods south to Auckland; and a place where you can forget 4G because a simple cellphone call is itself a trial.While billions of dollars are being poured into the commuter rail in Auckland and Wellington this Government cannot spare $6 million to fix the Napier to Gisborne line or to join the north line with Marsden Point. What that says about the regions in this Government’s priorities is not lost on them. Although we know about Northland’s bridges the West Coast has over 49 of them on State highways and yes we will ask the district councils how many are classed as local roads—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don’t be silly Winston.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do not shout here like Maggie Barry did at our meeting in Dargaville in the Methodist church. She came up. She was shouting. She had to be stopped by the chairman and all the crowds. There she was like all of the National Party and I said to her: “Look Maggie we can paste you any day in the House. Don’t come up here where we are loved and expect to be getting a decent audience.” She got told off by everybody including the chairperson and she was driving there in a ministerial car—all a waste of taxpayers’ money.All these other Ministers and backbenchers were making phone calls and putting up hoardings and when I saw them putting up hoardings I thought to myself: “You guys are finished.”—you guys are finished. When I see hard-working men like Alfred Ngaro and I see Mr Mark Mitchell from next door putting up hoardings I know that the National Party has collapsed up north.Look we asked the good people there to send a message and boy they did. And now we have got the National Party in so many days—just 4 days—later it cannot remember it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the message Clem?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The message Gerry is that it is over time for you. The message Mr Brownlee is that they have had enough of your neglect. They have had enough of your arrogance. They have had enough of being forgotten. They have had enough of being marginalised Cinderella-ised and forgotten and those hundreds of thousands of people who have created our wealth not just in Northland but around this country are going to make sure they get a fair go in New Zealand’s political and economic future. They cannot wait for the next election and—you know something—nor can I.Mr Key was asked all those questions yesterday and today and it may as well have been—as they say in the information technology industry—vapourware. Our message to rural and provincial New Zealand is this: help is on its way. Help is on its way. I know that the National Party has tens of thousands of members maybe hundreds of thousands of members who are now also very pleased to see that we are back.RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I deliberately waited to raise this point of order so as not to interrupt the member’s speech.Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order?RON MARK: The point of order is—and I am looking to you to protect the House and the Opposition—that there is a Standing Order that states that members cannot move from their own seat to another seat to better interject and break up another member’s speech. You sat there and you did not deal with Mr Brownlee.Mr SPEAKER: The member is right. If a member had moved I had not noticed it so it may have actually been helpful if the member on this occasion had raised the point of order when it happened. [Interruption] Order! I am still on my feet. I do not think that it in any way disrupted the performance by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was enjoying the interjections as much as most of the rest of the House.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I just want to apologise to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for interrupting his speech. I was merely trying to defend myself from the vicious attack I was subjected to!Mr SPEAKER: We will now return to the debate.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Today is a very very good day for New Zealand families. There is an increase in the minimum wage the sixth in a row under this Government even in straitened times and this now means that those who are on the minimum wage have $5700 a year more in their income. Paid parental leave now goes up and I will be introducing measures to broaden and deepen the well of people who will benefit from paid parental leave from next year. There have been increases in superannuation and veterans’ support payments as announced by the Minister for Social Development one of many many more benefits still to come. The increase in the payment for GP visits for those under 13 will be coming in this year along with free breakfasts in schools and warmer drier homes. This Government cares for New Zealand families.But I want to touch briefly on the crime statistics that came out this morning. For the fifth year in a row data released today shows that recorded crime has dropped again. If we had continued on the trajectory we were on in 2009 there would have been 100000 more crimes. That is a reduction of 100000 victims and their families compared with where we were heading. There has been a 7.8 percent drop in Canterbury and a 9.4 percent drop in Waikato. There are concerning trends around sexual and family violence and it is very hard to discern between an increase in the incidence of reporting and an increase in the incidence of crime. And this is a very poignant backdrop to acknowledging that there are challenges in many ways in respect of that but I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Police for further reductions in reported crime.I want to touch today on the spirit of Anzac. The Cricket World Cup has come and gone. The din has died down. The Northland by-election is over and to the victor the spoils. We are going to go into an adjournment. During that adjournment we are going to have one of this country’s most poignant commemorations—the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings on 25 April 1915. It was my great honour as the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs in 2014 to attend the 99th anniversary of Anzac Day at Gallipoli. It was a remarkable experience. The Dawn Service which commenced at around 5 a.m. was against the backdrop of what was exactly the weather on that day 99 years earlier. It was calm. It was sombre. It was completely incongruous to the sort of mayhem that must have faced New Zealand and Australian soldiers as they approached what is now known as Anzac Cove. The incongruous nature is due to the fact that we have been brought up with an image of Anzac Day and the Gallipoli campaign that is from grainy black and white and sepia photographs of a barren land and emaciated and injured and unwell soldiers dug into the side of mountains. But those who have been to Ҫanakkale in the Gallipoli Peninsula will know it is a beautiful place a peaceful place a place where thousands of Australians and New Zealanders lie buried and are looked after and looked over by the Turks who are now our friends—once our enemy.We are going to go into a commemoration that does not glorify war and indeed we should not but it does acknowledge the tremendous sacrifice that thousands of young men and women who went and never came home made for this country. I think we need to stop and reflect on that and on the theatres of war that are resplendent around this Chamber and just remember the heavy burden that we have to bear when we make decisions to send our young into harm’s way. Those challenges remain—Ron Mark: And sometimes you shouldn’t. Sometimes you should say no.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right. Let us just remind ourselves that the same number of soldiers who will be deployed in Iraq to support freedom and to control a heinous threat to New Zealanders here and abroad died every 3 days on the Gallipoli Peninsula. I think we need to reflect on that and pay an appropriate tribute. I really look forward to the centenary commemorations.Debate interrupted.Sittings of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I am sorry to interrupt this debate. Subject to discussions among party whips I seek leave for the House to rise tomorrow at the conclusion of the remaining stages of the legislation arising from the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the House to rise after that particular legislation nominated by the Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection.General DebateDebate resumed.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I have to say that what was once characterised as a dirty filthy grubby little Government engaging in dirty grubby filthy little tactics—as it tried in Northland—what we now have is a sad shadow of its former self. And the resident Elvis Presley impersonator sits there giggling because he is about to break out in a rendition of “Suspicious Minds” because that is what is governing the Cabinet and the National Party caucus now as the finger of blame rotates around the caucus room and the National Party wonders who is responsible.We observe today the stunning achievement of the National Party which turned what was a 9300 majority just 6 months ago into a 4000 deficit. That is unheard of in the history of New Zealand politics—unheard of in the history of New Zealand politics. The Northland by-election will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a political party in this country. The Prime Minister was right to express so many months ago his concern about the impact on ACC levies of falling off your high horse in Northland. He might not have thought that it would come but last week it did. Oh how the mighty have fallen—as they say—oh how the mighty have fallen.When we cast the finger of blamearound let us remember that it was not a single-handed job; there were many involved. It started with Chris Bishop. Chris Bishop did not so much fall off his high horse as off his rocking horse. They had a man’s job to do; they gave it to a boy to do it. So he did not last that long—actually he stayed up there for most of the time; we were waiting for him to turn up to Parliament—presumably he has had his $240 a day deducted from his parliamentary allowance but we will wait and see.Then they put the maestro—the strategic master Steven Joyce—in charge and he knew exactly what to do. This was the man of course who gave us great political achievements such as giving $48 million credit to RadioWorks. Then he was given the job of fixing Novopay and 2 years on how are we doing? We are down to 11000 faults each pay period now but that is better than the 300000 faults we had 2 years ago. And then he negotiated the state-of-the-art convention centre—the free convention centre that was then going to cost us $140 million and then when the public reacted against that we now have the less than state-of-the-art convention centre. Who knows what is going to be put up but it will be something worthy of the talents of Mr Joyce.So now we have his big strategy his big offering: the 10 bridges. You know I reckon what happened is that they sat around a campfire in Northland at one of the great beaches up there Ninety Mile Beach. They got out the guitars and started singing the great cultural classic “Ten Guitars” and that was the inspiration. That was the inspiration. Ten bridges was going to be the scheme. They thought that having one in Cabinet was not enough but having 10 for Northland was going to be the answer. Ten bridges and of course all it did was serve to remind the Northlanders just how short-changed they were. That was the great strategic maestro Steven Joyce—that was his offering.Of course what they reminded the rest of New Zealand of was just how poorly served the regions have been under this Government. National still does not get it—it still does not get it.Brett Hudson: They get it in New Plymouth. They get it in New Plymouth Mr Little.ANDREW LITTLE: When it promised the 10 bridges there was no mention of a global financial crisis—no mention of a global financial crisis then. But to everything that Labour comes up with National says: “Oh it’s the global financial crisis. That didn’t happen on Planet National.” Well it did happen and 7 years on regional New Zealand has nothing to show for 7 years of a National Government—absolutely nothing.The colleague across the way there reminds me about New Plymouth. Well he might want to front up today to the rest home workers at Port View Retirement in New Plymouth who have been thrown out of their jobs and the rest home residents thrown out of their homes because the Filipino owners see no future in Taranaki—no future in Taranaki under this Government. They have thrown the elderly of Taranaki out on the streets. They have thrown the good care workers of New Plymouth out on the streets because they see no future under this Government.That is what this Government has shown in the regions. Unemployment has risen in every region in this country since this Government took office—every region—because this Government does not care. When it has the smallest opportunity to do something—like lower the ACC levies to a realistic level—what does it do? It does not care. It does not care—that is what characterises this Government. It does not care about the regions. It has been a wake-up call. National has lost Northland and it will surely lose others as time goes on.Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): It gives me great pleasure to rise to my feet after that diatribe to actually point out to the House that what happened up in Northland at the weekend was that National got a message—quite true. National got a message from the people of Northland. It is one that we are receptive to. It is one that we understand. I might want to also remind the member Andrew Little who was previously on his feet that the people of Northland got a message from Labour as well. They got the message that Labour does not care enough to campaign hard for the seat.Labour had nothing to offer in the way of policies so much so that it threw Willow-Jean Prime under the bus. I feel really sorry for that candidate. She worked hard. She worked hard but nowhere near as hard as Mark Osborne did as it turns out. How can you be completely committed to the task when you are told: “Pull back pull back. Don’t say: ‘Vote for me.’ Don’t say: ‘Vote for our policies.’ Say: ‘Vote for the everlasting promises that come out of New Zealand First.’ ”?Stuart Smith: Can they deliver?Hon JO GOODHEW: Probably not. The question being put to me is whether New Zealand First can deliver. Time will tell. Time will tell but a number of people said to me: “Look we might take this opportunity to give a message but we understand that it might be a very short-lived message.”The measures that this Government has taken—and certainly last year’s Budget was a very strong signal to the families of New Zealand as to how important they are in our priorities. Our careful economic management during very difficult times has meant amongst other things that we have got 80000 new jobs on the books. The average wage grew by 2.5 percent compared with inflation at 0.8 percent. These are the sorts of facts you cannot actually argue with which is why in fact the other side of the House has gone deadly quiet right now. In fact—[Interruption] Oh look they are alive—in fact they are alive. The average wage is expected to increase by $6500 to $62000 by the second half of 2018.The circumstances in the by-election gave us a good opportunity to gather our thoughts around what is happening in the regions. Let me tell you that my region the Rangitata electorate certainly understands what low unemployment is. Our biggest problem is that we do not have enough people to fill the skill gaps. I forgot to say right at the beginning of my opportunity to speak that the previous member should remember whom to point the finger of blame at when it comes to losses in New Plymouth given that member has had plenty of opportunity to experience that.I do want to comment on the 1 April changes to both benefit and superannuation payments. There are more than 1 million New Zealanders who are going to feel the benefit of that. The annual general adjustment is going to see a 0.51 percent increase for those who require benefits and those who are on student allowances student loan living costs and foster care allowances and also an increase in the rate of supplementary assistance. I am sure they will appreciate that but I am also sure that the work the Government is doing to free those people from reliance on Government assistance is also being felt throughout New Zealand and I think that is worthy of mention here.I also want to comment on the difference that today’s rates will make for superannuitants and for those on the veterans pension as well. It is 2.07 percent. This is our commitment to maintain the married couple rate at 66 percent of the average wage. Remember prior to this Government coming into office there was no certainty that it would be at 66 percent. We put that into legislation. Before that it hovered. It could be at 66 percent but it could go back to 65 percent. We have underlined that in legislation.We have seen paid parental leave go up on 1 April from 14 weeks to 16 weeks but the note I want to finish on is just the changes that we are making to the reporting standards for charities to give New Zealanders trust and confidence in charities the 27000 registered charities—$16.8 billion is coming into the total annual income of those charities. They have tax-free status. They are now reporting on their financials. There is much more scrutiny on that. They are disclosing more information to the public and those changes are coming in as well. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): National did not just lose the Northland electorate; it was trounced. That was an electorate it had held for 50 years and it turned a 9000 majority into a deficit of 4000—a turn-round of 13000 votes. To Jo Goodhew if that is her name who says that that was because of the Labour Party giving it away I want to say that Northland was no Epsom. Epsom was a National seat that National gifted to the ACT Party to keep it alive when it had no support anywhere in the country. It gifted a National seat. Labour was never going to win Northland and certainly some Labour voters voted tactically. But a lot of the support that National lost was from people who had voted National last time and who became disillusioned with a Government they regarded as tired arrogant and ineffectual.I want to make this point too. This was not as the National Party would now have us believe just a local contest. Northland was covered with electoral hoardings from the National Party with whose face on them?Hon Member: John Key.Hon PHIL GOFF: John Key’s. John Key went up there time and again. The only time he did not go up there was on election night when just as in the case of the Mt Albert by-election he left his candidate floundering and did not stand behind the poor unfortunate Mark Osborne who caught the flack of an electorate that was disillusioned with National.Sitting opposite me is Simon “10” Bridges—Simon “10” Bridges—who reflects the fact that this Government in a way I cannot remember in 30 years went out to pork barrel Northland to try to buy votes. Ten bridges $70 million no cost-benefit analysis no prioritisation—an absolute bribe. National thought that the Northland people would be stupid enough to buy that bribe. Well Simon “10” Bridges should not have the cheek to be speaking up and interjecting now. He was part of the failure of this National Government as was John Key and as was the maestro Steven Joyce who masterminded National to its worst ever defeat in a by-election. The killer blow was not delivered by anybody but National members. They shot themselves in the foot. They reminded Northlanders how long they and the other regions had been neglected and they thought that Northlanders were stupid enough to fall for the bait.Well I say that New Zealanders have had enough of the game-playing they have had enough of the lack of transparency they have had enough of the sense of entitlement and they have certainly had a gutsful of the arrogance. This is the beginning of the crumbling of the foundations of this National Government. You can tell by the agitated state of those backbenchers in the National Party that they know they will not be here after the next election.We have seen cynicism after cynicism. New Zealanders support having a Security Intelligence Service to deal with terrorism and to deal with economic crime. They do not support a Prime Minister who rorts the Security Intelligence Service for party political purposes and who colludes with Cameron Slater. They do not support a party that lies to the country about what it was doing. They do not support the Security Intelligence Service being misused to get a person elected to the World Trade Organization. The Government is losing friends all across the world because it was using the Security Intelligence Service for the wrong purposes. Finally they do not support a National Government that starves the country of money for education for health and for policing—for all of the good things—but that has money to bribe that has money to subsidise a casino making a profit and that has money to splash out on a local charter school at Whangaruru that is failing while it is denying kids from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to have a full stomach and learn in the classroom like everybody else.JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am pleased to stand in this debate. What a load of rubbish that was from the previous speaker. Let us talk about bribes shall we? Let us talk about free student loans eh? That was one of the biggest bribes of Labour was it not? [Interruption] Oh yeah! Let us talk again about New Zealand First’s bribes in the Northland by-election. Let us talk about that port. How on earth is the Rt Hon Winston Peters going to deliver on a port? He is not going to be able to. Ten bridges—we are going to be able to deliver on 10 bridges. That is what we have put into our plan and that is what we are going to do because we are a Government that delivers on its promises. We are a Government that when it says it is committed to doing stuff it does it. That is what I need to put across.I have just arrived back from a wonderful conference overseas in Ethiopia. It was the Women in Parliaments global summit. I can tell you right now it opened up my eyes to many things. I looked around the places that we were fortunate to visit and one of the things that I saw was the treatment of old people there. I looked back at New Zealand and I thought how lucky we are to have such a great welfare system looking after our elderly. It has been said many times and it has been heard across the world that New Zealand when it comes to its welfare system has one of the best in the world especially with regard to looking after its elderly. Over 1 million New Zealanders are on superannuation and will receive an increase in their payments—that is a 2.07 percent increase in their payments. That is 66 percent of the average wage for married couples as opposed to the average wage.When I say I was shocked about the elderly I noticed there were old women in Ethiopia who were carrying bundles of eucalyptus sticks down the hill. That was what their job was. When I say I was shocked I was shocked because once they retired from that they retired into town and there was nothing for them—there was absolutely nothing for them. Every time I looked around the places that I went—I went to some of the poorer areas in Addis Ababa—I was reminded of that great philosopher Fred Dagg who said: “We don’t know how lucky we are.” We do not know how lucky we are.Tim Macindoe: He was a great philosopher.JOANNE HAYES: He was a great philosopher. Then I turn and I look at something that is close to my heart the veterans pension.Tim Macindoe: He taught Labour that we can borrow a few million more.JOANNE HAYES: Ha ha! Then I look to the veterans pension and I see that it is a $60 million package for veterans—to support the new Veterans’ Support Act which the Hon Michael Woodhouse is responsible for and which came into force on 7 December 2014. That is great because I have two grandfathers who fought in the Māori Battalion in the pioneer battalion in World War I and I am sure that as they lay there listening to their mokopuna standing in this House talking about supporting the veterans package and all the other things that we do within the veterans sector they would be very proud of me as they sit on my shoulders and look across the House.The Government is also providing $300000 in grants to the RSA and all of this has come through on 1 April. We have also increased the veterans travel mileage rate by 20 percent. That is really important because a lot of veterans like to catch up with each other and travel from one place to the other—and some of them have long distances to travel. I am based out of Christchurch East and they have a very strong group especially the Māori veterans which means they do not need to travel that far. But when I first arrived in Christchurch East there was a tangi on and the tangi was in the North Island. So they all gathered together at Ngā Hau e Whā marae and worked out how they were going to travel north. So this increase in travel payments will help other veterans throughout New Zealand too to travel to either tangi or to hui with each other.From superannuation in the Veterans’ Support Act I move to employment. With regard to employment in terms of the places I went to in Addis Ababa there were groups of women who had been funded by their Government to set up their own businesses within the markets. Those businesses would start on the smell of an oily rag and they would grow into big business in Addis Ababa. Some of these were actually wood-carrying women who carried wood from the top of Mount Entoto all the way down into Addis township. That wood was used for housing it was used for fences and it was also used for burning.One of the things I was also quite amazed at was the innovation in that country. Steel was at a little bit of a premium for them especially when it came to building the big concrete buildings that they are putting together. It is a city that is developing as it goes. I see the Speaker’s finger circling but one of the things I just want to say is that I am really pleased to speak about this. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to say that today is a clear indication that the Government has lost its way. It has been so on message the whole time that it has been in Government but now Government members are all over the place. You can see they are in disarray. We can see they are disarray and they are in disarray because Northland was the beginning of the end for the National Government.I want to start by actually congratulating the awesome candidate we had in Northland and that was Willow-Jean Prime. She did a fabulous job. Despite whatever that side of the House might say we are very proud of our candidate Willow-Jean Prime and we are looking forward to seeing her in here in 2017. I do not know whether the National Government can say the same about the candidate that it put up in Northland. I am not sure whether National is looking forward to seeing him run again or even being in the House in 2017 2020 or any other time moving forward.Northland was the beginning of the end for the National Government. Northland showed very clearly that the regions have had enough of being taken advantage of. They knew when National went in there promising them 10 bridges and all of these other things that actually they had been neglected for a very long time. Here was the pork-barrel politics being rolled out by the National Government. They did not appreciate it and National lost because of it.What we are seeing here today from that side of the House are really the five stages of grief. Because we like to support our parliamentary colleagues I thought that in order to be able to assist with the counselling of that side of the House I would look up the five stages of grief. What we are seeing is that all of them are at different stages of that kind of grief model. We have got the first stage being denial and isolation. And we hear the denial and isolation—Hon Nicky Wagner: Tony Ryall did this speech.CARMEL SEPULONI: —screaming out from Nicky Wagner over there denying the fact that National has done anything wrong denying the fact that the regions have given up on the National Party. Nicky Wagner is clearly still in the denial phase.The second phase of the stages of grief is anger and we saw that very clearly today with Simon Bridges screaming at Phil Goff—screaming because he is struggling with the realisation that he has been tainted by the 10 bridges. He is struggling with the realisation that he has been made to look like a fool by his leader and his National Government. So Simon Bridges is clearly going through the stage of anger.The third stage of grief is the stage of bargaining. I have heard many of the National Party MPs talking so nicely off the record about Winston Peters and his win. It is very interesting. We are starting to wonder whether the bargaining is actually beginning between National and New Zealand First—well an attempt at bargaining by National as it tries to woo Winston Peters and New Zealand First knowing full well that National no longer has the numbers to push through things like its Resource Management Act reforms.The fourth stage of grief and we have seen a lot of this today—I think it is really the stage where a lot of the National MPs are at—is that stage of depression. We have been watching from this side of the House as they bow their heads in depression looking very sad sitting there quietly unsure of what to say no longer able to even laugh at the Prime Minister’s failed attempts at jokes. Many on that side of the House are clearly going through the stage of depression.The last stage of grief that we hope we can assist the National Government with getting to is the stage of acceptance—the fifth stage of grief. That side of the House needs to accept that Northland was the beginning of the end that the regions have lost faith in the National Government and that in 2017 New Zealand will be voting them out. Thank you very much.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. I want to bring a bit of decorum back into the House particularly because I think we have had enough of Northland. What I would like to do is just bring it back to two things around Anzac Day and then also the effects of the announcements made today that National has announced.So first of all is Anzac Day. Anzac Day is a day of remembrance it is a day of thanksgiving and also this year it is acknowledgement of the 100 years since the battle of Gallipoli. I have been over there a number of times. I have been to the Gallipoli peninsula and to Çanakkale on the Dardanelles which links the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean Sea. I have travelled through with many people to Chunuk Bair and to a number of those battle sites all the way through.I would like to bring it back now though particularly to Rāpaki the small ancestral settlement on Lyttelton Harbour. Every year in that ancestral community we celebrate Anzac Day first with a dawn ceremony and that has gone on for quite some time. The reason for that is that when the call-up came for World War I there were five who left from that small village of Rāpaki and only three came home. So in 1916 the Gallipoli wharf at Rāpaki was constructed as a memorial to those soldiers who never came home but also to those who did not just in Rāpaki but right across the spectrum of those tragic events of World War I.Every Anzac Day the old the middle-aged and the young from Rāpaki come down to the Gallipoli wharf and then at dawn we do our memorial celebrations. We go to the marae for breakfast and then after that we do a hīkoi of 6 kilometres from Rāpaki to Lyttelton. On the way we pick up a number of people who live in the various towns and villages en route to Lyttelton. To us that signifies that when our men went overseas there were no political affiliations; there was no race. What they did when they were there they did as New Zealanders. That is very significant for us as well the fact that that continues today. We are proud of the fact that in proportion to population there are more who went away and there are more who passed away and were killed over there compared to almost any other village town or city in New Zealand. We are very very proud of that. That is the first thing—the acknowledgment. I do acknowledge all of those on both sides of the House who today have spoken about the remembrance the thanksgiving and the commemorations that are to come.The next thing is I want to stay with Rāpaki because Rāpaki to me is a great example of how the National changes that have taken effect today are helping whānau and in particular Māori whānau to get ahead. When we look at HomeStart when we look at paid parental leave and when we look at ACC levies family tax credits and superannuation a cross-section of the people of that small village are affected. That to us is actually about having a hand up as opposed to a handout. That was the village of Ben Couch and so it is great that National can forge forward and be a party that does help all New Zealanders but in particular Māori. Kia ora.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): It is time the Government levelled with the public on the question of spying. It is time the Government gave an honest account of how much in what circumstances and with what moral and legal justification it undertakes electronic interception. All the public has been getting lately is a stylistically shallow assurance from the Prime Minister that he has been advised by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) that everything it is doing is within the law. That is demonstrably lame to a point of self-contradiction. It is like releasing a murder suspect on the grounds that he told the police not to worry as he is innocent. On something as important as the nexus between civil liberties and State power we deserve something better than this.The Green Party recently laid a complaint with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security regarding revelations that the GCSB has been undertaking mass surveillance through electronic intercepts of people in the Pacific region. There are two target categories. The first is foreign Governments and the second is New Zealand citizens. Spying on Pacific neighbours is offensive. Spying on New Zealanders is essentially illegal. The Prime Minister characteristically parsed the issue acknowledging mass collection of data but denying mass surveillance.Setting aside semantics and confining ourselves to logic we would not do mass collection unless there was a contingent intent to do mass surveillance. So the distinction is meaningless. Certainly the distinction is lost on the National Security Agency and also on New Zealanders. It is only the Prime Minister who is impressed by his own reasoning. Avoiding his resignation required a public soliloquy in the fashion of Hamlet.In addition to spying on Pacific friends the GCSB has extended its services on behalf of individual Ministers—spying on the Hon Tim Groser’s rivals for the World Trade Organization job. This included candidates from South Korea Indonesia and Brazil. That too is on the edge of the law or beyond it as well as being offensive to those Governments. Were they doing the same to New Zealand? In some cases perhaps; in others perhaps not. Either way it is irrelevant. We are talking about our own domestic law and political integrity which has nothing to do with reciprocity. The Prime Minister has tossed off these actions in that vapid blokey way we have come to know and disown. He beamed somewhat inaccurately into the cameras recently after two sessions with the Korean President claiming the matter had not been raised thereby displaying an ignorance of normal diplomatic protocol.I say to the Prime Minister: “Are you not concerned by the fact that despite your dignified assurance to the world that nations do not give a monkey’s the Government of Brazil called in your ambassador for a ‘please explain’ meeting; the Solomon Islands is undertaking an investigation into who is spying on them; and Tonga has expressed its disappointment at New Zealand’s actions? You should be.” Moving from the purely offensive to the potentially illegal does the Prime Minister stand by his statement earlier this month that “The law forbids us other than in very minor circumstances from gathering information on New Zealanders.”? Can he assure the public that the GCSB is not using a broad definition of the words “private communication” in the Act to spy on New Zealanders without a warrant?If the statutory responsibility is on the parties themselves to display a reasonable expectation that their communication will not be open to an interception will it be sufficient if in every phone call and email from Kiwi holidaymakers in Rarotonga they preface their communication with the words: “I do not expect that our communication is or should be intercepted.”? Will that be sufficient for the GCSB to click off the intercept? If 71.6 percent of New Zealanders now believe their private communications are being intercepted is that opinion poll in itself an instrumental factor in the way the GCSB would infer what a reasonable expectation must be? Is that not an indictment on poor legislative drafting?If I am within the 28.4 percent of Kiwis who like to believe they are not being intercepted how do I convey that reasonable expectation to the GCSB? The utterances by this Prime Minister on the issue are in truth not Shakespearean; they are Orwellian.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Mr Speaker it is great to be able to stand up and speak for a few moments. Firstly as you know I have been away for a couple of weeks up in Northland. It is important to acknowledge our Northland candidate Mark Osborne. He is a man of tremendous character and integrity. We have seen an incredible effort from that man to get from 30 percent to 40 percent. Mark you are an awesome legend.I also acknowledge Rose May and Neil Clements and those local volunteers who have worked tirelessly for the National Party. We are a party of volunteers and supporters and I want to acknowledge them here today. They did a fantastic job for us. I want to say to those who voted for us and to those who did not that this National Government will continue to deliver for Northland. We govern for all regardless of whether they voted for us or not and we will continue to deliver. But ultimately we lost so I do have to acknowledge Winston Peters.I have known Winston Peters for 26 years. He came to Waikato University when I was a young fella to set up the Young Nationals branch. We had 600 people there. I have to admit that over the years I have admired his charm and his humour but I have never admired his vituperative attacks on people as opposed to policy. A great test now will be whether he has it in him to be collaborative and constructive or is the destructive rock-throwing negative Opposition MP Winston Peters going to be the man who represents them for the next 18 months? Well if it is the latter it will be a short 18 months and we will welcome back Mark Osborne in 2017.With regard to messages I have one for the rabble the insufferable shriekers on the other side who I have to admit are currently revelling in our moment of discomfort. This National Party has the capacity to check and adjust. It has the capacity to listen and respond. Underestimate our ability to do that at your peril. Provincial New Zealand needs to see the benefits of our programme in a more tangible way. That was the clear message that we got.But I will tell you what is real for New Zealand: paid parental leave increasing from 14 weeks to 16 weeks—that is real; increasing the parental tax credit for lower income families from $150 a week to $220 a week—that is real; increasing the adult minimum wage by 50c to $14.75—that is real; and reducing ACC levies—that is real. The $218 million HomeStart package; lifting minimum family tax credits benefit payments and superannuation payments—the latter at twice the rate of inflation over the last 6 years—is real and we can make that investment because we have a strong economy. We are focusing on the issues that matter.What I have noticed over the last 6 months is that with every single thing that this country has done over the last 6 years and with single advance we have made there are shrieks and sneers from the Opposition. We improve the lives of New Zealanders—we get a shriek and a sneer. There are 80000 more jobs—sneer sneer sneer. We reduce unemployment and we get the same thing. We have the greatest result in crime statistics for basically 10 years—same thing; sneer sneer sneer. Well it is the people of New Zealand who are creating this momentum so sneer on if you want to but on this side of the House we will succeed on for New Zealand. That is happening particularly in Tauranga. It is an incredible momentum that we have got over there and it is phenomenal to be able to represent that area along with my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges.I just want to give you some examples of what we have achieved collectively—the people of Tauranga the Bay of Plenty and this Government—over the last 6 years. GDP has lifted 25 percent and consumer confidence has increased to a 10-year high in the Bay of Plenty topping the regional rankings for the first time in 2 years. A lift in sentiment has propelled household spending up. The number of electronic transactions is up by 10 percent. The value of building consents issued last year in Tauranga was the highest for 7 years and that has driven 200 young people in the Western Bay of Plenty in particular into construction apprenticeships in the Bay of Plenty. Sales volumes are up 26.7 percent.The kiwifruit industry—the backbone of the Bay of Plenty—has recovered and we are expecting a 70 percent increase in exports with 4000 jobs required over the next 6 years. The latest TradeMe statistics show jobs have risen by 26 percent compared with the previous quarter. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has said that skilled vacancies in the bay grew 20 percent month on month. These are real benefits real outcomes for the people of the Bay of Plenty and it is an absolute privilege to be representing them and to be part of this Government. Thank you very much.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to start my contribution today by congratulating the workers at the Cotton On distribution centre who today concluded bargaining with their employer the Australian retail giant Cotton On which tried to take away their tea breaks. What those workers did was stand up against it. The public stood up against it and said: “No way—we don’t like the idea that those workers should lose their tea breaks.” So not only were the rest and meal breaks reinstated in the collective agreement but they also got a significant pay rise and they got a redundancy clause included in their collective agreement.This tells us a few things. First it is good to be a member of a union. It is good to join a union because joining a union makes sure you get far better terms and conditions in your collective agreement than the Government would wish you to have. Second in the age of social media I say to employers who actually want to make use of the changes to the employment laws that this Government brought in: be very careful because the people do not like them. The people of New Zealand do not like the laws that were brought in; they do not like the idea of workers having their rights taken away from them. If you are an employer whose business is vulnerable to public opinion then you will very quickly feel the wrath of the people of New Zealand. Third it is important to know that union membership makes a big difference in public opinion. The Government was completely out of touch with the people of New Zealand when it took away their right in legislation to a tea break.We know that this Government is completely out of touch because of the by-election result up in Northland. It went from a 9000-vote majority to a 4000-vote loss in the space of 6 months. It is the most phenomenal turn-round. And it is because that Government over there does not pay enough attention to the regions. If you look around the country regions like Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay and sadly enough Manawatū-Wanganui Wellington Tasman Nelson Marlborough and West Coast all have fewer jobs today than when this Government came into office. Today after 7 years of National Government there are fewer jobs in my region and in regions like it around the country than when National came into office. My region—Manawatū-Wanganui—and also Taranaki Wellington Tasman Nelson Marlborough West Coast and Otago all have over 50 percent more people unemployed than when this Government came to office 7 years ago. Those regions including sadly my own have unemployment rates of over 6 percent after 7 years of this National Government. Today regions like mine the Chatham Islands Gisborne Taranaki and the West Coast are all receiving less Government funding for roading than when this National Government first took office 7 years ago.This Government takes the regions for granted. It expects regional New Zealand to vote for it but it does not actually do anything to improve the economies in those regions. The sad thing is that there is massive potential and there is massive opportunity in every single one of those regions. I appreciate that this Government has embarked on a project to identify what those opportunities are—although if it just came and asked we would be able to tell it—but what is it actually doing to help us harness those opportunities to make the most of them to get people working to get people off the benefit and to make our regions productive again? Nothing. The most useful thing that the National MPs in my part of the country—Ian McKelvie and Nathan Guy—could do would be to resign. Resign today and let us have a by-election.Hon Simon Bridges: You’ll lose those ones too.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will tell you what: Simon Bridges would find the money for the Capital Connection in a heartbeat—in a heartbeat.Jono Naylor: It would be better to find some passengers for it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Jono Naylor would have somewhere to stand. Jono Naylor could go and stand in the Rangitīkei. He might have a chance in the Rangitīkei and the Government might just fund the Capital Connection if it had a by-election in the Rangitīkei or in Ōtaki. That is how we could get the National Government to pay attention to our region and to regions like ours because it is a sad story of under-investment and missed opportunities by this Government which knows that there is potential in the regions. But it takes the regions for granted and hopefully the message that it takes from Northland is that the two-speed economy has got to come to an end. Pay attention to the regions National.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust BillSecond ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move That the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill be now read a second time. As the member in charge of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill I welcome its second reading. The Arts Centre holds a really special place in the lives of Christchurch people. Everyone has a memory of spending time there whether it was long ago when they were a student whether it was more recently at the Court Theatre or the Southern Ballet Theatre or whether they have been a residential or a commercial tenant or perhaps a regular shopper a cafe consumer a movie-goer or a bar-hopper.Pre-earthquake the Arts Centre of Christchurch was vibrant and welcoming. It was the place to meet the place to work and the place to play. It was the creative and cultural heartbeat of our city. The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill is an important element in the ongoing protection and preservation of the Arts Centre for the future. Its purpose is to modernise the governance arrangements of the trust and to set out the charitable objects of the trust in legislation. It will provide greater certainty around the original intention of the trust deed and formally recognise the heritage and cultural significance of the Arts Centre.The Arts Centre is a magnificent complex. It consists of 24 heritage buildings. The first date back to 1876 and go right through to 1923. During the earthquakes all but one of them were very badly damaged. That has resulted in a fantastic but huge restoration project which will probably take about 7 years and cost near on $300 million. It is a programme that has been recognised as the biggest and the most high-tech in the world. It is going really well. I would like to pay tribute to André Lovatt the chief executive officer of the Arts Centre and everyone who is working on the site for the fact that they are hoping to be able to deliver it on budget and years earlier.It was really good that the Local Government and Environment Committee could visit the site and see the work so that it could understand the importance of this bill. But the bill is only part of the change that is happening at the Arts Centre. At the same time significant planning is under way to let the Arts Centre achieve a vision for the future of the whole complex. That vision of course is informed by the objects of the trust and recognises the need for the Arts Centre to be financially sustainable in the future.The new governance structure proposed by the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board follows a comprehensive review and consultation process. Before it drafted the bill it carried on conversations with local stakeholders and it also worked with Crown Law and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage over a few years. The modernisation of the governance arrangements will bring the trust in line with currently accepted best practice. It is vitally important that the trust board has the skills and maintains a strong set of skills during the restoration phase over the next few years and also that an enduring governance structure is in place for the repopulation phase and in the future.Some helpful amendments were recommended by the select committee to improve the workability of the provisions. It recommended removing the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage from the list of parties to be notified in the event of a vacancy on the trust board in order to eliminate any feeling of misperception of the Minister’s influence on the trust board’s governance. The trust board also considered it important to give certainty to the community that the objects of the trust would no longer be subject to ad hoc amendments and that is recognised in the bill.The reference to stone buildings is entirely appropriate as it reflects the wording of the original trust deed and respects the intentions of the original trust. It was noted by the select committee by majority that it supports the view of the trust board and does not recommend deleting the reference to stone in the preamble to the bill or in the body of the bill. An amendment to the definition of “The Arts Centre” is instead proposed to clarify the meaning of that term.The select committee also proposed an amendment to require the trust board to make the conservation plan of the Arts Centre available at annual meetings. This is absolutely supported by the trust board and is consistent with its intended future strategic direction of open and transparent governance of the Arts Centre. I am advised that the existing site conservation plan was produced back in 1992 so it has been around for a while and it is due for updating. The trust has committed to updating that plan for the site following the completion of the restoration project.The bill as originally proposed provided for the site to be vested in the Crown on an interim basis should the trust ever be wound up. But it is recommended that this be amended for consistency with other charitable trusts so now the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 will apply. This is an improvement I think to the current trust deed arrangements and is fully supported by the trust board.The bill will enable the trust board to continue to be able to recover from the impact of the earthquakes. It is an appropriate governance structure for the future. It will lay the foundations for an inspiring public place for the people of Christchurch for Canterbury and for visitors to our city now and for future generations. From the damaged buildings and the rubble there is a unique opportunity to create a new exciting and vibrant centre that will be a source of great pride for Christchurch and I think for New Zealand as a whole. In the past the Arts Centre was one of the city’s most enjoyed tourist attractions. It was the place that all of us took our visiting friends and relatives to and I look forward to being able to do that again very soon.I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its careful scrutiny of this bill. It is a better piece of legislation because of its work. I would also like to thank the House for its unanimous cross-party support. I am extremely pleased that this bill is back in the House and I look forward to it being enacted by the end of the year.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to rise to give a speech on this piece of legislation. It is important legislation and Labour is happy to support this bill. I would like to acknowledge the work of the member who has just taken her seat the Hon Nicky Wagner in sponsoring this bill as a local bill. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the chair of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board the Hon Margaret Austin and the work she has done to save this set of buildings.I think that for most Cantabrians after both the September and the February quakes and after questioning whether their family and their friends were safe their thoughts turned to what had happened to the Arts Centre buildings and whether or not they were a set of buildings that had survived the quakes. For Cantabrians and Christchurch people as the previous speaker has just said there is a deeply personal connection to this site. This was a site that was gifted to the city in 1973. The announcement was made in 1973—the year I was born.I feel a personal connection with this site. Growing up in Christchurch in the 1980s everything happened on this site. It was the place of the Dux de Lux the place where everyone gathered to have a drink; it was the place where there was a market at the weekend when there were no other markets in Christchurch; it was the place whereas a young teenager in Christchurch I received my first pamphlet about New Zealand becoming nuclear-free; it was the place of the Court Theatre; it was the place of the Southern Ballet Theatre; and it was the place of Le Café. This was a place where memories were made in Christchurch. It means so much to the people of Christchurch that we can save it and that we can have this legislation that enters on to the statute book the original trust deed which will ensure that this set of buildings does endure.The Arts Centre buildings and the trust deed being entered into legislation has personal significance for me. It was one of the predecessors in my seat—a predecessor I share with the Hon Ruth Dyson—the Rt Hon Norman Kirk who announced the decision that the university centennial convocation was going to gift it is said the buildings on the Arts Centre site to the city of Christchurch to be used as a cultural centre. But according to Kirk family folklore—I spoke to members of the Kirk family today—actually it was a deal done for a dollar because the university could not simply gift that land to the city; it needed to be sold to the city. I am informed by the son of the Rt Hon Norman Kirk—Bob Kirk who went on to become a deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Canterbury—that the university administration when talk of the university moving back into the city was raised would often talk about just collecting the interest on that payment as payment for moving back on to the site.For Norm Kirk there was a huge significance in this set of buildings being gifted to the city of Christchurch and becoming a cultural and educational centre for the city. When he announced it he said that it was a great gift to the city the province and the nation. He expressed his hope that the bodies would use the buildings to draw the threads of all the cultures of New Zealand and attempt to produce something uniquely New Zealand in character. I would like to acknowledge the former member for Sydenham and the work he did in making sure that we have this unique set of buildings standing in the centre of our city a set of buildings we can rebuild our city around.Norman Kirk saw culture as vitally important to New Zealanders and the world in which they were living. Defending the appropriateness of a politician addressing a cultural conference in that same year—1973—Norman Kirk said: “Politics is the conscious projection of a country’s identity. The culture is that identity and not something removed or remote from everyday life.” I would like us to reflect on those words which are as true today in 2015 as they were when Norman Kirk said them in 1973. He said he saw the arts as having a very important part to play in our desire to foster regional cooperation. Again I would like to endorse those words and say they have as much to offer us today as they did when Norman Kirk said them.At the centennial convocation where Norman Kirk made the announcement that the Arts Centre was being gifted to the city of Christchurchthe gifting was the brainchild of Professor Neville Phillips from the University of Canterbury. As a PhD graduate from the history department at the University of Canterbury I would like to acknowledge one of the greatest professors of history from that department the contribution he and the others have made to the cultural life of Christchurch and the foresight that people like Neville Phillips and Norman Kirk had about the value of these buildings to the city of Christchurch. Neville Phillips certainly saw that.The gifting of a set of buildings this unique and this special spawned the need for special rules to be made. Those interested in issues of planning and zoning and perhaps even resource management in today’s context might like to reflect that the first cultural zone that New Zealand had was this set of buildings. A special part of town planning was needed to ensure that the heritage fabric of these buildings stayed intact and did not come under any threat. We in Labour hope that by enshrining the trust deed in legislation as we are with this local bill we are protecting the heritage value and the very rich heritage both social and physical that these buildings offer to the city of Christchurch. We want to be sure that these buildings stay.The Minister in her speech addressed whether or not stone buildings would cover the whole site. Well I think I speak for generations of not just Christchurch people but people around the country who have fond memories of times at the Dux de Lux or the student union if they were students at the university when it was on the town site and who would like to think that this building will survive the wrecking ball of Christchurch’s rebuild as well. This is a special building reflecting our character and is something that needs to be preserved.The departmental report that the Local Government and Environment Committee brought back made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was to enshrine the original purposes of the trust deed which referred only to stone buildings. But I would like to place on the record and I would like to implore everybody involved in that decision that it needs to be more than that because the precinct of the Arts Centre encompasses more than that to us as Christchurch people. We are told that it would need special consent as a group 3 building in the Christchurch district plan to be demolished. But Christchurch people and Cantabrians are only too aware of section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which bypasses many of the protections we have had for our heritage buildings. We have had 1240 demolitions within the four avenues in Christchurch an area that falls under central government control. Compare that with the 292 rebuild consents that have been granted in the same space. Of those 1240 demolitions 20 percent of those buildings were heritage buildings.On this side of the House we would like to make it strongly known that we have a desire to see the heritage fabric of our city retained because our rebuilt and recovered city needs to value its past. It needs to value the words that Norman Kirk spoke in 1973 when he talked about drawing the threads of all the cultures of our city together to show something truly unique about our city and our nation. I would like to honour the people who have fought for the retention of this site in the past and to thank those of today who have ensured it will last for many more years to come.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a delight to stand in support of the second reading of this Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the bill I got a sense as listeners and people observing in the gallery will have had from the two previous Christchurch-based members who have spoken on the bill about the sense of passion the sense of commitment the sense of history and the sense of ownership of these buildings that make up this remarkable Christchurch Arts Centre.I am not a Cantabrian I am not a person who has spent an awful lot of time in my life in Christchurch but every time I visited Christchurch I have been much aware of the Arts Centre being there. In fact I can remember 20 or more years ago visiting the Arts Centre for the first time and being completely overwhelmed by the design the history and the sense of presence of the buildings. So when the devastating earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 hit the Canterbury region in such a devastating way it was a shock to all New Zealanders that the site of the Arts Centre should be so badly damaged in the way that it was. I think Megan Woods mentioned that there are 24 individual buildings that make up the Christchurch Arts Centre and that 23 of those 24 buildings were significantly and seriously damaged.In the course of the select committee’s work on this bill the committee was privileged to actually visit Christchurch and to hear the four submitters in Christchurch who wanted to have their views made known to the committee. As a result of that once we had finished hearing from submitters we took an opportunity to conduct a site visit. The site visit was extremely useful and worthwhile. I think members would be truly impressed if they have the opportunity to go and visit what is regarded as the largest heritage restoration project in the world currently under way taking place in Christchurch right now. It is a 7-year project. It is well under way. There are craftsmen and stonemasons from around the world using traditional stonemasonry methods for the repair and rejuvenation and rebuild of those heritage buildings using techniques that have probably not been used in New Zealand for maybe 40 50 or 60 years or even longer than that. These are truly unique buildings.I was delighted to hear Megan Woods give the very full history of the site. I was interested also to note that not one of the submitters mentioned Norman Kirk once. However it is clear from her recitation that he was the primary driver in the creation of the Arts Centre—not wanting to take anything away from other members of the Canterbury community who over the years have contributed to its success and its ongoing enduring place in the hearts of all Canterbury people and indeed probably all New Zealanders who have had an association with it. It is no doubt that the buildings hold a very special place in the hearts of Cantabrians Christchurch people and indeed many New Zealanders.So it is important—as the trust chair Jen Crawford and the chief executive André Lovatt made clear when they made their submission to the committee—that the governance for the Arts Centre structure going forward should be a governance structure that reflects adequately the circumstances that the trust finds itself in today 40 or more years after the trust was first constituted and 40 or more years since the University of Canterbury exited the site. Now the trust finds itself with a massive restoration project under way—a project that is going to take a number of years to complete—and it needs an appropriate modern up-to-date and relevant skills-based governance structure in order to see that project through to fruition and to completion. Secondly once that project is complete in about another 6 years’ time the trust is going to need a governance structure that will ensure the ongoing conservation and usefulness of the site for Cantabrians and for other visitors. To do that the governance structure that was set in place originally needed modernising and that is really the purpose of this legislation.This is a bill that has been sponsored by my colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner as the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central but it is being promoted by the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board itself. For the trust to actually have the foresight and wisdom and confidence to bring promote and encourage a bill like this gives the House an indication of the calibre of the current trustees and their recognition that they do have to be forward-looking and that they do have to look to the future and not just to the past because as with any heritage site it is the future that is just as relevant as the past in terms of its care and preservation.I am delighted that one of the recommendations that the select committee made was that conservation plans should become part of the annual meeting structure and agenda. Each year members of the trust and other associated people who have an interest in the Arts Centre will be able to get a sense of what the trust is doing in terms of preservation and conservation and they will be able to have—as they should do as stakeholders of that city and that site—an opportunity to participate and be very much part of that. I want to just quote if I may from the submission from the Arts Centre itself because I think it neatly sums up the objectives of this bill. The objectives of the trust had previously been separated from the powers of the trust and so this bill changes that. It makes it such that the provisions will truly reflect the trust’s charitable intent and in a way that was not previously the case. So those two provisions—which are actually quite technical and on the face of them quite minor—have a fundamental impact on the ongoing governance management and benefit of the whole Arts Centre complex.There were a number of other changes that the select committee made and I think it is worth noting that the select committee process for this bill was a classic example of a select committee working collaboratively collegially and in a cross-partisan way to ensure that the legislation that was presented to us at the first reading actually came out through the select committee process as a better piece of legislation. I am very pleased to acknowledge that the Hon Nicky Wagner has identified that and I think all members of the committee would agree that the process was very good the intentions were well-meaning and well-made and the submitters—all four of them—were generally in support of the proposed legislative changes. We have made a number of changes. I am not going to go through them all but they will essentially mean that the Arts Centre is able to be far more modern in its outlook than it has been in the past. The legal foundations of the new governance structure will provide a platform and stability for future trust members and governance officers of the trust to ensure that the very significant parts of the history of this site are maintained and protected.The centre is one of the largest clusters of heritage buildings in the country. We are a young nation with not much in the way of longstanding historic buildings. The nature of our architecture is largely wooden and timber-based and so a lot of that stone-based work that was so prevalent and common in the English tradition was not seen in New Zealand. The Arts Centre in Christchurch actually provides a classic and wonderful example of what at the time was considered to be a mock little Britain and provides a university environment similar to that experienced at Cambridge and Oxford. Members who take the time to travel to the Arts Centre and have a look at it would immediately see that the areas where Lord Ernest Rutherford did his significant work were instrumental in the creation of the site. One of the interesting things that we discovered in our visit was that a whole lot of history had been uncovered as a result of the restoration work and so I was delighted to see some of that.This is a bill that is a good bill; it is a bill that the House will hopefully endorse unanimously across the Chamber. It is deserving of that kind of support because it is a significant piece of governance structure that will mean the Arts Centre will be able to be governed in a way that is meaningful proper and solid going forward. I commend the bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a real pleasure for me to join the debate on the second reading of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the Hon Nicky Wagner in whose name this bill is. It is a private bill and I know that the Hon Nicky Wagner who is MP for Christchurch Central has had a lot of involvement with the Arts Centre and with the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board and she has done a good job of shepherding this bill through the House. I hope it gets unanimous support from Parliament. That would be a really nice message to send to Canterbury.I want to acknowledge Scott Simpson who I am pretty sure replaced the Hon Nicky Wagner as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I think there was somebody in between the two—that is right there was. I remember now. The Hon Nicky Wagner used to chair the committee and now Scott Simpson does and he does a very good job. I have sat on that committee a number of times. He chairs it with common sense and rational behaviour and with a great deal of respect which I think is acknowledged by all members of the House. He gets a better outcome actually as a result of doing that. That is not why he does it; he does it because it is his personality but it is a good attribute for a chair of a committee to have.Hon Member: What a lot of brown nosing.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am going to say some nice things about the Assistant Speaker any minute now. That will really bring the house down. Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard I want to commend you on the extraordinarily competent way you chair the House. I also want to acknowledge Jen Crawford and André Lovatt—Jen is chair of the trust board—and the other members of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board including a former colleague of ours the Hon Margaret Austin who has indeed put a lot of effort into this bill as well.She actually made an early arrangement to invite members of the select committee that I sit on—the Government Administration Committee—to have an early briefing on the bill. At that stage she had been told that the bill was going to be referred by Parliament to the Government Administration Committee. So we all took up the offer. We got an early briefing we felt very confident in our preparation to receive the bill at our committee and then when it came to the House it was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We felt cheated actually. We would have really enjoyed the opportunity to have had that bill and I think the members of the trust board were a bit disappointed that they had to give a briefing to another committee.More of us knew about the background of the bill. Members have spoken about that as well as about the history of the Arts Centre. It is quite an interesting position to have the administration of a centre such as the Arts Centre and indeed the governance structures determined by an act of Parliament. It is not all that common and thank goodness it is not because we would spend a lot of our time debating those issues I am sure. But in this case I do believe that it is warranted. I do believe that the structures that we have put in place mean that we can have confidence in the governance arrangements and indeed in the future of the Arts Centre. It is one of the most valuable assets that we have ever had in our city actually but particularly now that we have lost so much.Dr Megan Woods acknowledged her participation as a university student and the involvement of the Rt Hon Norman Kirk—as MP for Lyttelton then Sydenham and indeed as Prime Minister—in the transfer arrangement from the university to the city of Christchurch. Indeed that was a pretty extraordinary gift and transfer. We also have Sir Ernest Rutherford a former student on that very site—a great name for all of us to be proud of. I also want to acknowledge the early student engagement of the Rt Hon Sir Dr Michael Cullen—I am never quite sure in what order to put all those titles. Michael a former colleague of ours in the House was also a student when the Arts Centre of Christchurch was indeed the university.Members have mentioned that there were only four submissions on this bill and nobody in the House should imagine that that is because of lack of interest. It is actually because by the time the bill got here there had been widespread discussion amongst all of the relevant parties and people were confident in the content of the bill.I do want to make mention of a concern that was raised because the House needs to ensure that it is very clear about the response to the submission that the select committee gave—particularly as we go into the next stage the Committee stage because there may well be some calls from Canterbury for us to make sure that the legislation leaves no doubt of this one point of concern that was raised. That concern is that throughout the bill there are references to historic stone buildings. Of course that is blindingly obvious to anyone who has been to the Arts Centre because that is what the overwhelming majority of the Arts Centre is. It is historic stone buildings but it is not all historic stone buildings. There are some buildings that are brick and wood. I just want to put on record that we want those buildings saved restored repaired and used for our city’s benefit in the future as well. The legislation although it refers in that way to historic stone buildings does not exclude—as is the desire indicated to us from the trust board—the other buildings. Of course that includes the former student union building as well which many people will have very fond recollections of.As I mentioned earlier one of the reasons why we are very keen to ensure that the Arts Centre is part of our life in the future is that we have lost so much. Some people particularly people from outside our city say: “Well of course you have lost so much. You had huge earthquakes and seismic events.” and that is undoubtedly the case. We lost a lot as a result of the quakes but actually in Christchurch we have lost a lot because of section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. You might think that this is a bit of an anomaly—how could a part of the legislation designed to support recovery of a city post - a traumatic event be part of the destruction of it—but that is exactly what has happened.We have had perfectly good buildings—you know damaged but perfectly good and reparable buildings—destroyed by bulldozers and wrecking balls at the whim of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the Hon Gerry Brownlee. In one instance a magnificent theatre the Majestic Theatre which was loved by Cantabrians as much as the Arts Centre—and I know that the local MP the Hon Nicky Wagner would agree that the Majestic Theatre was an extraordinary and beautiful building—was bowled over put in the back of a truck and dumped. The reason for that was that the Minister has decided as part of his blueprint for the future that the street that it was on would be wider. So we lost this magnificent heritage building in order to make the street wider. I think that is just tragic I think it is a shame and I think it was the wrong decision. So that reinforces our desire to make sure as far as we can that similar things do not happen to as many of our buildings. We have lost too much. We do not need to lose anything else.I just want to conclude by saying that I also want to acknowledge and thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Not only did they hear the small but important number of submissions with a great deal of interest—in fact Scott Simpson we could have you as a Cantabrian; you sounded really passionate about the Arts Centre—but they did take the time and trouble. They did not just fly into the city have a meeting and then leave. They took the time and trouble to go to the Arts Centre and to become part of the atmosphere which you cannot help but feel. Mr Simpson I am sure you went to the cheesemongers on the way out and got some of their magnificent cheese. I want to acknowledge all the members who made the effort to actually go through the Arts Centre and learn a little bit more about the history about the damage that was incurred and then of course about the amazing restoration work that is going on. The use of crafts that are not really part of our everyday life now—and this was acknowledged by Scott Simpson—is extraordinary. The work that those people are doing is truly wonderful. I would invite any member of this House to go to see it. It is absolutely inspirational.I hope that through the next couple of stages of this bill—the Committee stage and the third reading—we can give a lot of confidence to the current trust board the management and indeed the people of Canterbury that this Parliament understands not only the importance of the history but also the importance of the future of the Arts Centre. This legislation will give us all the confidence that the Arts Centre has the backing of Parliament and that its future will be strong. Thank you.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is with great pleasure that I stand and speak this afternoon on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Can I perhaps start where the honourable member Ruth Dyson also began by acknowledging you Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard and your guidance of this House. You might not recall it but I have followed your political career with interest and indeed was involved in one of your earlier political meetings in Hamilton when I was a student.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Primary school student?TODD MULLER: No not a primary school student.Phil Twyford: You don’t look old enough.TODD MULLER: Exactly. It was at Waikato University. We went to a march against your then Government and turned our backs whilst you were talking and chanted rude things. If I ever knew that one day you would be the Assistant Speaker and I would have to defer to your judgment I am sure I would have possibly yelled louder. It was very good to—Chris Hipkins: There are many of us still coming to grips with that idea.TODD MULLER: I am sure.Phil Twyford: It’s a difficult journey.TODD MULLER: It is a difficult journey.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And I think the member will now get on with his speech rather than bring me into the debate.TODD MULLER: I take your guidance Mr Assistant Speaker. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner. I think she clearly articulated her own passion for this project very well when she spoke earlier and as people have said and as members have said she has guided this through the process to date.I also do want to add my voice to the chorus of approval that we have heard from the other side for the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Mr Scott Simpson. I can only echo that. He is a tremendous chair and a tremendous local MP but in particular he has shown real flair and élan in respect of the way he is approaching his chairmanship of this committee. It allowed us of course to spend a good time as a select committee reflecting on the issues that were in front of us in respect of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill.There has already been some commentary in respect of the extraordinary day we had in Christchurch a couple of months ago. The select committee obviously went down to hear the various submitters give their perspectives on this bill and as has been noted we then spent some time actually going and having a look at the Arts Centre precinct itself. I was hugely touched by that and moved by that experience. I had been there in a previous life actually. In fact I was feeling slightly concerned when I heard Megan Woods talk about all of her entertaining times at the Dux de Lux because I have had a few times there myself as part of a visiting University of Waikato sports team and I was wondering whether she might have even been at that bar at the very same time. I cannot recall it but perhaps that did occur. But it was a fantastic place then and obviously it is on quite an extraordinary journey of recovery.The other point that has been made here this afternoon that I do want to acknowledge is the extraordinary passion that the local people of Christchurch express when they talk about the Arts Centre and the opportunity that is in front of the city to rebuild. I guess I reflect as a local MP from the Bay of Plenty that obviously we do not have anything like that in Tauranga. We have more natural icons. Mount Maunganui—Mauao—is an example. I recall when that was devastated by fire a few years ago the incredible emotional reaction that occurred in our local community. I guess I can put that in only a small way to that same reaction. The people of Christchurch are hugely passionate about what it represents which is the heart of the city and they are ensuring that that heritage value is protected and rebuilt.As we have heard earlier from Scott Simpson our chair this is quite an investment that is being undertaken here. It is 7 years’ effort and $300 million of expenditure and I do want to acknowledge Jen Crawford the chair and André Lovatt the chief executive officer for their tireless commitment to work for the vision of rebuilding what is clearly an extraordinary cultural heart. Their passion for and commitment to this is quite extraordinary.As you walk around that site—speaking as somebody who is not from the area—you see the acute attention to detail. Every single one of those crumbled stone pieces is documented it is put on a particular pallet it is protected with wrap and it is waiting for its opportunity to be either rebuilt or used as an example so that a copy of it can be rebuilt by the incredibly talented people who are there.It was interesting to have just four submitters attending. I had thought that perhaps something with this degree of community interest in it might well have had more but it was clear that the submitters spoke in large alignment with each other and they certainly had a fair amount of support from the wider community.I think it is a great bill to support. It is very good to see bills like this come to this Chamber with cross-party support. It is sensible legislation and there is an opportunity to progress something that is going to work for the community of Canterbury.I do want to take a moment to reflect on one of the amendments that is required under this change and that is a move from a stakeholder-representative board to a skill-based board. I think that is laudable. I think it is absolutely appropriate to be considered. I think it was very appropriate that the community ensured that that change had broad stakeholder support and I note that the University of Canterbury the Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga the Christchurch Civic Trust and Papatipu Rūnanga of Canterbury are examples of the stakeholders that have been consulted.I think it is very important though that that engagement with the stakeholders does not cease here. Clearly there is now a significant power and influence that will be passed to this new trust governance group. It is appropriate that a different mix of skills is required to be able to take it forward for the next 10 15 20 or 30 years. But that trust board must never forget from whence it has come in terms of the broad community stakeholder engagement and the representation on the trust to date and in terms of what is important to have still influencing the perspectives of that new skills-based board.I do hope that the nominations that come forward for that board are appropriately global in scope. I have no experience in arts council governance but I have had some experience in governance and senior management in previous roles before entering here. We always I think have a bias to be very local at times parochial regional and at best national only in terms of the perspectives we bring to the table. For me it is really important that the skill sets that are sought to represent the community and this trust board are as global as possible because as we heard from some of the submitters if you have an objective to be able to promote not only the acknowledgment of good heritage and phenomenal art and culture but also education you need to make sure that the most modern approaches of engaging with communities and making them feel part of their history are adopted. Sometimes those best practices do not necessarily come from within. You need to have more global representatives sitting around the table.I do think it was very positive that the change agreed was that we would have the conservation plan available at annual general meetings. I thought it was slightly surprising but perhaps reflective of a more representative governance model that that conservation plan had not been reviewed for a number of years. I think the idea now of having that available at every annual general meeting is going to drive a more frequent refreshment of that plan. I think it is in many ways the soul if you like of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust to ensure that that continues to be available to the public that it is updated as necessary and that stakeholder engagement is part of it. I think it is very important that this legislation does lock those objectives into legislation. It provides as the member Scott Simpson said a security and stability for the community going forward.This is a really positive bill. It reflects a wide community endeavour. It is a very very expensive community endeavour but I am very sure that at the end of this when we finally get through to the third reading and we have the approval of this House we will have a platform provided for the community of Canterbury that will see it into the future. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of the bill and I join the chorus of approval for the bill promoted by the Hon Nicky Wagner. It certainly is not a controversial bill. As others have noted there were only four submissions and they were generally supportive of the bill’s intent to provide a legislative basis for the trust’s work to update and modernise its governance to consolidate its administration and to enable the trust to do the work on recovering the Arts Centre from the Canterbury earthquakes.I am enormously grateful for the vision of those who successfully advocated in the 1970s to protect the Arts Centre buildings against demolition. That would have been a travesty. I am also very grateful for the trust board because we have seen as Ruth Dyson noted wholesale destruction of heritage buildings in Christchurch post the quakes because of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s casualness about heritage and its keenness to use the section 38 notices under the emergency legislation to sign off on the demolition of Cranmer Court the Majestic Theatre and over 200 other significant heritage buildings in the central city. The work being done by the trust board on strengthening and repairing and restoring the Arts Centre is really significant because of how much we have lost.It is also significant because of the importance of these buildings. There are 23 buildings on the Arts Centre site. All but one of them are listed as category 1 historic places by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. They are buildings with special or outstanding historical or cultural heritage significance and value.Like others I pay tribute to the current Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board to the leadership it is providing to its chair Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt and to the skill and dedication of all of those who are working on the site from the international team of stonemasons to the design engineers the craftsman carpenters the plasterers and the builders. All but one of these 23 buildings have sustained significant damage so we have a restoration project that is costing about $290 million and is going to take 7 years and it is expected to be completed in 2019. When you go behind the safety fences and have a look at the work that is being done it is easy to see that the challenges are immense. Buildings are being completely gutted. Floors are being lifted. Timber ceilings are being peeled back to enable concrete cap beams to be put in place. There is proper earthquake strengthening. A lot more attention to modern technology will ensure that these buildings stay warm. Having been a tenant of the Old Chemistry Building which was freezing in winter that is a very welcome addition.This legislation is good legislation. The objects of the trust in clause 5 are for the Arts Centre to be held in trust as an outstanding cultural centre for use by Christchurch residents and visitors. The vision of the trust board and its staff is for the Arts Centre to be a cultural hub of the city and region a vibrant place of culture art and education. If this bill can help achieve that aim it will be very worthwhile. The Arts Centre buildings like the Canterbury Museum and like Christchurch Cathedral are neo-Gothic buildings which were popular in the Victorian era. They revive the details and forms of the original Gothic style of the Middle Ages.The Arts Centre was designed by using six different architectural practices. It was built over about 50 years but it has cohesion and unity. The architects have respected the work of those who have gone before them. Two of the major architects for the Arts Centre were Benjamin Mountfort and Samuel Hurst-Seager. They were responsible for the grand design of the precinct and features like the quadrangles. Benjamin Mountfort also had a major role in the design of the Canterbury Museum and the Christchurch Cathedral. And of course these buildings are all linked by Worcester Street now Worcester Boulevard.But there has been a very different approach between what has happened at the Arts Centre and what is happening at the cathedral. The former Arts Centre trust board had the wisdom to ensure that the Arts Centre was very well insured. That meant that the restoration and strengthening work was able to start quickly and it was assisted by some generous local and international donations. At the Arts Centre we are seeing the extraordinary challenges being responded to with inspiration and passion to develop creative solutions to those engineering challenges. We have a lot of energy a can-do attitude a pride in what is being done and an obvious sign of progress with the rebuild. It is an inspiring project.Christchurch Cathedral is the very opposite. Because of the obduracy of the Church Property Trustees and their failure to even protect the interior of the cathedral from the weather by closing the gaping wound of what was once the rose window and the spires the whole cathedral has now become a symbol of failure. It is a symbol of having been defeated by the earthquakes and yet it could be so very different.I strongly encourage the Bishop of Christchurch Rt Rev. Victoria Matthews and the Church Property Trustees to do what the Local Government and Environment Committee did and take a visit to the Arts Centre and see what can be achieved if you have got passion leadership engineering skill and commitment to restoring a place that is important to the people of Christchurch. Eighty percent of the cathedral structure still stands the roof structure is entirely intact and over 100 structural and seismic engineers have said that there is no need to demolish it. They have said that the cathedral could be restored and with modern seismic strengthening could comply with the highest code standards for public buildings.The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust has estimated that the cost of restoring the cathedral would be around $67 million substantially less than what it is costing to restore the Arts Centre and that trust has offered to help the Church Property Trustees meet the $27 million shortfall between the church’s insurance payments and the cost of restoration.The building of the Christchurch Cathedral was a huge undertaking for a small community; it took 40 years to complete. The Arts Centre restoration is taking 7 years and the cathedral restoration may take a similar time. But given that these buildings have been around for over a century and given that they will outlast us all that is a very short time. So I would encourage Bishop Matthews and the Church Property Trustees to look at what real leadership creative energy and a respect for the craftsmanship and skill of the past is doing at the Arts Centre and to look at what strong vision to return and retain a cultural treasure is achieving and then apply that to the cathedral. What has been achieved at the Arts Centre has many practical lessons for restoring the cathedral.The cathedral was designed by the same architect Benjamin Mountfort. It has got some of the same materials—those big basalt and limestone blocks the big timber supports and roof trusses and the slate roof. The Christchurch Cathedral like the Arts Centre is one of Christchurch’s landmarks it is a legacy of our history and it can be a symbol of the city again but there needs to be a major change in attitude by the Church Property Trustees and by the bishop. It needs them to be inspired by the same vision and sense of purpose that we are seeing in the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board which this bill is designed to encourage. Thank you. The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill.RON MARK (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to likewise endorse and signal that we will be supporting the passage of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill not just through this reading but through to the conclusion. I am going to pick up on some of the themes of some of the speeches before me. It is very hard when you get a bill that is quite simple you come in as speaker No. 7 and pretty much everything that can be said about the Arts Centre has been said. So I am going to pick up on a couple of comments. I am going to pick up on something as a former Mayor of Carterton—the comments about the former Local Government and Environment Committee. I do need to say this: the previous select committee was not viewed on very well by local government in general. I am pleased that I am working—Jami-Lee Ross: Maybe it was that mayor.RON MARK:—on a select committee—there is chipping in from some young man over there; I will get his name soon. It will come back to me.Jami-Lee Ross: Old age is setting in.RON MARK: Oh yap yap yap. Do I need to talk about Northland to shut that member up? I probably could but I will move on. This select committee seems to have a very nice culture—and it is interesting that we are talking about arts and culture at this time—within it. I am pleased to be sitting on a committee that has a high degree of cohesion and collegiality about it. I have to say though that when I look back over my career in Parliament some select committees have not had that air that culture about them. The previous Local Government and Environment Committee earned itself a reputation in local government for being pretty pigheaded and bloody-minded particularly from the Government’s side. That was not evident today. It is not evident under the chairmanship of Scott Simpson—Hon Nicky Wagner: I would start being very worried about a strike.RON MARK: —and I am happy to say that I am looking forward to continuing working in the same vein as we progress through. It is not hard. If you want to hear those messages go talk to any mayor about the way in which the previous Local Government and Environment Committee heard their submissions on the amalgamation proposals and on the changes to the Local Government Act. They were quite disgusted and appalled by the body language and behaviour of some of the members Nicky—quite disgusted actually but moving forward.Phil Twyford: Not by all parties surely.RON MARK: No no not by all parties. One party thought that that behaviour was quite appropriate and that was the National Party.There were comments about Margaret Austin—and the Hon Margaret Austin has been the chair of the trust board—and it really does give me great pleasure to hear those comments about Margaret because in her time both in Parliament and in Christchurch she has done sterling work across the community and this is just another fine example of it.Looking at the history of the trust I note that the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board was established in 1978. That was 4 years after I arrived in Christchurch from the North Island as a young soldier. I can say that from then 1974 until when I left Christchurch in 2007 the transformation in the Arts Centre was absolutely astonishing. It went from being a place that had huge obvious historic and cultural value to being a place that had all the signs of falling into disrepair and even dereliction. But because of the efforts of a lot of very talented and committed Cantabrians over those years from 1978 to 2007 I saw it transformed as it was renovated revived and energised into becoming a vibrant centre of entertainment art education and trade. It became a centre of entertainment not just for Cantabrians but for people who visited Christchurch. I can say that as I grew and eventually became a family man with children I absolutely adored any opportunity to take my kids into the Arts Centre and to enjoy the entertainment and enjoy the arts and the cultures that were exhibited there so often. I think 1.5 million people—the records state here—were going through visiting there every year. Even those figures quite astonished me when I read them recently.I have spoken to many people all over the South Island who have had the opportunity to visit the Arts Centre. It would be fair to say that their views and their experiences of the Arts Centre are pretty similar to those that have been expressed in the House here today. Of course one could not get through this debate without mentioning the Dux de Lux. I see that the honourable member Megan Woods mentioned that and Todd Muller. Obviously a number of university students partook in that little place and I can say that a number of soldiers from Burnham Military Camp who partook in there on the odd occasion have always enjoyed the Dux de Lux and have enjoyed that opportunity to mix with people whom we probably would not meet socially on a normal basis particularly those of us in the military. Artistically culturally historically the Christchurch Arts Centre epitomised Christchurch and Christchurch people. It epitomised clearly their heritage and their culture but in many many ways it also epitomised their innovation and their determination not to allow a taonga that was so important to them to fall into a state of disrepair or even worse disappear.Of course we all know that in 2010 and 2011 Christchurch was hit by those rather devastating earthquakes. Again I am someone who considers himself to be a Cantabrian by 30 years’ occupation even though I am from the Wairarapa and my family were down there. I was fortunate—and unfortunate—in having family members who were in the Fire Service family members who were in urban search and rescue and family members who were in the police. I was fortunate to get a very unique opportunity to visit the red zone and view the devastation in places like the Arts Centre firsthand at a very early stage when most other New Zealanders were locked out of the place. It was a privilege that I still treasure and I know it was not one that was afforded to other people.Looking at the level of damage and having an engineering background myself I could only shake my head and wonder how the heck some of this work was ever going to be completed and whether there was ever going to be a full restoration. I understand the angst and the heartache from people who lament the decisions made around the cathedral. Anyone who has lived in Christchurch for 30 years on and off understands how important the English heritage and the English culture—and particularly the cathedral—is to Cantabrians. This particular project was always going to be extremely demanding for those who were entrusted with the responsibility of rebuilding restoring and conserving the Arts Centre going forward.This bill brought in by Nicky Wagner—and I congratulate the honourable member—seeks to address some of the impediments that were inherent in the former governance model. Having returned to Parliament and seen this bill which came in last year I can and New Zealand First can understand and concur with the honourable member Nicky Wagner that change was necessary if the good people of Christchurch were to do the task that was confronting them. Modernising the governance structure affirming the responsibility of ownership and duty to it removing the political influence that comes with ministerial and political party - influenced appointments—and it does not matter whether it is a red-dominated Government or a blue-dominated Government—are never actually going to deliver to you all of the skill sets that one requires in this task ahead.Hon Jo Goodhew: What about yourself?RON MARK: I know. I brought wonderful skill sets and your former Minister Tony Ryall absolutely acknowledged it and I am grateful for that recognition. But the member herself knows from her time in Opposition that one can look at some ministerial appointments and think that given the challenges of a $290 million project to be conducted over 7 years the skill sets in this case need to be very defined. So the amendments here to address that are very good amendments and we support them wholeheartedly.We would say I guess that culture is something that some of us look at with different eyes. I look at some of the things that were lost in Christchurch and we lament those losses. Let us just hope that looking back at the Christchurch Arts Centre in 7 or 8 years from now—and at the new board of trustees as they have undertaken their full restoration and rebuild work working and focusing on conservation—we will be proud that we supported that effort here this afternoon. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in the second reading debate on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Far be it from me to correct the honourable member Dr Megan Woods but I did just want to raise one small issue. In her speech she described this bill as a local bill. Of course it is important to recognise that this is in fact a private bill.A private bill is something that although not abhorrent to this House is relatively rare because in general as a constitutional principle we prefer to pass general legislation that has equal effect for all. However I actually agree with previous speakers in this debate that such is the value of the Christchurch Arts Centre not only to Christchurch but to New Zealand and even in a global context that this bill is appropriate. It is appropriate that we put in place specific enabling legislation to enshrine the objects and powers of the trust and its board and to protect this asset which is of enormous value to the people of Canterbury and to the citizens of New Zealand.I had I suppose the pleasure of training as an archaeologist at the University of Otago. I bring this up for a couple of reasons. Firstly I am not entirely unaware of some of the issues around heritage management and rehabilitating dilapidated old ruins having spent several years during my university time with a trowel brush and shovel in such sites. Secondly because the University of Otago like the Arts Centre is in that wonderful neo-Gothic style—in fact the Christchurch Arts Centre is described as collegiate or collegial Gothic it is as the very distinguished and discerning member Scott Simpson pointed out built to emulate the mores of Victorian Britain. But it is actually unique in the world as a consolidated example of that style of architecture in a precinct—not just in individual buildings but consistent across entire city blocks—and it is something that is very precious to us. In fact prior to the devastating earthquakes the Arts Centre precinct along with the Christchurch Cathedral was being considered for recognition and for World Heritage status to be inscribed to it on the World Heritage Listby Unesco because of its unique nature and its value not only for New Zealand but globally. So this is a timely bill.It is important that after 30 or 40 years of operation we modernise some provisions that govern the original trust. I think we should also note the excellent work that is being done by the existing trust board and the good management of the staff led by André Lovatt as chief executive officer of the Arts Centre. They are in a strong position due to that good management. After the devastating first earthquake in 2010 which did a lot of physical damage—a lot less human damage death and destruction was wreaked—the Christchurch Arts Centre very sensibly reinsured. It settled quickly and reinsured.So the reason we now have one of the largest—in fact the largest as Scott Simpson said—heritage restoration projects currently under way in the world is that the Arts Centre was sensible in its approach to insurance and managed to secure a nearly $300 million payout from insurers to enable it to undertake that 7-year restoration process. The additional funding of course being applied by the Government does help but in a situation where we are inevitably forced to prioritise and juggle between hospitals schools arts precincts and other buildings it is useful to have significant money coming in from insurance providers.I do not have the connections to Canterbury that some other members have but I do have a fondness for the Arts Centre building. I enjoyed David McPhail’s play Muldoon performed in the Court Theatre. It would have been about 10 years ago in the early 2000s. Having visited along with colleagues from the Local Government and Environment Committee to have a look at the work that is being done there it was very very clear not only that is there high quality in terms of the management of the organisation but that it really is a “United Nations of restoration”. You hear Irish accents. You see people from the Czech Republic those from the UK those from Europe those from Asia—from all around the world—contributing to maintaining some of these crafts and trades that have been lost over the years but are now being re-inculcated and retaught. So we have not only plasterers and stonemasons but also people who work in wood and people who are experts in the electrical wiring of heritage buildings to avoid the unfortunate risk of fire which you get when you have these buildings where certain fundaments cannot be changed.This is a good piece of legislation. The objects of this legislation are not for the Government to step in and determine on behalf of the people of Canterbury how the centre should be managed. In fact it is quite the opposite. This bill enshrines a role for the trust board that includes holding the trust property for the objects that have been laid out. These objects are to hold and develop the Arts Centre as a unique and outstanding cultural centre for use by the people of Christchurch and—equally important in my view—to foster promote and facilitate an interest and involvement in the arts culture creativity the creative industries and educational purposes.We saw this in play when we visited the Arts Centre site and it was explained to us that in previous incarnations the buildings were used for such features as cafes and art galleries. Of course there will be those facilities in the restored Arts Centre. But we were also shown the fact that they will have state-of-the-art laboratories including 3D printing—this new technology that allows something to be designed on a computer and then realised in plastic or polymer form almost instantaneously. This is very expensive equipment but it will take the arts that are developed there to a new level. It is very appropriate for this modern age in which we live.The powers of the trust board as enshrined in this bill are fairly far-reaching. In fact they have the full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity that advances the objects of the Arts Centre. That includes the acquisition of further real or personal property of any nature that may be useful for the maintenance of the Arts Centre and being able to let or lease the lands and buildings so that the buildings can be let out and put to use because as we know when heritage buildings are engaged in a useful purpose they are more likely to be valued and respected but also maintained. The trust board is allowed to construct re-erect improve maintain and provide further buildings and of course that is important in a situation where we are in the middle of a major restoration project.The trust board will be empowered to employ staff—an important factor also in terms of managing such a significant site. It will be able to borrow money. It will have the ability to make a business decision as to whether it needs to seek a mortgage or debenture or some sort of injection of capital to enable the board to achieve its aims—although of course as I have mentioned that $300 million insurance payment does help significantly towards the reconstruction—and it is able to generate public subscriptions and donations. So it is able to do a wide range of things. This is not a bill that is about the Government putting more power in its own hands. In fact this is a bill that modernises the settings for the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board and actually empowers it to deliver.I do want to raise a few other points. I congratulate the Minister the Hon Nicky Wagner who has demonstrated I think with the excellent majority with which she held the seat of Christchurch Central at the last election that she is an incredibly hard-working MP and that she has been a passionate and tireless advocate for this project in particular.I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and all of our colleagues. Given the comments from Mr Mark I would have to agree with his description of the committee as being a group of people who have an interest in working together collegially—which is appropriate when we are dealing with collegial Gothic buildings—and who take a sophisticated and I think quite enlightened approach to dealing with this issue and making sure that the right things are done.The committee did suggest a number of amendments to the bill. There probably is not time to go through each and every one of those today. But I think in a general sense that it is important that we achieve a position where people are on the trust board due to the skill set they bring rather than because they represent specific interest groups in society. We need people who have accounting knowledge legal knowledge Government expertise and importantly heritage management expertise on the governance body for the Arts Centre so that it can be run well into the future. Thank you very much.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this the second reading of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill a private bill brought to this House by the Hon Nicky Wagner. I would like to commend the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on the smooth progress of this bill so far through the House and also for the demonstration that is within this bill of a connection to community and a valuing of heritage and the importance that that plays within Christchurch. We do see that evident in this bill. I guess it is just a shame that that connection to community and that valuing of heritage have run up against the immovable force of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the wider National caucus. This has meant we have not seen those same values being able to be applied in a wider sense in Christchurch.The Arts Centre building—it has been interesting listening in the House tonight to how many people from Christchurch have spoken so passionately about this place. I too have a link to Christchurch in that my mother was very proud to have adopted Canterbury for herself. She has the Crusaders theme song on her phone and is very passionate about this city now. I have visited her there many times and spent time at the Arts Centre. We have been to plays there. We have seen movies there. We have been to the art gallery there. We have had coffee there. We have been shopping there. I think it just speaks to what a hub this place is in its essence as well as in carrying so many stories which we have heard mentioned in other members’ speeches tonight around the famous people—Rutherford—who were there the meaning that is held within those buildings and the traditions as well as just everyday experiences of locals on a daily basis that are held in those buildings. They are very special for the people of Christchurch and for those of us who are not Cantabrians but have links to that place.The Arts Centre is a massive drawcard for so many foreign visitors. You see the tourists walking up and down those avenues just being drawn to that place because it is such a special place. It is wonderful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the preservation of that and the protection of those values and that tradition within Christchurch particularly—and I do have to mention it again—in the face of so much devastation within the central city of Christchurch. Enabled by section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act there have been 1240 demolitions within those four avenues and 20 percent of those were heritage buildings.The Majestic Centre—again there are the things I have been to there and the stories that those walls have held for the generations of people who settled in Christchurch. There is also Cranmer Court. These heritage buildings are not just old dungers as described by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. They are holders of love tradition and meaning for the people of Christchurch and it has been such a loss to see so much of that taken away for wider roads—for some enforced vision created in the head of a Minister sitting most of his time in Wellington. So it is so welcome to have the opportunity to be part of something that protects a section of what was—to enable those traditions and those memories to carry on into the future and into the future well beyond us in this House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Jacinda Ardern—5 minutes.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think it has been quite uplifting to hear members across the House talk with such passion about the importance of protecting important historic and heritage buildings in New Zealand and specifically within the Christchurch context. I think that is incredibly important given the loss that that city and that region have experienced in terms of their heritage buildings. I do want to come back to that in a little bit.Speaking directly to the Arts Centre though I too like many other members across this House visited the centre both before and post - the quakes. Post - the quakes I was left with absolutely no doubt about the passion that is held by those who are working on this project for doing the very best job they can on behalf of the people of Canterbury to preserve such an important cluster of buildings. There are however a few issues that relate to the Arts Centre. Obviously it was the home of the University of Canterbury for more than a century. It comprises 23 heritage buildings. They are collectively registered as category I historic places under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act and of course with such a significant number of buildings it is a large project—it is 7 years and it is $290 million.The definition around the buildings that has been used struck a little bit of controversy though at the select committee. To be fair very few things I think did raise any question marks. But two of the submissions did raise concerns about references in the bill to “historic stone buildings” which of course is the majorityof the buildings I understand but that does leave out as currently drafted protections for the former student union building which would be known to many as Dux de Lux and it has been referred to in a number of speeches in this House. Although I understand that the issue over the protections not relating to that building has been raised with those who are members of the Arts Centre trust they have said that the plans are not really locked in for that building as I understand it as has been reported and that there is still a longer-term plan around that building that needs to be developed.Given that this particular part of the centre’s grounds has not been included in the definition I think it would be helpful if the trust were able to give words of comfort particularly to those from Historic Places Canterbury who have spoken out about this issue and are really seeking assurances that it is part of the wider plan. Even though it is not included in the definition by virtue of being a brick and wood building as opposed to being a stone building I think there is room for the trust to work collaboratively with those advocates who are trying to ensure that that building is looked after too. That is just one of the points that I wanted to make.I do also want to just touch on the fact that provision has been made in the bill for legacy around the trust. If the trust is wound up the trust property would be vested in the Crown. I think that is a really important part of the bill. Of course we would hope that we would not have a set of circumstances that would allow that but I have seen cases in the past where there has not been proper provision for that and it has led to disastrous results.Speaking of disastrous results I want to spend only a quick part of my contribution on the wider issues around heritage buildings in Canterbury. There have been 1240 demolitions as of February 2015 within the four avenues compared with 292 rebuild consents and 20 percent of those demolitions have been of heritage buildings. The centre of Christchurch has lost 50 percent of its heritage buildings and often that happened with great haste and in some cases without it being necessary. The Majestic Theatre is a prime example of that. Labour almost a year ago to the day called for section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to no longer be applied to heritage buildings to give proper Resource Management Act process to the removal of heritage buildings. Yes safety was a very necessary concern in the beginning but that moment has moved on and we were seeing time and time again decisions of expediency at the cost of heritage. I would hope that there is an end to that process now in Christchurch.JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I am pleased to stand to speak on the second reading of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill but before I get going I just want to give some clarification. This Government is—is—concerned about the rebuild of Christchurch and $15 billion - plus is not exactly a little drop in the bucket. We are caring about what is happening with the Christchurch rebuild; it is one of our major priority areas. I just wanted to put that out there in response to what was said by a previous speaker from the Green Party. I also want to say that I moved to Christchurch East just before the by-election—it would have been about June of last year—and found my whakapapa roots there. I am one of the mokopuna of Tahu Pōtiki whose older brother is Porourangi. Porourangi is my direct ancestor through my father and Ngati Porou. I just wanted to put that there.As I move into my speech I want to thank the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this bill to the House. It is a very good bill and I am really pleased that it has cross-party support. The Arts Centre is one of the most significant clusters of heritage buildings in New Zealand. It is a cultural asset not only just locally but nationally and internationally as well. I know that the people of Christchurch love their Arts Centre. Maybe I was too young to go to the Dux de Lux—I do not know. I did not know much about that place but anyway from all accounts I can see that many people did enjoy what the Dux de Lux offered up. Again I am carrying on with thanking Nicky for bringing this bill to the House. I am also going to thank Scott Simpson as the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee. I was one of the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee last year and being a new MP it was really good to be under his chairmanship. He chairs the meetings very well and collegially. The Local Government and Environment Committee is not the only one he has chaired; he has also chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee and I thank you Scott for your wise counsel and for your leadership in that select committee.As I move on to the Arts Centre as I said the Arts Centre is a historic building. As Eugenie Sage said it reflects the distinct architectural designs of Benjamin Woolfield Mountfort and it also as I said reflects the history of local education with a strong connection obviously to arts and science. Its main pupil or student was Ernest Lord Rutherford. He completed his undergraduate degree there at Canterbury College as well as most of his breakthrough research. So it has got a special place in the hearts of everybody who has used it.The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board which is the group that governs the Arts Centre was established in December 1978 and incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. My colleagues have already outlined the devastating 2010 and 2011 earthquakes that hit Christchurch leaving 22 of the 23 buildings in dire need of repair. That repair is going to be a 7-year and a near-on $300 million restoration programme which is currently under way. As many have heard the Local Government and Environment Committee met there a few months ago. We were privileged to go through the Arts Centre. I was unable to go there—I had worn the wrong shoes—so I will enjoy heading back to Christchurch to have a bit of a look through the building and see its progress thus far. As I said before it is the largest heritage restoration building not only here but currently in the world. It is a significant milestone for New Zealand to have that project ongoing. Not only does it provide back to the people of Christchurch their beloved Arts Centre but it also sits within the world records and because it is there it is basically a flagstone for international visitors to come and visit this wonderful centre once it is completed.I just want to talk a little bit about the trust board and some of the impacts that the earthquakes have had on it. With the impact of the earthquakes there have to be some changes or some adaptations within the trust board. Some of my colleagues have already talked about the skills-based board appointments. They have an appointments committee with which to do that. I want to acknowledge André Lovatt the chief executive officer and Jen Crawford the chair of the trust board for the work that they have been doing—and the work that lies ahead of them based on some of the clauses within this bill.I want to move to some of the new provisions some of the key changes set out in schedule 2 which looks at the constitution of the trust board with some of the key changes. Some of the areas that I want to talk about are the new provisions in clauses 1 to 4 of schedule 2. These deal with trust board membership and look at the number of board appointments. Seven to nine members can be appointed to the board. As I mentioned earlier there is an appointments committee that has been set up. Some of my colleagues have also discussed vacancies on the board which may arise from time to time. Some of the key stakeholders such as the University of Canterbury the Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga the Christchurch Civic Trust the Papatipu Rūnanga of Canterbury—which I am sure my colleague Nuk will talk a little bit more in depth about—other such local businesses and community organisations and the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage will have an interest in vacancies and in the Arts Centre as it progresses. This area of clauses 1 to 4 also talks about how vacancies will be made available. That will be done through the chief executive officer publicly advertising the vacancies in the local newspapers and various other areas.I want to talk a little bit now about the revised provisions relating to the proceedings of the trust board which is in clause 5 of schedule 2. This looks at a new requirement for the board to hold an annual public meeting where the conservation plan will be placed for input and all viewing and as amended it also talks about what the quorum will be as well about voting.We have talked a little about the revised provisions dealing with the accounts of the trust board and other areas. I just want to talk a little bit about clause 10(a) of schedule 2 which deals with the protection of board members from liability. That is really key because when you ask people to come on to boards and help to govern particular organisations especially this one—it is a very key one for the community—we want to be able to protect them and so clause 10(a) puts in the ability for board members to be protected from liability for loss to the trust.Finally clauses 10(b) and (c) look at indemnity. I am going to read this. New clause 10(b) provides that “Each board member [may] be indemnified by the trust against all actions proceedings claims damages losses demands costs (including legal costs) and expenses suffered by or incurred by that member in connection with the trust.” That is really key because when you start advertising for new board members those are some of the things that they will be looking at—especially those from a skills-based background because they are professionals. They bring in their professional backgrounds or their community links and they want to know that they are going to be safe within the board where they are representing their community.In closing we are going to pay them. Clause 11 of schedule 2 looks at providing for the remuneration of board members and it is nice to be able to give them something in recognition of the skills that they bring to their role as trust board members of the Christchurch Arts Centre. Again I am very proud to be standing and speaking on behalf of the Government supporting the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Kia ora.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Meitaki maata Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Firstly my acknowledgments go to the Hon Nicky Wagner for guiding this bill in its passage through the House. There is widespread support for what this bill aims to do. I also need to acknowledge Jen Crawford and André Lovatt from the trust board itself. Further I want to acknowledge the Hon Margaret Austin who is a former Labour member and someone whom the Christchurch community owes a great debt of gratitude for her desire to ensure that our city and our province recovers well.The trust board has worked tirelessly and it is an extraordinary piece of legislation in that the board’s trust deeds and objects the powers under which it will work and all the provisions that provide for the trust board are enshrined in legislation. It is not the normal way you would do things but it is a very significant and important step to ensure that the work that is done to restore the buildings on that site goes ahead. So I acknowledge and support the aims of the trust board.This legislation has three main aims: to create the legal framework in which the work can be conducted to amend the governance structure to ensure that the right people with the right skills at the right time are in a position to ensure that this work is carried out and—the last aim—to enable and to respond to the recovery work that is required post the earthquakes. The legislation is significant. We have heard other members in this House speak this evening about what the centre means to them and not just the centre but the general precinct and the area that suffered significant damage. We are talking not just about buildings and land; we are talking about areas where people and families congregated and shared time together. Each one of those stones within the Arts Centre building each piece of wood each window and each area of courtyard and pavement has a memory. The memories are of times that were spent there by students—happy times; perhaps stressful times too if you were a student and trying to get through exams. There is more to this precinct than just the bricks and the stone. It is significant that we acknowledge that that is part of the recovery and restoration process.Other members have talked about the trust being set up in 1978 and my colleague Dr Megan Woods talked about how that came to pass in the early 1970s. I want to talk a little bit about the objects of the trust because this piece of legislation enshrines those. The objects really are ensuring that we hold and develop the Arts Centre—the site the buildings—in trust as a unique and outstanding cultural centre for use by the people of Christchurch and its visitors. I know that before moving to Christchurch to live when I was visiting family in Christchurch it would always be one of the places we went to because it always had the best coffee and the market at the weekend was a great place to pick up knick-knacks. It was extraordinary to be able to watch the artisans at work there using crafts from a past time.One of the other objects is fostering promoting and facilitating interest and involvement in art culture creativity the creative industries and education. There was no cooler place to go than the Arts Centre if you were going to see a play to hear music or to really just generally share in culture.This bill also enshrines the powers of the trust which include having the capacity to ensure that any activity that the trust board deems necessary is able to be carried out and that at any time that it needs to acquire property even to demolish buildings or make changes or employ staff all of those activities are within this legislation. The legislation is unable to be changed except so that the work of the trust board can go on as it needs to through the period—through to 2019.Further there are two main parts to the bill. The first sets out its purpose and its definitions around the committee and the trust deed. Those provisions describe the schedules which provide the detail of the land and the buildings within the bill. Part 2 sets out the objects of the trust and the bill concludes with the schedules which describe the land and the constitution of the trust board.Any discussion regarding heritage buildings in Christchurch cannot be held without thinking about section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 and the loss of heritage to the city. The reason I refer to that in the context of other comments is that I know that over the last few summers as the fences have started to come down in the central city as people have been able to go back into the city and as some of the rebuilding work has been carried out many people were reluctant to return because they did not want to see the devastation that was there. It has been a re-traumatising of our population I guess in a sense to go back into the city and see just what needs to be done and just what has been lost. I ask the Government to think long and hard about whether we properly used section 38 when we were considering the demolition of many of those heritage buildings.My colleague Eugenie Sage also referred to the cathedral. When I talk about the cathedral and when I talk about the significant heritage buildings in Christchurch I liken them to when we discuss our whakapapa and our pepeha. The maunga within it—for those of us who do not have a connection to that part of the world in terms of our cultural heritage—that we can refer to are those buildings the cathedral and the Arts Centre and the significant beauty that our heritage buildings brought to the area.Many of my colleagues have talked about the number of buildings that were lost within the four avenues area. Twenty percent were our heritage buildings. That is significant. In order for recovery to occur to the fullest extent we must acknowledge what we have lost and what has passed and ensure that we do not lose any more. So I commend this bill to the House and I encourage the Government to consider carefully the recovery of Christchurch. The recovery has not been completed. There are still many areas where people are wanting this Government to step up. I cannot go past the eastern suburbs in that comment of course where we are still to have our horizontal infrastructure completed so we can be fully recovered. So thank you to the Hon Nicky Wagner. It is a great bill. Thank you.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I stand to take the final call for the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in its second reading. I am not going to go over a lot of the history behind this bill and what has happened to date but I do want to just mention a couple of things particularly—I see that my friend on the other side New Zealand First’s Ron Mark has actually left the House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot refer to members who are not present in the House.NUK KORAKO: My friend from New Zealand First has—Scott Simpson: Spoken.NUK KORAKO: —spoken and I just reiterate the fact that he really commended the Local Government and Environment Committee for its collegiality and the way it works very very closely together. Again we call that kotahitaka. It is a collective thing. I would like to invite him to come to the Māori Affairs Committee actually because we also work in a very very close collegial way. To date in the 51st Parliament we actually have not needed to take a vote. We do everything by consensus.Scott Simpson: And better kai.NUK KORAKO: And better kai. So just to make that first point.The next one is indeed to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner. I do that as a colleague in Parliament but also as a member of the Ngāi Tahu iwi because we hold Nicky in very very high regard particularly because of a lot of the excellent work that Nicky does within Christchurch and particularly in regard to her relationship with tangata whenua and mana whenua. I also want to acknowledge Margaret Austin—her leadership in this and also when you think of the great things that Margaret has done particularly working on the World Heritage site in Tekapō. So again I acknowledge her and also André Lovatt—he has been mentioned before—and Jen Crawford.The reflection of this bill here and particularly the way that everyone has worked very very closely together epitomises a thing whereby out of the rubble of the rū whenua o Ōtautahi a phoenix is rising. This is a very very important reflection on what is happening and also on the fact that if we do things like this together in a collective way then we get these very very important solutions and things moving forward.The important thing too is to acknowledge my other colleagues our MPs from the Green Party—not just them actually but across the House—particularly around heritage buildings. Heritage buildings—absolutely in Christchurch there has been a lot of suffering. But what I also want to say is that if you go beyond that if you go beyond the colonial days the colonialism and if you think for just one moment about the effect that this had on tangata whenua—I am not talking about just the earthquake because we all suffered there. If we go back before that with the arrival of the Europeans what is interesting with this building is that when we were young kids coming to Christchurch from Tuahuriri in the northern part of the city this particular building we saw as an edifice to colonialism so we never visited it much. We were on our way as schoolkids to the museum to see our wonderful Māori artefacts that were inside there.What I am saying here is that this particular building when you look at the history of the city and all of that it really does actually now strike a chord with us in the fact that it is part of us because of the fact of what went on during the earthquake the rū whenua particularly in 2011.What I am saying here with this particular building with everything that has gone on again is that reflection that we are working together particularly when you look at the trust deed. The idea behind the resurrection of this building is pretty much when we talk about a phoenix rising from the rubble. We have great opportunities during the rebuild to not only rebuild our buildings but also to put in new ideas and to instil new parts of the way we actually manage and govern these buildings.This again is a reflection of the fact that we have re-established a legal foundation for the Arts Centre in Christchurch in statute but also the reforms here that this bill is doing. It reforms the governance arrangements by establishing a higher skills base. The important thing there too is the fact of why we actually now believe—the member of Parliament for Christchurch East referred to these buildings as taonga maunga or mauka. I would not go that far. I think that when you look at that when you relate to your mauka it is Maukatere in North Canterbury and when you look at your awa it is the Ōtākaro or the Ōpāwaho.If you come down from that esoteric look at the spirituality and all of that it is very much around the natural landscape. But I do concur with the member about the fact of the mana that this building does instil in all of us now more so because it survived in some ways the Christchurch earthquake. And we are all working together now to be able to rebuild it back to a more significant and a more well-managed building.When looking at the make-up of the new governance board I think the important thing is to look at the representation of the iwi particularly because of the fact that we have got the Ngāi Tahupapatipu rūnanga actually involved in that so there is a representative there. And if we look at the way that it is governed it is a fact that we can actually instil—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.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe e te Whare. Tēnā koutou te whānau o te Pāremata. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. Members when we broke for the dinner break we were—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Ross Robertson used to use Samoan and Tongan as well.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: —that will come cousin—debating the second reading of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill and matua Nuk Korako had 2 minutes remaining. So without a bell he has 2 minutes available to him should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.NUK KORAKO: Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. A ka pai te kōrero Te Reo. Kia ora. Just to reiterate very quickly the fact that this bill was very much a collective across both sides of the House. This is particularly reflected in the very very close working relationship that we have with the Local Government and Environment Committee under the chairmanship of Scott Simpson.Just to finish off I was just finishing around the tangata whenua and also the relationship that tangata whenua have particularly now with the new governance board. They always have in some ways but it is just an acknowledgment again as within the bill it states that it is Papatipu Rūnanga of Waitaha or Canterbury. But we know that when you look at papatipu you are talking about tangata whenua but then it is understanding the faces of the iwi. Particularly when you talk about mana whenua it is actually about those people of the land particularly where the Arts Centre is which is Ngāi Tuahuriri. That does not have to be specific because iwi will actually take care of that themselves. So just to acknowledge that and also the fact that within this bill it does actually allow the factors where cultural considerations are taken into account. That is really part of the role of that tangata whenua and mana whenua representative.Finally from the damaged buildings and rubble is this unique opportunity to create a vibrant centre that will be the source of great pride for Christchurch and New Zealand. On that note I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a second time.Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) BillSecond ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move That the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill be now read a second time. As the member in charge of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill I really welcome this second reading. This is a very simple bill. It is all about fixing an error an error that I believe was made with the best intentions. It is one of those really annoying and frustrating situations where bad things happen when you are trying to do good. It is about validating rates irregularities in the past that were only discovered by the city council last year.Back in 2004 the Christchurch City Council consciously opted to simplify the language of its rating resolution but it left out important information which meant that its resolution did not comply with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. All the information that was required was presented but it was presented elsewhere and not in the new simplified streamlined resolution. On discovering that the council undertook a review of all its resolutions since 2004 and found other technical irregularities in relation to seven targeted rates and the uniform annual general charge. Again all the correct information was provided but not in the actual resolution. The council was able to fix the mistakes for the 2013 and 2014 financial years but it needs this validation bill to validate its past setting of rates payment dates and penalty regimes. But let me make this very clear: this is not about the rates being calculated wrongly and all the rates have been lawfully paid. No one is wrongfully affected by this bill.I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work in scrutinising this bill for its support of the bill and for the fact that it returned this bill to the House unamended. I would also like to applaud the Christchurch City Council for acting swiftly to deal with this matter once it was discovered. Parliament does not like validation bills. We hate the fact that we are dealing with retrospective legislation. I am sure many members tonight will show their displeasure. But I have a sympathy for the council because we also want simple legislation we want simple resolutions and we want people to be able to understand what is going on in local government. Also nobody likes to admit that they have made a mistake particularly if it was well intentioned. There is always a temptation to let sleeping dogs lie but the city council has fronted up and I say well done to it.Actually I would like to take this time to spend a few moments paying tribute to the Christchurch City Council and updating the House on the huge workload it has had and what it has been doing since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. As you all know it has been a tough time in Christchurch. It has been extremely difficult for the Christchurch City Council to keep the business-as-usual work under control as well as managing the challenges of the rebuild. Everyone in Christchurch is aware that we have to fix the past while we live in the present and while we build for the future and that takes a bit of juggling. We have learnt that out of crisis comes opportunity. We also feel that the only way that we can reconcile the pain and loss of the last few years is by making sure we take every opportunity to build a better place for future generations. The earthquakes have sharpened our focus on what is important to the people in Christchurch.Everyone in the council and actually everyone who works in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is absolutely committed to making Christchurch a safe beautiful and people-friendly city. We want it to be a future-focused place a place where exciting innovative and enterprising things can happen. We want to retain our sense of community and of supporting each other that served us so well during the disaster and also our open-mindedness and our action orientation that our shaken-up city required and our ability to work together for the greater good. Leading a community in times of crisis and enormous change requires really tough decision-making. Decisions have to be made rapidly often with scant information in a changing environment and with a risk of unknown consequences. I pay tribute to the mayor Lianne Dalziel and all the councillors and the officials who work at the Christchurch City Council for stepping up to that challenge and giving it their very best. I know at times it feels a bit like a thankless task but it is hugely important for the future of our city and their work is greatly appreciated by those who understand the challenges.It has been over 140 years since Christchurch was first planned and built. Those were the days of horses and carts cooking on a fire or a wood stove washing in the copper candles and the dunny in the backyard. School was about slates and the strap and life was short. Today we are envisaging the building of a modern flexible future-focused city: a city of electric or even driverless cars organic food and nutraceuticals; a city with an integrated alternative energy grid buildings that are automatically lit and heat-adjusted and with high-tech water and sewer schemes. School is an amazing modern learning environment with digital devices and our life expectancy is increasing year by year. It is the responsibility of all of us to build a city that enables our community to adapt and develop as times change and with the flexibility to be able to manage those unknown innovations of the next 140 years.In this bill we validate unintentional errors in the Christchurch City Council rating resolutions from 2004 to 2012 but I would also like to take the opportunity to wish the council well. It is doing a great job in challenging times and the people of Christchurch appreciate it. Thank you.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I can see Mr Deputy Speaker that you are allowing a very broad-ranging debate on this second reading of what is a very narrow piece of legislation—a piece of legislation that is about validating rates in Christchurch. I see that you are wanting us to traverse the terrain in all its many corners and I will too Mr Deputy Speaker—I will oblige. And I am sure my colleagues will in their contributions to this bill feel free to frolic around the plains of Canterbury in how they address this. Because as the speaker before me the sponsor of this bill said—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner—this is a very specific bill with a very specific task: it is about rectifying a mistake that happened with the way rates were struck in Christchurch over a period of time.The Minister did say that it was a mistake made “with the best of intentions”. Well I am not sure whether mistakes can be made “with the best of intentions”. I do believe it was probably a mistake made “without malevolence”. I do believe that it was probably a mistake “not made on purpose”. But I do not really think that we can make mistakes “with the best of intentions”. But none the less Christchurch City Council finds itself in the situation of having had a period of time when rates were not struck the way they should have been. And the way that it has asked for this to be rectified is by a piece ofvalidating legislation. That is what we are here at the second reading to debate and to kick around in a very broad-ranging way.What we have here though is something that this Parliament should not be making a habit of—that is fixing mistakes via legislation. When we considered this piece of legislation we on the Local Government and Environment Committee were very much of the united mind—if I could put it that way for our select committee—that actually—Hon Ruth Dyson: Was Peter Dunne on it?Dr MEGAN WOODS: No Peter Dunne was not on that committee and was not part of the united mind. What we had was a crossing of the ways in wanting to ensure that we as a Parliament are doing all that is in our power to ensure that we do not land back here having to fix up mistakes that have been made because we do not have adequate guidance or adequate oversight on how rates are struck by local body authorities. This is something that I know from my perspective on the committee I am very keen to get on the record.During the first reading speeches on this bill my colleague Su’a William Sio said that this legislation is between a rock and a hard place—that we know it has to be done that we need to fix this genuine error but that it is never something we like doing. And in the contribution he made on the bill he said that he wanted to hear what it was that the people of Christchurch had to say on the matter. The select committee even before this Parliament reconvened was busy at work—the hard-working committee that we on the Local Government and Environment Committee are. We were in Christchurch hearing the submission—the one submission that we heard on this bill.We did other work in Christchurch; I would not like to imply that we did not do a full day’s work. We also had the question of the legislation that we debated in the debate prior to this the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill to deal with on that day. We heard from Christchurch City Council and we heard how it was that it discovered this error. The speaker before me the Hon Nicky Wagner described this—it really was through the thorough order of their processes that it was discovered; that this transition to a simpler language was found. I think it was very insightful. It was actually a really good experience for the committee members to listen to that—and then to participate in the discussion that followed about what the responsibilities of this House are to ensure that we do not get into those situations again.Mr Deputy Speaker you will notice that I have been speaking very specifically on this very narrow piece of legislation but now since we are in the broad-ranging part of the debate I would like to venture out a little further as it were because what we did hear the Minister do after she dealt with the substance of why it is that we are here today was to put the legislation in the context of our recovery. Personally I do not think that this needs to be put in the context of our recovery; I think that actually to put it so can be somewhat patronising to the people of Christchurch—that what we have is something that other local authorities have gone through. But to use this debate to talk about what a wonderful job it has been and about how great things are in Christchurch is actually something I would rather not have seen. Yes there are contentions around how the recovery in Christchurch is going. I did not want to have to use this debate to debate those issues because that is not what this legislation is about—this is legislation about how it is that Christchurch City Council is asking us to fix a genuine mistake. But talking about organic food and nutraceuticals in the context of this legislation as we heard from the previous speaker is somewhat of a stretch.I would like to talk about housing in the context of this bill and if we are going to talk about the recovery I want to talk about the lack of housing that we have in Christchurch. I want to talk about the level of rates that people are paying in the city of Christchurch—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. I would not like the member to think that because the member promoting the bill made some magnanimous and inclusive comments around Christchurch and its recovery that she should stray from her first thoughts which were that she should keep the debate relatively tight. She made the comment that she would not like to think that she had to stray broader than the mandate of the bill and I would remind her that she does not. In actual fact the comments that were made by the member initiating this legislation were magnanimous in respect of Christchurch and were obviously well-meaning. I guess that what I am indicating to this speaker and to other speakers who will take calls is that they should bear in mind the particular strain in which those comments were made and bear in mind the scope of this bill. If I was recalcitrant in some way by not paying as close attention as I should have that does not necessarily give subsequent speakers licence to wander off around the paddock and cut their own track in respect of the scope of this bill which as the member has already conceded is very narrow.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your wise words on board. We are here tonight debating a ratings bill. Ratings are levelled on property as we all know—rates. And what we are validating here are mistakes that were made with how the rates were struck in Christchurch on individual properties. Many of those houses actually have now gone; some of the houses that this bill affects were actually some of those that were demolished as a consequence of the red zone. I think we would all acknowledge how sad that is and what Christchurch has been through in terms of that. But I would also note that perhaps we have not had the rebuilding of as many houses as we would like to see to replace those properties where rates could have been struck or otherwise had been struck. This is what we have to think about if we are going to be thinking about this piece of legislation in the context of the rebuild and recovery of Christchurch—what it means for our city; what it means for what we could be. Because this is about the ratings base of Christchurch this is about where people live and this is about the homes in which people enjoy their lives when we are talking about rates because this is the way that it has been chosen to be done. So I would like to raise that in the context of this legislation.I think one of the things that some of the speakers said when this bill was previously before this House did raise a question. I referred earlier to the contribution that my colleague Su’a William Sio made when he said that he invited members in Christchurch—and I quote from William Sio’s speech: “We support this bill through its first reading. I would invite all members and citizens of Christchurch to take the opportunity to submit on this bill and make their views known to this Government about the lack of action that they are seeing in the rebuild there. Thank you.” That is from a first reading speech on this bill.I myself think it is a shame that we did not hear from more people and that we did have only one submission on this bill. It would have been interesting to get feedback from the people of Christchurch on this but I guess one of the things that we know—and I can reach across the House to my colleague Nicky Wagner who is the sponsor of this bill—is what the people of Christchurch have been through and just how tired many of them are. There is a bit of fatigue actually among many people in Christchurch in terms of input into consultative processes—because there have been a number of them. There have many things for the people of Christchurch to have their say on and to input into and I think this is probably one of the reasons why we did not have as many contributions as perhaps my colleague Su’a William Sio was thinking when he made that comment in his first reading speech.I think that we do stand here with a very narrow piece of legislation that does a very specific task which is about correcting a mistake that was made without malevolence. It is a mistake that does need to be corrected because we need our ratings to be struck in a legal way and in accordance with the Local Government (Ratings) Act. Labour supports this bill in the House. In no way is this any slur on the Government but we do not want to be here again supporting more validating legislation as I am sure my colleagues across the House would concur. I think that we as a House need to turn our minds to how it is that we can avoid being in this place again whether that be through the audit process or whether that be through issuing good guidance to councils as they strike their rates to ensure that resolutions that confer either the legality or illegality of rates and how they are leviedare struck and are something that we can have in place. Labour supports this legislation. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee it gives me no pleasure at all this evening to be standing in the Parliament of New Zealand supporting—reluctantly—retrospective validating legislation for an albeit sincere and non-malicious mistake but a mistake none the less made some 10 years ago by professional highly paid highly skilled competent-on-the-face-of-it people employed by the Christchurch City Council. This is a bill that is sponsored by my colleague the Christchurch Central MP the Hon Nicky Wagner. She has set out very clearly in her introductory comments to this second reading the reasons why we are debating in Parliament tonight this piece of retrospective validation legislation. The bill itself is promoted by the Christchurch City Council which was of course the author of the error. The bill validates specified rates set between the 2004-05 and the 2012-13 financial years and because of the rates irregularities that came to light in the council’s review the legislation is frankly the only method for putting right an error that occurred more than 10 years ago and well before the Canterbury earthquakes.Christchurch City Council failed to state in its rates resolution over those years that the rates themselves were payable by instalment. The excuse if you like or the rationale for the error was simply that it was to be a simple piece of internal local legislation within the city council something that councils do every year in terms of providing for their fiscal responsibilities and their rating responsibilities under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. But what happened in this case was that no resolution was moved and passed through the council through the elected officials that ensured the rates were to be payable by instalment. Furthermore there was no date set by which those instalments would be paid and further there were no penalties set and no penalty dates set for those instalments. Minister Wagner made the point in her comments—and she is right—that actually no ratepayer has been negatively impacted as a result of this error. But the simple matter is that had an alert ratepayer decided to challenge the city council on these matters over any one of those 10 years then court action would have ensued and almost certainly the council would have come out the loser from that litigation. So that is a completely unsatisfactory situation for the ratepayers of Christchurch it is a completely unsatisfactory situation for the elected councillors of Christchurch and it is a completely unsatisfactory situation for the highly paid and professionally skilled employees who are supposed to oversee these relatively simple matters.The failures actually put the Christchurch City Council in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and then as a result of the investigations in 2013 when the irregularities were actually discovered further irregularities were uncovered. They were in respect of the council’s uniform annual general charge and some of the targeted rates for the same period of time. Information about how the liability for targeted rates and the uniform annual general charge were to be calculated was simply not included in the rates resolutions that were put to the council in the council chambersfor its attention.My colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner—correctly I think—said that bad things sometimes happen when you are trying to do good but I would counter that by saying that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Just because something is meant to be simple it does not mean that it needs to be incomplete it does not mean that it needs to be inaccurate and it does not mean that it needs to be incompetent. I doubt that many if any of the officers responsible at the time—and I hasten to point out that we are going back 10 years—would still be in the employ of the council although I am not 100 percent sure about that. Certainly it is several chief executive officers ago. So I am not necessarily going to pour scorn and derision upon current officers but council officers at the time failed the council they failed the ratepayers and they failed themselves in terms of their professional ability and capability. Rates were calculated correctly rates were collected correctly but the rates motion—the actual legal bit the piece that is important—was missed out and that is a fundamental flaw for council officers who actually are employed to ensure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed.We had only one submission and indeed that was from the council itself. We travelled to Christchurch. As a select committee we were able to link our visit with some rather better legislative work and that was to do with the Christchurch Arts Centre and the bill that was discussed earlier this evening in Parliament. So when we came to consider the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill we received only one submission—one submission—from the council and this is it. It is a mere two pages. It is a relatively perfunctory submission. It contains a clinical analysis of what happened how it happened and what needs to be done to correct it. The simple matter is that what needs to be corrected is that this Parliament is required to pass retrospective validating legislation to dig Christchurch City Council out of a hole. That is not a process that this Parliament likes doing. It is not a process that I think any member of the House thinks we should be spending too much time on. It is something that we certainly do not expect from a council as large as well-resourced and as significant as the Christchurch City Council.What was immediately apparent to members of the select committee—and I think I speak on behalf of most committee members—was that the submitters on behalf of the council were relaxed almost to the point of being comatose in terms of their submission. They seemed to be just appearing before us in a perfunctory manner saying: “Oh well we made a mistake. All too bad best endeavours Parliament will put it right.” Well I am not sure that that is necessarily very good. In the 2-page submission from the council there was no comment about contrition. There was no concession as to liability. There was no attempt to identify those people who were responsible. There was no indication that any kind of employment disciplinary action had been taken. In fact there was no sense at all of any sense of personal responsibility for the situation that the council found itself in—which Parliament now finds itself having to remedy.So it is fair to say that I thought as chair that our committee was singularly underwhelmed by the submission of the Christchurch City Council and I for one did not come away from hearing its oral submission or indeed reading its written submission with any sense of renewed confidence in the future prospects for getting things right. That may be a little bit harsh but I think that as a Parliament we could reasonably and sensibly expect a higher level of professionalism from one of the country’s largest councils. To expect anything less is an abrogation of its role and responsibility as a significant and large council but also in terms of the roles of professionals and employees of the council.We all live and work in an environment of constant change. We are all only human and we all make mistakes but this was a mistake of quite significant proportions. The fact that it did not negatively impact on ratepayers is a matter more of good luck than good management. I very reluctantly commend the bill to the House.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly I just want to make some general comments about the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and look to some of the substance of it. Then I want to make some comments with regard to what the member on the other side of the House Scott Simpson has just said. I think that by the end of this particular session we will be intimately aware of each individual part of this bill. It is a small bill; it is a fix-up bill. There is no denying that. It has been well traversed that the council needs this bill to pass in order to correct an issue that developed out of some work about 10 years ago.When you look at the bill you see that the preamble to the bill is longer than the rest of the bill. It is interesting; there are a couple of sections two parts to fix up the issue around the fact that we need to ensure we can validate the payment dates for the rates and validate the penalties on those unpaid rates. We can look at the setting of the rates that the revenue can actually lawfully be received by the council and that it can recover the penalties on any outstanding rates. That is in Part 1 of this bill. Clause 4 looks specifically at the rates for the Church Bay sewer loan the Church Bay water loan the Governors Bay sewer loan and the Governors Bay water loan. There are definitions around rates rates invoices the specific components within the rates—for example the water fire service connection rate—and waste minimisation. But they are for the specific periods mentioned previously—the 2004-05 years and latterly the 2012-13 years. If we do not fix this if we do not pass this legislation it means that the Christchurch City Council will continue to be in breach of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.Thank you to the Local Government and Environment Committee for going to Christchurch to hear the submissions on this bill and on the previous bill concerning the Arts Centre. There was one submitter on this bill. Obviously it was the council and the bill came back to the House largely unchanged.The previous speaker talked about how relaxed the officials were in their submission. He talked about the lack of contrition the council officials demonstrated and the disregard they had for their roles and their jobs by allowing this error to occur in the first place. I have to defend the officials of Christchurch City Council. It is a difficult job but it is also rather ironic that that member chose to place upon the officials that responsibility when in this House every year we are presented with legislation that fixes up mistakes we have made in the past. Everyone makes mistakes. This is a bill that fixes up an error and I do think it is ironic that in the privilege of this House we can condemn the officials from the Christchurch City Council but we do not take responsibility for errors we make in the drafting of legislation we pass. I want Mr Simpson to just recognise that these are hard-working people and we are currently experiencing in our council in Christchurch City an extraordinary amount of work. They are currently engaged in the long-term plan process. There is a lot of stuff going on in Christchurch and I for one am supporting the fact that our officials work very hard. They cannot be here to defend themselves today.This bill is about the relationship between the council and central government. I have to say I am not entirely sure that the relationship that this Government has with the Christchurch City Council has been all that helpful or robust in recent times. Again I say I do defend the officials of Christchurch City Council. They are doing their job. They have admitted they have found a mistake and it is our job now to correct that mistake and we should do so with good heart and good intent. I do not think there is much more I can say on the bill.Carmel Sepuloni: There is.POTO WILLIAMS: Oh is there? OK; I shall say a little bit more. [Interruption] I have been given the instructions. I want to just comment on that relationship between central government and the Christchurch City Council because it is very important that we do what we can to ensure that relationship is strong. There have been issues—and I speak from my own electorate—between what the expectations of ratepayers and taxpayers are and where the relationship between the council and central government has not entirely been that consistent or coherent.I want to talk about the infrastructure that we are still waiting for in Christchurch East.Stuart Nash: Pity the councillors.POTO WILLIAMS: That is right. Thank you Mr Nash. We should all be defending councillors. It is a tough job.We are currently looking at ensuring that the infrastructure particularly the horizontal infrastructure in Christchurch East is remediated to a point where we can actually have smooth roads like other parts of our city. But I have to say that in that regard I do not know that the Government has actually come to the party for our ratepayers in Christchurch East. There is a partnership that needs to be forged and needs to continue to be robust. However I am concerned that that is not the case and that we are still subject to some very damaged roads some very dusty dusty outlooks. We are still replacing the sewer and the rest of the lines in Christchurch East when much of the rest of the city is 100 percent back to normal.I want to conclude now. I think I have pretty much said what I need to say on the matter. We do support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Bay of Plenty Todd Muller.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is “Muller” Mr Deputy Speaker if it is possible to just anglicise it. It would have been “Mueller” back in 1860 when our family arrived but it is now “Muller”.Hon Member: Surname validation.TODD MULLER: Yes thank you for that contribution. I am rising to speak similarly reluctantly really to the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I acknowledge your ongoing interest in this topic Mr Deputy Speaker and also that of the many thousands of people in Christchurch who will be sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for this piece of legislation to finally get through here this evening. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner.Stuart Nash: They’ll be asleep if they listen to this speech.TODD MULLER: I will amp it up shortly; we just want to start slow. So well done for your contribution Nicky Wagner. It is obviously something that needs to be done and I thought you articulated the rationale for that very well. I also acknowledge again Scott Simpson for his leadership of the Local Government and Environment Committee and the way we have managed this issue through as a group.As I am sure we all know the bill that is in front of us this evening is the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. Its purpose is to correct an administrative anomaly. Unfortunately there is clear precedent for this. We have been here before. Maybe this is a South Island thing I do not know but we were here a year or so ago for the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. That obviously was passed to fix some retrospective administrative errors. I guess—if we are to be very generous in our outlook—we could say that local government is particularly complex. We have 67 territorial authorities 12 city councils 53 district councils; six territorial authorities—Auckland Council the Chatham Islands Council Nelson Gisborne Tasman and Marlborough—are unitary authorities and I guess with all of this complexity there is going to be the occasional error. I guess one argument—and we have heard it particularly from the other side so far this evening—is that you know this happens infrequently human errors can occur and when they do it is appropriate for us to get together and fix them which is what we are doing this evening.Essentially the assistance that we are collectively offering tonight is because the council failed in its rates resolution to state that the rates were payable by instalments what the payment dates were for those instalments and what penalties would be added for late payment in these and previous years. The administrative breach to be technical for a moment with respect to the bill is a breach to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 mostly around section 44 “Notice of rates assessment” and section 45 “Contents of rates assessment”. The relevant part here for those in the House who are particularly interested in this detail is section 44 “Notice of rates assessment—(1) A local authority must deliver a rates assessment to a ratepayer to give notice of the ratepayer’s liability for rates on a rating unit. (2) A ratepayer is liable for rates on a rating unit when the local authority delivers the rates assessment for that unit to the ratepayer.” So that is section 44—[Interruption]—for a moment there I thought I was going to get a point of order that might have stopped me.Hon Ruth Dyson: That would have required me to have been listening.TODD MULLER: You are following this and enjoying it no doubt. In section 45 “Contents of rates assessment” the particular part here that caught Christchurch city was “(m) the methods by which rates may be paid and the date or if the rates are payable by instalments the dates by which specified amounts must be paid: (n) if applicable—(i) the penalty regime of the local authority; and (ii) a warning that if rates are not paid on time a penalty may be added under that regime:”. So as you can see this is a complex process. The city council in many respects as we have heard this evening was trying to simplify that but in its enthusiasm to make the rates setting process more easy for its constituents to understand it missed a pretty critical part in that process.I did a rough count on the amount of ratepayers in New Zealand. There are roughly 2 million. If each ratepayer receives a quarterly rates assessment that is about 8 million rates transactions that occur. So I guess again to be charitable if you look at this particular error in the context of New Zealand as a whole it is not extraordinary that we have to be here tonight. I do have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment that our chairman Scott Simpson has articulated this evening on two points. Firstly we do expect that officers of councils are familiar with a ratings Act that came in in 2002 and would have the appropriate internal controls to ensure that they are following the correct process accordingly. Secondly when an error has been found and you are asking Parliament to make a change to validate you and to essentially get you off a hook you would expect some degree of contriteness and I think Scott the member for Coromandel summarised that very well. I was like him very disappointed that there was not a sense of acknowledgment that Christchurch City Council had to put the Parliament through a process when quite frankly our collective wisdom could be well focused on things other than this. I was disappointed that when we flew down to meet with the council there was a degree of offhandedness in respect of the way it was approaching this particular issue.What you would also expect in this debate—and I am sure we are going to hear it shortly with my good friend and colleague Mr Mark—is a reference to the role of auditors. I just thought I might get in first here because I have heard him speak very eloquently on this before—perhaps because of his passion for local government—saying that somehow if the governors and officers of a particular local council slip up then really it should be the auditors who pick it up and really it is the auditors who should be hung out to dry. Of course they are a key part of it but I do hope that the governors of a particular council and the officers of a particular council do not take the approach that actually they can do the best they can but it is really the job of an external auditor to pick up the things they miss. That is not what best practice is. It is nowhere near best practice. There should be a strong internal audit function. There should be a good mix of governors and officers participating in that internal audit process and they should have the capacity capability and focus to ensure that they pick up these errors and not have an approach that says that if they miss something an auditor should cover it for them.In that regard it was very positive to see that the Society of Local Government Managers has identified that there is room for improvement. We saw that in the report back from the department and the various work that is under way to improve councils’ practices with respect to setting rates resolutions. I was very pleased—and I am sure the various members of the select committee were very pleased—to see that work under way not before time. We have an expectation that the officers of councils are at the very best level of best practice and process. We really should not be in this position again of having to cover up for administrative anomalies. With that I would like to add my somewhat reluctant voice on this side of the House to this particular bill the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and will remain very interested in the ongoing debate as it occurs over the next hour. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Like others in this House I rise reluctantly to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. The average daily cost of running this Parliament is over half a million dollars and the average bill costs $1.43 million according to the Parliamentary Library. So this local bill promoted by the Christchurch City Council is a very expensive way of fixing errors that the city council could have avoided.As others have noted the council breached the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. It made mistakes in the way it worded its rates resolutions in relation to the payment dates for rates the authority to impose penalties on unpaid rates and the targeted rates for Church Bay and Governors Bay. The council was certainly trying to simplify the resolutions but these mistakes continued for 10 years. Although the bill attracted only one submission even though it is retrospective legislation it is probably uncontroversial because ratepayers do not engage with the minutiae of rates resolutions and because the actual rating demands that the council sent out were correctly worded.So the council has made mistakes and I share with other members the concerns about the offhand way in which its officers presented to the select committee but the city council in its long-term plan for 2015-25 is proposing to make an even bigger mistake than the ones that this bill aims to correct. In that long-term plan the council is proposing to sell off or sell down shares in strategic assets like Orion New Zealand the Lyttelton Port Co. Christchurch International Airport City Care EcoCare and Red Bus. The dividends from these council-owned companies through Christchurch City Holdingshave provided a key source of revenue to Christchurch. They have helped fund the council’s services and its activities and they have helped to offset rates.Rates in Christchurch have been lower than in Selwyn and Waimakariri which are neighbouring councils. They have been lower than in other city centres like Hamilton Wellington and Tauranga. The cash dividend that the city council will get from these companies in the forthcoming financial year is estimated to be around $46 million. That has the effect of lowering council rates by 13 percent. Those cash dividends have averaged 3 percent in the last 3 years and 4 percent in the last 10 years and there has been a 26 percent return to shareholders since 1996 because of asset growth and appreciation in capital value. That has been a very good return to the people of Christchurch. If the council proceeds to sell off those assets the dividends stream will halve.So it is a very short-sighted decision which the council is being panicked into making because of the National Government’s reluctance to renegotiate the cost-sharing agreement with the council. It is reluctant to take costly projects like the stadium out of the cost-sharing agreement—off the council’s books—and it is reluctant to re-engage and contribute a fairer share to the costs of repairing the council’s horizontal infrastructure.The council has come to Parliament to ask us to fix these problems with its rates resolutions—to effectively validate the payment dates for the rates and the issues around penalties. It has come to Parliament to ensure that all the money that it has received from the rates that it has levied is lawful so that it can lawfully go after people who have not paid rates and not face a legal challenge there but it will not be able to come back to Parliament and ask the House to solve the problems that the sell-off of these strategic assets like Orion like the port company and like the airport company will cause. They are problems where ratepayers in the future will be complaining about the rise in their rates because the revenue base for the council has narrowed. It will have to rely much more on rates rather than dividend income and we will not be able to fix those problems.The council should be looking at alternatives to asset sales to meet the financial shortfall. It should take a much more rigorous look at its own spending and it should scale back some of the roading projects. It should renegotiate the cost-sharing agreement. We need a much wider revenue base not a narrower one. I could go on and talk at some length about the problems with mixed-ownership models but I do not think Mr Deputy Speaker you would be comfortable with that.So coming back to the bill I was puzzled that the Society of Local Government Managers the Department of Internal Affairs and Local Government New Zealand have not done more to improve council practice around rates resolutions because as Todd Muller mentioned this is the third piece of legislation we have had to deal with in recent years where we have had to validate council rates-setting procedures. Belatedly work has been done to improve practice. There have been seminars conducted. The Society of Local Government Managers is updating and expanding its guide on rates setting. There has been a guide for elective members which is being set out and developed. But this problem is nothing compared with the problems that will arise if the city council is bullied by Government into selling Christchurch assets. We will be supporting this bill but we do so reluctantly. Thank you.RON MARK (NZ First): It is with a degree of mixed feelings that I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of New Zealand First and to indicate that New Zealand First will reluctantly—very reluctantly—support this piece of legislation. I said earlier on today that the difficulty of speaking at about the No. 7 slot is that pretty much that all the things you really need to talk about have already been said and I do not want to bore the House by going through all of the detail and minutiae again. However that said there are some things that do need to be said.We have already heard in the blow-by-blow accounts of respective members of the Local Government and Environment Committee as to the circumstances that brought about this piece of legislation and that brought it to the House. The fact that we are passing retrospective legislation in this House does not sit well with New Zealand First at all—at all. That is a bad precedent. It is something that should not be visited in this House and the fact that we are doing it for a third time as has been mentioned is an indictment on those people who are responsible. I am not going to be so forgiving in my speech of some of the things that have led us to this point.The submission from the Christchurch City Council makes interesting reading as does the Department of Internal Affairs report to the select committee. There were some questions that were asked by the select committee before I was back in the House in November. It is interesting going through and reading the answers specifically when the select committee back on 27 November 2014 asked this of the department: “The committee requested copies of Christchurch City Council’s audit reports for each of the financial years involved. The committee also asked for information [as to] who undertook the audits each year; the cost of the audits; whether the audit reports raised any issues with the rates resolutions; and the name of the Christchurch City Council’s Chief Executive at the relevant times.”It is astonishing when you look at some things. Having been a Mayor of Carterton I am finding it really quite—I am going to try not to be smug and I will try desperately because that is not a good characteristic and we have been seeing too much of that in this House right up until last weekend. Some of the smugness has been knocked off some faces but I am going to try not to be smug. But I have heard consistently how super-cities are the be-all and end-all—how economies of scale solve all manner of problems. I have heard so much claptrap out of the mouth of Fran Wilde and the Local Government Commission toadies—and I will call them toadies because that is all I see them as—who said things like you will get the high level of expertise in local government that is required for the future only if you amalgamate all the councils into one. So let us look at this super-city in the south.This super-city in the south has managed to do something that Carterton District Council the third-smallest council in New Zealand has never done. I know from my experience that if you have a competent chief executive officer and competent staff when you are passing the resolutions for your annual plan—in which you lay out the rates the uniform annual general charges the targeted rates and the rates increases—your run sheet tells you as the mayor precisely what resolutions you must be passing. Your chief executive officer and his financial manager will lay down very clearly and specifically the requirements of the Act and those resolutions will be passed and they will be put on to paper into words prior to the rates bills going out and prior to the annual plan being finally endorsed and published. Without that being done the annual report does not get approved.Yet here is a super-city with all of the power that it can muster to be able to hire the best—and who were the best? Well going into this report from the Ministry of Internal Affairs we now know that the mayors were Mayor MooreMayor Parker—unfortunately the Hon Lianne Dalziel came in right at the tail end and has to clean up the mess. But we also have chief executive officers Dr Lesley McTurk and—get this; this is the high level of competence that a super-city delivers—Tony Marryatt.So who is the chief executive officer who oversaw the bulk of these stuff-ups? Well it was one Mr Tony Marryatt who became famous down in Christchurch for racking up Hooters bills when on the Christchurch City Council. It was one Mr Tony Marryatt who got an $800000 payout—I am pretty sure it was about that. Looking at Wikipedia it talks about an $800000 payout. Mr Tony Marryatt was the chief executive officer at Hamilton who got totally offside with the mayor and the council of Hamilton and was one of the people responsible for the massive loss that the V8 Supercars races made. It was Mr Tony Marryatt who caused a high level of anxiety amongst people in Christchurch that resulted in demonstrations and protests with about 4000 people turning up because he got a $70000 pay rise. Stop press! Tony Marriott got a $70000 pay rise as the chief executive officer at the very time he was stuffing up.Well I do not want to hear anybody talk to me and my people the good people of the Wairarapa—least of all the MP for the Wairarapa who thinks that super-cities are going to bring economies of scale and sharper people into the management—when this is the sort of thing one gets. Carterton has never had to face this. Carterton has never had to come cap in hand to Parliament asking that it validate its rates bills over how many years now because it made these sorts of mistakes.Stuart Nash: Nor Napier.RON MARK: Nor Napier no. Nor Gisborne no. Nor Masterton nor South Wairarapa. And yet we have got a whole bunch of people very learned people who dare to tell the Wairarapa that it will be better off because it is not capable of managing itself and tell it that it should be a super-city. Many of those people sit in the Government’s ranks as well. Well there is a very clear message in this piece of legislation tonight: smaller is often sharper. Smaller is often special—that is why the SAS is only small because it is very special. Smaller is actually capable of being more focused—Hon Member: Talk about the bill.RON MARK: Ha ha! Look you learnt a long time ago that great things come in small packages and you are looking at one of them right now!But smaller is actually sharper because the sensitivity levels on mistakes are so much higher. If Carterton increases it budget and overspends by $80000 on the scale and nature of its budget that is a 1 percent increase in rates. Carterton is highly sensitive to error highly sensitive to bad reports from the Auditor-General highly sensitive to its reputation thoroughly focused and more than anything very aware that if it makes a mistake of this nature its community is going to call it to task very quickly—very very quickly.It is an indictment that a city council of this size has made such a glaring error. As Todd Muller has said I will not hold the Auditor-General’s office very strongly to account but I will point this out. The audit for Christchurch City Council over those errant years when the errors existed or lay undetected cost Christchurch ratepayers this: in 2004 it cost $168000 for the audit that did not pick up this error $187000 the next year $205000 the next year—all the way up until 2011 when they were paying $268000. In 2013 Christchurch ratepayers paid the Audit Office $292000 to conduct the audit. Just explain to me: how did the Audit Office miss this? And why is this House sitting tonight dealing with the errors made by the Christchurch City Council—an offline super-city—that were not picked up by the auditors for $292000? Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. For a start I would like to respond to a couple of points that have been raised by other members during the course of this debate. We heard from Mr Mark the New Zealand First position on retrospective legislation. In fact—I hope I am quoting the member correctly here—he said: “Retrospective legislation does not sit well with New Zealand First.” This is a position that I think most of us in this House would generally agree with although I would refer to the expert if I might the authority on the issue of retrospective law: Professor Albert Venn Dicey the Vinerian Professor of English Law Fellow of All Souls College at Oxford. He wrote in 1885 in his seminal work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that there is often a very valid case to be made for retrospective measures where they are curative—that is where they have a restorative or a curative effect. He cites somewhat more archaic legislation than that used by my learned colleague Mr Muller—and I do hope I am saying the surname of the member for Bay of Plenty correctly—Todd Muller: Muller.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Muller—Muller. Mr Muller cited some of the rates validation legislation that has been passed in recent years in this House including the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and other recent examples. Unlike Mr Muller who is a modernist I am a traditionalist. I would go back to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 as perhaps a better example of legislation that is of the sort we would want to avoid—that is retrospective legislation that had in effect a monstrous effect on rights and liberties.The other point I would make to Mr Mark is that although we generally opine in this House that retrospective legislation is abhorrent—or at least something that is not preferred—members may be surprised to learn that actually we pass a surprising number of bills that contain retrospective provisions. I do not have the figures for New Zealand here but I can tell the member that in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia a recent study indicated that 20 percent of bills passed contained at least one retrospective measure and there was a similar proportion in the Queensland Parliament which is one of the Australian state parliaments that has a better legislative analysis committee. So 20 percent seems to be an average that institutions comparable to our own generally adhere to.This is a slightly different matter to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of the 1700s. In the New Zealand context section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1999 provides that enactments do not have a retrospective effect. So in our criminal law section 6(1) of the current Sentencing Act 2002 is very clear that penal enactments are not to have retrospective effect to the disadvantage of an offender. As we all know this is not a criminal bill; this is a bill that deals with local government rating. It is a local bill but arguably it has been to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of Christchurch in that they have not been well served by the administrative error that was made over a very long period of time by successive officials and councils during the 10-year period approximately when the procedural matter of correctly moving a rates resolution was taken. I just thought that those matters may be of interest to Mr Mark given that he is bringing up the issues around retrospective legislation.This bill is addressing a problem that arose over a long period of time. The Christchurch City Council failed to state in its rates resolutions that the rates were payable by instalment what those instalment dates were and that the penalties would be added to the rates if they were not paid by the due date. In respect of the rates from the previous years that remain unpaid by certain dates it also failed to state when the penalties would be added to the unpaid rates and the amount of those penalties and this resulted in a technical breach by the council of the Local Government Rating Act 2002. These irregularities have little practical effect for ratepayers in that when we heard evidence during the select committee hearing process in Christchurch we were not told that there would be an impact on anyone in terms of unpaid rates. So Christchurch ratepayers cannot expect to receive an invoice in the mail as a result of this. This is very much remedying a technical deficiency rather than being something that has a practical effect.I listened very carefully to the contribution by the Green member Eugenie Sage. She attempted to I think itemise some of the subcategories of rates that are laid out in the bill. These are targeted or local rating measures in addition to the general city council rates. She mentioned the Church Bay sewer loan rate and the Church Bay water loan rate but she did miss out some others that I think are quite significant. We have also the Governors Bay sewer loan rate the Governors Bay water rate the restricted water targeted rate the waste minimisation rate the water fire service connection rate and the uniform annual general charge. I think it is important to get those all on the record because these are rates that do affect people in those areas. Although the member Eugenie Sage did manage to give quite an extensive itemised diatribe on the perils of the mixed-ownership model within local bodies I thought it was a bit of an omission that we did not have the full list of the targeted rates that are included in this bill.This is a position as other members have canvassed that we do not like to find ourselves in but it is important that we remedy this matter. We on this side of the House take the rule of law very importantly. We cannot have a situation where the good hard-working rate-paying citizens of Christchurch have paid over a period of 10 years rates that were not correctly imposed. But I do ask myself the question—and I did certainly when I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee—that other members have posed in this House and that is around whether we will be back here again given that in the past we have dealt with these issues in relation to Mangawhai in relation to Tasman and in relation to other local bodies.This is something that we were advised by officials there would be some difficulty in providing a cast-iron assurance for because these are matters that are often detected retrospectively through an audit process. But there was some degree of confidence from the officials—and certainly it left the committee with a degree of hope—that such a situation may be avoided in the future by a more careful policing of those particular provisions of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 which prescribes the correct form for councils annually filing copies of their rates resolutions with the Secretary for Local Government who is also an official in the Department of Internal Affairs.This irregularity in terms of the scope of the rating resolutions that were not correctly filed covers the period from 2004 to 2012. I think this is significant when you look at the number of different chief executives who were in charge at the Christchurch City Council during that time. There were several different mayors. Certainly we were told by the councillors who came to present at the select committee hearing that there are no current sitting Christchurch city councillors who were involved in the initial error back in 2002. I take from this a lesson that perhaps could be applied which is that you may have individuals who have a high level of expertise and who are very assiduous and dedicated to their job but we do find ourselves in a problematic situation where you have insufficient institutional knowledge and processes including such things as desk files or an intranet that lays out the necessary steps—action checklists and those sorts of administrative tools—to ensure that the council is adhering to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in its entirety.This is important legislation. It corrects a procedural error. It validates the due dates for the payment of rates. It does validate the dates on which penalties may have been added retrospectively. It validates the uniform annual general charge. Although the funding impact statement including information about how the charge was to be calculated is included this information was not originally included in rates resolutions. So this retrospectively validates that particular issue and it validates those seven other targeted rates that I listed earlier in my contribution. This is important. It is something that we pass reluctantly. But as I have previously canvassed it is not unique as an example of retrospective legislation and for that reason I reluctantly commend this bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call for the Green Party—Denise Roche.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take just a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. We support this bill and its intention to correct an error. I would like to acknowledge the work of Nicky Wagner as well as the Local Government and Environment Committee the Parliamentary Counsel Office and of course the Department of Internal Affairs for all the work they have done on preparing the information around this bill so that we can vote on it tonight.One of the values of the Green Party is to support ideas regardless of where they originate and we do need to ensure that Christchurch has a secure and stable revenue base. My colleague Eugenie Sage has already touched on how that revenue base should include the revenue from the assets that the council holds which should not be sold off. But currently that revenue base is all the more pressing for Christchurch so that Christchurch can recover.However the introduction of legislation that is retrospective should really be used as a means of last resort. We feel that it has been used too often. We have seen it used in the last term—quite recently really—in two similar situations for the Kaipara and the Tasman regions. It is obvious that there needs to be clearer guidance from central government about the responsibilities around rating for local government. I am pleased to see that according to the Department of Internal Affairs and its report to the Local Government and Environment Committee the Society of Local Government Managers updated its guidelines in November 2013. Hopefully those updated guidelines along with the recent audit work conducted by the Auditor-General mean that we do not repeat these mistakes in other cities across the nation.As my colleague Eugenie Sage said in her first reading speech and she mentioned it again tonight the Parliamentary Library research has shown that the average bill considered by Parliament costs us the taxpayer around about $1.43 million and every hour that Parliament sits costs about $20000—that is $20000 an hour to hear these bills. Although we can talk about the cost in money terms we should also talk about the opportunity costs and that is another area where this bill has created quite a bit of cost. When we talk about fixing things up from the past through mistakes in the ratings systems and we have to introduce legislation we are not talking about the other pressing social problems that we have to deal with. And boy do we have some to deal with. We have things like increasing poverty 25 percent of kids living in poverty median house prices having increased by 60 percent and New Zealand’s net carbon emissions having risen by 48 percent. Those are the sorts of issues that we could be spending $20000 an hour on debating. Every minute every hour that we talk about bills like these is some time that we do not spend addressing the critical issues for New Zealand.When our grandchildren ask us what our proudest achievements during our time in Parliament were I doubt very much that this bill even though it is well-intentioned will feature at the top of the list. We can and we must get things right so that we do not waste time passing retrospective legislation and so that we can spend more time doing the job that we were elected to do—addressing the real challenges that are facing our people and our country. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a small contribution in the concluding parts of the second reading. When preparing my speech I went back to my speech on the first reading of this bill. It is fair to say that I was quite harsh on the Christchurch City Council just around the circumstances where we are now having to put in place retrospective legislation to correct errors and breaches of the law. I am always amazed at the language that is used. For instance this bill refers to validating irregularities. When you think of an irregularity you think of something that might be like a singular or rare event or just an aberration. Let us not forget that this bill is validating a succession of breaches by the Christchurch City Council that went on for 10 years from 2003 all the way to 2012. An irregularity? It was a most regular succession of blunders for over 10 years and it was only after 10 years that it spotted the mistake. I am just absolutely gobsmacked really that a major city council in New Zealand went on for 10 years breaching the Local Government (Rating) Act.I want to acknowledge the contribution from Mr Simpson as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I acknowledge his upright and critical remarks basically about the Christchurch City Council. I acknowledge him for that because we tend to like to sort of put rose-tinted lenses on over errors with good intentions and correct what were administrative anomalies but it is what it is: it was 10 years of breaches of the Local Government (Rating) Act. I do not know how big the rating base of Christchurch is but I know it is enormous. You multiply that by 10 years and that is a mighty number of rates that were levied and the resolutions to set those rates and impose penalties on them were basically in breach of the law.So here we are now using the highest court in the land Parliament to correct those errors. I think there needs to be a message that should go out to all local government authorities across the motu—across the country—to step up their game. They need to step up their game to make sure that we are not wasting Parliament’s time having to traverse and go over retrospective legislation to fix up what really are basic administrative errors. I certainly hope that local authorities around the country are as good as Mr Mark’s metropolis of Carterton. I understand that he is very confident in the robustness of the resolution processes that were applied in the setting of rates in his time as mayor. I certainly hope that the other local authorities around New Zealand are doing the same because if it can happen over the space of 10 years without being picked up even by internal and external audits in the second-largest city council in the country I just wonder what other anomalies may also be out there among the rest of the territorial authorities around New Zealand.That concludes my contribution here at this second reading. We are reluctantly supporting this bill but we hope that the message is loud and clear to all local authorities around New Zealand to lift their game. Thank you.JOANNE HAYES (National): I am pleased to stand to reluctantly support this retrospective bill the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I do want to thank the Christchurch City Council for acknowledging its errors and doing something about them but to have Government coming in to support it—well if that is how it had to be then that is how it had to be.I want to thank the Hon Nicky Wagner for sponsoring this bill in the House and I also want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee ably chaired by Scott Simpson for the work that they have done around this and the council for coming to do its presentation to the select committee when we visited about a month ago. This is not just a South Island thing as one my colleagues said. It has happened with the Kaipara District Council and again we intervened there as the Government to just move it along a bit.I just want to talk a little bit about some of the things that occurred with the council. Each June the council resolves to set the rates payable beginning 1 July annually. Perhaps it might have done that but there were a few things that it missed. Since 2004 the wording has been the same or similar to that of the past and there were a few minor things like dates of payments etc. that were missed out. It was not until 2014 when the Department of Internal Affairs was advised of the issues and intervened telling the council that the resolutions that it had passed—well it had not actually passed them. It might have actually told some of its ratepayers through other means but the rates had not been formally passed by council resolution.So there were no due dates for payment of rates or for authorising of the imposition of penalties for unpaid rates. That was the biggest issue facing this council. Section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 requires that local authorities are to include in the resolution in each year setting the rates the date on which rate payments and/or penalties that are due as well on top of the ratesare due and also the dates by which each instalment is due for payment. That is what the council needed to do and it did not do that.The information had been included as I said in a rating policy and funding impact statement but it was not included in resolutions as I said passed since 2004. Section 57 of the Local Government (Rating) Act enables resolutions to be passed that authorise the addition of penalties—I have started down that road—to rates not paid on or by the due dates. This resolution must be made no later than the date on which the local authority sets its rates for the financial year. It must also state how penalties are calculated and the dates that the penalties are added to the amount of the unpaid rates. So those were technical things that were missed out of the resolutions.It was also recognised by the council itself when it presented to us—one of the councillors came to us and talked about these technical errors. Although the information was made available to the ratepayers it was not included in the resolutions. The council realised the errors and meant to remove them.I want to read out some of the irregularities. Details of each irregularity around the target rates to be validated by year were pointed out by my colleague Mr Paul Foster-Bell. He talked about the Church Bay sewer loan rate and the Church Bay water loan rate. These are the dates—the years that were impacted on—that were missed out in that particular piece of information. For the Church Bay sewer loan rate the years impacted were 2006-07 to 2008-09 and these are key dates for those people. For the Church Bay water loan rate the years impacted on were 2006-07 to 2008-09. For the Governors Bay sewer loan rate which was mentioned by my colleague the years impacted on were 2006-07 to 2012-13 and for the Governors Bay water loan rate the years impacted on were also 2006-07 to 2012-13. For the restricted water targeted rate the years impacted on were 2009-10 to 2012-13 and for the water minimisation rate—sorry waste minimisation rate; I need new glasses—the years impacted on were 2008-09 and 2009-10 to 2012-13. The Fire Service water connection rate was impacted on for the years 2003-04 to 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2012-13. The uniform annual general charge was impacted on from 2003 to 2012-13. These are the dates I needed to place here in this House to finish off that particular area around targeted rates to be validated.The retrospective valuation is not expected to have an adverse impact as mentioned by the Hon Nicky Wagner on the Christchurch ratepayers. It is an anomaly because they already had the information; we just needed to get it into those resolutions.I just want to talk a little bit more about what we do for local government. The Government our Government assists councils with financial management in a number of ways. We do it through our local government reforms. We have better defined the appropriate scope of their activities and have encouraged local government to focus on getting better value for money for their ratepayers which as a ratepayer myself I think is very good. We need to make sure that we get better value for money through our rates. We have also established financial prudence benchmarks which are required by councils in order to produce their 30-year infrastructure strategies. This is really key for all councils around infrastructure and the strategies on that. I think the Christchurch earthquakes have shown up where the faults have been and that infrastructure plans and strategies are key to making sure that cities will keep on going through adversity. That is where we had a few issues in Christchurch over infrastructure issues arising from the earthquakes.Councils also now have to provide information to their ratepayers so that their ratepayers can judge how their council is performing. I just want to say that in the district where our farm is we have just received a letter from the council inviting us to participate in a panel measuring the performance of our local council. I think that is a really great way of the ratepayers participating in rates within their cities or towns and making sure that they are getting value for the money they pay as well as seeing what else is happening within their councils in terms of infrastructure and other things.There has been a big improvement in the past 7 years with rates rises. There has been a big improvement. The average rates rise since 2013 has been 1.4 percent. That is good—good news for everybody.I realise that I am running out of time so I just want to conclude by saying that the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill is a short bill a short focused bill. Clause 5 validates the payment dates for the rates. Clause 6 validates the penalties added to the rates. Clause 7 declares that all moneys received by the council in payment of rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates are to be treated and to have always been treated as having been lawfully paid to and received by the council. As I said I reluctantly support this bill.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Unlike many other speakers I am actually very pleased to be speaking in this second reading of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. Before I make my contribution on the bill though I just want to alert members to the fact that we have been warned already once this week about people falling off high horses. That was in reference to the Northland by-election but I want to just caution other members about being so critical of the Christchurch City Council in making errors given that it was only in recent days in this House that we passed a Statutes Amendment Bill that corrected 34 separate pieces of legislation that members of this House had deliberated on through the first reading through the select committee through the second reading through the Committee stage and through the third reading and then we had to come back and fix what were basically errors. So members should recognise that these things happen.The challenge for us is to do two things in my view when we get a council or local authority saying: “There’s been a terrible mistake. We’ve just been alerted to it. Can you help us fix it?”. The two things that I think we need to do are first of all decide whether we should fix it or not. Was the error that has been made made because of genuine reasons? Was it corruption? Was it an error? You know that sort of call. Clearly this is an error and not anything untoward. Then we have to decide really that we will fix it and make sure that it does not happen again—that is the second point. I have heard no contribution from the members from the Local Government and Environment Committee or indeed from the member in charge of the bill the Hon Nicky Wagner about any efforts that were made during the passage of this legislation to make sure that exactly the same thing is not happening somewhere else. Heaven forbid Mr Muller it might be in a North Island council.Poto Williams: Muller.Hon RUTH DYSON: Muller sorry. I will just join the people who are mispronouncing your name. Mr Muller insinuated that these errors happen only in the South Island. Kaipara—I am pretty sure that is in the North Island. I am almost positive actually. That was the most recent one we did.Just going back to this bill as the member who—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Going back to it? Oh sorry.Hon RUTH DYSON: —just terminated her call Joanne Hayes mentioned it is a pretty small bill. I do not understand why the Minister who introduced it and spoke earlier in the debate said it does not have any impact on any individuals. Clearly it does because the resolution was illegal. People got their rates bill and they paid it and the rate was set illegally so it clearly does have an impact on people. We have just decided that that impact is not of such a nature that we would not remedy the fact that the rate was struck outside the law. So that is the reason this legislation is needed.The first of the two offending parts is in section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Do you still have to refer to which document it is when you refer to Bound Reprinted Statutes? Is that still the requirement in the Standing Orders Mr Assistant Speaker? I think it is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You need to take a point of order Ms Dyson. Would you like to take a point of order?Hon RUTH DYSON: It is in Bound Reprinted Statutes Vol 26 at p 534. Section 24 “Due date or dates for payment” says: “A local authority must state”—and these are the three key words—“in the resolution setting a rate—”. So you have to state in the resolution: “(a) the financial year to which the rate applies; and (b) the date on which the rate must be paid or if the rate is payable by instalments the dates by which the specified amounts must be paid.” That was the first breach because the local authority—in this case Christchurch City Council—did state it on the invoice but did not state in the resolution that information as outlined in section 24.The other breach was in relation to the same Bound Reprinted Statute obviously but this time it related to section 57 “Penalties on unpaid rates”. It states: “A local authority may”—again those words—“by resolution authorise penalties to be added to rates that are not paid by the due date.” Then it goes on to say that a resolution cannot be made later than the date the local authority sets the rates and the resolution itself has to state how the penalty is calculated and the date the penalty is to be added and then it talks about the level. So that is the error that this legislation is fixing. It has meant that people in Christchurch for 10 whole years were rated illegally. I do not think there is a single person in this House—actually I do not think there is a single person on the city council amongst the elected representatives or management—who would be pleased about that. I do not know who made the error but as I mentioned earlier I want to make really sure that efforts have been made by the member who introduced the bill and also by the members on the select committee to make sure that the system is in place so that the Christchurch City Council and other councils do not make this same mistake again.The reason I am particularly keen on that is that I do not imagine given the intolerance that was demonstrated throughout some members’ speeches tonight—I am not confident that a future plea from another council might not fall on deaf ears. We might not get a positive response from a local member or indeed Parliament to retrospectively validate setting of rates or correcting any other errors. What would happen? What would happen to Christchurch if the city council had come along and said: “We’ve discovered this mistake.”? Actually the Department of Internal Affairs needs a bit of a pat on the back because it was actually the Department of Internal Affairs that found this mistake. Somebody—I do not know what their job is—had been reading the local government rating legislation of 2002 and comparing the requirements in it with the rating resolution from 2003 to 2013 of the Christchurch City Council. Heaven knows what their job description is but I am grateful to them that they did detect this error because that was the only way that we were alerted to it.But if the Parliament had said: “No we are not going to pass this legislation.” what would the options be? Well at the moment the Christchurch City Council is already looking at enough hard options actually. One of the options that has recently been put out for public consultation is an option in terms of meeting our city’s shortfall of funds—and it is a shortfall because of the debt requirements of the local government legislation—of selling off some of our assets. A lot of people in Canterbury are very concerned about that very upset very angry and we will be doing everything that we can to look at better alternatives. There is a very good reason for that. It is that the assets that our city council owns earn us a lot of money as ratepayers and that means we have to pay less in rates.If Parliament had decided not to support this rates validation bill we would be even further in trouble in terms of facing our financial future and having a shortfall. So I am very grateful firstly that Parliament has decided to proceed with this legislation understanding that the error that was made was not a calculated misappropriation of any sort that it was a genuine error and that probably we do not even know who was personally responsible for it. Secondly I am very grateful for the fact that we are looking atonly our current shortfall and we will be able to find better options for our city in its future than selling our income-earning assets.A number of contributors to this debate tonight have talked about how bad it is to pass retrospective legislation. I cannot imagine any other way of correcting a mistake that has been made than retrospectively. It would be very hard to pass legislation that corrected a mistake that was to be made in the future. That is the point of this. This is correcting an error and I think Mr Foster-Bell might have some learned contribution to make on this point. But the point I was making Mr Foster-Bell is that it is very hard to correct an error that has been made other than by retrospective legislation. It would be very hard to do it looking into the future.Paul Foster-Bell: Perfectly fair point.Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right.Paul Foster-Bell: I don’t disagree with the member.Hon RUTH DYSON: Paul Foster-Bell and I agree. It is time to quit this debate I think. We have got agreement on this very point. So I want to just thank members of Parliament for their understanding of the situation that the city council has found itself in and I look forward to the progress and passing of this legislation.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā huri noa e te Whare e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. “Reluctance” is a word that we have heard all evening in this debate. What my whakaaro or my thing about this is is that I am not reluctant actually. I just think—and without regurgitating a lot of the kōrero or the discussion tonight—the fact is that it is what it is. We have really confirmed the fact that there was no malice intended and that there was a genuine mistake that was made. The important part of it is that it was a technical issue. And the second part of it is that there were no moneys that were actually overcharged or whatever.In the Chamber tonight there were at one time three mayorshere: one a former mayor—well all former mayors actually. One of the things that we have concerned ourselves with all evening in this debate is: given that we have found this mistake are there any others out there that we do not know about? When this happened there was a huge flurry across New Zealand particularly in the local councils because everyone was then checking their systems just to ensure that this particular anomaly—this particular issue that they found with the Christchurch City Council—was not happening on their patch. So I think that is an important consideration or concern that actually we should possibly put away after this debate or be comfortable with it.As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee it was an interesting situation when the councillors came to submit—and it was the only submission on this particular bill. When the councillors from the Christchurch City Council did come before the committee there was a real interest from all of us because it seemed that they showed very very little empathy. In some ways it was in a fairly perfunctory manner that they actually submitted to our process around this bill. But when you take into account that it took place over a 10-year period and quite a number of years before the present council—particularly given what has gone on in Christchurch as we know since the September earthquakes and then the February earthquake and the immense workload that has actually been on the Christchurch City councillors.As someone who comes from Christchurch as someone who is a ratepayer as someone who has experienced the incredible challenges through those earthquake periods I see the city council working in unison with the Crown. But then in a lot of parts of it you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. So this added situation which happened long before their time is something that I think was reflected in the way that they actually presented that day. I have a lot of empathy for them because they realised that and they accepted the fact that the mistake had been made. I actually concur with the right honourable Ruth Dyson this eveningon the fact that—Hon Member: Not quite “right”.NUK KORAKO: Oh well the honourable sorry—the Hon Ruth Dyson. I concur with what she was saying: that if we look at all of this if we accept it—which I believe we should and move on—and if we then acknowledge the work that we have done on this bill and if we acknowledge the fact that the Hon Nicky Wagner presented this as a local bill and if we acknowledge the work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee we will actually get to the point where we have actually shored all of this up and we will have legislation that will actually be good legislation because good legislation only comes about when we have collective agreement. We have a sort of collective working so that we bring in good legislation to be able to deal with this situation so that it does not happen again.On that note I do again want to say that it is what it is. We have accepted that. Let us move on let us deal with this and let us continue on with other important things that we have to deal with. On that note I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a second time.Sittings of the HouseJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn at the conclusion of members’ order of the day No. 1 or at 10 p.m. whichever is earlier.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave has been sought in those terms. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillIn CommitteeClause 1JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on the Committee stage of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. It is a bill that Labour has supported all the way through and I continue to commend the member Tracey Martin for bringing this important bill before the Committee.I want to raise a couple of issues in this Committee stage that relate to the technical details but first of all I just want toagain for the benefit of the Committee briefly traverse the difference—which is captured in the title—between those who are in receipt of an unsupported child’s benefit or an orphans benefit versus those who receive support for caring for a child who is in their care as a foster child. Obviously this bill is very specific to those who receive an unsupported child’s benefit. In New Zealand unfortunately circumstances mean that many of those individuals are grandparents raising grandchildren or those who are often described as kinship carers. They are in the devastating situation of their children not being in a position to care for their grandchildren and often reluctantly at great expense have to acknowledge that the grandchildren would be better off in their own care. Many of these individuals are living on pensions. Some scrape together meagre incomes through part-time work. All however have made the decision to put their grandchildren first and we should applaud them for that. I want particularly to applaud the group that has been organised since roughly 1999 under Diane Vivian—Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust—which has been an excellent advocate for change in this area.Qualifying for an unsupported child’s benefit is quite a test: you have to demonstrate family breakdown. That in itself is quite a difficult thing to demonstrate. You may have a biological parent who is very unwilling to accept their inability to care appropriately for the grandchild in question. That in itself can be a hard test to demonstrate to Work and Income which often requires family members to openly agree that there has been family breakdown and an inability to support that child. It is a difficult test. Work and Income also requires there to be a long period of time where a grandparent has actually been caring for that grandchild unsupported before they qualify. I know a lot of members in this House would probably have been advocates. Therefore I do think there is room to look at the threshold test for those families. But the distinction within the legislation that exists that the member is trying to remedy is that in qualifying for that unsupported child’s benefit you do not automatically qualify for the same support that a foster carer would receive. That is what this bill seeks to remedy.The Social Services Committee found however that in clause 4 inserting new section 29B which is the most substantive part of the bill—basically it sets out how administratively it would apply the extension of receiving a clothing allowance which is the one bit of foster care support that we are now trying to transfer to someone receiving an unsupported child’s benefit. The select committee has changed the way the original form of this bill would do that. The select committee has changed it basically by making a reference in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Act around rates of payments to persons or organisations that are in charge of a child. Why has the committee made a general cross-reference rather than just simply stating in law that you would receive a clothing allowance? Well the select committee points out that the reason is: “the clause as drafted may give the impression that the chief executive is required to determine such an allowance. However section 363 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act relates to the chief executive’s discretion to determine the rates of allowances payable to caregivers of foster children … We believe the amendment would clarify that although a clothing allowance is currently provided for foster children the provision as well as the amount provided is at the chief executive’s discretion”.It is somewhat concerning that such an important allowance is at the chief executive’s discretion. I would have thought that that would be the kind of support that should actually be entrenched in the legislation. Granted it is obviously currently available it is provided for—I would really challenge any Minister who would allow a chief executive to remove that support—but stranger things have happened in policy in this area. So I think it would be good if the Minister could consider entrenching such support and allowances into legislation so that we are not just cross-referencing the discretion of a chief executive in a bill like this.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): If the member would take her seat she will get the call back in a second but I think we have got something procedural to sort out.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for all clauses in this bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think also “and amendments”.Jami-Lee Ross: And amendments.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So if we have the understanding that all questions on this bill are going to be debated as one question—is there any objection to that process? There is none.Clause 1 (continued) and clauses 2 to 4 and amendmentsJACINDA ARDERN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. That is actually quite helpful because I have some Supplementary Order Papers I would like to speak to.So not only should it be entrenched in law—one of our other concerns is that we should actually be ensuring equity between foster carers and kinship carers across the board. I think it is fair to say that actually the member has plucked out an incredibly important allowance in the clothing allowance. It is very hard to argue that that should not be shared across that wider range of carers. But there are other allowances that a foster carer currently receives and it is our view that those too should be given to kinship carers because the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is: if not a grandparent or a kinship carer then who? Who is caring for that child? We know the State is an incredibly poor parent and the State very rarely has any intention of being the long-term carer for a child in a residential facility. That is no home for a child. So if it is not a grandparent ultimately it would probably be a foster carer who would then be entitled to that extra support. So why should a kinship carer not be entitled to that support?We have Supplementary Order Paper 72 which would extend the provisions of this bill so that there is equity between foster carers and those kinship carers. I accept that that may be a bridge too far for the Government so to speak—but we thought it was worth a punt because we think the argument is right. But again that is not to diminish what Tracey Martin has done with this bill.Another point that I wish to raise is the commencement date. I know this will be raised by others. I want to put on record Labour’s support for Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which would mean that the commencement of this bill—essentially when families would receive the support—would be much closer to when it is passed in the House than it currently is in this bill. In this bill we are looking at waiting until 2018. Many members of this Committee may like me have received letters from grandparents and children—photos messages handwritten messages pictures; they have been heartbreaking to receive—saying: “Please bring this in now we need that support.” The argument that has been made by the select committee that looked at this bill was that the Government has brought in start-up payments at the beginning of each year for these families between $250 and $400 and that really that will suffice until we hit 2018—and that is when this extra support can phase in.I have to say that if we are going to demonstrate any generosity—and I use that word in inverted commas—then it should be for this group. Really to say that it would be too generous to double up on a $250 yearly payment with a clothing allowance feels sadly mean-spirited to me. I think it is great that there is that start-up support but when you are looking at school fees books and uniforms then actually that amount at the beginning of the year is barely going to touch the sides. So I do not think it is too much to ask to have the continuity of having this kick off straight away being in place for those families and making sure we show that support that I think they rightly deserve.To conclude we would like to see an early commencement we would like to see it extended a bit further but failing that we will of course wholeheartedly support the bill as it stands. We think it is the right thing to do and we again thank the member for bringing it before the House.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call. First of all can I again acknowledge my friend and colleague Tracey Martin. Both of us have worked in our first term as first-term MPs and the work that we did actually with kin carers and on the specific task force that was to look at the very funds that have now become the Extraordinary Care Fund is supporting some of the benefits that we know that kin carers grandparents raising children actually absolutely need. I think that throughout that process we heard some of the concerns but also too I know that Mrs Martin was very clear that that process was not about the clothing equity that was needed in regard to kin carers. At my standing I do not want to talk for too long but I want to do this because I want to acknowledge the fact of the journey that we took together to make sure that those kin carers and those grandparents who are out there are acknowledged for the work that they are doing. I think that again as I have often said for any member of Parliament to have their member’s bill drawn—in fact Mrs Martin I do not know what it is but you have got the lucky wheel because you have had another bill drawn again so you are very fortunate to have had two in this period of time.In regard to the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill for kin carers and orphans I just think that this bill is important. With regard to the previous comments by Ms Ardern in regards to the time frame I think we have worked together collectively and collaboratively to get the balance right. I think we came to a point where we realised that at the moment the Extraordinary Care Fund was important to see us through to a point where we could then also look at the commencement date and so that has been in negotiation with us and I think that is important.I just want to finish off by saying that last Monday I was with the Hon Jonathan Coleman and we were up in Kaitāia. We just happened to be in a great place. Great people up there. [Interruption] OK. Some people call it tiger country but I think it is a wonderful place to be—a wonderful part of the world to be in. We just happened to be at Ōturu School. Some of you may not know that place because many of you have never travelled there but I was there with the Hon Jonathan Coleman and at Ōturu School the principal Fraser Smith was there. He talked about the wonderful things that they were doing in that school. They had won this environmental award and in that school they had just pressed 200 tonnes of olives into olive oil. They had honey bees and they had a whole variety of things there that they were working collectively on. It is a low-decile school.He then said to me that the demographic profile of their school is that one-third of the children there come from solo parents; another one-third come from grandparents raising grandchildren; and as for the others they do have a mixture of families that are supporting them. He said to me that this is one of the absolute challenges especially when grandparents are coming forward and talking about the challenges that they have. It was also a great example of how the school was working collectively to be able to have its own community garden where actually people could be involved in meeting some of the challenges that they faced as well. But the point that I wanted to make in this is that when I told him about the work and about this bill he began to see the importance of how this could meet some of those needs. So I just wanted to give a small practical example Mrs Martin of how this bill will definitely meet some of the needs of the families that I have seen up in the far north in Kaitāia at Ōturu School where Fraser Smith is the principal—and the work that they are doing as well.So I just want to commend you for the work that you are doing. I think this is a bill that we in the Government worked collectively on with New Zealand First and with you Mrs Martin and I believe that this truly does make a difference to our families. So on behalf of the Government and on behalf of myself as well I just want to commend this bill and congratulate you on the work that you have done as well. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): I too would like to offer my congratulations to Tracey Martin on getting things this far. I will speak mostly to my Supplementary Order Paper 70 which relates to how Mrs Martin has managed to get the bill this far. It was a feat of quite supreme nuancing and finessing to be able to get this bill through the Social Services Committee and to get the Government to make adjustments to be able to keep this bill alive.It is a real credit to you to have been able to do that to keep this bill alive but I sense that it is not what you ultimately wanted because I know that this bill has come from Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and that Mrs Martin has been working very closely with those people all the way through. The fact is that they are now contacting us—or actually they are not contacting us so much; it is the children who are contacting us—as MPs in this House and I am sure that probably everyone in this House has had the letters and has seen the photos of these children. They are what this is about.The fact is that you have managed to keep this alive but I believe it is our duty now to respond to those children’s requests and to your perseverance in keeping it alive by taking this opportunity to give this House the chance to say: “Hang on. Actually do we really want to make those children wait until 2018? Do we really believe that our budgets are so constrained that we cannot afford that little extra for those children to be able to have new clothes to wear to school?”.I cannot imagine anyone standing up in this Chamber and actually saying you know: “My account for it is that it is a maximum of $8 million a year.” It is not anywhere near that amount because that is looking at the total sum for over 12000 children and at the full amount on top of $900 if there are 1600. I know that that is not the full amount and I have not been able to calculate it.So it is nowhere near $8 million and it is the chance for over 12000 children to be able to go to school feeling like everyone else in their class—that they have the clothes and they are able to stand tall and that if their family is fostering other kids they have the same clothes as those other kids in the same household. I really really would like to hear from any member in this House who would stand up and say that $8 million out of the Government’s Budget is too much to enable that.We have offered any member in this House the opportunity to just say that yes 2018 is too long to wait and we are not going to make you wait that long. All members need to do is support Supplementary Order Paper 70 and then 3 months from the day on which the bill receives the Royal assent we can give those kids the chance to be able to get those clothes go to school and stand with pride. And we can take that burden away from their families who are surviving in many cases as Jacinda Ardern has mentioned on pensions. They are struggling to get by and are trying to do the best for their families.I remind this House that these are not just any old kids; these are children whose families have fallen apart and who are now with their grandparents because something went horribly wrong. Often those kids have been through unimaginable trauma and they have enough to cope with. We can do this. We can just say that yes we will deliver this to you now. We are not going to make you wait until 2018. I hope against hope because nobody is listening to me right now in this Chamber apart from members on this side.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am enormously proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take my first call on my colleague Tracey Martin’s bill. I know it has been a source of great passion for her as well as reflecting the great knowledge that she has on this subject. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. I do wish as I say to give some acknowledgment to Tracey Martin for having this bill drawn from the ballot and also for the enormously productive cross-party work she has done both in the Social Services Committee and through other auspices to gain the Government’s approval to basically get it on side and to persuade some essentially very decent members on the Government side that this is a necessary bill and this is a bill that will help a sector of the community that otherwise would not get help. I think it does reflect the fact that even in a combative adversarial Westminster-style parliamentary democracy there are still avenues by which we as good people can work together for a common goal.I want to also acknowledge the other Opposition members who have spoken as well as Government members such as Mr Ngaro. I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern for bringing what is a very forthright and valuable Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. I also acknowledge Jan Logie and I want to speak about her Supplementary Order Paper in a moment.I had a brief conversation with Tracey Martin this morning when we talked about the upcoming Committee stage of her bill. She said to me: “What’s an orphan?”. My understanding of an orphan was that it was a child who had lost both their parents to death—that was my perception of it. She said: “Yes you’re right but there’s much more to it than that. A child in New Zealand is legally declared an orphan if they do not have parents for a number of other reasons.” which I had not previously been aware of. If for example both the child’s parents are in jail or if they are both unable to carry out the activities of parenting because they are drug addicts or alcoholics or otherwise incapable of providing care then that child is declared to be an orphan.As this bill addresses there are a number of gaps in the legislation and in our social care arrangements that need to be filled so that children who fall into these categories and the people who care for them are able to access the sort of support and the kinds of allowances that are available to children who for whatever reason do not fill those particular pigeon holes. We do not want to go into too much more detail on that because I know it has been addressed by other speakers and I realise there are other speakers who wish to take a call on this bill.I want to predominantly talk about Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which calls for bringing forward the commencement date of this bill from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Again I say I am very appreciative of the fact that Government has agreed to support this bill but pushing the start date out to 2018 means that what we are essentially doing as a nation as a Parliament as a Government in order to save a comparatively very small amount of money is putting what is a small amount of money for a Government and for a nation onto the shoulders of a small number of people who are in the worst possible position to be able to afford to pay it.I do not want to be provocative but I do wish to make a comparison between the amount of additional funding required from the Government that bringing the start date forward will cost and compare that with one particular other item of discretionary Government spending that is going to go ahead. We know from the breakdown and from the figures that Tracey Martin has given us in support of this bill that the additional cost to the taxpayer of rolling it out will be about $16 million a year in total. So what I would like to say is that what we are about to do as a nation is spend $26 million on two referendums on changing the flag. I say that just to put this thing into perspective. Many people would contend and I would agree that no one has called for a referendum on the flag. No one actually wants a change in the flag if the political polls are to be believed. Yet here we are about to spend nearly 2 years’ worth of what it would cost to bring the start date of this bill forward from July 2018 to 3 months after the date it receives the Royal assent.We can as an intelligent caring nation and as a Parliament that has shown we can work across party boundaries look at those two things not in isolation but alongside each other and say: “Here we have a bill that will cost about $16 million or a referendum that will cost $26 million. One of them is for a change in the flag that no one wants and a referendum that no one called for. The other one is a very tangible assisting support payment to some very vulnerable kids and some very stretched caregivers who look after them.” I would really like the Government to take that on board look at those two things side by side have a deep think about which is more valuable and put its money where its mouth is and support Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 as we are going to. Thank you.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I am pleased to take a call on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. The Labour Party strongly supports this bill. May I commend Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House and for championing such an important issue something that I am passionate about and an issue that I think is important for this Parliament to address. Children who are orphans or who are unsupported usually go through a lot often very tragic circumstances before they get to the point where they are orphans or they are not supported and they can no longer livewith say their biological parents. For instance both parents might have died in a car accident; or a mother might have died from cancer after suffering for many years leaving behind five children; or as was presented to the Social Services Committee a husband might have taken the life of the wife and the children are left in the care of the grandparents—very very tragic indeed. The State considers kids unsupported when parents are no longer able to support them due to a family breakdown. So the circumstances in which kids get to this point—either being an orphan or being unsupported—is indeed really really tragic. Again I commend you Tracey for bringing a bill that will actually address this issue that will bring parity for how we deal with kids who are orphans or who are unsupported as well as those whom the State already pays the clothing allowance to at the moment.In this bill it will no longer matter if the child is cared for by family or by a kin person. This bill makes sure that children actually get the clothing allowance and I think that we as a society should look after all of our kids but especially those who are in such vulnerable vulnerable states like these kids. Fairness and equity are some of the core core values of the Labour Party and they are some of the reasons why we strongly support this bill. Providing parity for foster children as well as those who are orphans and unsupported is what I think this bill actually does and for that we are in support of it.I was not fortunate enough to sit on the select committee that considered this bill; however in reading the documents that came through from the committee process it states that there are around 8500 families and kin carers who are caring for over 12000 kids in this situation in New Zealand right now—a lot of kids. This bill was first introduced as far as I can see from the paperwork in September 2013 so it has been around for quite a while.I would like to talk about the commencement date which is in clause 2 of this bill. This bill has come back to the House with a new proposed date for commencement. So the commencement clause says that it will not start after it receives the Royal assent not even this year in 2015; it will not even begin next year. It is not until 3 whole years from now in July 2018 that this legislation may come into force after it gets through the third reading. May I just reiterate what my colleague Miss Ardern stated earlier on: the Labour Party is in full support of Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70. If I can just quote from it it says: “This Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 2 to change the commencement date of this Bill bringing it forward from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The Labour Party supports this Supplementary Order Paper and we hope that the Government considers it favourably.If our children are a priority for this Government especially our most vulnerable children and I believe they are then implementing a bill like this one—implementing this on behalf of orphaned and unsupported children—should be a priority now today in 2015 not 3 years from now in July 2018. We believe that if New Zealand really wants the best outcomes for children then we need to invest in and prioritise the policies that focus on our children especially our most vulnerable kids. All children in New Zealand deserve equal opportunities. Mr Chair I would like to thank you and I would like to thank Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the Committee. The Labour Party is very very pleased to support this bill.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): This is just a very short call to thank all the other members of the Committee who have spoken already and to thank them on behalf of the children. I want to thank Jan Logie and Jacinda Ardern for their Supplementary Order Papers 70 and 72. I want to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro and the statements that he made around the process of this bill and the arrangements and the conversations that were had and the reasons that had been articulated previously for the way that the bill stands now. So this is just a very very short call to thank you all for your support.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to putting the questions. Just in case we do not get through it I am going to seek the indulgence of the Committee by seeking leave that if we have not quite finished by 9.55 p.m. the report back of the Committee will be slightly delayed. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 70 in the name of Jan Logie to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 72New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Noes 74New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.