Volume 687 Week 33 - Wednesday 13 February 2013 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 687 Week 33 - Wednesday 13 February 2013 
[Sitting date: 13 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 13 February 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Partial Failure of Audio and Broadcasting System 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have just been alerted that there is a problem with the microphones. The Prime Minister’s microphone my microphone and the Leader of the Opposition’s microphone are working. They are proceeding to fix it as quickly as possible but you may need to resort to hand-held mikes which will be delivered by the messengers. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I need a microphone? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it is a matter of making sure it is transmitted. [ 
Interruption 
] I think it would be better if the member did use the microphone because it is a matter of transmission for broadcasting purposes. [ 
Interruption 
] I have given the floor to the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I will take the point of order shortly. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In accordance with discussions at the Business Committee I seek leave for—I am told my microphone is on—the House to hear the valedictory statement from Dr The Rt Hon Alexander Lockwood Smith at 5.30 p.m. and for the House to suspend for the dinner break following Dr Smith’s valedictory statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Points of Order 
Magazine Article—Leave to Make Personal Explanation 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to make a personal statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to make a personal statement. [ 
Interruption 
] Could the member clarify what it is in relation to. 
RICHARD PROSSER 
: Relating to a recent article in a magazine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection from the member. 
Motions 
Human Rights—Freedom from Religious and Ethnic Discrimination 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate about respecting religious diversity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for a motion without debate to be moved by Dr Russel Norman. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and thanks to the House. I move  
That this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity should be treated equally before the law and that the rights and dignity of all people in particular of Muslims should be upheld; and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us and act with justice equity and respect in all that we say and do 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2013—Focus 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Finance: what will be the main focus of Budget 2013? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did members not hear that? Could the member please use the hand-held microphone. 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will be the main focus of Budget 2013? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today I announced that Budget 2013 will be delivered on Thursday 16 March. It will continue the Government’s prudent management of the economy as we move from recession to recovery. It will focus on four priority areas: responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more competitive economy to encourage businesses to grow and employ delivering better public services and continuing the rebuilding of Christchurch. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister inadvertently made a mistake in his answer. He may want to correct the March date to a May date which he announced this morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We thank the member for his point. I think the correction is made. 
David Bennett 
: Why is controlling Government expenditure an important part of the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because between 2000 and 2009 core Crown expenditure jumped from $35 billion to $64 billion an increase of 84 percent. If we had stuck with that rate of spending Treasury forecast that the Government would now be spending well over $80 billion per year. In fact we are spending currently around $73 billion and Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is dropping from 35 percent of the economy to 31 percent over the next 3 or 4 years. At the same time as holding Government expenditure we are improving public services and getting better results for the public. 
David Bennett 
: How will Government policies help increase job opportunities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Government policies are supporting businesses in times when it is difficult to create new jobs. Job growth occurs when employers businesses and the Government have sufficient resources to invest and the confidence to hire a new employee. It is a product of both foreign and domestic investment. We will focus on continuing as we have done for the last 4 years to create the best environment we can for businesses to make the decision to invest and employ. 
David Bennett 
: What progress is the Government making in its economic plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the fact that conditions remain tough we are continuing to make moderate progress. We would expect to see the economy grow at an average of around 2 percent in real terms. New Zealanders are saving more exports are continuing to grow interest rates are at a 50-year low and real wages continue to grow. At the same time we are getting on with the rebuilding of Christchurch. Compared with many other developed economies New Zealand’s is doing pretty well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given his statement at the select committee this morning that the New Zealand economy is “training for a triathlon” is the triathlon that New Zealanders are taking part in under his Government that firstly they are working long hours for low pay; secondly they are losing their jobs due to the high Kiwi dollar; and then thirdly they are making the trans-Tasman dash? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may recall the context for that remark was his proposition that we should get printing money to fix all our problems. I explained to him that the economies where they are doing that are like a patient on a table in the emergency room where they are trying to decide what kind of respirator to give them. Compared with that New Zealand is like the person outside training for a triathlon—that is we are in much better shape than economies like those of the UK and Europe. That is why we are not adopting the member’s silly policies. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister confident that his neo-liberal policy agenda is very successful in light of the fact that New Zealand is now approaching a 6.5 percent current account deficit under Treasury’s own estimates when he promised that he would rebalance the economy and we currently have record high unemployment—unemployment that has not been this high since his party was last in Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member points to a number of real challenges for the economy. New Zealand has a 30-year history of current account deficits. We believe we are making some progress but it will take time to make that progress. But there is no problem that he has come up with that will be fixed by cranking up the Greens’ photocopier and printing money. 
Prime Minister—Statements on New Zealand - Australia Migration and Youth Unemployment 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his 2012 statement that figures for net migration to Australia were “fairly similar” under Labour; if so how many people have left for Australia in the last 12 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and I do not have that number to hand. 
David Shearer 
: Given that 53676 New Zealanders have left for Australia in the last 12 months which is an all-time record what responsibility does he take for that exodus? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the Government is going through the long process of rebalancing the economy after the mismanagement of a Labour Government and there is an enormous amount of work to be done. And the reason business confidence surveys are increasingly showing support is that they can see that we are on the right track and that the Labour Party along with its good friends the Greens has only one policy and that is to turn New Zealand into a modern-day Zimbabwe by printing money. 
David Shearer 
: What responsibility does he take for the fact that 40 percent of the New Zealanders leaving for Australia are aged between 18 and 30—the future talent of our country? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a long time New Zealanders have taken the opportunity—young New Zealanders—to get some experience overseas. Many of them come back as the member will be aware. The member did that exact thing himself. One of the areas where they are going to in Australia is mining so if we go and look at Western Australia or northern Queensland we see plenty of young New Zealanders going there to work in the mining industry. I say to the member that if he wants to hold hands with National as we reform the Resource Management Act to make it more possible for people to expand oil and gas exploration and other mineral activity in New Zealand he should come and see me. He should come up and have a glass of wine and I will take him through the legislation and we look forward to the support of the Labour Party. But guess what! It will not do that; it will just carry on whingeing like it normally does. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement made at Westpac Stadium where he said “It holds nearly 35000 people and believe it or not the equivalent of this entire stadium and more leaves every year to permanently live in Australia.” and is there a stadium in New Zealand now that could hold the number of people who are leaving to Australia currently? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I stand by the statement. I also note that some of those numbers are starting to come back a little bit and one should be a little bit careful about getting too excited about Australia given what is happening on the east coast. But I can count numbers I can count heads I can count people and the remarkable thing is that if I stood for the leadership of the Labour Party I am pretty sure I would get a unanimous vote. 
David Shearer 
: What responsibility does he take for the fact that 90000 of our young people are not in education not in training and not in employment and does he think that this provides any incentive for young people to remain in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I would have to go and get you the exact “neets” numbers and that question could be directed to the Minister responsible for tertiary education who has those off the top of his hand— 
David Shearer 
: No but I’m asking you. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Look I am more than happy to give you the answer. I am just telling you I do not have them exactly to hand. But the last time I looked at them the vast overwhelming bulk of young New Zealanders in that category are in education or training. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: 80 percent. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: 80 percent of them. There is a very small group who are not in employment—a very small group relative to the overall cohort. They are either in work in training or doing something else like having a gap year. 
Student Achievement—Government Strategies and Partnership Schools 
3. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Given the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report shows a widening education gap between students from wealthier and poorer communities would she have done anything differently in hindsight to better support children in lower decile schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. No we have a world-class education system where many—indeed most—of our students are successful. This Government however is focused on all of our students being successful. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with Treasury that charter schools are not a good way to deal with kids who are not achieving their potential in New Zealand schools but that better funding of lower-decile schools is? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. Treasury often offers advice. It does not mean we accept or agree with it. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the Ministry of Education advise in its briefing paper to her as incoming Minister that charter schools would address the tail of underachievement; or is it not the fact that officials did not even put charter schools forward as an option to her? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Ministry of Education provides me with a range of advice including on partnership schools. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked very specifically whether the Ministry advised her as to whether charter schools were an option for reducing underachievement or not. She did not answer that question at all. It is a very straight question which she should be able to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The easiest way to resolve the matter is for the member to ask the question again. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did the Ministry of Education advise in its briefing papers to her as incoming Minister that charter schools would address the tail of underachievement; or is it not the fact that officials did not even put charter schools forward as an option? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This approach has been ruled on by Speakers a number of times in the past. If there is an answer of “No” there has to be an indication as to which leg of the double it applies. Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith ruled that way quite recently. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. I am actually having trouble understanding what part of the question the answer applied to. I think the Minister could take the opportunity of clarifying the answer for the sake of the House. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No to the first part of the question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister then even aware that what the Ministry actually recommended to her for underachieving kids was a commitment to mainstreaming Ka Hikitia and the  
Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012 
 but that subsequently underfunding has meant it has been reduced to just sending teachers a booklet on how to teach Maori kids? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes to the first part of the question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister truly believe that of all the children to experiment on with untrained teachers it should be the most vulnerable learners whom even the OECD experts say need the highest-quality teaching to be successful? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In the world-class system that New Zealand has a diversity of options is available to parents across the country. This is true for all children of whatever socio-economic ethnic or religious background. This Government is focused—most recently through our Better Public Services targets—on how it ensures that all children succeed. So in early childhood education we have a target that 98 percent of all new entrants will have participated in quality early childhood education. What we have identified in the past year is that in order to achieve that target by 2016 we need 12000 more children participating or 3000 more each year of which 1750 are Maori and 900 are Pasifika. We are targeted on helping those kids who need the most help. That is what this Government is focused on. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister although giving a very long answer to some question did not answer my one or even address it. Does she believe that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! The member asked the question “Does she truly believe … ” indicating “Does the Minister truly believe … ” and then went on to a range of interpretation about how you address underachievement particularly amongst Maori and Pasifika. I think the Minister has adequately answered that question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with Philip Harding president of the New Zealand Principals Federation who said today that vulnerable learners require the very best high-qualified teaching professionals in front of them? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I do indeed agree with Philip Harding and that is why of the $9.6 billion that this Government has committed to education this year the highest ever the single-biggest component of it is $3.6 billion for teachers and principals—they are high-quality people who can facilitate learning for every child. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not then see a contradiction in her move to let untrained teachers loose on vulnerable kids with the Teachers Council’s strategic objective to increase the number of qualified teachers in schools and improve teacher training; is there not a contradiction in that policy Minister? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. Despite the hyperbole in that question what we are focused on is a range of opportunities. In this system as we currently have it there are a number of parts of the system where we have people who deliver learning but do not hold a qualification as a teacher. We are looking for a mix of those across the entire system so that we can move that part that has not been successful. If we keep doing what we have always done we will keep getting what we have always got and this Government will not accept that. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings of student achievement which puts New Zealand among the top 10 in the OECD while the UK and America which are great proponents of charter schools fall miserably behind; if so why is she importing a failed model from those countries’ failed systems? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Indeed I am aware of that and in fact the Programme for International Student Assessment to which the member refers places New Zealand seventh in the world and five of the countries that are ahead of us now were behind us 5 years ago. By aggregating that figure what we find is that New Zealand European Pakeha Palagi students are second in the world. Maori however are 34th and Pasifika are 44th. That is the true challenge we have in this education system and that is what we are addressing as a Government. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the reports showing that US charter schools have been involved in tax fraud corruption in lobbying misuse of funds racketeering and even charging parents a fee if their children misbehave; if so why is she exposing our kids to this risk? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: It has long been the tradition of the New Zealand education system to look overseas to see what is happening take what is best and then apply it appropriately. It is not the type of school it is the performance of the school and what the Education Amendment Bill proposes is a number of features that are designed for this system. 
Police—Use of Mobile Technology and Conflict Management 
4. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What announcements has the Government made on the availability of new technology for frontline Police to help them in their fight against crime? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 This morning the Prime Minister and I announced the introduction of 6500 smartphones for all front-line officers and 3900 tablets for selected staff across the country. This technology will enable police to access input and share important information immediately without having to travel back to their stations to access databases and write reports. This will allow police to focus more on preventing crime and less on paperwork. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will the introduction of smartphones and tablets improve policing in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The introduction of this technology will allow police to provide a better more efficient and more visible service for the public while keeping one step ahead of criminals. The new technology allows officers to quickly feed in and access information view offenders’ photographs and details and perform a wide range of tasks without needing to return to the station—a giant leap forward from the police radio. The initial 3-month roll-out to 6086 officers starting in April will deliver around 520000 additional front-line police hours every year and that is the equivalent of around 345 extra police focusing on crime prevention. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will the new mobile technology help police achieve their target of reducing crime? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Investing in better mobile technology frees up officers’ time to focus on more effective policing by putting crime prevention and the needs of victims at the forefront of their duties. An 11-month trial of the technology undertaken by police showed that it allowed each officer to spend on average an extra 30 minutes per shift on the front line and these additional hours will be reinvested into preventive crime activities. Along with the 600 additional front-line officers delivered by this Government and a 70 percent increase in foot patrols it will mean more police are out on the streets for longer keeping our communities safe. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What investment has the Government made to help front-line police respond appropriately to de-escalate a conflict and were such strategies applied in the case of the Howick party in which 15-year-old Ella Eketone alleges that she was assaulted by police losing two front teeth in the process? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As Minister I am not prepared to comment on an individual case other than to say that an investigation is currently under way and the matter has been referred to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. But police do receive training in de-escalating conflicts. This training includes managing large and out-of-control parties where a large number of drunk people start throwing bottles at the police. 
Regional Economies—Development Investment and Performance 
5. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What progress if any has the Government made in the area of regional development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government is investing heavily in regional development across New Zealand. After all the national economy is the aggregation of the economies of all the regions in the country. I have just a few examples for the member. We are rolling out ultra-fast broadband to connect fibre-optic technology to schools hospitals and 90 percent of businesses by 2015 and also the Rural Broadband Initiative. We are encouraging the development of New Zealand’s resource wealth which follows of course the successful oil and gas industry model in Taranaki where 5000 people are employed and it contributes $2 billion to our GDP. We are investing massively in our State highway network which links all our regions together. That includes of course the roads of national significance which link the regions to our main centres. These are just some examples of the programmes that are contributing to regional development in this country. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How is regional economic performance in New Zealand being measured given that there is no official measure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member raises a fair point actually. The regional GDP statistics have not been prepared for many years so you will be pleased to learn that that is exactly what is happening at this time. Later this year we will have not actually GDP statistics but regional equivalents to GDP statistics which will be helpful to the member—and I think to all members of the House—in terms of regional development. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Does the Minister receive regular ongoing reports regarding the economy of each region; if so which regions are underperforming? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said to the member the actual measures of regional GDP will be available later this year but actually you can get all sorts of indicators of which regions are going well and which are not. Obviously the employment ones are an example. I can report to the member for example that the South Island and all the regions in the South Island are doing very well in the employment situation at the moment. That is obviously being driven partially by the Christchurch rebuild but also by the health of the various economies in the South Island. The standout is always Taranaki where they have very very strong economic performance. Some of the regions are struggling. You would have to say Manawatu and Wanganui would be in that category; Northland would be another. And of course the Psa in the Bay of Plenty has really knocked that regional economy as well. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Why did the Government allocate less than $5 million in the current year to regional-specific projects compared with a massive $50 million in Hollywood film subsidies which Treasury says have no economic benefit? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually the Government spends massive amounts in each region. Just to give you some examples: things such as schools and hospitals which are very important for regional infrastructure; the roading system— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no no. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —yes—and the broadband system. And different regions have different industries that the Government supports. For example the film industry which the member mentioned is very important in the Wellington region. There are other industries that are very important in other regions. The Government has just for example indicated that it is going to invest in irrigation projects that will be very important in the eastern regions of the country. So it is very much a matter of horses for courses depending on what the regions need. The Government spends around $70 billion - odd a year around New Zealand and much of that goes into our regions. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked why the Government had allocated less than $5 million to specific regional projects and that question has not been answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been answered to my satisfaction. The Minister went on to say that there are a number of very expensive programmes of which a lot of money was obviously spent in the regions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A new point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. My point of order is that your ruling is totally refuted by the last Budget which— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and the member will resume his seat. I have ruled that that question was satisfactorily answered. The Minister made a genuine effort to answer the question saying that there are a number of initiatives where the Government is spending money that is clearly spent within the regions. In my mind that question was answered quite satisfactorily and if the member continues to relitigate my answer that will bring this House into disorder and disrepute. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A fresh point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: A fresh point of order. My point of order is this: we are required to base questions on certain evidence and that evidence came from the last Budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Look excuse me when he uses the particular words “regional-specific” that is a budgetary term. To go outside regional-specific to use “regional-general” as the Minister has done gives my colleague grounds for legitimate complaint; otherwise sound budgetary processes mean nothing in this Parliament. That is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance and I accept that the member raised a genuine point of order. I considered his point of order and I am absolutely satisfied with the quality of the answer given by the Minister. There is no way that any member can accept an answer by design and provided that the Minister has addressed the question to my satisfaction I accept that that is satisfactory. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Will the Minister consider New Zealand First’s proposal for a regional royalties scheme which would see almost $100 million a year go to regional development given that it has been endorsed by Local Government New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly that is actually probably a question best directed to the Minister of Energy and Resources but my having said that in terms of economic development we actually invest as I said before a massive amount in each region. The real benefits for the regions from for example resources—and I think that is what the member refers to in terms of royalties—are the jobs and growth that are created within those regions. If you take Taranaki for example it has a fantastic record of high-value jobs both in the oil and gas industry and in downstream industries. That has been fantastic for that region and every quarter when the unemployment statistics come out one is reminded of that. So my point to the local government people would be to focus on attracting investment to their regions for the obvious benefits that it brings especially the jobs because that is the real benefit. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was whether the Minister would consider a proposal for a regional royalties scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the answer given was that that question was more appropriate for the Minister of Energy and Resources. The question is answered. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister agreed to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And did give a fulsome answer. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Therefore an answer saying it was more appropriate for it to be answered by another Minister is not an answer to the question. If he is going to agree to answer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have ruled that the question was answered satisfactorily. That is the end of that matter. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a fresh point of order? Otherwise the member is trifling with the Chair. Is it a fresh point of order? 
Denis O’Rourke 
: The point of order is that one Minister or another needs to answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have given the member every opportunity. That question has been answered to my satisfaction. If the member continues to raise points of order he will bring this House into disorder and that is a very serious matter which I will address. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry: is it a point of order or a supplementary question? 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It is a supplementary question and it is to the Minister who I hope will answer the question and it is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just ask the supplementary question. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Why has no appointment been made of a Minister for regional development? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the member repeat that. It is a difficult day when we have not got good microphones. Can the member please repeat the question and can I ask the rest of the House to give silence while the question is being asked. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I addressed the supplementary question to the Minister and expressed a hope that he would actually answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well just ask it. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Why has no appointment been made of a Minister for regional development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I realise I probably do not want to say this at this point but that is actually not a responsibility of mine either. That is actually a responsibility of the Prime Minister in terms of allocating portfolios obviously. But actually we do have a responsibility for regional development it forms part of the economic development portfolio and I have answered those questions for the member this afternoon. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: If resources are the lifeblood of the regions what will the Minister say to the hundreds of miners who are likely to lose their jobs with strong rumours of the impending receivership of Buller mining operations? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What? Didn’t hear the last bit. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Well if you listened instead of talking you might hear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will repeat his question without embellishment; otherwise he will lose it. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: If resources are the champion of regional development—which I agree with—what will the Minister say to the hundreds of miners who are likely to lose their jobs with strong rumours of receivership of Buller mining operations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I literally do not know the example the member refers to but I would point out that the opportunities on the West Coast which the member is obviously interested in are many and varied and one of the very significant opportunities down there is the Bathurst mine which the Government is having go through a process at the moment. The member will recall that I called on the Labour Party and the Green Party last year to support the Bathurst application and to ask their friends in the environmental movement to remove their objections. If they did so that would actually help the development of mining on the West Coast. I think the fact that the Labour Party was silent was demonstrative of the fact that it was not that interested. 
Economic Growth and Job Creation—Progress and Foreign Direct Investment 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his Budget 2012 statement “We are moving towards growth that is driven by savings exports and productive investment in the parts of the economy that trade with the rest of the world”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: With dropping exports a current account deficit that is projected to be second-worst in the developed world this year— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Oh still complaining about a current account deficit that is half what you had. 
Hon David Parker 
: No I am complaining about the fact— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the member please ask his supplementary question. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that if we face interjections that are inane— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am definitely not. I am asking the member to ask his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: With dropping exports and a current account deficit that is projected to be second-worst in the developed world this year and to remain very high for the rest of the forecast period when will the Minister concede that he has failed in his objective to rebalance the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not accept the member’s contention. Exports over the last 2 or 3 years have continued to rise in value and volume. There has been I think one number in a recent quarter where it has been down but the longer-term trend is pretty clear. Of course we would like it to be moving faster and in respect of the current account deficit that member’s party oversaw 3 years of an 8 percent current account deficit—the worst performance ever. It is currently around 4 percent so that is why we are not complaining about it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will he support any of the top three ideas consistently proposed by exporting manufacturers which they say will make them more competitive and help them grow exports and jobs—namely broadening the mandate of the Reserve Bank or removing the capital income exemption through a capital gains tax or universal KiwiSaver—if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are always open to looking at those sorts of ideas although the Government has said it does not agree with bringing in a comprehensive capital gains tax. Changing the mandate of the Reserve Bank is something reasonable people can argue about but is unlikely to yield the results that manufacturers expect. We are working with manufacturers and other businesses every day on the Government’s business growth programme and we are open to any suggestions including some that we might disagree with such as those to help support their businesses. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that the Minister for Economic Development claims that greater foreign direct investment is the best way to grow jobs what recent and significant foreign direct investment has there been in the New Zealand economy outside the primary sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think as the Minister has pointed out himself what he said was that foreign direct investment is part of the recipe for growing jobs because to have jobs you need investment and New Zealand has not for many decades had sufficient savings to fund all of its own investment. I welcome the Opposition’s new enthusiasm for foreign investment because up until today they have been mostly opposed to it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is it not correct that outside the primary sector foreign direct investment is shrinking with job losses and disinvestment by manufacturing exporters from the south to the north of New Zealand pointing to uncompetitive economic settings that need to be changed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would not want to take that view and I think we would need to check just which figures the member is referring to if he is saying that there is a contraction in foreign investment outside of the primary sector. Actually our biggest foreign investors are the owners of our banks. There is no sign of them contracting. They are outside the primary production sector. In the mineral resources and oil sector there is so much enthusiasm from offshore investors that Opposition parties are trying to stop them investing and thereby stop them from creating the jobs that many New Zealanders would like to see. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2012 Results and Achievement Rate 
7. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received on the 2012 NCEA results? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a report with provisional 2012 results from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. These results show that there have been improvements at National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. In the context of our Better Public Services target to see 85 percent of 18-year-olds achieving NCEA level 2 some highlights are that overall results for NCEA level 2 for year 12 participants have risen 6.7 percent since we became the Government for year 12 Maori participants results have risen by 10.4 percent since we became the Government and for year 12 Pasifika participants results have risen by 12.9 percent since we became the Government. I would like to congratulate all students who achieved in 2012. These are significant improvements over the last 4 years but we must do better. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How will she continue to focus on lifting NCEA achievement rates and performance across the rest of the education pipeline? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Firstly it is important to understand that this is a pipeline it is a system and our Government is targeting every part of it. I earlier reported to the House what we are doing in early childhood education. We want 98 percent of all new entrants to have participated in quality early childhood education. We want 85 percent of all 18-year-olds to have NCEA level 2. We will be focusing on lifting national standards to at least 85 percent for all children. We believe in belting and bracing the system. That means that we need to have 2400 more children in early childhood education this year and for NCEA level 2—[ 
Interruption 
]—for those members who are genuinely interested in raising achievement we need 48000 18-year-olds. I do not know what the pun was—an additional 1280— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has adequately answered the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Some of us are finding this answer intriguing and I think if the Minister sought leave to finish her answer it would be accepted by the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has had her turn. It is normally the member who rises to his feet complaining the answers are too long. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Can the Minister guarantee to the House that the improvement in NCEA achievement statistics has not been because of a lowering of the standard; and if she does guarantee that to what specific Government policy initiative does she attribute the improved success rates? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I can absolutely guarantee that. All of us in this House are committed to the New Zealand education system being a world-class one and therefore guaranteeing the standard of it is something that this Government is particularly committed to. I can point to it because in every year this Government despite the recession that we have gone through has raised the investment in Vote Education. We have employed more teachers. We have funded operational grants at a higher level. We have focused $304 million on professional learning and development. I could go on but the litany of what we have invested in versus what that Government did not invest in would take too long. 
Child Poverty—Government Actions to Address and Measuring Numbers Affected 
8. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with the Salvation Army whose report states today that “Another year of minimal change in levels of child poverty was matched by little tangible progress being made by the Ministerial Committee on Poverty”; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 No I do not agree and I am sure the member would be concerned that the detail of the Salvation Army report does not support the contention that child poverty is getting worse. In fact it shows four ways of measuring the percentage of children in poverty. On two measures the proportion of children in poverty has declined since 2007. On one other measure the proportion has remained the same and on a fourth it has risen slightly. The report also shows that the number of children living in benefit-dependent households has been going down despite the fact that the unemployment rate has risen slightly. This is a considerable achievement particularly for those people in those households who have worked so hard to attain for themselves more independence better incomes and better prospects for their children. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Given his drive for an output-focused Public Service what targets has the ministerial committee set on child poverty other than immunisation and rheumatic fever targets which do nothing to address material deprivation levels which have gone from 15 percent to 21 percent on his watch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the Government has set a range of targets through the results that it has published which include measures of things the member may regard as unimportant such as violence on children and rheumatic fever rates but we actually think those things are quite important as are early childhood participation rates particularly for those children whom the Labour Government’s policies left completely behind as it lifted investment in early childhood education. There are any number of ways of measuring the state of our children. On the Government’s measures we are making some progress. On the Salvation Army’s measures we are making some progress. There will be others which neither of us is using that will show up problems that we should be addressing in the future. But the Government is approaching it with some real focus in particular on getting the messy and confusing aspects of the way the Public Service works to focus strongly on their collective impact on changing the lives of individual children and families. We believe that over the next 2 or 3 years it will have significant impact. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did make reference to targets around material deprivation and specifically obviously reference to income measures but if the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer to that is there are no targets in that area then that would be quite a simple— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I listened carefully. He mentioned a target around violence to children. Have you got further supplementary questions? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Yes thank you Mr Speaker. How can he in the past have listed welfare reforms as a way to address child poverty when the reforms have seen an increase in the number of families having their benefits cut and an increase in benefit uptake all the while with fewer jobs for people to move into? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well again we can get the detail about the numbers. The focus of the Government’s welfare reform is to spend more earlier—that is invest in assisting individuals and families off the path to long-term dependence. We are increasingly engaged with a wide range of community groups and individual communities to pursue that path. The Government has committed hundreds of million of dollars actually to upfront investment designed to reduce long-term dependency. It is a bit harder when the economy has the moderate growth that it has rather than 5 or 6 percent growth but that is not a reason not to do it as the Opposition keeps seeming to suggest—that because it is hard we should not have a go. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can the Deputy Prime Minister reference what part of the current welfare reform bill before the Social Services Committee invests upfront in moving the beneficiaries he has just mentioned into work other than sanctions and work obligation tests that already exist? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The funding arrangements are not in the piece of legislation; they are actually done through the appropriation process and the Budget. If the member looks at the last two Budgets and most likely at the next one she will see there is considerable investment. What is interesting is actually as the Opposition tries to generate criticism of the welfare reforms it is not getting any response in the wider community at all because the reforms make sense to everybody. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect what I was asking for was any kind of specificity from the Deputy Prime Minister whether it be in the legislation or even in a funding stream—just some specificity about where this upfront investment actually is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I recall the question it was whether there was anything specifically in the legislation and the Minister said that no it was within the appropriation subsequent. So the question was adequately answered. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the last point of order two Government whips and three Government Ministers interjected. It is quite hard to hear today and if you allow people—at least five people in that block—to breach Standing Orders it will make it worse. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his assistance. It has been difficult today and there have been a number of interjections from all sides of the House. It would certainly assist my job if there was less interjection while we get through question time. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does he agree that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and backing a living wage are two ways of reducing child poverty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has raised the minimum wage I think each year it has been in office. But the fact is that whatever market income a household has is measured and where the household falls short of sufficient income to provide for the children in that household we have continued through the recession with the Working for Families scheme which puts I think $2.7 billion into those households. The good news for families is whether they earn $15 an hour or $30 an hour that scheme takes their circumstances into account and helps them with the cost of raising children. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he believe that things like reports alone will not solve a deep-rooted serious problem like poverty and that what is needed is a completely different approach that helps people to take control of their lives and break out from the cycles of dependency deprivation and desperation—in other words Whanau Ora? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the member that if committees reports and spending more money solved these problems then certainly the last Government would have solved them 50 times over. The member I think is quite right: the harder you look into the longstanding deprivation of some New Zealand families the more obvious it is that bureaucratic intervention by the Government can go so far but it has proven by the fact of historical failure not to actually change things enough for those families. At the moment Whanau Ora is the one programme that does appear to have the ability to reach those families in real deprivation and their surrounding communities and to catalyse a sense that the world and their lives can change. That is why we have continued to support its roll out and expansion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I can advise that apparently the microphone system is fixed so we do not need to rely on hand-held microphones. We move to question No. 9 in the name of Jonathan Young. 
Jonathan Young 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You should be all right with your microphone. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We heard you Mr Speaker without a mike. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. 
Telecommunications—Roaming Charges 
9. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What steps is the Government taking to reduce costs for New Zealanders using their mobile devices overseas? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Not being the Minister in charge of microphones—on Saturday the Prime Minister with Prime Minister Gillard announced the Government’s intention to introduce new monitoring reporting and intervention powers for trans-Tasman regulators on mobile roaming charges to ensure that New Zealanders travelling to Australia can use their mobile devices at competitive rates. It concerns me greatly when I hear stories of people going to Australia for a holiday and coming home to find their phone bills cost more than the travel. It is our primary business and holiday destination and that is simply not acceptable. Although New Zealand companies have responded well to reducing charges recently as a consequence of the investigation we want to ensure that that trend continues. 
Jonathan Young 
: Is the Government considering an extension of these changes to countries other than Australia? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Yes. Competition issues are not unique to the trans-Tasman roaming route and the legislation we are proposing allows for the possible extension of the new powers to destinations other than Australia. Although reporting and monitoring for other countries can begin immediately on passage of the legislation the legislation will also allow for the extended powers to apply to new destinations as appropriate and once reciprocal agreements are in place with that country. 
Clare Curran 
: Why does she think that it is a priority for her Government for New Zealanders to pay less for their mobile services while holidaying or doing business overseas but pay more than they otherwise would for copper broadband services while living in New Zealand? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: I would firstly reject entirely the assertion in that member’s question. This Government’s interest in telecommunications is the long-term interests of all users of telecommunications services. That is our priority. That is our priority in mobile roaming as much as it is in all other aspects of the portfolio. 
Unemployment—Rate for Maori and Pacific Peoples 
10. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: Does he agree that a Maori and Pacific unemployment rate that has been nearly three times higher than the Pakeha rate for each of the four years of his Government’s time in office signals the failure of the National Government’s employment education skills and training policies for Maori and Pacific peoples; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 No I do not agree with that assertion. Although the Maori and Pasifika unemployment rate is higher than we would like because of the challenges of the global financial crisis our employment education skills and training policies are working hard to support a growing economy and provide more training and skills opportunities for all New Zealanders including and in particular Maori and Pasifika. A few examples for the member are the 8500 fees-free tertiary places for Youth Guarantee; the nearly 3700 trades academy places which are particularly popular with young Maori; the 300 places for the new Pasifika trades initiative to improve Pasifika achievement in trades; He Toki ki te Rika $1 million for Maori trades training; and also the— 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s enough. That’s enough. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I think it is important to get it out to the member because he is obviously not aware of it. There is also fees-free second-chance foundation training and the new New Zealand Apprenticeships programme. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree that even more appalling than the unemployment rates is the fact that only half of all Maori and Pacific Island people living in New Zealand actually have jobs and does that mean that National’s promise of a brighter future and an inclusive economy with jobs for all does not actually include Maori and Pacific Island people? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I do not agree with that assertion but I think the member raises a good point and that is that we should all look to encourage opportunities for investment in the different parts of the country where it would be helpful for all New Zealanders. And if you take the member’s own area of Northland there are lots of initiatives going on there—for example in the minerals and resources space which I know the member opposes. But actually Northland has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country and it is not enough to sit there and say: “We want jobs.” and then not actually support the measures and initiatives within your own region that encourage jobs. I would encourage the member to change his view on that because I do not like the idea of trade fairs in Kaikohe to get young Northlanders to work in the Western Australian resource sector. I would prefer they were working in Northland. 
Hone Harawira 
: Listening to the Minister blame the global financial crisis—[ 
Interruption 
] yes he did—does the Minister agree—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! 
Hone Harawira 
: Order boys. Order boys. Does the Minister agree that the global financial crisis has nothing whatsoever to do with the racial mix of the unemployment statistics here and that those truly appalling statistics are in fact the result of his Government’s total lack of commitment to reducing Maori and Pacific Island unemployment rates; and what does that lack of commitment say to his mana-enhancing partners in the Maori Party and the silently suffering Pacific Island MPs in his own party? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I completely reject everything the member said in that question of which there was a lot. This Government has been a passionate supporter of training and education opportunities for Maori and Pasifika. We have a higher proportion of success in tertiary education for Maori than there has ever been. We have a higher proportion for Pasifika than there has ever been. It is not high enough but by goodness we started from a low base that we inherited and we are working a heck of a lot harder than that member is. 
Teachers and Support Staff Payroll—Minister’s Decisions and Advice Received Regarding Novopay System 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her decisions as Minister of Education; if not which if any particular decisions does she now regret? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes in the circumstances and with the advice received at the time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that she was not advised that the Ministry of Education was considering terminating its contract with Talent2 due to failure to deliver on key milestones; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The question yesterday in fact talked about “within 2 weeks of the final decision”. I was aware that during the course of consideration there were times where meeting the milestones was questioned but when the proposition to approve the contract was made it was made with all the advice that the key milestones had been met or largely met and that we should proceed. 
Chris Hipkins 
: If the Minister was in fact aware that the Ministry of Education had considered several times terminating the contract with Talent2 and that several milestones had repeatedly been missed in the development of the Novopay system why did she sign off on the decision to go live with the new system? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I think that  
Hansard 
 will make it clear that I said that there were over the process—the long process which by the way includes 7 years including which the contract was signed by Labour Ministers of Education—we went live because we were in the balance of the circumstances the opportunity and risk it was the best advice at the time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: When she signed off the implementation of Novopay was she aware that the previous contingency arrangement with Datacom would expire before Novopay actually went live; if so why did she not ask for the contingency to be extended until Novopay implementation had been successfully completed? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Consideration was indeed given to Datacom and it had its own risks. On the balance of both cost and overall risk the decision that we took was to go with Novopay. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That does not actually address the question I asked. I am aware the Minister probably did not hear because of the noise her colleagues were making but it does not address the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was very hard to hear the question. I think possibly the Minister was challenged in hearing the question herself. I invite the member to ask the question again. I would be grateful for fewer interjections so we can hear the question and then the answer. 
Chris Hipkins 
: When she signed off the implementation of Novopay was she aware that the previous contingency arrangement with Datacom would expire before Novopay actually went live; if so why did she not ask for the contingency to be extended until Novopay implementation had been successfully completed? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Officials’ advice compared both the costs and overall risks of maintaining Datacom and proceeding to Novopay. On balance the advice given and taken was that we should proceed with Novopay. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she take to Cabinet the decision to abandon having the existing and new payroll systems run in parallel as a risk-mitigation contingency measure; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I took—well I do not have absolutely every detail available to me now but I am happy to do that. I did take the paper to Cabinet recommending that we should proceed. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not actually the question that I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is fair. I will invite the member to ask the question again rather than me litigate it. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did she take to Cabinet the decision to abandon having the existing and new payroll systems run in parallel as a risk-mitigation contingency measure; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I took to Cabinet a paper proposing that in the overall balance of consideration we proceed with Novopay. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again that did not actually address the question that I asked. She could basically say that she took a paper to Cabinet recommending any number of things but the question was actually quite specific about what the recommendations she took to Cabinet were or whether she recommended a specific thing to Cabinet. She did not address that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister assist the House by simply answering the question as to whether the paper she took proposed to continue with the standby with Datacom or not. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I do not have the Cabinet paper with me and I do not have that detail but a full ministerial inquiry has been organised that will provide all of that detail. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did Cabinet at any stage rescind the original decision to have the existing and the new payroll systems run in parallel until the new system was adequately operating? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Well evidently that is the case. We have run Novopay. We now have a ministerial inquiry that is going to look at all the detail that the member is seeking and that we are just as interested in having available. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is the Minister confirming for the House that Cabinet rescinded its decision to have the new payroll system and the existing payroll system operating in parallel as a contingency measure until the new system was running effectively? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No I am saying I do not have that specific detail so I cannot confirm that but the ministerial inquiry will be able to do so. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does she now regret signing off the implementation of Novopay given the taxpayer is now having to fork out an extra $5 million to prop up the problems within the system when all of the problems could have been avoided if she had ensured the contingencies that were originally put in place and the development milestones were actually reached before the implementation was approved? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Well I can say we regret inheriting the decision of that previous Labour Government upon which that member advised and I think that we will leave the ministerial inquiry to look into these matters. 
Youth Development Programmes—Young Leaders Auckland Pilot Programme 
12. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Ethnic Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to increase the leadership capabilities in youth of ethnic minorities? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 First off congratulations Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Office of Ethnic Affairs has launched the Young Leaders Auckland Pilot Programme. Along with the Ministry of Youth Development it is running a 9-month training course for 10 young Aucklanders. These young leaders of the future will learn crucial skills such as advocacy public speaking and project management. The participants will enjoy valuable opportunities to learn about how a Government works the value of community volunteering and the importance of professional networking activities. Of course they will also learn to be professional unlike that lot over there. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why is this programme necessary for youth of smaller ethnic communities? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unfortunately the Labour Party considers ethnic minorities something to laugh at but this Government is committed to a productive and harmonious New Zealand where ethnic minorities equally feel that they have the ability and skills to participate. Ill-informed prejudices of a select few may also add additional challenges. It is essential that we equip these young people to become leaders who will not only make a personal contribution to civic economic and social outcomes but also pass on their experience and knowledge to their communities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That brings to an end oral questions. Can I thank members for their patience and assistance in view of the difficulty we had with microphones today. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 12 February. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am proud to be part of a Government that is focused on the real issues affecting New Zealanders and the real progress that we are making as a country under Prime Minister John Key’s leadership. I am sure every member in the House remembers that quote from President Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy stupid.” and so it is for New Zealand in 2013. After reflecting on the Prime Minister’s excellent speech I was interested to see the latest copy—the February copy—of  
The Economist 
. I think we would all accept in this House that it is one of the world’s most respected magazines in terms of challenging us in Government about providing good governance. In that regular magazine is an article on the best-governed countries in the world. It proceeds to list those countries that are top of the class. I felt incredibly proud to be part of a country that is listed as the top of the class in terms of economic management. I want to point out that that report ranked New Zealand ahead of Australia ahead of the UK ahead of Canada and ahead of the United States. For Mr Peters’ benefit New Zealand ranked ahead of Singapore. 
In fact it rates New Zealand as amongst the five top countries in terms of quality of governance and in terms of supporting economic growth. In terms of ease of doing business it ranked New Zealand third-best in the world. I say to the members in this House that if we are genuinely concerned about jobs and about giving New Zealand the opportunities to go forward we should be proud of being a country that is the third-best in the world to be able to set up new businesses because it is only those new businesses that will enable us to create jobs. I think we would all welcome as well the latest employment figures that show not only that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is better than so many developed countries around the world that are struggling but also that those figures have come down. I also say that we should welcome the whole range of initiatives that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement that are going to make a contribution. 
Let me just reflect on my own Nelson constituency and what it means in my own area. Let us look at ultra-fast broadband—4500 additional homes and businesses as a consequence of this Government’s programme will have access to ultra-fast broadband. Only last Saturday in my caravan at the market I met with a young business person a mechanical engineer who currently does not have access to broadband and who is looking forward to that roll-out to create jobs and opportunities in our area. I look further at one of the biggest investments in science and research facilities in my home community. The Cawthron Institute an institute that we are very proud of is embarking this year on the biggest investment in labs and expansion in that organisation’s 90-year history and that is because of the sorts of partnerships the Cawthron Institute has with this Government and its investment in research which is part of that jobs machine. 
I also want to note this month that the King Salmon aquaculture company is due to get a decision on the final result for its new aquaculture farms in Marlborough Sounds. Members opposite have vigorously opposed those new farms. They will provide an extra 130 jobs in the top of the South Island. I say do not give me crocodile tears about unemployment when you oppose initiatives like those from King Salmon that will provide jobs for New Zealanders. I particularly challenge the Green Party which made a submission to the board of inquiry opposing any expansion of aquaculture in my part of the world. I say that that is one of the most job-rich opportunities that exist in the top of the South Island. 
I also want to actually congratulate my colleagues both Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett for what they are doing in education and social welfare. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite may laugh but let me tell them what it means for real people— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh yeah? We’ll deliver some real people and they can tell you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In February—this month Mr Cosgrove—a teen parent unit opened up in my electorate. What do members opposite say about those teenage parents who have for years been ignored by Ministers of education and welfare? Members on this side of the House know that teenage parents and their children are some of the most at-risk groups of New Zealanders and I am proud to be part of a Government that is actually investing in the facilities that will enable those teenage parents and their children to be able to get an education. 
On the subject of jobs I read the scoffing criticism from Labour members of the Prime Minister’s initiative around the new cycleways. Let me say this to members opposite— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yeah that’s right—how many jobs promised? How many delivered? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Phil Goff let me tell you how many. I challenge Mr Goff to do this: come on a bike ride— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just take a breath—just take a breath Mr Goff. I challenge Phil Goff to come with me to Brightwater. Come with me to Brightwater because right opposite the post office that Phil Goff and his Government closed is a new restaurant and caff. I went down the cycleway the weekend before last to check out the new cycleway. You know I had to wait an hour and a half for a coffee because there were more than a hundred people who had done the cycleway. Let me give you another example Mr Goff on the cycleway: a new business has opened up between my electorate and Damien O’Connor’s. A new cycleway barge now operates between Rabbit Island and Mapua. And do you know what my experience was again? I went to catch the ferry—the new cycle ferry the new little business that has started up as a consequence of John Key’s initiative. It is a ferry that will take 50 bikes and I could not get on it because there were that many people who were enjoying it. Damien O’Connor is celebrating its success while his colleague Phil Goff criticises the cycleway initiative. It is a positive initiative and every New Zealander knows it. 
Then let us look at where the Opposition has gone in my area of new responsibility in respect of housing. First of all we got this dream from Mr Shearer last year that Labour is going to build 100000 homes at $300000 each and those members specifically said and put the little brochure out that they were three-bedroom houses. How long did that policy commitment last? How long did it last? It was not a matter of a few days and Mr Shearer was backtracking on that promise. But I have to at least give the Greens credit for saying how their unaffordable housing policies would actually be funded. The Greens said that they are going to rob the National Land Transport Fund to put up the billions of dollars for the new houses. My question for Labour members: 100000 houses $300000 each—and there is not a member of this House who truly believes that can be delivered but even so—where is the $30 billion coming from? Can you please tell us? Are you going to rake the debt up by another $30 billion? Are you going to join the printing press as the Greens have promised? There is absolutely no credibility to that policy until Labour is prepared to say where the 30 billion bucks is coming from. 
We on this side of the House are focused on housing affordability but on the real issues. There was a very substantive report produced by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission was actually an initiative created by this Government and the foundations for improving housing affordability lie in that report’s recommendations around what we need to do with land supply and what we need to do in terms of improving productivity with the sort of work that my colleague Steven Joyce is doing in the area of skills training and apprenticeships. It is the sort of work that we need to do in terms of improving competition and building materials and the sort of work we need to do like Maurice Williamson’s work in the compliance costs. If New Zealanders are concerned about housing affordability the substantive agenda that this Government has set out gives New Zealanders the sort of hope and ambition that we all want and stand for in this Government. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 The member Dr Nick Smith who just resumed his seat said that New Zealanders are concerned about housing affordability. Of course they are Dr Smith because the statistics that came out 2 weeks ago showed that New Zealand has become in the last few years one of the countries with the least affordable housing for low-income people. This Government is at the start of its fifth year in office and this Minister of Housing says that he is now working on some plans to deal with the housing crisis. The housing crisis has been there for 5 years. Young people cannot get into their first home unless they have help from their parents. This Government has sat on the sidelines it has twiddled its thumbs and it has done nothing while house prices have soared rents have gone up and we have a crisis of housing shortage and affordability. 
It is the fifth year of this party in Government and I remember the first year when we had a job summit. The Job Summit turned out to be exactly what I said—a talkfest. And there was the cycleway. John Key said that that was going to produce thousands of jobs. How many did it produce? A couple of hundred—a couple of hundred. I want to talk about the reality of jobs. I opened a new supermarket Countdown in Stoddard Road in Mount Roskill on the day after Waitangi Day. Lovely new supermarket great manager—Mike Uri— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Possible under the RMA changes. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —and 120 jobs—120 jobs. I was really pleased to have 120 new jobs in my electorate. But I said to Mike: “How many people Mike applied for those jobs?”. Mr Joyce do you know what the answer to that question was? 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: No. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It was 2600—2600 people applied for 120 relatively low-paid jobs in my electorate. 
That is the reality of the legacy of stuff-ups in providing jobs and skill training and getting the economy going in this country. I remember John Key saying in 2009: “Next year we’ll move aggressively towards dropping unemployment.” The latest figures last week showed that in the last quarter of last year there was a net loss of 23000 jobs. We had the lowest level of labour force participation Mr Joyce in 10 years. This Government has failed and it has failed in every way. What about the restructuring and the mismanagement of that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Did this Government accept responsibility? No. Murray McCully bravely blamed his head of department. Then there was the Defence Force. There was 22.6 percent attrition last year Mr Joyce in the Navy in Auckland—22.6 percent—and the lowest morale in the Ongoing Attitude Survey since that survey began. 
But I want to talk about another couple of botch-ups. There is the education botch-up. What did I hear John Key say? “Hekia Parata is one of the smoothest communicators in politics.” Well Mr Speaker might have some thoughts about that. Five times today he asked her to answer the question and she never did. If the Prime Minister is going to be sacking incompetent Ministers—that is why apparently he sacked Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson without the respect of even letting them know in advance to show that he was the tough guy—why did he leave Hekia Parata and Craig Foss in their positions? 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Why has your guy not done any reshuffles at all eh? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Surely they are the least competent Ministers not only in the House now but also as long as I can remember. Novopay—yeah you are meant to be the fix-up man Mr Joyce but why did the stuff-up happen in the first place? Why did three Ministers sign off on that programme? Why can she not answer the questions? Why is she closing schools in Christchurch adding to the trauma of people affected by the earthquake? Why did she close the Salisbury School when the court ruled her action illegal? Why did she try to increase class sizes when the Prime Minister said in the  
Listener  
that he sent his kids to private schools because they had lower class sizes and then said to everybody else: “Oh it won’t affect you.”? A total botch-up. A total botch-up in education. It is not good enough. It is not fair on our kids and the future we want to provide for them. 
But I want to touch on another botch-up now and this was first raised in the House by my colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor. It was the botch-up over the handling of the issue of contamination of our dairy products by dicyandiamide. Let us get one thing right at the start: dicyandiamide is not a health or food safety issue. It is not a health or food safety issue but Mr Joyce it is a contamination issue and it is an issue about reputation and about branding. We go out into the world as I did for years as Minister of Trade proudly promoting this country as “100% Pure New Zealand” and this issue comes along. For 4 long months after Fonterra realised it was a problem nothing happened. Nothing was said by this Government until the contamination was released to the public by a media article in the  
Wall Street Journal 
. I feel sorry for our ambassador in Beijing Carl Worker—a competent diplomat. And what did Mr Worker have to say? He was clearly left out of the loop. Four months after this Government knew about the problem he was forced to go out and say that it was “regrettable” that New Zealand did not forewarn Chinese authorities which led to he said “confusion and unnecessary doubt”. 
I remember when we had the melamine crisis and the San Lu company and I tell you our Cabinet came together within 24 hours in an emergency meeting and had informed the Chinese authorities within that time frame. We headed off a disaster we headed off a crisis because it was “New Zealand Inc.” It was Ministers working together talking to each other. I want to know when the Minister for Primary Industries told the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and then I want to know why none of them said anything publicly until they were forced to because it was revealed publicly. In fact Clayton Cosgrove was responding to things the Minister should have been responding to 5 days before the Minister would even make a comment. I say this: why did the Chinese Government and the Chinese public learn about the problem only through an article in the  
Wall Street Journal 
 that described the contamination as “toxic”? It was not toxic but the perception was left that it must have been because New Zealand had tried to cover it over. 
Why were we not open and transparent? Why were we not proactive about this problem so we could head it off and stop any damage? China is our biggest market. I fought hard to get a free-trade agreement with it. We have trebled our exports to that country and I do not want to see this proud legacy of a Labour Government trampled upon by an incompetent National Government that cannot handle these issues right. China Central Television has an audience of millions—hundreds of millions. They were running this and headlining this as a scandal. A weibo which is China’s Twitter ran thousands of postings from people expressing concern. It ran a survey where over half of the respondents said that they did not trust and they were not sure about the quality or safety of New Zealand dairy products. That should never have happened. It did not need to happen and a competent Government would have prevented it from happening. 
Let us look at what Biopure Health said. It is one of the Kiwi exporters. It said that it was a public relations disaster for this Government—a public relations disaster. That is a front-line company. It said that its products which had been doubling in value and sales every week went to zero—went to zero. There is another company New Image which is a baby formula exporter. It said that the industry was in damage control and it blamed the Government for the lack of warning. I want to say this: I hope that this problem can now be contained. It is in all of our interests as New Zealanders that it is. But surely the Prime Minister John Key and this incompetent National Government need to learn the lessons from it. Be proactive have a strategy be open and transparent head it off and protect New Zealand’s interests—those are the responsibilities of a Government and this National Government failed in those responsibilities. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I think once again we are seeing a demonstration that there is nothing that Labour will not stoop to to talk down the New Zealand economy for its own political gains. Actually it is sort of ironic that the member Phil Goff referred to his role in the China free-trade agreement in which of course he had a role and yet he sits on the same side of the House as a member who late last year was criticising the Chinese company Haier for purchasing Fisher and Paykel Appliances and saying that that was not necessarily a good thing for New Zealand. So this Opposition needs to sort out its lines in terms of the role of trade in New Zealand’s future the role of our relationships with our trading partners and our role with our second-largest trading partner. But of course consistency is not the Opposition’s strong point. 
The other thing we heard in that speech was an approach that once again seeks to ignore the world in considering New Zealand’s economic progress. I am proud to be part of a Government that has worked so hard over the last 4 years to give this country a much better outcome from the global financial crisis than most other countries in the OECD as well as dealing with the second shock—which the other countries did not have to deal with—which was the Canterbury earthquakes in our second-largest city. The other side keeps trying to pretend that those twin shocks to New Zealand did not occur and of course they did. 
So we come to the start of 2013 and the state of play for New Zealand in the Prime Minister’s address at the start of Parliament. There is a huge range of things that this Government is working on to encourage the growth of the New Zealand economy and we are seeing some very good progress for New Zealand. The cost of living in New Zealand is low savings rates are up and yes we are making good economic progress. And as was pointed out by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith  
The Economist 
 has highlighted the well way in which this country is being economically managed. 
There is a very clear contrast between both sides of the House. On this side of the House we understand that for more jobs and more growth you have to have more investment from the private sector. So we are out there working constantly to create those opportunities for New Zealanders by trying to remove the impact of things that get in the way of that investment and looking at things like our export markets. Again it is ironic that Phil Goff was up talking about trade when Labour’s coalition partners the Greens are opposed to probably the biggest trade agreement that New Zealand could see in the next 10 years—the trans-Pacific trade partnership. 
We also have Labour’s other putative coalition partner not doing us proud on the international stage in terms of our relationships with our trading partners but doing things like criticising high-value Chinese tourists coming to this country and having the opportunity to tour here like other countries and saying that that is something that should not occur. 
So what you have is all these Opposition parties that talk a good game around growth but fundamentally they are opposed to pretty much most things that would deliver that growth in New Zealand. I have made a helpful list. Of course Opposition parties opposed the law changes for  
The Hobbit 
—and they still oppose them even today. I am thrilled that they spend their time opposing those law changes because they keep reminding New Zealanders that they opposed a law change to help an industry grow in this country. 
And then they opposed the Resource Management Act changes—the ones that we have had and the ones that we are proposing. They do not even know what we are proposing yet but we can guarantee that they are opposed to it. They are opposed to plans to build the Auckland convention centre. They have put every single roadblock in the way of that that they possibly could. They are opposed to oil and gas exploration on the East Coast. Their energy and resources spokesperson said that gas was not going anywhere so we should just leave it there. Well tell that to the people of the East Coast who would like the jobs. And of course they have been opposed and at best in the case of Labour lukewarm to hydraulic fracturing. 
I mentioned they are opposed to the investment of Haier in Fisher and Paykel Appliances. They are opposed to speeding up Bathurst Resources Ltd’s resource consents at Denniston. They are opposed to Chinese investment in New Zealand generally particularly if they have had a focus group recently. They are opposed to tax changes to encourage productive investment. They are opposed to irrigation. The Greens are absolutely opposed to irrigation; Labour is sort of having a bob each way. They are opposed to lessening the emissions trading scheme costs on trade-exposed business. 
All those things encourage investment in jobs and growth in this country. So as the Prime Minister said at the start of this year this Government is focused on making New Zealand a magnet for investment for jobs and growth. And what are the Labour Party and the Green Party doing? They are busy trying out some new slogans. They have a couple of new slogans that they are running at the moment. The interesting one for them is one they have obviously been looking at online in a few of the speeches from the UK. This one is so-called hands-on Government. That is the sort of thing they are focus-grouping at the moment—hands-on Government. Well let me tell you this. Hands-on Government the slogan of the Labour Party means only one thing—hands on your pockets. It means hands on your money. That is what hands-on means. They are against every form of private sector investment. They want to reach further into the nation’s pockets and spend more money because they know how to do it better. That is Labour’s approach to growth and what that means is growth in New Zealand’s overdraft and growth in New Zealand’s deficit. 
Labour members have a programme called “Kiwi Broke”. It is a building scheme. It is a code for big-borrowing and big-spending Government. So they have made up a rinky-dinky taxpayer-funded scheme which just like all their other taxpayer-funded schemes will cost only a little bit—only a little bit. It will actually cost five to 10 times what they say and deliver one-tenth of the results. We had that. We threw that out in 2008 because these people know only how to stick their hands in your pockets. That is what they mean by hands-on Government—hands on your wallet. 
That is the Labour Party’s approach in 2013—or at least we think it is because the only thing we have heard from it this year was its pro tem leader backtracking on its policy. He got up and did his state of the nation speech at the start of the year and said: “Oh by the way it will probably cost 550 maybe 450 grand a house not really 300. Maybe 550.” and you are sitting there thinking: “That’s all he’s got to offer—that he has to back down on a policy he announced prior to Christmas.” And of course not surprisingly he has got a little maths problem of his own now because he started the year apparently—there are rumours—with 10 abstentions in his caucus vote it was reported. 
Todd McClay 
: Who were they? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We do not know who they are yet although we could probably do a quick sweepstake. So the guy was the only one standing for the leadership of the Labour Party and he got nailed by 10 of his own side who refused to vote for him. That is what happened at the caucus vote and the reason is that he has not said a thing this year except that the “Kiwi Broke” policy is already broke and that is his problem. 
So on one side of the House you have a crowd that believes the solution is to dig further and deeper into people’s pockets recycle the money and look like they are doing something. On the other side of the House there is a Government that is absolutely focused on encouraging investment in productive industries in this country—and we are not confusing that with job subsidies which is the Greens’ approach. Their definition of investment is that if the Government does it it must be good. I am telling the Greens that the reality is that if you look around and you are doing something and there is nobody else there it is not an investment; it a job subsidy scheme. The Greens sit very nicely with the Labour Party because that is what it wants to do. It wants to get its hands in your pocket. We are very focused on making New Zealand a more attractive place for investment for higher-paying jobs and for higher growth in 2013. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and to follow the Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce. What a wonderful outlook the Minister has shown New Zealanders is in store for them over this coming year. Before I get into some of the detail of what a hard-working Government we are I say to Minister Joyce that we almost do not have to say that any more. After 4 years and another election New Zealanders have recognised that they have a hard-working Government. They told all of us a year ago they wanted a hard-working Government—[ 
Interruption 
]—and guess what members opposite? They voted for a hard-working Government. 
Mr Speaker I want to wish you the very best as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year and say I look forward to working with you. But I also want to pay a particular compliment to the former Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and to thank him for his many many years of service to this House and to New Zealand and New Zealanders. I look forward very much to hearing from him later on this afternoon. What a sad occasion it will be for members opposite that Dr Smith is making his last speech and leaving the House. No longer will they feel that they should take points of order in question time asking him to protect them. I am grateful that he offered them little protection in his time as Speaker. 
What I want to do is touch on two things that I think are very important. The first is an excellent announcement today by the Minister of Police the Hon Anne Tolley around supporting police more and giving our police force the tools to get on and do what New Zealanders want them to do and that is to police. That is a fantastic announcement. But firstly to set the scene what has happened over the last 4 years that we have been the Government? Before we took office I remember standing on the campaign trail in the Rotorua electorate. At the time that seat was held by a former Labour member of Parliament who is no longer in this Parliament. We were talking about crime and every statistic that came out showed New Zealanders that the last Labour Government lost track of what it should be doing and that crime statistics were getting worse. We heard all the reasons for this: it was difficult and you know it was the police’s fault and everything else. 
What I can say is that this Government has backed the police force and given it the tools. In the fiscal year of 2010 we saw a 7 percent decrease in reported crime throughout New Zealand—7 percent decrease throughout the whole of New Zealand. After everything Labour said to us previously when in Government—that it was on top of it and it had a lot to do with the moon and the stars and the weather and so on. But was that a one-off? In the 2011-12 fiscal year there was a 5.9 percent drop in reported crime throughout New Zealand. Is that important? Well this is about New Zealanders being safer in their homes and in their streets. It is about the police being able to get out and do what it is we want them to do to police effectively giving them the tools and making sure they know the Government fully supports them in their job and for them to be arresting those who choose to break the law and holding them to account on behalf of all law-abiding New Zealanders. 
This reduction in crime is a wonderful thing. I want to look at my electorate for a moment. In 2011 there was a 3.4 percent decrease in crime. You have to go back a long way before we came to Government to find any other decrease in crime in the Rotorua electorate. In 2010 there was a 5 percent decrease in crime. That is about 9 percent accumulatively over those 2 years. And impressively there have been drops in burglaries illicit drugs weapon offences robberies and extortion. Robberies and extortion are down by about 11.5 percent in that period of time. Burglary is down 10.7 percent and drug offences are down 8.4 percent. That means that all over New Zealand thousands of law-abiding citizens have not become victims of crime because of the work the police are doing. That is thousands of people in New Zealand who are able to get on with their jobs and not worry about what those who decide to commit crimes are doing in their homes or in their streets. This has happened in part because of the great support that the Government and our Minister have given the police but also because of the wonderful job our policemen and policewomen do every single day on our behalf. They do a fantastic job under extremely difficult circumstances. 
Last year the Bay of Plenty police force’s combined drug campaign resulted in 178 arrests 27000 cannabis plants destroyed and many methamphetamine dealers and traders arrested. Police confiscated—this is frightening—26 firearms that were held illegally and could have been used to commit offences. That means that in the Bay of Plenty we are safer because of the job this Government has done—it has given the police the tools they need—and because of the hard work the police do on our behalf every day. I know that my constituents realise this and like this and support our police force and they want us as a Government to hold criminals to account. In October last year I was given the honour to come and speak at the inaugural meeting of the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s branch in Rotorua. It was a large room and it was full to overflowing with people who have had enough; who said that they support what the Government is doing they support our police force and they believe that those who commit crimes must be held to account. Peter Bentley who heads that up in Rotorua is doing quite an amazing job. 
So the announcement today—what is this about? See the Government has got a plan to allow the police and to allow other civil servants to get on and do the job that we want them to do not to bind them or hold them back with unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. What I want to say is that the work that the Minister Anne Tolley has done over the last year since she became Minister of Police is fantastic and is paying dividends today. One of our priorities this term is to deliver Better Public Services and her announcement today was that there will be 6500 front-line police officers—and you have got to remember that over the last 3 years we have delivered 1000 more policemen to the front line which was an election pledge on our behalf and different from what the last Government said it would do. It said it would have more policemen and actually could not deliver on that. Well we did. We delivered more policemen and policewomen on the front line. 
For 6500 of them the announcement today said that they will receive smartphones by mid-2014 and 3900 staff will receive tablets. And the reason this is important is that it will free up half a million hours of police time for them to do their job on the front line—half a million hours of extra time when our police can be out in our communities in our streets finding those who commit crimes against some of the most vulnerable people in our society and holding them to account. This is wonderful. In the Bay of Plenty that is 41526 hours that will be saved in that district each year—41000. So what you will hear at the next election is a Labour Opposition complaining whining and running up and down the country trying to scare hard-working law-abiding New Zealanders that this Government has not got a commitment to the police force. But not only did we increase the number of policemen on the front line; we have been able to free up half a million hours for them to do their jobs. 
Do you remember those stories in the newspaper where mums and dads were saying they called a policeman but could not get through to him because he was stuck in the back office doing paperwork? Well this is half a million hours out on our streets in my electorate and other electorates. In the Bay of Plenty we are giving our policemen 41000 extra hours. Is that important? Well when I get the chance to go and talk to them and thank them for the job that they are doing on our behalf in Kawerau in Rotorua in Murupara and in other parts of my electorate they tell me that what they enjoy doing most is being out in the community making sure people are safe and arresting criminals. This Government has given them yet another tool to get out and to do that. 
I want to say again to the Minister and our Prime Minister thank you on behalf of our police force for deciding that we will support it come thick or thin. Is that not such a change from what happened over 9 years of a Labour Government when the police felt unwanted and unused and were put in a back office to do their work? Law and order is a great priority for this Government. It is something that you will hear much more about but I give you a pledge on behalf of myself as a local MP and on behalf of the Government that we will continue to do everything possible to make New Zealanders safer and we will do everything possible to support our police force. 
I look forward next week to the Law and Order Committee coming forward and perhaps sending back to this House a very important piece of legislation another great tool for our police and another great way for us to make New Zealanders safer. I see members opposite nodding. They want to support this very important bill to ban the wearing of gang insignia in all Government buildings throughout New Zealand. This will get on top of gangs which do nothing but intimidate commit crime harm vulnerable New Zealanders and sell drugs to our children. In the words of a member of the New Zealand First Party we do not fear them. We want to give the police tools to make sure that they know what they are doing and they can get amongst them disrupt them arrest them and where absolutely necessary send them to jail. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou huri noa nga mema o te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to you collectively members throughout the House. 
] 
I am very pleased to make the final contribution from the Labour Party in opposition to the Prime Minister’s statement. It has been just over 2 weeks since the Prime Minister stood before this House and the nation and so sneeringly told us what a great start to the year it has been. He delivered the speech in that John Key jokey manner which really just screams insincerity. For 4 years we have had carefully crafted excuses as to why this country of ours is getting nowhere and why we cannot get ahead. It is the fault of the global financial crisis it is the fault of the Canterbury earthquakes or it is the fault of the illuminati or some other fanciful excuse. It is the fault of everyone but the National Government. 
Could it be that this country is getting nowhere because we have a Government that refuses to take direction and show some leadership? It is hands-off. It is rich of Mr Joyce to talk about focus groups when we know that he had a whole book written about him as one of  
The Hollow Men 
 in terms of focus groups Crosby/Textor and strategic communication consultants—all of those sorts of carryings-on that we know underpin this very poor National Government. 
I want to focus on three things that are dear to me: kids poverty and health. Last year there came out damning statistics on child poverty. They were really sorry reading. The statistics showed that too many kids live in unhealthy homes. They are going to school tired and hungry and have zero chance of learning under that sort of regime. 
 Although we all know it is wrong to identify schools by their decile rating the fact of the matter is that it is the decile 1 2 and 3 schools that have the breakfast clubs not the decile 10 schools. You see in the Prime Minister’s perfect world everyone is as rich as he is or they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and reach for the stars. It is the same with this National caucus. But they would not know Struggle Street. They do not know about Struggle Street. 
Here is a scary thought: if you are Maori or Polynesian and living in this country you definitely are on a road to nowhere or you are flocking to the departure lounge and heading like 350000 other Kiwis over to Australia. But do not blame Labour for it blame the National Government. It is the one with the Ministers who fail to understand the clients it serves. We already know the two casualties. Kate Wilkinson is gone. Phil Heatley was no good as a housing Minister and he is gone although he did mention in a select committee today that he is down but not out and good luck to him. 
Now when we look at the state of the housing market we see it has blown out. We know that there is another property bubble that is getting bigger and bigger in this country. The Government has made it too expensive to build the Kiwi dream because the parameters on the Reserve Bank are too narrow. Inflation targeting is not working in the context that we are in now. The world is awash with debt. Countries around the world are debasing their currencies and it is just putting more pressure on our currency and crippling our manufacturing sector and our export base. So there are many many things that are suffering right across our economy. 
I turn to Christchurch. There is not enough housing stock in Christchurch. There is a crisis down there. The ones that have been shafted by the Government and the greedy landlords of Christchurch are the same old Maori and Polynesian whanau who have limited resources and even less money and/or jobs. Rents have gone up in that city and it has forced whanau into seriously overcrowded situations which has led to poor health. 
Children from these environments are going to school every day tired sick and hungry and so are unable to learn anything—that is if they are going to school at all. Nowadays we have the real problem of kids not going to school because they cannot afford basic tools for learning—basic things like stationery. Kids are not going to school because mum and dad cannot afford just basic things. 
That is the type of New Zealand that this Government has created. It is a New Zealand where kids live in substandard housing and poverty where kids go to school if they are lucky on a packet of 2-minute noodles—and that is if they have eaten at all. It has created an environment where if your child gets a strep throat it leads to some serious diseases. It is tough being a little kid in this country especially so when you are broke. But New Zealand is not a poor country. We are a rich country but we have a problem with how wealth is spread. 
This Government is too concerned with accumulating wealth at the top end of society while leaving just little crumbs for everyone below. It is a “me” approach to governing a winner-takes-all approach to society and it is wrong. That is why the Anglican Church’s Family Centre has calculated that we need a living wage and that $18 to $20 an hour is what is necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. Under this Government 750000 people earn less than or about that amount—that is the number of working poor in this country has ballooned. Even beginner teachers who most would say are skilled workers earn less than that amount. Not only is this a Government of low expectation but it is a Government of low wages. 
I want to turn now to training and education because we have spoken a lot about and heard a lot about that in this debate. You know 90000 rangatahi across the country are not in employment education or training. Those are horrific numbers. We have figures that show that the unemployment rate for Maori and Pacific is three times higher than it is for Pakeha. What do we hear out of the Prime Minister? As we heard in his statement to the House this is the Government that actually trains people as opposed to spending money and getting absolutely no result—and this is the rub; it is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. One word: Novopay. 
If anyone needs a better example of a Government wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and getting no results it is “no-pay Novopay”. We have heard that it is costing the Government over $5 million and then it has got commissions of inquiry as well trying to rectify the mess. It is an absolute mess. “Novopay” has become the new word in the Kiwi lexicon for a total and complete balls-up. Minister Parata is right at the top of it. She signed it off. And she is definitely not the smooth communicator because she is umming and ahing—she really is in the hot seat—and getting grilled by my colleague there Mr Hipkins and long may it continue. 
Last week we had the terrible news about the Mainzeal Property and Construction receivership. If the Government is talking up how great our economy is I say that Mainzeal’s demise is a huge blow to the whole construction industry and also to the many hundreds of thousands of workers and subcontractors who were all supported by that enterprise. The Government is screaming for apprenticeships and skilled workers—or so we think—for Christchurch. When young men who want to be trained as brickies or chippies go to a Mainzeal site see that that site is closed down and see contractors who are not even able to go in there and get their tools those young men will think twice about taking up a career in the construction industry. So we are not actually attracting new apprenticeships. 
What does the Government want to do? It wants to fly in cheap labour from overseas. But the biggest scandal of all for this Government is the record high unemployment 7.3 percent. As I said before the unemployment rate for Maori and Pacific is three times that for Pakeha. That is the highest rate since the last National Government in the 1990s. Again it blames the global financial crisis soft demand overseas and the Labour Government. But the Labour Government left the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and low public debt. The blame lies squarely at the feet of this National Government. 
I am proud of the new initiatives that Labour has announced. With our KiwiBuild policy we will get more low to middle income earners into affordable housing and increase the supply. If anyone talks about numbers about what $300000 will get you I just say haere mai ki Te Wai Pounamu come to the South Island. In Blenheim you will get a three-bedroom home for $249000 four bedrooms in Dunedin for $270000 and in Lumsden you can get a three or four-bedroom home for $69000 to $159000. If you want to be real landed gentry you can go to Lumsden and get 4.6 hectares of land for—wait for it—$165000 and the $135000 that you have left over will probably get you a home and a rental property. There are many opportunities for affordable housing and we are looking right across the country and not with an Auckland-centric view of the world. I am very proud that across the Maori electorate there are many opportunities for that housing development that KiwiBuild policy to take place. 
We do oppose this Government. We oppose everything that it is about. It is right; we are left. It is blue; we are red. It is ugly and we are the attractive opposite. We are ready to take this Government down come 2014 because the people out there definitely want a change. Kia ora ano tatou. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker can I advise the remaining speakers in this debate and request to them actually that they do not switch the hand-held microphones on or off—on or off—because the sound operators out there will control the sound for you. So there is no need to switch it on or off. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 So we will test to see if this is going because it does not sound like it from here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think we will just get the sound operators—move closer up. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Have we got some sound yet? 
Chris Hipkins 
: No. They are signalling to switch it on I think. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think he is signalling to switch it on yes. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: OK. So it is on now? Thank you Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So just leave it that way everybody. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Obviously it has been an interesting afternoon in the House with some challenges with our sound system. I know our technicians are working incredibly hard to sort the situation out for us. 
I do want to just say before I start my contribution in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement that I want to wish the Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith farewell this afternoon and thank him for his service in the House and for his 4 years as the Speaker and to wish the incoming Speaker the Rt Hon David Carter all the best. He did an incredible job today despite the sound system being off so I think we have got some great things ahead of us. 
Speaking of great things ahead of us I am really proud to be a Kiwi and I think we have got great opportunities in front of us. I think the last contribution from Rino Tirikatene a Labour speaker opposite says it all. It was there in black and white categoric—those members will oppose anything that National puts up. Well actually I think that is kind of stupid and lots of New Zealanders out there also agree because at the end of the day if it is a good idea and if it is going to solve some of the challenges that ordinary hard-working New Zealanders are facing then I actually think the Labour Party should look at it. It should start thinking about using the word “yes” from time to time instead of just black and white saying no to everything this side of the House suggests. At the end of the day it is saying no to economic growth it is saying no to jobs and it is saying no to food on the tables of the kids that it purports to protect on a daily basis. That is why I think that it is just absolutely ridiculous for a member opposite to make that kind of statement in this House. 
If we come to this Parliament representing a constituency with the intention of making a better New Zealand we might have different pathways but each and every one of us should hold dear to that commitment that we serve in this place to make New Zealand a better country. That is definitely why I came to this place and why I am proud to be a member of the National Party Government led so ably by Prime Minister John Key. This is about making sure that the opportunities that New Zealand has—each and every one of us being able to make the most of them. Yes we have faced some challenges as a country. I think the member who just resumed his seat must have had his head buried in the sand not to take into consideration any of the sorts of challenges this Government has faced both financial and natural disasters that have led to some of the most difficult and challenging economic circumstances ever faced. I would invite that member to get his head out of the sand and actually start looking at the circumstances this country has faced over the 4 years and the work that this Government is doing and continues to do with a robust economic plan that has been detailed in now five out of six documents in terms of our Business Growth Agenda. 
I sat next to a gentleman on a plane just last week and we had a conversation about debt. The conversation was around why is it that the Prime Minister’s opening conversation in any speech is about the economy. The reality is that it has to be—it has to be right now. He asked me why is it that we are so determined to get our books back and balanced. I thought well it is no different—it is no different—to what you do at home. It is no different to what businesses do. It is no different for us as a Government to have to make sure that we get on top of our debt and we start paying it down. This side of the House actually has a very robust plan for making that happen. That side of the House unfortunately just wants to go out and print more money and rack up more debt for generations to come. So it was an interesting conversation I had with this gentleman on the plane in terms of very plainly and very simply why the economy is the No. 1 priority for this Government. 
It was really interesting being at the Business New Zealand Back to the Grindstone meeting last night. You could have heard a pin drop. Despite there being hundreds of people in the town hall—it was really interesting—you could not hear a pin drop when the Prime Minister spoke because the people in that room—and they were not just business people; they were scientists they were trade unionists they were all sorts of people from all sorts of organisations—were listening very carefully to the Prime Minister because they know that this Government has a plan which we are following. It was really interesting to see how on board that whole room was in following the direction under challenging circumstances and difficult times that the Prime Minister is leading. 
One of the things that I did want to just speak about is the issue of investment. Again it came up in the conversation last night at the Business New Zealand event. In terms of creating jobs it is businesses—businesses employ people. It is not up to the Government to create jobs. The Government’s job is to create the environment that allows businesses the confidence to grow and to take on new staff. One of the things that really holds businesses back and one of the things I have been talking to many of the businesses in the Taupo electorate about is the challenge of getting capital. That is why this Government has put a significant priority on making it easier for businesses to get capital. 
One of the things that again that side of the House is very loud and proud about saying no to is foreign investment. There are some significant projects in the Taupo electorate that would not happen if there was not foreign investment. There are jobs that have been created in the Taupo electorate that would not have happened if it was not for foreign investment. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite do not seem to listen. The foreign investment in businesses in Taupo has created jobs. So that is why it is really important that we provide the right environment for foreign investment to come into this country and that we make it easier for those investors to choose New Zealand as a place where they would want to invest. The reality is that they have got lots of other places they can choose— 
Dr David Clark 
: And they are. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: —and we want to encourage them to choose New Zealand. Well if the naysayers on that side say no more often than not then definitely they will stay away. This Government is a Government that is interested in supporting businesses to create jobs. 
The other thing I want to speak about is the power of our people. The thing that is always really important to me and that is incredibly important to this side of the House is boosting skills and it starts in early childhood education. We heard it today in question time. Where is the focus for lifting achievement? The focus on lifting achievement first and foremost is making sure that we have a larger percentage of our young children attending early childhood education—98 percent is the target. One of the things that I have been doing as a local MP is having conversations with my community and saying: “Well how do we make sure that we achieve that 98 percent in the Taupo electorate? Whether it is in Turangi whether it is in Tokoroa or whether it is in Mangakino how do we make that happen?” because it is important. Everywhere I go people know the importance of education so we have got to focus on the barriers. 
It was quite interesting to sit in a select committee and be part of hearing submissions about concerns that submitters have about partnership schools. One of the submitters talked about the fact that choice in education has caused inequality. So my question was then: “Well which schools would you close? If you don’t think that choice in education and schools is good for student achievement which ones would you suggest you close?”. Of course there was no answer to that because at the end of the day education is the thing that is important. Actually this side of the House is quite comfortable with the fact that parents should be able to make choices about where their children go to school and if their children are not achieving to be able to support them more with better information and better data. We want to invest in teachers and principals to ensure that the quality of teaching is also increasing because I for one am very clear that education is the one thing that creates equality of opportunity and that is why it is so critical for this side of the House. 
We are setting targets for National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. There were a few people who said when we started setting targets that that was challenging. Well we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are actually setting targets and focusing the Public Service on achieving what is important for New Zealanders. 
It has been my privilege to speak in this debate. The Government has a very robust and very detailed plan about how we are addressing the challenges in the economy about which members on that side of the House want to keep their heads in the sand. We have fantastic opportunities as a country. It is really the opportunity for New Zealanders to seize those opportunities and make the most of them. The Government on this side of the House is supporting them each and every step of the way under the very strong and decisive leadership of Prime Minister John Key. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable Minister Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In making that decision seeing as this is a time-allocated and time-limited debate I hope you are relying on official advice and not an unofficial slip from the National Party whips’ office which got the calculations wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I can advise the House that I have in place here the names of the people due to speak and I have got the Hon Gerry Brownlee here. That is what I have got. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I—it is sort of like the reverse of the normal thing that happens. Can I ask you the source of that document? If it is a National Party whips’ document of course you cannot rely on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In that case I actually do have the Government whips’ office here. I will have to check with the Clerk as to what the actual situation is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I say as you are checking Mr Speaker that that is an outrage—the idea that the Speaker is briefed by the whips— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. [ 
Interruption 
] No the Speaker is not briefed by the whips. I have in front of me the speaking list. That is what I have in front of me. That is all I have in front of me. I rely on the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But the speaking list cannot come from the Government whips—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I —[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. I am going to check with the Clerk’s Office what the actual situation is regarding time. What I have been advised is that this is left to the whips. It is allocated proportionately. I guess really what it means is that I am in the whips’ hands when it comes to this particular debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. I am going for the call Mr Assistant Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I will listen to the point of order from Louise Upston. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a convention and agreement with the whips on these sorts of debates about the number of speaking slots allocated. That has been done well in advance and it has been very clear about the number of National calls Labour calls and other political parties’ calls in the House. I suggest that that speaker is just stalling in the House to take up the honourable member’s time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Sorry I will have to check. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I hope that I am on air. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A former member of the Minetti Brothers. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is true Mr Cosgrove and what a great combination that was. In fact holding the microphone here if I could rely on the non-dulcet tones of the Opposition to become somewhat “dulceted”—to become almost like a backing band—I may have given the House a little bit of Sinatra in retrospect or even some of the great Tony Bennett standards which I know somebody would enjoy. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just say to the member that he has our commitment to silence if he wishes to do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a frivolous interjection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the point is it not? That is what has marked the last few minutes of Labour’s contribution in this debate: frivolous interjection. What we had for a start was the rejected candidate from the Speaker’s election having to show one of the more authoritative members of the House who is currently in the Chair that he might have known just a little bit more than him and I think that is a bit of a shame. Had the member in the Chair at the moment been a nominee that may have caused the House a great deal more stress than was the case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is outrageous that the Leader of the House reflects on you in this way. He is not allowed to bring you into debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I have taken no offence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a matter of whether you take offence or not; it is a question of whether you have been drawn into the debate. You were just drawn into the debate. It is OK to do it by way of point of order but the Leader of the House knows that he may not refer to you in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard. He is absolutely correct and I ask Mr Brownlee to continue. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He is also incredibly knowledgeable and what a great loss he is to the House’s procedural arrangements. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s just a matter of timing—20 years you know 20 years. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it is a matter of timing and good luck to him. 
I rise to back the Prime Minister’s statement and the intention that the Prime Minister outlined for the House just a couple of days ago. The Government he said plans “returning to surplus and reducing debt; pushing ahead with a wide-ranging programme of reforms to create a more productive and competitive economy; driving better results and better value for money from public services; and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch.” There are so many ways in which the Government is getting its attention focused on achieving exactly those things. In the weeks to come as we go towards the Budget it will become clearer that those goals are being very steadily marched toward. And it is all for the betterment of New Zealanders because the only point in having a Parliament and then a Government from that Parliament is to do things that make life better for New Zealanders. 
So I want to speak about two areas that I have involvement in. One of those is in the transport area as Minister of Transport. I want to report to the House that in pursuit of better public services and in pursuit of increasing our opportunities as a nation to trade the Ministry of Transport alongside the New Zealand Transport Agency has been particularly active. In the last 2 years we have completed more air services agreements with other nations than has been done at any other single period during our history. What that means is that our exporters have a range of opportunities to get in-time product into markets and we also have very considerable flow and opportunity for tourists to visit New Zealand. Tourism is an export industry. It provides domestic jobs but the dollars that tourists bring with them are effectively export dollars. It is a very very worthwhile thing to pursue those agreements and I congratulate my department on the work that it has been able to achieve in that regard. When it comes to our infrastructure programme the headline piece is the roads of national significance known as the RoNS. That programme for seven roads of national significance is well in control. I want to report that that is moving apace. 
I have just noted Mr Assistant Speaker that you have given me 2 minutes to conclude my speech. It should have been longer but you were unfortunately distracted by the Hon Trevor Mallard who has achieved his goal of in fact truncating the opportunity that I have to speak in front of the House. That is a little bit disappointing. 
The other big commitment the Government makes is to Christchurch. I have specific responsibilities there and on Friday of this week I will be outlining some of that progress for people to see how much that city has helped itself with the Government standing alongside it to achieve much higher levels of recovery than would normally be the case or would be paralleled anywhere else in the world. 
The Government rejects the amendments to the motion moved by Brendan Horan and the chap from New Zealand First Andrew Williams. It is interesting that in Opposition it is a party like New Zealand First that actually does have a position that can provide some reasonable opposition. With those comments I want to give my commitment to continue to work hard to ensure that the Key-led Government does deliver better results for New Zealanders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the amendment in the name of Brendan Horan be agreed to. 
The question was put  
To delete all words after “Government” and to substitute “providing that Government delivers an unequivocal commitment to New Zealand’s children and to ensuring they can grow up to be great New Zealanders and requires the John Key - led administration to present such a commitment to the House.” 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the amendment in the name of Andrew Williams— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I had already given—I had ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No you had given the ruling but then the next thing is “Party vote called for.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I said “The Noes have it” and I had already made the decision. The question now is that the amendment in the name of Andrew Williams be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
To delete all words after “Government” and to substitute “only if the Government refrains from selling State-owned assets and addresses unemployment and the overvalued New Zealand dollar.” 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that the motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2013 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 February. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Nicky Wagner. Nicky you do not need to touch the microphone; just leave it as it is. Sorry no do not turn it on or off; just put it straight up and it will work. Thank you Nicky. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker. Can you hear me? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You just need to keep talking and they will put it on but do not play with the microphone. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Hold it up to your mouth and just keep talking. Those are the instructions we have been given by the technician. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: I am pleased to be supporting this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill at its second reading. Back in May 2010 the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act was passed. The bill that we are looking at today will extend the governance arrangements under that Act and retain Government-appointed commissioners instead of elected members in the Canterbury Regional Council until the election of 2016. There are also special provisions in the bill that will require a ministerial review in 2014 of Environment Canterbury’s governance structure its membership its powers and its functions. 
At a previous debate on this bill the Hon Annette King had been talking loud and long about how bad this bill will be for Cantabrians but as someone who lives in Canterbury I know that she is wrong. The majority of Cantabrians see this as a sensible way forward during a very difficult time in our province. To understand why they feel like this let us look at the history. Let us look at the history. 
In 2010 following an extended period of poor performance the Government replaced Environment Canterbury councillors with commissioners. How did central government know that Environment Canterbury was performing badly? Firstly it came from other elected representatives in the province. They told us. The mayors across Canterbury came to central government and asked for intervention so that they could better manage the regional council issues. So we set up an independent review and that independent review found that Environment Canterbury granted consents without any proper framework and that it allowed new water to be taken for catchments that were overallocated. 
At the same time the 2007-08 Resource Management Act survey came out and that stated that Environment Canterbury had failed to process more than two-thirds of the resource consent applications within the statutory time frame and that actually Environment Canterbury’s performance was the worst out of 84 councils in New Zealand. The review group also stated that the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury “requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to … enhance both regional and national well-being.” 
So seven commissioners were appointed with Dame Margaret Bazley as the chair and I have to say they have been highly successful and very effective in addressing Environment Canterbury’s systemic problems and reforming the quality of decision making and conduct. More important their work has been totally transparent with public reporting to the people of Canterbury every 3 months. During their time they have managed the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan through to an operative stage and they have started working on a second-generation land and water plan—things that had been hanging around Environment Canterbury for a very long time. 
They have also made significant progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That was a strategy that came out of discussions across the province. It is a very democratic way and it is a really very collaborative process. Through that process they have developed zone implementation plans and are now working their way into a statutory plan by way of planned change processes. The latest survey results on the Resource Management Act show that they have dramatically improved compliance with statutory consent time lines under the Resource Management Act. Ninety-two percent of resource consents were processed within the statutory time frames in 2010-11 compared with 29 percent in 2007-08. 
They have also significantly improved relationships with territorial authorities with iwi and with other stakeholders and through collaboration they have come up with a joint working programme with Ngai Tahu. Finally and very important in our province they have established a strong partnership with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to facilitate earthquake recovery. So all in all it has been a very successful body and has delivered good results for the environment and for Canterbury. 
It is really appropriate that central government assists councils when a failure has happened. Not acting can bring serious consequences for the future of Canterbury. The commissioners have done an excellent job and the people of Canterbury are happy to see them continue their work until 2016. And how do I know that the majority of Cantabrians are supportive? Because of their reactions to the bill. Let me read some of their comments. Local Government New Zealand which represents the mayors the councillors and the ratepayers says: “The Commission has made good headway on major issues affecting the region … Environment Canterbury has done outstanding work both in its response to the earthquakes in Canterbury and its work on implementing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy”. 
And the rural community Federated Farmers and Irrigation New Zealand has said: “I would hope”—and I suggest that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove listens to this—“that people who will oppose this move will think before commenting. The Commissioners in a few short years have achieved more than the old failed council ever did. I recall a shrill tone at the time but every prediction of doom has not eventuated.” Irrigation New Zealand has said: “Rural communities now have more opportunities to be involved in water management through the collaborative approach of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We are starting to see real gains through the zone committee and we don’t want to go back to the nightmare situation that ratepayers suffered under previously.” 
Finally Ngai Tahu representing tangata whenua and iwi say: “ECan has a significant role in issues of importance to Ngai Tahu and the overall environmental health of Canterbury’s land and water based economy … In our view the commissioners have done a good job to date in addressing some very challenging issues. Iwi and community participation in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy forums has been a very worthwhile exercise.” So I know Mr Cosgrove that local government representing democratically elected members the rural community and Ngai Tahu all support the commissioners. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I take it this microphone is working? It is. Well that was an extraordinary speech. Nicky Wagner is obviously orbiting in a stratosphere that no one else is. She got up and said that there is overwhelming support for this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill inherent within which is a massive broken promise from the Government but we will get to that in a minute. Nicky Wagner’s defence of this bill and the evidence that she provided for her claim that Cantabrians overwhelmingly support an abrogation yet again of their democratic right to have a say in their regional local government was that Federated Farmers which is sort of the National Party in gumboots Ngai Tahu and a couple of others—in fact I think that was it—had said that this was a good thing. Yet what she failed— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh Local Government New Zealand of course—highly representative is Local Government New Zealand of grassroots Cantabrians. Federated Farmers—highly representative overwhelmingly of 350000-plus grassroots Cantabrians. But what she failed to acknowledge given that I think—was she on the Local Government and Environment Committee? I think so. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: She is it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh she is the select committee. She failed to acknowledge a thing called submissions. People get to have their say directly before a select committee through a thing called submissions. If you look at the submissions there were 95 of them. How many were in support? Five. How many were opposed? Ninety. Even Nicky Wagner and Gerry Brownlee could probably do the math using all their fingers and toes and work out the percentage on that. Five submissions out of 95 supported it and 90 submissions out of 95 opposed it. So I say to Ms Wagner that that is called evidence before her own select committee which of course she conveniently failed to mention apart from Federated Farmers Local Government New Zealand and Ngai Tahu. 
I will tell you what this is about. This is about a massive broken promise by this Government. Nick Smith said in March 2010: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systematic issues are resolved.” That was a cast-iron promise. I remember the debate. I remember us providing warnings that this could be rolled over yet again. But we were told by the Government “No no no.” that we were being negative that this was all about doing the right thing and that this was a cast-iron pop-riveted vulcanised promise. Well the Government broke it. That member Nicky Wagner broke it and the best she can do today is cobble together a number of untruths to say that the overwhelming number of people in Canterbury and overwhelming numbers of Cantabrians support the bill. Well that is piffle—absolute piffle. If you look at what business people have said and if you look at what grassroots community members have said that is total piffle. I say this to Ms Wagner: people in Canterbury where I live and other colleagues live have had a bit of a gutsful of being steamrolled by this Government whether it be by of course Gerry Brownlee’s promises around the earthquake; Gerry Brownlee’s “my way or the highway” sort of blunderbuss steamroller management style around the earthquake; or his promise about things like if you make improvements to your house that will be part of the deal—a broken promise. They have had a bit of a gutsful of being told what to think what to say and how to act and being told to shut up and take the medicine. 
Actually people in Christchurch and Greater Canterbury would like to have some say—like to have some say—and make a contribution to their own future. But this Government of course says that it knows best. It is interesting because in the select committee report—have a look at it—the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford said this: “The Commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content—or the continuing need for the legislation—is an abuse of the democratic process and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians … In our view the present legislation has the potential to further exacerbate the resentment that has arisen in Canterbury as a result”—these are very interesting words for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to use—“of autocratic decision making.” That is what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner says. 
Then we get of course to the regulatory impact statement. The Government ignored the regulatory impact statement. We know that the Department of Internal Affairs’ advisers and the Ministry for the Environment’s advisers recommended option one which was legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for Environment Canterbury with the provision for the Minister of Local Government to review arrangements by 2017. The Government rejected that. It absolutely rejected that. The regulatory impact statement of course went on to say this—it made three points; I will read this one—“The extension of the Commissioners’ terms would continue to deny Canterbury residents the opportunity to vote for representatives on ECan. Also given the progress made by the Commissioners there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention which was used in response to ECan’s previous serious and systemic dysfunction.” That is what the regulatory impact statement said that is what the Government’s own advisers said and it rejected that advice. 
So what have we got stacking up? We have got 90 out of 95 submitters saying that they oppose this bill. We have got the vast majority of Cantabrians—apart from the Government’s Federated Farmers mates—saying that they oppose it. We have got the Government’s own official advisers—the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment—recommending a transitional provision and a different course of action leading to democratic processes. And we also have the actual regulatory impact statement saying that this is undemocratic that it is autocratic and that it is wrong. Of course to cap it all off as Nicky Wagner hides behind her desk we had one of the biggest broken promises articulated in this Parliament—in this Parliament. Why is it that Ms Wagner the member for Christchurch Central does not trust her own community to be part of decision-making processes? Maybe like Gerry Brownlee she fears this fact that the community may stand up and say: “We do not agree. We believe Government that you are wrong and we want a different course of action.” I suspect that that is why these people do not want Cantabrians to have a say. They do not want to listen to any alternative advice. 
We had Bill English before the select committee—sorry we had the manufacturing inquiry I digress slightly on Monday. I asked the former president of the Manufacturers and Exporters Association whether he had had engagement with Minister Joyce the Minister for Economic Development. No none—zero since he took the portfolio. The association has offered to speak and offered to meet and the Minister does not want to know. That is yet another example of this Government taking advice from everybody else that suits its purpose taking advice from yes-people. 
Even if you look at economic policy the IMF the Reserve Bank and Treasury all say that we are heading for the rocks in respect of the deficit but Bill English of course says that he knows better than everyone else including we found out today the Westpac bank. This Government takes advice from those who will doff their hat tug their forelock and say: “Yes we agree.” I worry that even in our Public Service the days are gone of public servants being allowed to give free and frank advice without fear or favour such that they can say to a Minister: “Minister we believe that your course of action is wrong but we are professionals. If you deem it appropriate to go down that path even though we think it won’t work we will implement it for you because we are a professional Public Service.” That is appropriate advice to say: “We think you’re wrong but will do what we’re told because you are the elected Government.” I fear that like this legislation this Government has dumbed down our Public Service to the point where it has just given up. There is no point in saying that something will not work—whether it be charter schools whether it be the student ratios whether it be this bill or whether it be the school closures in Christchurch—the Government is going to do it anyway; it will not listen to the advice. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Sounds like the Treasury advice to Michael Cullen. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to Ms Wagner and old smoke ball the cigar man down in the front row that I look forward to the local body elections when Ms Wagner will be called to account in the next 12 months by her— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Nastiness. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I will tell you what is nasty: it is denying people the right to have a say and denying people the right to have a vote. That Minister Coleman is more than nasty; that is autocratic. But that member does not want to know. It will be an interesting local body campaign as people call Ms Wagner to account and ask why it is that the member for Christchurch Central will not allow Cantabrians the right to have their say why it is that she broke her promise and why it is that there is an autocratic rule down there. 
The other problem with commissioners is that they are answerable to this crowd not to the electors. They have no responsibility to local electors and they are not held to account by them. They do what they are told up here and that is wrong. It is autocratic. This bill should be opposed with every fibre we have in our bodies. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I join with colleagues in recognising the service to this House of the former Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and in congratulating the new Speaker the Rt Hon David Carter. 
The Green Party remains strongly opposed to this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill—what a misdescription of a bill. We are opposed to it because it is undemocratic it is contrary to the rule of law and it weakens and undermines water conservation orders and the Resource Management Act in Canterbury. 
There was a very eloquent submission by the New Zealand Law Society’s rule of law committee presented by its chair Austin Forbes. That submission said that democratic decision-making in local government is a very important and legitimate expectation of citizens. The proposed further suspension of local body democracy runs counter to core constitutional values—most important that of a free and democratic society. The Law Society said that the bill should not proceed. The Green Party agrees. 
If we did not have this bill Environment Canterbury would be set to return to an elected governing body of regional councillors in the local elections in October. Regardless of what people thought of regional councillors in 2010 October 2013 should have been the chance for all Cantabrians to exercise their democratic right and elect councillors to determine and decide how the rates that those Cantabrians pay should be spent how the land water air coast and natural hazards in the region should be managed and how regional transport should be planned. 
That was what Ministers promised in 2010; that was what was the understanding in this House when the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 was passed. So the Government has reneged on that commitment because it wants to reorganise local government in Canterbury and the 10 mayors who wrote to the Minister at the time may well regret that if there are proposals for a unitary authority as in Auckland. 
 The Government also wants to continue with its hand-picked commissioners because it wants them to control and finalise the key statutory documents that will guide land and water management in Canterbury for the next decade. It is the regional land and water plan that will set the framework for decisions on water take for decisions on irrigation and for acceptable nitrate levels in aquifers and waterways and will set the rules that control the extent to which dairying can expand and intensive land use can increase the pollution load. 
The Government wants a weak land and water plan because it is desperate for more agricultural intensification more irrigation and more dairying in Canterbury. It is desperate because of its failure to embrace smart green growth and have a smart plan for our future. Its economic agenda is stuck in the 19th century. It is stuck in resource exploitation—more mining more drilling and more irrigation. For Nicky Wagner to go on as a former regional councillor with the mistruths that the new Minister has perpetuated—that Environment Canterbury did not have a plan—is inexcusable. Environment Canterbury had a natural resources regional plan a proposed plan which was notified in 2004. It is this new regional land and water plan that is succeeding that is the second-generation plan. 
What do Cantabrians say about that plan? We have had North Canterbury’s Fish and Game environmental officer say: “We have been presented with a weak and permissive plan that cannot effectively manage water resource decisions over the next five years.” Hearings on that plan which the commissioners have put out begin in the next few weeks. That is why the Government wants them to stay so it can ensure that the plan continues to have very weak rules to control agricultural intensification and irrigation. 
It was that that was the genesis of the substantive Act in 2010. The Government wanted legislation that would favour irrigators and it was under the 2010 Act that we have seen the Minister sign off the changes to the Rakaia water conservation order which allow TrustPower to manipulate the flows in that magnificent river the Rakaia River and promote much more extensive irrigation in conjunction with Central Plains Water.  
So we have had that scheme and the continued changes to water conservation orders continuing under this bill when the official advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Internal Affairs was that there was insufficient justification for continuing those special water conservation order provisions. Cabinet rejected the advice of officials and we still have now under this bill legislation in Canterbury that is part of the Resource Management Act that is completely different from that which applies in the rest of the country. What did the Ministers also do? They rejected the advice from their own commissioners for a mixed body of elected members and appointed commissioners.  
The 2010 Act was rammed through under urgency with no opportunity for submissions. We have had submissions on this bill and what have those submissions said? Ninety of the 95 submissions opposed the bill. It is interesting to see those who favoured it. They were Irrigation New Zealand the Waitaki Irrigators Collective and Federated Farmers highlighting the way in which the bill serves their interests. As Clayton Cosgrove mentioned the Human Rights Commission noted that the bill has the potential “to further exacerbate the resentment that has arisen in Canterbury as a result of autocratic decision making.” and that was a major theme that came through the submissions presented by Canterbury residents to the Local Government and Environment Committee in Christchurch. As Rosalie Snoyink of Glentunnel said: “The best people to represent …” us on Environment Canterbury are people “elected by us for us.”  
What have we seen with water management under the commissioners? Certainly the collaborative water management strategy has been rolled out but that was developed by elected councillors not by commissioners; they have rolled it out. What is happening with water management in Darfield? One hundred and fifty people got sick because an E. coli bacteria was found in the community water supply. That is not the result of good water management; that is the result of poorly controlled agricultural intensification.  
We need Cantabrians to be involved in decision making. We need to remove that sense of powerlessness that people are feeling with the autocratic way in which the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority goes out making its decisions with the lack of ability to have a real say in what the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is doing and now with this legislation which tramples over local democracy. It further disempowers Cantabrians. As the Law Society said the bill is a disturbing breach of the rule of law. That is because it removes access to the Environment Court for appeals on regional plans and it sidesteps the Environment Court and that really specialist jurisdiction that the court has.  
In conclusion this bill is totally consistent with the National Government’s changes to the Local Government Act 2002 where it again erodes local democracy by increasing the ability of the Minister to interfere and direct elected representatives to undermine their autonomy. So the Green Party opposes this bill. It is anti-democratic it is a breach of the rule of law and it undermines democracy. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill amends the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to extend commissioner governance until the 2016 local authority elections with a ministerial review in 2014. 
On 7 September 2012 the then Minister of Local Government the Hon David Carter and the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams both Cantabrians and both well aware of the issues down there announced that commissioners would continue to govern Environment Canterbury after the 2013 local body elections. The major reason for that is the huge success that they have had in recent years in decision making even though they have faced extraordinary events such as the Canterbury earthquakes—a series of them—and of course tensions over the use of water there. 
I appreciate that the Green Party likes to hold hands and have wider decision-making processes. It likes to have committees. It likes to call meetings. It likes to have reviews. It likes to have reviews on reviews. It likes to have royal commissions and commissions of inquiry. What it does not like is making a decision the reason being that you might offend someone. Well sadly for the Green Party—and I know it is sad for those members—but gladly for Cantabrians and the National Party we are going to see the employment of these commissioners. They have been making decisions—hard decisions—in the face of adversity and they have done it well as Ngai Tahu and the general community have witnessed. So I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Denis O’Rourke. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker will I need a separate microphone or are these working? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It may pay yes. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. First of all I would like to say that I felt that Nicky Wagner’s claim that the majority of Cantabrians would support this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill was utterly baseless poppycock. Nobody can possibly know who would vote which way on that issue. I can say this. Nobody I have spoken to—and I have lived in Canterbury all my life—would support this bill. Nobody I have spoken to would do so. So I am convinced as a resident that this bill is not supported by them. 
The bill does two things. It extends the commissioner’s special water management powers and delays the date as we know for an elected Environment Canterbury council to 2016. New Zealand First firmly opposes the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Having said that I would have to say that I was relieved when in 2010 the Government removed the elected Environment Canterbury council and replaced it with commissioners. Many people in Canterbury at that time felt the same. 
I was then and still am the chair of the Central Plains Water Trust which holds the consents for the Central Plains Water scheme. At that time great concern was held about the irrational behaviour of Environment Canterbury on some irrigation issues. The elected Environment Canterbury council was itself very hostile to all irrigation development and was driven by public and political perceptions about irrigated farming rather than by robust policy and planning. 
 The Central Plains Water scheme was and is about sustainable farming not about first-generation old-style irrigation. Central Plains Water Trust developed a sustainable farming protocol and supporting contractual arrangements—a first for New Zealand on this—and demonstrated a genuine commitment to environmentally sustainable agriculture in that way. The Christchurch City Council and the Selwyn District Council established the trust to ensure that the Central Plains Water scheme was always a community scheme with no alienable water rights and that resource consents would be held in trust permanently. 
Environment Canterbury in 2010 was virtually impossible to deal with. It had unreasonable political hostility towards irrigators and farmers—not good government—and it exacerbated the town-versus-country divide for purely political ends. It had developed a them-and-us mentality so Central Plains Water Trust and other irrigators were treated as enemies whereas Central Plains Water Trust wished to collaborate. This also extended to Environment Canterbury management which in fact sought to change plans even while the trust’s Resource Management Act process was still being finalised and it always failed to genuinely consult on those issues. 
Environment Canterbury has always had a poor attitude to water issues. Early in the 1990s when I was a city councillor in Christchurch I know from attempted meetings with Environment Canterbury that it would refuse to collaborate with the city council on water issues. It then complained about insufficient resources and its actions by 2010 were then 10 years too late and badly formulated. In the meantime during those 10 years the city council and Selwyn District Council got together and had to act alone without Environment Canterbury to set up Central Plains Water Trust and make their own plans on water issues with a genuine attempt to balance the need for economic development based on irrigation and economic development of the central plains with environmental sustainability. 
The best hope now for a consensus is the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and that especially now concerns storage issues. Environment Canterbury wasted time during the previous years on impossibly impractical proposals like in-ground storage and it needed a balanced collaborative approach not a dictatorial one to establish achievable environmental standards—especially for example on nitrate levels. The commissioners have done that and their job is substantially done. 
I note that in the bill’s policy statement it says: “In order to enable the commissioners to adopt a second-generation Land and Water Plan and other plans and to fully implement the Canterbury Water Management Strategy the commissioners will continue to be provided with additional resource management powers.” and so on. Does that mean if they are going to be around to fully implement it that they are going to have to be there for the next 20 years? Because that is how long it will take to fully implement it. Does that mean that 2016 is not actually the date when we will get an elected Environment Canterbury? Is it actually going to be some further extended date in the future? 
Although the original decision to insert the commissioners was necessary for the reasons I gave that never meant I thought it was right or ever would be right to delay the elected council’s reinstatement beyond 2013. The commissioners themselves say this and I know that from having private conversations with some of them. The decision to add another 3 years until 2016 before the election of a new regional council is unnecessary. Everything the commissioners needed to do has been sufficiently done and the decision is unhelpful. The strategy now needs community buy-in and active support and that requires at least a majority of Environment Canterbury to be elected. The decision is an affront to democracy. 
Along with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Christchurch Central Development Unit there is altogether too much central government in Canterbury and not enough community governance. Community representation may be inconvenient for a National Government but there is a real sense of loss and grievance felt by Canterbury people over their loss of adequate say in local governance. The perception now is of Government manipulation in Canterbury for its own ends perhaps with a secret agenda. Commissioners are perceived as tools of central government not as representatives of the community and the Government is perceived as having commercial imperatives through its shareholding in TrustPower with its Rakaia and Lake Coleridge interests in power generation ostensibly for the supply of water for irrigation schemes. 
So what should the Government do now? First of all it should stick to its promise broken by this bill to hold elections for Environment Canterbury in 2013 and should immediately identify top options for a new Environment Canterbury and not wait until next year to do so. The Government should be asking whether Environment Canterbury should be fully elected or part elected and part appointed; whether the old Environment Canterbury as it was should be reinstated; and in fact whether there should be a unitary council or unitary councils in Canterbury. Those are the things it should have been doing last year and they should be well advanced by now so that Cantabrians could actually decide what should happen to local government and in particular to Environment Canterbury in the future. 
Finally local government arrangements must be the people’s choice and not the Government’s choice. Water management issues must no longer be a political football for the main parties. National has broken its promise and it should now reverse that and allow elections for Environment Canterbury this year along with all other local government organisations. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What the majority of Cantabrians support— 
Hon Member 
: Can’t hear you. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —I know; I am speaking— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just keep going Jacqui. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —OK—is a regional council that delivers good water policy timely consenting and good relationships with all stakeholders. Any time the sound booth wants to turn the mike on it would be fantastic. The commissioners have lifted the performance of Environment Canterbury from a very low base. It is that improvement that Cantabrians support. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill has my support. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Can we just in terms of the microphone—the microphone needs to stay on. Do not turn it off and hold it close and just keep talking. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I find it to be a shameful day to be standing in this House as we move another step closer towards robbing Cantabrians of their democratic rights. I do not think it is something that anybody in this House should be proud of. I am a proud Cantabrian and it saddens me that I am standing in a Parliament that is willing to infringe my democratic rights the democratic rights of the people whom I represent and the democratic rights of the people whom I share a province with. 
Until 2010 I guess like many people I took for granted my right to vote. I do not any longer. I believed that in this country we believed in notions such as having no taxation without representation. I believed that if we were not happy with what elected members were doing there was one way to change that and that was through a ballot box. But I no longer believe this because I have lived through watching the democratic rights of myself my constituents and my fellow Cantabrians being systematically robbed over the last 3 years. 
I want to acknowledge Eugenie Sage a member of this House who was an elected member of the sacked council in 2010. I also want to acknowledge a former member of that regional council the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner who unfortunately is overseeing this process of stripping Cantabrians of their elected rights. 
For National members to stand opposite us and take their paltry calls where they will not even defend something as fundamental as taking away democratic rights and glibly claim that Cantabrians support this is simply wrong. I can tell you that Cantabrians do not support this legislation. Ninety of the 95 submissions to the select committee opposed this legislation the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Submitter after submitter appeared before us. Colleagues who have spoken before me have gone through some of those submissions and I will come back to some of them. 
The Christchurch  
Press 
 on 5 November last year—5 November of course being Guy Fawkes Day and a reasonably apt day to be talking about democracy and what happens to Parliaments that try to rob their citizens of that—attacked the decisions that this Government was making in terms of the rights of Cantabrians and their rights to vote and the backtrack of this Government on those rights. Let us not forget that when Nick Smith as the Minister of Local Government originally took away Cantabrians’ rights to vote he assured us that we would have our right to vote back for the local body elections in 2013. Do we? No we do not. 
As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has suggested Nicky Wagner as the member for Christchurch Central throughout this year is going to have to defend that decision to the people of Christchurch Central. She is going to have to defend the fact that she has chaired a select committee that is taking away the rights of the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury to vote. She will have to tell us why it is that Nick Smith originally stood up and said: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” Well that is not to be the case and Ms Wagner owes the people of Christchurch Central the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury an explanation for that. 
The Christchurch  
Press 
 in that editorial was moved to say that the fact that it was having to get information about this through the Official Information Act process was “another example of a post-quake arrogance that has crept into the way some of our Cabinet ministers are operating. The public of Canterbury should not have to go through Official Information Act channels to get Adams and Carter to tell them what is going on in their own region. As with Finance Minister Bill English’s extraordinary comments about the Christchurch City Council’s finances it is another example of being told something but given no evidence to back it up.” 
This is what the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury are feeling. They are feeling that this is a Government that is riding roughshod over their rights. It has taken away their right to vote. It has not listened to what they want for education in their communities. We await the Minister of Education’s announcements on Monday the 18th with great hope actually that the Minister will have listened to the schools and the communities and the teachers and the students about what they see as the best results for education in their communities. 
We heard from the Law Society that this legislation is a mistake and that it should not proceed. We heard from the human rights commissioner about how bad this legislation is in terms of the rights of the people of Canterbury. This was truly shocking to sit through and listen to. When hearings were held in Christchurch tempers flared. The committee had to stop because Cantabrians who came to put in their submissions got so angered about what this Government is doing to their democratic rights. So for members to sit opposite and pretend that Cantabrians support this is simply hiding from the reality. 
We have heard a great deal of what august bodies feel about this legislation but there is one submission that I want to enter into the  
Hansard  
and spend some time on. It is a submission from James Adams who is 14 years old lives in my electorate and attends Hillmorton High School. I found this a very moving submission to read. I was also very saddened that a 14-year-old growing up in the electorate that I represent has had to put these words on a piece of paper. He wrote in his submission: “When we think of the concept [of] democracy we tend to think about elections casting votes and the funny orange man. Yet that’s not all there is to a democracy. There must be independent courts so that if citizens feel abused or unhappy about something there’s a proper process to go through to sort things out. The people in the democracy must not be afraid to speak out and they must be able to use the media to share their opinions. The leaders have a role in consulting with the people to find out what they want between elections. Sometimes it’s more useful to define something by its opposite or what it isn’t. Democracy isn’t where a small group of people grab all the power and do what they like with it.” Well I am very sorry to have to tell James as his local member of Parliament that this is exactly what the Government that is elected in this country is doing to the people of Canterbury and it is simply not good enough. 
James carries on in his submission: “Basically this bill refuses Cantabrians the right to vote in regional council elections. It removes our right to take legislation to the environment court. In general this bill allows the Government to grab all the power and do what they like with it.” But James does not finish there. James has a very good understanding of what this Government is doing to his city his future and his rights as a citizen of that city and this country. James carries on: “I believe that this legislation shows is a lack of trust. The Government doesn’t seem to trust Cantabrians in case the council which we elect does not have the same agenda as the Government’s. The Government does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury.” Well James you are spot on. This is a Government that does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. 
But James does say: “Well the people of Canterbury will soon have no trust in the Government if they continue to deceive the public … I am appalled at this unprecedented dismissal of democracy in Canterbury. If we are to rise to the challenge that the earthquakes pose if we are to manage our water fairly for the benefit of all then we will need leadership at Ecan that is constructive strong fair and most importantly democratic.” 
I am proud to represent this young man and the family the school and the community that have produced him. I hope that members opposite listen to this. I hope that members opposite will trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. I hope that James can one day have faith that a Government is not there just to grab power for itself but to adhere to basic democratic principles. And I have great hope for James that that will be the case. We hear all kinds of lamenting of the lack of engagement of young people in politics. Well here is a young man in my electorate whom I want listened to who understands what democracy is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member her time has expired. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The charmless pugnacious and inelegant call of the speaker who just resumed her seat Megan Woods clearly illustrates the problem that Labour has. It misses the point. Her criticism of the MP for Christchurch Central is deplorable and typical of that member who clearly is missing the point and not listening to anything that has been said. 
Let us just reaffirm it briefly and quickly for you. The purpose of this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is: “to extend the Canterbury Regional Council’s governance arrangement and special water management decision-making powers in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act …” because it needs to be done. The council was the most woefully performing of all. In 2010 the Government replaced Environment Canterbury councillors with commissioners. Again that needed to be done because Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked the worst of 64 councils in New Zealand. That is why we support this bill and commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. I call the Hon Ruth Dyson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you are absolutely correct: this is a split call. Can I thank you Mr Speaker for allowing me the privilege to speak on this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I want to make just a very brief comment about the member who has just resumed her seat Maggie Barry and that is that the display that she has just put on for the rest of the House was very similar to that which she put on in Canterbury. It caused not just concern not just a bit of annoyance but absolute outrage that somebody had the audacity to come from the other end of the country arrive briefly in our city and tell off submitters who were so distraught at losing their right to vote and were so poorly dismissed by the members of the Government. I found it amazing that when submitters came to the table and said that all they were asking for is the right to vote members of the National Party said: “Why is that such a big deal? Why is that important?”. People have died in other countries literally arguing and fighting for the right to vote but members of the National Party sat at a select committee asking why democracy is so important and saying: “Are not the commissioners doing quite a good job? We appointed competent people.” Nobody is arguing about the competence or otherwise of any of the commissioners. What we asked for in Canterbury—and I still do not think it was a very big ask—was just the right to vote for our regional council. 
I believed Nick Smith. I am sure some of my colleagues will laugh at that but I believed the Hon Nick Smith when he promised us that the removal of our democratic right to vote for our regional council was a very short-term measure. I disagreed with it in the first place—it was wrong—but I trusted his words because he said not just “we hope” not just “we think” and not just “we’d like to” but that “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” I am really disappointed that we are making a liar of the Hon Dr Nick Smith by passing this legislation. I think he intended his words to be reflected in practice. I am sure that when he said that he had no intention to mislead the people of Canterbury. 
But I am really disappointed that we are arguing about the removal of a democratic right to vote immediately prior to the departure the valedictory speech of our former Speaker. I want to pay tribute to Lockwood Smith and he will probably be a little surprised at that because it is not something I have done a lot but I have had great admiration for his ability as Speaker to let the debate flow in a way that acknowledged the depth of passion of politicians whatever party they are attached to but also to ensure that the House generated a greater degree of respect than it has in the past. I find it offensive to the former Speaker Lockwood Smith to have his actions so highly regarded by Parliament and I think by many New Zealanders immediately butting up to a bill that takes away a democratic right. I want to apologise on behalf of the Government actually for putting such an obnoxious bill immediately next to the valedictory speech of someone who has worked so hard to improve the behaviour in Parliament without stifling the conversation. 
I know that the current Speaker would be pretty outraged that this bill was going through because he is from Canterbury and unfortunately was the Minister who shepherded it through. I want to express my strong disappointment in the Hon David Carter during his term as the Minister of Local Government for progressing this. As a Cantabrian I would have thought that there would be greater acknowledgment of the strength and the passion of people’s desire to vote. We have had some of the biggest demonstrations in Canterbury about this very issue immediately upon its announcement and further since the extension. 
This really does come on top of the other issues that we are dealing with. There is a feeling of disempowerment as the National Government bulldozes through the rights ambitions and desires of Cantabrians to play a critical part in our recovery and rebuild. We are just being ignored by the Government. That is not just our loss; it is a loss to the rest of the country. I want the Government to reconsider. I want it to recognise our right to vote and stop the progress of this bill. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill which extends the suspension of democracy in Canterbury is a travesty of natural justice. The continued denial of voting rights is nothing less than a kick in the guts for the people of Canterbury and the people of Christchurch. 
The people of Canterbury are the people most affected by the decision and policy made by Environment Canterbury yet our input is marginalised and sidelined by this bill. We are the ones who fall sick when our drinking water supplies are contaminated and polluted. My 12-year-old son was one of those in Darfield who became sick when the water supply became contaminated with E. coli as a result of uncontrolled agriculture intensification in the area. It is our babies who are at risk when nitrate levels rise to dangerous levels as they have in some areas. It is our children who are affected when the local river becomes too polluted to swim in. These are fundamental issues that affect the health and well-being of everyone in Canterbury and therefore this is fundamental as to why we need to have a democratic say in the decision making. 
A healthy democracy is based upon three fundamental planks: that citizens are able to vote that there is a free flow of information so that decision making is transparent and that there must be the right of appeal. All of these have been denied to us in Canterbury. No matter how the Government tries to spin it as being for our benefit the reason why the Government is continuing to trample over our democratic rights in Canterbury is that it has the goal ultimately of turning Canterbury into one gigantic dairy farm. In other words it wants to relegate Canterbury to the status of a cash cow to serve its economic agenda and in doing so it is prepared to trample over the democratic rights of Cantabrians to have a say in the economic development of their area. 
This is about enabling massive construction projects that will change the face of Canterbury physically socially and economically and will have a real environmental impact—and it already is. This is about a massive super-dam land confiscation gigantic water-races cutting through historical properties and an energy-guzzling intensive irrigation scheme. It is about yet more intensive dairying in a region already struggling with the environmental and social impact of existing levels of dairying. Given all of these downsides it is no wonder that Cantabrians are nervous about embracing the Government vision of yet more dairying for the region. 
This is why it is so important that Cantabrians have the right to have a say. Real justice and truly sustainable economic development will happen only when people and the Government work in partnership. This is why the Green Party absolutely opposes this bill. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statements 
Dr The Rt Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker may I first congratulate you on your election as Speaker. To me the Speaker’s role is more than one of just presiding over this House. The Speaker has a responsibility for the quality of our parliamentary democracy. I found it both challenging and rewarding and I wish you all the very best. 
I came into this House at the snap election of 1984. They were extraordinary times. It was only 11 years after Britain had joined the EEC and having lost the opportunity for further growth in those high-value markets New Zealand was struggling to find a way forward. During the 4 years prior I had been a marketing and product development manager with the New Zealand Dairy Board and knew the impossibly high tariffs we faced for primary produce in the developed markets of the world. As we struggled with the challenges of establishing new markets in developing countries New Zealand sought to broaden its industrial base and pursued a protectionist path involving subsidies import licensing and high levels of Government intervention. By 1984 the economy was in a mess and I hope history will record more positively the decisive actions of both the Lange-Douglas Labour Government and the Bolger-Richardson National Government that followed. The resilience of the New Zealand economy during the recent global downturn owes much to the courage of those Cabinets at least in their early years putting New Zealand’s very real needs ahead of political considerations in pursuing necessary reform. 
Twenty-eight and a half years is quite a long time—long enough for me to see 288 members arrive in this place and 263 leave. So many things we rely on today did not even exist then. It is not just the iPads and smartphones; personal computers were in their infancy as were I must say some of our current colleagues. There were no emails and most members shared a secretary using an electric typewriter. I might also add that there were no such things as electorate offices or electorate agents that work being carried out unpaid by members’ own families. I had not been a political junkie prior to coming here. In fact I had been a member of the National Party for only 3 years. I remember during my first days in the House being somewhat surprised by the careless use of facts and figures and stunned by the scant relationship between what I knew was going on and what I read and saw in the media. 
Over the years there have been both personal highlights and regrets. Special highlights include addressing the Anzac Day service at Chunuk Bair Gallipoli in 1999. Even the hardest heart could not fail to be moved by the thousands of mainly young faces streaming tears as they struggled with the enormity of the sacrifices made in that special place. A standing ovation from a full ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization at Geneva in 1998 was also special. Whether it was because I spoke for only 3 minutes when most Ministers read interminable speeches written by officials or whether it was what I said I will never know. But it was the only standing ovation I ever saw accorded a fellow trade Minister and it stood me in good stead as I went on to chair the APEC trade Ministers forum in 1999. And of course the most special highlight was to finally marry the love of my university days Alexandra in the Legislative Council Chamber in 2009. We had been apart for 20 years and re-met purely by chance. 
Regrets that have lingered include my voting against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986. I faced the classic dilemma of voting according to my own judgment or the opinion of those I had been elected to represent. As a new member I opted for the latter and I have always regretted it. Edmund Burke was right. As a former Commonwealth Scholar in Science I have often regretted that I never got involved in that area during my time here. Science and technology have been so crucial to the advancement of human well-being yet scientists are a rare breed in politics. Internationally there is something of a disconnect between the two. In politics for example green is the claimed colour of sustainability. Yet in science the very reason we perceive plants to be green is that they reflect green light. They cannot use it. It is red and blue light that sustain most of our living world. [ 
Interruption 
] It is true! 
In 1987 my life was to change for ever. Jim Bolger appointed me National’s spokesperson on education and the Minister was none other than Prime Minister David Lange. He was a formidable parliamentarian with a great sense of humour. I still remember the Tuesday when I came into this House after tripping and landing on my face when vaulting over a gate on the farm. Lots of skin was missing. David Lange called out across the House in his booming voice: “Huh! He’s been visiting kindergartens again.” Either I had to bury myself in education work or my political career would not have been long. We took a pretty bold education policy to the election in 1990. Under David Lange and Phil Goff Labour had initiated much-needed administrative reform. We carried that on but my focus was on learning and achievement. Starting with the youngest we brought in the first ever early childhood curriculum Te Whariki which remains essentially unchanged today. Believing parents had to be more involved in the education of their children and with research showing the first 3 years to be so important I introduced a whole new concept called Parents as First Teachers. I am told the programme recently celebrated its 20th year in operation. 
In the school sector we funded the first kura kaupapa Maori and introduced the first ever national curriculum. It brought the teaching of physics and chemistry down into primary level and introduced a whole new concept technology designed to help integrate learning. In hindsight I think it was asking the impossible of teachers. With a new curriculum professional development is so important and we simply did not have enough money to fund it adequately. At the tertiary level polytechnics were liberated from the shackles of central bureaucracy and private training establishments including the first Maori tertiary institutions were funded on an equitable basis for the first time. 
And yes I confess to being the architect of both the student loans scheme and means-tested student allowances. Although the former I would argue was good policy—made less good by some later changes—the latter I was never happy with. It was so transparently unfair where students whose parents were unable to shall we say camouflage their incomes were pinged and all were means-tested up to an age when young people simply are not dependent on their parents at all. We did it because of the fiscal position at the time and in tertiary participation New Zealand was languishing at the bottom of the OECD. Although the schemes were not popular they were part of a package that over 5 or 6 years took our participation rate closer to the top. In other words they did give many more students an opportunity. By the late 1980s apprenticeship numbers were also in serious decline. We developed a new industry skills training strategy establishing industry training organisations and putting industries themselves in charge of the kinds of skills and qualifications needed. Implementation saw a significant turn-round in the numbers involved in industry training and industry training organisations are still with us today. 
To me though the most significant development was the Qualifications Framework. Over the years I had watched academic learning and skills training follow their separate courses with little linkage between the two. From my time at Massey University as both a student and a lecturer I had seen the synergy result from bringing together theoretical and applied learning. I really believed that if we could break down that old divide not just between the qualifications but also between the institutions delivering the courses we could facilitate the learning of so many more students. I dreamed of a seamless education system where students could pursue their learning via a multitude of pathways their hunger for greater theoretical knowledge driven from the challenges experienced in developing their skills in practical areas of interest. I think it is fair to say that the Qualifications Framework is now well embedded into our senior secondary tertiary and industry training systems. But to me it is only starting to deliver its full potential. With the explosion in knowledge I wanted to see motivated students well into their first tertiary qualification or part-way through an apprenticeship-type programme before they completed their secondary years and it is great that is starting to happen. 
After almost 6 years of ongoing reform one could almost hear the sigh of relief from the sector when I moved on to agriculture and deputy finance roles. However just as in education some institutional arrangements in agriculture were also overdue for reform. It was obvious that the producer boards could not continue as they were. I well remember the first meeting I had with dairy farmers in Whangarei when I outlined the principles of reform that were to lead ultimately to the formation of Fonterra. Fortunately my own involvement with the Dairy Board prior to entering Parliament gave me some credibility but it would be fair to say the Northland dairy farmers were not convinced. Although I might have initiated the producer board reforms I give full credit to my successors John Luxton and Jim Sutton for carrying those reforms through. Being deputy finance Minister included the privilege of working with Sir William Birch. I learnt more from working with Bill about how to be an effective Minister than from almost any other source. He had the political instinct to know what was possible a remarkable commitment to getting on top of detail and the ability to mould officials from disparate Government agencies into a cohesive force to make things happen. 
 But some of my most interesting years followed my appointment as international trade Minister in 1996. I was fortunate that my predecessors Mike Moore and Philip Burdon had built bipartisan support for trade liberalisation. Strategically we approached it at a number of levels. Regionally we wanted to get ASEAN the Association of South-east Asian Nations linked up to CER in a free-trade deal. I still remember the day in Singapore when George Yeo the Singapore trade Minister and I the main promoters of the concept obtained the agreement for the establishment of a working group to scope the benefits and challenges of such a deal. It was the day Beryl called me to tell me my mother had been found on the floor of our home with a brain haemorrhage. But I could not leave Singapore until I was satisfied the ASEAN Free Trade Area CER concept was safely under way. In 1999 New Zealand chaired APEC. One of our key goals was to try to get APEC trade Ministers and leaders to agree to the abolition of export subsidies for the next trade round at the World Trade Organization. In the build-up I visited all APEC trade Ministers. Amazingly we achieved that agreement at APEC but sadly 13 years later the World Trade Organization has made very little progress. 
At the same time I was actually working on an even more exciting project. Based on the belief in the power of trade and economic integration to bring stability and sustained peace a project code named P5 aimed to link the Americas across the Pacific into South-east Asia via Australia and New Zealand. To me it was important for the sustained economic stability of the Asia-Pacific region and a chance to bring some real momentum to APEC’s flagging Bogor goals of free and open trade. It was not originally my idea. The concept was suggested by US trade ambassador Charlene Barshefsky. But because of my particular involvement with APEC trade Ministers at the time it was decided that I should promote it. It was called P5 because it involved five countries: the United States Chile Singapore Australia and New Zealand. I had obtained the support of four of those. 
While President Bill Clinton was in New Zealand with APEC leaders in 1999 the question was put to him at a meeting with Cabinet Ministers in Christchurch as to whether he would endorse the project. He responded very positively saying that he would return to Washington to sort out what was needed to do it and get back to us. After a few weeks of hearing nothing I went to Washington to meet with President Clinton’s chief of staff. I was told that time had run out in that presidential term and that Congress could cope with only one major trade issue at a time anyhow. Then it was permanent most favoured nation treatment for China China having just acceded to the World Trade Organization. Having been the first trade Minister in the world to sign China up to the World Trade Organization I could hardly complain about that. Hopefully the loss of P5 has been more than compensated for by New Zealand being the first developed country to negotiate a free-trade agreement with China something that may not have happened had New Zealand not played such a prominent role in China’s World Trade Organization accession. 
With P5 going nowhere at the time I decided to try to start somewhere and initiated a free-trade agreement with Singapore. George Yeo and I both realised there were no real trade benefits in such an agreement. The idea was to create a 21st century model that other countries could then be encouraged to join. The last Labour Government completed that Singapore trade deal and through it has been born the Trans-Pacific Partnership now achieving exactly what I had once envisaged with P5. 
My trade Minister’s life ended with chairing one of the four main working groups at the World Trade Organization as it attempted to launch in Seattle what has become known as the Doha round. That too was an amazing experience for all the wrong reasons. Massive protests by the anti-trade movement meant dodging tear gas just to get to the conference centre. Despite working 48 hours non-stop in the green room towards the end of negotiations it was an abject failure yet interestingly not for the reasons shown in the movie  
Battle in Seattle 
; that was pure fiction. 
While all that was going on I was also Minister of Tourism and I am chuffed that the “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign that we initiated way back in 1999 still seems relevant today. It was always intended to have a wider application than simply our beautiful environment. 
And so as I reflect on those 9 years in Cabinet I am reminded of a small verse my father once shared with me when I had to write an essay for homework my first at secondary school entitled “My Ambition”. Dad said his father had once quoted him the lines: “We’re here for a brief brief space but while I stay I should like if I may to brighten and better the place.” I just hope something in those 9 years might have helped do a little bit of that. 
In a long political career if there are successes there are also some failures. I had a bill in the ballot for members’ bills for at least 6 years. The Land Transport (Left Hand Law) Amendment Bill languished for ever whilst I watched new members have their bills drawn within weeks. I must have been jinxed. 
Not many would know that I put 7 years’ work into a project to redevelop New Zealand’s income tax benefit and tax credit systems. The work started on trying to find a way round the massive churning involved in employers deducting PAYE only for the Government to pay it all back to some employees in family tax credits. My research unravelling that interface soon got into the challenging area of effective marginal tax rates. At the time a single parent with three dependent children seeking to work their way off the domestic purposes benefit and trying to get from $10000 of earned income a year to $25000 would have had to work an extra 20 hours a week at say $15 an hour. The problem was the effective tax on that extra $15000 of earned income was about $13300 meaning that even though the parent was paid $15 an hour their take-home pay would have been little over $1.50 an hour. 
Things have improved somewhat since then but high effective marginal tax rates still remain a significant disincentive for many people. I developed a model that completely integrated those three components: income tax benefits and family tax credits. It was a model that had tax-free zones for low-income earners only managed and declining effective marginal tax rates until a flat top tax rate was reached and all family configurations covered. I was invited to present the work to a round table of tax experts in Melbourne. The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia asked me to prepare a paper for it to publish. At the last minute it was pulled for fear it might be seen as official National Party policy and it was not. Seven years’ work and even if I do say so myself some pretty good ideas that could have perhaps gained me another PhD had it been done in a university environment—now no more than spam. I cannot even claim it made it to the trash bin of political history. But that is politics where you take success and failure on the chin. 
Another failure I am less proud of though was my failure to successfully help a former constituent with a grievance with the Commerce Commission despite a 17-year battle on his behalf. It all related to Commerce Commission decision 172 to allow in 1986 the merger of Wrightson and Dalgety Crown Corporation a merger the commission argued was permitted only because of the conditions it was imposing. The problem was not only could the conditions never be enforced under the law but as the Ombudsman subsequently pointed out even the decision itself was unlawful. My deep concern over all the years has been that the Commerce Commission failed to acknowledge its stuff-up and failed to advise my constituent that the conditions of the merger could never be enforced until it was too late for any legal remedy. What troubles me is not that an unlawful decision was made by an important Crown agency as mistakes happen; it is the length that officials involved went to spending tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on Queen’s Counsel to argue that black was white including the final advice from a Queen’s Counsel that the unlawful decision involving conditions that could never be enforced represented “best practice”. Three separate select committees in three Parliaments considered this case all of them expressing serious concerns and two of them writing damning reports on the performance of the Commerce Commission. Yet my former constituent’s life remains in tatters. I can only apologise to him for my failure a failure I feel very very deeply. 
Some commentators assess members on how successfully they play the political game. But to me what sets a member of Parliament apart is how much they care about the impact of the State on an ordinary person and how far they are prepared to go in representing people whose lives can be so knocked around by the actions of the State. As I look to the future this is something that troubles me. The introduction of MMP in 1996 changed this place. Some of it is for the better. There is no doubt we have a broader face of representation and that is good. But like so many policy changes it is the unexpected outcomes that need to be watched and one of those outcomes has been a significant shift in the accountability of members. Obviously list members are very much accountable to their political parties as they owe their place on the list to their party but the pervasive power of the party vote has meant that all members are now totally accountable to their parties. This House in so many ways has become a place of political parties rather than a House of Representatives. I am not for one moment trying to make a case for the old system but I do believe there will come a time when we will need to re-examine that balance of accountabilities. Representation is enhanced when members have to help ordinary people in their local communities many of whom may never have voted for them. 
My colleagues with that off my mind let me say goodbye. My sincere thanks go to the myriad of people who have helped me so much over the past three decades. I have had the privilege of working with some wonderful colleagues. To former Prime Minister Jim Bolger my sincere thanks for backing me in such bold education reforms; likewise to Dame Jenny Shipley. The free rein given to me as trade Minister enabled me to pursue initiatives that trade Ministers from most other countries could not even dream of. To Mary Harris the Clerk of the House it has just been a privilege working with you. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding officials I worked with particularly in the Ministry of Education Treasury and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—people whose commitment to providing sound advice and helping shape ideas into realities have been a special part of my time here. To those so often forgotten Manfred the chef and his team at Bellamy’s the messengers security and buildings Chamber and gallery staff—thank you. I say thank you to you all. 
Hundreds of people helped me first over my 12 years as the member for Kaipara and since 1996 likewise in Rodney. There are far too many to name but let me just acknowledge my first electorate chairman in Kaipara Ron McCallum and in Rodney my long-serving loyal chair June Levet. I also want to acknowledge long-time friend John Evans who managed at least six election campaigns for me. Things would have been so much more difficult without loyal supporters like Richard and Patience Izard whom I lost to Louise Upston and without faithful electorate agents like the inimitable Maggie Beaumont whom I finally lost to Nikki Kaye. To the self-appointed chair of my so-called fan club Wendy Hawkings my sincere thanks. 
But standing head and shoulders above them all despite her shortish stature is Beryl Bright. I stole Beryl from Merv Wellington almost 27 years ago and I am not sure he ever forgave me. She was my executive assistant in the early years my senior parliamentary secretary in my 9 years as Minister loyally stayed with me despite losing almost half her salary when I was back in Opposition and has continued to look after me in my time as Speaker. Perhaps most special of all though Beryl helped shape the lives of so many young people who worked with me as a Minister—young people like Simon Tucker newly appointed High Commissioner designate to Canada; Ben King now foreign affairs adviser to the Prime Minister; and Matthew Hooton commentator and founder of Exceltium. For all Beryl did thank you seems such an inadequate word but I say it from the bottom of my heart. She was wise witty loyal and tough. Even my wife Alexandra quickly realised she first had to win over Beryl. But then Beryl was remarkably successful with marriages—six in addition to mine I think was the score amongst our staff. 
And so Alexandra I likewise say thank you for sharing me with this place. Alexandra gave up so much of her own professional career so that we might be together again. As a professional counsellor she taught me to find the good in all people. She made me a better person which in turn enabled me to be a better Speaker. In recent years I have felt so guilty that she gave up her wonderful counselling job at King’s College to be with me and yet has had me only part-time. From now on it is full-time I promise. 
My colleagues I have said nothing about my time as Speaker. You have had to endure those 4 years and will make your own judgments. I just want to thank you for the tremendous courtesy and goodwill you have shown me. It has been a privilege to serve as your Speaker. With your indulgence Mr Speaker may I say to the Leader of the Opposition David Shearer that you have my respect for the integrity you have brought to a fiendishly difficult job. And finally Prime Minister you bring such extraordinary skills to this place. I want it known that never once in my 4 years as Speaker did you ever try to influence the way I was chairing this House or any decision I ever made. Listening to other Speakers around the Commonwealth I am not sure many are quite so fortunate. For that and so many other things I thank you. 
My colleagues we all come here with dreams to as my father said brighten and better the place. We do not always agree on how best to do it but that makes for healthy debate. To you all every success as you seek to make your dreams a reality. E koutou katoa e rapu nei kia whai kiko aua moemoea te tumanako ia ka tutuki ka angitu. 
[ 
To all of you seeking to make those dreams a reality the burning desire is that they be achieved successfully. 
] 
Waiata 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I will take only a short call to commend the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill to the House. Suffice it to say democracy has not been abandoned. It is appropriate that central government steps in when failure has occurred at a council. Failure did occur at Environment Canterbury. Commissioners were installed. They have done an excellent job since then. This bill gives them the time to finish the job and on that basis I support it fully. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Corrections Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Corrections Act 2004 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am keen to ask the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General some questions about the effect of one particular clause in Part 1 of the Corrections Amendment Bill and that is clause 5 because it is the principal reason for the Labour Opposition’s objection to this legislation. Clause 5 would permit the delegation of powers from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to private sector employees. As far as I am aware this scheme of private prison administration is the first example in our system of laws where powers of a Public Service chief executive are proposed to be delegated to a person not employed by the Public Service. I would like the Minister to tell the Committee whether or not the full ramifications of this issue have been considered because of course when delegations of power are made from the public sector to the private sector all the safeguards that have been carefully worked up to apply in the public sector no longer automatically apply. 
For example could the Minister tell the Committee whether or not the Public Service code of conduct will apply to employees in the private sector to whom public powers are delegated; if not why not? Will the Department of Corrections code of conduct the Department of Corrections’ internal disciplinary and professional standards procedures apply to such employees when they are exercising powers delegated from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; if not why not? Will other statutory safeguards that apply in the public sector apply to such employees? I am aware that in general terms many of the wider safeguards are imported by earlier amendments to the corrections legislation as far as the running of private sector prisons is concerned. But when these particular powers are delegated will for example the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act apply to the actions of employees in the private sector when they are exercising public functions—the functions that have hitherto been confined to the public sector? 
These are very important questions. The fact that they have to be asked in this way indicates I think that there has not been a full thinking through of the desire on the part of the Government to delegate powers out of the public sector and across to the private sector. What are the ramifications in full of that decision and what exactly will the Committee and then the House be agreeing to if this proposal is passed? 
That is just one of the concerns that the Labour Opposition has about this legislation: the ill-thought-through proposal that powers should be delegated out of the public sector and into the private sector without all the controls—professional and otherwise—that do exist and do apply in the public sector environment. I think the Committee would find quite useful an explanation of what is intended to be the entire legal regime that will apply to such powers if this legislation passes. 
Of course the question of whether or not the regime is ill thought through or otherwise is not the only problem here. We have a fundamental opposition to the idea of inmates being incarcerated by entities that are run for profit. This bill will of course advance that agenda for ideological reasons and presumably also for cost-saving reasons whereas what we ought to be doing by way of a priority in our corrections system is absolutely focusing on the need to reduce reoffending to get our prison numbers down to get our number of offenders down and to stop offenders from going through the revolving door that our prison system has been for as long as I can remember. I cannot see anything in clause 5 that will advance that cause in any way and I do hope the Minister of Corrections will take some advice and get to her feet to discuss these points. 
The other concerns that I have about Part 1 of the legislation are ones that I spoke to in my second reading speech which I gave yesterday. Clause 26 relating to strip-searching is one of those concerns. We heard evidence at the Law and Order Committee that the proposal contained in clause 26 to standardise the manner in which strip-searches are conducted to a very intrusive means of strip-searching is going to cause a number of operational problems. I would like the Minister to indicate to the Committee whether she has actually turned her mind to these potential problems and whether she thinks there are solutions that can be had to them. The problems include the fact that the proposed standard procedure is a much more intrusive one than one of the procedures that can be applied at the moment. At the moment if it is proposed to strip-search a prisoner then there are two types of searches that can occur. One is a relatively routine one that is generally applied if somebody for example has been out on work release. The other is when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the prisoner is concealing for example contraband. That much more intrusive procedure—involving as clause 26(3) says “any instrument or device designed to illuminate or magnify … the mouth nose ears and anal and genital areas;”—will become the standard procedure to be applied in all strip-searching situations. 
The select committee heard evidence from the Corrections Association the professional body and union of most prison officers in New Zealand that this would lead to disorder it would be provocative it would be unduly invasive and it would not only lead to prisoners who were subjected to the more intrusive procedure as an automatic consequence of any proposal to strip-search them acting up but also pose a risk to our corrections officers themselves. And that just does not even begin to touch on the issues of dignity and privacy that making this particular procedure a standard one starts to invoke. So I do hope that the Committee will hear from the Minister about why it is that this particular proposal has come forward in the bill. The evidence as to its need is questionable. 
We heard from Mr Goff in the second reading stage yesterday about the fact that there has been a big decline for example in drug use detected in our prisons and I have been able to confirm that when I have visited prisons. Most of them are uniformly reporting that when they are undertaking drug testing the level of drug use appears to be diminishing quite drastically and that is because of the very good security arrangements that have progressively been put in place in our corrections institutions. People will have seen the work that was done by the previous Government to make it a matter of standard security that every prison is now enclosed by a perimeter fence and other secure measures are taken to ensure that prisons are drug-free by and large. I am not saying that there should not be constant vigilance as to these matters; what I am saying is that we do need to have a proper explanation in this Committee stage as to why it is proposed to have this more intrusive procedure made standard particularly in the face of evidence from the professional association of officers at the coalface that it would not actually make anything safer and would likely result in a less safe workplace for its members. 
That was not the only evidence that was heard in the committee that was critical of the proposal that is contained in the clause. The Office of the Ombudsmen was critical of it. The Ombudsman obviously is the body that under our international obligations is charged with ensuring that prison complaints—complaints by inmates—are properly investigated. It is the complaints mechanism for our international obligations concerning the need to protect people from torture and unfair conduct. So when it expresses a concern we should be I think on our guard. The New Zealand Law Society and the Salvation Army also joined with the Office of the Ombudsmen in being highly critical of this clause. 
So I do hope that we will hear from the Minister on this and also on the proposal that I spoke to earlier to delegate powers out of the public sector and into the private sector without I think a properly and carefully thought through consideration of what the consequences of those proposed delegations are given that in private sector employment none of the safeguards automatically apply that do in the public sector. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I was hoping that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections might take the opportunity to answer some of the relevant questions put to her by my colleague Charles Chauvel but perhaps I can add to those questions and seek a response from her on them. As she will know the Opposition worked constructively on this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill. We did not oppose everything. We got some changes that we needed to have. Maybe the Minister could explain to us for example why the original bill wanted to have strip-searching without the approval of the manager of the prison. That seemed a crazy idea to members on both sides of the Law and Order Committee and we were able to get some changes. But there were some areas very clearly where no changes were made because there were ideological differences. 
I should say that the privatisation of prisons is an ideological view. Maintaining prisons within the State sector and having decisions made about the liberty of people and the rights of people who have their liberty and rights properly removed by the courts—we do not believe that that should be subject to a profit motive or a commercial organisation. But I wonder whether the Minister actually read some of the submissions that were made to the select committee by some fairly authoritative groups. We are not talking about people who came in with nutty submissions; we are talking about very thoughtful people with a lot of experience in the prison system who came in with questions and suggestions. 
If I look at the delegation of authority to private contractors for security classification or for temporary release from prison for example it was argued very strongly by people like the prison officers themselves that it was inappropriate for the chief executive to lose control over private contractors by delegating power to them. Both the Corrections Association and the Public Service Association made that point. JustSpeak which is a group that focuses very much on how our prisons are run considered that delegating the chief executive’s powers to contractors breaks the chain of accountability through the chief executive to the Minister in Parliament and I think that was a fair point as well. 
Another group is the Human Rights Foundation. The Human Rights Foundation receives funding from the Government because it performs an important role and everybody in this Chamber respects and wants to safeguard the human rights of all New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders who commit serious crimes lose some of their rights but they do not lose all of their rights. The Human Rights Foundation considered that delegating the chief executive’s power to private providers—in particular the powers of temporary release and removal and the powers relating to security classification—increased the risk of human rights violation. The foundation was less convinced that a private provider working under a profit motive would uphold those rights because their motive of course is that they are running a business. They see it only as running a business. Therefore they will cut corners and if that comes at the expense of rights that are properly retained by detainees then they will do that. 
Some submitters considered that giving certain powers to private prison contractors would create perverse financial incentives. In particular you have got financial penalties for escapes. In one sense that is quite good. It sharpens up their act to try to make sure that they are managing the prison properly albeit the private providers because they are out to make a profit have cut the staffing-inmate ratios they have reduced the conditions of employment of those who are working there and they have less concern about the security of the public. If it is going to cost them money to do it they do not want to do it. So the Government decided to counter that natural tendency of bringing the profit motive into prisons. It would penalise private contractors that allowed escapes for example—or where escapes occurred in that regime—by putting financial disincentives in. But because you have got financial penalties for escapes the submitters put to us—and I think it was a fair point—that private prisons would be less likely to grant temporary release even where it might be justified or to assign low-security classifications where it might be justified. 
So you have these important submitters like the Law Society the Human Rights Foundation the Corrections Association and JustSpeak. You have got the Ombudsman which raised concerns about these sorts of issues. 
 What I want to know is really given the experience of Serco as the private contractor that runs Mt Eden Corrections Facility and as the private contractor to which the Minister has given the contract for the new Wiri Prison it is going to make $1 billion over the next 25 years—$1 billion it is going to make from the taxpayer’s money to run prisons—and that money is going to go out of the country and back to the shareholders in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Well that is not a very good idea for a start. But the Minister must have looked at the record of Serco both in New Zealand and overseas. She must have looked at the fact that out of the 34 conduct standards or performance standards it failed 19 of those. That must worry the Minister. 
This is a brand new prison. You know it is the easiest prison in the country to run because it was built to modern standards by the previous Government. I signed that off personally. It is much easier to manage that prison yet Serco has failed. It has released people who were not meant to be released. It has detained people who were meant to be released. There was at least one escape there. The track record really is pretty poor. You might say “Well it’s a settling-in period it’s teething.” But if you look at the record of Serco in Australia in running its immigration detention centres such as Villawood in Sydney and if you look at its record in running health institutions in the United Kingdom a common theme comes through of what happens when Serco is put in charge and that is that it tries to cut its costs by cutting staffing and when it is understaffed problems occur. There are breaches of human rights; there are things that should not happen. The security of the public is lessened and the service it is provided with is not as good as it should be. 
I wonder whether the Minister has looked at that record and if she has looked at that record why she gave Serco a contract for Wiri Prison out of which it boasted to the London Stock Exchange it will make $30 million a year. 
We have seen these submissions to the select committee. Responsible experienced articulate people are saying: “There are these problems here. You should not be going further down the track.” but still the Minister persists in doing that. I think she owes the House an explanation as to why she has continued down this track when there is no evidence at all that the privatisation of prisons is going to improve the quality of the prisons and reduce the cost to the taxpayer. To the contrary I think it will increase the cost to the taxpayer and the country. That money will go out of the country and the quality of the service will be less. You cannot compare Mt Eden with some of the ancient prisons we have got yet Serco did not succeed in meeting its quality performance standards in its first year. As we have seen overseas it might get better but then inevitably there are problems as the profit motive comes in and it cuts corners and that comes at a cost to public security and the proper incarceration of people in this country. 
So that was the first of the issues and it is fundamental to this bill. It is set out under clause 5 “Delegation of powers and functions of chief executive” and I think the Minister needs to answer those questions. She has had advice from her officials. She should be equipped to answer those questions. But I have got to say that listening carefully to all of the submissions that were given these submissions were powerful submissions they made compelling points and we have not seen any evidence that would justify the ideological viewpoint that somehow the privatisation of prisons is best. Is this just another way of cost cutting? That is what it seems to be to many people in this House across a range of different political parties. 
Privatisation does not deliver what we want. It does not deliver the level of security it does not deliver the quality of services it does not maintain the rights that need to be respected it puts the staff of the prisons at risk because it cuts the staffing and it puts the security of the public at risk. I do not think that is good enough and I think there should be an explanation on those points. 
I want to come—and I will only just start to touch on this—to clause 26 “Definition of strip search”. Look I understand that you have got difficult people in prison whom you are dealing with I understand that you have to have a way of preventing contraband entering prisons and I understand that there are times when the most intrusive form of strip-searching may be justified. That is recognised under the current law which says that if the prison manager has reasonable cause to suspect then he can employ that most intrusive means—that is the use of illumination the use of mirrors around the genital and the anal areas. But the current law also makes another point which is that where somebody is simply coming back from a work party into the prison and there is no cause to suspect subjecting people to that form of intrusive strip-searching just is not justified—just is not justified. 
We heard again a range of submissions that made that point very clearly. The first point of course was made by the people who work in the prisons. You know you would expect them to be pretty hard-headed about their decisions. But the Corrections Association itself acknowledged that this change—to have the most intrusive form of strip-searching on every occasion including routine occasions—was going to have a detrimental effect on relationships within the prison. The association said to us that it did not support the provision. It was unequivocal about that. It said that it is simply not needed and that it would constitute a serious impingement on the dignity of prisoners and also on the staff having to conduct those searches because it is awful for the inmate but it is equally awful for the staff member who has got to conduct a search of that nature. 
The association made this point—and Minister I want you to focus specifically on this point. It said: “If we’ve got a real cause to suspect that somebody has concealed a drug or other form of contraband internally what we do is we put them in a dry cell and nature inevitably takes its course.” If they are concealing something internally that object will sooner or later be passed by the prisoner in the dry cell and the prisoner will have no way of concealing it no way of hiding it. What is more when we went to Rimutaka Prison—Jacqui Dean was there and it was a cross-party group; it was a very good visit—in front of my colleagues I asked the manager whether if a person has actually got something concealed internally this intrusive form of strip-searching will reveal that object. His answer—and Jacqui and Asenati and the others who were with me will back this up—was: “No we won’t be able to tell.” So you are bringing in this intrusive form of strip-searching which the managers and the staff say is not the right way to find concealed objects. 
The association pointed out as well that if there is good cause to believe that there is a concealed object the staff can use scanning and they can use what is called the BOSS chair which I think is in one of the Auckland prisons—the Paremoremo maximum security prison. There are other ways of doing it that are more effective. But the association made this point as well and this was a point made by the Law Society particularly strongly. It asked first of all where the evidence was that we need to increase the intrusiveness of strip-searching because there is a growing problem. It said actually that the opposite is occurring. 
When I was shadow Minister of Corrections back in the late 1990s I was appalled. I remember going to the prison in Linton actually in my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway’s electorate. I think the security was a seven-wire fence and open windows. But I was appalled that 36 percent of the inmates after a long period of a National Government were testing positive for drugs. That was just not good enough. You know it was easier to get drugs inside the prison than outside it. 
Labour brought in a range of measures—a range of measures—that actually tightened the security in prisons. Both as Minister of Justice when I supported it and as Minister of Corrections when I did it we managed to get the level of positive testing for drugs down from 36 percent to 5 percent by the time the National Party took office in 2009-10. So actually we dramatically improved the situation of security in prisons so that people were not able to smuggle objects in. Of course we closed off the cellphones by jamming the cellphones so there is not the order and supply that there used to be back in the 1990s under the National Government. These measures are working. [ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I am going to have a change. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Just a couple of points I want to raise perhaps in reply to the seemingly ongoing speeches of the Opposition and the first one is— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Well you didn’t take the call. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —I am taking a call now—the private management of prisons. It is a given that the Labour-Greens will not support and cannot understand or get their heads around how the private management of a prison can be beneficial but this Government can. That is why this Government has undertaken private management of the prisons. There is nothing about this policy that the Labour-Greens can ever support so it is probably no wonder that they stand up in this House and say nothing good about private management and the private sector involvement in Mt Eden prison’s management and the construction of Wiri Prison which can in fact have the impact of bringing fresh ideas into our prison system. It can in fact improve public safety. 
It can bring—Serco and its management team can bring—innovation into our corrections system and also into our rehabilitation services. Actually it could be a breath of fresh air I would suggest in our corrections services. It could bring benefits that can be shared across the prison network. But of course because of their philosophical position the Labour-Greens and New Zealand First will never entertain the idea that that could be possible. All they can entertain is the idea that it has got to be bad. 
So that leads me to the next question: what really matters in our prisons? Is it the fact that the prison service might be contracted out to private contractors? Is that what matters? No I would suggest that what matters in our corrections service is keeping the public safe and providing good rehabilitation and reintegration services to prisoners in its care. And guess what? That is exactly what our corrections service is doing. In fact I would also venture to note that under National in the past 4 years confidence in the corrections service is 53 percent higher than it was when we came into Government in 2008. 
The member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Phil Goff mentioned how wonderful the Labour Government was regarding the corrections service. Well I recall very well the then corrections Minister Judith Collins having to come in and face an absolute crisis in corrections with prisoner housing. In fact it was so bad that the corrections Minister had to bring in container accommodation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Not true. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Not true say Labour members because they do not actually want to face up to what happened. We saw it for ourselves. The Hon Judith Collins when she was the corrections Minister brought in double-stacking containers. I recall in a previous contribution on this bill that Labour said: “Oh they’re terrible they’re terrible.” They are not actually because when the Law and Order Committee visited Rimutaka Prison and visited that container unit which is two containers high and shaped in a courtyard shape the prisoners were perfectly happy with them. In fact they liked them because they were warm they were contained and they felt safe within them. So let us not be having this fallacy and this rewriting of history by Labour that corrections was in a wonderful condition before the National Government came in because it is demonstrably not true. 
I want to also talk about the issue of strip-searching which again seems to have become a clause célèbre for the Labour-Greens—you know how awful it is that mirrors and lights are being used for strip-searching and that some uniformity has been brought into the process. What I say and what we were also told in the select committee—but of course what the Labour-Greens and New Zealand First do not like to acknowledge—is that what bringing uniformity into the strip-searching procedures does is twofold. What happens is that there is some certainty brought into the process. So if a prisoner comes back in from a court appearance or from some other reason for being outside the wire they know they are going to get a certain level of strip-searching no matter what. That not only ratchets down the tension on behalf of the prisoner and also the prison officer but acts as a very powerful deterrent. Who are we talking about here? We are talking about prisoners. These are people who have been convicted of crimes and sent to prison. There is something very good in my view about sending a deterrent to those people. 
The second aspect I want to just touch on is the use of mirrors and lights which has taken on the spectre of being somehow more intrusive. I would put it to those members across the House that the use of a mirror and a light on a fitting to look at the things that need to be looked at by prison officers has got to be a whole lot less intrusive than a prison officer actually having to bend down and take a look. I have left you with enough pictures in your mind to be going on with so that is the end of my contribution for the moment. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill. I think it is clause 26 that pertains to the change in regime for strip-searches. The chair of the Law and Order Committee has just mentioned that the change in regime to the more intrusive search becoming the standard search would ratchet down—I think the phrase used was—the tension between the inmates and the prison officers. I wanted to just have a look at the submission made by the Corrections Association to the Law and Order Committee because you would think the Government would try to listen to those people who go to work in our prisons every day and have to deal with the danger of dealing with these highly volatile inmates. Part of the intention of this bill is to make life in prisons a bit more efficient for the management of those prisons and safer for the staff but the Corrections Association in its submission states completely the opposite of what Jacqui Dean has purported to be the truth. In its submission to our Law and Order Committee it made it very clear that “Strip searches are carried out every day in prisons across New Zealand. To include such an invasive procedure like this CANZ believes it will result in an increase in staff assaults.” 
So here we have the chair of the Law and Order Committee praising this move to go to the more invasive strip-searches in our prisons going from two regimes to the one—using the lights and mirrors that are used in the regime that they want to make standard—and saying that it will make our prisons a safer place for our corrections officers to work in when the people who are doing this every day disagree with what the chair of the Law and Order Committee has just said. That is a question I certainly want to put to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections. We have got submissions from people who are working at the coalface in these prisons—day to day they have to do these searches dangerous searches which I am pretty sure every member of this Parliament would not want to do every day—saying to us that if we make them do this every day we are going to increase the danger for them. I will read this again: “To include such an invasive procedure like this CANZ believes it will result in an increase in staff assaults.” I think it is a responsibility of this House and this Government to make those prisons as safe a place as they can possibly be for those people those corrections officers who have to carry out this work. 
That leads me to really what is the main reason the Labour Party opposes this bill—I think it is contained in clause 5—and that is the delegation of powers from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to those staff who work in privately run prisons. We have one in Auckland at the moment and we know that one is planned by the Government to go at Wiri. The kinds of powers that we are talking about being delegated to those staff who work in private prisons are around things like the security classification of inmates and the temporary release of prisoners in those private prisons. We do have an ideological difference of opinion with the Government around who should be operating our prisons. We do not believe that it is the role of a profit-motivated company to be imprisoning people and to have responsibility over them. On this side of the House we believe that that is the role of the Government. We strongly oppose privatising prisons which is why we strongly oppose clause 5 in this bill. We believe that prison management which involves the taking away of people’s freedom locking them up and making sure that we can rehabilitate them to the best of the State’s ability is a core role of Government just like our defence forces and our police. It is in the best interests of our community and we believe that the Government has a moral and fiscal obligation to take the responsibility of making sure that it is the State that looks after corrections and imprisoning people. 
We are not alone in that. There were a number of submissions to the Law and Order Committee around that. One was from Rethinking Crime and Punishment and I will read it again for the benefit of the Committee. It said that “The incarceration of citizens their treatment within prison and rehabilitation throughout a prison sentence is in our view a primary function of the Government.” and we 100 percent agree with that. I think one of the concerns that we certainly share with Rethinking Crime and Punishment is its concern that when we give powers to private contractors in this area “… the Government is opening the door for misuse of power and corruption as the checks and balances that apply to government departments may not be passed through to private entities.” and it talks about examples of behaviour like this being evidenced in private corporations in the United States. Jacqui Dean in her speech also said that it is absolutely a given that we will oppose this bill on that ground and she is 100 percent right. We do not believe it is the place of private companies which at the end of the day have a profit motivation—the bottom line is the bottom line—to be making profits out of people whom we as a State judge and say should be locked up. In one perverse view it would be in those companies’ interests to keep them in there because those prisons will—as I think Charles Chauvel said in his second reading speech—end up becoming a sausage factory. They want inmates to be in their prisons because without inmates they do not have any business. 
I think I have said enough around the private management of prisons and I did want to move on to strip-searching again because I think that some of the arguments put forward by the chair of the Law and Order Committee just have not stacked up in terms of the Government’s support for changing the regime from the two searches to the one search. Within the select committee there was a fair amount of opposition to the change of regime for the strip-searches as well and funnily enough the Ombudsmen—who are looking very closely at the Government’s behaviour at the moment—expressed a strong opinion in their submission to the committee. Again reading from their submission to the committee they expressed “strong concerns about the amendment … of the Corrections Act which diminishes the safeguards against prisoners being strip searched unnecessarily or inappropriately and also removes the less intrusive type of strip search. We have previously stated that the existing requirements for strip searches provide a very good balance between the rights of the Department to manage its prisoners and the rights of the prisoners to not be subjected to unreasonable searches. In our view they do not need to be changed.” 
So if the Minister in the chair does take a call I would like her to give us her opinion as to why this Government is ignoring the calls of the Office of the Ombudsman. It is ignoring the calls of the Corrections Association which represents I think a majority of those corrections officers who work day to day in the situations that we are discussing in this Parliament tonight. That change in regime for strip-searches I believe is something of an attempt by the Government to look tough against prisoners and we have heard from Jacqui Dean that she quite likes the look of people getting locked up. I do not necessarily think that it is a good look for the Government so I want to hear from the Minister in the chair why the Government is ignoring that call from organisations like the Office of the Ombudsmen and people like the officers who are at the front line why it is making that move which corrections officers think will put them in danger. 
I want to also back up what the Hon Phil Goff said about our visit to Rimutaka Prison. It was a very useful visit by the Law and Order Committee and I thank the Minister for letting us do that because it did give us the opportunity to go and speak face to face with those corrections officers and ask them the question. I agree with what Phil Goff said because I too asked those officers whether they think it would make a material difference to them if they had the ability to have just one search—to have the more intrusive search—and they all said no. They echoed what was in that Corrections Association submission which was that in the end they thought that it was going to do more good than harm—more good than harm. So I hope the Minister in the chair does take a call and explain to all those corrections officers who have expressed their opinion in their submission as to why she is continuing to change that strip-search regime in the face of the opinions of people at the front line and people who have had a look at the policy ramifications of this who have said that this is not a good thing to do. 
We are opposing this bill on those two grounds and another one which we will probably take up some time on later and that is around a bit of a botch-up on the Government’s behalf and poor old Anne Tolley has to clean it up. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I want to take just a few minutes to answer a couple of the questions that have been posed and to talk to a couple of points. First of all I understand that Charles Chauvel prior to my coming into the Chamber asked the question around Public Service requirements applying to private contractors—in this instance Serco—and whether will they be required. Well the answer is of course yes and I refer members to section 199 of the Corrections Act. I have to state the obvious really that prisoners are still covered by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Actually the State Sector Act still applies to our staff—so things around equal employment. All of those still apply. And of course there is the Ombudsman. We have this optional protocol the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture where the Ombudsman is able to go in and have a look at anything in any prison at any time and that will still apply whether it is a privately contracted prison or not. 
Finally and I think perhaps one of the most important features the Minister of Corrections is still accountable to this House for the operations. As Minister I still hold the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections accountable for the workings of those prisons. So he may well delegate powers out to our private provider but I still hold him accountable for the results. Therefore as Minister I am able to be held accountable by this House for the operations of that prison. I think that is a very important part of the private contracting arrangements. 
I would make the point that there have been some outrageous statements made in this Chamber tonight actually about Serco. Fortunately none of them would ever be made outside the House I think because those members would be up before court. But in fact if you look at the operations of Serco in corrections as I have both in Australia and in the UK some of the top performing prisons for rehabilitation have been run by Serco. Some of the top performing prisons that are getting the best results for their prisoners in rehabilitation have been run by Serco. Yes it had a really bad year last year and I held the Department of Corrections’ feet to the fire to make sure that we got that prison operating well. I am very pleased to inform the Committee that in fact it is meeting about 95 percent of the performance measures that we hold it to account for. I expect that that will continue. That is my expectation as Minister. 
I would also say to all members in the Chamber but particularly to the Opposition members—who I am sure will be very interested in it—that we are working very hard to develop some tables of performance that will enable us to compare the performance of all our prisons across New Zealand and that will be made public. That is not an easy thing to do because each prison has different characteristics and deals with different types of prisoners. The Mt Eden prison—contrary to what was said in this Chamber tonight—even though it might have been newly designed is not an easy prison to run simply because of the large number of remand prisoners who are largely short-term prisoners and who are in and out. It is not an easy prison to run and I think that Serco has finally started to do a pretty good job there. 
 The other thing about getting private contractors or different people to come in and run any operation is that it brings in a wealth of new ideas. Some of them are effective and some of them are not but actually you have got an opportunity to have a look at how some things can be done differently. And I have to say that I would say to any member in this House who is interested to go and have a look at Mt Eden prison and what it is doing around those prisoners who are at risk of self-harm. It is trialling something that is quite different from the way we have traditionally dealt with those people who are you know extremely vulnerable people. And to date—touch wood—it is having really good success. We are learning from its methods and what it is doing and that is one of the major benefits of having a different way of operating available to us and to this Government. 
Of course if you look at the new Wiri Prison contract that is a contract that is not about a sausage factory. This is a cutting-edge contract that is entirely results focused. That operator cannot have a sausage-type factory. It is not in its interest to keep prisoners there. It will get rewards if it successfully rehabilitates and reintegrates prisoners back into our communities. The role of the corrections service certainly is to keep its communities safe and the best way that it can do that is to make sure that that turnover that churn of prisoners going back out into the community and committing crimes again for all the reasons that we in this Chamber know—drug and alcohol addiction life with a background of violence being the norm poor educational qualifications no skills—is dealt with. Fifty percent of our prisoners come in not from employment. Many of them have never had a job in their lives. We have an obligation to deal with all of those things and the way we can keep our communities safe is to make sure that when prisoners go out they have the best opportunity to get gainful employment look after their families and lead a sensible and successful life that does not include prison. 
I am open to any ideas and I have to say to the Opposition and to Mr Chauvel that consultation goes both ways. I opened my door and talked to you and made you the offer to come and talk to me about things like strip-searching. I said: “Come and tell me your ideas. I am open to those ideas.” Not a telephone call— 
Charles Chauvel 
: When was that? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: You sat in my office— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No you can’t request it Charles. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. You sat in my office. Consultation is about communication both ways. It is not just going out and putting your ideas out and saying: “What do you think of that?”. There has to be a response and I got none. So it is all very well to come into the Chamber and make speeches after the bill has been right through the select committee consideration but actually the opportunity was given and not taken. 
Those are the points I wanted to make about the questions that have been raised. First of all Public Service requirements will apply to Serco and do apply and the Minister is accountable for its performance. I think that is the ultimate—the ultimate—response for this House to take advantage of. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It has been interesting listening to the debate thus far and I would certainly speak in support of many of the points that have been made by our Labour colleagues about the deficiencies in this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill and the overall direction in which it is going. The chair of our Law and Order Committee and I could say a very good chair too made the point that in line with her expectation—and it is true—the Greens have a principled objection to the notion of private ownership and management of prisons. We just do not see it as an appropriate thing for the State to delegate that responsibility. The State has a unique right to legally deprive people of their liberty. Our principled position is that we think the State ought to fulfil its obligation by performing those custodial functions. 
Jacqui Dean also made the comment that she thought the Greens and Labour could not get their heads around the fact that private management of prisons could be beneficial and in that she is actually quite wrong. We I think would agree that private management can be beneficial. The key question is to whom does the benefit accrue. It is very clear that the benefit accrues almost solely to the private operators to the private contractors. We see no benefit to the taxpayer. We see no benefit in terms of enhanced public safety. We certainly see very little benefit overall to the people working in the prison system and indeed the inmates who are contained within it. There is simply no evidence internationally. The evidence is that on balance we see backward steps. We see more cost over time. Serco’s performance—and I will happily say this outside because it is based on reported evidence—has been suboptimal in many ways not only in prisons in corrections but also in the health service. In the National Health Service in the UK for example there was some scandalous performance there. 
I reject the argument that we must privatise our prisons which this bill seeks to embed further simply to get some fresh thinking some innovative ideas. We do have a corrections department and I say this in the full awareness that there is some progressive and some good thinking within that department not least of all from the chief executive himself but overall I think it is fair to say by way of observation that the culture of that organisation is very very inward-looking it is very defensive and it is not actually conducive to generating or accepting new ideas. That has to change and it can change over time but it does not change simply by surrendering by saying that the public sector cannot be innovative and cannot create a good and positive prison environment that actually gives us good outcomes. 
I would suggest to the Minister of Corrections that rather than import ownership rather than import private managers of our prisons we temporarily export some of the best and brightest in our public sector send some of our senior officers on sabbaticals and give them time out from their day-to-day duties to go overseas to be exposed to the good ideas to engage in the debate and to bring back those ideas. This works in education it works in just about every imaginable field and it can and should work in corrections. We do not have to import private management. We can send our own people abroad to observe what works and what does not work and to bring things back trial them and look for good solutions. The Minister is right in that the corrections system has been moribund for a very long time. As I said it is inward-looking it is very defensive and we need to do better and I believe we can do better. I do acknowledge that some small steps have been made towards that but I absolutely reject the proposition that it is necessary to hand over the business to a private operator in order to achieve those better outcomes. 
I would like to say a few things about the clause concerning medical officers clause 8 of this bill. There was some doubt under the original drafting that there would be a minimum of one medical officer in each prison. The redrafted version we are told assures us that there must be at least one medical officer in each prison. The language—“a sufficient number of medical officers”—is a small improvement but it is something I think we will continue to monitor. We know that prisoners routinely have less good health than the general population. There is strong evidence that prisoners’ health can go backwards can get worse rather than better while they are in the care of the Department of Corrections. We hear anecdotally of instances which I hope are not widespread where access to medical help medical service is treated as a reward as a privilege rather than as an absolute right. These things we know are occurring and ought not to be. 
I do think that the argument that the Ombudsman presented in the very substantive and comprehensive assessment—the report—that the Ombudsman gave us last year advocating very strongly that the Department of Corrections the custodial department ought not to have charge of the delivery of health services is one we absolutely agree with. We think that the mind-set the culture of a custodial organisation is always going to compromise the open and appropriate delivery of health services. 
 It is to the benefit not only of inmates that they get a good health service; it is to the benefit of all of us. Ninety-nine percent of inmates will ultimately be released back into society. If they remain physically unwell—and we routinely hear of people coming from prison sentences often quite long sentences with very poor dental health with chronic untreated respiratory problems and with all sorts of illness that ought to have been and could have been dealt with better while they were serving their sentences—and come back into communities with ill health poor physical as well as often mental health untreated addictions and the like it is not helpful for any of us. 
It is a shame as I said last night in the earlier debate. The provisions in the bill we are debating tonight could have been an opportunity to fundamentally change the nature of the health service delivery in our prisons. It is unfortunate I think that there has been some movement around the margins some changes implemented but no substantive change. We do need structural changes in the corrections system. What we have now is not performing well. We are significantly below par in terms of our reoffending in terms of recidivism in terms of failure to reintegrate people back into society post release. We can do better. We need to do better. We spent $1.4 billion last year and that figure has been climbing year by year by year. We have to do better. It is our responsibility to the taxpayers and indeed to the people who are in the justice pipeline. 
I would like to mention the business of denying prisoners their minimum entitlement to exercise. Again the select committee did some good work and we did have a win there. The original drafting of the bill meant that prisoners could be denied their minimum entitlement of 1 hour on an open-ended basis—it could go on and on. The new draft of the bill limits it to 2 consecutive days. We still think that is too much primarily because the criteria include a reference to it not being practicable to provide the opportunity for a prisoner to get an hour’s exercise on a given day. In other words budgetary and resource constraints can deny a prisoner that minimum right. 
One hour out of 24—that is their entitlement and it can be denied them for 48 hours. What would it do for any of us to be confined in very small rooms in the back of a prison van in a holding cell at a court and then to go back to a cell in a prison—48 hours at a stretch without seeing daylight or getting fresh air? Even though as I dare suppose most of us are well-balanced individuals I think we would find ourselves seriously stressed by that. For an inmate who is already suffering stress including people not yet proven to be guilty of anything—because this applies to remand people as well—I think it is unacceptable that we should deny that very very minimal 1-hour per day entitlement to some exercise. I think that is simply not good enough. We should not be reducing what is already a very minimal entitlement. It is simply inhumane to keep people confined to that extent for 48-hour periods and then perhaps they have a day with 1 hour of exercise and then back to court they go for another couple of days or they are transferred to another prison—whatever the situation might be. 
There has been talk already about and reference made to the question of strip-searches and the extent to which the more intrusive form of strip-search will become the norm rather than our allowing for the less intrusive version. Often when one speaks in any detail on this people wrinkle their noses. It is not a pleasant business. The point has been made—it has been articulated already—that it is not desirable for inmates or for staff. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Corrections Amendment Bill. I must reiterate in the Committee today that New Zealand First will always put the safety of our community as a priority as well as supporting law enforcement officers and staff to carry out their roles effectively and efficiently. 
Last night during this bill’s second reading I emphasised that this bill is one of the few bills being introduced that will provide improvement to the way our prisons operate and are managed. It is important that we support the removal of any obstacles that would prevent managing prisoners in a manner that is safe. It is also important that we support the removal of any obstacles that would prevent managing prisoners in a manner that is secure and humane. It is also important that we support the removal of any obstacles that would prevent managing prisoners in a manner that is effective and efficient. 
Some of these points would be addressed in proposed changes to delegations as reflected in clauses 14 16 17 18 and possibly 42. However New Zealand First will continue to strongly oppose the use of private firms and contractors for the purpose of operating prisons and prison services as per clause 5. I cannot make it clear enough that the incarceration of prisoners should and must remain the sole preserve of the State. Serco has been unable to form and build better relationships with the local communities in order to assist with the delivery of rehabilitative initiatives in order to reduce reoffending. Furthermore Serco’s performance has been way below standard and progress has been extremely slow if at all. 
I would like to come back to the comments made by the Minister of Corrections. You said that Serco was performing well and I would like to ask the Minister why then the prisoners are being locked up for longer hours in the Mt Eden Corrections Facility and whether it is the view of the Department of Corrections that Serco’s rehabilitation initiative is to send prisoners to the gym and then record those hours as rehabilitation hours. I do agree that educational opportunities should be made available for prisoners but make sure that they are the right educational programmes. Rehabilitation is a good thing but they must be relevant and effective initiatives by the right providers. I also would like to pick up on the comments that David Clendon has made that staff on the floor not the staff in the national office or the ivory towers would do this country a lot of good if they were the ones being sent overseas to get more learning and be exposed to new ideas. 
I would also like to pick up the comments made by Jacqui Dean on container units. I think Jacqui Dean is misinformed because those container units became outrageously expensive. They cost a lot more which crushed the National Government’s cost-saving plan. I do wonder whom or where she is getting her information from. 
I want to now come back to the medical officer allocation. The fact that this bill aims to fix the current loopholes within the Corrections Act means it is a step in the right direction. The amendment to section 20(1) in clause 8 helps address medical treatment of prisoners in prisons but I want to say to David Clendon that prisoners are probably getting the most effective service in the way of health care. I have to say that I have been there and I have worked in that environment and they have got the best service available to them in the way of dental care and health care compared with those who are outside the prison walls. 
This bill will also ensure accountability in terms of the protection and safety of our communities and reduces the delays as well as reducing additional requirements for escort staff when transporting prisoners to and from the hospitals. This is our taxpayers’ money so I am standing up for what is in the best interests of our country as well. This amendment bill must incorporate safety mechanisms that will honour those dedicated men and women who provide security and public safety for our country. 
It has been said that enforcing the rule of law and maintaining public order are inseparable and that they form the bedrock of a civilised society and a sound liberal democracy. New clause 31A which allows authorised persons such as non-custodial staff to read prisoners’ mail will contribute to operational efficiency within the prison environment and I think it is a wonderful idea. 
I want to now come back to the response we put forward to the Law and Order Committee. We do believe that the strip-searching of prisoners can be enhanced by using a different approach from what has been incorporated into the Corrections Amendment Bill. 
The other thing I want to address is property claims. New Zealand First supports clear processes in the area of lost and stolen property of prisoners. Savings can be made in this area especially in the processing of such claims. Clear guidelines that will transfer the liability of prisoners must be laid down in order to clearly determine accountability. This is an area that used to frustrate me when I was working in that environment. 
I still believe Minister that if you would consider reinstating the provision in the old penal institution legislation of 1954 I think this would really do corrections a lot of good. This provision would give power to a visiting justice or adjudicator of corrections to impose certain punishments and penalties which include a loss of remission on any sentence. I think it is relevant that that provision should be reinstated. 
I would also like to emphasise cultural perspectives within the prison environment. Cultural perspectives should also be incorporated into staff training programmes in order for staff to understand and deal efficiently with major ethnic populations in our prisons. That would contribute to the effective delivery of rehabilitation programmes within the prison environment. 
So New Zealand First recognises that this bill has some merit although it does not address all the issues that we have identified. But overall the bill will improve a number of areas within the environment of corrections operations. 
I would now like to touch on the smoking ban. And thank you Minister—I know that you have invited me to come and meet with you and you might not like the response I am going to give you now but it is an important— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I think the member is getting into Part 3. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Part 3 yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well and we are on Part 1 so— 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: OK so I will talk about it afterwards. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Righto. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Thank you very much— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is really just a question of clarification. I read Supplementary Order Paper 171 as proposing amendments to clauses 2 4 and 36. So I am not sure that there is a Part 3 to the bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is a new Part 3. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I am sorry. Well I missed that. That is the clarification I was seeking. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Very good. Iain Lees-Galloway has the call. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by David Clendon because the contributions from the Minister of Corrections and from Jacqui Dean have suggested that the Opposition’s opposition to the use of private firms in the incarceration of New Zealand citizens is a purely ideological one. But I think the Minister has failed to actually explain what it is about the privatisation of prisons that will improve the service that the Department of Corrections and Serco provide New Zealanders in terms of the rehabilitation of prisoners and the safe incarceration of prisoners. 
The Minister listed a few things that she thinks are wrong with the current system that she thinks the corrections department could be doing better but then simply says the answer to that is to hand over that responsibility to abdicate that responsibility to the private sector. Well that is not governing. That is not leading. That is the very worst example of taking a hands-off approach to leading our nation. The Minister has said she is not prepared to roll up her sleeves to work with the corrections department to try to improve its culture to try to improve the way the public sector delivers corrections services. She is not energetic enough to do that. She is not enthusiastic enough to do that. She simply wants to step back take the hands-off approach and hand that responsibility to bring fresh thinking and new ideas to corrections to the private sector. That is not good enough. 
That is not a good enough reason for New Zealand to give up on the fundamental principle that the incarceration of our citizens should be the sole preserve of an elected Government. That is one of the fundamental principles of living in the liberal democracy that we do in New Zealand—that we take people’s freedom seriously and we take the removal of freedom seriously. That is something that only an elected Government that represents the people and that has a mandate from the people should be involved in. That should not be handed over to a private firm listed on the London Stock Exchange. It is that fact that actually gets to the heart of what the Government is attempting to achieve here because we know that the National Party is the party of big foreign capital. 
Big foreign multinational companies like Serco are lobbying Governments around the world to get themselves a slice of the public purse by getting involved not only in building prisons but also in the health sector and the defence sector and interestingly in building detention centres for asylum seekers. Serco has been lobbying the Canadian Government very hard to adopt a policy of mass detention of asylum seekers so that Serco can perhaps acquire a few contracts and build those detention centres. And now here we have in New Zealand our Prime Minister suggesting that we need to have a policy of mass detention of asylum seekers and working with the Australians who coincidentally also contract Serco to build and operate their detention centres for asylum seekers. What an extraordinary coincidence that Serco should pop up all over the world where these policies have been adopted and now we know that Serco is active in New Zealand and our Prime Minister wants to adopt that policy of building mass detention centres for asylum seekers who have never even made it to New Zealand and are in all likelihood never going to make it to New Zealand. So he has to make up stories about how the Australians are going to shepherd asylum seekers across the Tasman. He has to make up stories about boats that he has heard of that have left Indonesia and may or may not make it down to New Zealand. Why? Because he wants to appease Serco the company— 
Louise Upston 
: Are you talking about Part 1? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —the only people who will benefit from this bill Ms Upston. They are the only people who will benefit from Part 1 of the Corrections Amendment Bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I took a point of order when Mr Roy was in the Chair because he asked Asenati Lole-Taylor to stop speaking when she started to address the issue of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 171. I believe that that was an error on the former Chairman’s part. I think he acknowledged that probably to you and to the Minister before he left. 
The fact is that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper substantially amends Part 1. He did mention the new Part 3 but that is a very very small part dealing with consequential amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act. So Mr Chairperson could you just clarify that my understanding is correct and that it is in order to refer to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper? Because that is what I want to do and I think others will want to do that as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes that is the understanding. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to deal with Supplementary Order Paper 171. Before I do though I want to address two comments that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections made when she was on her feet. First of all I asked early on in the Committee stage whether certain safeguards that apply to public sector employment—certain ethical requirements that apply to public servants—would apply to private sector employees to whom public powers were delegated under the clause that is contemplating that delegation in Part 1. 
The Minister got up and she reassured us about the contents of section 199 of the Corrections Act. She did not mention two particular documents that I wanted her to reassure the Committee about. I accept that she was not physically present when I asked these questions but none the less she rose to the occasion and purported to answer my questions and I do want her to consider this issue. 
 There are two fundamentally important ethical requirements that apply to public servants. One is the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 promulgated by the State Services Commissioner made under the State Sector Act 1988. The other is the departmental code of conduct applying to all employees of the Department of Corrections. These are the fundamental documents that govern the day-to-day ethical behaviour of corrections officers. 
I cannot see where the requirement to honour either of those documents is put upon private sector employees who exercise delegated authority from the chief executive. So it is all very well for the Minister to point to section 199 of the principal Act which we can all read and have read. We all know that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies. We all know that the Ombudsmen Act applies. 
What about the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 Minister and what about the departmental code of conduct? That is the issue that I was fundamentally addressing to you and I would like you to get your officials to tell you whether or not those documents apply. If they do not we have a problem. We have a fundamental problem because the employees of Serco and the employees of other private entities that might receive delegations of public authority from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections will not have the same fundamental ethical requirements that apply to public servants. Because of the reasons that were articulated by Iain Lees-Galloway who has just resumed his seat and because this is the fundamental business of administering our prisons dealing with people who have been deprived of their liberty by the State those ethical obligations must apply. If they do not this is an obscene exercise and it should not proceed. 
The other point I want to make before I address Supplementary Order Paper 171 directly is about a comment that the Minister made before she resumed her seat. She said she invited me to give her my ideas on the Department of Corrections and how we might do things better. The fact is this is what the Minister did and she should know this because I acknowledged her consultation over Supplementary Order Paper 171 in my speech yesterday in the second reading. She did tell me that she had a Supplementary Order Paper she wanted to propose. She consulted me about it and she showed me the Supplementary Order Paper in draft. I acknowledge that that was the proper thing for her to do. 
She also said to me in passing—when I said to her we would have difficulty supporting the legislation generally because of the privatisation provision and because of the strip-searching provisions and that the Maori Party was not going to be supporting the strip-searching provisions either—that if we had any ideas on strip-searching to make that particular part of the Corrections Amendment Bill better I was welcome to give them to her. I think our views are known: there should not be the standardisation in favour of the drastic procedure. It has been said by a number of speakers in the Chamber already. I do not think that I have been invited by the Minister to be forthcoming with ideas above and beyond that. I certainly if I was so invited would be inundating her with suggestions. 
Back to Supplementary Order Paper 171. Here is the problem. A number of years ago Judith Collins when she was the Minister of Corrections decided that prisons would be smoke-free. We thought that was a good idea and it has been a good idea in practice but it was implemented in the wrong way. The previous Minister thought that she could get away with instructing every manager in every prison to simultaneously declare tobacco to be a contraband good and then to put in place prison-by-prison rules as to disciplining prisoners who used tobacco. 
We said at the time that was brave. In fact it was worse than brave it was reckless. We have seen this sort of reckless behaviour from Judith Collins in the discharge of the justice portfolio time and time again. What should have happened is that legislation should have come to this House. It should have gone to a select committee for public submissions. It should have gone through the checks and balances and then it could have been made law. There would have been no doubt about the legality of the smoking ban. 
As it is a well-known activist inmate at Auckland Prison (Maximum Security Division) went to the High Court and earlier this year got a decision from the High Court confirming that the manner in which Judith Collins went off half-cocked in implementing this ban was legally wrong. Despite that the department has maintained the ban—on what legal authority basis I do not know and I do not know on what basis the taxpayers’ interests will be protected here given the liability that has probably accrued to the Crown since. But leaving that issue aside the Minister has brought to the Committee Supplementary Order Paper 171 which will confirm the basis of the ban and will also interestingly by way of section 179AA(2) in new clause 40AA extinguish any proceedings brought against the Crown questioning the “validity of any rules or regulations” which is referred to in the particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
Minister you showed me this Supplementary Order Paper as you undertook to do. I have read it and I want to give you my response. I think it is the wrong way to go and I think that for the following reason: what is the meaning of “questioning the validity of any rules or regulations”—any proceeding questioning the validity of any rules or regulations? Does that apply to a Regulations Review Committee complaint? I do not think so. So immediately we have got one hole in the Supplementary Order Paper one means by which anyone could mount an attack on these rules and regulations independently of court proceedings and probably someone will do so given the litigiousness that is rife in the sector. 
But what about a proceeding for  
Baigent 
 damages or a judicial review brought purely under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for example for the breach of section 21 which prevents unreasonable search and seizure? There is no doubt in my mind that if this Supplementary Order Paper passes in its current form the seizure of or the searching for tobacco contraband will be lawful but will it be reasonable? That question is not answered by the Supplementary Order Paper. So there is another type of court proceeding that might still be open to inmates or others by which to question the ban because of the wording of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
What about a proceeding under section 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which actually in and of itself confers and affirms a right to sue the Crown in civil proceedings? That would not necessarily be a proceeding in and of itself to question the validity of any rules or regulations that are confirmed by this Supplementary Order Paper 171. But it might still be a way by which somebody could attack the legality of the ban on tobacco products being present in prisons. 
Minister the other problem I think you have is that we just do not know whether there are any proceedings extant at the moment. You might know. The department might know. The Crown Law Office might know. You might like to share that information with the Committee because if there are proceedings then the Committee should know how many there are what the potential liability to the Crown is as a result of those proceedings and whether or not by passing this Supplementary Order Paper in its present form we are simply in the process of selectively extinguishing some legal proceedings but not others. 
I do not think the Committee or the House should be put into that position in a state of ignorance. They should be seized of the facts so that when legislating we know exactly what context we are dealing with. We just do not know that. We do not have that information. We simply have this Supplementary Order Paper which would as I say prevent proceedings being brought against the Crown in order to question the validity of any rules or regulations referred to. I think that is a very important point and I do hope that the Minister will speak to this issue because as I say although we are supportive of the ban the way in which it has been achieved is poor. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to pick up where my colleague Charles Chauvel left off regarding Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of Anne Tolley which amends the Corrections Amendment Bill. The history to this is that the Minister of Corrections at the time Judith Collins announced that she was going implement a ban on smoking tobacco in prisons. Despite warnings from the Opposition and from other groups that should she wish to effect such a ban it ought best be done with legislation Judith Collins knew best. Judith Collins displayed her usual level of arrogance and carried on and implemented the ban. Interestingly because she did not change the legislation she had no power to implement a ban. Miraculously all the prison managers across New Zealand simultaneously declared a ban in their own prisons. What the High Court determined was that it was those prison managers who acted outside of the law—that the Department of Corrections acted illegally at the behest of the Minister of Corrections. 
I stated in the debate last night that Judith Collins acted illegally. I actually think it is worse than that. Judith Collins required public sector employees to act illegally and that is what this Supplementary Order Paper 171 which Anne Tolley has brought to the House is attempting to clean up—that appalling mess that Judith Collins has created through her own gung-ho Judith-knows-best actions whereby she has required public servants to act outside of the law. Of course all that it has done is create a situation where a particularly notorious prisoner has been able to bring a case against the Government. That has subjected the New Zealand taxpayer to the possibility of having to pay out to this gentleman who has brought this case— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He ain’t no gentleman. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well my colleagues say he is no gentleman. I use that term in the broadest possible sense. This all comes back to the way that Judith Collins and her National Party colleagues approach governing in New Zealand which is that they seem to forget that they are elected that we have a democracy that we have a democratic process and that we believe in the rule of law. Judith Collins in particular just acts as though she has the right to be a dictator in New Zealand and that she can just carry on and do whatever she likes whether the law allows her to or not. Of course that is not the case and when she acts in that way then a retrospective amendment like this has to be brought to the House. 
Even just looking at the way this Supplementary Order Paper operates—it actually seeks to amend part of the original Corrections Act. It amends clause 4 of the Corrections Amendment Bill. It amends the section that refers to the substances that are specifically banned in prisons and drugs and alcohol are specifically mentioned. Knowing that the only way to implement a ban on those substances was through legislation Judith Collins should have been acutely aware of the fact that the only way she could have implemented the ban that she wanted was through legislation. It was absolutely obvious to the Minister. It is obvious through the mechanism that is being used in this Supplementary Order Paper that legislation was always required. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is she the justice Minister? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I believe she is the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she know these things? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well you would think that the Minister of Justice a former lawyer would be aware of these matters but it seems that her arrogance got in the way of her knowledge and clouded her judgment in this case. My colleague Charles Chauvel outlined the reasons why we do not believe that this Supplementary Order Paper will be effective. Because of the fact that it is retrospective and because of the fact that it is an inadequate attempt to tidy up a mess caused by Judith Collins we are unable to support it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 There are two issues that I want to raise here. The first I have got to say is really not the fault of the Hon Anne Tolley— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well it was not her fault because this is the fault of Judith Collins. It is Supplementary Order Paper 171 which was introduced on today’s date. For a start it is very bad practice to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper at the very last moment the eleventh hour that has not been subject to any scrutiny by the Law and Order Committee and my learned colleague Charles Chauvel says that there are problems too with this new Supplementary Order Paper. 
But what we are doing here is cleaning up a mess that should never have happened and I for one have had a gutsful of Ministers botching up their portfolios because of sheer arrogance. Judith Collins thought that as Minister she was like Henry VIII and that she could decree there should be no smoking in prisons regardless of the lack of legislative authority to do that. The arrogance was so great that she ignored the advice that she was given that she needed legislative authority. I think that Judith Collins should come down to this Chamber and apologise for a botch-up of that nature which allowed a notorious prisoner Arthur Taylor to have yet another victory over a Minister of the Crown—huge expense and he is chuckling away in his cell in “Pare max”because he has beaten the Government again. 
Pride comes before the fall. Judith Collins thought she was so smart and that she could do anything she wanted. I do not blame Anne Tolley for this but I do say to Anne Tolley that when you bring in legislation that has not been examined by the select committee you will not have an excuse when you come back to the House and have to repair it again if that is the case as my colleague believes that it will be. 
But I want to come back to the comments you made before Minister and that was you said you had invited the Opposition to talk about strip-searching and we had not taken it up. Minister time and again I raised this issue in the select committee. The chair of the Law and Order Committee Jacqui Dean can verify that was the case. We put it in our minority report. We raised it with the officials. The reply we got at every stage was that that would not change because it was set Government policy. So it is a little bit rich Minister to come into the Chamber this evening and say that we did not take up the opportunity. We took up that opportunity time and time and time again. 
I say to the Minister that it is not too late to rectify a bad legislative move now. The Minister can either take the time now in the Committee to get a draft amendment and we will talk through it while she does that or she can defer the final debate on the Committee stage of this bill so that her officials can get it right. 
But I say with due respect to the Minister to have a look at what her own departmental report sums up about the submissions particularly from the Law Society. The Law Society says that the current legislative provision for strip-searching strikes an appropriate balance between the function of detecting unauthorised items and protecting prisoners from a potential abuse of coercive powers and loss of dignity. That is the Law Society Minister. You need to take it seriously. You need to take it seriously too when two organisations whose members work in the prison the Nurses Organisation and the Corrections Association both say this is not justified. Both say that this will make their jobs harder and the Law Society asks where the justification for this is when the statistics show that we have been able to reduce the amount of contraband coming into the prisons from 38 percent in the late 1990s down to 5 percent now. 
There is no justification. This will not help the nurses and the corrections officers. It will make their jobs harder. It will break the balance that exists between finding those items and respecting the dignity of individuals. And Minister listen to what the Ombudsman said. The Ombudsman said that this is a power that will be subject to abuse. You got it wrong when you wanted the authorisation of prison managers to be taken away and you acknowledged you got it wrong by removing that clause from the bill. 
What I am asking you now in all sincerity is to look at this. I am not opposing it for political reasons. I am opposing it because it is the wrong thing to do and all of the evidence was there that it was the wrong thing to do. You as Minister now have the opportunity to set it right—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has exceeded his calls now. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I also want to make some remarks about Supplementary Order Paper 171 to the Corrections Amendment Bill which seeks to retrospectively put right an error that was made by the Government about 18 months ago. This of course has emerged from a High Court ruling which was quite unequivocal. Justice Murray Gilbert made it quite clear. He referred to the smoking ban that had been put in place as being “unlawful invalid and of no effect.” That is a fairly robust statement from a judge. There is no room for equivocation in that. He went on to say that he believed that “it was well established in common law that prisoners retained all their civil rights unless removed by law so the … starting point was that they had the same rights as other citizens to smoke in their own home.” For all intents and purposes a cell is a prisoner’s home. That was I guess the key finding of the judge in this case. 
The issue of smoking in prisons was not overlooked at the time the Smoke-free Environments Act came into force. Section 6A deals with that very thing. It says that the superintendent of a prison must have a written policy that is posted and that “must be based on the principles that as far as is reasonably practicable an employee or inmate who does not smoke or does not wish to smoke in the prison must be protected from smoke arising from smoking in the prison’s cells:”. It also requires where it is reasonably practicable to do so that an inmate must not be forced to share a cell with an inmate who does smoke. So clearly the issue was not overlooked in the original legislation. 
We support the intent to reduce the level of smoking in prisons. Smoking is an addiction. Nicotine dependency and addiction are very powerful. Speaking as a reformed smoker I know this and I dare say there are others of us in that same situation. But the fact is that people do wish to smoke and choose to smoke although we might seek to discourage them. 
It is clear that this ban was illegal. The element of retrospectivity in this Supplementary Order Paper is what is particularly concerning. We will not always oppose amendments that seek to make retrospective change. I recall an example from a year or perhaps 2 years ago where due to a drafting error in legislation the validity of the rights of recently sworn police officers to exercise the duties and powers of a constable was brought into question. We very happily supported the amendment. It was an unfortunate lapse in drafting—a rare one—and we supported that amendment for very good and obvious reasons. 
This Supplementary Order Paper however is clearly designed to protect the Government from the consequences of any claims that might now be made against it on the basis of people who have clearly been denied their absolute legal right to smoke. We have heard a little bit about Mr Arthur Taylor the inmate who successfully brought this case to the High Court. That same person—gentleman if we may be so bold—put out a press release today: “The Government’s hypocrisy is mind-blowing. It imprisons about 9000 people for lawbreaking yet it demonstrates an abject disregard for the rule of law itself—a case of ‘Do as I say not as I do.’ Such hypocrisy can only undermine Miss Tolley’s own Corrections Department’s rehabilitative efforts with many prisoners.” 
We routinely hear from the Government benches the language of consequences. When we seek to protect the rights of prisoners we are told that prisoners are in there because that is the consequence of their action. This Government knows that it is vulnerable to claims from people who have been imprisoned and denied the right to smoke and therefore it is seeking to avoid the consequences of its action. Is that not interesting? I look forward to hearing from some of the more shall I say volatile spokespeople from the Government on these issues of prisoners’ rights— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Nick Smith. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: —I will not name them just now—to explain to me why the Government should be protected from the consequences of its action when some of its members would have us insist that prison inmates must suffer the consequences of theirs. It is unacceptable that this Supplementary Order Paper would put that retrospective correction in place. 
It is a matter of debate just how we seek to reduce the level of smoking in prisons which we acknowledge has been very high historically and is not good for anyone’s health. This is not the right mechanism. This is not the solution. We cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I have to say that if you look at the history of Supplementary Order Paper 171 I am advised that this particular measure—the illegal measure of Judith Collins—was introduced in the usual Judith Collins slipshod fashion ironically pre-election. Why would this have been rushed through? 
Judith Collins is a lawyer. This is the justice Minister who will go down in history as being outsmarted by a pretty awful criminal who is in Paremoremo maximum security prison “Pare max” called Arthur Taylor—if not once twice outsmarted by a prisoner who does not have a law degree and does not have a legal background. She got outsmarted by him. God knows how much it cost the taxpayer in court action and—I would say just in passing—in the anguish of victims who had to watch this individual go out of “Pare max” and appear in court like some sort of latter-day Perry Mason to outsmart the Minister of Justice in the arrogant way that I am sure he had. 
But here is the point: you now can understand if you look at the sequencing of this announcement why it was rushed through and why Judith Collins rejected advice that it required law. It was all about plain old-fashioned electioneering politics. Judith Collins jumped up and down and stamped her feet with a Shirley Temple grin: “Let’s be tougher than tough and stop these prisoners smoking. This will be a good election pamphlet to spin out. Who cares about the legality? Who cares about the potential liability to the Crown? Who cares whether the Crown is embarrassed by a bad guy residing in the maximum security prison in the country about the cost to the taxpayer or about the anguish? We’ll just rush this through because it makes us look tough.” That was Judith Collins’ argument. 
Then we come to the advice. We know that Crown Law advice was proffered to this Government. I am not a lawyer but Crown Law—you have to assume it knows and it advises Ministers as to what is legal and what is not legal. It could have advised John Banks—that might have been of assistance to him—but we will not go there. The question I have for the Minister of Corrections is why on earth she will not release said advice. We know it is legally privileged but presumably the advice simply says that the National Government requires legislation to do this properly—to make it an offence to make it illegal—to implement the policy or that it does not require a law but can do that by fiat or by royal announcement in a sort of slipshod Judith Collins fashion. 
Why would you keep that advice privileged? There is only one reason—there is only one reason because there is no commercial sensitivity. The only sensitivity is the embarrassment to this Government and the Minister of Corrections who is in the chair. I will give her this: she is sort of the person with the shovel behind the elephant having to clean it all up. The person who will be most embarrassed by that advice will be Judith Collins who has not even taken a call in this debate on the Corrections Amendment Bill. I simply ask the Minister this: why will she not release the advice—which is probably maybe a paragraph long—that says she needs legislation to do this or she does not? The reason is that it would verify what we are saying. The slipshod—maybe if Steven Joyce had been in charge it might have been OK; he might have been able to fix this. Maybe he should be sitting in the seat taking another portfolio to clean up yet another mess where a reasonably despicable character Arthur Taylor from “Pare max” managed to outsmart the justice and corrections Ministers and the entire National Government—the entire National Government. 
I just simply ask the Minister this: if she will not release the advice from Crown Law will she advise us why? There is no good reason at all why she should not release that advice unless it is simply to protect her honour and the honour of her Government and to protect those Ministers especially Judith Collins from embarrassment. Judith Collins is going to have a hard job crushing this one and bunging it under the carpet. Here we are passing retrospective legislation in the dead of night with a Supplementary Order Paper that was dropped on the Table yesterday with no consultation as usual. I would just say to the Government: “Be it on your own head.” You have stuffed it up yet again. You have been outsmarted by a prisoner from “Pare max”. It looks stupid. It looks amateurish. It looks awful. And the responsibility is sheeted home directly to that crowd across the aisle. But I say colleagues will they ever learn? Will they ever learn to do things properly through a process through consultation and through taking advice? I doubt it. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Malo le soifua. Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa. When I was unfairly interrupted in my speech earlier on it cut me off from moving on to the smoking ban and I am now very happy to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First and address the issue of the smoking ban. Last night I actually made a point of talking about some of the important areas where this smoking ban is a concern. I believe and we believe that the introduction of the smoking ban in prisons has not ceased cigarette smoking. I have to reiterate that it has not ceased cigarette smoking. Instead it has created difficult situations where the pressure has now shifted on to families on to friends and on to visitors and staff in general. 
The interesting thing is that you will have prisoners who are inside the wire who will be selected to go out on external party work programmes. For example you will have a prisoner called Mr Collins Tolley getting up in the morning getting ready to go outside the wire to either a farm or a forest where he will be working. At that time Mr Collins Tolley will be allowed to smoke because the prison smoking ban does not extend to those environments outside of the prison wall. This is a part that the department has failed to incorporate into its smoking ban. 
The other thing I want to emphasise here is that the assaults on corrections officers will continue and will always happen. We will also continue to hear of further tobacco-related incidents. People do not know how hard it is to be a corrections officer. People do not understand how impossible it is for corrections officers to enforce any regulations or any rules that this House is responsible for introducing. I can speak from my 6 years of experience in that environment that it is not easy to try to maintain a cool posture when you are actually dealing with prisoners especially in situations where they are desperate for a smoke. I can assure you that prisoners will find a way because they are so intelligent. That is the reason why they got there in the first place because they are too smart for their own good. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They outsmarted the Government. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Absolutely. After all they won the case. So Minister the situation over the smoking ban needs to be reviewed. It is an unrealistic attempt to ban smoking in prisons when prisoners on the Release to Work programme are free to smoke. You cannot expect them to leave the wall go outside and work on those external working parties where they can smoke all day long and then come back to the prison and give it up just like that. The Government is doing more damage to the prisoners by introducing something that is impossible—impossible—to be monitored and to be carried out. 
The next thing I want to say about the smoking ban is that the Government instead of introducing a smoking ban would do well to introduce a comprehensive ongoing stop-smoking education programme for all prisoners. That is a realistic approach. It is not realistic that prisoners will be banned from smoking while staff who cater for them can carry on smoking. How ridiculous that is. So it is a stroppy attempt that comes with unfair implications—for example in respect of human rights. It is impossible for you to say to the prisoner—or for the corrections officers themselves to say to the prisoner—“I am taking you out on a working party. You can’t smoke and I can.” 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. The catchcry from the Government almost ad nauseam is that all that Labour does is oppose—oppose oppose oppose. Anything that the Government puts up in this House we just oppose. Well maybe it should have listened to us when we said that it was going to need some legislation to introduce a smoking ban in prisons. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Or Crown Law. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Or the Crown Law advice. On this side of the Chamber we support a ban on smoking in our prisons. For the benefit of the health of the inmates and also to give the officers in our prisons a smoke-free workplace we support the ban on smoking. But at the time that the Government introduced this measure we said that if it was going to do it—because we support it—it was going to have to bring it into law. But Judith Collins the corrections Minister at the time did not listen to us because we were just opposing. What would we know on this side of the Chamber? Our opposition at the time and the Government’s haste to try to get this through in an attempt to look tough on prisoners pre-election meant that a couple of days before Christmas one of the worst crims in this country who resides at “Pare max” I am told had an early Christmas present unfortunately for the Government by outwitting Judith Collins. I do have some sympathy for the Minister in the chair at the moment Anne Tolley because she has had to clean up the mess that Judith Collins has created. She has had to introduce this Supplementary Order Paper 171 which amends Part 1 of this bill at clause 4 so that tobacco and any equipment used for smoking tobacco or any other substance are classified as unauthorised items in the Corrections Act. 
So I would just like to maybe ask the Minister in the chair her opinion of the performance of the corrections Minister at the time when she made this change which has forced this Minister to come to this Chamber and introduce a very late Supplementary Order Paper to the Corrections Amendment Bill asking for a law to be passed to make smoking essentially illegal in our prisons—pretty much what the Labour Opposition told the Government needed to happen in order for this to happen. I will reiterate that we do support the banning of smoking in prisons. We do not think smoking is needed. By all accounts it seems to have worked and there has not been an outcry or any change in behaviour with prisoners. So we think it is a shame that by way of a very late Supplementary Order Paper the Government and unfortunately Anne Tolley has had to do this has had to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to try to bring that change about by law. Again I will just let those people at home know that we suggested—actually strongly suggested—that the Government do that at the time. 
I did want to thank the Minister in the chair though for taking a call earlier on and answering some of the questions that were put to her earlier in the debate but there was one question that I think has not been answered—that is why the Government is continuing with the change in the strip-search regime when there was such opposition to it at the select committee consideration. I talked about opposition from the Corrections Association of New Zealand; I think it is the largest association representing our corrections officers—again people who day to day go to work on their shift and have to look after the inmates in our prisons. They said in their submission to the Law and Order Committee that they do not support the change in the strip-search regime and in fact the change they thought was going to make their job harder and would increase the number of assaults on prison officers. I do not think that should be taken very lightly and again I want to pose the question to the Minister in the chair as to why the Government is pushing on with this when our Corrections Association has said it will make corrections officers’ jobs harder and potentially increase the danger to them in their day-to-day dealings with inmates. Again the New Zealand Law Society looked for some rationale as to why the Government was changing the strip-search regime and it offered up some evidence. It said there is no evidence that the proposed changes would make any difference because there has already been an effective reduction in the use of drugs in prisons over a 15-year period. Positive drug-tests in prisons have fallen from 36 percent— 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] Party vote called for? [ 
Interruption 
] First of all I will put the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171. All those in favour of the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Should we not have a vote on the closure motion first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No one called for it. 
Hon Members 
: Yes we did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry I missed that. My apologies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Courts Security Act 1999 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
New Part 3 Amendments to Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 New Part 3 of the Corrections Amendment Bill is a new part. It is a very small part and it is introduced in order to make amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act that are consequential on the other amendments in Minister Anne Tolley’s Supplementary Order Paper 171 that the Committee has just agreed to. When we deal with this new part we need to understand that what we are doing is repealing in the Smoke-free Environments Act the definition of “prison” and also changing the definition of “workplace” because of the exclusions that we have just agreed to as a Committee. What I want to do—I hope with the indulgence of the Committee—is just ask the Minister to consider the way in which those previous amendments have been put together. I think from her discussion with me and on a reading of the legislation the debate has not been entirely fair to her. I think she has tried to get the officials to come up with a solution that does not involve retrospectivity—or at least that limits the extent to which retrospective legislation is to be applied in this situation. I think I am right and the Minister is nodding. 
Accepting that she has sought to try to fix up the mess in an as constitutionally appropriate a way as she can I still wonder whether the wording of the legislation is as good as it could be. I said before that I acknowledge that the Minister had consulted me about it and I put that on record again. This debate is the first opportunity I have had to respond and I am trying to do that in good faith. I said before that I was concerned that the mechanism that the substantive legislation uses is to restore the legality of the ban; to declare the regulations and the rules to be treated as if they are part of the Act from the date of the tabling of the Supplementary Order Paper. The way that the Minister is attempting to protect the Crown’s liability is by the provision in the enactment that no proceedings may be brought against the Crown questioning the validity of those rules and regulations.  
 Well I expressed some concerns about that provision earlier and it has just occurred to me that there is another category of proceeding that we might not be dealing with effectively through this legislation. I wonder whether the Minister would consider this situation. Presumably under the ban that was implemented administratively for want of a better way to describe it there were situations where a prisoner was subject to disciplinary proceedings because he or she possessed tobacco which was declared to be contraband and was found to possess it and was then subject to as I say a disciplinary procedure. I wonder what the position would be under this amendment if a prisoner now took proceedings to question the validity of the outcome of that sort of disciplinary proceeding because it seems to me that they would not by those proceedings themselves necessarily be questioning the validity of the rules or regulations; they would be questioning the validity of a penalty imposed on them by legislation or rules that have subsequently been found to be ineffective. So questioning the disciplinary outcome would not necessarily be questioning the validity of the rules and regulations or at least not only questioning the validity of the rules and regulations. I am genuinely keen to see whether the Minister would confer with the officials and perhaps provide some comfort to the Committee on that point. 
Perhaps while that is being done they might want to consider the other issues that were raised earlier—for example a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee. Would that be a proceeding or would it be something else and should we be concerned about that? And what about independent proceedings based on claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for damages or judicial review? So if the Minister would consider those issues I think it would be very helpful. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair. I would like to take a relatively quick call on new Part 3 which is contained in Supplementary Order Paper 171 to the Corrections Amendment Bill which has been put forward by the Minister of Corrections. I want to reiterate that on this side of the House we do support our prisons being smoke-free and I want to outline our rationale for that too. 
I think Charles Chauvel has pointed to some concerns that he has around the retrospectivity of the new smoking part of this amendment bill but Labour does support smoke-free prisons. As I said in my previous contribution we think it is good for the overall health of the inmates and we do need to look at that as part of their rehabilitation. We need to try to get them back on—I guess the phrase could be—the straight and narrow by supporting prisons being smoke-free. We think that is a wise thing to do. We do have concerns about the way the Government previously introduced this measure. We did say that it should have been done legislatively. That was not done and we do have this Supplementary Order Paper before us. We do support also of course prison officers having a smoke-free workplace environment. 
I think at the outset when this measure was proposed by the Government there was some concern that it might cause a level of disquiet amongst the inmates. But it was introduced and I think on the whole—and I think people may have said this at the Law and Order Committee as a side issue to what was being proposed in the bill before this Supplementary Order Paper was introduced—the smoking ban in prisons to date has worked quite well. Any issues that people thought might arise—and I think they reasonably may have thought that given how closely prisoners guarded their cigarettes before the ban was in place—have not necessarily eventuated. I think kudos must have to go to the Department of Corrections for the way it has brought that in and some of the support it has given to the inmates as smoking was banned. 
I want to touch again on some of the politics of this. I think the Government will be very happy that this part is being debated at quarter to 10 because this has not been a good look for it. It has had to introduce this Supplementary Order Paper to make this change. When it made the change in another way the Labour Opposition warned that it should do it legislatively. I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections because she is not necessarily to blame for the fact that this Supplementary Order Paper has had to be introduced and that it has had to be done this way. It was the previous Minister of Corrections who did not heed some of the I guess you could call it opposition or suggestion from the Labour Party that it should be done legislatively and maybe kudos has to go to the Minister in the chair for bringing this measure to the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. Unfortunately we are not going to support it because of the way that it has eventuated and because we have concerns about other parts of the bill most notably the private management of our prisons and of course something in Part 1 around the change to the regime for strip-searching. 
In conclusion we want to just reiterate our support for smoke-free prisons. We are not happy that this is happening now considering that we did warn the Government much earlier on before these changes came in that it should do it by law. It did not and now it finds itself in the strange position of having to do it in a rather hasty manner and by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. We want to make sure that our prisons are safe and are good workplace environments especially for those prison officers who have to deal day to day with some of the issues that inmates can cause. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have taken some advice in answer to Mr Chauvel’s query and I have been assured that any legal action would have had to have been lodged on or before 12 February when Supplementary Order Paper 171 was tabled. Again it is not possible to question the validity of disciplinary proceedings without also questioning the validity of the rules or regulations. So that advice then says that this Supplementary Order Paper rules that out. I thank the member. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am grateful to the Minister of Corrections for taking that advice. To be as clear as I can be my concern is twofold. First of all the definition of proceedings—that is I think pretty clearly limited to proceedings in court. My point was really that there are other types of remedies or causes of action or procedures open to people who wish to challenge the validity of regulations and I am not sure that section 179AA(2) does extinguish all those types of proceedings. The Minister is nodding her head so obviously that is deliberate but I think we should be clear that that is the case. 
If I did not express clearly the second concern I had I apologise. It was about proceedings that do not make a head-on challenge to the rules and regulations that are being validated by this Supplementary Order Paper but that rely on independent causes of action such as an attempt to—I think of the examples I used earlier—seek judicial review in and of itself by virtue of either section 21 or section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or to seek  
Baigent 
 damages based on those provisions. If the officials have considered those expressly and think that they are excluded well and good. But I just want us to be clear that the Minister is proceeding on the basis of that very clear advice if that is what she is doing. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 New Part 3 as set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 171 makes some consequential amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act. Specifically it removes references to “prison” in the interpretation section and amends the definition of “workplace”. It also repeals section 6A which referred to the procedures that had to be put in place in prisons in order to ensure that prisoners who were smoke-free were able to have I suppose quiet enjoyment of their prison cell and be able to be smoke-free themselves without other prisoners impinging upon that. It is because of that and also the fact that prison officers and corrections staff working in prisons are able to now safely work in their workplace whilst being smoke-free that we on this side of the Chamber do support the concept of smoke-free prisons. 
I want to make it quite clear that we have some real problems with the way this legislation is being passed—the fact is that this is a Supplementary Order Paper being introduced to tidy up a mess caused by Judith Collins a fact that has been well canvassed by many members in the Chamber this evening—but there is also the fact that this is being introduced as a Supplementary Order Paper without much warning from the Government without the opportunity for the select committee to give it the scrutiny that it really requires and without the ability for the Attorney-General to offer an opinion regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
It is quite possible that this Supplementary Order Paper does contravene on the face of it the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that may also open up the Government to future complaints—possibly to the Regulations Review Committee; I do not know. There seem to be a lot of holes in this Supplementary Order Paper and it has not received the scrutiny that it really ought to have. Therefore we cannot support it because we could just be leaving the New Zealand taxpayer vulnerable in the way that Judith Collins did in the first place. We may find because neither the Attorney-General nor the select committee has been able to give this Supplementary Order Paper the scrutiny necessary that this just leaves taxpayers as vulnerable as they were in the first place. 
 I just want to make one point and that is that although we are supportive of the smoking ban in prisons what this is effectively is a form of prohibition. Within a prison this is a form of prohibition and what you get when you introduce prohibition is a black market. We have known for some time—an article that I was able to reference this evening is in the  
New Zealand Herald 
; I think there were others—that the price of an illegal quantity of cigarettes or tobacco in prisons has now reached $500. That is a direct consequence of introducing prohibition. That is not money that the Government is able to collect and use to reduce the harm caused by taxpayers; that money is probably going directly to organised crime and the relatives of prisoners. That is an unintended consequence of introducing prohibition. So although we are supportive of the measure I think it is important to point that out: that when we are considering effective ways to deal with substances like tobacco prohibition is not always the best way forward. 
Although we can appreciate what the Minister of Corrections is trying to achieve with these amendments in the new Part 3 which will amend the Smoke-free Environments Act as I said we are unable to condone this legislation because all it is is a backside-covering job for the Government to try to tidy up the mess caused by Judith Collins. We do not think it is effective. We think that it has far too many opportunities for future litigation by learned prisoners such as the gentleman whose name again escapes me— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Arthur Taylor. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —Arthur Taylor—who has been able to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who’s not a lawyer. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —who is not a lawyer— 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to add new Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
New Part 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Corrections Amendment Bill with amendment and no progress on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.