Volume 705 Week 16 - Wednesday 20 May 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 705 Week 16 - Wednesday 20 May 2015[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3443. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 20 May 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersGovernment Financial Position—Return to Surplus1.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in his Budget speech last year “we are in surplus”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes because the Treasury forecasts then showed a small surplus for 2014-15.Andrew Little: Why has he persisted in making that promise or that undertaking to New Zealanders including after the election when he knew he could not keep it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that that statement is at all accurate.Andrew Little: Why does he or other Ministers in his Government persist in making excuses about milk prices and inflation when he knows that dairy prices began falling last February and inflation has been stagnant since 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member may have such a lack of grasp of economics that he does not realise the impact that inflation has on the Government’s books. We know that Grant Robertson has got his training wheels on so he does not know what $15 billion worth of less expenditure means. By the way during the entire election campaign Labour got up and said that the Government should take no credit for higher dairy prices because that is just a function of something else. But apparently with the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough.Andrew Little: Now that he is set to be the first Prime Minister since Robert Muldoon to deliver seven straight deficits why should the public believe him when the Government promises a surplus next year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the New Zealand public have done year after year after yearis judge this Government on its economic performance. They have seen the mess we inherited from Labour when it came to ACC the massive build-up in expenditure the failure to have a competitive tax system and the fact that it left the books in such a shocking state and they have actually seen us get that down get debt down and get growth up. That is why business confidence is high. That is why New Zealanders in droves have voted for National. Maybe the member needs to look in the mirror and ask himself why his messages are not getting through. Here is an idea: he does not have any messages. He has not—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister received on getting back to surplus based on the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts before the election last year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen one report from last year’s election campaign on the 2014-15 surplus: “Oh look absolutely stand by the numbers calculated and checked on the same basis as the Government’s own numbers and absolutely verified all banked all paid for. We are still running a surplus every year. It is absolutely fantastic and people can have every confidence in it.” That was David Cunliffe claiming that Labour was running a surplus even from Opposition.Andrew Little: What other promises for Budget 2015 are now also under threat and will the Budget show we are on track for the 150000 extra jobs by 2016 and a $7000 average wage rise by 2017 as promised in his open letter after last year’s election?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to wait—only one more sleep actually—until the Budget tomorrow. I am sure he will be able to do that. What he will see tomorrow in the Budget though are good growth numbers. He will see surpluses out in the years in front. He will see debt levels that are the envy of the Western World. That is why I can be absolutely sure that when New Zealanders look at this Government and its economic leadership they do not have buyers’ remorse; they are very happy that they dispatched Labour to Opposition for 3 more long years.Tim Macindoe: How much can the fiscal numbers move around between Budget forecasts and the Government’s annual accounts being published the following year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: According to that economic powerhouse Grant Robertson not at all. But actually history shows that fiscal forecasts and out-turns move around quite substantially. For example in Budget 2008 the then finance Minister was forecasting a $1.3 billion operating balance before gains and losses surplus in 2008-09. As it actually turned out he left the Government’s books in deficit by $3.9 billion that year. I say just this one thing: why in this country do we have the Public Finance Act? I know—because Labour rorted the books so much that they could no longer be trusted. That is why.Andrew Little: In light of that answer and returning to reality what happened to his promise to act on child poverty and make it the centrepiece of his third term?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One more sleep.Andrew Little: Is not the truth of it that this is a Government with a surplus of empty promises and a deficit of ideas a Government that took credit for a short patch of economic golden days on the back on high dairy prices and the Canterbury rebuild but has no plan now that the storm clouds are gathering? Is that not the truth of this Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Here is the truth of this Government. Unlike the countries that we actually compare ourselves with we have got on top of deficits despite the Christchurch earthquakes. We have got employment rates that are rising. Of the OECD countries of which there are 36 only four have higher levels of employment than us and 31 have lower levels of employment. We have low inflation and we have strong job creation. We have low levels of public sector debt and we have high levels of consumer confidence. The record actually speaks for itself. It happens to be a record I am very proud of.Child Poverty—Government Initiatives to Address2.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: How can he be “proud of the Government’s record in tackling child poverty” when he said this week that it is probably numerically correct that the number of children in poverty has grown under his watch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As we know with this there are many many measures but what I can be absolutely sure of is that there are 42000 fewer children for instance living in benefit-based households over the last 3 years. I can be sure that we have done a great deal for those children who live with hardship including free GP visits and prescriptions including the work we have done with charitable organisations that for instance provide breakfast in schools including the work we have done with social workers including the work we have done with Children’s Teams and including the work we have done on insulating homes. During the worst of all times this Government actually maintained benefits and entitlements for New Zealanders. There were plenty of people who wanted to slash them; this Government supported them.Metiria Turei: How many if any of the 260000 children currently in poverty will no longer be in poverty as a result of the Budget tomorrow?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have an exact answer for that and even if I did have I would not give it to the member a day before the Budget. What I can say though is that the fastest way out of poverty is through work and this Government is doing two things in that regard. One is it is underpinning with its policies strong economic growth and strong job creation. We know this because there are 42000 fewer children living in benefit-based households than there were 3 years ago. The second thing that this Government is doing is invoking the investment approach when it comes to people who are on benefits—making sure that they have got skills making sure that they have got training and making sure that they have access to the opportunity to look after themselves. Again I am actually very proud of what this Government is doing to help people to help themselves.Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister abandon the thousands of children who turn up to school hungry every day by voting against my bill to feed them lunch at school and even stood in this House and denied that those children existed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I reject the last part of the member’s question. I think she overexaggerated those numbers and I think we demonstrated that on the day.Metiria Turei: Why is the Prime Minister abandoning young New Zealanders in their 30s for whom homeownership has plummeted under his watch faster than it has for any other age group?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again I reject that proposition. If the member cares about young people in their 30s getting a home why did the member not support the HomeStart package that we have? Why does the member not support Resource Management Act reform? Why does the member not actually support the work we are doing with special housing areas? I know: because the member likes to jump up and down and complain but when it comes to actually doing anything she has never done anything because she has never been in Government.Metiria Turei: Why is the Prime Minister abandoning young parents by refusing to fix Working for Families so that young parents who lose work hours or who fall on hard times do not also lose the $60-a-week in-work tax credit lifeline that they rely on?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member knows that policy which was introduced by Labour—and I think in this instance was correctly positioned that way—ensured that there was always a gap between welfare and work. And if there are not those incentives all of the academic evidence shows you actually that there will be less incentive for people to move off welfare into work. I think that if you have a welfare system in New Zealand it is a sign of a decent society that looks after people. But it is also a system based on obligation and actually we owe it to the millions of New Zealand taxpayers who work hard to pay their taxes that people who are on welfare feel the obligation that they should go out and work if they possibly can.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister at least agree—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member ask her supplementary question.Metiria Turei: Would the Prime Minister at least agree that an economy that is not working for everyone—that includes young New Zealanders under 40 who are struggling to buy a home who are struggling to get decent paid work who are trying to raise their children in increasing financial insecurity—is an economy that is simply not working?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from not working the economic credentials and performance of this Government over the last 7 years even in contrast to like-minded countries demonstrate that this Government has been performing well. We live in the real world and in the real world there has been a global financial crisis and many other issues. Actually some of these issues when it comes to either people on benefits or children living in benefit-based households have been very longstanding complex issues. They will not actually be resolved overnight but the work that this Government is doing breaking down the silos and the barriers that are there is working pretty well. I think the member actually speaks with great ignorance when she rejects what the Government is doing there.Budget 2015—Future Investment Fund3.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Government’s responsible fiscal management support better public services for New Zealanders in Budget 2015?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has managed the finances that are paid for by the taxpayer by being careful with new spending and focusing consistently on reprioritising—that is shifting money from programmes that either do not work or are low priority to new more effective spending. For instance over the previous six Budgets the total new discretionary spend of this Government has been around $3 billion. Over the last six Budgets of the previous Labour Government the total new spending was $20 billion. The Government has over the last six Budgets been able to shift around $15 billion of spending from ineffective or low-priority programmes to more effective programmes and that has been at least as important as the new spending.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wanted to wait until the Minister had finished his answer before raising this because he had already begun his answer. I was expecting that you may have had a comment on the primary question set down because of the assertion that it contains within it and your previous rulings on our questions that contain such assertions. If it is acceptable for Government members to ask about “responsible” fiscal management can we ask about “irresponsible” fiscal management?Mr SPEAKER: I certainly examined the questions and did not pick up that at 11.30. It was accepted and tabled in the House. It was only when an interjection came from my left during the question that I really focused on the meaning of that word. I think it would have been a better question without that word there. I should have picked it up at 11.30 but I did not.Jami-Lee Ross: How is the Government using capital reprioritisation to improve public services and avoid further overseas borrowing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main tool the Government is using is the Future Investment Fund. The sale of electricity assets raised $4.7 billion which was allocated to the Future Investment Fund and we are now able to use that money to invest in other public assets. So far the Government has invested around $700 million in health nearly $400 million of the fund in education and $1.9 billion in other public assets. That means we have not had to go to foreign lenders for more money. We have been able to use the savings of New Zealanders who bought the shares to invest in New Zealand assets. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of barrage I am getting from two or three members on this side means they can take this as their final warning. If it continues at that volume I will be asking those members to leave the Chamber.Jami-Lee Ross: How have dividends paid by mixed-ownership companies to the Government increased since the part sale of those companies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the time there was some suggestion the Government would be giving up dividends if it sold down the shares but I can inform the House that the Government as a 51 percent owner is now receiving more dividends than it did when it was on average a 100 percent owner of the companies. For instance the highest annual dividend received from Genesis Energy at any time in the previous 10 years was $57 million. The average dividend was $32 million when we were the 100 percent owner over those 10 years. This year we will receive $76 million in dividends. As a 51 percent owner we will get more than twice the dividend we got on average from Genesis Energy. We can apply that to more high-priority Government social programmes.Jami-Lee Ross: How will Budget 2015 continue the Government’s ongoing programme to improve public services for New Zealanders while helping to support more jobs and higher wages through careful fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In many ways that will be talked about in detail in the House tomorrow but it will be against the background of growth over the next 4 years forecast to deliver more jobs through to 2019 in addition to the 194000 jobs that have been added to the economy since 2011. Wages are expected to continue increasing ahead of the cost of living. Budget 2015 will be a responsible Budget from a responsible Government.Budget 2015—Youth Unemployment4.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What plans does the Government have in the Budget tomorrow to get the 146000 officially unemployed New Zealanders as measured by the Labour Market Statistics into work?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): The Government will continue to operate the same sensible economic and fiscal policies that have delivered 194000 jobs to New Zealanders in 4¼ years and 23000 more jobs than the 171000 jobs forecast by Treasury in Budget 2011 with more than one quarter to run. In fact this Government and businesses around the country have delivered job growth in 16 out of the last 17 quarters and I am confident that the Budget tomorrow will project further job growth. I thank the member for his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are the Government’s plans in tomorrow’s Budget for Māori and Pacific youth where unemployment under this National-led Government has increased by over 40 percent for Māori youth—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and almost 50 percent for Pacific youth—no no I am not dealing with your speciality: rubbish; I am talking facts.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure about the member’s figures but I certainly would agree with him that Māori and Pasifika youth unemployment is too high. I agree with him. We have got a number of measures under way alongside the Ministry of Māori Development to improve that situation including of course the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative which is a programme that is delivering great opportunities for young Māori and Pasifika in the trades around New Zealand. And there may or may not be more information about that in the Budget tomorrow.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is his Government going to be able to claim to be working for New Zealanders when we have tens of thousands of youth who are currently unemployed yet his Government has approved over 47200 international student visas with work rights in our current financial year?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not be excited about international education and I am reasonably confident from all his past statements that he is not but international education creates for this country around $2.85 billion worth of value a year and some 33000 jobs and a relatively small number of international students actually participate in the employment market. But I thank the member for his question and say that international education is very important for New Zealand’s future.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask about international education did I?Mr SPEAKER: Yes. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If he wants to go back and look he included in his question the 47200 people here on student visas. That is the part the Minister chose to address.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically said “student visas with work rights”—those are the critical words.Mr SPEAKER: The answer has certainly addressed the question. If it is not to the member’s satisfaction then that may be so. The way forward is to ask concise supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will tomorrow’s Budget reduce the rate of “neets”—those not in education employment or training—among youth in Northland where the rate has now increased to one in five youths not in employment education or training since National became the Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If I was the member I would be very very careful about the regional numbers for a small demographic. But nevertheless I agree with him that those numbers are too high and that is why the Government has a comprehensive programme to develop economic opportunities that positively affect Northland—for example the New Zealand - Korea free-trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—and we would welcome obviously the member’s support in that regard. [Interruption] He may scoff but that is very important for the kiwifruit farmers and to the meat farmers and dairy farmers of Northland. Also we are encouraging tourism investment including of course the projected investment by the Chinese investor in the Carrington Resort—and I look forward to the member endorsing that because I understand that they plan to train up young Northland youth. And also of course there is the Ngāpuhi settlement and we look forward to the member’s positive report of that as well.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that he is not answering the question. My real point is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member when I rise to my feet should resume his seat immediately. That question again was addressed. If the member wants a further supplementary question then he should ask it.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not that the question was not in some way addressed—we know what the rules are—but you heard a long tirade and ramble that did not address the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member knows what the rules are I suggest he has a look at them. If he can make his questions more concise I can help him get an answer that might satisfy him. Does the member have a further supplementary question? Otherwise we will—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes I do as good as the last one. Why is the Government not filling the 5000 job vacancies in Christchurch with young trained Kiwi workers given that we have 76000 youth who are unemployed and that we are now in our fifth year since the Christchurch earthquake—instead of getting all the skilled people from offshore?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member just needs to come and get a bit of information because there is actually a lot going on in Christchurch including for example the $3K to Christchurch which gives people the opportunity to shift to Christchurch. If the member wants to participate in that scheme I am sure we could line him up with the Ministry of Social Development and get him down to Christchurch so he can wield a hammer. We are also doing a huge amount of trades training in Christchurch. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation for example has record numbers of trainees and actually we would welcome more young New Zealanders to take the opportunity to head to Christchurch and in fact to the whole South Island which currently has very low levels of unemployment.Budget 2015—Return to Surplus5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does his Budget 2015 speech include the statement “there will be a small surplus this year and increasing surpluses forecast over time”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member will just have to wait one more sleep to find out.Grant Robertson: Why should New Zealanders tomorrow believe his making a promise for a surplus for next year and forecast surpluses for the following years given that he made that exact promise last year and will break it tomorrow?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I am quite confident that New Zealanders will make up their own minds about that regardless of what that member says. In fact if that member criticises the Budget and our economic management most of them will conclude that we are probably doing the right thing.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that the surplus he will promise tomorrow for next year is possible only if there is a significant rebound in global dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait until tomorrow but I hope tomorrow he uses the term “fiscal crisis” because—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that the surplus he will promise tomorrow for next year is possible only if there is a significant rebound in global dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait until tomorrow but I hope he uses the term “fiscal crisis” tomorrow.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is saying that question has not been addressed on this occasion it has. He talked about the surplus that will be promised tomorrow in his question. It has been addressed.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that a surplus for 2015-16 is possible only with a significant rebound in global dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait until tomorrow.Hon Members: No no.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well he will have to wait until tomorrow.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the third time I have asked a straight question to the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not the same question he has asked three times. On the second occasion he repeated the question he had asked the first time and on that occasion I ruled that because of the way it was framed that question had definitely been answered. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Grant Robertson: So you are saying that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet and I am going to warn that member that if he interjects like that again while I am on my feet I will be asking him to leave the Chamber.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you telling me that the Minister addressed the question I just asked?Mr SPEAKER: No I am not. I am saying that when you rose and took a point of order and said you had asked the same question three times you are—[Interruption] I have a very good mind to do it. The point I was making was that the member was wrong with his first point of order when he said he had asked the same question three times. He had not. We are moving forward. If the member wishes to ask—[Interruption] I am not entertaining further questions on my—[Interruption] Order! I am not entertaining any further adjudication on that matter. If the member has further supplementary questions I will hear them.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to be helpful as an independent observer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will simply raise his point of order.Ron Mark: The point of order Mr Speaker to assist you is that he—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order I hope but it will be heard in silence. It will be heard in silence.Ron Mark: I am not challenging you at all but—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member simply raise his point of order.Ron Mark: I am trying to. The point I want to raise with you is that he did not actually say those words. His words were “This is the third straight question I have asked.” not “I have asked the same question”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may not have heard me but I said that as far as I was concerned I had adjudicated on the matter and that was the end of the matter. The member may not have heard that.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that a surplus for 2015-16 is possible only if there is a significant rebound in global dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait until tomorrow.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How is that an answer addressing that question? It is about advice he has received. He cannot tell me to wait until tomorrow. Amazingly enough Treasury do give him advice. He ignores it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have had a similar line of questions now on four occasions. It is not the way I would have hoped the Minister would answer the question but—[Interruption] Order! Grant Robertson will leave the House. I warned the member that—[Interruption] Order! The member will leave the Chamber.Grant Robertsonwithdrew from the Chamber.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order that I will hear from Chris Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: Repeatedly during question time today when there have been points of order from either side of the House you have admonished members on this side of the House for their interjections during points of order or when you were on your feet. I would like to know whether the same ruling is going to apply to Mr Brownlee Ms Parata and a variety—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from that member. There were occasions when there were interjections from this side of the House when I called for order particularly when Mr Mark was attempting to raise a point of order. I could not identify the particular person who made those interjections. Frankly they were coming from a large number of people. On this occasion I specifically warned Mr Robertson that if he was to interject again when I was on my feet I would have no choice but to ask him to leave. He did not heed that warning. He gave me no choice but to deal with him severely. I say to all members that when I am on my feet and I call for silence and then a member specifically after being warned not to interject does so he leaves me no choice but to be severe.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The colleague Mr Robertson in front of me used four supplementary questions to ask the same question as you have previously advised members to do when Ministers are not giving a straight answer. You have ejected a member who had absolutely understandable frustration. My point of order is to ask you what sanction will apply equally to Ministers who are deliberately thwarting the intent if not the letter of the Standing Orders and denying the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have a proper question answered in a proper manner.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that question might be reasonable if it were about a range of topics that any Minister should be able to answer about their portfolio. But 24 hours before a Budget is delivered being asked to give a commentary on what will be in a Budget text is completely unreasonable. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can understand the sense of frustration on this side. I have agreed with that. But that was not the reason Mr Robertson was ejected from the Chamber. I hope I do not have to point it out again to members. The reason was that he was given a very specific warning. He ignored that warning.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?Hon David Cunliffe: It is because I did not question your ruling that you ejected a member for questioning your judgment. My point of order was given the circumstances and the understandable frustration on this side of the House and the thwarting deliberately of the intent of the Standing Orders at what point would any sanction be applied to any Minister who continued to make those types of tactics plain? That was nothing to do with the ejection of Mr Robertson.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. Ministers are responsible for their own answers and those answers are then judged not only by this House but by the public. On one occasion when I did not think that the Minister had answered the question correctly I asked Grant Robertson to repeat the question. That is a tactic I frequently use.Hon Member: Four times.Mr SPEAKER: The member now interjects and says that it was on four occasions. As I have pointed out to the House those questions were different. In one he quite specifically talked about a matter that would be addressed in tomorrow’s speech and that gave the Minister a perfect out to say he would have to wait for the Budget. As to the last question about Treasury advice it would have been a more satisfactory answer if it had been answered directly by the Minister but at the end of the day I am not responsible for the answers that are given by any Minister in this House. Ministers themselves are responsible for—[Interruption] Order! Ministers themselves are responsible. They will be judged both by this House and by the public.Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I have dealt with that matter from the Hon David Cunliffe.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just a minute. I just want to be clear to Mr Cunliffe that I have dealt with that matter. I have made a ruling. I do not intend to relitigate it here today but if it is a fresh point of order—Hon David Cunliffe: It is Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order—the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is the definition of “addressing the question”?Mr SPEAKER: Now the member is attempting to relitigate the matter. I judge that on every occasion depending on the context and content of the question the context and the content of the answer. I am the one who makes that judgment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry—is this a fresh point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it is.Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If one of the four questions with additional words gave the Minister of Finance an out what was the redeeming feature for the first three answers that did not give him a way out?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating a matter that we have already ruled on in the House today. He is not raising a fresh point of order.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I want to give the same warning to Tracey Martin to be fair to her. If she is raising an absolutely fresh point of order I am happy to hear it but if it in any way relitigates the discussion we have now had for the last 10 minutes then I will be asking that member to leave the Chamber.Tracey Martin: Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate your warning and I hope that I do not transgress but I seek your clarification on the last question asked by Mr Robertson—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member now—Tracey Martin: —not the content of the question not the content of the question but I am asking whether you could give a ruling later on about when it is appropriate if we ask a direct question about a report for a Minister to say we have to wait until tomorrow—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now very dangerously—should be about to leave the Chamber. She is relitigating the decision I have made. I have explained to Mr Cunliffe that I have got to judge every answer given as to whether it addresses the question. Mr Cunliffe sought more definition on that. I said it depends on the context of the question the content of the question the content of the answer and the context. There is no specific ruling I can give as to whether any question in the future will be addressed or not. I make a judgment to all; that is my responsibility in this House.Defence Force—White Paper and Public Engagement6.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: What is the Government doing to engage the New Zealand public on the future of the Defence Force?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): I recently announced the beginning of a public consultation process on the 2015 defence white paper. We are asking the views of New Zealanders on the future capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force. A series of public meetings will be held around the country to better inform the consultation process. The meeting schedule and the information on the submissions process can be found at www.defence.govt.nz.Mark Mitchell: Why is the Government undertaking the 2015 defence white paper?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The white paper which is intended to be published before the end of the year will be a blueprint for how the Government plans to address the security threats challenges and opportunities facing New Zealand over a 25-year period. Recognising that matters affecting our security can change rapidly it is my view that a 5-yearly cycle for white papers is desirable. The white paper 2015 therefore will review and build on the 2010 white paper while outlining the roles and tasks that the Defence Force should undertake in responding to challenges as well as the capabilities and resources that it needs to carry out its roles and tasks effectively.Hon Phil Goff: Is the Minister prepared to engage the public and Defence Force families on the more immediate issue of his assessment of the risks posed to New Zealand soldiers in Taji just over 100 kilometres away from Ramadi which has just fallen to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has been very cautious about its commitment to building partner capacity in Iraq and therefore it is very concerned always and has been from the outset about the security of soldiers who are participating in that programme at Taji. That will continue.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that I asked the Minister for his assessment of the risk. I do not think he touched on that at all.Mr SPEAKER: Again that question in my mind was addressed. It is marginal as to whether the question should be allowed in. The member cunningly used the words about whether he will engage with the public and on that basis I allowed it through.Hon Phil Goff: In engaging the public will he ensure then that soldiers deployed to Taji for the non-combat role of training will not soon be engaged in a major fire fight and attack?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As we have said right from the start it is not our intention that New Zealand troops in Iraq for the training mission will be engaged in front-line combat. What we have said is that there is a force protection—Hon David Parker: You’re teaching them how to retreat!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is not the sort of matter that people should be joking about frankly Mr Parker. The point I would make is that we have always said that we would review New Zealand’s commitment depending on the circumstances that existed and of course that if they come under fire we would expect them to protect themselves.Finance Minister—Return to Surplus7.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “the surplus target is important”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I stand by the full statement which was that “The surplus target is important. It has imposed a discipline on us and on Government agencies to work hard on achieving value for money and providing new spending only where we can get better results.”Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that in the last year his public statements about returning to surplus were at the lowest level since 2010 and does he accept that the National Government reached peak surplus talk 3 years ago in May 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I was not aware of that particular statistical artefact but I can reassure the member that the amount of work and focus within the Government on achieving better value for money is higher than ever.Julie Anne Genter: Can he explain why from 2012 onwards his public statements about returning to surplus have decreased first gradually and then suddenly by almost 50 percent from 2013 to 2014?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only surmise that it is because of the rapid progress the Government has made towards surplus and I am gratified to see that the Greens are at least counting all my statements. I wish they would read them and take a bit more notice of them.Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that forward predictions of his public statements about returning to surplus are tracking upwards for the current year and therefore if historical trends continue the likelihood of actually returning to surplus will decrease in the near future?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No but I can say that the commentary by the Greens on the surplus makes a lot more sense than the commentary by the Labour Party.Budget 2015—Child Poverty8.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement in December last year in relation to child poverty that the Government is “working on a comprehensive plan” and it is “shaping up to be a really big piece of work”; if so will that big piece of work be in Budget 2015?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes and the member will have to wait until tomorrow.Jacinda Ardern: How many times have Ministers met to discuss the child poverty plans in the 2015 Budget given that in December she claimed that they were meeting weekly?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Heaps.Jacinda Ardern: Given she has called children living in hardship “a priority” on what date did Cabinet consider what she referred to as a “comprehensive plan for this year’s Budget.”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will have to wait until tomorrow.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked nothing about the content of the announcement. This was a question around process. I asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward I think is that I will allow the member to ask the question again. The member can ask that question again.Jacinda Ardern: Given she has called children living in hardship “a priority” on what date did Cabinet consider what she referred to as her “comprehensive plan for this year’s Budget.”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will have to wait until Budget 2015 is announced.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well which one?Chris Hipkins: I’ll let Jacinda go first.Mr SPEAKER: OK.Jacinda Ardern: It is the same point of order that I raised initially. The question to the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! No it was not—it was not. The question also included “Given … [it is] ‘a priority’ ” and the Minister has then taken the opportunity to refer to that part in the answer and has decided that that is something that can wait to be announced tomorrow in the Budget.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My reference to it being a priority was simply to highlight the fact that you would assume she would know the date if it is so important.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the point. As soon as the member puts that into the question it gives the Minister the chance to address that part of the question.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders provide only one out for Ministers and that is to say that giving an answer is not in the public interest. The Budget does not actually provide an out. If the Ministers are indicating that it is not in the public interest they should say so. But simply saying: “Wait until a certain date.” is not an answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been in this House on many occasions in the week leading up to the Budget and many Ministers of Finance—I can think of one called Dr Michael Cullen—on many occasions to many questions asked by the Opposition said: “You will have to wait until the Budget is delivered.”Jacinda Ardern: Which Ministers have been meeting weekly with the Prime Minister who she stated 6 months ago was the one “ … leading a big piece of work right across Government aimed to address those thousands and thousands of children who are experiencing hardship.”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Without doubt all members of this Government’s Cabinet and caucus are focused on getting the very best outcomes for New Zealand’s children.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again it was a very explicit question. The question was about which Ministers were meeting weekly on the piece of work—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the answerthat I heard in addressing the question was: “All Ministers.”Jacinda Ardern: Will the families of the hundreds and thousands of children living in poverty feel tomorrow like the priority she called them or is she a member of a Government more inclined to spend money on a flag than on children?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Instead of making speeches can I say to the member that she will have to wait until tomorrow.Forestry—Government Support9.Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What research is the Government undertaking to strengthen the forestry sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Yesterday I announced that the Government will invest $5 million over 7 years in a $10 million research partnership to help increase the competitiveness of the forestry sector. This research will focus on developing a broader range of high-value better-performing wood products from tree species such as eucalyptus Douglas fir and cypresses which provides an alternative to our predominant tree species radiata pine. The new partnership is led by Future Forests Research an industry-operated entity in collaboration with Scion the University of Canterbury and the New Zealand Drylands Forests Initiative and will operate on a dollar for dollar basis matched by the industry.Dr Jian Yang: Why is the Government investing more in forestry sector research and development?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This investment aims to strengthen the ties between research organisations and the industry building on our existing forestry strength and moving up the value chain by developing high-value specialty wood products while retaining a strong focus on sustainability. It complements other research work we are supporting in the forestry sector. [Interruption] You would think they would ask a question rather than just talk all afternoon. The Primary Growth Partnership project on steep land harvesting is designed to increase the safety of forestry workers on steep and sloping land while reducing the cost of harvest by 25 percent. Forestry is New Zealand’s third-largest export earner behind dairy and meat. It contributes around $5 billion to our exports and we are committed to growing that further with investments such as this.Stuart Nash: Is he aware that since his party has been in Government the volume of logs exported without a cent of value being added has gone from 6 million cubic metres or 30 percent of all logs cut to 17 million cubic metres or 56 percent of all logs cut; and how will this initiative come even close to addressing this disparity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The number of logs cut has grown dramatically over that period and the amount that is processed here is approximately the same. [Interruption] Mr Speaker do they want an answer to the question they asked me?Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister give his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The good news for the member in this subject is actually the significant investment going on in the wood processing sector as we speak. Oji for example which lives just up the road from his city has made a big investment in forestry in Hawke’s Bay and has made a billion-dollar investment around the country with the purchase of Carter Holt Harvey assets in Taupō—Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tried to direct this question towards the primary question by asking how the initiative that the Minister announced was going to reduce that disparity.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If you had shown some courtesy—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to that point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance. If you had shown some courtesy to allow the Minister to finish his answer and if you could ask for a bit of courtesy from your own bench mates to us so we could hear the answer I think you will get the answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The point I was making was that there is good news for the member in this regard. There is significant investment in the processing sector such as by Oji which I mentioned; also in Rotorua Red Stag Timber is constructing a big super mill there which will be the largest in the southern hemisphere—despite the fact that it did not get Labour’s policy—and in Taupō Pacific T & R is building a new high-tech processing plant. Research initiatives such as these being done in partnership with the sector will help the forestry sector develop further.Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s information is most interesting but the initiative—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat straight away. There is no doubt in my mind that that question was addressed.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Minister’s Statements10.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by his description during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations of the Canadian dairy industry as belonging “in the former Soviet Union”?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Yes because Mr Parker it is called a negotiation and to use one of Tana Umaga’s memorable phrases: “We ain’t here to play tiddlywinks.”Hon David Parker: Has he seen the international media reports that say that his abrasive and arrogant negotiating approach has spawned in Washington DC a new urban slang term for “counter-productive undiplomatic sledging”—that term being “grossing”? And how does he think that slagging off the Canadians using derogatory terms is going to result in a good outcome for those negotiations?Hon TIM GROSER: Unfortunately I have not seen those allegations but I am really interested in having a look at them. At least it might mean that we are making a mark.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document by Delaware-based policy analyst Mary Bates dated Thursday 14 May—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. The member is seeking to table a document and I expect it to be heard in silence particularly from my right-hand side.Hon David Parker:—saying that such incendiary fighting words clearly do nothing to assist Canadian diplomats to help New Zealand help itself.Mr SPEAKER: The document has been described. I think it was dated was it?Hon David Parker: 14 May.Mr SPEAKER: 14 May. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! Is there any objection? There is not. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Will he accept responsibility and admit that he has poisoned the negotiations if it transpires that the Trans-Pacific Partnership terms do not reduce tariffs on dairy products to Canada to levels similar to those that were achieved in the Chinese free-trade agreement?Hon TIM GROSER: I am prepared to make an offer to the member. If this negotiation is concludedsuccessfully I will introduce him to the adult world of New Zealand and Canadian dairy over the last 30 years where Canada has pitched its interests diametrically opposed to New Zealand’s and it takes just a little bit of spine to stand up to it.Hon David Parker: Is the reason he does not think his insult of Canada has further damaged New Zealand’s reputation in trade negotiations that he has already trashed it by using the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on his rivals for the World Trade Organization job?Hon TIM GROSER: As far as damaging Canadian sensitivities goes I have come across an article by a very senior Canadian political leader called Martha Hall Findlay who is senior enough I believe to contest the leadership of the Liberal Party. It would not mean much in the Labour Party context—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Hon TIM GROSER: The article is entitled: “Why the dairy industry’s defence of supply management is so flawed”. So this is a matter for debate within and outside Canada and it is in the middle of a negotiation.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the Reuters report of the insult. It is dated Friday 18 April 2015.Mr SPEAKER: It is probably relatively freely available. On the basis that it will be over to the House to decide leave is sought to table that particular media report dated 18 April. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just hearing a little bit from Mr Parker about the content of the news items that he is now tabling is I think particularly interesting. I am wondering whether he might be so good as to bundle them all up and circulate them to members so that we might all enjoy them.Mr SPEAKER: The purpose of tabling the documents is to make sure that they are then available to all members. It is over to members to get them from the Table Office.Hon David Parker: Given growing international opposition to investor-State enforcement provisions in countries like Australia Europe New Zealand and the USA and the litigious nature of US companies would his Government agree to the Trans-Pacific Partnership without investor-State dispute settlement clauses if this outcome were available?Hon TIM GROSER: We would take a position very similar to that of the previous Labour Government which inserted these investor-State dispute settlement clauses into a number of the agreements that it successfully negotiated including the China deal. The answer is that there will not be a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership without investor-State dispute settlement clauses so we are negotiating with great care to ensure that there are adequate disciplines over that policy and adequate safeguards.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of introducing Mr Parker to the adult world when will the Minister take himself out of rumoured talk about being the next ambassador to Washington given his totally inappropriate use of the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on international associates of ours in the advancement of his own egotistical and narrow career?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That might be a very entertaining question for Mr Peters and his colleagues but it is so wide of the mark that it is unacceptable as a supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did refer to—and he put it into the question—the issue of being part of the adult world. And that is what I am hanging my question on. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the question is certainly—[Interruption] Order! The first part of the question is certainly completely out of order; there is no ministerial responsibility. If the Minister wants to address the second part of the question he can do so and that was the bit about—Hon TIM GROSER: Mr Speaker I am happy to address the second part of the question. We have a process for investigating all of these issues; we will wait and see what the inspector-general has to say on the matter.Wāhi Tapu Areas—Battle of Ōrākau11.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What has the Government done to protect the site of one of the most significant battles in the New Zealand Wars?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I am pleased to advise that the Government has purchased the property where the Battle of Ōrākau took place. The battle in which 300 Māori defenders faced 1500 Crown troops is considered by many to be the decisive battle of the New Zealand Wars. Māori sustained heavy casualties and the Crown subsequently confiscated the land. The property is going to be held in the land bank in the Office of Treaty Settlements while the Government engages with relevant iwi about future possibilities for the site.Barbara Kuriger: Why was it important for the Government to purchase the Battle of Ōrākau site?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government has been very keen to purchase this important site for a number of years as it is of great significance to several iwi and to New Zealand’s history. The opportunity recently arose for the Government to carry out the purchase when the owners of the property offered to sell it. The site contains the remains of Māori who were killed during the battle and buried where they lay. It has been recorded by Heritage New Zealand as a wāhi tapu area and the Crown and iwi agree that only certain uses of the property are going to be appropriate in the future.Roading Tauranga—Tauranga Central Corridor12.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing about the Tauranga Central Corridor?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): A lot and that is because we committed to the Tauranga Central Corridor and are going to invest over $100 million in the project. The member may be aware that enabling works have started and construction of the Maungatapu-Hairini underpass will start a little later this year. If the member is a really good boy I might even invite him to the opening. If he is really really good he might get a cucumber sandwich.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A lot of things are said in this House but those would be some of the most insulting words I have ever heard. To refer to a member of Parliament—who has had a real man’s background not like his—as a boy is just unacceptable—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It certainly was not going to bring order to the House and that is why I asked the Minister to conclude his answer. If the member took offence at it—Clayton Mitchell: Yes I did. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has taken offence at that remark. I require the Minister to withdraw the remark.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I withdraw and apologise.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to join his colleague?Ron Mark: Mr Speaker my question is to you.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a point of order would you—Ron Mark: You are the last—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member simply raise his point of order immediately.Ron Mark: Why should the Opposition have to ask you to deal with that sort of behaviour?Mr SPEAKER: What is—Ron Mark: Why should we have to ask—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will sit down. [Interruption] Order! If the member would go back and study the Hansard he will see that as soon as the remark was made I told the Minister to cease. I was surprised that a member then took offence at it but if a member takes offence the process is that I ask the Minister to withdraw. That has been the process for as long as I have been here and that is considerably longer than Ron Mark.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Fresh point of order the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: From time to time things are said in the House that may be offensive to members. There are other times when things are said in the House that are so offensive to members that there is a consideration as to whether or not that matter should be raised at all. I would suggest Mr Speaker that when you get back to your office you have a look at the Twitter feeds so that we could see that some of the hypocrisy that is being offered by the New Zealand First Party today is a complete disgrace.Clayton Mitchell: Does the Minister acknowledge National’s commitment to create a four-lane State highway—not a local road—to run from the Welcome Bay underpass across the Turret Road bridge and along Fifteenth Avenue by 2015?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course what we are doing is in substance keeping the announcement. That is why we are spending over $100 million on this area. But it is a staged project. That is why at the moment stages one and two—the early stages—worth some $20 million of work are occurring. That is why stage four—where the member as I say if he is lucky can have a cucumber sandwich—is about to occur and it is worth some $68 million of underpass. Then as required we will look at the third stage.Clayton Mitchell: What is the Minister doing to prevent the Fifteenth Avenue State Highway 2A from becoming part of the local road network and putting half of the cost of the upgrade on Tauranga ratepayers against National’s original commitment?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Whether it is a State highway or a local road it is of some significance to the agencies involved but in a sense from the Government’s perspective it is neither here nor there. Unlike New Zealand First we are in Government and we can make these projects happen.Clayton Mitchell: Does the Minister understand that for the Welcome Bay underpass to be effective the widening of Turret Road and Fifteenth Avenue needs to happen at the same time?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I thank the member for his opinion. I understand what is required in relation to that underpass and project and also what is required in Tauranga. That is why we have spent some $800 million in the last 3 years and achieved much more in transport than the New Zealand First - Labour Government ever did.Point of Order—AnswersHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Today has been a very interesting question time and I am sure that there will be some commentary that runs on from it. I am wondering whether you might consider whether Speaker’s ruling 167/6 still applies and suggest that that may be something that our opponents in the Opposition want to have a look at. It is a ruling delivered by Margaret Wilson in 2007.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at that.RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to take the opportunity to withdraw and apologise to the House for making a comment that some people may have been offended by or that would have brought the House into disrepute. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s point of order the ruling to which he refers says: “A member cannot require a specific or particular answer to a question. The Minister is just required to address the question.” This is the very point we were making. We want an answer that addresses the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member ought to become more familiar with both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. The Opposition cannot demand an answer that it requires. My job is to judge whether the question was addressed. On this occasion I did so. That is the end of that matter. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to be clear: I have ruled on this matter. If the member is now relitigating that in itself brings this House into disorder. Has the member got a fresh point of order? If he has I will listen to it.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was addressing the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s point to you which you have not ruled on. I did not disagree with the Speaker’s ruling; I merely read it out and said our point was we just wanted questions to be addressed.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That does not help the order of the House at all.General DebateANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It has been a somewhat fractious afternoon. We have had pompous “gittery” in bucket loads coming from the other side and we are in eager anticipation of what may be handed down tomorrow. And for good reason too because when you look back at some of the promises pledges and foreshadowing that has come from the Government it is going to be a very interesting day indeed. For example the Prime Minister John Key when he was talking about the proposal for a Government-led building programme to ease the Auckland housing crisis—a proposal that we made some time ago—what did he say? He said: “Oh it’ll either fail miserably deliver dwellings that people don’t want to live in or require massive taxpayer subsidies.” And what are we going to see tomorrow? A Government-led building programme to ease the Auckland housing crisis. So we live in eager anticipation.Then there was this about restrictions on foreign buyers of Auckland houses. What did the Prime Minister say in April last year? He said: “Oh I think that’s a bit of a red herring. It’s not needed.” And what have we seen from the Government? We have seen just that. Then there is this about child poverty. You see we had Anne Tolley the Minister for Social Development saying: “We are working on a comprehensive plan on child poverty.” And in the days and weeks following the electionthe Prime Minister himself said: “Child poverty will be our top priority.” And what do we see now? The Government is back-pedalling rapidly and is backing out of doing anything about child poverty. So we live in eager anticipation—we live in eager anticipation. I might add also what the Prime Minister said just a couple of days ago about children in poverty. He said: “Oh children in poverty don’t have it so bad because they get lots of entitlements that better-off kids don’t get.” This is National’s attitude towards child poverty.I never thought I would say this but I have been inspired in my contribution to today’s general debate by none other than Minister Nick Smith who said yesterday that Christmas is coming for Auckland homebuyers in the Budget. So I have prepared a little contribution to today’s debate and those of you who have grown up with Christmases in New Zealand will know about the great Christmas carol rhyme and so I now offer my rendition. I say this:’Twas the night before Budget when all through the HouseThe National backbenchers were keen for a stoush.The promises were hung during the election with careOf course they would fill them; how could they not? They wouldn’t dare!September 14 was a different time;The backbenchers quite happy—some in their prime.Nestled all snug in their leather armchairsJohn Bill and Steven washed away all their fears.There had been promises of surpluses of poverty relievedOf great fiscal wonders; or so they believed.“They have got us this far” the backbenchers said“What could possibly go wrong? We’re so far ahead!”But Bill English knew he just hid his fearThat all their good words were just plain hot air.It’s great that Mike Hosking and Paul Henry are glowingBut nothing can mask an economy slowing.“We have to do something! We have to be quick!”Said John Key to his Cabinet that had run out of tricks.“Ministers Bennett and Bridges and Tolley—Forget Steven Joyce and his conventional folly.Ministers Woodhouse McCully Crosby and TextorIf there’s one thing that’s clear you’ll all have to do better.I need plans to help Auckland to slow housing pricesTo help feed the kids and fix other vices.Where’s the plan for trains trucks and bikes?My Facebook page’s tanking; I can’t get no likes.And I’m sick of seeing Andy the new man about town;He never gets angry; we can’t bring him down!”Bill English stepped forward in canonical mood:“Just stop there John. I don’t mean to be rude.You may not have noticed but we have a crisisAnd it’s nothing to do with our troops fighting ISIS.Exports are diving dairy is downThere isn’t much happening in any small town.I know I’ve said the problem’s inflationBut there’s something much bigger: John Banks’ compensation.You’ve said don’t touch taxes levies and feesBut how will we pay for this? It don’t grow on trees.”And then the talk came to a stop with a shudder.The Prime Minister knew his heart now aflutter.Up from the back came a great throaty roar;Judith Collins appeared on Parliament’s floor!“I’ve heard all your talk—me and Todd Muller.All you’re known now is as a ponytail puller.Out of the way shove this in your gob;I’m here to take over. It’s my turn in your job.”Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I think David Cunliffe’s poetry on Harvard was significantly better. Poetry will do for Mr Little’s career what it did for Mr Cunliffe’s career. Mr Little could not even get agreement on Labour’s response to National’s housing tax policy on Sunday with half its caucus saying it was a capital gains tax and the other half saying it was not. Tomorrow’s Budget will be about further delivering on our plan for New Zealand. It is a pity there was not a single idea or plan in Mr Little’s contribution.The backdrop for this Budget is the best set of economic fundamentals that this Parliament has seen in a generation. Economic growth at 3.5 percent is growing at a faster rate than in Australia the UK the US Japan or Europe. Employment is up by 74000 in the past year with the unemployment rate down to 5.8 percent—less than in Australia less than in most countries in the OECD. Inflation is 0.1 percent in the last year. That is the lowest rate in 17 years. Interest rates—I know they do not matter to the members opposite; they actually matter to housing—are 5.5 percent. That is the lowest in 40 years. When you look at education when you look at health numbers when you look at crime when you look at welfare every one of them is headed in the right direction. My challenge to members opposite is to tell me of a country in the world that is doing better. New Zealanders know we are doing well. That is why a record number of New Zealanders are not leaving; in fact a record number of New Zealanders are coming home.I want to focus on the mantra from the Leader of the Opposition that National’s programme is in tatters in respect of the economy because we did not quite make a surplus this year. In fact Mr Little said that this is the biggest political deception in a lifetime. Well Mr Little must be very young. If this is Labour and the Greens’ big attack on the Budget tomorrow it is going to go down like a damp squib. Let me give you the numbers.Hon Member: What the Budget?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Treasury forecast—no your criticism. Last year we forecast a surplus of $0.4 billion. The latest numbers are that it is likely to be a deficit of about $0.6 billion. That is overspending of $70 billion. We will not know the final number until October but it is fair to say it will be about $1 billion or about a 1.5 percent difference from what was forecast. Well if that is the greatest political deception let me just remind members opposite of one thing. The last time you were on this side of the House you promised the House a $1.3 billion surplus. And what did we get? We actually got a $3.9 billion deficit out by $5 billion. So if a $1 billion mistake or variation is the biggest political deception ever what is $5 billion—what is $5 billion? In fact I asked the Parliamentary Library how Budgets and actuals compare over the last 20 years. Do you know what? Over the last 20 years the average variation has been $2 billion. In fact in the nine Budgets that Labour delivered they were on average out by $2.5 billion a record significantly worse than this Government’s. The truth is that the record is this: an $18 billion deficit for 2010 halved to $9 billion halved to $4 billion down to $3 billion and well and truly under $1 billion. I compare that with the Budget in Australia last week—a $40 billion deficit going further into the red for the next 4 years. I know what side of the Tasman I would like to be on in respect of good fiscal management.Let me give you another number. Are members opposite saying it was a broken promise when National promised 171000 jobs? We delivered 194000—194000. Forecasts are just that. This Government is well and truly if you look at those numbers in great shape. I am going—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! If you are going to table a document just seek leave.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I seek leave to table a document prepared by Grant Cleland from the Parliamentary Library for Budgets over the last 20 years comparing that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been described enough. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I think it is time to ask at this time of the electoral cycle what we look for in a Government. What do we look for in the leader of a Government? I think the answer to those two questions must be integrity ethics and morals trustworthiness truthfulness and sincerity. So the next question that I would then ask this Parliament—[Interruption] Oh! They are responding before I even get to it. That is kind of like they are admitting defeat before I even start. But I would say that the next question must be: does this current Government and its leader John Key have integrity? Do they have ethics and morals? Are they truthful? Are they trustworthy? And are they sincere? [Interruption] Thank you. Well I think that it is fair to say after almost 7 years that the National Government did start out with—those members were keen they were eager they were cooperative and they were very very excited after 9 years in Opposition. But 7 years later on almost all of those fundamental measures of good leadership and government that I have mentioned today this Government is a failure—it is a failure. John Key now acts on the understanding of what he can get away with what can never be found out and what he can cover up. There is a mounting number of examples of deception of trickery of evasion and duplicity and of downright Tory arrogance.If you wanted to see Tory arrogance you saw it today—you saw it in question time today. It started with the Prime Minister who did not answer a single question but attacked every other party in this House that is not in Government. It was then followed by Steven Joyce who is the most self-satisfied smug member of the Government and Anne Tolley who kept saying: “One more sleep one more sleep.” when she would not answer questions about the Budget that were not even about the Budget but about what she had done towards it. Then we had Simon Bridges the cabin boy who stood up and insulted New Zealand First. And then the doozy of them all—the doozy of them all—Tim Groser who has been going around the world grossing out all the people we would like to do trade with. He is the man headed for Washington. He is going to be our man over there in a diplomatic role—what an embarrassment.This Government made some pretty big solemn promises to New Zealand before the last election. Not just orally; it put them in pamphlets and stuffed them through just about everybody’s letterbox in New Zealand. Then it sent letters—personally addressed letters—paid for by the taxpayer and signed “Yours sincerely” by the Prime Minister and now we are told that those promises are just mere suggestions they are just aspirational goals and they are “nice-to-haves”. The latest one of all from the Prime Minister was when he said: “They were never promises in the first place.” So the promises that were solemn promises are not promises now according to the Prime Minister. Well there is a good word for that: it is chicanery. That is what it is—it is chicanery. And that now describes the modus operandi of this Government.Let us look at some of the trickery and duplicity of this Government that New Zealanders are experiencing. What did it promise around wages? It told us that they would be increased by $7000 per annum by 2017 and now the Prime Minister tells us that it will be only half that. It promised 150000 new jobs; now it can deliver only half of that promise according to the Prime Minister.Hon Dr Nick Smith: 194000.Hon ANNETTE KING: It promised balanced books Mr Smith. It promised balanced books and now we are going to have a $5 million to $6 million deficit. “Never really mattered—didn’t really care if we had a deficit or not.” That is not what was said last year—solemn promises to New Zealand. It promised that housing would be more affordable. Well what a big fat fabrication that was. We have seen house price inflation running at 14.6 percent per year and Auckland house prices rising by 63 percent under this Government. The Prime Minister said: “There’s no crisis.” but this week he finally said: “I think they are rising faster than is healthy.” He then said: “They have been going up a little more rapidly than we would like.” So finally the Government knows there is a problem and it is trying to put the cotton wool around it. This Government is not being honest with New Zealanders. It does not show the moral fibre that it ought to have as a Government. It has become tired it has become arrogant and it ought to leave this Parliament.Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): Listening to that last intervention from the Hon Annette King made me feel so very very sorry for poor old David Cunliffe. Did you see what happened at the last election? All the members of the Labour Party on that side of the House deserted him as fast as they could. But when one looks at the last poll published around the country poor old David Cunliffe was polling higher on that day as preferred Prime Minister—and the Labour Party was also polling higher then than it is currently after the last 6 months—and certainly polling higher than their new leader Andrew Little is. Here is a prediction for you: very soon there will be a poll around the preferred Prime Minister that will show that the true Leader of the Opposition is the Rt Hon Winston Peters not Andrew Little because Andrew Little is going down and Winston Peters on that side of the House is going up.Do you know what? The reason for that is that the Labour Party has the shortest memory of any political party in the history of this country. I want to read this out. It is a statement that was made in this House not so long ago: “Much concern has been expressed about overinvesting in housing and the impact of the tax system in encouraging this.” It then goes on to say: “… I am mindful of the fact that under the current law investing in housing for the purpose of making a capital gain that is trading in housing is taxable. In order to underline the significance of this fact and to send a clear signal to housing investors about the purport of the current law it has been agreed between myself and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue that an additional $14.6 million [will be put in over 3 years to focus on housing tax compliance].” That was in 2007 under a Labour Government and it was Michael Cullen who said that.Well in 2010 under exactly the same law this National Government gave the Inland Revenue Department $33 million to look at property tax compliance. Over the last 5 years that has returned $258 million in additional tax. In 2013 we gave the department another $33 million and in the Budget tomorrow we will give an extra $29 million. Over the next 5 years the Inland Revenue Department will have $62 million to go out and focus on the current law which has been in place since the 1970s and it says that it will return about $420 million on that.We do believe that good tax law needs certain rules and taxpayers as well as the Inland Revenue Department need certainty. That is the reason that the Prime Minister announced that under the Budget there will be a number of changes. The first is that anybody who is purchasing a house in New Zealand other than their own home their principal place of residence will need to provide an Inland Revenue Department number at the time of purchase. A foreigner a non-tax resident will have to give us their tax information number from their own country. Secondly the non-tax resident will need to open a bank account in New Zealand before they can get an Inland Revenue Department number which means the full range of New Zealand’s anti - money-laundering laws will apply to them.I think it is reasonable that we know that anybody who wants to be involved in New Zealand pays their fair share of tax and that they are coming here with good intent. We are going to look to investigate and implement a withholding tax system so that those non-tax residents when they sell a property and are captured by the existing rules will have to pay that tax on the spot. The Inland Revenue Department will have the money. Non-tax residents will need to apply to get it back in cases where they feel that the tax is not due.On top of this we want to provide greater certainty and clarity to the taxpayer. Within the first 2 years with the exception of your family home your principal place of residence a home that you may have inherited or because of a marriage settlement there will be a brightline test that says if you have made a profit from a house that you have purchased and have sold you must pay tax on any gain. There will be a number of rules that we will work out around that. Good tax law is consulted on so we will be consulting on that before it comes before the House.The challenge in many parts of New Zealand and in Auckland is one of supply. We need good tax rules so that those who should be paying tax are paying it but the challenge is one of supply. In the last year or so we have gone from 14000 houses a year being built to 25000 houses a year being built and there will be 43000 additional houses able to be built under the special housing areas that Nick Smith has negotiated with parts of the country.The Government is focusing on supply. We are making sure that those who should be paying tax are paying tax. We are making sure that the rules are clear and are giving the Inland Revenue Department $62 million over 5 years for property compliance to make sure that all those who should be paying tax are paying it. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Tomorrow on Budget day New Zealand is going to witness yet again a further fanfare of fiction fantasy and fatalism seasoned by arrogance and smugness. The fiction again will be the surplus the fantasy again will be the rock star economy and the fatalism again will be the inevitable decline of our provinces under a Government obsessed with Auckland and massive immigration.Back in 2008 this bright young thing Mr Key said that the next 10 years to 2018 must be—let me rephrase the words he said—“a decade of maximised opportunities”. We were going to be aspirational because we were being led by somebody who was the product of an American company called Merrill Lynch. You do not hear much about Merrill Lynch these days do you? It was the fifth company to go belly up in the Wall Street - generated financial crisis of greed and fraud and then it was bailed out by the American taxpayers. That is his background. There is not one fundamental political principle—just do a deal and move on. Or like that famous ad just “spray and walk away”. I tell you what it is running thin. The man has lost his mojo.In fact he turned up up north and he was on 500 hoardings—500 hoardings—with the slogan of all slogans: “Working for Northland”. Up there the people took one good hard look—the farmers all the old supporters of National—and they said like the Tui ad: “Yeah right! Where?”. There were the 72000 jobs from the organiser of the campaign Steven Joyce the “Mr Fix-it”. They said: “So there’s 72000 up here in the north and you have created 172000 in the country. That is a lot for Northland is it not when all the other electorates share all the rest?”. Then they kind of talk to people like Mr Bishop who was up there and my friend Alfred Ngaro and Mark Mitchell. What a sad case it was. It was so sad that I began feeling sorry for them; I really did. We knew and we said it 3 weeks out from the election that they were going to see a seismic shift. People in the provinces are not going to take that bulldust any more. They want some action. They want to see things happening.You know here we have got a two-tiered economy: Auckland versus provincial neglect. As for the member for Christchurch Central the only reason why her province is surviving is because of an accident or disaster. If it was not for that Christchurch would be screaming at the bottom like the rest of New Zealand. Manufacturing is declining against GDP. Exporting is declining against GDP. The Government debt is up to nearly $70 billion over seven times the Government debt of 2008. That which should be up in New Zealand is down—manufacturing exporting. That which is down—that means productive exporting the productive part of the economy and debt—is up. In fact it is upside down with the National Party. The people up north got the message.Around the country from Invercargill to Ōāmaru Timaru the Hawke’s Bay Gisborne and Wanganui we are going to take our message. There is one party that understands the provinces and their economic background. What we understand more than anybody else is this: it is you in the provinces who create this country’s real wealth. So why are you down at the bottom of the income stream? We are going to set things right. We are going to go and tell them that they will not get a change in the economic settings until they change their priority when voting and go out and vote for a party that knows where all the hard work and manual work is. Half of the National Party—you can tell by the look of them this new breed that came in—thinks that manual labour is the Prime Minister of Mexico. They have never done any physical work and it shows in their attitude.Mr Bishop has never done any physical work in his life; we know it. He gets up there to Ruawai or up there to Dargaville and the people there do not know what they are talking to. They say that this man cannot be from the party of Holyoake. He cannot be from the party of Marshall and McKay and all those famous National Party guys and women who did understand the nation and the condition of the provinces. Back then people rightly voted for National but not anymore. Up north they got the message. They are getting it in Whangarei right now. When the head of the ANZ bank turned up and said: “This is zombie town.” what did Mr Reti say? Did he say it was an outrage? No he agreed. They have got a zombie member. But no longer.Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to go on. Can I move a motion that I speak for a bit longer? This is a very important speech.Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): First I would like to say how disappointed I am in the member Mr Peters and his attitude to the people of Christchurch. Yes the people of Christchurch have been hit by a disaster but we have picked ourselves up and got on our feet. Our province is flourishing and it will continue to flourish.As the Minister for Disability Issues firstly I would like to start by thanking the New Zealand Sign Language interpreters who are working here this week. They have done a great job. Thank you very much.Secondly I would like to start to talk about the focus of Christchurch and Canterbury on housing because absolutely Christchurch has been hit by a terrible disaster: 170000 houses were damaged or destroyed and 170000 families have had to manage their way through that. If you say it quickly 170000 does not sound that much but that is the equivalent of nearly six Palmerston Norths. Of those 170000 homes 10500 were destroyed and had to be demolished and rebuilt.I am going to skip quickly through the resilience of the Christchurch people the emergency housing the emergency repairs the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service the accommodation subsidies the accommodation villages the Earthquake Commission insurance repairs and the consenting issues with the city council until we get to now—4 years later. We believe we are pretty close to being back to the same number of houses that there were in Christchurch and Canterbury pre the earthquakes. In 2014 alone 4400 houses were built. But there are still pressures.The first problem is that people are coming to Christchurch. People want to be a part of our rebuild. We are a magnet for talent to Christchurch and of course that means that those people have to find housing so there has been increased pressure for housing for workers.Secondly there is a problem with quality homes. We have got better-quality homes in Christchurch. You might say that that is not a problem. It is absolutely not a problem for the people who are living in them but the rents and the costs of those houses have gone up. It means there is less choice for people who have a lower income and that is a real problem. So to overcome that problem Housing New Zealand the city council and housing organisations have created new temporary housing options for the vulnerable. We are working really hard to make sure that that all works. Housing New Zealand is spending $1 billion. It has done 5000 repairs and it is building a new home every day. These are fabulous new homes that are double-glazed and totally insulated. There is no downside to that quality because people are still getting income-related rents.One of the best initiatives in terms of repairing houses has been the initiative we have with Christchurch Prison where prisoners are out there giving houses a new lease of life and at the same time learning skills they can use when they come out of prison into the construction industry in Christchurch giving a new lease of life to them as well.Christchurch City Council is working well. Every week we are seeing new houses opening and all its houses are accessible. I visited a block last week and any one of us would be really happy to live there.The best difference in terms of supply is the housing accords. The Government is working with the city council on four major sites. There will be over 1000 new houses—1000 new houses—and 20 to 30 percent of those houses will be affordable houses. They have already started on the Awatea site over in Hornby the contract has been let for Welles Street and Colombo Street in the centre city—and as a centre city resident I am looking forward to those people moving in to our areas—and the Riccarton racecourse site is under way. That 20 to 30 percent of affordable housing will be available through the KiwiSaver HomeStart package and that is a real opportunity for people who want to get into their own houses particularly young New Zealanders. The policy has been particularly tailored for Christchurch so we can allow second-chance buyers to get that KiwiSaver HomeStart package because of the earthquakes.It is absolutely true that housing the people of Christchurch and Canterbury has been—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.CHRIS BISHOP (National): What an embarrassing last 90 minutes it has been for the New Zealand Labour Party the Opposition—the obstreperous Opposition: angry Andy and angry Annette. It was an embarrassing last 90 minutes. They fell apart completely during question time. We had Grant Robertson there who threw his toys out of the cot and was ejected from the Chamber. Mr Peters on sort of road to Kawakawa experience suddenly was a new convert to bringing refugees into New Zealand. Well he was back to his usual tricks in the general debate and in question time on a long-winded rant about international students flooding New Zealand and bringing their skills and expertise and bringing their income and their wealth to our country. He was straight back into it in the general debate recycling jokes from the 1970s. That joke about manual labour has been around since the 1970s and that is the best that he can do in 2015. It is embarrassing—absolutely embarrassing. It is no surprise his jokes come from the 1970s because that is exactly where his economic policies come from. Then after Grant got thrown out David Cunliffe got up to save the day. The new chief whip of the Labour Party David Cunliffe got up with long tendentious points of order. He is back. He is back and we know he is back because the Leader of the Opposition—the current Leader of the Opposition the temporary Leader of the Opposition—Tim Macindoe: Who is it today?CHRIS BISHOP: It is Andrew Little Mr Macindoe. Andrew Little decided to take a leaf out of David Cunliffe’s book and repeat a poem during his general debate speech. It was not a patch on “I am Harvard”. It was not a patch on David Cunliffe’s magnum opus from his time as a scholar at Harvard in the 1990s but it was a pretty good effort. It was reasonably amusing but I have got to say it was embarrassing that that is the best that the Opposition can do 1 day out from the Budget. We are 1 day out from Bill English’s seventh Budget and all that Andrew Little can come up with is some half-rhyming poem. So it was a very embarrassing time.Then we had old Ron Mark who was almost thrown out of the House for a sweary mouth. The obstreperous Opposition has had a very bad afternoon indeed. Clare Curran was tweeting away about how we on this side of the House were glum. On the “Planet Labour” the parallel universe that Clare Curran seems to spend most of her life in we on the Government backbenches were glum. Nothing could be further from the truth.This is a Government and this is a party that is in good heart. The reason for that and the reason why the obstreperous Opposition members over there are so frustrated and the reason why Grant was thrown out and the reason why they are so angry over on that side of the House is that they know that tomorrow Bill English is going to deliver a Budget that will show that New Zealand is heading in the right direction. He will deliver a Budget that shows we are growing at one of the fastest rates in the developed world. He is going to deliver a Budget that shows that inflation is low wages are rising faster than inflation and unemployment is down and not only that—and this is very important—he is going to deliver a Budget that shows New Zealand that this Government is tackling some of the intractable social problems that have bedevilled us for far too long.This Government is tackling things like material deprivation. It is tackling the housing affordability problem that we have in this country. It is tackling entrenched welfare dependency. It is tackling the educational disparities that exist between Māori and Pākehā and Pasifika and Māori in this country and it is implementing and embedding in the Government books the social investment approach that my colleague Anne Tolley my colleague Paula Bennett and Bill English have been working on for the last 5 years.Actually you will not see much media commentary about that approach tomorrow and you definitely will not see Jacinda Ardern or Carmel Sepuloni talk about it. You will not see them talk about that social investment approach. For starters the Labour Party members do not understand it and to the extent that they do understand it they fundamentally disagree with the idea that will be at the heart of the Budget tomorrow.This side of the House the Government is in good heart. The Opposition members are frustrated and angry and they are frustrated and angry for a good reason—because this Budget is going to be an important marking point in New Zealand’s future and our history. All they have are rants and anger over on that side of the House. What we have is a Budget that will continue to deliver for New Zealanders.JAN LOGIE (Green): I apologise in advance for my seriousness and lack of personal abuse in this speech—it seems to be counter to others. If an economy is not working for everyone it is not working and this economy is not working. We have about a quarter of a million of our children living in poverty. We have between 60000 and 100000 children consistently going without nutritious meals their own beds waterproof or warm clothing shoes access to transport or the ability to go on school trips or to get birthday and Christmas presents. We have more than one child a week dying of preventable poverty-related diseases.We have more beggars on the streets than I can remember in my lifetime. We have community workers having to access food banks at the places they work because they believe in the importance of caring for others even when this Government cuts the funding for their services. We are hearing about people sleeping in their cars or on the streets in Ashburton in Hastings in Auckland in Invercargill in Tauranga in Kaitāia and in Wellington.From one end of our abundant country to the other people are on our streets struggling. We have a capital city with the highest rates of depression in the country due to the constant restructuring of our public services. We have distressed farmers worried that they might lose their farms as they have been encouraged into untenable levels of debt. We have wages for half of this country stagnating even while ours as MPs increase.We have an entire generation abandoned. Those under 40 are burdened now with massive student debts. They are increasingly having to face up to the fact that they may never own a house or may have to wait until their parents die in order to have a house and far too many are struggling to even find a warm stable affordable place to live. We are seeing more people now with Bachelor’s degrees in the lowest income bracket—more than we have ever seen before—and we have a generation facing or trying to ignore the looming emotional and financial burden of climate change due to a failure of successive Governments to act.National tells us that it is working for New Zealand. National has lost touch with everyday New Zealanders. It has chosen to build an economy that works only for New Zealanders who already have a lot. The Budget is an expression of our collective priorities as a country or it should be. But it seems that we are going to be getting another Budget that is ignoring the reality of all too many of us and this makes me worried for all of us because it costs to look the other way when someone else is suffering.I am sure everyone in this House knows that sick feeling you get when you have hurt someone. But rather than fronting up to them and dealing with it you ignore it and of course your relationship with that person suffers. We all know that; we have all done that. If we do not feel a little bit sick when we are staring into the faces of those children going without their own beds and going without a decent meal then this is a disturbing reality of ideology and the impact of it on us.The Green Party is prepared to stand up for younger New Zealanders and all those who do not have enough to get by who are being let down by this National Government. There is an alternative—in fact there are many—and the Green Party has real solutions to ensure our economy would work for all of us. For us it is sensible economics for a small country but much more than that it is what we know is right. An economy that is working for only a few is not an economy that is working.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take a call in this general debate. First of all it is my first time to speak since the passing away of our rangatira ĒrimaHēnare.He maumaharatanga ki te tino rangatira a Ērima Hēnare [a recollection to the great leader Ērima Hēnare]. Can I just acknowledge my respect for him. He was a great leader. He was on a number of boards. One in particular that I know that Pita Paraone will know is the Waitangi National Trust Board. He will be greatly missed because of his leadership up in the far north.I make mention of that leadership because leadership becomes critically important to this country and it is what our communities look for. I know that the Rt Hon Winston Peters talked about the far north and about a community looking for something different something new. Can I say that absolutely there was a sense of looking for more opportunities up there whether they be in employment whether they be in forestry whether they be in roading. So they were looking for that. Can I also add to the part of the picture that is not often talked about which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has not described and that is the handshake the deal that was done behind closed doors with the Labour Party. Andrew Little was up there and what happened actually was the fact that both the Greens and Labour conceded. They conceded and so that was the difference: a majority of 4000 which made New Zealand First win in the end. It did win. I will not take that away; it was a win.But can I also say that when you do those deals—and Labour members are used to that even though they talked about the deals that have been done on the National side. Yet they know that Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel—the deal was done there with Labour voters. The gain was that Labour was able to stay in Government. Or whether it was with Jim Anderton and the Alliance—the deal was it was able to stay in Government. However in this case Labour has been the greatest loser because out of this what has happened? Absolutely nothing. In fact on day one after the election when asked about whether there would be some deals of working together this is what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said. He said there is no debt to be owed—there is no debt to be owed. That was classic of Winston. That is actually what was said.But what the country is looking for what the regions are looking for is leadership. When we look at this National Government tomorrow will be an important day because of the leadership of this Government and what it has been able to do. When we have the polls that go out what is the No. 1 issue that comes up? Constantly it is around the economy. It is around the economy it is around other issues—around housing education and health—but people ask whether we can fiscally manage ourselves in our economy. We have shown with the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key and also the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English that we have had steady sensible finances that are in order. In fact do not take our word for it. Let us talk about what has come out of the Dominion Post. This hurts the Opposition because now we have people like Shamubeel Eaqub for instance who has turned round and said that people have talked about the economy as a rock star economy but instead on this side we have talked about a rock solid economy. Here is what he says: “Before the recession”—prior to that time obviously when Labour was in Government—“we were … willing to borrow and spend.” Is that not a classic example of the Labour Government: “borrow and spend.”? “In comparison we’re being very careful now.” In fact he said that we are managing our economy and that in the long term it is an economy that is working ahead of other economies in the world for instance other traditional powerhouses like Japan like United States and even like Britain.Again we are seeing that confidence in the leadership financially pays a difference. How does that make a difference to our communities at large? It makes a difference because when we manage that economy well fiscally we can do the things that are important to our communities in regard to health housing and education. In fact we know that the total annual cost of new initiatives in the Government’s last six Budgets is less than $2.9 billion. By comparison the extra costs in the last six Budgets of the previous Government totalled $20 billion. That is the difference that we are making—$2.9 billion versus $20 billion—we are managing successfully. However despite the fact that we are managing we are reducing our costs we are also not renegeing on the things that are absolutely important to us.Quickly I want to talk about the KiwiSaver HomeStart package which is making a difference. That was launched on 15 April out of west Auckland—home of the west—out at Henderson Baptist Church. Over there over 150 people came because they wanted to hear about housing affordability. Here are the three things the three changes that are important: replacing the KiwiSaver FirstHome deposit subsidy with a grant doubling the support for buying a new home and increasing the housing pricing limits. So for instance for those who have been on the scheme for 3 years it will be $3000; for 4 years $6000; and $8000 if you have been on for 5 years. We will double that out from $5000 to $10000 for a new home. We believe that is making a difference. The second thing is that we are now able to enlarge the KiwiSaver FirstHome withdrawals and almost 95 percent of that can be used for your KiwiSaver HomeStart loans. I think—and I know—that we are doing a great thing to lead the country. We look forward to the Budget tomorrow.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): What a difference 1 year makes—what a difference. Public-private partnerships or“PPP” used to mean something different to the National Party. It was the holy grail of Government intervention. Think Skycity gambling deals. Think Novopay streamlining. But they were just a glimpse of a promised future holy land. When Government partners with the private sector anything is possible—just ask the Inland Revenue Department. But do not get me wrong. Labour is not averse to partnering with the private sector. We have done it before and we will do it again. You just will not see the same kind of excited dribbling every time the term is raised. But what a difference a year makes. In the National Party “PPP” has taken on quite a different meaning. Members around the House have probably heard National Party backbenchers breathlessly whispering about “PPPs” in the corridors and in the select committees. The National Party’s “PPPs” are on every backbencher’s list right now. Because of the National Party’s usual excitement about privatising gains and socialising losses I gave these hushed “PPP” whispers little breach at first but they persisted—they have persisted.What is this new “PPP” the National backbenchers are so obsessed with? What is this buzz around the beehive? I consider it must be some scandal so I gave it some thought. Could it be a new scandal around Pansy Wong about which we do not yet know after she used her parliamentary funding for her husband’s private business trips—“TPPP” or travelling with partner for private profit perhaps? It seemed unlikely. Could it be a new scandal around Richard Worth—something about text messaging? Rumours about piquant private pictures abound. Or was it a new revelation about Phil Heatley and the publicly funded pinot payout? Still more rumours were doing the rounds. “PPPs” were everywhere I looked—the National Party is full of gossip and backstabbing these days; I can hear it coming from opposite now—but I easily dismissed the next two rumours. That Aaron Gilmore was a pathetic piss-prick was hardly news. Private purchases using public funds seemed to fit the National Party mantra but Claudette “Credit Card” Hauiti did not seem to have the head to be at the centre of so much recklessness so I dismissed that straight away.Then it dawned on me: maybe it was a reference to the Statler and Waldorf of the National Party backbenchers. There they are over there. Perhaps their coup planning was about to have its pay day. Maurice Williamson the police-phoning politician might be involved. Maybe the “PPP” whispers related instead to the ascension of his bench mate the original “PPP”—the private business Poo-Bah of Peking—but still I was not sure. What I found out though after extensive research is this. Not everyone at home will know it yet but I can disclose to the public watching this debate today that when the National Party members talk about “PPPs” they are in fact talking about post-ponytail polling. In the National caucus they have seen the “PPPs”—the post-ponytail polls—and I can see it by looking across the House. They are lining up across the House to replace John Key. His credibility has been dented once too often. The teflon is gone.I hear them crying out that Judith would be better. It is coming from across the House. Around the House they know that the internal squabbles eloquently captured in every movement of Judith Collins’ nubile eyebrows is costing them. They know that the public of New Zealand is losing trust in the empty promises of the Government and they recognise a Government that has lost touch that looks tired and that looks arrogant. This is a Government riven by internal divisions—a Government that has broken its economic promise of a surplus. It is a Government that is now hosing down its promise to deliver wage rises to workers. It is a Government that is failing.Now its focus has fallen on the internal “PPP”. What a difference 1 year makes. Running into the last election we saw a Government wading through a quagmire of scandals. The dirty politics revelations showed that John Key’s office was intimately involved in smear campaigns and treachery. But John Key stood to one side and said: “It has nothing to do with me. I couldn’t possibly know what was happening in my office. I have no responsibility for it.” That is what he said then. He said that there is nothing to see here. But all of this has changed. Since the election the dirty politics revelations have proved themselves correct. The tactics—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have rung the bell so the member sits. I am calling Sarah Dowie.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an absolute pleasure to enter into this debate and frankly it is quite joyous because I am so positive about what this Government has achieved. I will pick up on Mr Chris Bishop’s point about Clare Curran calling us glum. I am a very happy person because I am so positive about this Government and the initiatives that we have put in place the work that we are doing. We are growing New Zealand’s economy we are creating more jobs we are supporting our families—Sue Moroney: Come on paint that smile on Sarah!SARAH DOWIE: —it is beautiful is it not? Wailing and gnashing of teeth because you love it. You love me speaking to you especially about Invercargill. Brace yourself—I am going to talk about Invercargill soon.But first of all I am going to talk more generally about what this wonderful Government is doing for our society. We are supporting our families and our children and of course with our housing policy we are supporting the most vulnerable in our society. If you look back to 2008 what did we have? A bleak future. It was so bleak; it was almost like Mordor looking into some dark bleak clouds. The Labourites had mismanaged the country’s finances the economy was fragile—never mind going into a global financial crisis. Saving for a rainy day I know is a foreign concept to that side of the House. The economy was in a desperate state crime was at an all-time high schoolchildren were coming out of school with no qualifications ill-equipped to enter into life and to get a job and unemployment was spiralling.But now look at us. We are the envy of the OECD the absolute envy. In fact Australians our big brothers—our fiercest rivals—are putting their arms around us now and saying “Hey you’re kind of OK.” They want the Hon Bill English and the Rt Hon John Key to stay. They say: “Help us out please.” We are doing so well. Through financial prudence what have we done? We have grown this economy. We have created 194000 jobs since 2011. And what is that doing? It is getting people into work it is creating wealth for our families and they are doing well.I want to talk especially about putting more money into our health budget—our free doctors visits for children under 13 years of age. What a difference that makes. I am a mother; I have got two. I have been a first-time mother. I know what it is like taking a child to the doctor and having to pay full fees. It is amazing that we can now take our children to the doctor and get them seen to making sure that they have a better quality of life and taking the burden off the parents to take them to the doctor to get them seen to.But there is still work to be done. I mean you hear from the Opposition benches that we are out of ideas and that we are lazy. No we are not. We are not resting on our laurels—not at all. We are dynamic but we also turn to pragmatic solutions. We are not afraid to look at our policies and tune them up and make changes for the betterment of all New Zealanders.One of those policies of course is our social housing policy. As the member for Invercargill I was thrilled when it was selected as one of the first regions for the proposed transfer of Housing New Zealand houses to community providers. It is a sensible move. This is local issues being dealt with by local specialist knowledge providing local solutions for local people in need and that is better for the people in need on the ground in Southland. We have about 360 tenants with medium to long term support needs in Invercargill and about 380 houses. This policy is about delivering services that are key to the tenant—ensuring that social housing is fit for purpose and the right design size and in the right place for those people in need. It is helping tenants to independence and encouraging and developing a more diverse range of social housing providers which will breed innovation and responsiveness to those local tenant needs. It does work.All we need to do is look at the UK model. For example the Shepherds Bush Housing Group in west London began with four flats in 1968 and now has over 5000 properties under management. They offer a wide range of services covering everything from dealing with domestic violence something that is really important—Chris Hipkins: Has the member read this before?SARAH DOWIE: —absolutely I have—employment assistance budgeting advice health services and more. Again those are community focused community solutions to community issues. So I am thrilled as the member for Invercargill to endorse this policy. I am thrilled with the way this Government is managing this economy and helping our people—all New Zealanders; families and children—to success.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The truth is starting to catch up with National Party members. It is starting to dawn on them that making outlandish claims about good economic management means that the public actually expects good economic management. As it all starts to come unravelled and it starts to become abundantly clear that that is not what they have been delivering it is all catching up with them. When Alfred Ngaro speaks about borrow-and-spend Governments he does not accept the irony that this Government has actually had the largest borrowing record of any Government in New Zealand’s history.Hon Member: More than Muldoon’s?CHRIS HIPKINS: Even more than Rob Muldoon’s. This Government has borrowed more money than any other New Zealand Government.He talked about borrow and spend in the context of a Labour Government. Well let us bring some facts into that as well. The Labour Government ran surpluses for 9 years—every year that it was in Government. In fact not only did it not borrow but it also paid back the debt it inherited from the previous National Government and it did that whilst saving for the future through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Thank you Michael Cullen. As Bill English said when he first became the finance Minister Michael Cullen and the last Labour Government saved for the rainy day that was the global financial crisis. This National Government squandered the whole lot. It squandered it all. It has left the New Zealand economy completely in a basket case because the Government has wasted every opportunity that it has been given and it is all catching up with it.The promises that John Key and the National Party made have not been kept and it is all catching up with them. What did John Key say? He said that it would be a fundamental purpose of his Government to narrow the wage gap between us and Australia and to grow local wages in New Zealand. How has it done on that? The wage gap with Australia is now bigger. It is bigger than it was when the National Party became the Government. The wage gap has got bigger. That is a broken promise. He said: “I am not interested in selling assets; I’m all about building assets.” That is what John Key said. Has the Government kept its promise? No it has not. Assets have been sold off right left and centre.This is a direct quote from John Key: “We would prefer that we were a more equal society with less inequality.” And yet the inequality gap in New Zealand has continued to get bigger and bigger under this National Government. That is broken promise No.—I am up to about 4 now I think but we will keep going because there are plenty more. “I expect high standards from my Ministers.”—that accounts for broken promises Nos. 5 to 87. “I expect high standards from my Ministers.” Broken promises Nos. 5 to 87 are accounted for in that. But of course John Key cannot keep that promise when he will not lead by example. He also said: “My style is to be open and transparent.” Well that is broken promises Nos. 87 to 163 from John Key because he certainly has not been open and transparent. We have had plenty of leaks from the National Government—the things that it did not want us to know about—and it has been abundantly clear that open and transparent he has not been.Let us talk about some of the other promises: “National is not going to be raising GST.” One of the first things it did was put GST up—another broken promise from the National Government. Some of its more recent promises: free doctors’ visits for the under-13s and free prescriptions for the under-13s—except not all of them; only about 90 percent of them. It did not tell the public about that. So there are still 10 percent of kids who do not qualify for that.Hon Annette King: More than that.CHRIS HIPKINS: And probably more than that—another broken promise by the National Government.Then of course it promised to lift wages. It said that average wages will move from $55000 to $62000 under the National Government. Bill English is already saying that that is not going to happen. He is already admitting that that is yet another broken promise by the National Party. I have lost count already. We are up to 200 and something I think broken promises by the National Party. “Over the next 2 years we expect to see about 150000 jobs created.” the National Party promised. Not one single forecast from any economist or from Treasury has indicated that that is going to be delivered.And of course then we have got the big promise. It promised New Zealanders not that it was going to deliver a surplus but that it had already done so. It told New Zealanders that it had already done so and now not only is it not going to deliver a surplus this year but there is also real doubt about whether it will deliver one next year. Bill English was very cagey when asked about Treasury’s telling him that it would have to rely on a recovery in milk prices to deliver the surplus next year. He would not answer questions because he knows that it cannot deliver—another broken promise.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Radio New Zealand Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 19 May.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Yet another day in paradise. Is it not wonderful to be here having listened to the general debate and knowing that the taxpayer dollar is so well spent listening to us debate? Some of it of course was errant nonsense but there you go. It is a democracy and if those members want to spend their time wasting it—great. We are back to Radio New Zealand and radio generally. We have already established that every year we have been giving as a Government $25 million to Radio New Zealand.Brett Hudson: How much? How much?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: $25 million. That is a wonderful amount of money is it not? And that compares very favourably with all the other money that we give to radio stations in New Zealand. That is because we give them not a cent—zero zip nothing. So Radio New Zealand does really well. For that of course Radio New Zealand does not have to go cap in hand to advertisers and does not have to justify itself other than to select committees. That is a price that we pay as taxpayers because actually Radio New Zealand has a charter and it has to produce certain things that may not be commercially efficient and probably would not survive the commercial rule being run over it. But are we not lucky that we live in a society where not only do we have Radio New Zealand but we have so much more choice? If we do not want to hear the dulcet tones of Checkpoint we can in fact listen instead to that fabulous person on Newstalk ZB Larry Williams or we could listen instead in the morning to the fabulous Paul Henry someone whom I listen to quite a lot now and I know that my friend Annette King does too. That is the sort of thing. We have choice. Is that not wonderful?But I would also say that we need to be very aware—and I am sure that the people in the industry are—that there are very interesting times ahead for the industry. As we have been hearing in the debate so much in terms of technological change is happening. It is so fast. Multimedia solutions are now being trialled and used and we can see that with the Radio Live Paul Henry show. We can also see it with others as well. I think that is one of the things. We are going to see a lot of consolidation in the industry and a lot of new and innovative ways of doing things. Radio New Zealand is well placed and I am really pleased with the progress it has made in the last 6 and a bit years.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call I understand is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Following on from the contribution by Ms Collins I am sure that there are a few National Cabinet Ministers who would like to hear the end of those dulcet tones on Checkpoint given what we have seen over the years.I want to touch on a theme. This is my third term of Parliament and something I have noticed is that inexorably when the Clerk reads out the new legislation being introduced at the beginning of Parliament the numbers are massively down. It has been an awfully long time since we have seen any new ideas any new legislation and here is a classic example. The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is something that has been referred from the review of a committee from 2006 and it did not get around to being issued to a select committee until 2009 and here is the Government with nothing else pressing on the legislative agenda finally getting around to this bill 6 years later. It is finally getting around to looking at this bill. That tells you a few things.If public broadcasting was a priority this bill could have been knocked off many many years ago. It is an uncontroversial bill. This bill simply enshrines in statute the charter for Radio New Zealand which is something that all parties in this Parliament agree on. It also says something about the Government’s priorities because the only public broadcasting change except for a massive funding freeze to the sector is in fact an uncontroversial bill doing something that should have come about in the mid-2000s. It is setting up finally the charter for Radio New Zealand.It is not controversial. We are talking about a charter that talks about Radio New Zealand being “independent and commercial-free”—which it is at the moment—and having freedom of thought and expression fostering a sense of national identity providing independent freely accessible news and enriching our broadcasting environment. It is all good stuff which none of the 165 submissions could be opposed to. But I do want to talk about something Ms Collins said. In her contribution she talked about nothing being available for other broadcasters which highlighted somehow the Government’s exceedingly high generosity in funding public broadcasting—or Radio New Zealand—in New Zealand. One word: it is MediaWorks. We saw a fantastically huge bailout for MediaWorks and its stable of commercial radio stations from this Government.Let us look at the facts. In the last year of the previous Labour Government KPMG produced a report saying that Radio New Zealand was suffering from a funding shortfall in 2007. It recommended a $6.7 million urgent reinjection. What have we seen since then since the National Government was elected in 2008? Zero. It has seen an absolute funding freeze across that period which has been an effective funding cut to the only public broadcaster in this country—that is Radio New Zealand. Television One and TV2 of course are not public broadcasters. Māori Television serves a different service—an important service. We have seen a 9 percent funding cut in real terms.This is something that needs to be addressed because it is important for all those reasons that we are passing into law now to foster that sense of national identity—to have that freely available independent news and to hear those Kiwi voices. I would not call the $25 million exceedingly generous. This is half on a per capita basis of what the Australians fund for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a third what the Brits do when it comes to the BBC. We are a laggard when it comes to public broadcasting.So I challenge the Government: if it is serious it should put its money where its mouth is tomorrow. This is part of the foundation for a strong civic society a foundation for our democracy. That is why the Greens are supporting public broadcasting and it is why we need a public television broadcaster. Really the question is for the Government to put its money where its mouth is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Chris Hipkins—5 minutes.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. My last contribution was so good. I am very happy to take a call on this bill. My cold is catching up with me so you will have to forgive me if my voice is not perhaps quite as booming as it was in my last contribution.Hon Annette King: Have a glass of water.CHRIS HIPKINS: I have had lots of water so I will be fine. I am very strongly in favour of this bill and it is good to see that it is finally going to progress through the House. I think it is disappointing that it has taken such a long period of time to get it through the House. Of course the Radio New Zealand Act requires that the Radio New Zealand charter is reviewed every 5 years. So the fact that this is based on a review that happened nearly 10 years ago means that we are probably a couple of reviews behind and hopefully there will be further amendments required in due course.I think one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that technological change is happening really rapidly in this area. Just reading through the charter that is attached to this bill it is important to note the really strong emphasis that is placed on broadcasting within that. And yet the lines between broadcasting and other forms of technology are becoming so blurred now that there will inevitably need to be further change and further evolution in this area. Actually Radio New Zealand in my strong view should not necessarily be about public non-commercial broadcast content but public non-commercial content and making sure that that is widely available and that will be through a variety of different mediums including online content. Radio New Zealand is increasingly doing more work in that area and I think that that is a very welcome thing.Tim Macindoe: Programmes about throats?CHRIS HIPKINS: Programmes about colds sore throats and all those sorts of things would be useful.I think that Judith Collins was wrong when she said that commercial broadcasters in New Zealand do not get one cent of Government subsidy. That is not true. As Gareth Hughes has just pointed out MediaWorks has done pretty well out of the current Government. And she mentioned a few high-profile broadcasters in her contribution including Paul Henry Mike Hosking and others. I want to say that I think that is absolutely fine. I think there is a legitimate place in the New Zealand media for those voices just as there is a legitimate place for the John Campbells and others.I think that really what we should be aiming for in New Zealand is a wide diversity of views and opinions within the New Zealand media. But the niche if you like that Radio New Zealand fills within that is that it can do more in-depth fact checking more in-depth investigative journalism which the commercial broadcasters and commercial media outlets are struggling to do not because they do not want to do it not because the journalists working for those organisations are not very very good journalists—they are—but simply because they are far more resource constrained. If the commercial media environment cannot fund that level of investigative journalism inquiry and diverse debate then we do need as a society to ensure that it is publicly available in some other form. Radio New Zealand in the radio sphere has certainly been a bastion of that.I have heard people on the other side of the House refer to Radio New Zealand as a bastion of left-wing propaganda. Radio New Zealand deals with facts and it is one of the organisations that do a lot of fact checking. If dealing in facts makes it left wing then yes I guess it will have to wear that particular label but I do not believe that it has any bias politically. I think what it does do—Tim Macindoe: Ha ha!CHRIS HIPKINS: I do not believe that Radio New Zealand is politically biased at all. I think it strives very very hard not to be politically biased but there are some journalists out there who make no bones about their political bias and that is fine if they are open and upfront about it. I think Radio New Zealand tries very carefully to not do that as the State broadcaster. I think we have a lot less bias in Radio New Zealand for example than we do in Television New Zealand where Mike Hosking’s editorials are very biased. But he is upfront about that and that is OK but I think there is a need to balance that by ensuring that an equally compelling alternative view is put forward and I do not think Television New Zealand does that very well. I think it lets New Zealand down as the nation’s television broadcaster in not providing that diversity something I know that Radio New Zealand strives very very hard to provide.I am very supportive of this bill. I am also very supportive of the Government taking the foot off Radio New Zealand’s throat in terms of the funding constraints it has been under. Overall this is a good piece of legislation.CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. I think members will agree that there is consensus across the House that the bill is sensible. Members opposite have I think fairly raised some concern about the length of time it has taken to pass this bill. Of course the bill was first introduced I think in 2009. Yes indeed; its first reading was on 4 June and it was referred to the Commerce Committee.I think that members opposite cry crocodile tears when it comes to complaints about the length of time it takes to pass bills. Members in general may be interested to learn the names of a number of bills that were on the Order Paper in 2008 when National took office. We had of course the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. It was first introduced in 2006. There was no progress under Labour. We had the Oaths Modernisation Bill and the Rail Network Bill and there was a real doozy the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. It was first introduced in 1998 under the last National Government and it made no progress in 9 years under the Labour GovernmentBrett Hudson: Nine long years.CHRIS BISHOP: Nine long years—thank you very much Mr Hudson. So I think that those members cry crocodile tears about it. But regardless of the time it has taken to get to this point it is an important bill that we are progressing.I also want to make a few points in rebuttal to Clare Curran’s speech last night. I was—privileged is slightly the wrong word. I was present in the Chamber to hear her contribution to the debate last night. There were a few odd remarks that I want to pick up on in rebuttal. The first thing is to point out that the major thrust of some of the criticism in the first part of her speech seems to be based on a speech that Tony Ryall gave in 1993 presumably as a Government backbencher about Radio New Zealand and one quote he had given in 1993. It seems to be drawing a slightly long bow to criticise current Government policy in 2015 based on a comment from a member who is actually no longer a member of Parliament when he was a Government backbencher in the previous National Government. So I think that Clare clearly was struggling with her material if she had to go right back in the archives to 1993. I suggest to the Labour Party research unit which is clearly listening to this contribution to the debate that it needs to do its homework better.The second thing I want to mention about Ms Curran’s contribution is her comments about the Television New Zealandcharter. The Labour Party is very proud of the famed Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter. The reality is that the TVNZ charter was a debacle. TVNZ turned up at the Commerce Committee in 2007 and in response to a question about its commitment to Māori broadcasting said that the Police Ten 7 show was an example of its commitment to Māori broadcasting—Police Ten 7. That is how it got away with fulfilling its mandate under the charter. It got given free money by Steve Maharey and the other Ministers of Broadcasting under Labour to basically reclassify existing commercial programmes like Police Ten 7 and say that that was its commitment to public service broadcasting.Actually the National Government took an enlightened policy to the 2008 election. We said that rather than give TVNZ $15 million of free money let us unshackle it from its dual mandate let us let it do what it wants to do anyway—be commercial—and let us give that $15 million to New Zealand On Air which will be medium-neutral as to where that money goes. In other words New Zealand On Airwould select the programmes. A programme could be on TV3 it could be on TVNZ or it could be on a variety of other platforms. Increasingly in the modern world it is actually through digital and New Zealand On Air has now got a digital media fund which is a world first. It was an enlightened policy and we think it has actually made for much better delivery. It has unshackled TVNZ from that mandate.The other mistake Clare Curran made was to say that National has made TVNZ commercial. Actually that was done by the fourth Labour Government in 1989 when it deregulated the broadcasting sector and allowed TV3 to enter the market. In fact you could arguably say that TVNZ has always been commercial because only 1 year after the inception of television in New Zealand in the 1960s we had ads on television. Clare Curran suggested in a tweet last night that one of the problems with television in New Zealand is that we have ads during prime time—ads during prime time. So the Labour Party broadcasting policy at the next election is going to be very interesting. It will be interesting to see the Labour Party’s commitment to the abolition of advertisements on TVNZ during prime time. That will be a slightly odd policy but it will be in keeping with its general modus operandi when it comes to policies which is that it has got no idea how to pay for things and it has no idea about the actual policies it is trying to pursue. So we are looking forward to that broadcasting policy.This is an important bill. Radio New Zealand makes an important contribution to the life of this nation. It is something that I and many New Zealanders listen to. In 2014 Radio New Zealand’s live cumulative audience was 484000. Increasingly it is moving into the online space. In 2013-14 there were 3.5 million podcasts downloaded. I have got many friends around the world and I know that many of them like to download the Radio New Zealand podcasts of Morning Report Nine to Noon and Checkpoint and listen to them when they wake up in the morning in the United Kingdom or America or wherever they are and keep up with the news from New Zealand because it is a very good source of information and the podcasts are well produced.Increasingly the Wireless which is the youth-oriented website that Radio New Zealand has set up has grown in popularity as well. I have had a couple of friends who have worked for that website and it does produce good content. One of the things people used to talk about back in the 1990swas a youth radio network—that New Zealand needed a triple j like Australia has which would be an advertisement-free radio station. I know that Neil Finn the musician and a few other people were very very keen on a youth radio network.Actually to be fair I used to be an advocate for a youth radio network as well. I was once a youth parliamentarian and I advocated for a youth radio network in my question in the Youth Parliament’s question time to the Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs. Despite the fact that it was apparently Labour Government policy at the time she gave me the brush-off.People used to talk about having a youth radio network but I think that now people would generally agree that the way technology has evolved for the Government to fund a dedicated commercial youth radio frequency would probably be a retrograde step and that actually the way of the future is something like the Wireless website something like the youth-oriented website that is associated with Radio New Zealand. Actually the Wireless was a finalist in the category of best site in the Canon Media Awards of 2014 and Radio New Zealand continues to do well at the New Zealand Radio Awards as well. That is no surprise because as I said before it fulfils an important role in the cultural and social life of this nation.With that in mind it is important that we amend the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 because we need to update the Act and make it clear that the revised charter text makes for a stronger statement about its role as the public broadcaster and makes sure it is more accessible to the general public. There is also an update requirement for a 5-yearly charter review.This is an important bill. Radio New Zealand continues to play an important role in the cultural and social life of this nation. I commend the bill to the House.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I a mātou e kōrero ana mō tēnei mea te reo irirangi e hiahia ana ahau ki te tū ki te mihi atu ki tērā o ngā whānau kei roto i a Mangamuka. I tērā Mane kua kaingatia tō rātou teihana irirangi e te ahi. Arā ko tērā teihana reo irirangi ko Tautoko FM. I te Mane kua pahure ake nei i ahau e haere ana ki te wāhi rererangi o Kerikeri ka pahure ahau i taua teihana. Kīhai i pau te ono hāora i muri atu kua kāpurangia e te ahi. Nā reira ka tuku atu ahau i ōku mihimihi ki tērā whānau nā rātou i whakapau i ō rātou kaha ki te hāpai i Te Reo Māori i ngā take Māori ki a Cyril Chapman mā ngā mihi aroha atu ki a rātou.[Thank you indeed Mr Speaker. While we are speaking about this radio thing I want to rise and acknowledge one of the families living in Mangamuka. Last Monday their radio station Tautoko FM was consumed by fire. As I was travelling to the aerodrome of Kerikeri this Monday just gone I went past that station. Not quite 6 hours afterwards and fire razed it. So I want to extend my sympathies to that family who worked hard to elevate the Māori language and Māori matters to Cyril Chapman and them loving concerns to them.]Just while we are speaking about the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill I want to acknowledge Mangamuka and the whanau who on Monday had their iwi radio station burnt to the ground. On Monday afternoon I passed over Mangamuka Bridge and Radio Tautoko was on the left. It was not some 6 hours later that a fire razed the whole station to the ground. I just want to extend my thoughts to the whanau there at Tautoko FM—in particular to Cyril Chapman a man who has been involved in running that stationfor a number of decades and I believe that they have made the commitment to have their station up and running again as soon as possible. I think it is important just to acknowledge Tautoko FM and the whanau there. For a number of decades Mangamuka has done such a great job in uplifting our Reo and our culture.In 1996 Christopher Phillips an American lamented the fact that anytime he turned on the media he was dissatisfied with the way people engaged in supposed intellectual discourse. More often than not he said he heard browbeating and one-upmanship. There was intellectual snootiness. People were using knowledge as a cloak and shield rather than using it to diffuse enlightenment. And he said that democracy hinges on an enlightened citizenry. These days the content of many commercially driven radio stations tends to be more infotainment than information. They tend to be going for the 30-second sound bite and in some cases it is not even a 30-second sound bite; it is a 3 to 5-second sound bite. Citizens of New Zealand are becoming deprived of real meaningful broadcasting where opinions and information are disseminated and where people can hear people politicians sportspeople and other members of the community putting forward their points of view. That is why this bill through which the Radio New Zealand charter is going to be amended is a great bill.I would like to refer to a couple of points in new section 8 of the Charter the “Purpose” in particular the point that says: “Freedom of thought and expression are foundations of democratic society and the public radio company as a public service broadcaster plays an essential role in exercising these freedoms.” Another point in the “Purpose” says: “The public radio company provides reliable independent and freely accessible news and information.” Those purposes I can only commend. The charter’s “Delivery” says: “In achieving its purpose the public radio company must endeavour to provide services of the highest quality which—(b) inform entertain and enlighten the people of New Zealand:” and that endorses the quotation from Christopher Phillips in 1996. It also says under the “Delivery” that Radio New Zealand needs to “(d) foster critical thought and informed and wide-ranging debate:” We are often bereft of wide-ranging debate in broadcasting. We have heard that a number of people whose opinions are often politically cloudedare just out there and we do not actually get to hear wide-ranging debate; we just get to hear certain reporters’ jaundiced views of the world.I would just like to go to the first reading of this bill and throw a bouquet to Jonathan Young. I like what he had to say. He said: “this charter not only speaks to the necessity of those with political or commercial interests not exerting their influence in appropriate ways but also just as important places on broadcasters the serious responsibility to maintain their editorial independence and integrity in the execution of their responsibilities and duties.” He also said: “Radio New Zealand does not make the news but reports it; does not create opinions but accurately reflects the views and opinions of New Zealanders in a legitimate and appropriate way.” But I would just like to contrast that with the then - Minister of Broadcasting the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and his silly contribution which said: “This bill languished under the last administration”. It is funny how your words can come back to haunt you because if this bill languished in his opinion under the previous Labour administration then what do we call 7 years’ sitting on the Order Paper gathering dust if that is not languishing? He said: “whereas this Government”—his Government—“is committed to fulfilling its legislative responsibilities.”This makes it sound like there was a sense of urgency around this bill. We know that after 7 years that was definitely not the case. “This should have been done but the previous Government just never got around to doing it. This is an unfair situation for Radio New Zealand”—well if it was unfair 7 years ago imagine what the situation is like for Radio New Zealand right now. I mean this charter was meant to be amended every 5 years. It was meant to be amended in around 2010. It has now been 10 years since it was amended and this is a Government that is saying it is doing all it can. The previous Minister of Broadcasting—this is again the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman—said the previous Labour Minister of Broadcasting had other priorities. Well the Minister of Broadcasting in the last Labour Government probably did have other priorities. He was a hard-working Minister.“It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible”. Well let me tell you if 7 years is this Government’s idea of “as soon as possible” then we wonder whether the Budget surplus is also going to come to fruition as soon as possible or in terms of this bill go through the rest of the stages—the Committee stage and the third reading. Are we just going to have to wait until tomorrow? As my colleague Phil Twyford says every time this Government says that it is going to do something it is always: “We’re on the cusp. We’re on the cusp of something great.” Well maybe we are just on the cusp of this bill being passed. “It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible to ensure that Radio New Zealand can operate with an up-to-date and clear public service mandate.”Another member who is a Minister now Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga in a similar vein said: “This bill is an example of the Labour Party resting on its laurels and not getting legislation through this House. It is a brave move to take on this legislation and move it quickly through the House.” Seven years in anybody’s opinion is not moving quickly. We have concerns about the budget freeze for Radio New Zealand because the honourable Minister back in 2009 had all these plans and everything was going to happen. He wanted to do this; he wanted to do that. And then the Government froze the budget which we know through inflation and over time is essentially a budget cut for Radio New Zealand. We hope that in tomorrow’s Budget after one more sleep we will find out that Radio New Zealand is actually going to get some more money in its coffers so that it can fulfil its charter. Kia ora.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for allowing me to speak on the second reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a well-established fact that Radio New Zealand delivers quality content to its listeners. I am a big fan of radio and normally whenever I am travelling I prefer to listen to the radio rather than to any other media. The technology is changing but still I am a big fan of radio. The four radio stations that I normally switch between are: Radio New Zealand Newstalk ZB BBC and Radio Tarana. When I came to New Zealand in 2001 Radio Tarana was the only Indian radio channel available for a few hours in the day which kept us connected to our homeland. I appreciate that having gone from strength to strength Radio Tarana is now a 24-hour Indian radio channel and it has a very wide audience. I congratulate that team.Radio New Zealand is one of those stations that deliver an unbiased viewpoint and I normally listen to this radio station from time to time. It has got a long history. It was established as a public broadcaster in 1925 and at that time the funding was given through the radio licences—25 shillings out of each licence issued at that time. Then it continued and as the demand grew the company was established in 1931 when the Government appointed the New Zealand Broadcasting Board. It was dependent upon the licence fee. In 1936 the Government established the New Zealand Broadcasting Service as a Government department which soon added fully commercial radio stations also. After the war the New Zealand Broadcasting Service’s Government department status was ended in 1962 and the Government established the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. During the next 30 years the system was changed numerous times but public non-commercial radio service remained its integral part.Given the changing technology there are some other facts that are very relevant today that I would like to share with this House. In 2014 Radio New Zealand’s live accumulative audience for its National and Concert audience was 484000. In 2013-14 3.5 million podcasts were downloaded. In 2013-14 Radio New Zealand’s homepage reached 21 million viewings. In 2014 unique users of the website grew by over 50 percent. In 2013 again on a regular basis Radio New Zealand’s mobile app grew by almost 62 percent. I am sharing this with the House because the technology is changing. Nowadays youngsters prefer using different media from the normal radio. I inherited this habit of listening to the radio from my father who used to listen to the radio all the time. At that time there were no satellite televisions and there was not much broadcasting on television. I remember that the last news broadcast used to be at 12 o’clock midnight. He used to listen to that before going to bed. I inherited that habit of listening to the radio from him.It is because of the quality of its programmes that Radio New Zealand remains the preferred radio station. Radio New Zealand provides content that some of the private broadcasters may not be able to do due to their commercial realities. In contrast Radio New Zealand delivers its content independently. By way of this bill we want to ensure that Radio New Zealand continues to deliver quality unbiased content to its listeners. Furthermore by way of legislation we also want to ensure that new media and technologies that Radio New Zealand intends to implement are also allowed to deliver quality and unbiased programmes.Some of the previous speakers mentioned that the budget has been frozen and no additional money has been given to Radio New Zealand. But I want to say that I appreciate the Radio New Zealand team the technicians and the leadership for using what they are given. They manage their programmes very well. I remember at one of the briefings that we had from Radio New Zealand at the Commerce Committee they mentioned that the technology that has been developed at Radio New Zealand helped them to go further and use that technology within the budget so that they can improve the quality of the programmes.This once again shows the National-led Government’s commitment to delivering better public services. I take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable Minister Amy Adams on taking the initiative of progressing this bill. We have time and again shown how serious we are towards our commitment to improving public services in all areas big or small.The current legislation is focused towards simplifying Radio New Zealand’s charter. It makes a strong statement on the purpose of Radio New Zealand and how its charter will deliver for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The charter was prepared after public consultation and was well deliberated on by the select committee. The committee received over 165 submissions. The committee also considered the existing charter and the legislation. After thorough analysis of all aspects the bill we are debating today was introduced to the House in 2009. All this work has meant that we have legislation that ensures futuristic thinking and the best results for the public of New Zealand.Based on the review we now have a clause that caters to the new and emerging technologies in the media space. The world of technology is ever-evolving and now everywhere we see more and new media in use. The other day while watching the New Zealand - South Africa Cricket World Cup semi-final I saw a drone flying over Eden Park covering the entire match from an eagle’s-eye view. We thought that drones were limited only to defence technology—in this case it was for New Zealand radio. This clause will ensure that the broadcaster takes advantage of the most effective means of delivery and provides the best user experience.Furthermore the charter recognises that New Zealand is now a very multicultural society. Keeping this in mind the charter states that the diverse forms of cultural programming including but not limited to drama comedy literature and the performing arts need to form an essential part of Radio New Zealand’s programming. I remember when I once asked the Radio New Zealand officials what their thoughts were about the diverse communities and the diaspora of New Zealand. They mentioned that they are planning to have in the near future as communities are getting diverse traditional programmes available like in Hindi Mandarin and Cantonese. I hope the day is not far away when the technology will allow Radio New Zealand to have such programmes to be broadcast from its platforms.Of course the modern-day era requires that there be a balance between providing social content and the ability of the organisation to earn commercial revenue from its operations. Amongst its various social obligations Radio New Zealand remains our go-to station in case of any civil defence emergencies. The legislation permits Radio New Zealand to be able to market its products and services such as broadcasting and media services.Bill read a second time.Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I move That the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Kua hinga te tōtara o Te Wao-Nui-a-Tāne. Ka tangi a Ngāti Hine ka tangi te motu. Ko te poutokomanawa o Te Reo kua wahangū. A tree has fallen in the great forest of Tāne. Ngāti Hine mourns and the nation mourns with them. A mainstay of the Māori language has been silenced. I begin by acknowledging the passing of Ērima Hēnare the widely respected and beloved Ngāti Hine leader who among his many roles was a member of the Waitangi National Trust board and who made an excellent contribution to that board.This bill amends the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932. Its principal purpose is to make changes to the membership of the trust board and to provide fixed terms of appointment for board members. In doing so it will provide a new framework for the ongoing relationship between the Government and the board. The responsibility of caring for the birthplace of our nation the place where the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed is a significant task. It is one that the Waitangi National Trust Board has discharged since the Waitangi estate was gifted to the nation in 1932 by Lord and Lady Bledisloe.The Waitangi National Trust Board’s aspirations extend beyond maintaining the Treaty House and its grounds to making sure New Zealanders can learn about their history and understand the historical and contemporary role of the Treaty of Waitangi. The board is doing this partly through a major development programme to build a new museum and education centre at the Treaty grounds. Work on the new museum is progressing well and when completed hopefully by Waitangi Day next year it will further enrich the visitor experience and enable the unique story of the development of our nation to be told in a more detailed and accessible way.I am sure that such developments would have been very much approved of by Lord and Lady Bledisloe whose gift of the Treaty grounds and its surrounding estate to New Zealanders has enabled the constitutional and heritage values embodied in the site to be shared with current and future generations. In this spirit it is essential that the organisation responsible for one of our most significant historical sites has a suitable governance structure to support its aims and aspirations for the future while also staying true to the original intent of the board when it was formed.The purpose of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill is to create a clear separation between the Government and the board while also setting up a new framework for positive relations between the board and the Crown. This bill is deliberately narrow in its focus. It specifically removes the Governor-General the Prime Minister and two Government Ministers from ex officio positions on the board. It addresses the real or perceived potential conflict that could arise under the current structure by virtue of such ex officio members being on the board while also having a constitutional role.Clause 6 inserts new section 4A which establishes a statutory Crown representatives group comprising the Prime Minister the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister for Māori Development. This group will provide a clear link between the board and the Government and will encourage open and positive dialogue. The bill allows for the Governor-General to be an honorary patron of the Waitangi National Trust should he or she so choose. The bill also provides for two members of Parliament to be appointed to the board. New section 4B in clause 6 requires one new full board member to be nominated by the Prime Minister and one to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. Creating these two new positions ensures ongoing Government and parliamentary input into the work of the board and a direct link to the elected representatives of New Zealand.The bill restricts the length of time a board member can serve. It creates 3-year terms for most board members who will then be eligible to serve for up to three terms—that is 9 years in total. The two members of Parliament being added to the board will serve for the duration of the parliamentary term in which they are appointed unless they become Ministers or leave Parliament first.The Māori Affairs Committee received three written submissions. The committee has recommended an amendment to the bill to increase the representation of Māori families on the board so that each of the four families currently represented on the board would have its own member. At present there is only one representative for four Māori families. The committee recommended this amendment in response to a submission from one of the families. The amendment has been included in the bill as clause 3A which amends section 2 of the Act.In recent years the board has standardised appointment processes for new board members. It has taken steps to make these appointments transparent through advertising and disseminating widely the call for nominations. I would expect that the appointment of additional Māori family representatives to be in accordance with this rigorous selection process.Although I understand the committee’s reasons for recommending the amendment concerning representation of Māori families it raises questions about whether the current basis of representation on the board should be reconsidered more broadly. I am therefore initiating a wider review of the Waitangi National Trust with the aim of ensuring the best possible governance and management of the Waitangi estate.The review will also respond to issues raised by the board in its submission on the bill. Although supporting the intent of the bill the board asked for changes to its powers and to penalties for offences and by-law breaches under the Act. These matters are outside the narrow focus of the current bill but will be considered as part of the wider review. Generally speaking it is my intention that the review will look at the role composition and powers of the board; the appointment process and criteria for board members; how best to provide for iwi Māori involvement in the governance of the trust; offences and by-laws on the Waitangi estate; and the financial sustainability of the trust. By establishing a framework for continued positive relationships between the board and the Government I believe the bill will create the necessary conditions for a wider review of the trust to take place.I wish to thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of submissions during the select committee process. I am pleased to note that there is broad cross-party support for the bill and I am confident that the bill will provide for a positive and cooperative relationship between the Government and the board. I look forward to progressing the bill through the House.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): E tika ana me tāpiri taku mihi ki tērā rangatira rongonui tērā tōtara a Ērima nō reira e te rangatira moe mai moe mai rā.[It is fitting that I add my tribute to that well-known leader and tōtara Ērima; so to you revered one sleep rest there.]I would like to also support the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage’s acknowledgment and recognition of the former board member the late ĒrimaHēnare and his contribution not only to the Waitangi National Trust Board but also in other fields as a contribution to New Zealand’s history. Nō reira e te rangatira e kore e mutu ngā mihi ki a koe [Consequently my tributes to you esteemed one will never end].The Minister has covered much of the consideration of the Māori Affairs Committee but I thought it would be useful to share some of the considerations of the select committee when we made the changes that were referred to. Much of the history with regard to the gift of lands and the establishment of the trust board was leaned upon to consider the submission request certainly of Arapeta Hamilton and the recommendation that thought be given to equity of representation of family members. I want to draw the attention of the House to Vernon Reed’s history and recollection of the Bledisloe gift because that is the basis upon which we thought it would be only fair to consider the addition of Māori family members of those stated.For those who are history buffs I would call on your own thoughts surrounding the way in which members were added to this particular board. Indeed in a brief way Henry Williams and Tāmati Waka Nene were the first named representatives on this board and then Edward Gibbon Wakefield was added and then that fell to identified representatives Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti and Pōmare to be included. What was not factored into the process was that for the four Māori whānau one representative actually had to give voice to those interests whereas for the other whānau each family member was able to have a representative of their own. I have heard the Minister say that a transparent process should occur for the selection of those members and I am sure that the current convention of those four Māori whānau to select their representation has some process to it. Far be it from me to try to articulate that but the point should be made that there would be—certainly within those family members—an agreed way to be able to select their particular member.Of more interest and note I think in our deliberations was the submission from the board. The board appeared keen in its submission to ensure that the future thinking about the way in which the Waitangi National Trust Board conducts its business and affairs were within the frame of modernising the scope and power. So we welcome—certainly as a select committee—the indication from the Minister that there will be a review. In fact when the Minister appeared before the select committee to answer some of the questions that we had in our own minds around clarity for the review we were heartened to know that a broad review would take place that there would be consultation with the board and that it would be in quite a defined time frame although no reference was made to urgency on the legislative timetable. We know how these things work Minister. So that was a very comforting kind of response. However that said we did continue to believe that it was within the scope of the bill to include representation of the Māori members and that is how we have reported back on this particular bill.We also believe that some of the powers that were identified by the board’s submission were useful to raise in this House as well. The board wanted practical things: powers to manage and protect the trust’s assets into the future. That would be a part of the modernisation process. It stated that it was important to consider the scope of the trust to be able to borrow to remove some of the lease restrictions that were on it and to include further provisions relating to the management and utilisation of the forestry block in the Waitangi endowment land. For my part in reading the submission and trying to understand the current operating limitations perhaps of the board I thought that these were all very genuine useful suggestions and they could be picked up in the review that the Minister has committed to.One of the things that the board raised in its submission was the ability to increase penalties for offences and breaches of by-laws. I did not kind of pursue a question line along this frame but it seemed to me that if it had asked for it it might well be something to consider going forward.We did ask the question as we considered the two particular land blocks that are associated with the trust—firstly the forestry block and then the endowment block—as to whether any of these two pockets of land were subject to Treaty settlements. In relation to the forestry block we were informed—and officials had this contained in their advice—that this is solely private land and it would not be subject to settlement. However there is a potential for the endowment block being subject to settlement because it is actually owned by the Crown.Can I say for my part given that the original Bledisloe gift was for the benefit of New Zealand the Bledisloes have done our country a great service to ensure that the document that defines our country the Treaty of Waitangi and the place for where those celebrations can occur should be something that we can continue to support in the spirit of what the Treaty represents for this country. It would be a sad day if the transfer of the endowment was handled in a transactional manner that did not take account of the significance of Waitangi as the place where our founding document was signed. So I place that on the table. Maybe it is something that will be debated at some later time and in another type of debate.Can I say that we are really privileged at the Māori Affairs Committee to have the kinds of conversations and debates that require us to pursue with some diligence the issues that would in other select committees divide a committee—divide the views of committee members on a number of things—but that did not happen in this particular instance. Where we felt that there was some tension around expanding the membership in front of a review we took time to consider what we were trying to achieve here. Can I say in the spirit of our committee that we have basically landed on the fact that it is about equity of representation. Yes perhaps the board is a large board. Yes perhaps it could make decisions round the table somewhat lengthy. However the spirit of the decision making at this particular board I would hasten to say is probably a little bit different to that of some other boards.On that note in relation to the decision around shortening the time of service of the members on the board to a maximum of three terms we had some further discussion on this and this may also come up in the review. Certainly in relation to the membership of the Māori members where mana is recognised and where the contribution of service is recognised often it is a lifetime appointment and nothing an individual can do can get them away from that. So although in this particular change to the bill there is a stipulation of a 3-year maximum term I would much rather think that in the review this may be one of the issues that will be revisited based on how representation over time has conducted itself in the best interests of the people of Māori but certainly in the spirit of the Waitangi National Trust Board to ensure that our overall interests as a country can be represented on this particular board.I am looking forward to the opening of the new centre. I am looking forward to continuing to see young people go to Waitangi as a part of their national education programme about the history of our country just as I enjoy going to Anzac ceremonies and seeing that particular day celebrated in the way that can make us proud as New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou. We support the bill.NUK KORAKO (National): E mihi atu ki a koe e te Mana Whakawā ā huri noa i te Whare ka mihi. Before I begin I too would like to acknowledge the passing of Ērima Hēnare and in particular his service on the Waitangi National Trust Board since 2007. Nō reira e te rakatira o Te Tai Tokerau haere atu rā. E haere atu rā ki te pao o te whakawairua. E takoto mai takoto mai takoto mai. Nō reira e te rakatira okioki i roto i rakimārie. Nō reira moe mai moe mai. E te whanau pani ā ki a koe Peeni ka nuinui te mihi ka nuinui te aroha. Kia kaha kia māia ā kia manawanui.[Therefore farewell to you revered one of Northland. Depart as the ditty of spirituality resonates. Lie down lay down and lie there; rest in peace. So close your eyes and sleep. To you the bereaved family and to you particularly Peeni many many condolences and empathy to you.Be strong brave and resolute.]I am proud to stand as a member of this House and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the second reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. I tautoko the previous speakers who have done a sterling job of giving a very good overview of the bill to date. I want to keep it high level but I want to talk about two important things that were covered by the Māori Affairs Committee and also acknowledge the wider review that will pick up a lot of what the previous speaker highlighted.Many consider the first Waitangi Day to be 6 February 1932 although Waitangi Day was not celebrated annually for another 15 years after that and even then there were no Māori present. So 1932 is a special year in Waitangi history. It was on that day that the then Governor-General Lord Bledisloe gifted the former home of James Busby where the Treaty was signed to the nation. The house and surrounding grounds were dedicated as a public reserve and placed under the guardianship of the Waitangi National Trust Board.We have come a long way since 1932. Waitangi Day is now widely recognised as our national day—the day that marks the birth of our nation. The historic Treaty grounds now play a central role in our annual celebrations. If Waitangi Day marks the birth of our nation then the Treaty grounds are indeed its birthplace. As such it is appropriate that we stand here today in this House having recently marked the 175th year since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi to consider a bill that updates and modernises the arrangements for guardianship of this great taoka this national treasure. That was 79 years ago.The Waitangi National Trust Board was legally established by the passing of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932. The Act appointed two types of members to the board. Under the original Act the trust deed there are seven members representing the following groups: the family of Archdeacon Henry Williams the families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and Pōmare Māori living on the North Auckland peninsula Māori living in the rest of the North Island Pākehā living in the Bay of Islands Māori and Pākehā living in Te Wai Pounamu—the South Island—the family of Edward Gibbon Wakefield and the eighth member is to be a prominent person in the life of this country Aotearoa. In addition there are four ex officio members: the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Māori Development and the Governor-General if he or she chooses.This bill is the result of a review of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 undertaken by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage between 2006 and 2008. That review concluded that there is a risk of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between the constitutional roles of members of the executive and the roles they serve on the trust board. So that is the first point particularly about part of the make-up of the board and the roles. It would not be good enough to just remove the Governor-General and Ministers as this would sever an important link a very important link between the trust board and the Crown. Instead the Prime Minister the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage will make up a Crown representative group. This group will ensure continued communication between the trust board and the Government. In addition the Governor-General may choose to be an honorary patron of the Waitangi National Trust and this preserves the historic link between the Treaty grounds and the Governor-General stretching back to the original donation by Lord and Lady Bledisloe.To replace the ex officio members on the board two members of Parliament will be appointed. One will be chosen by the Prime Minister and the other by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course members of Parliament can also be members of the board in representative roles and I acknowledge Pita Paraone for his work as chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board.The bill as it was sent to us on the Māori Affairs Committee also introduced terms of 3 years for board members with a limit of 3 years to be served by each. This was the second point particularly around tenure. This provision will also be applied to current members of the board. The current term of each member will effectively end on the next 3-year anniversary of their appointment. If on that date they would have served for 9 or more years on the board they will be eligible for one further term. It was suggested to us by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that we amend the legislation to prevent current members from serving an additional 3-year term. We did consider this change. However we decided that the transitional provisions in the bill as originally proposed do strike a sensible balance between complete retrospective application of the three-term limit and allowing current members to serve a further 9 years.I come now to the significant amendment that was highlighted by our Minister which we on the Māori Affairs Committee have recommended. We received a submission from Arapeta Hamilton who pointed out the disparity between Pākehā and Māori members on the board. There are seven families represented on the trust board. The families of James Busby Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Archdeacon Henry Williams are represented by one member each—three members in total for these three Pākehā families. The families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and Pōmare are represented by one member for all four families. Of course the member currently in that role is Pita Paraone. Although he is the chair and some may suggest he is as good as three other people there is an obvious disparity in the representation between Māori and Pākehā.This sort of disparity in Pākehā and Māori representation may have been a normal thing in 1932 but it certainly would not be accepted if such a trust board were established today. Members of the Māori Affairs Committee took the view that this situation is serious it is unfair and it should be addressed soon. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage suggested that this representation would be best considered as part of a planned wider review of the role and composition of the board. The Hon Maggie Barry has been clear in her commitment to hold such a review. We are grateful to her for engaging with the committee and for providing us with the details of what the review will cover. Given the wide-ranging nature of the planned review the Minister of course could not be specific about when any changes resulting from the review would come before this House to be passed.Given the seriousness of the inequity that we believe currently exists in the make-up of the trust board and the uncertainty as to when the proposed review process would make changes to the structure there was a strong feeling within our committee that we should take the opportunity we currently have to correct this anomaly. For that reason we have recommended that when Pita Paraone’s current term comes to an end his position is replaced by four positions that represent those Māori families.We acknowledge that this change is not perfect. We do acknowledge this. It will increase the size of the Waitangi National Trust Board to a size that some would suggest will make it even less effective. And we acknowledge that this may mean that members representing these families serve on the board for a short period only before changes resulting from the review change the make-up of the board yet again. That is really crucial. Finally I thank my committee the Māori Affairs Committee and the Minister for all of the hard work that we have done to get the bill to the second reading. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Reo Māori e te Māngai o te Whare. Ā kupu mauri ora ki te whei Ao ki te Ao Mārama tihewa mauri ora! Tā te mea ko tēnei he wā tuatahi ka kōrero ahau ki roto i tēnei Whare mai i te matenga o tōku pāpā e hiahia ana ahau ki te poroporoaki atu ki a ia me te mihi anō ki tēnei Whare i whakatuara mai i tēnei ngoikore ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei. Nō reira e taku nohoanga titiro ki te awatea taku taumata tiro ake ki te Ao Mārama. E tangi ana tēnei ki a koe e Pāpā me ngā tapuwae kua horahia mai ki runga i te nukuroa e kīa nei te kōrero o tō pāpā a karani pāpā e kore e mōnehunehu te pū mahara te momo rangatira i whakawhiti i te nukuroa o Te Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa kāti ake ko ā ratou tapuwae ki runga i te mata o te whenua he taonga he tapu he taonga he tapu. Kāti te tangi ki a Pāpā! Ka tāpiri atu ko ngā hunga wairua o tēnā o tēnā e hui tahi nei kotahi tonu te kōrero mō rātau haere mai haere!I tēnei tāima ka tahuri atu ahau ki te hunga ora. Koutou e ōku hoa mahi koutou i tukuna mai ō koutou roimata ō koutou hūpe ki runga i a pāpā nā i tōna matenga i tōna takotoranga ki runga i te marae o Ōtīria ki runga anō hoki i te marae o Mōtatau ki roto i te wiki kua pahure ake nei; koutou katoa mai i tēnei taha o te Whare ki tērā taha. E mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou mō tō koutou rau aroha ki tēnei tō koutou hoa mahi tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātau katoa. E te Māngai o te Whare ka tahuri atu ahau ki tēnei take nunui rawa atu e mea nei ko tēnei take e kikini nei i te whatumanawa o tēnei e kōrero ana.[In the Māori language Mr Deputy Speaker a statement in regard to life in a changing world and one of enlightenment—behold I speak! Because this is the first time since the death of my father for me to address this House I want to make a farewell tribute to him and acknowledge this House for the support it gave me for this listlessness during the immediate past weeks. Therefore my encampment I look to the broad daylight as the summit of my looking up at the world of enlightenment. I am in grief for youDad and for the footprints spread out before me over the great distance. As your father Grandad quipped the memory of the type of leader that crossed the great distance of the Pacific Ocean will never diminish but enough their footprints upon the face of the Earth are treasured and sacred treasured and sacred. Enough of the grieving for Dad! Put together all the spirits that belong to each and every one of us assembled here and there is only one thing to say to them: welcome farewell!At this point in time I will turn to the living. To you my colleagues you who collectively shed your tears and mucus uponDad when he died when he lay in stateupon the courtyards of Ōtīria and Mōtatau in the week just past—allof youfrom this side of the House to the other side—Iacknowledge you collectively for your extraordinary compassion to this colleague of yours. Thankyou thank youand thank you to all of us. MrDeputySpeaker I turn now to this matter of immense significance with the commentthatit is one that nips at the seat of the emotions of the one speaking.]At this time I want to turn to this particular amendment bill the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill a bill that is close to my heart. I want to start by reading just a very brief passage in a letter from Sir Apirana Ngata to Sir Peter Buck who talked about and was of course instrumental in the establishment of the Waitangi National Trust Board and of course its centenary celebration in 1940. He says here: “You have already heard the news of the death of Taite and Tau.”—in that respect he was referring to my great grandfather not my cousin—“To mention the politicians first. Their ideas will be carried on by many younger men whatever be their political allegiance. I found the north at the Waitangi centennial celebrations very sound and intent on carrying out the policies Tau gave his life for.” I wanted to read that as a start first around the historical landscape of course of this particular taonga known as Waitangi. We know of course as mentioned it was the signing place. We know of the house of Busby. We also know too of the great gift of the Bledisloe family to this nation.What is not mentioned is at the centenary celebrations the opening of Te Whare Rūnanga a carved meeting house stands alongside the Busby house. On the inside of that house there is a small but very poignant saying and that saying goes: “Ko au anō tētahi i reira.”—I too was there then. What that refers to is the failure at the time of recognising the Māori input in the conversation around the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Whare Rūnanga went a long way to give Māori voice on the Waitangi national grounds and it is an important part of the history. It is also important to remember that at that time in 1940 it was also the place where Apirana Ngata and indeed the nation sent off the 28th Māori Battalion to World War II. Why I cover this historical landscape is to paint a picture of just how important this place is to the country. My fear in painting that historical landscape is that in an attempt to create a more business style or model in the running of the Waitangi national grounds I fear that this shift detracts from the historical significance of the Waitangi land.I want to before I continue say that we do support this and I do want to commend the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage on her desire to review this piece of legislation because it is outdated. One of those examples is of course as mentioned in the bill the travel reimbursement where once it was reimbursed only to those who came by railway. This one is a very good positive step to make sure that those people such as my father who actually spent most of his time in Wellington do not have to catch the train to Waitangi. So it is important that these types of developments in the bill’s history carry us on into the future. We also welcome—and I support the kōrero in the House—the broader review of the Waitangi National Trust. We are encouraged by a lot of its functions at the moment spreading the word and the history of our country to our young people because if there is one thing that my father was passionate about it was young people. As much as he was a storehouse of knowledge for Māori and in particular for the people of Te Tai Tokerau he always had one eye on the future and it is important that we share the story of our nation with as many of our young people be they Māori or non-Māori as possible.I want to get back to the membership now. Of the 83 years of the trust I want to point out that for 65 years of that my family have been involved. The first member you will see on the history provided by Parliamentary Service is Tau Hēnare my great grandfather who was on the board. Upon his untimely death in 1940 my grandfather Sir James Hēnare took over on the board and as far as I know has served the longest time—49 years—on the Waitangi National Trust Board before his untimely death in 1989. In more recent times of course there was my father who has been mentioned from 2007 to 2015 upon his untimely death. I had a bit of a chuckle to myself when I consider my whanaunga the member Pita Paraone who serves currently on the trust. It was mentioned to me at my father’s funeral how perhaps the trust is the departure lounge and there is a word of caution in there for those who wish to take up a role on the Waitangi National Trust. So kia tūpato e te pāpā—be careful!But the reason I draw out my family whakapapa with the trust—I also want to mention Sir Tumu te Heuheu who was involved—is that it joins on to what my esteemed colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was talking about which is the mana of the positions. It is the mana of those positions that carries the history of this country. Sir Tumu te Heuheu’s tupuna Iwikau te Heuheu at the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1835 and of course the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was resident in the Bay of Islands. So it is only fitting that Sir Tumu te Heuheu continues his role on the Waitangi National Trust.It is amazing how fast 10 minutes disappears on you so I do not want to labour too much more about the particular bill other than to say that we support it and I want to finish on a couple of notes for the future. We know that there is a case for developing the Waitangi National Trust and its capacity. One of the dreams of my father and indeed the people of Te Tai Tokerau was that the actual document of Te Tiriti o Waitangi which is currently held in Archives New Zealand here in Wellington be returned to the sacred lands in which they were signed. We know that the trust is looking at building its capacity to hold such a precious taonga because we know that it is precious and it is important that it is looked after appropriately. It is our dream to see that returned to the land of Waitangi.We also have another dream in the north that other sites of significance gain just as much mana and conversation in this House. Coming up in January is the commemoration of 170 years since the battle of Ruapekapeka the final battle in Te Tai Tokerau. It is one of four significant battles in the north—as well as the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. If we are serious about our history and about acknowledging the birthplace of this nation at Waitangi it is important that we do it warts and all. Nō reira e te Mana Whakawā kāti. Ki a tātau tēnā koutou katoa.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to be able to speak on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. It has been really interesting listening to the contributions from around the House. I always think and often say to people that apart from the fabulous work we do in select committees—I see my colleague Catherine Delahunty agreeing with me—it is actually on Waitangi legislation and Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation and everything to do with Waitangi where this House generally comes together without any acrimony and genuinely and generally tries to come to solutions to bring about justice for those who make claims but also for everyone really. I think it is something that we generally do very well.So when I have been listening to some of the reasons that are being given around why we need to update and amend this bill I thought that they all sounded very sensible to me. Quite clearly things have moved on from when the trust board was originally set up and it is important to have the families who feel the greatest commitment and obligations to the trust board represented separately although I note that our colleague Pita Paraone apparently does the job of four people—I am sure he does. But I think it is important.I think too that this is a bill that actually has constitutional significance perhaps not in the black-letter law way but certainly within the general sense of it. The Treaty of Waitangi is something that is not solely important to Māori and it is not solely important to the Crown; it is actually of significance to all people who wish to be New Zealanders and who are New Zealanders. When I look at my own whakapapa and I am not going to run it all out for you today although I would be happy to do so at any stage should anyone want it—Catherine Delahunty: Ha ha! Feel free to do it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh Ms Delahunty you are just too kind. But I can say that I have no other home than New Zealand. I am like many New Zealanders. No other country can call me theirs and probably no other country would and I would call no other country home. My family has been in New Zealand in various parts of the country. My ancestors whom I have found so far were first recorded in New Zealandin 1841 a Captain Walker of Nelson—you see this gene of wanting to be in charge is something you just cannot get past. He was a ship’s captain but a whole lot of the family came in through the years. There is no other home. That is not unusual in New Zealand although pretty much I am quite unusual for Pākehā for having been here for so long as a family.I grew up in the Waikato. I grew up in a situation where my parents grew up in the King Country—born there grew up there. We are not people who are fazed by cultures other than Pākehā - New Zealand culture. Having said that lots of New Zealanders now do not have that background and do in fact want to engage in and want to know more about not only the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand and New Zealand’s constitutional history but also where we are now and where we want to be going. It is important that these new New Zealanders are able to feel part of our team our team New Zealand or team Aotearoa whatever—our clan where we are loyal first and foremost and pretty much only to our country.So I wonder whether or not this trust board change—and I hope it will—will help to settle some of the issues that we routinely and unfortunately see at Waitangi on Waitangi Day each year. I actually am one of the many New Zealanders who have felt somewhat distressed by some of the behaviour that has been displayed particularly at Te Tii Marae when guests have been humiliated or abused. I know that that is not Waitangi. I know that that is a small group—we probably all know who they are—Catherine Delahunty: I’m one of them.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —who wish to—oh yes Catherine Delahunty is one of them. A dear old mate Catherine. But actually for a lot of New Zealanders particularly new New Zealanders it is really intimidating and it sets up quite a barrier to wanting to get engaged more. It sets up also for New Zealanders like myself a bit of a barrier to wanting to be involved and hoping to be welcomed. So I like to hope that all these sorts of things that we do are the sorts of things that will mean that the attitude and the behaviours will improve and be more welcoming.I know that there have certainly been instances in the past where people have felt quite rightly so that they should be able to protest on things and of course you can. But I just have this plea about this. I know that this particular board works very hard to maintain what is a treasure for our nation given as we have said to the nation by Lord and Lady Bledisloe. You know this is a tremendous gift that they did not have to make but they did it out of a commitment to New Zealand and an understanding of the importance of Waitangi and also the Treaty of Waitangi to us as New Zealanders. So I say that it would be lovely to have Waitangi Day being celebrated all around the country but particularly at Waitangi and always understanding that things are never going to be perfect—nobody is ever going to be happy with everything. One of the great things in New Zealand is that we are always trying to do better and I think that is where we want to be able to give some credit where it is due.There has been a tremendous amount that has been done wrongover the years actually which we as a country are now addressing. This particular Government since we have been in office just over 6 years has signed 46 deeds of settlement. As at February this year there have been 72 deeds of settlement signed—so it is not just this Government but the previous Government as well—and 43 of those deeds of settlement have been enacted in legislation. This is a huge effort by quite a lot of people actually and it is something where both those representatives of the Crown—in other words the rest of New Zealand—and the Māori involved in this as claimants should be very proud of the effort that has gone in and the goodwill. By the end of 2017 we would like to if possible have all deeds of settlement signed but that is actually very much dependent on both sides being willing. Obviously iwi need to be able and willing to sign as well. You cannot force approval or agreement; people have to want to do it.So these are really good things that we can point to. Point out to me anywhere else in the world where we have that sort of coming together and that sort of commitment to righting the wrongs of the past—point to any other country that has that history. That goes back not just because we are all fabulous people here in Kiwi land; it actually goes back to the very essence and the wording of the Treaty of Waitangi and what it was all about. No other country that I can think of that was colonised in the 19th century by Britain or any other country ever actually ended up with a document such as the Treaty of Waitangi; no other country. And that is something we should be very very grateful for. It enabled settlement in New Zealand of people other than the indigenous Māori population. It also enabled a protection of rights and a conferring of rights as well and a protection that we should be very proud of.No matter what we do in this area there is always going to be someone to complain. That is the nature of democracy; it is a fabulous thing. There is nothing wrong with complaining—I have done a bit myself. But I would say that when we come to these bills we do a great job. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and all the members for the hard work that they have put into this and also the Minister for bringing this bill to the House.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi ki a koutou. May I begin by also acknowledging the very untimely and sad passing of an extraordinary man. Ērima Hēnare had a lifetime—a far too brief lifetime—of service to his hapū to Tai Tokerau and indeed to all of New Zealand in the tradition of that family I must say. It was an honour genuinely to be present at Mōtatau for his final farewell. The atmosphere the speeches and the very presence that was at that place reflected something of the man himself. I think we can be assured that our colleague Peeni Henare in his time in this House and indeed outside this House will continue to add mana to the name he bears. Kia ora.I would like first to reflect on the fact that the wide and genuine support for this bill is a reflection on the good work of the Māori Affairs Committee. It seems to me that that committee has ways of its own of getting things done. It works in mysterious ways on occasion but it seems to generate good work and get good outcomes and this bill is I think a good example of that.I admit I must say that I was initially sceptical when I saw the first draft of this bill because the first thing that struck me about it was that it has the Government and senior politicians giving away power and authority and that is completely counter-intuitive to anybody who has been in politics for any length of time. But indeed that is in a sense what is happening with this bill. It is reallocating responsibility and authority for the management of that unique place—for Waitangi—and I do think it is a move for the good. As I say my initial scepticism was laid to rest and it does indeed seem a genuine attempt to update a governance and management structure that was in need of some work and in need of some attention. I think that what has come out is something that will serve us well acknowledging of course there is to be a further review—and that is a good thing too—just to see that we do get this right.It is difficult to overstate the importance of Waitangi—the house the grounds and the area around it—to this country not least of all culturally. It is the site of the signing of the document that gives this Government—of which we are all part—legitimacy and that gives the Crown its legitimacy in this country. We must continue to return to that—that it is absolutely fundamental; it is a living document that is as valid today as it was in 1840 when it was first signed. I must confess that even to this day when I meet New Zealanders who have never visited Waitangi it always comes as a surprise but OK for some people it is a long way from home. My own memories of it go back to when I was sort of 4 or 5 and I am privileged to still live nearby so I am a regular visitor. It is extraordinarily important culturally politically constitutionally and dare I say it the site also has some significant economic importance for Northland particularly.It is important that the governance and management structure is right so that we maintain the quality of the experience for the people who do visit that place and it is important that we seek to enhance that experience not only because of the fact that it is literally the place where our nation Aotearoa New Zealand began but because it is a site of historical significance. I think we need to do our very best to ensure that it retains the value and qualities that ensure that people go there remember the experience reflect on it and tell others about it.Indeed as an aside I think that we are nowhere near exploiting the potential of the wider heritage of Northland and of the sites—and some have been mentioned—of Waitangi Russell Paihia Mangungu Waimate Kerikeri the mission house and dare I say it Clendon House. The more that people become aware and start to join the dots about the extraordinary stories of those remarkable people both Pākehā and Māori actually who made this remarkable agreement and who lived through those times in the late 18th century through to the 19th century and did some extraordinary things—I think to some extent all history is social history. I think we are very fortunate in New Zealand that we still have the artefacts like the homes and the furnishings and indeed the very close relationships. A generation or two back we can look to people who were actually there on the day in Waitangi and that is something to be treasured I think and to be shared not only with each other with New Zealanders but with others who come here to find out what this—to some people—remote country is all about.That is slightly an aside but I have to say that I think the bill has advanced the management and governance potentially of the place. We are particularly pleased of course—and the point has been mentioned already—that embedded in this bill is a commitment to having a presence on the board of the descendants of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and of course Pōmare. At one point it seemed as though that inclusion might need to await the review which could have delayed it for some time. So I am particularly pleased that as I say the interesting machinations of the select committee have ensured that that commitment is embedded in this bill at this point and I do hope that the bill goes through without further delay. I see no reason why it should not. It is a good document it will achieve some good things and we certainly look forward to the work that we hope the board will do in future to continue to add value to enhance that place and to get the visitor centre there. To have the original document there would be extraordinary and that would be a wonderful thing so we hope that this is as successful as we all hope it will be. Kia ora.PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker arā tēnā tātou e te Whare nei. Ēngari i mua i te haere tonu o waku kōrero mō te kaupapa nei i te hono au ki tēnā ō koutou i tū ake i mua i a au ki te mihi i tōku whanaunga ahakoa e horekau ahau e hiahia ana ki te ’hakahē i tā koutou kōrero. E karanga atu ana ki a ia he rangatira. Horekau he raru ki tēnā ēngari ki a mātou i roto o Ngāti Hine he pono he pononga a te iwi. Nā reira e Ērima haere hoki atu. Hoki atu koe ki ngā kōiwi o ō tāua mātua tūpuna. Kua pau kē ngā mamaetanga o tēnei ao kei runga i a koe. Kei runga ngā taumahatanga kei a mātou i muri nei nā reira e kara te pononga o te iwi haere hoki atu. E tātou mā ka hoki mai ki a tātou ki te kaupapa i mua i a tātou i te rā nei. Ka nui te hari te koa o te ngākau i kite atu i tēnei kaupapa i puta mai i te Whare nei. Nā reira tēnā koutou.][Acknowledgments to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us of this House. But before I continue with my address in regard to this policy I join members who stood up before me to pay a tribute to my relative despite the fact I have no desire to contradict the view made by them. I want to assure them that my relative is regarded highly. There is not an issue with that but within us in Ngāti Hine; he is astute and a servant of the tribe. Therefore to you Ērima farewell and go back. Return to the skeletal forms of our ancestral forefathers yours and mine. The pains of this world that were upon you are spent. The burdens are now upon us the ones left behind so to you dear friend and servant of the people farewell return. I come back to us and to the policy before us today. There is much joy and delight in the heart to see this policy emerging from this House here. Thank you all.]First of all I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the fine gesture she made after making her presentation joining our chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee which is really an example of the collegiality that members of the Māori Affairs Committee share with one another albeit that we sit on opposite sides of this House. When we are considering matters that come before the Māori Affairs Committee there is that collegiality which obviously because other people have made comment may not necessarily be exercised in other select committees. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for that.I also want to acknowledge the Minister for her commitment in seeing this bill through in a timely manner taking on board the commitment to carry out a wider review of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act and of the machinations of the board. For me I felt that a lot of the concerns that the board had were already known to the officials and I know that a number of members of the board felt that those issues and those concerns could have been added to this bill. However I take the Minister on her word and notwithstanding the comments made by the honourable member from Waikato-Tainui about her reference to the legislative programme I feel confident that the concerns we expressed in the Māori Affairs Committee process will certainly be addressed in the wider review.Waitangi is being described as the most significant historical place in our country and it is a privilege of mine to be first of all a member of the trust board responsible for the maintenance and care of the estate and also to chair it. I know that my membership of the board may have caused some disquiet some concern with other members of the House but I want to reassure both them and this House that in order to retain that sense of integrity to ensure that there would be no accusation of conflict of interest or patch protection I did not participate in casting votes in terms of the decisions made by the select committee and I also stood down as chairman of the board during the discussions with the board and with officials concerning this bill. I am pleased to be able to report that to the House.I want to say that the board has a very important responsibility. In recent years it has adopted the position that its responsibility should be confined not just to the care and maintenance of the estate but to ensuring that the history of Waitangi is shared amongst our fellow New Zealanders and as the member from the Green Party David Clendon alluded to the number of New Zealanders who have not visited Waitangi. I suppose there are various reasons for that and the honourable member Judith Collins made reference to it. As I hear such comments I feel a little bit annoyed—I am not annoyed at her—about the assumption that that part of Waitangi is allied to the Treaty grounds. In fact those of us from the north know that it is almost like two separate worlds two different planets. However that is the perception that many of our fellow citizens have of Waitangi.This bill looks not only at the structure of the membership of the board but also at increasing the representation of those Māori families. I must say that it has been a real privilege and a pleasure to represent the families of those four tupuna. I want to make this comment. In terms of the particular family that I descend from—and this is a question that has always bothered me—Maihi Kāwiti is one of the sons of Te Ruki Kāwiti of Ruapekapeka war fame. Maihi’s part in history was that every time his fellow tribesmen cut down the flagstaff he promptly put it up. Maihi is the son of Te Ruki and one has to ask the question of why you would put the son ahead of the father. To this day no one has been able to tell me why. Perhaps there have been a confusion in terms of the descent because when the original Act was discussed in the second and third readings Sir Apirana Ngata referred to Te Riri Kāwiti as the grandson of Maihi. In fact he was the son. So I do not know.I just want to confirm that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill. We look forward to the Committee stage and I cannot see too many difficulties during that process. We certainly look forward to seeing it enacted. Although I personally will be affected it is something that I certainly support.As a closing remark I just want to tell those who are already lining up to become members of the board that we do not pay a fee. I just want to say that the admission cost that we have imposed on visitors has caused some disquiet amongst our fellow citizens. I am anticipating that during the wider review of the Act some consideration will be given to an annual gratuity from the Government to the board along the lines of Te Papa. Nā reira i roto i aua ’hakaaro tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora mai anō tātou.[So with those thoughts in mind I acknowledge and salute us and you collectively thank you.]JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I start my korero I too want to pay respects on the passing of our Ngāti Hine rangatira Ērima Hēnare and I wish also to pass on my aroha to you Peeni and to your whānau. Kia ora. The other person I would like to acknowledge is the Hon Maggie Barry our Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who is shepherding this bill the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill through the House. It is a very important bill. Even though it is quite narrowly focused it is important in the history of this country.The purpose of the bill is to make changes to the Waitangi National Trust Board membership and that is why it has such a narrow focus. Before I talk about that focus and the membership and the kōrero we had at the Māori Affairs Committee I just want to take us on a little trip down through the annals of history because without the history we would not be here discussing this bill today.The background to this bill is that the property the house was owned by the Busby whānau. During the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century the land and the building kind of changed hands a bit. In 1932 as we have heard a former member of Parliament Vernon Reed had a passion that the Treaty House and the grounds it was on were a historic place and needed to be nurtured. That is why he invited the then Governor-General Lord Bledisloe and Lady Bledisloe to come and have a look at the grounds and the Treaty House to encourage them to make sure that that house was going to be preserved.Lord and Lady Bledisloe obviously did more than that as we have heard from previous speakers. They bought the grounds. Lord Bledisloe also invested £1000 into the Waitangi restoration fund to start the process for restoring the Treaty House itself. The Government of the day also added another £500 to that restoration fund. So the first form of restoration started back in 1932. It was also the time when the 1932 Act began. I stand here as a mokopuna of this land and I am absolutely grateful and thankful to the Bledisloe whānau for their contributions for gifting the Treaty House and the grounds to this nation.Anyway as I was saying the 1932 Act—the Waitangi National Trust Board Act—gave statutory effect to the Waitangi National Trust deed and it also established the trust board. The Bledisloes did this in the time of the Great Depression. Our country was going through the Great Depression. There was high unemployment and this was a way for the Bledisloe whānau to be able to help people by giving them employment in the restoration of that house. It was also another way that Lord Bledisloe could settle up the relationship between Pākehā and Māori.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JOANNE HAYES: I have just a little more of the historical facts about what happened on the Treaty grounds. In 1834 the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa first raised their flag on the lawn of the Treaty House. It was very historic. As we all know 6 years later in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed although only a few days later the biggest signing was held across at Te Mangungu Marae. I was privileged to be at their 100-year celebration this year with the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry.The Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill modernises the governance of the board members of the trust. I just want to acknowledge our New Zealand First member Pita Paraone. I just want to say that it is a very humble thing for him to step away from the discussions at the select committee. I know he was bursting to actually get involved in those discussions but the gentleman that he is he sat back. Also he went off the trust board so he did not have many conflicts of interest there. I just want to say that I was pleased to hear from him that the trust members were supporting this very important bill. That is not to say that the membership discussion within the select committee was not debated very vigorously. I just want to thank the chair and my co-members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the debate and I thank the members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who came in with their report and listened to our discussions around membership. We have heard from other members in the House about that membership.I just want to reiterate that the current membership of the trust board has four ex officio members including the Governor-General the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Māori Development and we are starting to look at how that is going to pan out which I will talk about a bit later. There are family representations from Archdeacon Henry Williams Edward Gibbon Wakefield and James Busby as well as a family member—I think it is Pita Paraone at the moment—representing the whānau of Hone Heke Maihi Kawiti Tāmati Waka Nene and the Pomare families. There is a representative of the Māori people north of Auckland peninsula—which I think was the position that the rangatira Ērima Hēnare held on the trust board before he passed away—a Māori or Pākehā representative living in the South Island a Māori representative south of Auckland and a prominent person who has experience either a historian or an archaeologist. So those are the current members of the board.What we are proposing is as the Minister outlined in her speech that the Governor-General and the Ministers will be removed as ex officio members on the board. The Governor-General will became an honorary patron of the trust and the Prime Minister the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister for Māori Development will form the Crown representative group. Hopefully this will foster good relations and share information with the board. The two members of Parliament one representing the Government and one representing the Opposition will be appointed as full members of the board. By removing these ex officio positions on the board we remove the risk of conflicts between constitutional roles and other roles of the trustees.As I said before the bill creates a clear separation between the Government and the board while providing a means to ensure a positive working relationship through the Governor-General’s patronage of the trust the creation of the Crown representative group and the appointment of two members of Parliament as members of the trust. Currently there is no statutory tenure limit for the board members on the trust. The bill proposes that we implement a limited tenure of no more than 9 years although our select committee did debate the fact that current members once the bill is implemented may have a further 3-year term in their positions on the board.In closing I note that this is a narrowly focused bill. It is a bill that from what I have heard in the House is supported by everybody in the House. It incorporates the Waitangi National Trust Board which as we know administers the Waitangi grounds and associated lands. It gives more power to that trust to be able to do things that it had not been able to do in the past. I look forward to what is planned through the Waitangi National Trust. I also look forward to the modernisation of the legislation and its fruition. Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Catherine Delahunty—a 5-minute call.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would just like to start with a mihi to the Ngāti Hine and te whānau pani o Ērima Hēnare. Moe mai e rangatira—an acknowledgment to Peeni Henare as the son of that very very honourable whakapapa and that we mourn today the loss of his papa.I would also like to acknowledge that we have the chair of the Waitangi National Trust with us as well Pita Paraone and also everyone here from Te Tai Tokerau. There are layers and layers of history associated with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and therefore with the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. Although it belongs to all of us it is guarded the most fiercely in my experience by those of the north. Having spent every Waitangi Day at Waitangi for the last 15 years except for 1 I have had a real education in the passion of Te Tai Tokerau not only for the national trust and for the marae but also for the other sites of significance that have been referred to tonight: the lower marae Te Rau Rangatira; the places where He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni was signed in 1835; and all of the different aspects of the history. There are many complex layers and in speaking about them we need to acknowledge that there are people here in this Parliament who descend directly on both the Pākehā side and the Māori side as does my colleague David Clendon and others who have much greater whakapapa relationship with the site that we are talking about tonight.I had a brief experience on the select committee working on the bill and I would like to acknowledge the select committee. As always I found the Māori Affairs Committee a really welcoming and positive place to come into. At the time—and when I left after my short sojourn—there was quite a lot of debate going on on the issues of equitable representation. So it is very pleasing to see that once again the Māori Affairs Committee has found a pathway before there is a major review which we also support and that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Maggie Barry came and discussed very graciously with that committee. There has been a pathway for some immediate resolution as well.Our concern—for some of us at that time—was really the statement that is in the bill which I am going to quote from which is where the Māori Affairs Committee say: “We considered the view put to us in the submission from Arapeta Hamilton that the current makeup of the Board is unfair as there is a disparity between the representation of Pākehā families which is one for each of three families and of Māori families where there is just one member representing four …”. Given that this is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi there is a clear call to action in that statement if Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to be honoured. It is not a Māori treaty; it is a treaty that gives my culture status in this country if my culture honours it—otherwise we are here as settlers and colonists rather than as citizens. It is really really important that the national trust board and this law reflects that equitable issue of representation. If Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the documents that preceded the building of our nationhood are about anything they are about recognising two sides of the story and that there is not going to be a dominant culture. There is going to be tino rangatiratanga—this is the dream; we are not there yet—but also there is going to be honourable kāwanatanga.This bill is a really positive step forward in that regard in that the select committee members listened to the submitters and they were able to find a way before the broader review to recognise those issues of equity and participation which are essential. Although there were arguments and debates at the time—again I would acknowledge those from the Parliamentary Counsel Office because they also did play a positive role. They did come and say that this was within the scope of this bill and that it was possible to do this at this time because we were trying to do what was logical as well as what was right. I think that thanks to all parties what has been logical as well as what is right has been achieved in this process.There is much more I could say about te Tiriti. I can never resist speaking on te Tiriti because I am so passionate that Pākehā recognise Waitangi passionate that Pākehā recognise that this place—and not just Waitangi itself but the whole of the area where our history has taken place around that document and around He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni—is recognised by all of us as a basis for our nation. And that it is not a matter of taking out the story; it is a matter of learning the true history the painful history and the right history rather than the sanitised history that is sometimes told not only about what happens at Waitangi on the day—which is often actually completely misinterpreted by the media—but also about what this place is really all about to us. The Greens support any step forward that is based on equity and on the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi so we are proud to support the bill. Kia ora.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e te ManaWhakawā. Tuatahi kei te hiahia au ki te tautoko i ngā mihi kua mihia i tēnei pō ki tērā o ngā tohunga o ngā rangatira kua hinga i tērā wiki. Ko koe tēnā e Ērima. Kua haere atu koe ki ngā ringa mahana o te Atua ki te taha o ō tūpuna tō pāpā ngā rangatira o Ngāti Hine ngā rangatira i whakarite nei i tēnei whenua mō tātau katoa i roto i te Tiriti āe. Anō nā kai te hiahia au ki te tautoko i ngā mihi kua mihia ki tērā o tana tama a Peeni. I tū ia ki te kōrero i te pō nei ā kua kite au i te mamae i te taumahatanga kai runga tonu i a ia. Kai raro tonu a ia i te kapua pōuri me tana whānau ā te whānau pani. Nā reira ki a koutou o Ngāti Hine āe kua ngaro tēnei rangatira. Kua ara mai tētahi hei whai i ōna tapuwae ā tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou o Ngāti Hine o Ngāpuhi te wāhi o te tīmatatanga te whānautanga o tēnei whenua ki Waitangi.[Thank you Mr Speaker. First I want to endorse the tributes accorded this evening to that one of the skilled and revered ones who collapsed last week. I am referring to you Ērima. You have gone to the warmth of God’s arms to be with your ancestors your father the esteemed ones of Ngāti Hine and the noble ones who arranged in the Treaty that this country be for all of us—yes! I also want to support the tributes accorded by Peeni that one of his sons. He stood to speak this evening and I could see that the pain and burden is still upon him. He and his family the bereaved family are still under a cloud of remorse. Therefore to you of Ngāti Hine yes this leader is gone. Someone will rise up and follow in his footsteps and I commend you of Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi the starting place and birthplace of this country at Waitangi.]Kia ora. I want to add my voice to the kōrero tonight about Waitangi and its importance and its relevance to this country. When I travelled to Waitangi this year the first time as an MP with the Government my mother actually scolded me and said: “Where are you going to be? I need you here in Carterton because we are going to celebrate Waitangi here in Carterton with our whanau as we have done in Masterton Wairarapa for years.” I said: “Well actually Mum I will be a few steps behind the Prime Minister at Waitangi trying not to get hit with any flying projectiles.”And so it was that I travelled there to the birthplace of this nation—and that is how it was described by all who were there. All who were in attendance described Waitangi as the birthplace. And yet when I got off the plane having not been to Waitangi since I was a girl I looked for the sign that would show me the way—and there was none. There was a sign that said Paihia—or Paihea? Pai?Kelvin Davis: Paihia.MARAMA FOX: Paihia. Right. Well I did not know where that was. I had to get out my Google map on my phone to find my way because there is no signage pointing out the most historic place of our nation the birthplace of our nation where a partnership was formed. And so I think that needs to be addressed.But today we address the partnership that is the Māori trust board—the Waitangi National Trust Board not the Māori trust board just on its own but as a partnership of Māori and Pākehā coming together. Yes for me the biggest thing in doing this was to address the representation and make sure that it was equitable. Everybody has talked about it. We had four families being represented by one representative on the Māori side and three families each being represented by three representatives.Yes there is going to be a review. I want to acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry who worked with us and briefed us on the important matters of the Waitangi National Trust Board so that we could ensure that there was equitable representation. She listened and she made the amendments and now we have an equitable process going forward. Yes the review may in time change that. But we felt that we could not let another day go on another week go on another year go on while the review took place where a glaring inequity would continue. I want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee who worked together to ensure that not one more minute would go by with that inequity continuing.I also want to acknowledge our member on the Māori Affairs Committee Pita Paraone who as everybody has stated has worked tirelessly in this area. And though there may be some issues about representation going forward about who in those families will come forward to row this waka together I am sure that we need to put our faith in the people that democracy will out that they will continue to uphold the mana of this place as the birthplace of our nation and do the wonderful job that has been done to this point to ensure that those grounds that area continue to thrive and represent our nation as a sparkling example as they do at this time. Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I commend this bill to the House.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call this evening to speak in the second reading of this bill the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. I am very conscious as I stand here tonight that I have not sat on the Māori Affairs Committee but I have been very fortunate to discuss this legislation with an excellent caucus—or rather the likes of Nuk Korako the chair of the committee and Maggie Barry the Minister sponsoring this bill have been very wholesome and fulsome with us as a caucus in their discussions around what is happening. And so again I am particularly pleased to stand along with others tonight to speak to this bill.Like others I would like to acknowledge the passing of Ērima Hēnare a man who has stood very tall proud and loud in the Māori and of course New Zealand community for many actions particularly around Te Reo and the maintenance and promotion of that—and of course his role which has been acknowledged here tonight many times sitting as a member of the current Waitangi board. I acknowledge too his son Peeni Hēnare. Outside of Parliament he and I have known each other for a good amount of time. I have mentioned that before we worked together at the Ministry of Social Development and although we might find ourselves on opposite sides of the House good conversation can continue with memories past and I think a common bond to serve our country as best we canin the future.In doing so I acknowledge again the Minister and the work that has gone into this legislation. I acknowledge the members of the select committee. I am conscious that where this started is not necessarily where it ended or was intended to end so a lot of discussion has gone on and debate—fraught at times I am sure. But it has reached a place nowthat members are happy with if I am hearing the debate tonight correctly. Within that is the intention for a review by the Minister as well and we will touch on that a little bit later. So this is a step in the right direction.Waitangi is a place that sits very strongly in our national consciousness for a variety of reasons but of course first and foremost it is part of our national identity—a point in time that has defined and arguably began to define New Zealand’s identity. For me personally being someone born and raised in the north Waitangi is a place we would visit every year not necessarily on 6 February but it was a place that we would go to frequently. The place has much history and tradition not just around the Treaty itself but also as a place where many early settlers came. I know this certainly from my own side of the Catholic community which was well-connected into the Hokianga where Bishop Pompallier is buried. And of course across in Russell you have the Marist fathers whom I was very connected with. It is a place where I find myself at home. It is a place where more recently National Party members found themselves at home when we went up there for our conference. And I have to say not only the locals but also the weather performed exceedingly well.I do want to note that the Treaty of Waitangi and the place of Waitangi itself is larger than just one place. I am reminded of this because a few months back I was very pleased to join Ngāti Paoa at Karaka Bay in Glendowie in my electorate where they acknowledged the 175thanniversary of their signing of the Treaty. Although the seminal moment may have occurred up in Waitangi with the conversations and signings there the Treaty then began to go around the country to be signed. As far as I am able to say for Ngāti Paoa the signing at Karaka Bay—within the electorate of Tāmaki as it is now—is the really important moment for them. I have to say that it was an incredible honour and privilege to be invited to join them and to be out on their waka on the Waitematā Harbour. It was an absolute thrilland also very educational I have to say to be able to sit through the hours of the talk and speeches.I just mention this because Waitangi may be a singular place but with the Treaty and its signing for all of us as New Zealanders it moves beyond just one place.Important we do look towards Waitangi itself to symbolise that and so this bill is about updating the structure of governance. Under the original Act and trust deed there are eight representative members. One comes from the family of Archdeacon Henry Williams. I in fact met his I think great great—oh I have forgotten exactly. I met a guy called Bill Ludbrook. Sorry Bill that I have forgotten the exact connection but Bill Ludbrook joined me at Karaka Bay representing the Williams family. It was again an incredibly powerful moment as obviously the descendants of Ngāti Paoa were there. And here was this descendant of Archdeacon Henry Williams sharing the story as had been passed on to him. Again it was a remarkably powerful moment.The families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and Pōmare are represented by Pita Paraone who is currently sitting for the New Zealand First Party. Pita I do not know how you balance one family let alone four but kudos to you sir. I think we will come back to that as well because one of the discussions that have come through the debate tonight is around inequities. There is a representative for Māori living on the North Auckland peninsula Māori living in the rest of the North Island Pākehā living in the Bay of Islands the family of Edward Gibbon Wakefield and No. 8 is a prominent person in the life of our country and that is the Sir Don McKinnon at the moment. I think it is good to mention his name and acknowledge his work. When we talk of a prominent New Zealander it is the calibre of Sir Don that we are talking about.There are four members ex officio those being the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Māori Development and of course His Excellency the Governor-General or whomever he or she chooses. With the review of the Act changes are being suggested. Important the likes of the Governor-General and Ministers will be removed from these ex officio positions. They will continue to be able to engage. I understand the Governor-General is able to be the patron—is that right?Hon Members: Yes.SIMON O’CONNOR: I think that is really important. The Governor-General is a very visible expression of our Sovereign Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. That connection with Māori and with this country is incredibly important. So I am pleased to see that although he is no longer represented his representative ex officio maintains a place.The new board will also see the Ministers step away. In some ways that could remove any perceived conflicts of interest or confusion. Instead what we are going to see are two members of Parliament nominated. I am not going to make a pitch for that role—I am not sure you really want me talking much more beyond the 10 minutes of tonight—but one of those will be put forward by the Government and one by the Leader of the Opposition. I note here in some notes that I have put down that the bill by removing the Governor-General and the Ministers removes the risk of as I say conflicts between their constitutional roles and those of trustees. It also removes the risk of legal and reputational issues for the Crown. I think one of the really key elements here is for this new board as they talk in legal terms to be treated as a natural person. In other words the trust board moving forward once this bill goes through its third reading should be allowed to basically borrow money pay it off as it sees fit and make the decisions that we as individuals or as natural persons are able to do. I think that is very positive.The last issue—because I am conscious that the bell has rung—is ultimately there are—Tim Macindoe: Let’s have more.Joanne Hayes: Keep going.SIMON O’CONNOR: Really? Do we want to move an extension of time?Tim Macindoe: More on the royal family.SIMON O’CONNOR: Well we could ask them to come down but I am not sure they necessarily always will. But actually they play a critical part.One of the major elements has been that of inequity. The Treaty is based on partnership and working together. At the moment we have four individuals of Pākehā descent—as important as it is—being represented and then we have four Māori families represented by one person. Regardless of whom that is it is still one for four and four for four—not really the way to go. So what this bill is doing is bringing about an opportunity for more Māori representation. I think that is incredibly positive. I would say to that harkening back to what I discussed at Karaka Bay that obviously Waitangi is a place for all of New Zealand and the Treaty is something that was experienced in multiple places in New Zealand by multiple families—Pākehā and Māori. Personally I would like to see that diversity of representation go much broader than just the geography of Waitangi and the place of Waitangi itself.I understand the Minister is going to be conducting a review. I also understand she came before the Māori Affairs Committee which I think is fantastic and had a lengthy discussion with members outlining what she is interested in doing. I trust and hope that the select committee itself engaged with its expectations too which will inform that review going forward. I think this Government is very proud of its work around matters to do with the Treaty. It would be remiss of me—primarily because he is in the House—not to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for the work that he continues to do around Treaty settlements. Again I think—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is tragic to have to interrupt the member; however his time has expired.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā ra koe Mr Speaker. Kei te hiahia ahau ki te tāpiri i ōku mihi maioha ki runga i wērā kua utaina atu ki runga i tērā o ngā mātua o Ngāti Hine arā a Ērima Hēnare te pāpā o tō mātou hoa a Peeni. Nā reira e te pāpā Ērima moe atu rā.[Thank you indeed Mr Speaker. I want to add my affectionate regards to those cast upon Ērima Hēnare one of Ngāti Hine’s parents and dad of our colleague Peeni; so sleep on father Ērima.]Initially I would like to take umbrage at the comments from Marama Fox who said that she was going to be at Waitangi this year for the first time instead of being in Carterton and was concerned that walking a couple of feet behind the Prime Minister she might be pelted with something. On behalf of all Ngāpuhi I would like to say that I am taking umbrage at that. Anybody who has worked with Ngāpuhi such as the Hon Chris Finlayson will know we are a calm dignified rational iwi who will always resort to diplomacy to resolve any of our issues. To suggest there will be trouble amongst Ngāpuhi is just ludicrous.I would like to go straight to the issue around the four tūpuna Māori. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee but it just so happened that on the day that I was subbing in for somebody Arapeta Hamilton submitted saying that it was unfair that the four Māori families had one representative and other families had a representative each. Arapeta’s mother and my father are first cousins. LikePeeni Henare we have Pōmare who is mentioned in this bill as our great-great-great-great-grandfather. We are direct descendants.He was a contemporary of Kāwiti. I have to say that I agree with what Pita Paraone said earlier when he wondered why Maihi Kāwiti is the representative ancestor of the Kāwiti family when Te Ruki was his father. By having Maihi instead of Te Ruki you are sort of omitting the father. I think it would be better to have Te Ruki and acknowledge Maihi Kāwiti as part of that whānau.Then we have the Hone Heke whānau. As we know Hone Heke was the first signatory of the Treaty. I will come back to that. We also have the Tāmati Waka Nene whānau whose father Tapua was one of the first people to go out and greet Captain Cook when he arrived in Whangaroa not far from the Cavalli Islands where Dover Samuels does a lot of fishing. Going back to Hone Heke being the first signatory of the Treaty my tupuna Pōmare who is included in this bill signed the Treaty on 17 February not 6 February. He was a bit miffed that his name might be under a name that he considered inferior to his so he and a few others signed on top. So if you actually look at the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi the third name down is Pōmare of Ngāti Manu which is our hapū.There are two Pōmares. I really want to correct history because you see a lot of books that often get the names mixed up. The first Pōmare was born Whiria. Books often say that his name was Whētoi but Whētoi was actually his nephew. When Whiria died—he met his Waterloo down in Nanaia Mahuta’s neck of the woods on the Waipā River. To commemorate him his nephew Whētoi took his name and became Pōmare. “Pōmare” is actually a Tahitian name. When some European captain came over he brought with him a couple of Tahitian translators interpreters because the languages in those days were pretty similar. The Tahitian actually said “The king of Tahiti is our King Pōmare.” My ancestor Whiria the first person who became Pōmare here said “Well if it’s good enough for the king of Tahiti to be named Pōmare I’ll take that name.” That is how he became Pōmare. Anyway he died in about 1826 and Whētoi his nephew took the name Pōmare.He is the signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi. An interesting—well I find it interesting—fact is that his son Hare married a woman called Hāriata from Te Ahuahu and around Ōhaeāwai and they went over to England as part of a group that I think was a concert party and had an audience with Queen Victoria. Hāriata at that time was pregnant. Queen Victoria said to her: “If that baby is a girl name her after me Victoria. If it’s a boy name him after my husband.”—who was Albert Victor the consort. So she had the baby and he was the first Māori to be born in England. He was a boy so he was named Albert Victor Pōmare. Queen Victoria said she wanted to be his godmother so she became his godmother. She presented him with some clothes—a christening gown which we still have possession of somewhere. It might be in a museum but I have handled it. It is still there. There was also a gold goblet; a knife fork and spoon; and other gifts. Queen Victoria paid for his tuition at St Stephen’s School. In later life he joined the Royal Navy and we believe that after that he may have been shipwrecked in America and strangely enough mistaken for a runaway slave. We are not quite sure where Albert Victor Pōmare went. We lost track of him after that.The name Albert Victor or Arapeta Wikita is a name that runs through our family—the Pōmare family—to the extent that Albert Victor Hamilton or Arapeta Wikita Hamilton was the relation of mine who submitted on the bill saying it was unfair that the Māori families had only one representative. I entirely endorse his sentiment. It is only right that the Māori whānau have the same level of representation as the non-Māori whānau.Whētoi Pōmare signed the Treaty of Waitangi. He is a signatory to what I have often referred to in this House as the bridge between the Māori and the Pākehā New Zealand that we know today. That is sort of ironic because my mother’s father—my Pākehā grandfather—actually physically built the bridge from Te Tii Marae over to the other side of the Waitangi River. I believe that that bridge might have been opened on the same date in 1934 that the first Waitangi Day was held. I recall seeing as a child a number of black and white photos that my mother had in a photo album of the huge crowds at Waitangi on that day in 1934. It is interesting that my Pākehā grandfather literally built a bridge and my Māori great-great-great-great-grandfather metaphorically built the bridge that is the Treaty of Waitangi.We have heard the history about the Treaty grounds and how it basically fell into neglect after the Treaty was signed. It was in the 1880s that Mrs Busby I think it was sold it off. There were some Māori chiefs who wanted to have a ceremonial whare built there and the Government of the day declined that. Eventually we had a ceremonial wharenui built there and it was opened in 1940 to commemorate the centenary. As somebody who grew up in the Bay of Islands I spent a lot of time around the Treaty grounds—not so much because I was visiting it but because the golf course is next door. There is a hole that runs up the hill and I have got a terrible hook shot and had to climb over the fence a number of times to go and retrieve balls. The Waitangi Treaty grounds—I grew up with it. I have visited it a number of times.It is a big part of New Zealand. I take what people say though. Waitangi is becoming greater than just the geographical area of Waitangi now. The whole meaning of Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi spreads out to the Cartertons of the world and all around New Zealand. We support this bill and we look forward to it becoming law. Kia ora.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. But before I do so I just want to acknowledge Mr Pita Paraone as the representative of iwi family on the board and as chair of the board and I also pass on my condolences to Mr Peeni Henare of course in his time of need and acknowledge the great contribution that his father made to the trust.As New Zealanders we all recognise the importance of Waitangi given its historical significance and because it is embedded in our national heritage. It is a site where our bicultural nationhood actually began. Its heritage status is actually unquestioned. For me personally it also is a place of great meaning. The Baylys have farmed alongside Waitangi trust land for many many years. In fact my brother and sister-in-law currently lease some of the trust land where you often see my brother’s Angus heifers grazing. As such I have been a regular visitor to Waitangi over many many years.There is nothing like the hot summers of the north and the colours of the sea in the harbour. When you look across the harbour and think about the strange quaint place of Russell back in the early 1840s and how it was described as a den of iniquity of the Pacific it is a hard thing to envisage. Named after the British aristocracy the charm of the settlement today is a far cry from that infamy. The local population was attracted to a mixture of deserters from ships escaped convicts from Botany Bay in Australia brothels grog sellers whalers and traders—all growing fat on all the incomers to that area. Nowadays there is little hint of that sordid past.What I like is how the Waitangi National Trust actually defines Waitangi. It is “a place for all New Zealanders a place of accord for all peoples. A place standing central to our history as a nation and at the centre of growth of our nation.” The trust’s vision for Waitangi for 2020 is to be a place of relevance to all New Zealanders to be New Zealand’s most important historical place to be an important tourism destination to operate in a sustainable long-term organisation and to be a model for bicultural development.After the signing of the Treaty in 1840 the Busby family continued to own the land and property and the house fell into disrepair. It was not until 1932 that the Governor-General Lord Bledisloe and his wife visited the Bay of Islands and agreed to acquire the 1000 acres plus the house with a view to gifting it to the nation. This historic spot the Treaty House and that land was formally handed over to New Zealand on 6 February 1934 commencing a tradition of what is now known obviously as Waitangi Day.The deed of the Waitangi National Trust drawn up in 1932 sets out the objectives for the Waitangi Treaty Grounds. The first board comprised the Bledisloes—as the donors—the Prime Minister Ministers representatives from certain Māori families and representatives from the Busby Williams and Wakefield families. The latter family—the Wakefields—I have got to say I am related to through my mother’s family.The board today continues to include descendants from all the families involved those 83 years ago but with the passage of time it is obviously now important to look at how the structure of that trust is established and to set it on a new course that is modernised and relevant to its current purpose. The trust is currently self-funded and carries out the work of maintaining the Treaty grounds without creating a cost to the people of New Zealand.The original Act the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 has been examined in detail by the Māori Affairs Committee and unanimously recommended that the amendment bill should be passed with a list of amendments. This Government seeks to strengthen the financial viability and governance structure of the trust. So it is done really with the purpose that all New Zealanders and visitors alike continue to benefit from this historical site and there is nothing better than to be at Waitangi at dawn for the service or to watch the changing of the guard and the raising of the flag on those hallowed grounds.This amendment bill addresses the representation on the trust. At present the board has two sets of representatives: one being ex officio members—the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Māori Development as well as the Governor-General—and the second group being the representatives of the families of the Pākehā and Māori individuals who were prominent in New Zealand’s colonial past.In the case of the second group there is obviously a current disparity between the representatives of the Pākehā families where there is one member for each family and the representative for the Māori families being one member only. The Māori Affairs Committee’s deliberations recommend that each of the four Māori families has its own representative. Although this will increase the number on the trust board it is a logical outcome.The other step change in this bill concerns the ex officio members—namely the removal of the Governor-General and Ministers from the position on the board. If the Governor-General so wishes he or she may become an honorary patron of the trust. Thirdly forming a group of Crown representatives to continue to maintain the communication and sharing of information with the board was recommended. This group is going to consist of the Prime Minister the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister for Māori Development. Two additional MPs are going to be appointed to the board one from the Government and one from the Opposition.The removal of the Governor-General and the Ministers from the ex officio positions clarifies their roles and removes any ambiguity over their constitutional role versus their roles as trustees. A clear separation between the Government and the board will therefore exist while at the same time ensuring that positive work continues to exist on that board.Consideration is also being given to the maximum term of board members. They will be limited to 9 years being three terms of 3 years. At the moment there is no such constraint and there is a transitional measure that allows any person currently getting close to a 9-year term to roll that over for an initial 3-year term. That will help in a transitional sense to ensure ongoing representation during this period of change.I also just want to highlight the fact that this Government is absolutely focused on settling grievances. Under the Hon Chris Finlayson we have signed 46 deeds of settlement since 2008 and as at February this year 72 deeds of settlement have been signed and 43 of these have been passed into legislation. These represent over two-thirds of the land area of New Zealand and nearly half of all of the settlements that we expect to settle. And of course we have set ourselves a target that by 2017 all willing and able iwi will have deeds of settlement in place.This Government places much importance on settling grievances and also what we are doing with this bill is putting in place a modern framework that will help to continue that process. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in supporting this bill.Bill read a second time.Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSecond ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill be now read a second time. This bill reflects the Government’s ongoing commitment to combat organised crime and corruption both in New Zealand and globally. Can I take this opportunity to thank the Law and Order Committee for its work on the bill. I understand the committee received 20 submissions and has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments mostly of a minor and technical nature.This bill addresses a serious issue faced by societies around the globe. Organised crime is a corrupting influence worldwide undermining public safety economic development good governance and national security. New Zealand has robust legal frameworks to combat organised crime and corruption and high levels of international engagement in responding to these threats. However we are not immune to organised criminal activities such as money-laundering identity theft people-trafficking and a range of conduct that constitutes bribery and corruption. This bill tackles such conduct in a number of ways. It enhances New Zealand’s ability to collaborate with international efforts to disrupt organised crime and ensures that law enforcement agencies are able to quickly and effectively respond to new challenges. Measures in the bill will also increase New Zealand’s compliance with a number of international agreements.One of New Zealand’s core assets internationally is its reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. However we can never afford to be complacent. This bill will send a strong signal that New Zealand values having and is committed to maintaining corruption-free institutions. This is vital for maintaining New Zealand’s reputation as a reliable trading partner and enhancing our influence in international fora. The 2011 all-of-Government response to organised crime outlined a range of measures that this Government had introduced to target and disrupt organised crime. However we also recognised that more work could be done and identified a range of areas for improvement. This bill implements many of these reforms by making a number of key changes.I will begin by outlining two important amendments to the money-laundering offences under the Crimes Act. Firstly the bill removes the requirement that the proceeds of money-laundering be generated from offending punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more. This requirement places the police in the position of having to establish that the proceeds of crime are generated solely from such offences. This burden is both difficult to meet and inconsistent with the reality of these crimes as the proceeds are often intermingled and arise from a range of criminal activities.The second change simply clarifies that the prosecution need not prove that a defendant had intent to conceal the proceeds of crime although this may result from the money-laundering transaction. This is a return to early case law on the money-laundering offence which held that intent to conceal was not an element of the offence. More recent decisions however have required the prosecution to prove that element creating unnecessary hurdles to successful prosecution. Removing this requirement will help deter those who exploit the current limitations and responds to the concerns raised by the Financial Action Task Force which sets the international best practice for combating money-laundering.In addition the bill introduces new reporting requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act for two high-risk classes of transactions that we know criminals use to launder money and finance terrorism. Under the new requirements financial institutions will need to report international wire transactions of over $1000 and all physical cash transactions of $10000 or more to the financial intelligence unit within the police. This amendment will improve our ability to detect and investigate money-laundering and align New Zealand with international best practice for combating money-laundering. The fact that the banks are already required to collect identity information from their customers means that the public should not notice any change as a result of these new requirements.The bill also addresses the issue of identity theft. Identity theft and the misuse of personal information is estimated to impact over 190000 New Zealanders each year and this bill deals with gaps in New Zealand’s identity crime framework by adding new offences of selling or distributing unlawfully obtained identity information and of making or possessing goods intended to facilitate identity crimes such as credit-card skimming devices. By addressing the gaps in our identity crime framework we will ensure that a full range of identity crimes can be prosecuted.Other important amendments in the bill expressly provide police with the power to share personal information including fingerprint information with their international counterparts. This amendment will allow implementation of the Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Crimewith the United States. The Law and Order Committee has recommended inserting a new requirement in this part of the bill for the Commissioner of Police to consult with the Privacy Commissioner before entering into international information-sharing agreements. This was already a requirement in accordance with a Cabinet decision. However including the consultation in the bill will ensure that the oversight role performed by the Privacy Commissioner is more transparent. In addition the bill makes an amendment to allow information stored in the DNA Databank to be provided to assist criminal investigations and prosecutions overseas subject to the Attorney-General’s authorisation. I have great confidence in New Zealand’s law enforcement agencies which have a successful history of prosecutions against those who engage in organised criminal activities. The measures I have outlined will further enhance international law enforcement cooperation and capability.A range of amendments in the bill will also strengthen New Zealand’s ability to combat bribery and corruption. These will enable the Government to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption which is the first global instrument to address corruption in both the public and private spheres. Although New Zealand already broadly complies with the convention the bill contains a number of legislative amendments that are required before we can formally ratify it. These changes include increasing the penalties for private sector bribery and corruption offences under the Secret Commissions Act 1910 to bring them into line with public sector bribery and general fraud offences.The bill also creates new offences to address gaps in our anti-corruption framework. The new offences criminalise the acceptance of a bribe from a foreign public official and the acceptance of a bribe in return for using one’s influence over an official. Other amendments in the bill will enhance compliance with the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The foreign bribery offence is amended to ensure that it applies to bribery in relation to the provision of international aid and clarifies the circumstances in which a company is liable for foreign bribery. The Law and Order Committee recommended a further amendment to make specified fines available as sanctions for foreign bribery in addition to a term of imprisonment. The amended penalties reflect the serious nature of foreign bribery and send a very clear message that those who engage in corrupt behaviour will be meaningfully held to account.A final amendment to the foreign bribery offence addresses the existing exception for small payments made to foreign public officials for the sole purpose of expediting a service to which the payer is already entitled commonly known as facilitation payments. It is important to note that this exception has been part of our law for many years and is important to ensure that New Zealanders acting in good faith are not unintentionally criminalised. However the bill tightens this already narrow exception such that it will not now apply to payments that provide an undue material advantage to the payer or an undue disadvantage to anyone else. This maintains compliance with the UN convention which requires parties to criminalise payments that provide the recipient with an undue advantage. This measure combined with a new requirement for companies to record such payments in their books will ensure that the exception is not open to abuse. I note that this is consistent with the treatment of such facilitation payments in Australia in the US and in South Korea and with operational practice in the UK.Let me conclude by outlining three final sets of reforms in the bill. The bill extends the Crimes Act offence of people-trafficking to ensure it applies to trafficking within New Zealand and not just in or out of the country. The revised section also expands the trafficking offence to include the movement of a person for exploitative purpose—for example prostitution or slavery. These amendments enhance our compliance with the UN anti-trafficking protocol bringing us into line with best practice. The bill also amends the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to allow foreign restraining orders to be registered without notice and enable the court to extend the registration of these orders more than once if necessary. A further amendment recommended by the select committee ensures that extensions are not limited to extradition cases. Finally the Law and Order Committee recommended a minor amendment to the Extradition Act to ensure that the police are able to take identity information from those arrested under that Act in relation to offences committed overseas.Collectively the amendments in the bill will ensure that New Zealand has a robust legislative framework that complies with best practice. The bill will ensure that those engaging in organised or corrupt criminal activities will be subject to the full force of the law by removing current limitations in domestic law and enhancing New Zealand’s ability to internationally cooperate. I commend the bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. It is a bill that has been some time coming. It was first brought to this House by Judith Collins when she was the Minister of Justice. We were told that it would be ready in 2013 but it came to us in 2014. Needless to say this is an area that of course is crucial to all parties in this House. It is I guess important to us as a nation that we continue to uphold our standing in the international community for doing our bit in this area. It does require cooperation and collaboration if it is going to function properly. Labour for instance recognised that when it set up the Organised and Financial Crime Agency within the policein I believe 2008.But it is not just about reputational issues abroad. Obviously making sure that we keep our own house in order is incredibly important. I just wanted to use these introductory comments as an opportunity to point out that the Serious Fraud Office is one of the best mechanisms that we have to make sure that we maintain our own domestic high standards when it comes to fraud bribery and corruption. That is an organisation that has in the past few Budgets now sought additional funding to do its job. It warned the Government for instance of its concern that there might be additional issues around corruption as a result of the massive amount of infrastructural rebuild occurring in Christchurch. That was a bid that was declined. Instead it was just left simply to do presentations around the importance of being vigilant around corruption in Canterbury. Equally it has warned that it is not able to prosecute as many cases as potentially it would like to. It is something I thought prudent to raise—that we do need to make sure that we keep our own house in order even though we are primarily discussing today our international obligations in implementing this legislation.Transparency International is one organisation that does a very good job of keeping in check where New Zealand sits relative to other countries. We have a branch that operates in New Zealand but it is part of a wider reporting regime that takes into account what kinds of mechanisms New Zealand is implementing to make sure we remain a transparent corruption-free country. We have fared very well in the past. We had a slight slip in the last measure. We are at No. 2. No one wants to celebrate coming second. Denmark pipped us at the post. In part I believe it has been flagged that the fact that we have not quite implemented some of these obligations has been part of the reason why. That is because this is an omnibus bill. It implements proposals including around the all-of-Government response to organised crime which it started back in 2011.But it also aims to improve New Zealand’s ability to cooperate with international partners. It ratifies the United Nations Convention Against Corruption it implements the US and New Zealand Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Crime and also enhances New Zealand’s compliance with a number of other international conventions including the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions which I think is something that Transparency International is particularly interested in.There were 20 submissions to this bill. One of the ones though and the area that I want to focus on the most—because there are a number of really important points raised—does sit around a point that the Minister touched on and that was the facilitation payments exception that exists in this law. Labour overall is supporting this bill; I should point that out. But we do have some reservations around the fact that we do still have a facilitation payments exception in this bill.I thought making reference to a bit of the background on this and also to the submissions that were made against it would be useful for the House. New Zealand’s foreign bribery offence contains as the Minister said a very narrow exception for small payments to be made to foreign public officials for the sole or primary purpose of ensuring or expediting the performance of a “routine Government action”. These are not for instance the kinds of things that you might pay as part of tariffs or as part of customs duty or anything like that. These are direct payments to Government officials or public officials to help facilitate and expedite a particular activity.I think we should be very clear that in making this payment you are expediting yourself over and above someone else who has not made that payment. I think that is clear in the way it is described. The exception though states that for such a payment to be lawful in New Zealand law it must be small. I would be interested to hear from members of the committee whether or not there was a discussion over what the definition of “small” was. Was it relative to what the payment was being made for? Was it sized in any way? Will you make a bigger exception around what “small” is depending on the size of the country or the activity? It must be small for an action within the scope of the official’s ordinary duties—so obviously if you are paying a port inspector it has to be around port issues—and not involve a decision about awarding new business or continuing existing business. So it is about facilitating business that would otherwise occur.Examples of facilitation payments include “small payments relating to the grant of a permit or licence the provision of utility services or loading or unloading cargo.” Again it would be really useful for the House if members—I believe that the Hon Phil Goff was on the Law and Order Committee; perhaps he could share with us some of the examples that might have been raised at the committee because I do think that it is a fine line. It is a fine line and who is making the judgment over what is routine what is “small” and where you decide there is a difference between—[Interruption] Either Jonathan Young has a contribution that he will hopefully make in the House or he is talking to himself; I am not sure. But hopefully at some point he might make a contribution and talk me through some of ways that were discussed by the committee.There were a number of submissions—I believe three—that were quite explicit about this point in the bill and had concerns about it including I believe the Human Rights Commission and Transparency International New Zealand. Apparently these submissions were fairly similar in the concerns that they raised. Their points were these—and I think they are good points so I want to reiterate them and highlight them in this House. Their points were that such payments are bribes regardless of their size. If they are not something that is applied universally and equally to all applicants then how is it not considered a bribe? The conventions that we are party to do not distinguish between facilitation payments and bribes and therefore there was a concern that by having this exception we might actually fall foul of the conventions we are trying to make sure that we are ratifying in this law. Also thirdly the OECD and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation also encourage businesses to eliminate the use of such payments.I noticed that the Minister in her speech said that these kinds of payments exist in comparable countries to us—she referenced Australia and the United States. They do not exist in the UK. It has explicitly ruled out being able to use exemptions like these—obviously for good reason. In the response from the ministry it has said that it does not believe the exception is likely to fall foul of the conventions. How do we know? Were we able to seek advice beyond our ministry officials on whether or not we would actually fall foul of those conventions by having this exception? The ministry also raised that in the UK they have made the point that they are unlikely to prosecute for small payments. It is a very big difference to say you are not going to prosecute small payments versus creating an exemption in law that explicitly says you can do it. One is much more permissive than the other.So I do think that there are still considerable questions to be answered about this part of the bill which really does let down what is otherwise I think a very useful bill and one that we should all be supporting not only for our international reputation but also to make sure we spread best practice domestically as well. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak during the second reading of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. First of all I would like to commend the Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams for progressing this bill. Even though our country has robust domestic law arrangements and enforcement and has low levels of corruption we still need to keep working on becoming more immune from domestic and transnationally generated organised crime. I would also like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee and the officials who guided us through this process. The committee received 20 written submissions and heard 11 orally. There were changes recommended to the bill that appear to be accepted by all the members.The previous speaker Jacinda Ardern raised the issue of facilitation payments an issue that came up during the discussion of this bill. It was debated at length and the members of the Opposition also agreed that if we do not have this provision then we are taking away opportunities from New Zealand businesses that are dealing in those areas. These are minor payments and it has been particularly worded so that a facilitation payment is not included as a bribe in this bill because these payments are very small in nature for an action that is within the scope of an official’s ordinary duties and that does not involve a decision about awarding new business or continuing existing business. One of the examples that was given during the select committee was that in some countries to move a file from one desk to another desk sometimes you have to give some facilitation payment to officials. That is not a huge amount. It is token money that is paid and it makes the work easy for businesses to deal with such situations. If they do not pay then those files keep sitting on the first desk and do not move to the next level.So that was the reason and we had a very good discussion and Opposition members also participated in this. The member who was speaking before me was not present at the select committee. She does not have any idea of what discussions we had at the select committee so I want to clarify that and let her know that this discussion took place and all the members agreed that we do not want to put New Zealand businesses at a disadvantage and we want to make sure that they are on a level playing field.Another issue that came up which was also discussed at length was the commencement date of the bill. Originally it was proposed that the bill should be implemented on 1 January 2016 but the banks and the New Zealand Bankers’ Association came and suggested that it would be very hard on them to implement the software upgrade so that the provisions in this bill could be implemented. I think it was a very reasonable call. The committee considered that and the commencement date was moved to 12 months after the date of assent of the Governor-General. These are some of the issues that were raised during the select committee.Another issue that I would like to touch on discussed at the select committee and raised by the banks was that individual names in prescribed transaction reports should be removed. It was proposed that the name of the employee from the bank who had conducted that transaction should be made public or known to the police. But banks were very hesitant about this clause and they did not agree to it. This was amended. We made a change and removed the requirement that the individual employee be named in the prescribed transaction report. This information is not necessary for intelligence purposes and can be requested by the New Zealand Police if necessary. If there is a reason for it then the police can ask the bank for the name of the person who has completed that transaction.Another issue that I would like to discuss today is some of the issues that were raised by the Privacy Commissioner during their submission and considered in the select committee. A special provision as the Minister mentioned was omitted during the process but it had already been discussed in Cabinet that the Commissioner of Police before entering any agreement with international agencies or renewing the existing agreement has to have a discussion with the Privacy Commissioner so that they are satisfied with the provisions of the agreement. This is all because we want to keep it transparent. This Government is working so that we have world-class laws and transparent laws available so that there is ease of doing business.There were requests for certain types of transactions to be exempted from the prescribed transaction reporting requirement and to extend the maximum time of the period of submission of such reports and the date of commencement. There is uncertainty as to which reporting entities involved in international wire transfers will be required to make a prescribed transaction report. Also there were concerns that the penalty for failing to report prescribed transactions was too high.One of the major priorities of this National-led Government is to make communities safer for New Zealanders. We are working hard to prevent people from becoming involved in organised crime. This bill aims to strengthen the law to combat organised crime and corruption. We are committed to being part of tackling this global problem and protecting the country from threats posed by international and domestic criminal networks. Once again I would like to mention a few points about how this bill will achieve our purposes. It implements a proposal containing an all-of-Government response to organised crime which was reported in August 2011 when the Government released an all-of-Government response to organised crime. It was realised that even though New Zealand has got a strong legislative framework in practice to obstruct organised crime a number of amendments are required to address gaps in the law that are reflected in this omnibus bill. The bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to quickly and effectively respond to new challenges.We all want to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a fair and transparent country. People from more than 200 different ethnicities live in New Zealand and our country ensures that everyone is treated fairly. This bill will improve New Zealand’s ability to cooperate with international partners to disrupt organised crime and enhance New Zealand’s compliance with a number of international conventions including the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the United Nations Protocol to Prevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children.One of the significant challenges for us is to reduce the use of cannabis and methamphetamines which leads to physical as well as mental ill health. I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Police for helping us in tackling this problem through their recent implementation of the Organised Crime Strategy and the Methamphetamine Control Strategy in coordination with the Customs Service. Apart from reducing drug-related harm especially to vulnerable populations like youth we are also focusing on issues like robberies theft and fraud. This will help in raising awareness especially in young ones of the potential harm that these drugs could cause. We want to be able to reduce people’s desire for illegal and illegally sourced goods and services that further increase the risk involved with offending. The penalty for bribery and corruption types of offences under the Secret Commissions Act 1910 will increase from a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will be supporting this piece of legislation but we are not entirely happy with every aspect of it and I want to differ with the chair of our Law and Order Committee in terms of the view of the Labour Party on facilitation payments.I raised a number of questions particularly when Transparency International was appearing before the select committee because I believed that Transparency International the Human Rights Commission and the Victoria University of Wellington School of Government all made a very valid point when they said that it is impossible to distinguish where a facilitation payment ends and a bribe begins. A bribe does not have to be a big bribe to be a bribe. A small bribe is still a bribe. If I was to offer a Customs Service official in New Zealand money to speed up the transaction that I was trying to get into the country I would be committing a crime in this country. Why is it a crime in this country to do that but if I am working overseas somewhere in South-east Asia and I offer that payment somehow it is not a crime? If it is a crime in New Zealand then it is a crime internationally.I think that what Transparency International said made a lot of sense. It pointed out that there are countries that have banned facilitation payments outright. The United Kingdom you will remember is one such country that says that facilitation payments are illegal. The officials came back to us and said: “Oh but they aren’t prosecuting small facilitation payments.” They might not be but they are still illegal. The Canadians have moved to make facilitation payments illegal. Transparency International said that the United States and Australia are also moving in that direction. My question to the National Party is: if we are really proud of our reputation of being the least corrupt country in the world why are we not leading on this aspect of facilitation payments? We ought to be. We ought to be leading on that to maintain our reputation for the highest possible standards of integrity and transparency.It is also true that other organisations that we are proudly part of have spoken out against facilitation payments. APEC—the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation—has opposed facilitation payments. The OECD which we are a member of has opposed facilitation payments. In New Zealand the Serious Fraud Office and Business New Zealand working in conjunction with Transparency International put together a programme where they recommend that facilitation payments are not paid. Some questions were asked of officials at the select committee about whether this would hugely disadvantage New Zealand if others are acting corruptly and we are not able to do the same. Well I do not think that is a good excuse because if we are encouraging other countries in which we are conducting our business to stamp out corruption why would we then say that it is OK to make a facilitation payment? We would not because that is a double standard.There was a survey done of New Zealand businesses in 2009 a business survey conducted by Trace International. It found that more than three-quarters of the survey respondents believed that it was possible to do business successfully without making facilitation payments if they planned carefully and they did proper management support.So I do not accept that facilitation payments are OK. In fact in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in article 16 there is nowhere where it says that a bribe has to be a big bribe in order to be a bribe. In fact it defines that form of corruption—bribery of foreign public officials—as when you promise or offer or give to a foreign official or person in an international organisation directly or indirectly any undue advantage for the official themselves. That is a payment. That is surely an undue advantage. You are not paying customs officially to make the transaction; you are paying the officials to grease their palms to get something that gives you an advantage.The other part of the definition is that it needs to be an act that does create undue advantage and if you are prepared to pay a facilitation payment or rather if a business is prepared to—I know you would notpersonally do any such thing Mr Assistant Speaker—make a facilitation payment it isto get an advantage. They do not want to queue up. They do not want it to take time. They want it now and it gives them an advantage. So I cannot see how anyone can read article 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption as allowing facilitation paymentsbecause they are small and they are perhaps not that important. If you believe in the process of having a clear line then you do not make a payment that is not an official payment and a payment that goes into the pocket of an official to get anadvantage. Yet in this piece of legislation here we are saying that that is OK. I do not believe that it is OK.The other criticism—in so far as I have a criticism of this bill—is the length of time that it has taken to get here. The matters that this bill deals with are important matters. They are matters of large-scale criminal activities. It is designed to make sure that our law against organised crime is as tough as it needs to be. It needs to be a lot tougher because we know that if we take one aspect of organised crime and that is the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine that is a business infiltrated by organised crime that makes more than a billion New Zealand dollars a year in this country. That is a billion dollars going into the pockets of organised crime to promote drugs and we have taken a long time to bring our legislation up to the standard that makes it easier for us to crack down on that sort of organised criminal activity.The bill also provides for further action to be taken against the crime of money-laundering. Money-laundering is when you convert the proceeds of crime into a legitimate payment by cleansing that money and making it a payment on property or some such thing that makes it look legitimate. Money-laundering in this country in the Government’s own regulatory impact statement is estimated to be at a value of over $1.5 billion a year—$1.5 billion a year in criminal activity being laundered. So why is it that we had to first be criticised by international organisations about the inadequacy of our money-laundering legislation before we acted? Those criticisms date back to 2009. It is now 2015 and I ask the Government why it took 6 years to bring back to the House this necessary piece of legislation dealing with criminal activity to the value of $1.5 billion a year.Of course what this legislation also does is it enables us to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We were one of the first countries to sign it 11 years ago and we will be one of the last countries to actually ratify it. We will be one of the last countries that signed the convention to ratify it and bring it into force. I want to know why if we are so proud of our role of being a good international citizen it took all of that time—the whole 7 years of this Government—to actually act on something that needed to occur. It is not good enough that we turned a blind eye to these things. We lowered the priority we did all sorts of other legislation but we did not crack down on criminal activity.There is a range of things that this bill enables us to do. We can not only now ratify the convention against corruption but also improve our compliance with things like the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the United Nations anti-trafficking protocol. If I take that instance of trafficking again why has it taken so long to crack down on that when we know the appalling human costs and consequences of trafficking?What is finally before the House we support but it took too damn long for it to get here and we need some explanation of that from the Government and some explanation of why a small bribe is OK but we will criminalise a large bribe. Where is the line drawn? Why are facilitation paymentsexempted from being defined as bribery when clearly that is exactly what they are and what they are intended to do?TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a pleasure to speak on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the chair of the Law and Order Committee Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and the Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams as well as the other members of the committee particularly those who have spoken already.This was one of two of the first pieces of legislation that I was privileged enough to work on in the Law and Order Committee and I have to say that it was certainly a piece of legislation around which I think all parties involved and all representatives across the House were certainly on the same page regarding the importance of this legislation. By and large we were all on the same page when we were talking to officials and submitters from the various representative agencies on the legislation and the importance of it.I just want to acknowledge a couple of the agencies and organisations that provided a lot of work and guidance on this particularly the Ministry of Justice the Police the Police Association the Privacy Commissioner and Transparency International. I acknowledge their guidance with regard to the international protocols and experiences around how other countries have adopted and implemented this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the New Zealand Bankers’ Association and the three banks that submitted separately—ANZ Westpac and BNZ. Collectively for those organisations as well as for the agencies involved there was a high level of constructive productive and pragmatic engagement and I think everybody at the heart of it wanted the best piece of legislation that could come out.We have already heard from the Minister and a number of other members tonight about some of the changes that have taken place in response to the concerns that were raised by the various submitters in order to make the legislation the very best it can be. We have already heard from Mr Goff about the value of money-laundering as reported by the departmental report at $1.5 billion. That is a serious aspect of the economy that could provide obviously dangerous flow-on effects to some vulnerable New Zealanders. Although we are talking about why this legislation may have taken a little bit longer to progress than it could have while we are looking at vulnerable New Zealanders we have passed other pieces of legislation that have tried to protect them as well such as that resulting from the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and a number of education amendment bills.So I think that we have given this piece of legislation the priority it deserves. One of the advantages potentially of implementing the legislation behind some of the other countries that ratified the UN convention is that although we may have been one of the first to sign and one of the last to eventually progress the legislation it means that we have had the luxury of being able to look at how other countries have articulated the challenges that were raised as they were progressing the legislation in their respective countries. We have been able to take those perspectives and craft our own unique legislation which draws on the challenges and inconsistencies that may have been experienced by others. So I think there is an advantage in that and it means that New Zealand has truly got a piece of unique legislation picking the best from other countries that we compare ourselves to.There are just a couple of points that the Minister has raised that I think are important given that that probably draws into another reason why it has taken a little bit longer to progress the legislation and that is that a number of aspects and indeed the changes that have been incorporated through the select committee process are minor and highly technical in nature.As we have heard from a number of the banks such as the Banks Association ANZ and Westpac the nature of the systems and software that these organisations already have in place and already provide reporting mechanisms to the police is complex and unique and takes time to change. I think as a committee we did this legislation a lot of justice by taking the time to get a greater understanding of some of those complexities. Westpac articulated that it provides banking and insurance and investment services across a broad range of industries to a broad range of clients. It estimates that it has around 1.4 million customers. When this legislation does finally progress and the regulations have been implemented it estimates that it will be required to report around 2000 transactions per day. So we have got a duty to be able to make sure that if it is having to do this we have got the right frameworks in place from the outset so that when it spends millions of dollars on developing its software to meet the requirements of Parliament and the regulations that follow that money has not been wasted and it is not having to go back and repeat and redo the software based on changes we may have to make later on down the track.BNZ is in a similar situation. Internationally it expects that across the world it will have about 5 million to 7 million reportable transactions annually. They are not small numbers and given the threshold of payments that are reportable—as low as $1000 and most of these are electronic transactions and they happen numerous times on a daily basis—I think that if these organisations are going to be reporting these to the police they need to be able to have some clear understanding of what is actually necessary from a police perspective and the collection agency of these transactions. They need to have a clear understanding of what is actually required from the outset because it will be a hugely costly exercise to ensure that both sides of the spectrum have the necessary software to be able to take on board the transactions that come about.The Minister and other members have also reported that obviously this is a borderless and global environment we are acting within. I do not think I can remember the last time I actually gave a cash sum of over probably about $100. If you look at most members of this House we do use our banks’ online mechanisms to make payments so it is very important. As we have heard from a number of members tonight the organised criminal networks—Jacinda Ardern: You use cash?TODD BARCLAY: Cash? I use cash every now and again. I use an Eftpos card a credit card from time to time. I do not use credit cards on undesirable things. I do not use my parliamentary credit card where I should not either.The all-of-Government response to organised crime has been an important aspect of this and we have heard that the Ministry of Justice has played a huge role. Another aspect that the Banks Association raised in its submission on the billwas that it felt that the bill did not adequately identify the form of information reported that should take the proposed method of delivery. It specifically raised an issue with new section 48B of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act where it requires that the nature of the transaction be reported. The association raised questions as to what kind of analysis is needed to be undertaken to make sure this determination was clearer. That is an example of an aspect within the bill where the Ministry of Justice went back and looked at it and took into consideration the views of the Banks Association.Another aspect was the time of implementation. The bill initially set down that after 12 months following the implementation of the Act the requirements will come into force. But as we know the regulations will take a long time following that to implement and the Ministry of Justice was quite clear that it—Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s OK to not take the full 10 minutes.TODD BARCLAY: I am enjoying this Ms Dyson. It is very fascinating. The ministry basically said that it will look at the legislation and will implement it as soon as the banks and everybody are in order.When Mr Goff was reflecting on money-laundering and why facilitation payments were not included I just wonder what hat he was wearing—whether he was wearing his hat as a member of the Law and Order Committee a former Minister of Justice or a former Minister of Trade. If this was such a huge aspect of this bill that absolutely needed to be included I am not sure why he did not feel compelled to pass the legislation himself when he was the Minister of Justice and take a world-leading step as he said we should be here. Obviously as a former Minister of Trade he will know more than many of us that it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that our businesses are not disadvantaged on the global scale. We are already disadvantaged by the tyranny of distance; we do not need to be disadvantaged by other aspects that are just in the general course of doing business overseas.Mr Bakshi has reflected that there were 20 submissions and 11 were heard orally. Particularly within two aspects of the bill the money-laundering side as one and organised crime as the other the themes that were coming through were incredibly consistent. We are comfortable that we have struck the right positioning of this bill to provide the best legislation for all parties involved to ensure that we are adhering to our obligations under the international treaties that we have ratified. Thank you very much. It is great to be passing this very important legislation and commending it.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am also pleased to speak to this bill the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. It is an interesting bill. It has been around for some time. It has had time to mature clearly. The Greens are supporting it because it does some good things some necessary things.Time and technology move on. Technological developments create new opportunities for criminal elements to offend and to find ways to extract money in ways they ought not to do. We are however in common with our Labour colleagues disappointed by this bill to the extent that it fails to do something that it could do and that is clearly about this notion of bribes. I will avoid the language of “facilitation payments”. It is such a dainty expression. It simply overlooks or seeks to disguise the fact that actually you are talking about bribes—small bribes perfectly formed little bribes but bribes none the less. I will say more about that in a moment or two.This bill does some good things as I said. Among other things it will make it much more difficult for people to launder money through improper transactions and pass money through the banking system by various ways and means. It was quite an education I must say. Some of the early submitters to the Law and Order Committee were the banks and some of the major financial interests. It was genuinely interesting to hear about novel ways people find to work electronic systems that to most of us look to be quite impregnable and quite bulletproof.We did raise some concerns as did others about the very low level of reporting. A $1000 remittance overseas by a New Zealander will be tracked and will be recorded. I cannot recall now the number of transactions that that represents in the course of a year going through the banks—most of them the vast majority of them legitimate—but it was many millions of transactions. That is a difficult challenge technically for the banks. They got somewhat nervous I think about the commencement date initially making the very good point that they need to develop their software and their systems to accommodate that level of reporting. There was no opposition as such that I could see. They were simply concerned about their ability to meet the requirements of the bill. So those matters were dealt with.I continue to have some unease about the level of data that is being gathered here. As we know massive data banks information about people’s banking and their transactions can have value in all sorts of ways not least of all for commercial reasons. I discovered recently when visiting Spark in Auckland that there is a new and interesting profession called a data scientist—people who can manage these massive databases extract information from them and discover patterns and trends within them. I am sure the police will do this for very good reasons for good and sound reasons. They will be looking for the patterns and trends that represent offending in some way. But equally that information is vulnerable to being mined and to being manipulated and applied for purely commercial or other reasons and for that reason I guess we will continue to have some level of scepticism about these massive databases and will want to be assured that over time they will be managed they will be eliminated—whatever it takes to protect individuals’ privacy.The bill does some very useful things around people trafficking. It tidies up our law. It stiffens up some of our regulations. It criminalises actions in New Zealand even if the offending is carried out overseas and that is as it should be. New Zealanders should not be exempt from offences or from liability for offences simply because what they are doing is not currently criminalised in New Zealand. As I said though where we part company with this bill is that it is the perfect opportunity when it does deal with matters around money laundering bribery and anti-corruption measures to remove the section in the Crimes Act that allows for these so-called facilitation payments these small bribes. We have heard a number of justifications about why that is OK and they are common enough justifications. The pragmatic argument and Mr Bakshi made that in all honesty is that yes if you want your business matter to progress you might have to slip somebody a few dollars or whatever the currency is in order to progress that. But that is simply a bribe. It also embeds in that culture the notion that it is OK.Often the history of bribes and corrupt money exchanges is about the fact that people are not properly paid to do jobs not least of all in the public service in other countries where the income levels are so low that actually the bribes supplement the income and allow those people simply to do well or at least to have decent lives and of course the potential to accumulate large fortunes. I think the pragmatic argument fails. I think we as a country with a very good reputation as a transparent country with very very low levels of corruption should exercise some leadership and not be afraid to simply say openly and publicly even in environments where bribes are commonplace: “No we don’t do that. We don’t go there.” I think we would be supporting those countries.Two of the countries with the most serious problems around corruption in the world are China and India two countries that are important trading partners for us. I think we could stand up and be the example in a sense. Yes it is true that some countries do allow for facilitation payments although it is interesting to note that typically the regulations the laws in those countries like Australia and like Canada are actually tougher than ours. I think the provision in this legislation to require the reporting of facilitation payments of small bribes catches us up with Australia where that is already obligatory. The penalties in those countries for overstepping the mark in terms of bribery internationally bribing foreign officials are more serious than ours.It is interesting to note that only 44 percent of the top 50 companies on the NZX have policies prohibiting bribery and 18 have policies that regulate facilitation payments. Compare that with the UK where of the top 100 companies there 72 explicitly prohibit giving and receiving bribes. The figure in Europe is around 57 percent. Only five companies in New Zealand on the NZX have codes of ethics that prohibit facilitation payments. As I say we have a very good reputation as being a country with very low levels of corruption. We also have a reputation as a clean green country. I think Transparency International is something like Mike Joy in the sense that Mike Joy is blowing the whistle on our water quality and on the fact that our environment is not pristine. In the same way Transparency International is blowing the whistle on the fact that to the extent that we continue to accommodate accept and even legally allow for these small bribes we are undermining our reputation.It is interesting in respect of Transparency International that the patron is one Sir Don McKinnon whom we heard mentioned in an earlier debate today a former MP of a National Government and a Deputy Prime Minister if my memory serves me. Transparency International is lobbying very hard for us to include in this bill the removal of that clause in the Crimes Act. It put out a media release just a day or two ago which I hope some members have seen and I would encourage those who have not to have a wee look at it. I think I was the only MP who attended a workshop over at Victoria University hosted by Michael Macaulay. I can never recall the name of his department. It is the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. He calls himself the “Professor of Corruption”. It was an excellent presentation from him from Transparency International which put up I think an undeniable argument that facilitation payments are bribes. We ought not in New Zealand to have provision in our legislation that enables New Zealand companies to be involved in bribing foreign Government officials.It is not the moment now to mention it but I will anyway. In respect of the Committee stage I have lodged Supplementary Order Paper 76 which seeks to remove that provision from the Crimes Act. I would encourage Government members to have a look at that read what Michael Macaulay has had to say read what Transparency International is saying what the Human Rights Commission is saying and give some serious thought to whether now is the time to enhance our reputation as a country that does not tolerate corruption. Kia ora.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. But before I do that I would like to join the earlier speakers in paying homage to the late Ērima Hēnare—and our sympathies to our Labour colleague Peeni Henare.New Zealand First supported this bill to the Law and Order Committee and we will continue to support this bill. This bill aims to strengthen the law to combat organised crime and corruption. Proposals within this bill aim to improve New Zealand’s ability to work alongside international efforts to disrupt and respond to organised crime. We have an enviable reputation for being a corruption-free society. Well that reputation may be a little overrated because low corruption does not mean no corruption at all. We need to keep it that way. We are one of the least corrupt countries in the world and I have seen the whole spectrum having grown up in a country that has the dubious distinction of being one of the most corrupt countries in the world. So I have seen the whole spectrum during my career and I am proud to say that I do now belong to a country that is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.New Zealand First supports the new offence criminalising the acceptance of a bribe by a foreign public official. We are pleased that the new offence also identifies the acceptance of a bribe in return for influencing an official. I know of countries where the payment of a bribe is termed as—the nomenclature varies from country to country. I look at this scenario in a certain country—which I would not like to name and I have just named—where say if you are an importer or an exporter and you expect a large consignment of goods from another country the customs officials are paid a certain facilitation fee which is called “speed money” over there which actually expedites the process of clearing those goods. That is perfectly acceptable in those cultures but we do not want to head that way.New Zealand has one of the strongest reputations globally for being one of the least corrupt countries as I said. We demand honest and fair dealings in all aspects of our lives. We expect our Governments to make laws that combat organised crime and corruption. We expect our law enforcement officers to effectively enact those laws and enforce those laws and advice from the New Zealand Police was welcomed by the select committee. In the select committee process I contributed by way of a couple of queries as to whether this bill will address the ambiguity of various nomenclatures such as in certain countries if it is called “speed money” will that be addressed by this bill or are we going to just stick to our own ways of addressing these things and just leave that and we will be there. I was assured by the officials that we will be addressing those things and we will also be addressing the issue of extradition of those suspects who are involved in these activities in foreign lands.The select committee recommended that a new clause 46B be added so that New Zealand police could take identifying particulars from a person arrested on an extradition warrant. This new clause recognises that police need to have the authority to take these particulars to ensure that they have arrested the right person. We expect our legal system to respond quickly to punish those who are involved in organised crime and corrupt practices. The select committee was grateful to receive advice from the Ministry of Justice and I acknowledge the great work done by the other committee members and also the officials and a large number of organisations and individuals who gave some very meaningful submissions during the select committee process. We have some very good legislation and our Crimes Act will be enhanced by this bill. It will allow New Zealand to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption to which we are signatories. It will also improve our compliance with a number of other international conventions.During this bill’s first reading my colleague Denis O’Rourke welcomed the changes made to the human trafficking offence in the Crimes Act. Peopletraffickers can be prosecuted regardless of whether the crime occurred overseas. The recommended amendment to clause 15 ensures that money-laundering acts committed outside New Zealand will be captured by this bill. Money-laundering is a growing criminal activity and it needs the strongest possible deterrent. The ability to detect and investigate money-laundering is also improved through amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.The bill amends the Policing Act to expressly provide the police with the power to share personal information with their international counterparts. New Zealand First took special interest in this part of the bill and challenged the select committee to ensure that any information sharing did not infringe on the right to New Zealanders’ privacy. So there will not be this issue of the Privacy Act either. After consulting with the Privacy Commissioner the select committee recommended inserting a new section 95CA. This section requires the Police Commissioner to consult with the Privacy Commissioner when entering into or making changes to agency-to-agency agreements.The bill will bring New Zealand into line with international best practice as set out by the United Nations conventions. It will update the definition of crime involving dishonesty in the Crimes Act to ensure that those convicted of corrupt offences cannot hold positions of trust in the community. New Zealand First supports the committee’s recommended change to clause 6 for foreign bribery penalties. Including fines as penalties for foreign bribery alongside the existing term of imprisonment is a positive move and will strengthen our compliance with the OECD’s anti-bribery conventions. Making fines available as well as imprisonment supports the OECD working group’s findings that monetary sanctions are a fundamental deterrent for economic offences. This bill will remove the dual-criminality requirement for foreign bribery offences in the Crimes Act. New Zealand will be able to effectively prosecute foreign bribery regardless of whether it is an offence in the country where the bribery occurred.In closing as I said earlier New Zealand First is heartened that the bill substantially increases the penalties for bribery and corruption in the private sector. Some offences will now be punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment or fines up to $500000. This bill has some very sound and useful clauses. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I have found this debate absolutely fascinating as we have looked at this issue. And who would have thought on a Wednesday night at 9.25 p.m. that people might find Parliament interesting? But I have found it very interesting as I have heard different views around facilitation payments and comments around bribery. I think that the previous speaker Mahesh Bindra has brought out a very important point when he talked about—what did you call them—“speed payments”. He said that in a number of countries around the world that is absolutely normal and quite acceptable. And I think what we are discovering is the fact that we live in a world of great cultural difference. What might be perceived to be wrong here is not so wrong in other places for lots of reasons.The very first time—to perhaps illustrate this in a benign way—that I went to the United States of America at the age of 17 to play rugby I went into a restaurant or a diner actually and ordered grits. A huge experience the first time I ever had McDonald’s in another restaurant. In those restaurants where people served you personally it was expected that you would show appreciation. So not only did you pay for the product but you showed some appreciation.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I have never had grits so let us just say—JONATHAN YOUNG: Not you Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is right.JONATHAN YOUNG: I have to say that when people talk about tips coming to New Zealand I was the first to think: “No no no there is something wrong about that.” And we are just discovering that there are cultural differences of understanding around some of these measures. So when I am in New Plymouth in a restaurant and you get great service great attitude you get somebody who is doing their job very very professionally very very well and you give them a tip it feels good. They appreciate it. It is not a facilitation payment but it is something that was culturally difficult to accept a decade or so ago. But today it is becoming increasingly part of how we show appreciation.Iain Lees-Galloway: Yeah that’s because you keep wages so low.JONATHAN YOUNG: No it has got nothing to do with wages. It has got something to do with appreciation of service. I think that is a generous way to look at it.So I think that what we understand in this bill is that we have very strong principles here in New Zealand when it comes to public service or people giving a service for what would be the bona fide and acceptable level and means of payment. But in other countries it is slightly different. And so although we have in this bill something described as facilitation we also have measures in this bill regarding corruption here in New Zealand. We are trying in this bill to live in a big world where we participate. And what we have got to understand is that trade trade itself is a great facilitating process where people become—can I use this term—civilised toward one another. Because if I have something to sell I have got to convince you that you want to buy it. If I have got goods or products that come from this beautiful country I have to convince people in other countries that this is going to be of benefit. So we have to communicate. We have to perceive that I have value you have got value and together we actually start to dialogue and talk. So trade is a very good means by which we can facilitate increasing harmony in interaction between nations.Although I understand the purist point of view around this debate that has been defended by members on the other side I also understand the pragmatic view that actually has at the end of it a good result. What we need to understand is that the democracy that we have come to appreciate with all of its weights and balances its accountabilities its checks and balances—all of these aspects do take generations sometimes to actually become part of the ethos and the cultural thinking of people. So what are we to do? Because we find something in this bill offensive do we withdraw and say we are not going to participate in that nation? Well I know companies here in New Zealand that work in some of those nations of the world and they understand what we are talking about. If we were to say “No no. You ought not have a facilitation payment because that is a bribe and that is corrupt.” then what we would find is that we would have lost a relationship that can have an ongoing beneficial process not only of enhancing our economic strength and our trade in this country but also of the relationships that we form having some influence upon thinking in other countries. In that I guess brief analysis I want to support what this bill says around facilitation payments and I want to say that this bill is a good bill.I want to just touch on another area that the bill speaks on and this is around the amendment that people-trafficking offences apply to activities in New Zealand not just when victims are moved in or out of this country. If you would allow me let me just read just a couple of sentences from the bill: “Every person is liable to the penalty stated in subsection (2) who arranges organises or procures—(a) the entry of a person into or the exit of a person out of New Zealand or any other State—(i) for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the person; or (ii) knowing that the entry or exit of the person involves 1 or more acts of coercion against the person 1 or more acts of deception of the person or both;”. It goes on to say in new section 98D(1)(b) that it applies not only in and out of the country but also within New Zealand.I just want at this point in time to put a shout-out to a group in New Plymouth that tomorrow evening is organising a public meeting around human trafficking and its abhorrence of it. The shout-out goes to Tu Tama Wahine in New Plymouth and also to Steph Lambert a friend of mine in her work as the executive director of Justice Acts New Zealand. They invited me to be at that seminar and to participate but I am unable to be there so I want to wish them the very very best for tomorrow evening.Just if I can I will talk very briefly in the next 2 minutes about what the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says about trafficking. Based on data gathered out of 155 countries—and of course it is so difficult to get data around this subject because it is through such subterfuge that this happens—according to their most recent report the most common form of human trafficking is sexual exploitation; 79 percent of it is that. The victims of sexual exploitation are predominantly women and girls. Surprisingly in 30 percent of the countries that provided information on the gender of traffickers women make up the largest proportion of traffickers. In some parts of the world women trafficking women is the norm. So insidious is this that it affects even those of the same gender. The second-most common form of human trafficking is forced labour—18 percent although this may be a misrepresentation because forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than trafficking for sexual exploitation. This is the shocking figure: worldwide almost 20 percent of all trafficking victims are children. However in some parts of Africa and the Mekong region children are the majority—up to 100 percent in parts of West Africa. It is very very good and very important that this bill places this issue at the heart and centre of it and I commend this bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short 5-minute call for the Greens on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. We will be supporting this bill despite the fact that we do not think that it really goes far enough. We agree that this bill is overdue and we fully support this bill being enacted as it will allow New Zealand to ratify and comply with international agreements and conventions—conventions like the United Nations Convention Against Corruption the United States and New Zealand Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Crime the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and also the United Nations anti-trafficking protocol. I agree with the previous speaker Jonathan Young about this insidious crime and it is well overdue that we are doing something about it to ensure that we meet our international standards.As the New Zealand Police Association outlined in its submission to the Law and Order Committee—which I was not on but I have read the submission—this bill will improve New Zealand’s ability to address crime locally combat crime internationally and tighten up the provisions in the Crimes Act around human trafficking as they apply to the activity that takes place in New Zealand. There is no doubt that this is needed and quite frankly it is well overdue.But the area where we think the bill falls down—and others have spoken about it but I will add my 2 cents worth as well—is around what are called facilitation payments which are basically small bribes. The Ministry of Justice in its reports gives examples of what these facilitation payments are: small bribes for things like the granting of permits or licences the provision of utility services or the loading or unloading of cargo. Essentially the bill as it is written at the moment would exempt these sorts of payments from being recorded because the ministry maintains that these payments would not yield any undue advantage. That is exactly what it says: “undue advantage”.But we believe that payments to grease the wheels should be resisted at every opportunity. If we allow small-scale corruption to continue and thrive then where do we draw the line? Where does it go from there? Does it escalate? Does it de-escalate? Generally in these sorts of things it certainly escalates. Undoubtedly it allows the culture of corruption to continue and given that countries like Australia and the United Kingdom have taken a very strong stand to stamp out facilitation payments and even India and China are actively working to get rid of this type of small-scale corruption surely we should be doing more to ensure that our laws prohibit this type of bribery.The bill is an opportunity to take a really strong stance. I believe that by not doing so we undermine our reputation as a country that rates highly with Transparency International for being an honest country for having open and transparent government. I note that this reputation is built not only on our laws like the Official Information Act but also on our Public Service which does not take bribes.Transparency International released a statement yesterday that said it was bitterly disappointed about the opportunity that this bill has lost by maintaining the allowance for small payments or small bribes to occur. It makes no bones about the fact that it endangers our standing in the international community. I agree with the president of Transparency International New Zealand who says there is no such thing as a harmless bribe. I certainly hope that the Government will reconsider that clause in this bill when it comes to the Committee of the whole House and that it will support the Supplementary Order Paper that will be brought to the Committee on this issue by my colleague David Clendon. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to make a short contribution in this debate. Although I am not a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which has considered this bill—Ian McKelvie: Law and order.RINO TIRIKATENE: —oh sorry the Law and Order Committee—I have found the debate very interesting. It is good to be actually supporting legislation to strengthen the way we can combat organised crime and corruption. We support this bill. It has been a long time in the making. It is quite ironic that it was introduced by the Hon Judith Collins about 3 years ago but it has finally made its way here to its second reading. It is good that it brings New Zealand in line with various international conventions across a range of measures. I understand that it is amending roughly about a dozen pieces of legislation which will all be implemented as a result of the passage of this bill. So it is a commendable piece of legislation. I just want to pick up on the—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry I have reflected on what the member said in his recent comments and I think they were unparliamentary. I will ask him to withdraw his comments in relation to another member.RINO TIRIKATENE: I withdraw. So returning to the bill—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I seek some clarification with you on that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well the problem that I have is that if I do clarify with the member what the inappropriate comments were I will in fact repeat and compound his offence. I think if the member reflects carefully on what he said he will understand what his offence was.RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well it certainly was not taken as offensive by the members of the opposite backbenches there.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will take a seat. When I make a ruling it is not the role of the member to reflect on that ruling. It is final and it is finished.RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you for that ruling. I would like to talk about facilitation payments. I have experienced international trade in other countries. It is a big wide world out there. New Zealand is an exporting nation. We rely on selling our goods and services to customers around the world so it is very important that we break into overseas markets. I have been working on behalf of the New Zealand Government assisting New Zealand companies and I have worked with New Zealand companies themselves to break into certain countries to expand our exports and grow our foreign exchange earnings. It is difficult. It is a difficult business. I guess New Zealand businesses have to appreciate the cultural differences that do apply. In certain countries that I have been attempting to do business with on behalf of New Zealand companies the culture is very much of facilitation payments the greasing of the wheels—baksheesh as they call it. Whether it is just trying to park your car or whether it is trying to get to an appointment or whatever level of decision making needs to be done in certain cultures it is endemic. I guess it is a business decision that ultimately New Zealand companies have to make.What I do find is that countries that are at the lower end of Transparency International’s spectrum are the countries that we tend to avoid because doing business in those countries is too tough. But in terms of this legislation there is an ambiguity. It does not state when facilitation payment ends and bribery begins and by perpetuating that ambiguity it does not really help our own international reputation as being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. I would have hoped that the Government could take on board Mr Clendon’s Supplementary Order Paper 76. It has some very sound recommendations. If it is good enough for the United Kingdom and it is good enough for Australia to outlaw facilitation payments then surely it should be good enough for Aotearoa New Zealand.It is good that we can set the example because New Zealanders know how to do business. We are exporting all around the world and we will put our efforts into countries and into overseas markets where we can form good relationships—but on a sound business footing. We are not perpetually trying to feed people who are trying to extract demands bribes facilitation payments and the like. That is one aspect that we would hope could be improved in this bill but otherwise there are some very positive measures that we do support.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a call on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. The Government produced this bill as a result of a report on strengthening New Zealand’sresistance I guess to organised crime. It was an all-Government department report and it encompassed the whole of our legal fraternity and you can tell by the number of bills that it touches on—a dozen of them I think—that it was quite a complicated bit of legislation for someone like me to understand. I could understand the need to deal with some of the facts we are dealing with but it was pretty hard to understand how it all worked. Linking it together was quite a task; it took a while. Primarily the bill deals with the law enforcement agencies that deal with instances of organised crime and corruption not only in New Zealand but internationally. As I said I found it interesting but quite complicated and I will endeavour to explain that during the contribution I am going to make to this bill.We heard from some 20 submitters almost all of them in support in one form or another. Many of them related to the banks’ role in this bill. The banks’ role in this bill although it seems minor is actually quite important in that the banks give the law enforcement agencies the ability to track financial transactions. There was a lot of discussion about how those financial transactions would be managed who would manage them and at what point they would be reported to the law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement agencies needed this information as quickly as they could get it and the banks needed time to be able compile it and put it together and so there were some changes made to the bill in respect of the amount of time the banks had. I think the bill talked about 10 days and the bill now talks about 10 working days which satisfied the banks’ request in that respect.A number of the submissions raised an issue that I have found to be very interesting and of course it has been talked about by almost every speaker tonight though not all with the same view. I really quite enjoyed the contribution that the last speaker Rino Tirikatene made to this because he touched on the fact that around the world things are quite challenging. In fact Jonathan Young touched on the fact a little earlier too that trade is what makes the world go round and in every part of the world trade is dealt with in a different manner. So the issue of facilitation payments—or bribes as David Clendon called them and they could well be called bribes as well—is quite a complex one and I think that we have probably arrived at the right situation on this and I will explain why in a moment. But there is a very fine line between a bribe and a legitimate payment being made to someone for I guess services rendered or as the bill words it a “routine government action”.I remember when I was much younger I spent a lot of time on a fairly large continent and I remember one night pulling up in quite a large passenger plane in the middle of a runway. A fellow ran up the stairs of the plane when they dropped the stairs he paid the pilot off and everyone walked off the plane and out through the back door. We did not have to go through customs. It had nothing to do with me I might add but that is the sort of thing that I guess this bill is attempting to manage. Obviously in some parts of the world a lot of that sort of stuff happens.Although these facilitation payments are legal in New Zealand and Australia—and I think it was pointed out earlier that the law is worded slightly differently certainly in Australia than it is in New Zealand and consequently could have a different interpretation made of it—they are illegal in the UK. Surprisingly the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions have issued a joint statement in the UK saying that they are very unlikely to prosecute in the case of small facilitation payments being made.I do find this a really interesting topic because I think that when you look all around the world trade varies so much and there are so many different ways of dealing with this issue that I would be very reluctant for us to support I guess the Supplementary Order Paper that David Clendon is putting up for that reason. I think it would preclude us from some courses of action particularly with our trade relationships that we may well want to make.The types of crime talked about in this bill frankly make one’s hair stand on end. One of them is human trafficking. The penalties for human trafficking in this bill are 20 years in jail or a $500000 fine. I was kind of likening human trafficking—and I realise it is a little different—to a topic that I am very interested in and that is stock rustling. I wonder whether there is a great deal of difference between stealing someone’s person and someone’s sheep. I guess I would definitely struggle to get penalties of that order for stock rustling but in fact it is a similar sort of thing when you think about it. [Interruption] Well hopefully—I do not know whether they do. I am not sure whether more sheep do get stolen than people actually. But bribery of course is a very large topic in the course of this bill.The other topic that came to the fore in its many forms was money-laundering. I go back to the days of the bookie in the local pub. They are outlawed now of course. They were then too but they still operated. But I do go back to those days and I am pretty sure a lot of the money that went through those bookmakers’ hands was far from legitimate. Humans have been I guess in the money-laundering business almost for ever. Of course the money-laundering business also impacts largely on a worldwide scale on the gambling business. For many of us gambling is—I was going to say it is a way of life; I should not say that. Gambling is kind of I guess a hobby that is undertaken by people but at the same time gambling is also undertaken by a large sector of the criminal fraternity with a view to laundering the ill-gotten gains from some form of crime or other.The other issue that looms very large in the course of this bill is the matter of drug-smuggling and the worldwide drug markets how that money changes hands and how it is used once it has changed hands. This bill will go a long way to making sure that New Zealand sits with the rest of the world in enabling the handling of these things in a very strong and sensible manner.It really strengthens the law enforcement agencies’ ability to track a whole lot of stuff that we currently have the law in place to deal with but not in the form that will be put in place once this bill goes through Parliament and once the amendments are made to those 12 different Acts that need to be amended to get us to the point we need to be at. The bill ensures we are able to cooperate with agencies worldwide. It encourages better cooperation and understanding with our friends around the world. It will enable us as a country as has been referred to a number of times tonight to stand with the United Nations and manage our way through a lot of these issues as we need to.The bill was put through the Law and Order Committee under the leadership of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. I think he did a pretty good job of getting this bill through there. As I said I thought it was a little complicated. It was also under the stewardship of Minister Amy Adams. In the course of the discussion on this bill by the select committee there were some nine or 10 changesin all I think made to the original bill that was put to the committee. Those changes I think will ensure that this bill moves smoothly through the next phase of the House. Obviously there is a Supplementary Order Paper coming from the Greens. I am also very pleased to note that the whole House supports this bill pretty much in its entirety. I think that is a pretty good feat as well. So I have no problem supporting this bill going to the next step and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Labour supports this bill almost in its entirety as the previous speaker Ian McKelvie said. We do have a bit of a hiccup or a hang-up with facilitation payments which is a topic that has been traversed by almost every speaker here. I reflected on Jonathan Young’s contribution notwithstanding his story about having to tip a service worker in the States for a meal of grits. May I say that that service worker was probably being paid about 70 cents an hour back when Jonathan Young was 19 years of age on his trip to the States. You know who would begrudge offering a tip to somebody on that sort of income? I remember that in 2004 I was in the States and I was talking to the girlfriend of the person I was staying with who was a service worker at that time and she was paid $3 an hour. Working an 8-hour shift she was earning $24 but she made over $100 in tips. So we do not begrudge people earning tips. But he tried to make the point that that was a custom in the States and that facilitation payments are customs in other countries.I take issue with that. I think there is a fine line being drawn between what is called a facilitation payment and a bribe. If we look at what Transparency International says about facilitation payments it says: “There is no dressing this up. Facilitation payments are bribes and by failing to address them we are enshrining bribery in New Zealand law.” It almost sounded like Jonathan Young—and I know he did not mean to make it sound like this—was defending bribery and corruption. The payment of money to an official to speed up a transaction—it does not matter how small or how large that sum of money is a bribe is a bribe. It is a bit like saying that you are only just pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not. When I reflect on Ian McKelvie’s story about landing somewhere in an aeroplane and someone running up the steps and giving the pilot a payment which enabled all those passengers to get off without having to go through customs it makes you wonder what sorts of crimes were hidden by that act. How many drugs went out of the airport without being picked up? How much laundered money had gone through the airport without having to go through customs? How many people were trafficked on that aeroplane? We do not know. So I do not think it is right that we can stand here and defend facilitation payments.The Hon Phil Goff was very eloquent and passionate in his summation of them. Basically bribery is bribery. It does not matter how big the sum of money is or how small the sum of money is facilitation payments are bribes. I think that we should absolutely follow the lead of Transparency International and not enshrine these in law. In fact Transparency International says it believes that ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption will not be possible unless the proposed bill amends its stance on facilitation payments. We cannot stand here and say that we are going to ratify that convention and yet still have the capacity for officials to be bribed.I have to say that when this bill came in front of the Law and Order Committee I was quite concerned. I understood the arguments that yes it may facilitate speedy process for New Zealand businesses to do work overseas but in my heart of hearts I knew that there was something wrong with this and that it cannot be justified by our continuing to support it.The other comment that Jonathan Young made was around trafficking. I was quite astounded to hear that 70 percent of people-trafficking is for sexual exploitation. As most people know this is an issue that I am particularly concerned about.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.