Volume 693 Week 55 - Thursday 26 September 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 55 - Thursday 26 September 2013[Sitting date: 26 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 26 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MotionsAmerica’s Cup 2013—Emirates Team New ZealandHon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to move without notice a motion in recognition of Team New Zealand’s efforts in the America’s Cup.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I moveThat this House congratulate Emirates Team New Zealand on its hard-fought campaign in the 2013 America’s Cup in San Francisco. Although the result was not what we were hoping for we send congratulations to Oracle Team USA and admire their fighting spirit and the ongoing improvements made to stay in the match and eventually take the cup. To Emirates Team New Zealand you have made us proud and we have loved every moment of watching your boatAotearoa literally fly around San Francisco Bay. You caught the interest and attention of so many New Zealanders who did not expect to admire and become involved in the America’s Cup contest. You have competed hard on the water and have conducted yourselves with dignity and professionalism off the water. On behalf of 4.5 million Kiwis congratulations on a great campaign.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): I rise on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party to support the motion. We congratulate Oracle Team USA on a successful defence of the America’s Cup. It was a truly remarkable comeback. We send our commiserations to Grant Dalton to Dean Barker and to the crew that made New Zealanders so proud. The sporting hopes of the nation were with Emirates Team New Zealand on every tack everygybe and every foil. The crew did their very best and it was a fantastic effort. We congratulate them. We record our admiration for the Kiwi ingenuity and innovation that saw New Zealand boating and computer technology displayed to the world as the best in the world. That expertise together with New Zealand’s extraordinary sailing excellence was just not quite enough on the day and we again commiserate with Emirates Team New Zealand for getting so close but not quite winning.Can I pass on our admiration for how dignified they have been in defeat. We should also be proud that in Oracle’s time of need they reached out to New Zealanders in order to get the extra boat speed that they needed. This is truly an event that has brought New Zealanders together. As Grant Robertson said to me earlier he understood that somewhere in a bar in San Francisco it has even brought Steven Joyce and Trevor Mallard together singing Dave Dobbyn songs like “Loyal”.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): What a bugger eh? What a race! We got this close; they got this close. New Zealanders all over the world have been cheering Dean Barker his team and all of the people who have worked so hard to support this race. My message is do not worry because New Zealanders are still behind you Dean Barker and all your team for all the amazing work you have done no matter what the result. The catamarans are so closely matched that there was some tantalising racing with those flying catamarans travelling faster than the speed of wind and with lead changes yachts on the edge of tipping over—what I heard one wit describe as “the cock of a dog’s leg”—and teams finishing within just seconds of each other. Race 10 of the final will no doubt be one of the greatest yacht races of all time but it was also aturning-point race. Well done to Oracle Team USA. It really truly was some comeback. To Team New Zealand—you did your country proud. Our hearts go out to you at this time of great agony over the result having come so close.I suspect that technology was the winner on the day for this cup—technology largely built by New Zealanders. We can be doubly proud that both boats were built mostly by New Zealanders here in New Zealand and that Auckland is now home to some of the most advanced boatbuilding techniques in the world. This America’s Cup will be good not only for our high-tech marine manufacturing industry but also for the thousands of bright New Zealanders whom it employs. Team New Zealand you have provided us with a vision of a smart and green economy and a legacy that will not be lost and there is of course always next time.Plus it is not all bad news on the sports front today. Let us congratulate the New Zealand Football Ferns which won theValais Cup in Switzerland this morning—a historic win for our women’s football team—and congratulations to New Zealand’s Amber Hearn who was named player of the tournament. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): New Zealand First joins other parties in the House in congratulating Team New Zealand. The final result of the America’s Cup even though a disappointment when we came so close to winning is a time to reflect on what New Zealanders are capable of achieving. Team New Zealand performed superbly against the scale and wealth of the United States team a team that had the resources and the money to be able to bring in whomever and whatever it wanted at the last minute a team for whom money was no object. Olympic champions and advanced technology were available to the United States team—just a phone call away at the snap of the fingers never mind the cost. And there is the irony that the winning boat was actually built in New Zealand. In that sense New Zealand is a winner.Our boat builders have shown that they have excellence in the world just as our sailors have shown through regattas the world over in every winning international team that they are also the best in the world. New Zealand First congratulates Team New Zealand on their performance in the America’s Cup in San Francisco. We applaud Dean Barker the crew and all who contributed to this outstanding effort. We applaud the families and the friends of the crew and the legion of fine patriotic supporters who outlaid such time and effort who stuck by their team—our team—through thick and thin through the good times and the bad right to the bitter end and who are still there for our boys.We applaud Team New Zealand for their sportsmanship. We applaud them for their grit and determination. We applaud their conduct as exemplary ambassadors for New Zealand. In their gracious and commendable second placing—a silver medal for the silver fern team—they have enhanced New Zealand’s reputation. The world sees us and them in the light of old-fashioned good sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct and that will serve us well going into the future and into the next 4 years because like everyone else I am sure that Team New Zealand will be back for another crack the next time the auld mug is up for grabs.Whatever happens next time New Zealand and New Zealanders will be at the forefront of the competition foryachting’s greatest prize—the prize that is rightfully ours and will be again. New Zealanders will build the next generation of America’s Cup boats and New Zealanders will crew them. One day we will bring the cup home again. This is not a time for mourning. It is not a time for disappointment. It is a time for all New Zealanders to say to our team “Well done. Good on you. New Zealand is proud of you.” Thank you.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker kia oratātou katoa. Heiwhaiwhai haerei teāhuatanga o tekōrero angākaikōreroimuai aau kotāku he tautokoingākōrero katoa. Me mihirā ki arātou ki a Dean Barker metanakāhui ki a Grant Daltonrātou katoaiangituimāia ki tetūi temura o te ahi eai kingākōrero. Ko te pai otērāhungai te ataneikāreituohu temāhungakāreipiko tetuarākārei taka tengutu o tewahakārei nohowhakamuriēngariimāiaiangitui aro nui ki te kaupapaiwhāia erātoui te atanei kamutuingāwiki e 3kuahipaake. Me mihi ki arātou katikamō teāhuatanga o tetū hetū tangata hetūtika hetūmō te motu e noho maineii tewākāingaotirākāore e kore kongāmea o Aotearoawhānuitonui te ao.[Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings to us all. To follow on with the tenor of the sentiments by speakers before me I endorse all the tributes accorded. We must indeed express a tribute to them Dean Barker his crew Grant Dalton all of them who fought on and according to accounts were tenacious at the battle-front. What was wonderful about that group this morning was that the head did not cower the back did not bend and the lip did not drop. They did not hold back but were relentless courageous and remained focused on what they were trying to achieve this morning and of course over the past 3 weeks. We must pay them a tribute indeed for the stance they took for humanity for the righteous and for the ones of the nation that remained here at home and without a doubt for the ones from New Zealand worldwide.]I join the words of congratulations to our team. They did us proud and as I said they did not step back they did not drop their heads or their lips they focused on the task right through to the end and we can be proud of them. I think you can learn a lot from studying some names. I had a quick Google of the word “oracle” and apparently it means a person or thing regarded as an infallible authority. But if we look at Team New Zealand—and I suppose that is the catch for all of us—every one of us finds a space in Team New Zealand. Ka mihi ki arātou katika.[We must indeed pay a tribute to them.]The great thing about our nation I suppose is the connections that we have. At home we can be proud of people like Ben Malcolm and Warren Houston whose art adorns the hull ofAotearoa of Team New Zealand. Also I think we can admire the graphics ofNgāti Kahungunu andNgāpuhi designer Ian Taylor who I think captured the world with those graphics but most important I think is the tie-in.Pēneii a au aMāorinei ka kite atui tehononga o te waka hourua metēnei waka—mekī eai kingākōrero oakutūpunaiwhakawhiti maii Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwai te waka hourua. Ingārātatakuahipaakearā kotaua waka kotauaāhuaanōrā he waka hourua ā mekīkoina tekotahitanga o tewhakaaro aoMāori aoPākehā. Koētahi kakīkāre hewāhanga o te aoMāori ki rotoitēnei ongā kaupapa. Kotāku ko tekī atu ē kai rotoitaku DNAtērāāhuatanga maiiōkutūpunaiōkumātua.Nō reirakoinei au ewhaiwāhii rotoitēnei ongā kaupapaahakoa ko te waka-ama ko te waka houruarānei he wakatonu ākoinei teāhuatanga oōkutūpuna.[Like me as aMāori I can see the connection of the double-hulled canoe with this vessel—that is to say according to my ancestors they traversed the Pacific Ocean in a double-hulled canoe. In days just past we have that similar vessel type doing the same thing. Let us suggest that it is the merging ofMāori and non-Māori minds together as one. Some might say thatMāoridom has no part to play in this of the ventures. But I would respond by saying steady on that aspect from my ancestors and parents is in my DNA. It is for this reason therefore that I am able to participate in this of the ventures be it an outrigger vessel or a double-hulled one it is still a canoe. As far as my ancestors are concerned this situation is still there.]I think we can be proud to focus not just on the yacht race but on the presentation of ourselves as a nation. I want to acknowledge the efforts ofNgātiWhātuaŌrākei and TePuniKōkiri. I acknowledge the Minister ofMāori Affairs Pita Sharples for putting uson the map alongside many others I am sure with the WakaMāori which has showcased the many tourism aspects and business links to the USA and indeed to the world. It is said that over 300000 people a day went across the Oakland Bridge just to that location. So there will be benefits despite the sadness of the day I am sure. Heiwhakakōpaniitakukōrero mekīkua kiteneitātouitēneitaukuahipaake emāiaana a Aotearoa ki rotoitēneiāhuatanga. Ko wai kamōhiomēnā ka hoki atuanōrā ki tepakangai tepakanga pai. I terānei ā metūtikatātoui temeaahakoakārei eke ko tengākau kataea tekī āi eke ā-ngākaui eke ā-wairua.Tēnā koutou kia oratātou katoa.[To close my address let us say we have witnessed just how resilient New Zealand has been in the year just past in regards to this situation. Who is to know whether we will ever go back again to engage in the good fight. In respect to this day we must be upright because even though we did not make it we can still say within us that we made it heart and spirit-wise. Congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party and the people of the Epsom electorate I want to congratulate Emirates Team New Zealand on their competitive performance in the America’s Cup. I was privileged to be Minister of Sport Fitness and Leisure when the cup arrived from San Diego and later I handed it over as part of a delegation while I was Mayor of Auckland.Team New Zealand did not get the result we wanted but they should be very proud of the way they fought right to the end. Dean Barker Grant Dalton and the rest of the team worked hard to first win the LouisVuitton Cup and then push Oracle Team USA right to the end in a competition that many commentators thought would be all one-way traffic. Their graciousness in defeat shows what great sportsmen and ambassadors New Zealanders are. Ultimate congratulations must also go to Oracle Team USA on its stunning win of the 34th America’s Cup. Its win will be remembered as one of the great sporting comebacks and it contributed to one of the most exciting America’s Cup races in history.It is important today that we record and place on the record the huge contribution and loyalty of the corporate sponsors. New Zealand is a nation of sailors and we can appreciate a great competition which the America’s Cup has proved to be. We did not win. However the innovation and skills of New Zealanders contributed significantly to both teams and that is something we can all be very proud of.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to associate myself with the sentiments that others have expressed during this debate. I happen to be one of those curmudgeonly yachting enthusiasts who did not think that the advent of these giant catamarans was appropriate for the America’s Cup tradition and who wondered whether the public would actually be seized by the event or would just see it as big boys with big toys. The activities of Team New Zealand over the last several weeks and particularly over the last 19 days have proven to me how wrong my fears were. This event has captured the public imagination. It was interesting staring out my window in a forlorn moment during the race this morning to see virtually no traffic in the streets of Wellington. People were actually glued to television sets or radios or streaming video etc. because the nation had taken this event to its heart.We wondered a lot over the last week I guess how it could be that on Saturday morning we were poised for victory but for some fickle wind and running out of time when we were just a few seconds away from crossing the line to the situation on Thursday when Team New Zealand with everyone’s hopes on its back was fighting for grim survival. That is the magic of match racing of this particular calibre. Every tack and turn every twist everygybe every foil every sail change and every tacticians’ discussion that we have all been witness to over the last few days has I think brought home the sheer rush of adrenalin that everyone gets watching this degree of sport.It is true that this has been described in some quarters as being more a victory for technology than for sport. Certainly technological advancement and the vast amount of dollars invested by both teams to bring the latest degree of technology and skill to their operation was relevant but at the end of the day you cannot take the event away from the individual sailors who competed both for Emirates Team New Zealand and for Oracle Team USA. It was their skill their determination their raw strength and their courage that achieved the results that they did.We can take solace in the performance of our team the dignity with which they embraced their defeat and the goodwill that they have created between New Zealand and San Francisco. I notice that the Mayor of San Francisco said today that two great things about this cup were one that the United States won and two that firm bonds were formed with New Zealand by the city of San Francisco. Although we can take all of those as positives we must congratulate Oracle Team USA on a simply stunning performance. And we can note with some satisfaction that of the crew members of that boat there were I think some eight New Zealanders the boat was built in New Zealand and there is a long New Zealand tradition so if we want to stretch it we can claim that we all won today. I think there were two Americans on the boat I say to my colleague.What is important now though is that we do not wallow in self-pity and gloom because of defeat in this contest. We take from it the positives. We congratulate our team—Grant Dalton Dean Barker and all of them—on a job well done and we move forward. If anyone says that the money that was invested by the Government to achieve this result was not money well spent I completely defy that criticism because this has been a very positive outcome for New Zealand. The challenge now is to make sure that we learn the lessons that we regroup that we get a better team together—even better next time—and that next time when we are on match point we nail the event.Motion agreed to.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House): Next week the House is in the first week of a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 October it is the Government’s intention to progress the Marine Legislation Bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Can I just ask the Acting Leader of the House whether there is any intention from the Government to take urgency in the next session particularly for the telecommunications bill?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House): No.MotionsTuvalu Language Week—RecognitionSu’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to congratulate the Tuvaluan community of New Zealand—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: I moveThat this House congratulate the Tuvaluan community of New Zealand on the inaugural TeVaiaso o teGana Tuvalu Tuvalu Language Week from 30 September to 6 October 2013.The theme is “Tuvalutaugana kotoulagaifakalaga; Tuvalu your language keeps your culture and identity afloat”. This theme is also a call for New Zealand and the rest of the world to take note thatTuvalu’s very existence is at stake as the country is in danger of disappearing beneath the waves and theTuvaluans living in New Zealand during this week urge the rest of the world to do more to combat global warming before it sinks their beloved island home.Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersHawke’s Bay Water Management—Groundwater Modelling1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Science and Innovation: Did GNS Science undertake work modelling the groundwater in theRuataniwha Plains in 2012 and 2013; and was the contract completed fully?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety) on behalf of theMinister of Science and Innovation: Yes I have been advised that GNS Science undertook groundwater modelling work in relation to theRuataniwha Plains during the 2012-13 year. I am advised GNS Science was contracted by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for four separate pieces of work. Three contracts were completed and invoiced. One piece of work was not completed.Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister know that GNS Science scientists raised serious concerns about the accuracy of the regional council’s groundwater model the fundamental information underpinning the work?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council opted to change its management strategy for theRuataniwha Plains. That is the reason that has been given.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to repeat his question.Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister know that GNS Science scientists raised serious concerns about the accuracy of the regional council’s groundwater model which was the fundamental information underpinning the report?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Just to build on my previous answer I have said the reason why the contract was terminated but from my perspective—and I am obviously answering on behalf of the Minister—he did not know that.Dr Russel Norman: Were the GNS Science scientists working on the project pressured by the regional council into completing a report on the dam despite their objecting strenuously to the accuracy of the information they were supplied to work with by the regional council?Hon NIKKI KAYE: The first thing that I would say is that the contractual arrangements—and I want to make this point—between GNS Science and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are not something that Ministers would ever be involved in the detail of but the member does make an allegation in his particular question. I have no knowledge of that allegation.Dr Russel Norman: Did GNS Science scientists insist on recording their concerns about the inaccuracy of the council’s groundwater model in their updated report at which point the contract was terminated by the council?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I will just repeat what I have said before which is that GNS Science has hundreds of contracts. The first time I became aware of this issue was today so what the member is saying in terms of his question I cannot verify. But I would say again that the contracts between GNS Science and the Hawke’s BayRegional Council are exactly contracts between them. There are hundreds of contracts every year. I cannot verify what the member is saying.Dr Russel Norman: Was it not the case that GNS Science wanted to insert a disclaimer in its updated report which was that it took no responsibility for the accuracy of the work because the model that the council provided to it was not fit for purpose—the model was not accurate?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister so if the member does want to provide me with further information then I am happy to have a look at that. The second thing I would say is that I am not aware again of the facts that the member raises and I think that he should put them in writing to me. But thirdly the point I would make to the member is that he is raising issues regarding the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I am acting for the Minister of Science and Innovation. If he has issues regarding a local authority then I think there are other processes whereby he can raise those issues.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to GNS Science for which the Minister is responsible is it the case that an early report in August 2012 provided by GNS Science to the council has been used by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in its application around the dam rather than using the February 2013 amended report which highlighted the GNS Science scientists’ concerns that the report was not accurate?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again I want to raise a couple of points. The first is that the gist of the member’s questions is around the actions of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Again I do not have responsibility for that. In terms of the allegations he makes regarding the involvement of GNS Science I cannot verify the facts that he is saying so I would ask him to put them in writing to me after question time.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister able to confirm that the contract between GNS Science and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was terminated by the regional council when GNS Science wanted to put its written concerns into a report indicating that the results of the report would not be accurate because the model provided by the regional council was wrong?Hon NIKKI KAYE: In one of my previous answers I gave you what I have received in terms of advice as to why the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council said the contract was terminated and it is that the council opted to change its management strategy for theRuataniwha Plains meaning that the contracted modelling work was no longer considered relevant. I am also advised that this is not unusual for this type of work.Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that the change in management that the regional council was referring to was that the report it was getting from GNS Science was not the kind of report it wanted because GNS Science was determined to put into the report its concerns about the accuracy of the groundwater modelling that the regional council provided to it?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again I think that there are a number of questions that the member is asking that relate to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for which I am not responsible. If the member has questions for the council I suggest he contact the council directly. If he has a concern about a local authority he might direct a question to the Minister of Local Government. But again I repeat what I have said before. If there are things that he wants to provide further information to me on I am happy to receive that after question time. In terms of the allegations that he makes I cannot verify what he is saying.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that two of the three GNS Science scientists who worked on the report for the regional council and raised concerns about the accuracy of the science provided by the council no longer work at GNS Science?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I cannot verify again the facts that the member raises. But what I would say to the member again is that from previous experience in terms of question time—and I cannot verify what he has said—there may be a range of reasons why particular individuals do not work for an organisation. It may have nothing to do with the various conspiracy theories the member is putting forward.Dr Russel Norman: As the Minister of Science and Innovation is he concerned that science is not being listened to in the Tukituki catchment process around this dam the Department of Conservation’s scientific submission has been suppressed the concerns of the Ministry for Primary Industries were suppressed and now GNS Science scientists’ concerns were also suppressed?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I disagree with the assertions made in that member’s question.Economy—Business Confidence and Employment2.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy—and particularly indicators of business confidence and employment intentions?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There have been reports for some time of increased business confidence. There are now some reports that that higher level of confidence is flowing through to positive hiring intentions. According to a report by recruitment company TMP/Hudson Global Resources hiring expectations among New Zealand employers are at their highest level in 5 years. The survey indicates that around 33 percent of 1000 employers surveyed intend to increase the number of jobs in their organisations in the next quarter. In the South Island around half of all employers surveyed intend to hire more people in the next quarter.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What were the main factors behind the improvement in the employment intentions of businesses in the last quarter?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will always be particular factors for particular businesses because more jobs are created business by business. TheHudson Report notes that there is greater confidence around household consumption and manufacturing. It also noted that employers who have missed out on opportunities due to limited resources—that is due to not having enough people on their payroll in lean times—are now more confident because they want to build up their numbers so that they can pursue future opportunities and growth plans. For instance this is reflected in 51 percent of employers in the construction property and engineering sector looking to hire more people in the next quarter.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What other reports has the Minister seen indicating a building momentum in the labour market?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a range of other indicators showing a positive attitude to the employment market. Online recruitment company SEEK reported that 91000 jobs were advertised in the last 4 months—about 8000 more than in the first 4 months of 2013. The strongest growth in job advertising came from design and architecture up 35 percent; banking and financial services up 26 percent; administration and office support up 15 percent; and trades and services up 23 percent. These are indications of intentions. Of course we will be looking for signs that these intentions are followed through to more jobs on the payroll.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What policies is the Government implementing to help New Zealand businesses become more competitive and have the confidence to invest grow and employ more staff?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is not one single policy that makes a difference and that is why the Government has set out the Business Growth Agenda which details 300 initiatives across infrastructure employment education natural resource managementand so on. Each of these initiatives is aimed to assist businesses to make the decision to invest another dollar and employ another person and become more internationally competitive. We are also working on making sure that we can have a more flexible housing market because a housing market with fast-rising prices poses a threat both to our financial stability and also to the competitiveness of businesses which need the lowest interest rates and lowest exchange rate that we can have for as long as possible.Tattooing—Safety and Hygiene Standards3.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to theMinister of Health: What concerns if any does he have about the level of “heavy metal” in tattoo inks in New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Under this Government at the end of 2011 the Environmental Protection Authority introduced a new standard that sets the controls for tattoo inks including labelling safety data sheets advertising storage and safe disposal. The Environmental Protection Authority also recently developed a voluntary guideline to manage the risks associated with the chemical composition of tattoo inks. I am concerned at the results of a recent Ministry of Health survey of heavy metal in tattoo inks which found that 9 of 18 grams did not comply with the Environmental Protection Authority guidelines.Barbara Stewart: Is he concerned about the number of young New Zealanders whose back-alley tattoos by an unlicensed operator unnecessarily expose them to infections scarring or even cancer?Hon TONY RYALL: The member sounds a warning that people do need to consider. Many people may not be aware that tattoo inks may pose harm from the chemicals from which they are made. Making the results of this survey available will provide useful information for tattoo artists when deciding which tattoo inks to purchase and it does also provide information for those people who are deciding whether or not to have a tattoo.Barbara Stewart: Will the Minister put tattoo kits on the list of medical devices in order to restrict sales to only those operators with licences?Hon TONY RYALL: The primary response from the regulation side at the moment is the Environmental Protection Authority’s standard. That standard has voluntary guidance. It has essentially been in for the last 18 months. I think the member raises an issue that is similar to the issue of solaria. If it is clear that the industry is not responding sufficiently to the voluntary guidelines then there will need to be another response from the regulatory authorities.Barbara Stewart: Would the Minister consider following Australia’s example and introduce an age restriction or parental consent law in order to protect the health of young New Zealanders?Hon TONY RYALL: My understanding is that I think that Parliament had an opportunity to vote on that in some legislation in the early 2000s and voted against it. More particularly I think that on the issue that the member has raised quite rightly about heavy metals in tattoo inks the Environmental Protection Authority advises that it is not aware of those being regulated at a national level anywhere else. I think that what is important is the fact that people who are considering having a tattoo should learn about the various metals that are used in the tattoo procedure.Barbara Stewart: Does he intend to take any action to remedy this situation for concerned parents; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry has published the results of its surveys including the brands on its website and has made that information available to the Tattoo Artists Association of New Zealand. The Ministry has asked the association to advise its members to use only inks that comply with the Environmental ProtectionAuthority guidelines. The Ministry of Health has also sent the report to the district health board public health units in order to inform their work with local tattooists on safety and hygiene. Again those people who are considering a tattoo should make themselves aware of all the information that is available in respect of any personal safety risks.Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister agree that unsafe practices by unlicensed tattoo artists which put New Zealanders at the risk of hepatitis C and other blood-borne illnesses should be prevented at all cost?Hon TONY RYALL: We would be concerned about unsafe practices by those who are licensed and not licensed. One of those practices that we and the Environmental Protection Authority would like to prevent is the use of these tattoo inks with heavy metals that do not meet the compliance requirement. That is the reason why we have made those results available and why public health units will be able to use that information to inform their work with local tattooists.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Minister’s Involvement and Meeting with Officials4.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: How could he say on 17 September 2013 “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning” when his Weekly Report from 29 July 2013 stated a submission should be lodged “requesting that the Board requests further information by way of an independent peer review of the proposed approach to nutrient management and the potential effect of the proposed nutrient limits and targets on the freshwater values in the Tukituki catchment”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The member half quotes the weekly report. What it actually said was: “The Department is evaluating the proposed plan change and resource consents. The Department’s preliminary view is that a submission should be lodged to the plan change ...”. That does not say that a draft submission had been prepared. I stand by my statement that I did not know until 17 September that the 34-page submission that was leaked existed.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say to reporters on Thursday 19 September: “There was no mention to me of a draft submission. I did not know of the existence of a draft submission.” when the agenda for his meeting with officials on Monday 29 July outlined the submission’s contents he was briefed on it he expressed concern about it and he asked for a copy of it to be delivered to his office the next day?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The submission that was delivered to me the next day was radically different from the 34-page document that was leaked. I can only quote Doris Johnston who I note members opposite said told the truth when she said: “He never saw the draft submission that everyone’s talking about.”Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of the answer from the Minister I do not believe it addressed the question that the Hon Ruth Dyson asked. Her question was very specific. He began to talk about other aspects of submissions but not what she asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I do not agree with the member. The question asked—[Interruption] Order! I will be asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to leave the Chamber if I get an interjection like that again. The question asked about what the Minister said to reporters on a particular day and I think the answer given by the Hon Dr Nick Smith adequately addressed the question.Nicky Wagner: What advice has the Minister received on when the senior managers in the Department of Conservation saw the leaked 34-page draft submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that Doris Johnston who was on leave prior to my meeting on 29 July had not read the leaked 34-page draft submission at the time ofmy meeting. I can also quote from an email the next day from other senior managers which I am happy to table which said this: “None of us have seen the submission or briefing”—that is the day after my meeting. I was clearly not alone in not being aware of the leaked draft.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he or any of his staff have any discussions with officials from the Department of Conservation in relation to their submission between his meeting with officials on Monday 29 July when the nitrate issue was going to be a key feature of the submission and Wednesday 31 July when he received the final submission with all the water quality issues removed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he have any part in the decision to establish the Government fund for irrigation infrastructure from which $1.67 million has been granted for theRuataniwha Dam project?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For 3 years I was the Minister for the Environment. I had an intense interest in water issues. Included in that was achieving the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. I had no direct involvement in the issues relating to the investments around irrigation. That was led by the then Minister for Primary Industries who is currently the Speaker.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he agree with the comment in the briefing note to him from Wednesday 31 July which noted: “… the department is not submitting on the one-nutrient management approach as the conservation values of the Tukituki catchment do not justify the resource investment required.” in light of the fact that the submission on that very point had already been written?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the substantive briefing that I received on 31 July there were two substantive reasons given for not proceeding with a submission on the plan change issues around nutrients. The first of those was that the Department of Conservation accepted that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) science was robust and the NIWA science was different from what some staff at the Department of Conservation had. The second was that the amount of resource the amount of money that would need to be spent to contest the NIWA position—Grant Robertson: They’d already done it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No because they would require witnesses and the evidence would be larger than what could be justified.Nicky Wagner: When does the Minister believe the department changed its position and why?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key Department of Conservation staff member who wrote the weekly report with the preliminary view saying that we should lodge a submission on nutrient issues wrote that on Thursday 25 July. On Friday 26 July he attended a full day’s meeting convened by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council with all the scientists and advisers from NIWA and the like. At the end of that meeting on the Friday he told the regional council that the Department of Conservation’s submission was likely to focus on only the inundation issue and not the plan change issue over nutrients subject to senior managers’ approval. That was 3 days before my meeting. On Tuesday 30 July an email stated that he and the other planning managers “are not convinced we should be submitting on the plan change” and that was confirmed as the department’s position the following day.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he agree with the comment in the briefing note to him of Wednesday 31 July which noted: “… the Department is not submitting on the one-nutrient management approach as the conservation values of the Tukituki catchment do not justify the resource investment required.” given that the Tukituki catchment and estuary is a significant conservation area in the regional coastal plan is noted as one ofthe areas with important natural and historic values in the Hawke’s Bay conservancy coastal environment is a recommended area for protection under the department’s protected natural areas programme due to its ecological and biodiversity values and is also being classified as being of national importance for fisheries?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is another example of the member only half quoting the report. What that report actually said in the summary was that the Tukituki value was of medium value—that is the first thing. The second thing was that that report said that the Department of Conservation accepted thatNIWA’s science was robust. They were the reasons that it chose not to submit on the plan change issue.Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table two documents. Can I say first of all that they have been in the public arena but not for nearly a decade which is why I do not think they are readily available now. The first is a publication by the Department of Conservation from December 2004 identifying freshwater ecosystems of national importance for biodiversity which includes the Tukituki catchment.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave together on both documents. What is the second document?Hon Ruth Dyson: The second one is calledWater Bodies of National Importance also from December 2004 published by the Ministry for the Environment which also includes the Tukituki catchment.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two documents a Department of Conservation document from 2004 and a Ministry for the Environment document from 2004. Is there any objection to that being done? There appears to be none. Those documents can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table an email between senior Department of Conservation managers on 30 July that makes it plain that the senior managers were not convinced of the merits to submit on the plan change and that none of them on the Tuesday after I had the meeting had actually seen the 34-page document.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been well explained. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just ask for your consideration in relation to documents where leave is sought for them to be tabled. It is particularly in relation to a previous document that the Minister sought to table after my request because he had been quoting from it. The document that was actually tabled was not the document referred to as the “three emails between”. In fact so much had been deleted from one of the emails—not just the identifying points—that it was not comprehensible. So I seek your guidance about whether when documents are sought to be tabled those actual documents have to be tabled and whether it has to be identified that large chunks of them have been removed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking—Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will allow the Hon Dr Nick Smith to speak to that point of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With both the documents that I tabled earlier and the document that I sought to table today the only thing that has been removed are the names of the Department of Conservation staff and the reason I do that is that it is perfectly proper for us to have a good old robust debate in Parliament but I do think that we owe some protection to the privacy of the department’s staff. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no further assistance. Could I just say to the Hon Ruth Dyson who raised the question that I suggest she look at Speakers’ ruling 149/5 which basically says that if any member seeks to table a document and grossly misleads the House in the description of that document then it could potentially be a contempt and members know what the means are to follow that up.Welfare Reforms—Long-term Welfare Dependence and Initiatives Targeting Young People5.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about the cost of long-term welfare dependency?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Today the latest annual valuation of the welfare system has been released. The June 2012 valuation shows that the current lifetime liability is $86.8 billion. Leaving aside the effect of interest rates adding $13.4 billion we have actively reduced the liability by $3 billion due to fewer people being on benefit particularly the unemployment benefit and the domestic purposes benefit. This is a strong indication that changes that this Government has made to the welfare system are working well and that efforts to reduce long-term welfare dependency are making a difference.Hon Phil Heatley: What does the valuation tell us about young people?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We now know that youth spend an average of 18.9 years on benefit if they go on as teenagers costing $239000 over a lifetime. The average young beneficiary has a 43 percent chance of being on benefit in 15 years’ time and 25 percent of youth are expected to be on a benefit 40 years after the valuation date. Sixty percent of those beneficiaries currently aged 30 to 39 came on to benefit as a teenager. This clearly shows that this Government’s focus last year on youth in the new Youth Service was exactly where our focus needed to be.Hon Phil Heatley: What is the Government doing to actively target young people most likely to be on welfare long-term?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have stated we have focused welfare reforms on young people. It is where our focus needs to be. In Budget 2011 an extra $287 million was targeted at young people on benefits. This included child assistance for teen parents and it included the card. It was about money management it was about getting them into budgeting services it was about making sure that they are in education and it is making a difference. Budget 2012 included another $188 million for reforms that provide more support. The investment approach has changed the entire focus of the welfare system and it is ensuring that we are putting support where it is needed most.Sue Moroney: Is sending people without jobs off to Australia to get jobs the best strategy she can manage to reduce long-term welfare dependency?Hon PAULA BENNETT: That would be a no. There is actually a lot of work here and there is a lot of—Sue Moroney: That’s where they’re going.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well actually most of them are not. The numbers that are going to Australia have reduced. The member might want to look up the facts to be assured of that. We are seeing more than 1500 a week going off to go into jobs. That is just those who are going into jobs. Another 2000 are going off to go into different directions and because relationships have changed but actually 1500 are going into jobs which I think is pretty extraordinary.Housing Affordable—First-home Buyers Mortgages and Auckland Property Market6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: What is the range of estimates if any of the number of first home buyers in Aucklandwho will be excluded from the housing market due to the new Loan to Value ratio restrictions?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No estimates have been provided on people excluded from Auckland or any other market. We need to keep in mind here that the measures taken by the Reserve Bank have been described by the bank as temporary measures in order to preserve stability in the financial system. What I can say to the member though is that in consultation with the Government the Reserve Bank advised that on average 30 percent of new lending by value is highloan-to-value ratio and it was estimated that around 40 percent of high loan-to-value ratio lending is to first-home buyers. The bank also advised that of the 20000 to 30000 first-home buyers each year nationwide—and it is apparently difficult to identify all first-home buyers—13000 to 19000 would obtain a high loan-to-value ratio loan and of those up to 12000 will get a loan. The remaining 6000 to 8000 will make the choice of either looking at a cheaper property or delaying their purchase while they save a higher deposit. As the Reserve Bank noted at the time these numbers are difficult to estimate and as important they do not take account of the Government’s policy changes in support of first-home buyers.Hon David Parker: Given that answer is he joining Sam Lotu-Iiga in asserting that there are more cheap houses available to buy in Auckland that these first-home buyers just are not clever enough to find?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am simply outlining for him the choices that first-home buyers will be making.Hon David Parker: There are no affordable homes in Auckland.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well if there are no affordable houses in Auckland it is because under Labour none got built whereas under this Government they are starting to get built. That is really good news. The fact is that first-home buyers—Hon Member: Five long years.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well we welcome Labour’s support for our announcements of more houses on the ground sooner over the next few months.Hon David Parker: How many affordable homes have been built in Auckland over the last 5 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Until we got agreement with Auckland Council that its planning rules were preventing the building of affordable homes the answer is not many. Now that we have agreement from Auckland Council to change its plan to allow more affordable homes we will be able to get on with building them. Secondly the Government has been working through the Housing New Zealand Corporation to get into the provision of medium-density affordable homes and I have to say that that has proven—Hon Dr Nick Smith: They voted against it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Against? Those members voted against that but we are continuing anyway.Hon David Parker: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister why the Prime Minister claimed in June that there would be an exemption fromloan-to-value ratio restrictions for first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister did not claim that. What he said was that he gave his view to the Reserve Bank as part of the consultation. On this side of the House though old-fashioned as it may sound we respect the independence of the Reserve Bank because we know what a mess this economy got into when politicians were setting interest rates and running monetary policy and now the Opposition wants to also run the housing market. The Reserve Bank’s independence is there in order to avoid a repetition of the dangerous situation of 2008 with which that Labour Party isfamiliar and in order to secure financial stability and lower interest rates. The Prime Minister gave his view. The Governor of the Reserve Bank made his decision.Paul Goldsmith: What steps is the Government taking to support first-home buyers and improve access to affordable housing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all I say to that member and to the Parliament that the housing market in New Zealand faces two significant risks. One is that it becomes a source of the kind of financial instability we saw as recently as 2008 when this Parliament supported the Government writing a sovereign guarantee for over $100 billion of banking assets to make sure our economy did not go down the toilet. Whatever cheap politics there might be in part of the housing market that is a fundamental responsibility of the Parliament and the Reserve Bank and we are honouring that responsibility. Within the scope of that job the Government has moved to pass legislation to ensure that we can get more houses on the ground sooner. We passed that legislation against the opposition of the Labour Party just as it opposed the Auckland Housing Accord.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer has gone on quite long enough.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that the harshness of the Reserve Bank’s loan-to-value ratio restrictions is due to National’s 5 years of failure on housing and tax policy; if not why is the OECD concerned both about New Zealand house prices especially in Auckland and the tax biases that favour speculators over first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No; and the OECD has not made that point either. In fact—Hon David Parker: Yes they have.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —it has not. If we think of the last 5 years house prices actually dropped by about 10 percent for a couple of those years. During those years the Government started the process of creating the policy to ensure that we have more houses on the ground. Labour has opposed—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again that is a satisfactory answer.Paul Goldsmith: What reports has he seen on alternative policies for first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a report just this morning that says: “… his utterances could be damaging to long-term confidence in the economy … It is hard to believe he would carry out the promise to over-ride the Reserve Bank’s independence to exempt first-home seekers if only because of the obvious risk to their equity.”—that is getting first home buyers into houses that turn out to be worth less than what they paid—“… it would be easy to weaken the bank’s legislated jurisdiction and do untold damage to our economy. MrCunliffe’s stance is a worry.” That is today’sNew Zealand Heraldeditorial.Hon David Parker: Is the reason the Minister of Finance refuses to reform what is amongst the most favourable and distortionary tax laws for rental property investment in the world and refuses to take practical steps to improve housing affordability by building affordable homes that his party favours property speculators over first-home buyers or is it just incompetence?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the member is wrong about that. We made changes to the taxation of property investment in the 2010 tax package which is collecting over half a billion dollars of extra tax. It is much more effective than a capital gains tax which the member said would come into practice over 15 years. It is also very clear that a capital gains tax that does not cover all property is ineffective. They have got one in Australia and it has made no difference whatsoever.Schools Buildings—Funding and Property Management7.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to theAssociate Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding school property?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): This week I was pleased to announce a plan to transform the way that school property is delivered in New Zealand. Budget 2013 sets aside $134 million to support new schools and roll growth over the next 4 years. I announced that $70 million has been allocated to establish three new schools and 65 classrooms over the next 2 years. There will also be a programme focusing on specific schools that require major developments. The Ministry of Education is creating a fund of $300 million over 6 years to assist another approximately 30 schools to deliver essential infrastructure and modernise their facilities. These changes are about shifting from a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that provides greater choice and flexibility for schools and students. I have had amazing feedback across New Zealand. I am very proud to have made these announcements.David Bennett: What specific measures does the new plan include?Hon NIKKI KAYE: In addition to schools in Auckland Hamilton and Queenstown the plan focuses on eight areas including investing in areas of growth helping schools resolve outstanding property issues faster providing greater support for major property works and offering a more flexible range of property services to schools. The Ministry of Education is also establishing an education infrastructure service by the end of 2013 to offer schools a flexible range of property management services. There will also be a dedicated team to resolve longstanding complex property issues and an advisory board to provide greater innovation commercial expertise and independent advice to the Secretary for Education and Ministers. This Government is committed to investing in education and making sure that our schools have high-quality infrastructure in order to achieve the best outcome for New Zealand students.Bay of Plenty District Health Board—Diagnostic Testing andWhakatāne Hospital Redevelopment8.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to theMinister of Health: How long does it take for microbiology samples to be taken from a patient in the Eastern Bay of Plenty until the sample is cultured in thePathlab microbiology laboratory in Tauranga and is he confident that the handling of samples and the time taken meets international medical standards?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): That depends on where in the Eastern Bay of Plenty the patient is and the nature of the sample taken from them. In response to the member’s second question yes I am assured that the standards both national and international are being met.Brendan Horan: Is the Minister aware that many Bay of Plenty medical practitioners are concerned that they are taking samples from patients as early as 8.30 a.m. that inWhakatāne are not collected from their practice until late in the afternoon and then have to be transported to Tauranga which is well beyond the best-practice time of 2 hours as stated in international medical standards?Hon TONY RYALL: What I am advised is that every general practice inWhakatāne does have material available to them that allows them to put these specimens in a protective medium which allows the medium to work to keep the microbiological sample testable within a period much longer than that—probably between 24 and 48 hours. So what the member will recognise is that there is a difference between the unprotected and protected microbiology specimens and the storage and transport times vary between these. Unprotected specimens should be received by the laboratory within 2 hours. The only unprotected specimens produced in the Eastern Bay of Plenty are those generated within the hospital and these areprocessed within that time frame. The general practitioner - generated microbiology specimens must be protected and all general practitioners are provided with transport media and have specific instructions and requirements for their use. I am advised that the time lines for transport meet national and international standards.Brendan Horan: Is the Minister aware that in many secondary schools where nurses are authorised to provide sexual health services microbiology samples including genital swabs forchlamydia and gonorrhoea are not uplifted until the end of the day when the best practice requires the samples to be inoculated on to a culture medium within 15 minutes? Is he satisfied with the Third World standards under his watch?Hon TONY RYALL: If the member actually reflects on what he has just said he said that the international standard would be for a swab to be taken atŌpōtiki College and be tested and on a substance—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Petri dish.Hon TONY RYALL: —or a Petri dish—within 15 minutes. The hospital is at least 40 minutes away. So what the member said just does not make sense. I can assure the member that all the advice that we have received is that they are meeting international standards.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table an email from a medical practitioner inWhakatāne expressing their concerns about the time taken to collect—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described enough. Leave is sought to table an email from a particular medical practitioner in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a document from a medical specialist outlining how genital swabs ought to be inoculated on to a culture medium within minutes of collection.Mr SPEAKER: This is leave sought to table a medical professional’s advice to the House on how swabs should be handled. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a letter from a doctor inŌpōtiki stressing how literally hundreds of lab samples have been rendered useless by transport delays.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the doctor’s name included?Brendan Horan: Yes the doctor’s name is included.Mr SPEAKER: And the doctor is happy for that to be tabled?Brendan Horan: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a document from internationally renowned expert on microbiology Dr Mike Miller PhD from Georgia USA stressing standards—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think again that has been adequately described. Before I put the leave has the member got anything else that he wants to table as well? Can we get it all out in one go and I will put the leave once.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a letter from a secondary school sexual health nurse—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. And the final document?Brendan Horan: The final document is a letter from a secondary school sexual health nurse in Tauranga stressing her concerns that samples are not collected—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two particular letters and a report by a renowned expert whose name I have now forgotten. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Chris Auchinvole: What other progress is being made in relation to providing better health services to the people of the Eastern Bay of Plenty?Hon TONY RYALL: I am delighted to tell the House that real progress is being made on the redevelopment of theWhakatāne Hospital. The project is due to be completed on time and on budget in early 2014. The Government has committed $65 million to the redevelopment ofWhakatāne Hospital including construction of a brand new hospital. The redevelopment will deliver amongst other things 98 new beds an emergency department and a high-dependency unit for patients who need more intensive observation treatment and nursing care than patients in a general ward. This is just another example of major investments being made by this Government when the previous crowd only ever promised it.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to your earlier ruling I would just like to say the first letter that I tendered was anonymous because of fear of repercussions from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his information. It would have been better if we had had it at the time.Homelessness—Definition Statistics and Access to Housing9.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister of Housing: How many children and young people are currently homeless as defined by Statistics New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): There is no agreed definition of homelessness and by definition it is actually difficult to capture this data because the census is collected via people’s addresses. A recent analysis though by the University of Otago of the 2006 census data identifies 8500 people under 15 with severely inadequate housing the majority of which is overcrowded. I note that in the period 2001 to 2006 the number in this group grew significantly. In contrast this Government is investing $320 million on Project 324&5 which will reduce overcrowding which is the biggest group across these numbers.Jacinda Ardern: If he is on top of this issue and things really are getting better why has the Downtown Community Ministry had client numbers double each year since 2008 as hasLifewise in Auckland which is increasingly seeing young people and children without housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not have specific information on the data from those specific organisations but I would note that the number of people on the Housing New Zealand waiting lists was 4300 in November and at the moment it is not too different from that. That suggests that this is something of another manufactured crisis by members opposite.Jacinda Ardern: On what—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of noise is making it hard for me to hear the supplementary question.Jacinda Ardern: On what grounds does he believe Housing New Zealand waiting lists are a good measure of homelessness when he cut the list changed the criteria and does not even consider a boarding house to be homelessness for the purposes of Housing New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I firstly address the issue of the definition of homelessness. In the survey the member quotes it is referred to as “severely inadequate housing”. Sixty-five percent of those who are in that definition are in situations where there are too many adults and too many children in a household and I note that that number grew very significantly under the previous Government. The second issue is whether I would consider people who are staying for instance in cabins or in emergency accommodation as being homeless. I would give them the definition of being in emergency housing.Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister for Social Development raised any concerns with him about young people’s access to housing given that 90 percent of young peopleLifewise is working with are children who are leaving Child Youth and Family care at 17 with nowhere to go?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague Paula Bennett and I have had extensive discussions firstly about the specific housing issues in west Auckland and secondly about the concerns she has around younger people and getting them into better quality housing. I simply say to members opposite: watch this space in terms of the huge investment of $2.7 billon—Hon Tony Ryall: How much?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —$2.7 billion—the biggest investment ever in social housing which is taking place under this Government and was announced in this year’s Budget.Dr Megan Woods: Why more than 3 years after the first of the Christchurch earthquakes and after his own officials estimated that there are 7400 homeless people in the city has he stood by while organisations like the Young Women’s Christian Association of Aotearoa have full waiting lists and are turning women and children away and when the Christchurch City Mission has said it is extremely worried about the safety of children and that there is not enough happening?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not accept that there are 7400 people in Christchurch without a roof over their heads. That is not true. It is true that there is a very large housing challenge in Christchurch. That is why we have settled with the insurance company and we are building a new house every single day in Christchurch. That is why we have built four temporary accommodation villages. That is why we have established the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service. I could speak for over half an hour on what we are doing on housing in Christchurch.Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that that will not be occurring in question time.Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Planning—Judicial Decision10.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to theMinister for the Environment: Does the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to overturn the recent High Court decision on theManawatū-Wanganui Regional Council’s One Plan?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I have no intention to introduce legislation for the purpose of overturning the High Court decision on HorizonsMW’s One Plan.Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister accept that this decision sets a pathway for sustainable agriculture that would not be possible if the principles of the Resource Management Act were to be changed or watered down?Hon AMY ADAMS: Absolutely not.Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister’s stated intention to amend the Resource Management Act if she can to prevent regional councils making region-specific plansprevent the development of plans like the One Plan elsewhere in the country and does she think she has a parliamentary majority to achieve that?Hon AMY ADAMS: The member has quite incorrectly stated my intentions of the reforms.Young Offenders—Military-style Activity Camps and Alternative Policies11.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to theAssociate Minister for Social Development: Does he support the continuation of boot camps for youth offenders?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development)on behalf of theAssociate Minister for Social Development: This Government does not operate boot camps for young offenders. But if the member is referring to the military-style activity camps then yes.Sue Moroney: Why has the Minister said that the boot camps model as the Prime Minister called it is going well when of those who have completed the programme a massive 83 percent went on to reoffend in the first year alone?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think we need to have this in the context that these are our worst young offenders. Twenty-one thousand are apprehended each year and of those we are dealing with recidivist offenders who are most at risk of going on to jail. The reason that he said this is that these young people were responsible for 660 offences in the 12 months before they went into a Military Activity Camp and in the 12 months after they were responsible for 335 offences which is a 50 percent reduction.Sue Moroney: Is he disappointed then that Minister Bennett replaced Labour’s successful TeHurihanga model targeting the same group of offenders which had 100 percent success rates—that is no graduates offending in the first year after completion?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No because actually this is working for the worst offenders. So these are not those who are—Sue Moroney: 87 percent.Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member needs to catch up with the portfolio. What this actually is about is those who are locked up in a youth justice facility and they are the worst youth offenders. Right? These are not the cherry-picked who were in TeHurihanga; these are—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now complete.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the evaluation of the TeHurihanga pilot showing that these were the very worst offenders and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need more of the description. I just need to know whether it is publicly available.Sue Moroney: It is from the Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment.Mr SPEAKER: Is it available to members easily on the website?Sue Moroney: No I do not believe so. It was in 2009.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular evaluation. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mike Sabin: What other reports has the Minister seen on reoffending by TeHurihanga graduates?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Two conflicting reports have been brought to the Minister’s attention. The first is a press release issued yesterday stating that TeHurihanga graduates had “a 100 percent success rate” which we understand to mean that no young people had reoffended. The second is a statement inHansard dated 10 February 2010 that says that four of the eight TeHurihanga graduates had reoffended.What is so confusing about these two reports is they were both by the Opposition member Sue Moroney.Sue Moroney: What is the cost to the youth justice system and to the victims of the 325 crimes that were committed by graduates of the boot camp model in the first year of completion?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The cost would have been far higher if they had not gone through a Military Activity Camp because what we saw for those who did not was reoffending that was more severe and more recidivist. Offending has gone down and the severity has as well.Sue Moroney: Can the Minister confirm that the four re-offences she referred to before from the TeHurihanga model were in the first year after completion of the programme?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not have that information in front of me but what we have—[Interruption] Well of eight who had come out of TeHurihanga four had reoffended. They are not comparable to those youth who are in a Military Activity Camp at all because they are at a much more senior level.Sue Moroney: Why does the Government not save a lot of pain misery and cost admit it got it wrong and go back to the proven successful model—TeHurihanga—trialled in Hamilton?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because that is not a proven successful model. They are not the same young people—they are not the same young people. Of the 23 who went through TeHurihanga they are not at the same severity of offending that these young people are. You are simply not comparing the same young people.Consumer Credit—Legislative Reform12.Dr JIAN YANG (National) to theMinister of Consumer Affairs: How will the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill target loan sharks and protect New Zealand consumers?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill is the biggest overhaul of consumer credit law in a decade and will make wide-ranging changes to consumer credit and repossession law. The changes represent a crack-down on unscrupulous lenders who prey on desperate people and leave them and their families trapped in a spiral of debt. These changes will usher in an era where lenders must act responsibly where consumers must have the information they need and where there are significant consequences for those who breach the law. Rewriting the rules for consumer lending forms an important part of the Business Growth Agenda of this Government to help boost trust and confidence in our financial markets.Dr Jian Yang: What changes are proposed in this bill to ensure more informed borrowers and more responsible lenders?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill introduces a wide range of changes to ensure more informed borrowers and responsible lenders. Lenders will have to take responsibility for the likely effect of the credit decisions they make for their customers. There will be better controls against misleading deceptive or confusing advertising of credit. I welcome cross-party support for this bill and I encourage individuals and organisations to make submissions as it goes through its select committee process.Carol Beaumont: What analysis has he undertaken of the damage caused to vulnerable families by the Government’s failure to deal with the issue of inadequate consumer credit laws and to better regulate loan sharks truck shops and payday lenders over the last 5 years?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I can assure that member that this bill absolutely targets that behaviour of some individuals which sadly exploits the vulnerabilities of many New Zealanders.Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked “What analysis”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member please repeat the question? It was not answered.Carol Beaumont: What analysis has he undertaken of the damage caused to vulnerable families by the Government’s failure to deal with the issue of inadequate consumer credit laws and to better regulate loan sharks truck shops and payday lenders over the last 5 years?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Specifically no specific analysis but the identification of the problem has been there for quite some time. Thus this bill has been introduced and is before a select committee.Carol Beaumont: Why has he ignored the experience of the increasing number of overseas jurisdictions that provide for interest rate controls and failed to provide for such controls in the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill; is he genuine in his suggestion that people submit on this issue anyway?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am genuine.Standing OrdersSessionalHon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I moveThat Mighty River Power Limited be a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): In case anybody missed that wonderful speech by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises that was the worst-performing Minister in the history of State-owned enterprises in this country. It is interesting that we are actually debating this motion—a motion that follows a litany of stuff-ups and a litany of incompetence by that particular Minister in all aspects of State-owned enterprises. Primarily this motion should have been before the House when the mixed-ownership model legislation was put in place in June last year but that Minister’s incompetence in this portfolio is staggering—absolutely staggering.We agree with this motion. We agree with it because it will allow finally some accountability of mixed-ownership model companies; those that have been half sold off to the private sector like Mighty River Power and those that are likely to be sold off in part like Meridian Energy. But if you look at the litany and the shambles this is the peak of it for that Minister. On the matter of State-owned enterprises John Key in June 2011 said that the mixed-ownership model would yield after the sales $7 billion to $10 billion—that is how much he said would be raised from the sale of these assets. He then claimed it would be $5 billion to $7 billion and he now claims after the 25c I think or 10 percent drop in the Mighty River Power shares and the over billion-dollar devaluation in Meridian Energy that we are going to be—I think this is the quote from the Prime Minister—“at the bottom end of the $5 billion range”.The question for John Key and the question for this Government of course to quote John Key is that he now needs to show this House and show the people of New Zealand the money the cash. Look at the promises that were made in respect of the Future Investment Fund from the sale of State-owned enterprises—do you remember that? The Future Investment Fund was going to fund hospitals and schools—[Interruption]—kindergartens and other things; kittens or whatever.Then we find out two things. We find out that the money that is supposedly going to be raised from the sale of these assets has been spent 10 or 15 times over but worse than that—worse than that—the money is set aside not for hospitals and schools but so that there is say $40 million to pay for the free shares of Mighty River Power and $100 million to bail out Solid Energy. Then if we have a look at some of the other allocations you would have to say it is simply business-as-usual expenditure—not hospitals bridges roads and schools. We have the immigrant management systems closed captioning on Parliament TV and a replacement ground station for search and rescue satellite systems. It is a whole lot of business-as-usual expenditure—appropriate expenditure but business-as-usual expenditure—that should be coming out of budgeted expenditure not the revenue generated from the sale of these assets.Then you have got to look at the combination of factors that have led to where we are today. If you look at Meridian Energy Meridian Energy of course is balanced against the huge risk of RioTinto going south before 1 January 2017. So what is the Government’s plan with that? The Government wanted to get that fiasco off the books as quickly as possible. The Minister has been asked time and time again why it was that he and the Minister of Finance threw in $30 million worth of public money to a company making billions of dollars on a multinational basis every year. He cited repeatedly that this was to secure the jobs of those Southland workers; this would create security. He even accused this side of the House of being anti-jobs or being anti those Southland jobs. Then we got him on radio and we asked whether he had got a guarantee for the $30 million pieces of silver given to RioTinto that those jobs would be secure. The answer was no—that was on Kathryn Ryan’s show. Then he was asked whether he had even bothered—even bothered—to ask for a guarantee to secure those jobs. The answer—no.That gave the lie—the absolute lie—to the claim that $30 million of taxpayers’ money a halving of the notice period and yet cheaper electricity for RioTinto was all about securing those Southland jobs because the Tuesday before the ink was dry on the cheque we know from theSouthland Times that RioTinto had signalled the redundancy of maintenance workers and a restructuring. And the Minister of Finance aided and abetted by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises did not even have the brains or the gumption to ask RioTinto—even if they were not going to get it; at least to roll the dice and ask—whether it would guarantee those jobs of those Southlanders up to 1 January 2017. Now they say that the reason they did not have the brains or the gumption to ask was because they do not interfere. Well they interfered in the private sector to the extent that they picked a winner and used $30 million of taxpayers’ money to pick that winner—and to halve the notice period which signals to anybody buying Meridian shares that if they pull the plug we know what will happen to demand and supply and the value of that company.So we welcome this motion in respect of Mighty River Power. We welcome it because it will actually allow a select committee process around a financial review. It will not of course allow us to gain information through the Official Information Act and it will limit what answers can be given in this House by the Minister of Finance—the shareholding Minister—and the Minister of State Owned Enterprises because of the so-called mixed-ownership model. What we have got after all this—after all this—is a litany of broken promises and a shambles in terms of management of assets like Solid Energy.I mean you have got to hand it to Tony Ryall. This guy has made history in this Parliament. This is the worst-performing Minister for State Owned Enterprises in the history of this Parliament since State-owned enterprises were enacted in the 1980s. Only that member and Bill English could step aside and stand there and watch as thecoal price moved south. You just had to pick up the paper like the local village idiot to work that one out. After literally 2 years of advice from Treasury and from their own scoping consultants UBS—which was charged ironically with scoping the company for sale—after a litany of $23 million worth of bonuses that did not go to the blokes and the women in the pit but went instead to the guys in the flash suits in the palace in Christchurch; after exorbitant expenditure; after Bill English with the platinum-plated spade goes down to the lignite plant in Southland tosses the first sod—tosses the first sod—and sings its praises only to have it close it later on these guys just sat there and let it slide into the sea. An export award - winning company Solid Energy slid into almost bankruptcy.We wait with bated breath—bated breath—over the next few days and weeks to see what sort of deal the Minister of Finance has cut with the banks to try to get rid of or minimise the taxpayer’s exposure to $380 million worth of debt. That was all under his watch—and all under the watch of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. They are totally 100 percent responsible. They get up occasionally and say they took action and that there is a new board in Solid Energy. Well the problem with that proposition is that no one got sacked. A few people resigned no action was taken against them and there was no intervention by this Government.So the poor old folks who have bought those shares in Mighty River Power are now 10 percent down—10 percent down. About 440000 people pre-registered to buy those shares. What did it work out at? One hundred thousand actually bought them. Opinion polls show—I think it was the TVNZ one—that 87 percent of people do not want a bar of Meridian Energy. And I will tell you—you look at the television advertisements you look at the massive consultancy and legal expenses that this Government has used to try to get these floats off the deck and that is hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet they baulk at the cost—which is what 9 million bucks—of a referendum on asset sales so the people of New Zealand can actually have a formal say and give this lot a good political boot in the backside and scuttle any moral authority they may believe they have through a referendum that would show they do not want their assets sold.So John Key is quite happy to throw 30 million bucks at a multibillion-dollar multinational company to get—what for the taxpayer? Nothing; not even any job security. But he is not willing to have a referendum. He criticises those who organised that referendum and organisations like Grey Power and others and those in the community who want to have a say. He says: “No 9 million bucks is too much.” We support this motion and we look forward to putting Mighty River Power’s feet to the fire.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia Ora Mr Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to follow on from the last member’s Clayton Cosgrove’s contribution. Of course Minister Ryall is the worst Minister for State Owned Enterprises that we have seen since the whole concept was introduced. We have also seen one of the shortest contributions possibly ever in our Parliament’s history with this motion. Here you saw a Minister—blink and you would have missed it—introducing this Government motion No. 1 to introduce Mighty River Power as a public organisation.The Green Party supports this motion but we are implacably opposed to the Government’s asset sale agenda. We believe it is important that there is public and select committee scrutiny of Mighty River Power. That is why we are voting for this motion but we will continue to fight to our utmost in this House on the streets and online to oppose the fiscally reckless economically reckless Government asset sale agenda. The fact is that we are more focused on delivering cheaper power for Kiwis and a cleaner smarter and cheaper electricity service. We are not about flogging off theassets and flicking them overseas. The Green Party is supporting this motion because we want to see Mighty River Power publicly accountable.We saw Minister Ryall take possibly the briefest ever ministerial contribution introducing a Government motion to Parliament because he is embarrassed. Of course he is embarrassed because he should have done this last year when the legislation was going through Parliament. He is embarrassed because he does not want to talk about the Government’s asset sale agenda. The Government knows it is a vote-loser. It knows that it does not make fiscal or economic sense. It knows it is a loser plan so it is doing its darnedest not to talk about it. I challenge National members to stand up and make a contribution on this Government motion if they want to stand up for the asset sale agenda.When we are talking about this Government motion what we are seeing is Mighty River Power being listed as a public organisation. Since the partial privatisation what we have seen is that Mighty River Power is no longer a State-owned enterprise. This means it does not come under the ambit of the traditional select committee financial review process. By including it as a public organisation it will be publicly questioned and it will be able to be included in the financial review debate because it will be a Crown entity and a public organisation for the purposes of that debate. Obviously it is still not able to be the subject of a request under the Official Information Act. We would like to see greater public transparency but the fact is that that highlights that Kiwis are not in control of this State-owned enterprise. They are not in control of their electricity market. The Government would rather see the profits the dividends and the control taken out of Kiwis’ hands.The sale should not proceed. We have seen a referendum succeed. We have seen it pass the numbers with 327000 signatures. This is a historic achievement. It is now only the fourth petition ever to get the numbers to force a referendum. The Government should not be pushing on. It talks about a mandate but when it is dependent on the vote of one man—the man Peter Dunne who sold out our privacy sold out our human rights laws and is also selling out Kiwis’ assets—it does not have a mandate. If it wanted to put it to the test it should wait for the referendum and listen to the voice of New Zealanders.This asset sale agenda just does not make sense. The Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money on something New Zealanders do not want. The Government cannot argue that there is a benefit for New Zealanders and that is clearly falling apart. What we have seen is the value of Mighty River Power shares plummet since the asset sale. We have seen only 2 percent of New Zealanders being able to pick up shares. These are not the mums and dads investors whom the ads and the Government talk about. They are a minority of New Zealanders with the disposable income to do it. Because of the old tax switcheroo and the Government’s fiscal decisions we have seen a majority of Kiwis struggling and only the top few benefiting and here we see public assets going to the top few for their benefit. It does not make sense.We know that the Government is unlikely to meet the original Budget forecasts of $5 billion to $7 billion. More ridiculously what we are seeing is every New Zealand taxpayer even those who cannot afford to purchase shares paying for it. We have seen costs of more than $124 million. We have seen $2.3 million a week in forgone profit from Mighty River Power—$2.3 million a week forgone. And for what? For a minority of New Zealanders who are able to afford it. That is a terrible strategy that is costing taxpayers even more.When we saw the—well we did not see it because it all happened behind closed doors but you can imagine the executives of RioTinto licking their lips in anticipationwhen the asset sale agenda was announced because RioTinto knew that it had the Government over a barrel because of the asset sale agenda. We saw John Key having to negotiate with RioTinto from a position of weakness because of the asset sale agenda. We saw John Key literally picking up the phone against official advice and giving $30 million of taxpayers’ money to RioTinto inTīwai because of the asset sale agenda to protect the asset sale agenda. The Government is doing everything it can including the fiscally reckless “buy now pay later” scheme which is going to cost Kiwis at least $60 million. It is time for a cup of tea. It is time for a break. It is time for some sanity to prevail. The Government has an opportunity with the referendum to listen to the people of New Zealand—to put the asset sale agenda on the back-burner have a cup of tea and let us re-evaluate the asset sale agenda.The problem is of course that we are not debating what we should be which is how we deliver cheaper power to New Zealanders. Under the asset sale agenda what we know is that power prices are going to go up. Under this Government—under National—we have seen power prices go up and up by $300 a year for the average Kiwi household. Since the Bradford reforms we have seen our electricity prices rise by 72 percent in real terms while across the developed world theirs have dropped by 6 percent. We should be having a debate about how we get cheaper electricity to New Zealand households and New Zealand businesses to support the productive sector and about how we get Kiwis healthy and safe and warm in their houses and not in energy poverty which we see at the moment. By keeping our assets in public ownership we could have driven cheaper and cleaner electricity.We have a fantastic business opportunity as a country. Our strengths are never going to lie in competing for oil with Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Our economic future depends on competing on our strengths which is clean energy and I note that we have actually done pretty well in a recent ranking out today. Our strengths are in innovation as we saw in the America’s Cup. PricewaterhouseCoopers reckons we could see a $23 billion economic opportunity from clean energy. If we had kept Mighty River Power and other State-owned enterprise assets in public ownership we could have supercharged our State-owned enterprises coupled with private businesses and partnered with them to drive exports.What we know globally is that the world is moving away from oil. In 2011 net capital investment in the electricity sector—for the first time ever in our planet’s history fossil fuels and nuclear energy were smaller than renewables. China Europe and America are crying out for clean energy technology. We should not be looking to the past to the last century’s fossil fuel economy; we should be prepared to cater to the coming century’s economy. This is where we can build exports. It is where we can grow jobs. We know that compared with oil there are going to be more jobs more profits staying in New Zealand and more sustainable prosperity for the long term in clean energy and that is the greatest tragedy of the asset sale agenda.Taxpayers are forking out millions of dollars. Big multinational corporates have the Government over a barrel taking tens of millions of dollars out of Kiwi taxpayers’ pockets but we are missing the opportunity of cleaner cheaper and smarter energy and building better exports for clean energy. This is our future and this is what the Greens will continue to champion. We are going to fight this agenda in the House on the streets and online. We will keep fighting for clean energy. Kia ora.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Here we are again taking another step as a result of the quagmire of State asset sales. The sale of Mighty River Power Ltd was an act of economic sabotage that will for ever taint this Government. [Interruption] I beg your pardon?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I was signalling to someone behind you. I apologise for the distraction.DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say it again. The sale of Mighty River Power Ltd was an act of economic sabotage that will for ever taint this Government and for ever damage this country’s economic and social well-being. Everyone except the Ministers in this Government knows that State asset sales are economic and financial madness. On any rational basis they are simply barmy.So few people support this barmy policy that with or without a proving referendum National is in fact just trashing our democracy. It is idle nonsense to claim a mandate when it is abundantly obvious that this is the Government’s most hated policy including by most of those people who voted for National at the last election. They did so for reasons that are inexplicable to me but it is nevertheless true that they elected a National Government knowing that National would sell strategic assets. They did so on a warts and all basis. In fact there were so many warts that the Government’s so-called mandate is utterly unidentifiable.So let us hear no more talk of the Government’s claim that it now has any mandate at all. It never really had one from the beginning. The fundamental objection is that the policy is now seen to be what it really is: a swindle perpetrated on the public of New Zealand. What we really own is being sold back to us—not to all of us; only some of us. We go from assets owned by all of us to assets owned by only a few—those who can afford to buy the shares. The result is further widening the already growing chasm between people with the wealth and incomes for a good living and those who struggle to earn a living own a home and bring up and educate their children while saving for their retirement.I am an egalitarian and I abhor that kind of swindle. A few may think they are winners and there may be a few pieces of silver for some but as a nation we are collectively impoverished by these sales. We will save the interest on some of our borrowing in the short term but we all lose the handsome dividend stream these companies provide as well as their capital growth for the whole of our future.To make matters worse and to exacerbate the financial stupidity of these sales we are paying an army of consultants and merchant bankers a fortune to do it for us. It is a kind of financial sadism that we now see being imposed upon us. The total bill for the float of Mighty River Power is a cool $41 million. That is a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money. This money would be better used elsewhere even while this slash-and-burn Government moves more and more to reduce the number and quality of public services under the guise of efficiency. The Meridian Energy float is expected to cost at least another $41 million. So that is a colossal $82 million for absolutely nothing. That money would be better spent on schools hospitals and the things that really matter.As BrianGaynor said in this Tuesday’sNew Zealand Herald the initial public offers were a gravy train for the investment banks. Even Dick Turpin and the highway robbers of old would not have been that brazen. In fact Dick would have been proud of the sheer scale and audacity of these robberies effectively robbing the poor and middle New Zealand to the advantage of the rich.Although only 49 percent of these companies are being sold for now these sales are surely only the first step of old-fashioned true full privatisation in due course. This is despite the old lessons of past privatisations not being learnt. State asset sales of this kind have always proved to be an unmitigated disaster requiring some companies to be bought back. New Zealanders will pay a heavy price for this mad policy for generations to come.New Zealand’s assets are being stripped and plundered by an economically illiterate Government that is so bereft of ideas for managing our economy prudently andeffectively and without undue austerity measures that 2013 will go down as a black year in the history of the New Zealand economy with the sale of Mighty River Power and soon of Meridian Energy. In the face of overwhelming economic and financial logic the Key Government has ploughed on with this absurd damaging project regardless of the cost to the country. National and its cronies insist on following the tried and failed ideology of the so-called market trumping all other considerations. The so-called safeguards over the extent of foreign ownership are worth as much as Mr Key’s other bogus and empty pronouncements. He is justly regarded as our least trusted politician. He is now the arch-swindler. He will go down in history as the Prime Minister who sold out who did dodgy deals and he will ultimately cut and run leaving us all to pick up the pieces.New Zealand First is committed to bringing back Mighty River Power to where it belongs: the ownership of the people of New Zealand—all of them. It is committed to buying back State assets over time and from the first opportunity. New Zealand First will restore the State-owned electricity generators now being sold back into public ownership and will put them back under a single generating entity. New Zealand First believes in a mixed economy one in which the private sector and the public sector work together to provide a prosperous and stable society that is fair to the whole population rather than for the benefit of only some. So although it does not oppose the principle of transparency of information for companies such as this New Zealand First will vote against the motion but only as a means of further expressing our implacable opposition to asset sales generally.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): The Labour Party as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has already indicated supports this Government motion No. 1 because it is one of the few ways in which we are going to have at least a modicum of transparency as to what is happening at Mighty River Power now that half of it is being privatised. This is necessary only because the Government has already taken it off the list of State-owned enterprises because of the privatisation. Until that step was taken of course New Zealanders had the ability through their members of Parliament to scrutinise the affairs of Mighty River Power. That was taken away through the decision of the Government to stop it from being a State-owned enterprise as part of the Government’s programme of selling half of the shares. We have already heard earlier this year from the Chief Ombudsman BeverleyWakem complaining that the Government got it wrong in removing these companies half of which were being sold from the group of entities that are covered by the Official Information Act. She pointed out that one of the reasons that you have transparency around these things is to prevent cronyism and corruption.If ever there was a Government in the history of New Zealand that is going down the road of cronyism which is related to the rise of corruption in democracy it is this one. We have seen sweet deals negotiated at the highest levels of Government involving the Prime Minister for theSkycity convention centre for the RioTinto subsidy of $30 million which I will come back to for reasons relating to the electricity market and then most recently for the intervention following the chair of Chorus phoning the Prime Minister and complaining about the draft determination from the Commerce Commission into copper broadband pricing for Chorus which led to the Government intervening for the benefit of that company.The Chief Ombudsman was quite right in pointing out that it was wrong to remove Mighty River Power from the list of entities that are subject to the Official Information Act. The excuse that was used by the Government—that these companies are more commercial because they have some private shareholders—does not hold water because of course disclosure can already be refused under the Official Information Actfor matters of commercial confidentiality. So it is important that we have transparency and openness.I want to give another example of how through this process of State-owned enterprise sales we have had too little transparency and openness. At the time of the last election the Labour Party spotted that the National Government was promising in its fiscal projections to sell off Government assets—the likes of Mighty River Power—bank the money and therefore not have as much borrowing and have lower interest costs. What it did not do was account for the fact that it lost dividends and shares of capital growth as a consequence of that sale. So it banked the savings but it did not take into account the lower revenue that it would have as a consequence of no longer owning all of those companies. At the time Steven Joyce the master spin-doctor from the Government was rolled out to accuse the Labour Party of lying and of misrepresenting. He did that through theNew Zealand Herald he did it through the television channels and he went all over the radio. He got his big sword out and tried to pretend that we had it wrong when in fact we were right. It was an absolute indictment on not only the National Government and Steven Joyce that they were willing to misrepresent to the people—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They lied.Hon DAVID PARKER: They did. On this occasion they did lie to the electorate. They lied to the electorate as to what the fiscal effects would be of selling down interests in these companies. Treasury did not force them to come clean. Treasury—in my opinion in breach of the public finance legislation—allowed the Minister of Finance to sign off on a set of accounts that did not show that notwithstanding that the pre-election fiscal update is meant for the sake of transparency and openness to present a solid set of accounts. We know that that is necessary when you have got a National Government because what really led to that was the debacle under Mr Muldoon when he left things in such a poor state of affairs all those years ago.So we have had this lack of transparency and openness around Mighty River Power and other share floats we have had the removal of them from the Official Information Act and now we have this little glimmer of hope that we in the Labour Party can at least at the financial review look into these accounts and criticise them. What we cannot do is undo what the Government is doing with these asset sales. We cannot reverse the huge salaries and bonuses that are being paid to the chief executives of these companies that are being floated which increase the costs that have to be charged to power consumers. We cannot change the fact that money has been wasted on the process—many hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of advice and commissions being paid on sale.We ought not to forget that this is central to the National Government’s economic agenda for these 3 years even though it is opposed by so many New Zealanders yet it does nothing to improve New Zealand’s economic output. Changing who owns what already exists does not change how much electricity is produced; all it does is put up the price. The Government is always telling us “Look we’ve got a competitive electricity market that constrains price.” and yet we know that New Zealanders do not believe that because it is not true. We know that New Zealand’s electricity prices have increased at twice the rate of inflation for about 20 years. We know that the differential between residential and commercial and industrial tariffs is the second-highest in the developed world after Denmark and cannot be properly explained except by a lack of competition. We have even in the last few weeks had another intervention by the Government in respect of the Meridian Energy share sale to get Meridian Energy off the block. It did a deal with the owners of theTīwai Point smelter. It gave a $30 million subsidy effectively for the benefit of RioTinto in order to give certainty to MeridianEnergy that it would still be able to sell its power at inflated prices and keep the prices high. We know that Treasury advised that but for that intervention the price of electricity could have decreased for everyone by 10 percent. Yet the Government pretends that we have got a competitive electricity market.I just find it absolutely incredible that we have not had outrage from investment bankers because of this market intervention by the Government which proved that the electricity market was not competitive. But the reason we have not had outrage from that quarter is of course that they are self-interested in keeping the existing so-called market model. It is certainly not a competitive market model; it is an uncompetitive market model. They are self-interested because they want to clip the ticket on these sales. They like the privatisation of these assets. They are some of those who benefit from the sell-down of these assets to the less than 3 percent of the New Zealand population who owns what was previously wholly New Zealand - owned.This programme on the part of the Government is wrong. We do support this motion. We do not think that the Government should be given much credit for it because of course whilst it is doing this—which is the absolute minimum it can do—it is running roughshod over the will of New Zealanders. Citizens initiated referenda are provided for under the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand. When a citizens initiated referendum is brought forward and the more than 300000 signatures that are needed to cross that hurdle are obtained and if there is no urgency to proceed in respect of the issue that was so contentious—and there is no urgency to proceed with the likes of the Meridian Energy sale—a prudent Government would just wait and see what the referendum turns up.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Respect the people.Hon DAVID PARKER: You would respect the people and you would give due consideration to the outcome of that referendum. This arrogant Government of course is just ignoring the will of the people pretending that it has got a mandate for this when it has not ignoring the fact that it makes the finances of the Government worse ignoring the fact that it increases the gap between the rich and the poor ignoring the fact that it makes the economy go slower if you have got a higher electricity price—because businesses are not as competitive and they cannot employ as many people—and ignoring the fact that it has an adverse effect on the wealth of the country because you do not have as many exports and you import more stuff instead if your energy price is higher than it need be. The Government is doing all of that because of this ideologically driven nonsense of selling these shares in not just Mighty River Power but also Meridian Energy. So although the Labour Party supports this motion let that not be confused with giving any support for this ridiculous central part of the Government’s economic agenda.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Labour will be supporting this Government motion and we will be doing so because as my colleague David Parker said it is one of the few protections that are going to remain to ensure transparency around the operation of what used to be State-owned enterprises power companies—one power company in particular Mighty River Power which used to be wholly owned by the people of New Zealand and has now been partially privatised by a Government running roughshod over public concern and public opposition to asset sales. So although we remain firmly opposed to the asset sales agenda of this Government we do support this motion because it will mean that Mighty River Power would still be able to participate for example in financial reviews and will come under the Standing Orders of this House.But I think this motion really highlights what a complete stuff-up the Government’s asset sales programme has been. The Government seems to be in some kind of blind panic. It has no other plan. It is creating a slush fund that it promised would be forschools and hospitals and which turns out is for any old thing. The Government had spent the money in the Budget before the money had even come in. This is despite the fact that the original prediction for how many billions of dollars would be brought in from the sale of these energy assets has been substantially reduced and reviewed. The reality has been that the money the Government was expecting has not been made and yet it was already budgeted for and spent. That is obviously a concern for this side of the House because we are going to be picking up the Government books in 2014.Once again we are going to have a Labour Government that comes in and sorts out the utter utter economic mess left behind by a National Government completely devoid of any real economic development ideas and completely devoid of any kinds of ideas that are going to grow our economy in a sustainable way and produce real jobs environmentally and economically sustainable jobs. Instead it is just another fire sale of assets that are critical to the economic and environmental well-being of our country.Mighty River Power is a good example of this because it is a world leader in geothermal energy. It is able to take the intellectual property that it owns as a company borne out of many many years of developing geothermal energy options in New Zealand and use that to assist other countries particularly countries that are seismically active. We have seen with the tragedy in Japan what can happen with nuclear power plants in seismically active parts of the world. But where there is seismic activity there is often geothermal activity. Mighty River Power obviously has an enormous amount of potential in that area. That is potential that the taxpayers of New Zealand could have fully benefited from had we kept the company in public ownership and had we kept the dividends that will come from these activities being carried out by Mighty River Power in public hands and in the public coffers held by the Government.We are here doing this because of the rush because of the panic and because of the complete stuff-up in how this asset sales programme has gone ahead. It is a fairly significant oversight by the Government that when it passed legislation and when it was removing Mighty River Power’s status as a State-owned enterprise it forgot to give it the new status of a public organisation. That is a fairly large oversight but it tells you just how rushed these processes have been.We saw that again with the $30 million subsidy that was given toTīwai Point. The Government says that it did that because it was all about protecting jobs. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove then asked whether the Government made keeping jobs or retaining those jobs a requirement of that $30 million. He asked whether the Government had said that in order to get that $30 million the company had to guarantee that the jobs will be retained. No—no the Government just handed over the cheque and said: “There you go. Have a good time. Thank you very much.” [Interruption] Absolutely. I know. It is astounding—$30 million and no guarantee was even asked for.Hon Maryan Street: Just a handout.MOANA MACKEY: Just a handout. The Government did not even say: “Would you please consider keeping these jobs.”There is another side to that argument about the irony of a National Government subsidising jobs which it would always rail against but now seems to think is a great idea. But now we have a handing over of $30 million which is meant to save jobs but will not because there was no guarantee of those jobs being saved.That shows the desperation in this Government to force through this asset sales regime—the utter desperation that it would get in there give a major multinational company $30 million and then not even ask that the basic requirement of keeping people in work be adhered to by the company getting the corporate bailout. That is utterly shameful—utterly shameful—but the Government is so obsessed with firming up Meridian Energy which is the next one off the blocks to be sold off so utterlyobsessed with firming it up for sale that it will do anything absolutely anything. And guess what taxpayers of New Zealand? The Government will spend your money to do it.Now when you ask for your local health services to be retained and to be strengthened if you want your rail line fixed or reopened after a washout or if you want more money for your local school well guess what voters of New Zealand? You are not going to get that. But if you are a multinational company that can help with the asset sales regime here is $30 million—easy as pie. Done. You do not even have to ask twice. That is the kind of corporate cronyism that we have under this National-led Government.One of the reasons why it is so utterly important that we do maintain the ability for scrutiny of these companies at select committees is the concern that Labour has raised over the impact on power prices caused by this privatisation regime of the Government because power prices will go up. They will go up. These are very efficient companies. That is why the Government is selling them off. And when those companies no longer have to consider the social impacts of what they do as they do under the State-Owned Enterprises Act when they are no longer constrained by that and when they have private shareholders who want to get maximum value out of their shares what are they going to do? Well they are going to put up power prices. And can they do it? Of course they can because it is a completely unregulated environment—completely unregulated.So we have the National Government desperately trying to claim that power prices have gone up because of lines charges. Well that is not true. Or it is trying to claim that they have gone up because of Transpower national grid charges. Well that is true but only because the National Government reversed the decision of the former Labour Government which said: “Yes Transpower you have to upgrade the national grid. Our economy depends on it. But guess what? We are going to forgo your dividend to pay for it. So there is no pass-through cost to consumers because you will be able to pay for it out of your dividend.”What did National do? As soon as it was elected—well one it did continue with that asset upgrade programme; that is good. But two it said to Transpower: “Sorry we want a dividend and can you please back pay us for the dividends that you did not pay to the Labour Government.” So that is pushing up power prices. That is the direct result of this National Government.The problem we have is that in the retail market we do not have competition—we do not. The question that I put to the Government—it goes on and on about its What’s My Number campaign and the amount of money it has been putting into that. Well if we have a really competitive market why do we need a What’s My Number campaign? Why do we need a Government campaign to help people find cheaper electricity prices if we have a truly competitive electricity market? The reality is that we do not.I question the effectiveness of the What’s My Number campaign because for the poorest people they are lucky if they can find one power company to pick them up. The idea that they have the choice of electricity providers is utter fantasyland stuff and shows how out of touch this Government is. The other reason that I am sceptical about that programme is that not only do you have to have access to the internet in order to be able to get on there and check it out but a lot of the savings are actually down to early payment discounts not cheaper electricity prices. If you cannot pay your bill at all then an early payment discount is not going to help you.The What’s My Number campaign has not helped the people in this country who are struggling the most to pay power bills. What will help them is Labour’s NZ Power policy which will ensure that we have competition in the retail market. We are not going to be regulating the retail market. What we are going to be doing is ensuring anactual competitive market so that consumers will have choice and so that more players will be able to enter into that market and develop scale because that is what does not happen at the moment. We have a lot of small players. The big four are happy to let them stay there and give the appearance of competition but the moment they got to any scale they would squash them. The moment those companies had so many connections that they would start to have to hedge that is when the generator-retailers really exercise their power over the electricity market.So the kind of reform that the Labour Party has been talking about is the only kind of reform that is going to make a difference to power prices. It has been because of the Government’s asset sales agenda because of the loss of control of those State-owned enterprises that we saw that we had to announce that we were going to be doing this. Now was the time. We have flattening demand we have surplus of supply and we have a power sector that formerly was 75 percent owned by the New Zealand public now being partially privatised losing that transparency and losing that ability to protect consumers in New Zealand. That meant that the time for electricity reform has come and a Labour Government in 2014 will do that. We do support this Government motion but we utterly oppose the premise upon which it is based.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to take a brief call on this Government motion No. 1 as well. It is pretty extraordinary that we have got to this point where we have to pass this today because it was forgotten to have been done some time before. It is easy to forget accountability really is it not? At the end of the day it is just about whether we can keep a check on Mighty River Power and our other power organisations. It is also a bit of a joke to actually put this under the category of a public organisation because it certainly is not a public organisation any more. It was but now it really is a privatised organisation and not a public organisation because Mighty River Power is half-owned by just 2 percent of New Zealand’s population. The rest of New Zealand the other 98 percent were not able to take a share in Mighty River Power. So now we have Mighty River Power which is worth $2.25 a share but was floated at $2.50 a share. It has gone down 10 percent already and what a failure of an investment that has been for that 2 percent of the population who has joined in that.On the basis of that success of that brilliant move by this Government we are now going to float an even bigger power organisation Meridian Energy. So we have failed on Mighty River Power and now we are going to launch off Meridian Energy. Who will invest in Meridian Energy? Well 34 percent of people said before Mighty River Power was floated that they would invest in Mighty River Power and it ended up being 2 percent. When the pollsters asked New Zealanders this time about Meridian Energy only 14 percent said that they were going to invest in Meridian Energy. Obviously this caused some panic amongst the Government because it then started acting a little bit like Harvey Norman—buy now pay later. So you are able to buy those shares now and pay later. As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove says they will throw in a box of steak knives along with it just to sweeten the deal up a bit. They will probably offer a trip for two to Las Vegas where you could have the same sort of gamble but more legally over there. This is to try to get this float across the line.What will we get for the money? Well we were promised $7 billion to $10 billion then it was $5 billion to $7 billion then it was the low end of $5 billion to $7 billion—and these are all quotes of either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister—and now we are scratching to get $5 billion across the line. What will we spend that money on? Well there has been a wide variety of issues that we can spend this money on. First of all of course it was to avoid the credit downgrade—avoid that. That was in 2011. I do not suppose people remember that. Then it was to help Kiwibank. Then in 2012 it was to pay down debt. That was MrRyall’s suggestion. Then it was to build newschools and hospitals. That did the rounds for a while because it was very popular. And then it was to bail out KiwiRail. Then it was to irrigate lots and lots of farm land a little bit like the Tukituki River which we are hearing so much about. What an appalling idea that is. It is so appalling that the Government has to doctor the results of its tests in order to be able to get it across the line. Then it is the rebuild of Christchurch. Then it is the Auckland rail loop. The list goes on and on. If you add it up it comes to $80 billion. So the $5 billion being raised goes into $80 billion. I am not sure how that works.What I do know is that the mums and dads who were promised the shares in this are a joke; it is just 2 percent of our population. We will not get anything like what we want for the power companies and as my colleague Moana Mackey just said power prices will go up. We lose all the way down the line unless you are in that 1 percent and 2 percent upper-income level. This is a disgrace and this Government motion No. 1 is a testament to that.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa. The question today is whether Mighty River Power should be a public organisation. That is a most obvious no-brainer—of course Mighty River Power should be subject to scrutiny. It must be subject to public scrutiny. It cannot be exempt from public scrutiny. The mums and dads who have been led astray by the National Party are deserving of some protection; heaven knows there is none for them in the sharemarket. If you compare the reaction of that Government to the equity of mum and dad investors—and that is the Government’s term its sneering way of referring to the poor people of New Zealand; poor in both senses of the word now. The poor people did their dough in Mighty River Power at $2.50.Compare the reactions of Sam Lotu-Iiga and the Hon Peter Dunne onThe Vote on TV a fortnight ago where they nearly became hysterical over the equity that speculators have in the housing bubble. Those two members attacked the Opposition stridently. They shouted that we were going to destroy the equity that speculators have in their housing portfolios—with 50 100 200 residential properties in their portfolios—and not a word not an ounce of sympathy from Peter Dunne and Sam Lotu-Iiga for the first-home buyers the young families who have no way to accumulate wealth under this Government’s policies nor from anyone else in the National Government.Yet what has happened to the Mighty River Power share price? It has gone down down down faster than a skydiver and there is no parachute. Since listing in mid-May over $400 million of wealth has been destroyed. From an issue price of $2.50 a share in 4 short months it has dropped to $2.23 and just 10 days ago it reached an all-time low of $2.16. Looking at the trend here there is no bottom in sight. Mighty River Power share price fluctuations are on a downward trend. The shares have lost over 13 percent in value over just 4 short months and at this rate mum and dad investors will have lost half their money within the year and will have done their dough totally by mid-2015. Maybe that does not worry Bill English because he is gambling on that being after the next election.John Key is flogging off Mighty River Power and the other State-owned enterprises like the family silver. We have seen a number of questionable manoeuvres from this Government—financial dealings that really are little different fromBridgecorp or Hanover Finance. It moves power stations around between Mighty River Power and Meridian Energy and Genesis like the pea in a three-card shell game. The hard-working folks at theTekapō ATekapō B and Whirinaki power stations could be excused for not knowing who owned each power station on a particular day.With Meridian Energy our next State-owned enterprise to be sold we have seen a $30 million handout to RioTinto. But what is not being told about that story is the absolute incompetence of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises—asleep at thewheel because who could not see RioTinto manoeuvring New Zealand? Fancy that Minister allowing RioTinto to manoeuvre New Zealand into such a vulnerable position. It would be very interesting to have the disinfectant of sunlight looking at the relationship between the heads of Comalco those National Party cronies and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises.We now have Bill English thinking we are very gullible. He is sadly banking on the adage that there is one born every minute. We come along with a “buy now pay later” deal as my colleagues have stressed and steak knives and people get to keep 100 percent of the dividend when they have not actually paid for the shares. But wait there is more. He has set a price cap on the shares so that his few mates who can afford to buy them can get in at a lower price than they should. And let us not forget the $100 million or so paid to Aussie banks just to prepare for the float. The prices that these are going to be sold for represent another subsidy from the hard-working families of New Zealand—the people whose power prices are going to go up and up just to support a few.It is interesting that Bill English ignored Treasury. He ignored Treasury’s advice against it. To Treasury’s credit it did warn Bill English and John Key that the emperor has no clothes. This motion represents a small step to turn back the tide to expose what ongoing mischief there may be from National over this power company which the public built up over 80 years. It used to be the jewel in our crown. It is a public asset of benefit to the public which this Government is selling off.Motion agreed to.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House): I moveThat the following sessional order be adopted: “Standing Order 140(3) to be read subject to the following additional order: ‘(d) with permission granted by the Speaker to be absent on account of illness or other family cause of a personal nature following a request from a member’s party leader or whip.’”SUE MORONEY (Senior Whip—Labour): I rise in support of Government motion No. 2. I was expecting the Government to perhaps enlarge on the reasons behind the motion but perhaps it is not entirely sure. I want to actually formally thank the Speaker for taking notice of some situations that certainly Labour members have found themselves in. Newsflash to people who might be watching this: we are human and just like other people in their workplaces we sometimes have family situations and illnesses that prevent us from being able to take up our work in the way that we would wish to take it up.The point of this motion is that it allows compassionate leave to be put in place so that if one of our MPs from any party in this Parliament is in that situation then their party is not penalised by having their vote not count in certain circumstances. That will be monitored very closely and stringently by the party whips and that is important.I frequently in my role as a female member of Parliament travel the country talking to lots of people many of whom are women about the importance of having women in Parliament. It is important therefore that we make sure that it is a working environment in which women can operate and that means yes recognising that we have family circumstances that are beyond our control sometimes. Some of the situations that members have found themselves in—perhaps the public are wondering what on earth this compassionate leave could possibly be about in a parliamentary environment. Examples that come to mind are examples such as that suffered by a very good friend the HonVui Mark Gosche when his wife was very ill for a period of time. Of course we would want him to be able to support his wife and his family members at that time and that is the type of occasion that this motion will help with.It does mean that when family members have taken ill or in situations where children or dependent family members are ill we too can respond to that as other members of the public could in their own work environments. And it means that we would actually have a voting system in place to make sure that a party’s vote is not affected by that.Without any further ado I welcome this Government motion No. 2. I thank the Speaker in particular for taking this issue seriously because if we are truly going to be a House of Representatives then we do need to make sure that a whole range of people no matter their family circumstances can take part in being a member of Parliament and take part in the debate in this place. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this Government motion No. 2 introducing a draft sessional order for a new category of leave called compassionate leave. This Chamber is not noted for its compassion. It is more noted for its dog-eat-dog political partisan petty point-scoring. It is not known for its family-friendly work hours. It is not known for the camaraderie or for the collaborative positive process. But it is great that this Parliament on the last day of this session is also debating this motion to see a new category compassionate leave. I think everyone in this Parliament would like to see a bit more compassion in this debating chamber.When it comes to the issue of leave there are two mechanisms that members and their parties can go through to deal with this issue. The first is under the discretion of the Speaker and relates to the Civil List Act 1979 which relates to our remuneration. The second one which the public might be more familiar with is the issue of leave for MPs to be able to leave the parliamentary precincts but for their vote to be cast. At the moment parties can have 25 percent of their members away without dropping down their votes.I think many people—and I know I get a number of messages online and emails about it—constantly ask why there are so few people in this debating chamber. The answer of course is not that all the MPs are off bunking or down at the pub—at the Back Bencher. The fact is that many MPs are out doing constituency work at community functions or in fact are hard at work in their offices. Under the MMP environment party votes are cast by the party not by the individual so whips—ormusterers as we call them in the Green Party—have the discretion to allow MPs to have leave.What we have not had is the ability for Parliament to have a new category of leave called compassionate leave. At the moment regardless of what the purpose of the leave is—be it that the MP is sick on family duties or has any other personal issue—it comes out of that party’s entitlement. This has the perverse incentive for those MPs who maybe have a family personal or health issue not to apply for leave because they might be disadvantaging their colleagues who may be spending time at a function or speaking at a conference. The message that we do not want to send is that sick MPs should stay working at Parliament so their colleagues can have leave at conferences or out campaigning.What we want to have is a safe work environment where if MPs have health problems or family problems or family issues they should be able to take leave. It is great to see this. It is something the Green Party has been pushing for on the Business Committee. I would like to acknowledge the work of Holly Walker who facing an imminent birth of her own has been driving this. I am not aware that her birth has occurred. She has not updated Twitter for about 7 hours so hopefully she is not going into labour as we speak.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What’s her due date?GARETH HUGHES: I am not sure of her due date. It must be pretty soon.Jan Logie: Five days ago.GARETH HUGHES: Five days ago was her due date so I am sure this Parliament will be eagerly waiting for the news of Holly’s baby’s birth.As the member Sue Moroney points out what we want to have is a House of Representatives that is truly representative including of young parents. As a father to two young kids aged 3 and 6 it is a struggle to be a good dad and a good member of Parliament. It is great to see Parliament coming together with this new amendment to Standing Order 140(3) that allows the Speaker to grant this new category of compassionate leave.I have two quick points on this. The Greens would like to see this entrenched in the Standing Orders not just in a temporary sessional order. We want to see it entrenched. We want to see a compassionate Parliament with compassionate leave in the rule book. We want to see the issue of parental leave distinctly added. At the moment it is only compassionate leave. We think parental leave is important. Looking after your kids and supporting yourwhānau is important.It is just one of many Standing Orders changes the Green Party wants to see. I will soon be putting in a submission from the Greens. We have got around 17 substantive points where we can modernise our parliamentary rules and where we can have better legislative lawmaking—for example in terms of substantive amendments which the Government has been using a great deal of to circumvent the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and select committee scrutiny. These points go through to lobbying changes through to international treaty provisions through to the election of the Speaker and through to something close to my heart which is reforming the issue of the prayer.What we are seeing here with the compassionate leave changes is Parliament slowly modernising and becoming a more family-friendly a more personal health and well-being - friendly and a more compassionate place. There is a long way to go. This is just the start and the Green Party will keep being the party that is proposing positive solutions to support members and to support the lawmaking process in New Zealand. We will keep making these positive solutions and supporting them when they are in front of this House. Kia ora.BARBARA STEWART (Whip—NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to take a very short call on Government motion No. 2 which relates to Standing Order 140(3). I think it is fair to say that from time to time unforeseen circumstances arise when members of Parliament do need to be absent from the parliamentary precincts on compassionate grounds and do need to be regarded as if they were present for the purposes of casting party votes.Potentially there is a wide range of contingencies that may fall under this provision. It is neither practical nor appropriate to describe in elaborate detail what these circumstances may be. In our view it is appropriate that the provisions Parliament makes for such circumstances—compassionate grounds—reflect and are consistent with the modern world and the approaches that are adopted in the world of work outside of these four walls. We are satisfied that the procedure envisaged in this motion will actually meet that test. We do not consider that these provisions are excessive or create significant or unwanted privileges for parliamentarians. New Zealand First considers that what is proposed is a practical and appropriate measure and we support the motion.Motion agreed to.Administration of Community Sentences and Orders BillIn CommitteeHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I seek leave for there to be a single debate on the bill with all questions put separately at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 1 to 4 clauses 1 and 2Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I want to take just a few moments at the beginning of this bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill and then I know that colleagues around the Chamber will make some further comments. Although this bill is generally concerned with matters of a technical or administrative nature I do believe that the cumulative effect of the amendments will be a considerable improvement in the overall management of community sentences and orders. For instance the bill contributes to the goal of improving public safety by better aligning electronic monitoring conditions with electronic boundaries of monitoring equipment making it easier to hold offenders to account if they fail to comply with a community-based sentence and it does address some technical problems with extended supervision order provisions.The bill also reduces the administrative burden that probation officers face and empowers them in other ways to focus more on the rehabilitative opportunities available to offenders and on the safety of the public. For example they will be able to approve basic work and living skills courses for offenders on community work without having to apply to the court. A small technical change like that can make an enormous difference in the life of the offenders as it saves all that bureaucratic hassle that they go through and also make it a better job for our probation officers. We have done some technical tidy-ups around ambiguous provisions or some of the provisions that have had unintended consequences. But overall this bill is designed to significantly improve the effective administration of sentences and orders in the community both for the officers and also for the offenders.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. We on this side of the Chamber find ourselves in the not too unfamiliar position of supporting the Government on this piece of legislation.As the Minister of Corrections said this bill is about improving the effectiveness of sentences that are served in the community and I think we will find over time that we will be encouraging where appropriate sentences to be served in the community for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that there is evidence that those offenders who have the opportunity to serve their sentences at home have a lower recidivism rate than those who serve their sentences inside a prison—I will be able to talk in much detail about that—and the second reason is obviously a fiscal one. We simply cannot continue to lock people up for long periods of time given the fiscal constraints we have at the moment.As the Deputy Prime Minister has already pointed out our prison system is both a moral and a fiscal failure. We simply cannot afford to let the level of expenditure the track the Department of Corrections is on continue. Making sure we are being much more effective with our spending and with our rehabilitation of people who are sentenced is something that I think people on all sides of this Chamber would want.I thank the submitters who gave evidence to the Law and Order Committee. This is a select committee that unfortunately I no longer have the pleasure of being on. Iacknowledge the chair of the select committee Jacqui Dean who has just walked into the Chamber for the way in which this bill was handled during the select committee process. There were some odder moments during the select committee process when we were told about the difference between a square and a circle for the purpose of the electronic monitoring of people who are on home detention. For those who are wondering about that and how that may work if someone is on electronic monitoring at home the signal that is sent to the box essentially to make sure that they stay at that residence is an electronic signal that is very much a circle. But there could be a patch outside that residence where that circle does emanate out to so technically they could be within the electronic zone of their monitoring but technically outside the address—Simon O’Connor: Is this Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometry?KRIS FAAFOI: Do not ask me those kinds of questions please. Technically they could be outside the address where they were meant to be but the electronic monitoring would not be able to pick that up. So there were some interesting moments during the select committee process and certainly some of those technicalities were ironed out.I have mentioned the rates of recidivism for offenders who served their sentences in the community and for offenders who went to prison. There was a submission during the select committee process from the Salvation Army and I would like just to refer to that now. It quoted some 2009 Ministry of Justice figures that said the ministry had found that 23 percent of those on home detention in 2009 were reconvicted in the 12 months after they served their sentence. But conversely 52.6 percent of those who served a custodial sentence in 2009 were reconvicted in the following 12 months. So there is certainly hard data from the Ministry of Justice that suggests that offenders who serve their sentence at home have a much better chance of not reoffending. The numbers are quite stark: 23 percent of those who serve a sentence of home detention are reconvicted of a crime in the 12 months after they have served their sentence and 52.6 percent of those who serve a sentence inside a prison went on to reoffend.So there is good hard evidence as to why we should be investing much more time and energy in making sure we are much more efficient and effective in terms of home detention sentences. Certainly there are some people who should be serving their sentences in a prison; they cannot be trusted to be in the community when they are serving those sentences. I think those numbers also bear that out. But for those who do have the privilege—and I guess it is a privilege—of serving their sentence within our communities the recidivism rate is much much lower and we should give the credit where credit is due and make sure the community sentence regime is much much more effective.There was a range of views at the select committee about whether or not there should be more investment in our prison service. But I think that on this side of the Chamber we would certainly like to see more focus on community sentences and more investment in rehabilitation services as well. That is not to say that there is not good work going on within our prison service on rehabilitation. There certainly is good stuff going on there and the Chairperson Lindsay Tisch was I think part of the Law and Order Committee that visited some prisons where we saw some very good work. That was very starkly shown in some of the drug treatment units around the country where there is some very good intense work going on not just by prison staff but by outside agencies to make sure that these people—and these are hardened drug users who are in our prison service—are getting very intense drug treatment as well as support after they finish their prison sentences.If there is one thing that I think we should be making much of a priority it is wrapping around services for those inmates who have gone through a 3-month—I think it is—course in these drug treatment units in our prisons. They are released into thecommunity after they have served their sentences and we really need to make sure that the investment we have made in them while they are in prison does not go to waste when we release them. Many of them will go back into the same communities and the same situations and some will put themselves into situations that are very similar to those that got them into trouble in the first place and we do not want to see a huge waste of time energy and aroha I guess you could say—because some of these drug treatment courses are very much focused aroundMāori culture.We need to make sure we are getting good bang for buck out of the drug treatment units and other treatments we are putting these inmates through and we need to make sure we wrap services round them after they leave prison. Of course there is a danger to that because some will say: “We should just let them go. They have served their sentence and we don’t care about them; they are people who have broken the law.” But if we are going to make an investment in these people and try to get them back on the straight and narrow—off the drugs off the alcohol and into a place where they are not reoffending—we need to make sure we are supporting them in our communities. That means fewer victims. That is what everyone in this Chamber would want and that is why we should be making sure that there is much more intense post-release support for a lot of these people who are going through drug treatment units.Just before I conclude I go back to the usefulness of community sentences which we are debating here in this bill. As I have said a couple of times now the recidivism rate—it is not an easy word to say fast—of those people who serve community sentences is almost if not half that of those who serve prison sentences. It should be something that we as a country should look to do much much more about in cases where it is possible and safe to do so because it has been proved that people who serve community sentences do not reoffend as much as those who serve a prison sentence. It also gives the ability for those people to still be integrated within their community and to still be supported by their families or support people in the community and I think that is something that we should look to do much much more in order to help rehabilitate these offenders.Of course there is a fiscal argument to this as well. It is much much cheaper. Of the $4 billion that is spent in the justice sector I believe that about 30 percent of it is spent on corrections. It is $1.2 billion and that will grow if we do not do anything about it. We must do something about it. Community sentences are certainly one way to do something about it. The rehabilitation aspect works we make sure there is less reoffending and fewer victims and the pennies are watched too—because there is $1.2 billion of taxpayer money going into the correction system. So Labour does support this piece of legislation. It makes the community sentences much more efficient and that is why we will continue to support it.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very happy to speak to the Committee of the whole House stage of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I want to thank the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley for bringing this bill to Parliament and continuing the work of the National Government in providing efficiency within our corrections service. And why does that matter? Why is it so important to improve on efficiency? It is because in doing that we will hopefully have better outcomes not only for the prisoners going through our corrections system and/or on to community sentences but by aiding in the rate of non-reoffending. We do not want to see again people who go through our corrections system. We do not want to see them again experiencing community services. So the more this Government can do to make the administration of the systems around corrections more efficient then hopefully the better the outcome we will have.When the Hon Anne Tolley introduced this bill to the House and gave it to the care of the Law and Order Committee she made it very clear that that was her aim and that her desire was that in improving the systems we would improve the outcomes. Already we have seen a drop in crime. We have seen a drop in youth crime. All the trends are going the right way in the corrections system and in the justice system and this piece of legislation continues that good work. Two bills were introduced to the House to remove barriers to the efficiency and the effectiveness of the administration of corrections sentences and community sentences. The committee and the House have dealt with the Corrections Amendment Bill. That part of the work relates to prisons and corrections and that was passed through the House last month. Now we are moving in a timely manner with the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. That is the bill we are addressing today.What this bill does is amend the Bail Act the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act. These Acts play a large part in the governing and administration of sentences and of orders in our communities through our corrections system. The introduction of extended supervision orders—and that happened in 2004—and of sentencing and parole reforms in late 2007 left some procedures for managing offenders in the community rather unclear. The previous speaker Kris Faafoi—whom I want to thank for his work on the Law and Order Committee and express my regret that he has moved on to another select committee because he did make worthwhile contributions worked collegially when it was appropriate and asked the tough questions when it was appropriate—did point out in his intervention that a community sentence with a GPS might be described as a circle on an offender’s property. Previously if the mailbox was just outside that circle the offender would be going against their community sentence if they walked out to the mailbox to get the mail or chased the cat or something like that. So there were anomalies that were easily identified. We have sought through this legislation to make the measures around community sentences more pragmatic more workable more efficient and more helpful not only to the probation service but to the prisoners themselves. This bill provides clarification and it introduces a number of minor policy changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of home detention community-based sentences and also the new electronic monitoring regime.I just want to talk a little bit about the probation service. As a part of our investigation into this bill we went out to Lower Hutt and met with the probation service and heard about the work it is doing with community sentences. It struck me what a long way our corrections system and our whole justice sector have come in such a short time in the desire for a good strong rehabilitative approach to reintegrating prisoners out of the corrections system through community sentences if that is the pathway or through just community sentences—reintegrating them back into society in the best shape so that they can go out have good lives get a job have skills and not return back through the loop knocking on the door of the District Court and going back into the corrections system just to waste another part of their lives. This is a good bill. I congratulate the Minister. I thank the select committee and I commend the bill to the House.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Today I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill at its Committee stage. I think we all agree that law and order is very important to our country. It is crucial not only to maintain order in our society but also to ensure safety and maximise security for all New Zealanders. We are all aware that some of our citizens continue to break the law some fail to behave in accordance with the law and some just do not know any better so it is impossible to imagine that human perfection is likely to happen any time soon.New Zealand First supports the move to remove barriers in managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe humane secure effective and of course efficient. It is important that New Zealanders have confidence in our justice system and that offenders are made accountable for their actions to the community they have offended against. It is therefore crucial that the way we manage offenders in our communities is done with no room for any mistakes or any errors. We all know the consequences of mistakes. They leave communities worried about their safety something that we should not allow to happen.We read in the news this week about a 19-year-old and his girlfriend who violated a young 10-year-old girl. The Administration of Community Sentencing and Orders Bill must close the loopholes that could lead to this kind of immoral and unacceptable behaviour in our community.The Law and Order Committee report proposed amendments that were intended to improve the original bill. Those amendments are encouraging. Community-based sentences were introduced in New Zealand for many reasons. It would be interesting to see a report on any improvements made since their introduction. They are to reduce incarceration relieve the overcrowding of prisons offer a more appropriate sentence for crimes of less gravity and reduce costs to the Department of Corrections.Why then two decades after non-custodial sentences being introduced have we become a nation with too many people in our corrections system? Why is it that our Government continues to look for more ideas for being productive in building more prisons and enhancing the high incarceration statistics in New Zealand? Are people in New Zealand committing more crime or are people just enjoying being involved in criminal activities? It is time for us to look at other techniques to prevent crime. Whether this bill is the answer is I think a crucial question.This bill seeks to ensure we do not trap people in a web where they constantly come in and out of prison wasting their lives and adding more burden to the taxpayers. New Zealand First knows that the provision allowing community magistrates to alter or cancel a community-based sentence previously imposed by a community magistrate means that this will allow the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to approve changes of address for home or community detention. Hopefully it will not be the same mess created in the “Beast of Blenheim” case. Although New Zealand First recognises the valid intention behind this approach I would like to mention here the need for accountability to be maintained. Shifting administrative responsibility should not create cover-ups or loopholes in terms of accountability.This bill has also been amended to allow a probation officer rather than the court to direct that up to 20 percent of a community work sentence of at least 80 hours be spent in training. This is a good initiative. This is a good way forward. As a strong advocate of rehabilitation and reintegration I cannot emphasise more the need for the probation service and the Department of Corrections to work together to manage community-based sentences. This bill in general will give probation officers more powers in directing a proportion of community work sentences into training. Reducing barriers to enable training for offenders should be encouraged.And yes offenders need training but New Zealand First asks what the cost is to the taxpayer. How many offenders with community work sentences actually need training? This information is important and would necessitate funding for relevant resources as well. From previous reports there were concerns that with the increased imposition of community service there is evidence that those sentenced to it are more likely to be those who would otherwise have received fines but could not afford them.It will be crucial that probation officers use these new proposed powers with discretion. No doubt there will be conflicting ideas and differences of opinion betweenwhat the judiciary and probation officers may recommend. In terms of the sentencing hierarchy we are making a change here through this bill giving what were once the powers of the judge to the probation officers. Guess what that means? I believe it means that the Minister of Corrections has complete confidence in the probation service to perform these vital roles for New Zealanders. Does she have that? I would like to hear a response from the Minister or for her to take a call and answer this question. What evidence does she have to confirm her confidence?It is interesting to see the recommendation that a court may not cancel or replace the first sentence if that sentence was imposed by a higher court but may instead remit the matter to the court that imposed the first sentence. Let us just hope that the higher court will always get it right. Consistency in our judicial system is important and the administration of community sentencing orders must always be aligned across all Government departments. If something is to be implemented it should be done to the best of one’s ability to achieve the maximum quality results.To do so however one needs the right tools to do the job. The probation service will need to be sufficiently resourced to ensure that mandatory pre-sentence reports are done to the correct and highest standard. This will also ensure that when offenders are directed to training the probation service has the time to organise the best appropriate programmes for offenders—not just someone who comes off the road and says “I can do this. I can deliver it. Just because I can talk to the prisoner I have the best programme to ensure that this person does not offend again.” In recent years there have been a lot of cases where placements in programmes for various offenders have been poorly assessed.A probation officer can now review the suitability of the home detention residence or curfew address. This is when the court defers the commencement of a second sentence of home or community detention for more than 2 months and indicates that for the purpose of determining when post-detention conditions commence any concurrent or cumulative home detention sentences will be treated as a notional single sentence.The other part of the proposed amendments includes where an appeal against a home detention sentence is unsuccessful. There is a requirement for the registrar of the appeal court to notify the controlling officer of the relevant probation area and the offender if they are not in court of the date on which the sentence resumes.So community safety is vital and absolutely a priority for our nation. New Zealand First strongly believes that to achieve effective law and order in our nation the public should have confidence in our judiciary our police and the corrections system. I believe we can all accept the fact that for a nation of our size we have far too many people in our corrections system. Let me once again remind the National Government that a genuine Government is not a searcher for consensus but a moulder of consensus. New Zealand First supports the initiative to fix up the loopholes and supports what this bill intends to do.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise and speak in the Committee stage of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. Labour is obviously supporting this bill. As has already been said the bill makes a number of technical amendments predominately to Acts and a few policy changes that Phil Goff who was the Minister at the time I believe presided over—the Parole Act in particular and the Sentencing Act in its original form.Before I get into the detail of the bill I do want to make some general statements about the justice area as it relates to community-based sentencing in particular. We have had Ministers from that side of the House trumpet for some time now that there has been a decrease in reported crimes that the National Government’s “tough on crime” stance has been the cause of this reduction and its much-heralded success. The honesttruth is that actually globally there have been drops in recorded crime. There has been much interesting debate as to why this global trend has occurred and there have been some very interesting theories but there seems to be consensus that it does not necessarily come down to the domestic policies of a Government. So that is an interesting contextual point to make.We do hear constantly in our domestic politics about this “tough on crime” line both by the National Party when it was in Opposition and as an ongoing sentiment when in Government. But what changes when National comes into Government is the way it is executed—“tough on crime” in rhetoric but suddenly it is OK with things like home detention which we are debating today. At the time as I recall when Labour trumpeted the need for these kinds of sentences and for community-based sentences there were some Government members who were vehemently opposed to any exploration of those kinds of sentences. So it seems extraordinary to me that the Government maintains this rhetoric whilst actually acknowledging that what Labour has always been is smart on crime. We do what works. We listen to the evidence and the research and we invest where it is necessary. We are willing to be bold and courageous and to invest in areas like community-based sentencing because not only as Bill English has said it is a fiscal imperative because the justice sector is costing us so much but also you see reduced rates of reoffending when you use methodology like this.Surely the focus should be on how you balance the need for someone who commits a crime to pay their debt to society with ensuring that we make the community safer by ensuring that we actually change something for that person’s life both in the way that they are reintegrated into society and also in the way they are rehabilitated. There are flaws—I know the Minister of Corrections knows this. I know she knows it because quietly behind the scenes she is doing things a little bit differently but not letting it undermine her “tough on crime” sentiment. She knows that ultimately things have to be done differently if we are to make any gains in this area. Even Bill English has stipulated that.I also want to highlight as I have said home detention. From 2007-08 and 2008-09 the offenders who were sentenced to home detention in that period who were reconvicted in the next 12 months sat at around 21 percent and 23 percent respectively. That was less than half the number of those released from a short-term prison sentence in the same years where reoffending rates sat at around more like 50 percent. So not only do you see a significant saving for the taxpayer and not only do you see those offenders pay their debt to society by the constraint on their liberty albeit in a different form than a formal imprisonment but we actually see that the success rate attached to that is much much better. So there are many reasons why the strategic use of these community-based sentences and things like home detention should be encouraged and used appropriately.In the face of that kind of evidence we still see a National Government that is inclined to talk about the corrections system moving more towards a privatised model. We saw this U-turn this claim that it was not going to turn existing public prisons into private prisons and it was going to do it only to new builds. But then it did it anyway with theSerco contract at Mt Eden prison. That actually sits in direct conflict with what the Minister has been trying to do on the rehabilitation side of things within the corrections portfolio. She may claim that groups likeSerco have an interest in these areas and can deliver the kind of rehabilitation in the corrections system that she is driving for but the Minister knows that as soon as you drop down in your staffing ratios the less time that you have with prisoners out of their cells and the less time that is available for you to offer those programmes it upsets the entire system. The Minister knows that because she also knows that those are the kinds of arguments that are madeby prison officers all the time. Properly staffing prisons is a key part of ensuring that we can deliver those much-needed programmes so that we do not waste time and send someone back into the circle of reoffending. They are inextricably linked with proper staffing and proper support of staffing in corrections facilities and that is something that I have no doubt we will continue to raise with this Minister—the very unsafe environments which I know exist and which corrections officers are exposed to.Coming back to the bill I mentioned that there are some substantive policy changes but then also some more technical ones. I had a couple of questions for the Minister on some of those. I know she will excuse the fact that I was not part of the select committee process. One of the changes to the Sentencing Act in particular allows pre-sentence reports for home detention or community detention. Offenders are sometimes sentenced to home detention and that requires an assessment of home circumstances to ensure suitability. There are some changes there also on I think post-release where the writing of those reports are handed over from the probation service to the chief executive. I just wondered about capacity to ensure that that handover can be managed properly and ensure that it is happening in a timely fashion. There are also changes that have been made to when home detention is cancelled when a subsequent sentence of imprisonment is applied. A court cannot order that an existing home detention sentence resumes once someone leaves prison. That is just a common-sense change. Again it demonstrates why Labour is in support of these amendments.Also there is an alignment of electronic monitoring conditions with the range of monitoring equipment. That was something that Kris Faafoi touched on and I will not traverse that again but it did make me wonder Minister whether or not there were elements where it related to the developing technology and whether or not there was a way that that did not need to be included in primary legislation given that there might be ongoing amendments of a technical nature that relate to the technology as it updates. That would prevent us from having to come back to the House with primary legislation to ensure that issues like this are dealt with. I do not know whether or not that was ever feasible but it was a question that I thought I would raise. But in that change it says that offenders may go beyond the boundaries of electronic monitoring equipment without breaching their conditions because although they may stray from the electronic boundary they must remain within the residence boundary. This makes it difficult to successfully prosecute.Alongside that in one of the technical amendments is the requirement to tell or inform someone with a home detention sentence of the boundary that they have applying to them and to tell it to those who live on the property of the boundary that applies to the prisoner as well. I wondered whether or not there had been cases where you had been able to prosecute Minister because it was found that they were not properly informed. Is that one of the reasons now to close that loophole that is in the legislation? I wondered whether there had been any cases where the combination of those two issues had led to unsuccessful prosecutions around breaches of conditions. It was just something I was interested in. Also it seems common sense that if someone has a boundary applied to them for home detention they would be told about it but I guess there have been circumstances where that has not happened given that it is now going to be clarified in the legislation.There is a question here as well around ensuring the integrity of the sentences. Time continues to run on a community-based sentence after an application to vary or cancel this sentence is made. So that means I believe that if there is non-compliance the sentence can actually be put on hold until there is a variation and then it resumes. What kind of time period—I am not sure; the Law and Order Committee members may have discussed this—may apply for that variation? I would be interested to know how longthat is suspended for. I am assuming that of course they still required to comply but the sentence itself is suspended. So they still have to be compliant during the variation but they then have to technically fulfil the sentence afterwards. That would be my understanding but I would be interested to have the Minister correct me if I am wrong in that sense.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to make some comments on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I begin by saying that we all acknowledge—in fact the Government spends a lot of time telling us—that we have a lower crime rate although I think that the reality is we have an increasingly lower prosecution rate. We know that police officers and the police force have been instructed to minimise the number of charges that they now lay against offenders and that therefore reduces the prosecution rate. It makes the figures look good but there is a real question about whether the crime rate is actually dropping.That said once we get to the offenders themselves and certainly the convicted offenders policies that are focused on both correction and rehabilitation are much better than those that are focused just on the more punitive elements that go with incarceration. So that is why as a general principle we in Labour are supportive of this bill of this legislation and indeed—as I think Kris Faafoi acknowledged credit where credit is due—of some of the measures that the present Minister of Corrections has taken to assist those who are presently incarcerated to make a real fist of adjusting post-release. We know that there are good programmes in the prisons now on literacy on work readiness and on community readiness if you like—getting ready to go back into the community. I was greatly privileged in the visit that I Kris Faafoi and Darien Fenton took toPāremoremo prison earlier this year to see one of the programmes in place and the efforts that had been taken to have people adjust ready for post-release.But it is better if we can avoid incarceration—acknowledging that there needs to be a punishment and acknowledging that there needs to be sanction. Where it is at all possible for sentences to be served in the community—whether through home detention through a curfew or through other community sentences—that is surely better. And just as we can say with some certainty that there are some people for whom prison is inevitable because of the nature of their offending their violent personality or their antisocial personality equally we can say that there are some people for whom prison is completely the wrong thing. They may act antisocially they may be committing crimes—certainly at the low end of the scale—and generally they will be younger people. They are the ones whom if we possibly can avoid it we should avoid sending to prison. So a community-based sentence is entirely appropriate.We welcome this legislation which tidies up some of those aspects and that enables the courts to deal with community sentences that need to be extended or adjusted or amended. There is now a process for doing that. That gives probation officers whose role is to get close to offenders in the community and manage their rehabilitation in the community greater scope to assist the offenders for whom they are responsible to adjust and to adapt. That hopefully—we are optimistic and we should be confident—will lead to a lower recidivism rate and a more effective process for rehabilitation. So we welcome all those aspects of it.We should not forget that people with community sentences particularly curfews and home detention and indeed those people who are required to provide work and contribute their efforts for a certain period of hours still have a restriction on liberty. There are plenty of people in the community who forget that it is the restriction on liberty that is the ultimate punishment for people whom when they offend against our criminal statutes we call for sanctions upon. It is that restriction of liberty that is the sanction. But we need to make sure that having done that in this sort of way themechanisms and the tools that we have to manage those sorts of sentences are effective and offer sufficient flexibility.We know with electronic monitoring that there has been a problem and I know that the regime or the governance of our electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system has been changed so that the Department of Corrections now has a responsibility for it. That is right. We have had people who have not only breached their electronic monitoring conditions but absconded while on home detention. We have had the dreadful and unfortunate situation of the offender in Palmerston North who was on home detention and being electronically monitored who managed to get away—not just get out of Palmerston North but get out of the country. He went to Canada and ended up murdering a person there earlier this year. So it is good that we are beefing that up.In terms of Part 2 the new arrangements or the flexible arrangements for amending and changing sentences make absolute sense. And in terms of new section 66A inserted by clause 18A I will acknowledge that I think that is a good change to allow some of that community service when it is for 80 hours or more to be regarded as training. I acknowledge that and congratulate the Minister on what I think will be a very good move. It will allow those who have to do work by way of penance for their offending to actually get something out of it beyond just work experience. They will get something that they can show for it—certification of what they have done and their skills. I think that will make a big difference to the sorts of people who find themselves as candidates for this sort of sentencing.I want to simply add a word of caution about one aspect of it. I know that this has been through the Law and Order Committee and my colleagues on the committee and indeed the Labour caucus have supported it but I do want to just make a note of caution really with my pedantic overzealous justice hat on—because you cannot be a justice spokesperson without being a zealot on occasions—in relation to new section 69JA inserted by clause 22A and new section 80FA inserted by clause 27A and that is about the role of the chief executive. We know that the way this operates is of course that it is not the chief executive. It will not be Ray Smith sitting in his office approving all these changes of residence and locations for the way these sentences are going to be served out; it is going to be somebody in the Department of Corrections who will have this responsibility.My concern is that these sentences are imposed by judges by officers of the court. They carry a judicial imprimatur and a proper judicial sanction. There is oversight by the probation service—that is kind of the operational end of the criminal justice system. I understand all that but I get a little nervous when it comes to adjusting and changing what are effectively orders of the court. They go to an official the identity of whom may well be unknown and therefore the accountability for that may be somewhat diffuse. I simply raise that point and get it on the record so that in the unfortunate event and hopefully unlikely event that something does go wrong with this administration that has been noted. I am sure that a conscientious Minister of Corrections for as long as she is in the role at least would at some point want to review the practices that emerge around all this and the track record and if it calls for it and if there are too many unfortunate events want to maybe look at whether it is appropriate for a senior official within the Department of Corrections to be making or mandating these changes or whether or not it should go back to the court—even the registrar of the court—or at least to have some expedited process within the court to ensure that the decisions that get taken with regard to the offender who is being managed at all times have the imprimatur of a judge in terms of the sentence the offender is serving and carrying out.Notwithstanding all that as my colleagues have said we support the legislation. It does have the potential to offer some good and effective changes and a more positivefuture for those offenders who find themselves in this situation but who can be managed in the community can serve out their time and suffer the sanction that is imposed on them and turn out to be good citizens at the end of that. That is a welcome development.JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call on behalf of the Green Party in support of this legislation the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I hope the Minister of Corrections is coping with the Greens supporting two initiatives in 1 week. It is possibly groundbreaking. I do want to offer formally in this Chamber congratulations on the change in the policy around transgender prisoners. It will make a huge difference to people’s lives and that is a wonderful thing.We are supporting this legislation. It is absolutely consistent with our view in terms of justice and the best evidence of what works in this country. We recognise that primarily it is made up around administrative changes to make the system more efficient in relation to community sentences and orders in the community but there are some minor drafting amendments that are significant in terms of policy and we also support those.The drafting amendments are primarily to the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Bail Act. The minor policy changes will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of home detention community-based sentences and the electronic monitoring regime. That relates mostly it seems from my reading of the bill to now matching when an offender is released into the community with electronic monitoring to ensure that they are living in an area that is capable of being monitored by that electronic monitoring system. That just seems an incredibly logical thing to match. It does not really seem very sensible that people are being released into areas that cannot be monitored in this system and apparently there are some occasions where offenders have been on community sentences and they have been bunking out on them and on occasion have not been found until the end of that sentence.I guess the core of our system working is that people take responsibility and they are held accountable for their actions. Clearly that was not the case with the system in that situation. So an amendment to ensure that there is the ability for an application to be made to vary or cancel the sentence to match that and to ensure that they are held accountable does seem to be appropriate and consistent with the intent of the legislation.We also support the move to focus more on rehabilitation. Clearly that is something that works for all of us. Enabling probation officers to direct up to 20 percent of sentences to be spent in working and living skills courses without the need to apply to the court is also a really positive measure. We all know that sometimes education can make a difference as well as those wraparound services that people have talked about. We certainly would like to see more investment in those because we believe that they really work and the evidence shows us that. To streamline that system to enable people to get access to those things is just a sensible and good thing.This bill is around improving that system of community-based sentences. It has been mentioned earlier but it is worth restating that we know that the recidivism rate is much lower with community-based sentences. Clearly part of that is going to be because there is a threshold in terms of the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood of somebody being caught up in criminality that would be more likely in a prison environment but it is also because of the nature of the sentencing. There is something about the limitation of somebody remaining in their community that can hold them into more positive outcomes at times. This is something that potentially saves us money in that financial bottom line. It is a good social result and a good economic result.We would like to encourage more of those kinds of solutions so we are supporting this bill.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a brief call on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So are we.CHRIS HIPKINS: My colleague Clayton Cosgrove is very excited about the fact that I am speaking on this bill. I want to just begin by placing a caution around the use of official crime statistics because in my view 99 percent of official crime statistics are rubbish because they are very easily manipulated. They are based on reported crime normally and there are a whole lot of factors that impact on whether in fact the crime is reported in the first place. I am getting some very interesting looks from Mr Sabin over there but official crime statistics are very easily manipulated.In fact if we look at them over time—which is often where we use crime statistics; we look at them over time—actually societal norms around what is reported often changes. If you look at official crime statistics for domestic violence for example the reporting of domestic violence is now more common than it used to be. A lot of domestic violence previously went unreported but there are a whole lot of reasons why a lot of the domestic violence that takes place today still goes unreported. So the official crime statistics can often be incredibly misleading and I think we need to be a little cautious—Mike Sabin: You can’t report what you don’t know about.CHRIS HIPKINS: I know about it. I know quite a lot about it actually. And we need—Mike Sabin: No no—I say people can’t report what they don’t know about.CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes that’s right. People cannot report—absolutely. But that simply reinforces the point that the official crime statistics can be misleading and that we need to be very careful about placing a lot of emphasis on official crime statistics when we are making decisions.I do want to however compliment the Government for this piece of legislation actually because this is the sort of legislation that the National Party would have likely railed against when it was in Opposition. In fact it did rail against many of the very measures that are in this bill and that it was vehemently opposed to when it was last in Opposition. I am pleased to see that it has seen the light and in fact it is now willing to make decisions in this area based on what actually works. If we want to get serious about reducing recidivism and reducing reoffending we do actually need to look at the evidence of what works rather than looking at what is going to be popular because those two things are quite often very different. No Government and no Opposition ever won votes by promising to be soft on crime and no Government or Opposition ever lost votes through the reverse. It is very clear that there is definitely a public appetite for Governments and for political parties to be hard on crime. There is a clear public appetite for that. But actually things like many of the measures contained in this legislation actually—Mike Sabin: I think it’s being effective on crime.CHRIS HIPKINS: Effective on crime? That is quite right actually—we do need—Mike Sabin: Effective policing effective on crime.Andrew Little: Telling cops to lay fewer charges is not being effective on crime.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well actually Mike Sabin makes a very good point—it is about being effective on crime. But Andrew Little also makes an even better point which is that telling cops to under-report crime does not actually make us more effective on crime at all. Unfortunately there is enough of that going on at the moment where crimes are going unreported and they are not being recorded in the official crime statistics. That does not mean that they are not happening; it just means that they are not being adequately reported. I think that is fundamentally wrong.David Shearer: Take a call Mike.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am actually looking forward to MikeSabin’s call on this bill. We have still got plenty of time and he has a lot to say on this bill. I think it would be a real shame if the National Party were not to allow somebody like Mike Sabin—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ex-policeman.CHRIS HIPKINS: —an ex-policeman who clearly has a lot of experience in this area to take a call. I think it would be very disappointing if the National Government were not to allow somebody who knows something about this to actually—Mike Sabin: I don’t need to because the member’s threaded enough of my comments into his speech.CHRIS HIPKINS: —speak on this. In fact I am happy to give up the rest of my time. If he would like to speak on the bill I am happy to give up the rest of my time.Mike Sabin: No you’ve clearly articulated my position.CHRIS HIPKINS: He does not actually want to say anything on this legislation even though I offered him the remainder of my speaking time. Clearly he does not want to say anything on this. Clearly the National Party has told him to keep his head down and stay quiet. I think that is rather unfortunate.I said that this was going to be a brief contribution and I intend it to be a brief contribution because I know that my colleague Louisa Wall wants to say something before we do run out of time in this debate. Overall I think that these are welcome measures. I look forward to seeing them progressing through the House.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute in this Committee stage debate on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. It is a shame that my colleague Jan Logie unfortunately cannot also reap some of the praise that I want to give to the Minister of Corrections. I want to acknowledge the announcement yesterday in terms of transgender and transsexual prisoners. I think it is not a bold move but a move that she has made based on the evidence and also based on the work of people like Jan Logie to advocate for our transgender community.My contribution to this debate is really to highlight again the contribution that our probation officers give to the whole smooth running of the justice system. Actually if there was one thing that I really wanted to highlight it is that this piece of legislation now empowers them with more responsibility and with more opportunity to do their job which is to quote from their website to “protect the public and help reduce re-offending by supporting offenders by bringing about positive changes.” So I see that the opportunity that this piece of legislation gives to them will actually enable more robust relationships with community organisations.One of the things that I have seen in my electorate of Manurewa and the probation service that we provide is that a lot of the community work that the service tries to find is actually about reintegrating and enabling some of our offenders whom for whatever reason—drunk-driving family violence issues—we want to reintegrate. Some of the specific connections that we were trying to encourage in my electorate were work in schools for example and work supporting not only sports organisations but also some of our social sector organisations. The overall theme and strategy about enabling people to contribute and feel like they are part of the community is I think completely underlined in this piece of legislation. I do want to congratulate the Government on what it is doing.We have some challenges in the justice system. Too many of our young people—and actually older people—are doing things particularly around alcohol drugs and public behaviour which mean that one of the mechanisms we have is to sentence them to home detention or community detention. The overall strategy and philosophy that thispiece of legislation is bringing in is really about giving people second chances and enabling them to feel like they do have a pathway to a better life and a better contribution.I particularly want to focus I guess on the translation of some of the community work to people being able to do courses. I think it is a really constructive thing for the justice system to encourage so I am particularly encouraged by this general philosophy. It seems that there is a consensus right through the Committee in terms of this kind of justice engagement. We want people to get the support and help that they need so that they do not stay there for life. I think that is one of the biggest challenges when I look at who is in prison. Because of the Wiri Prison being developed in my community I have a relationship withSerco. I have been to Mt Eden prison. I know that this type of philosophy we can start at this lower offending end of the spectrum but it actually needs to permeate right through our criminal justice system. In terms of this philosophy I am really encouraged.I again want to congratulate the Minister of Corrections and also the people who worked on this bill. I am not on the Law and Order Committee but I acknowledge those members of the House who are. I do see this as another constructive opportunity for us to work together. I think all of us do not want people in prisons. We want to stop building prisons. We actually want to make sure that people who do enter the justice system at this end—the beginning end I guess—of what could be a pathway for them being in the justice system for life actually have a pathway out. That is why I particularly stand in support of this bill and commend this bill to the Committee.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to new Part 1A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to insert new clause 46A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to clause 2 be agreed to:replace “section 34(1)” in subclause (1) with “sections 34(1) and 46A”;replace subclause (2) with the following new subclause:(2)Part 1 Part 1A section 27C section 32 so far as it relates to section 80ZGD and section 46A come into force on the day after the date that this Act receives the Royal assent.; andomit subclause (3).Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Insolvency Practitioners BillSecond ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I moveThat the Insolvency Practitioners Bill be now read a second time. Insolvency practitioners carry out a number of different insolvency processes including liquidations voluntary administrations and receiverships. These processes require a practitioner to carry out skilled tasks with sound judgment and integrity in order to protect and promote an efficient and effective corporate insolvency system. There is general consensus amongst reputable insolvency practitioners that there is a small number of practitioners who are continually underperforming and imposing significant costs upon creditors and failing to discharge their statutory obligations. These problems revolve around competency unethical behaviour and insufficient monitoring.The Insolvency Practitioners Bill was drafted in 2008 under the previous Government to create a negative licensing regime to regulate insolvency practitioners. Negative licensing would enable any person to practise as an insolvency practitioner unless they were prohibited. It was seen as a low-cost light-handed regulatory approach to strengthen an enforcement void: the ability to remove incompetent and dishonest insolvency practitioners from the market.The Commerce Committee considered the bill at the end of 2010 and in the first part of 2011. I would like to thank the committee for the constructive time spent undertaking a thorough examination of the bill. The bill received 11 submissions and most submitters did not think the bill went far enough to address the problems in the insolvency market. Submitters argued that in the intervening time the global financial crisis had meant that there was an increase in insolvency work and an increase in the number of insolvency practitioners taking appointments. This meant that the magnitude of the problems had become more evident. The select committee carefully considered options for regulating insolvency practitioners and reported back to the House on 9 May 2011 its recommendation to adopt a registration model instead of a negative licensing regime.Under the bill as reported back all insolvency practitioners will now be required to be registered in order to accept insolvency appointments. The Registrar of Companies will have enhanced oversight and enforcement mechanisms including the power to deregister substandard or delinquent individuals. I support this recommendation. It is important that corporate insolvencies are carried out professionally and efficiently. This bill is part of the Government’s focus on improving the integrity of our financial systems. It is important that we boost investor confidence and that investors have the confidence in our markets. It is especially important that investors know that if an insolvency practitioner is going to look into the affairs of a company they can have confidence that it can be done and will be done with integrity and that the insolvency practitioner has the minimum skills for the job.A register held by the company’s office will give the public access to basic and standardised information about practitioners who are registered. Through the register the Registrar of Companies will be able to collect information and regulate practitioners more effectively. The bill is set to come into force 9 months after the date on which itreceives the Royal assent. Insolvency practitioners have up to 3 months after this to register. The operation of the registration regime will be reviewed no later than 4 years after the legislation comes into force to recommend whether any further amendments to the regime would be necessary or desirable. More specifically the bill as reported back will amend the Companies Act 1993 and the Receiverships Act 1993 to make clear how the appointment of insolvency practitioners to and the removal of insolvency practitioners from the register will work. There will be new provisions including the eligibility criteria enhanced duties and criteria for disqualification and an appropriate range of penalties for failure to comply with statutory obligations. Under the amendments a person can apply for a court order to override any removal from the register.One important amendment is greater transparency so that creditors must be provided with relevant information by insolvency practitioners at the earliest opportunity. This includes a statement of interest by the insolvency practitioner and an additional report to the registrar that summarises the insolvency. This new regime will be a significant improvement and will help with the recognition and detection of incompetent and unethical persons who will either be prevented from registering or have their registration cancelled.A substantial amount of work has been going on behind the scenes since the bill was reported back from the select committee. I am pleased that this bill is now continuing its progression through the House. At the appropriate time I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that proposes further amendments to the bill to better align requirements for the different types of practitioners and clarify the obligations of practitioners. I commend this bill to the House.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): It is an interesting fact that the number of insolvencies since 2008 has increased dramatically under this Government. One could probably point without getting off the mark too much to many in the export sector who because of the high dollar and the lack of any sort of initiative over monetary policy have been forced to the wall not because of their own negligence but because of the environment they face and the lack of a supportive Government to stand alongside them.However putting that aside we support this bill the Insolvency Practitioners Bill. But it is also interesting to note the gestation period for this piece of legislation which had its genesis way back in a 2004 Ministry of Economic Development report that was produced under the last Government. That report raised some serious concerns in respect of a minority of practitioners who it was alleged were—bluntly—incompetent or lacked the skills that were required to carry out insolvency work. There were submitters to the report who talked about dishonesty negligence and an inability to carry out the principal duties that were required.If you look at the history it is also interesting to note that the existing criteria basically say if you are over 18 breathing walking upright and without any particular educational or tertiary qualifications or skills in the area it is possible for you to engage in insolvency work. That is a deficiency. I have got to say that if you look at the legislative history of this—the bill was introduced under I think the Minister’s predecessor Simon Power. He nods—indeed. He was a good Minister. He used to chug things through. It is a pity he is not here because it has slowed down somewhat now. The bill was introduced on 27 April 2010 had its first reading on 21 August 2010 and went before the Commerce Committee on 9 May 2011—and hey presto here we are a few years later and suddenly this bill has become a high priority. Maybe the Minister is trying to fill up his day—I do not know. Maybe the diary is a bit light—I am not sure—but this is an important piece of legislation that should indeed have been given a higher degree of priority.We support this bill because it builds on a variety of if you like consumer protection legislation but it also builds in protections for those creditors who are on the receiving end of insolvencies. One that comes to mind I have got to say is the collapse of Mainzeal Property and Construction where many many people lost their jobs. Many subcontractors for instance were caught in a situation where they could not get their tools of trade. They could not move on. They were not the negligent parties. They could not move on and get into other jobs and get other income. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. That was a high-profile collapse.I do note just in passing for the record that the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley was a key director of that company and also I think a key director of Genesis Energy one of our State-owned enterprises. To date we have had no explanation—no explanation—as to why that collapse happened who was implicated and who was responsible. It even came before—I see Mr Young the chair of the Commerce Committee here—the Commerce Committee almost a year ago to the day. Given that Mrs Shipley heads up one of our State-owned enterprises we tried to pose some questions—because it goes to the credibility and integrity of other work that she may do for the Crown—and to ask what the problem was. I think her comment was “I will not offend the Standing Orders by answering that question.” or words to that effect. So it is interesting that for those in lofty places—those who have been in senior positions in Government who know the rules and who are now in the private sector—suddenly there is a lack of accountability. It does not flow straight through.We support the legislation. We believe this is appropriate legislation. I know that Mr Young as chair of the Commerce Committee is desperate to get up and talk about it. It is necessary. I am reminded of a story in respect of the head of Tait Electronics the late Sir Angus Tait. He said at a speech I was at many years ago that one of the greatest learning periods—and I am characterising what he said—in his life in terms of business was when that business almost hit the wall and he had the receiver looking over his shoulder and that great man managed to get the business back into being the wonderful enterprise it is. But he made the point that he learnt so much during that stressful period about business.This bill is about protecting creditors. This is also about ensuring that people who have to manage and action insolvencies are actually qualified are robust and are people of good character and not sharks. So it would be unusual if any party in this House did not support the legislation but I say in conclusion that it has taken a long time—a long time—for this Government to give it some priority. It should have had a higher priority than it has at the present time and I hope that the Minister will act with a higher degree of efficiency when it comes to other just as important legislation.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand in support of the Insolvency Practitioners Bill in its second reading. It came before the Commerce Committee on 24 August 2010. During that time we received and considered 11 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard only one submission from that period of time. So essentially it is not a large sector but it is very important as the previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said. When it comes to a company that has gone into difficulty and insolvency it is very important that the person who oversees that has not only the skills but the credibility because there are lots of people—creditors obviously—who are dependent upon the good work of that person to recover as much as possible. We know that it is important for our economy that when things do go AWOL when things do turn upside down that we can recover as much as possible. We live in a very interconnected economy obviously and so thisbill in particular is ensuring that we do have some very robust measures around those people who are appointed as insolvency practitioners.This bill is actually part of the National-led Government’s focus on improving the integrity of our financial system. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove talked about the number of companies that have gone through difficulty since 2008. I think that we need to be reminded again that the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 was the worst financial crisis that has affected this economy and the economies of the world in over 60 years. Yes it brought incredible stresses upon companies in New Zealand for a variety of reasons. Obviously during those times of pressure the system is tested and the integrity of our financial system in many regards stood up far far better than those in other jurisdictions around the world—our banking system in particular.The overriding focus of the commerce portfolio is to restore the confidence of investors and people who participate in our economy and to bring confidence to our capital markets especially after the very very difficult time when we saw so many finance companies collapse. We are focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families real opportunities for young people safer communities and the higher education and health services that all New Zealanders need. This bill is a further measure in that process.One of the things I want to talk about through that process that the committee looked at is the appointment of family members. We considered clause 5 of the bill as introduced—Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.