Volume 689 Week 39 - Tuesday 9 April 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 689 Week 39 - Tuesday 9 April 2013[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 9 April 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ObituariesHon Warren Wilfred Freer QSOMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 29 March 2013 of the Hon Warren Wilfred Freer QSO who represented the Mt Albert electorate from 1947 to 1981. From 1972 to 1975 he was Minister of Trade and Industry and Minister of Energy Resources. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.MotionsAfghanistan Bamian—Withdrawal of Provincial Reconstruction TeamHon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice concerning the withdrawal of the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team after a 10-year deployment in Afghanistan.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I moveThat this House acknowledge the withdrawal of the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian Afghanistan and formally thank those who have so ably served the team our country and the people of Afghanistan. The Governor-General and the Minister of Defence were in Bamian on Friday to witness the flag over Kiwi Base being lowered for the final time after a decade of service. Members of our provincial reconstruction team the majority of whom are from the New Zealand Defence Force are now in the process of coming home.The provincial reconstruction team’s achievements are very real and are ones of which the whole of New Zealand can be justifiably proud. The progress that has been made reflects a joint effort between a whole range of New Zealand and Afghan Government agencies and is mirrored in the enduring friendship between the peoples of Bamian and New Zealand.New Zealand first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 aware of the importance of collective security and international efforts to counter the threat of al-Qaeda. In 2003 we provided the provincial reconstruction team to help rebuild a province devastated by Taliban rule. Since then more than 3500 New Zealand defence personnel have been posted to Bamian in 21 crib rotations four separate deployments of the 1 NZ SAS Regiment contributions in International Security Assistance Force headquarters the UN mission and at Bagram Air Base. Scores of New Zealand Police officers and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade civil servants have also been posted there.New Zealanders arrived in Bamian in 2003 to a province that had been shattered. Hospitals and schools had been destroyed. Women and girls had suffered appalling treatment. New Zealand’s presence has facilitated the construction of roads that have dramatically improved access to markets schools and health facilities. Bamian’s hospital has been rebuilt and new health centres have been opened mortality rates for children under 5 have halved and maternal deaths are a quarter of the Taliban eralevels. Almost half the children in Bamian primary schools are girls and 38 percent of the teachers are female as are 15 percent of the students at Bamian University.Our expertise has improved agriculture in the province. We have supported training in basic veterinary skills and modernised farming techniques. We have introduced water management and flood protection measures have helped construct wells across the region and have been building the largest solar energy system in Afghanistan. Our contribution has been across the board and our people have worked tirelessly in often very difficult conditions.As a nation we can feel proud of the security and reconstruction improvements in Bamian but the Government is acutely aware that those gains have come at a huge cost. New Zealand mourned the deaths of 10 of our servicemen and servicewomen during the Afghanistan deployment. Each loss was felt deeply. Today we remember in particular the ultimate sacrifice paid by Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell Private Kirifi Mila Corporal Doug Grant Corporal Leon Smith Corporal Douglas Hughes Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer Lance Corporal Rory Malone Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker Private Richard Harris and Corporal Luke Tamatea. These were brave and committed young New Zealanders who will not be forgotten.Other service people have been wounded in Afghanistan and their lives fundamentally altered. We acknowledge the losses of Afghan lives too. Our Government pays special tribute to Governor Sarabi for her inspirational leadership of the Bamian province. As part of its responsibilities the Government will soon resettle a group of interpreters and their families in New Zealand. We are confident they will integrate well and contribute to this country.This Parliament can be proud of what New Zealanders have achieved in Bamian. New Zealand leaves the province in relative stability and prosperity ready for the next chapter in its history to be written by the people of Bamian.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): The Labour Party joins in paying tribute to all our brave service and civilian personnel who have served in Afghanistan: the thousands who were part of the 21 crib rotations our special forces and those who worked for the International Security Assistance Force deployment as well as for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other agencies. They all did our country proud. They went there as part of an international effort backed by the United Nations Security Council. The decision taken by the Labour Government was not taken lightly but it was made for the right reasons. The Taliban were hosting al-Qaeda. The threat to the international community was real as we all saw in the tragic events of September 11.Now 10 years have passed and it is more than enough time for us to withdraw. It has been our longest deployment—longer than World War I and World War II combined. We can all be proud of our soldiers and others who acted with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity. We were well regarded by the local people. The ability of our armed forces to work in communities and establish relationships with locals is second to none. It is something that marks us out and was a big part of our success particularly in Bamian.However it came with a cost most sadly for the families of those soldiers who served but did not return. Today we pay tribute to those who made that supreme sacrifice; the names that the Acting Prime Minister just read out. Each of those 10 lives that were lost is a tragedy and we acknowledge their loved ones. We also acknowledge those who were injured in the course of their service. New Zealanders are prepared to make the painful sacrifice but only when the cause is worth fighting for.The situation in Afghanistan has now changed; al-Qaeda is no longer a force. We have brought hope and the promise of a better future to the people of Bamian. Whenworking in post-conflict areas progress depends on three key pillars: a secure and stable environment good governance and increasing development in areas such as health and education. In Bamian New Zealand was able to strengthen all three of those together for results that will endure. Our close work with the local administration has strengthened its abilities. Our work allowed schools to be built and vaccination programmes to run and it brought the stability needed to allow Afghans to lead good lives.A question remains about the future of Afghanistan. It will not be determined by those outside the country however. Unfortunately the Government we have been supporting in Afghanistan is blighted with corruption and has failed to win the hearts and minds of its people. But in the end only the people of Afghanistan can make their country flourish.I remember being in Kabul when I was working for the UN speaking to the head of the UNICEF vaccination programme. She estimated that the programme that she was running saved 30000 children a year. In deployments like this it is often forgotten that had we not been in Afghanistan and Bamian thousands would have lost their lives and many more would have had a much poorer quality of life.The contribution of New Zealand has saved the lives of many and vastly improved the lives of many more. That is something for which both our personnel and New Zealand can be proud and that nobody can ever take away.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): New Zealand’s provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan is finally on its way home nearly 10 years after being deployed there. We say to our forces to our fellow New Zealanders: “Welcome back. Your professional work and your individual efforts are widely acknowledged.”Historically Afghanistan has been an easy place to deploy foreign armies into and a difficult one to get them out of. So the fact that most of our soldiers are coming back while expected comes as something of a relief. Our military commitment to Afghanistan has come at great cost. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent and the greater cost of course has been in lives with 10 Kiwi soldiers having died over there.Afghanistan remains a troubled nation. In the view of the Green Party New Zealand needs to move forward offering more civilian aid. We are right to continue support for aid projects including in agriculture and the establishment of solar-powered generators in Bamian. It is also right that those Afghanis who have risked their lives to assist the provincial reconstruction team and have been offered refugee status in New Zealand are starting to settle here. But as our troops come home and some remain we do well to reflect on the struggle that we the peoples of the United Nations still experience in replacing conflict and chaos with peace and security death and despair with life and fulfilment. I dare say that those returning home are aware of this rather poignant fact even more acutely than those of us here in this Chamber paying tribute to them today.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We would prefer that notices of motion of this type were presented in a way that avoids any suggestion of political overtones but simply reflect the views of the country. And we would prefer if the Government on the morning of such a motion was to send us the wording so that we could agree together and act as one people. There is something slightly incongruous about members of Parliament representing political parties giving a different spin on an issue like this but I suppose that we are forced to under the circumstances and I think that a change could take place that better speaks with the single voice of the country.That said we join with other parties in paying tribute to those in the armed forces and other supporting personnel who were engaged in the 10-year deployment. Through their service our officials and soldiers upheld the long tradition of New Zealand’s contribution to national stability and security. They served New Zealand withdistinction and the tribute is seriously well deserved most especially for those who lost their lives in Afghanistan alongside the many from other nations who did so as well. We sincerely hope that the future of Afghanistan proves that it was all worthwhile.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau o te Whare. Ā kai te tū ake hai waha kōrero mō te Pāti Māori ki te kī atu e tautoko ana i te mihi a te Pirimia Tuarua te Hōnore Bill English me tāna mihi ki te hunga kua haere ki te mura o te ahi ki tāwāhi ā ka mutu kua hoki mai te tūmanako ā kō ake nei ki te wā kāinga. Kua roa rātau e ngaro atu ana i te tirohanga kanohi i tāwāhi—ka puta tētahi tira ka hoki mai tētahi tira ka puta tētahi tira ka hoki mai tētahi tira. Mō te tekau tau e pērā anō te āhua. Nō reira ko tā mātau i tēnei wā ko te kī atu kāore he rere kētanga o te whakaaro o te Pāti Māori arā ko tērā kia hoki mai wā tātau hōia wā tātau tauira o Tūmatauenga ki te wā kāinga. Ēhara nō tātau tēnā pakanga nō tangata kē. Koinei te tino tikanga o tēnei o ngā whakaaro kia hoki mai rātau ki te kāinga.I a au e tū ake nei me mihi rā ki te māia ki te angitu ki te kaha o te hunga kua haere ki te mura o te ahi ki tāwahi. Nā runga i tērā āhuatanga kua tū me kī ki te mura o te ahi kua rongo nei i te ngau o te pū ko ētahi kua riro. Pēnei i te hunga e kōrerohia ake nei e te Minita arā kō te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi ēngari kāre he rere kētanga o te whakaaro. Me mihi ki a Tūmatauenga ka tika mō te hunga kua moe. Waiho rātau kia moe kia okioki. Ko tā tātau ko te whakanui i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi i mahia mai ai e rātau ka mutu ki ō rātau whānau e tangi nei e auē nei e noho nei i te mamae i te mea ko wā rātau i haere ki tāwāhi ki reira mate ai. Anā kei te pakitara o te Whare ngā tohu o te hunga me kī i whakarite i te āhuatanga o Tūmatauenga i ngā pakanga e hia kē nei i ngā tau kua hipa ake.Nō reira ko te ngākau kai te huri atu ki te hunga e noho pani nei e noho mokemoke nei mō wā rātau tamariki mokopuna hoa rangatira rānei i rongo nei i te ngau o te pakanga i tāwāhi ēngari ko te mea nui i hoki mai ki te wā kāinga ki konei tāpukengia mai ai. Hoi anō ko tā mātau ko te kī kua eke ki te wā e tika ana kia hoki mai rā ki te kāinga Kua ea te wāhi ki tāwāhi. Ko tā tātau ko te mihi ki a rātau. Koinei te mihi o te Pāti Māori ki a rātau. Tēnā koutou kia ora tātau.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us of the House. I rise as spokesperson for the Māori Party to support the motion by the Acting Prime Minister the Hon Bill English and his tribute to those who went to the battlefront overseas and to their eventual withdrawal and return home hopefully very shortly. They have been away overseas for a long time—a team would go out and another would return and so it went on for 10 years. So at this point in time I say that the view of the Māori Party has not changed in respect of our soldiers our militia of the God of War being withdrawn and brought home. That war was not ours; it belonged to someone else. This was always the unequivocal view: that they be withdrawn and returned home.As I stand here I pay a tribute to the courage success and bravery of those who entered the war zone overseas. Under that circumstance they stood shall we say at the battlefront and experienced the gunfire through which lives were lost. Just like these ones mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister there are those who are no longer seen but who stood without flinching. It is right that we pay a tribute to the God of War on behalf of those who died. Allow them to sleep and rest. Our part is to honour what they achieved and to honour their families grieving mourning and hurting here for their loved ones who went overseas and died there in the line of duty. There on the walls of the House are plaques for those who we should say made the supreme sacrifice to the God of War in several battles over the past years.So the mind is turning to the ones who are left bereft and lonely for their children grandchildren husbands or wives who made the supreme sacrifice at the battlefrontoverseas but just as importantly were brought back and buried here. So we say to them this is the proper time to come home. The matter relating to overseas has been fulfilled and our part is to acknowledge them. This is the Māori Party’s tribute to them. Thank you collectively and to us all.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with other members who have spoken to commemorate the contribution made by New Zealand forces in Afghanistan in the last 10 years. I am very pleased that this House is debating this motion today because it has not always been our tradition to recognise in a timely way contributions made to conflict situations around the world. It was a very long time after the conclusion of hostilities in Korea for instance before this House early this decade acknowledged the contribution of New Zealand forces in that conflict. The Viet Nam veterans will tell you with a lot of passion about how they felt overlooked and ignored when they came back to New Zealand at the end of their time in Viet Nam. So it is good that we are debating and supporting this motion today.This has been our longest period of engagement anywhere any time. I think many New Zealanders find that surprising. The 10 years have crept up on us very suddenly. But it has not been without cost and reference has been made by others to the 10 New Zealand fatalities and the other injuries. Although it might appear infelicitous to single out any one of those casualties I am sure the House will forgive me for doing so and I explain my reason. One of those young men who died was Lance Corporal Leon Smith. I know Leon’s mother Mary well. They are local people in my electorate. I recall Leon as a young boy in the late 1980s early 1990s growing up and mixing with a group of kids who were in a circle of people whom we associated with. When you start to think about the fact that someone like him is not just a statistic but a real person who gave his life in a field of conflict it brings home to us what it is we are talking about today. This is not some abstract situation that took place over a period of time in a far-off land. This is something that very dramatically touches the lives of many New Zealand households many New Zealand families and many New Zealand communities. While I am speaking on this point can I also observe because again it affects one of my sons the New Zealander Jack Howard who was killed fighting with British forces in Afghanistan.Young people have a sense of invincibility—that they can go on for ever that they can triumph over adversity. It is a situation like this that brings home that unfortunate other reality. So it is good that we are acknowledging and thanking those who served in Afghanistan for their contribution. But there is one step further that we must take and I believe my colleague to the right was alluding to this as well. We honour the campaigns New Zealanders have fought by the shields around this Chamber. I hope it is not too long before somewhere in this increasingly cluttered space an Afghanistan shield takes its place in this Chamber because that would be—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It’s happening.Hon PETER DUNNE: —it is happening; I am delighted to hear that Minister thank you—the ultimate tribute that this nation could pay to those who served so valiantly for so long.Motion agreed to.Points of OrderQuestions for Oral Answer—Correction of Ministers’ AnswersHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question to you goes to Speaker’s ruling 179/3 in relation to errors in questions for oral answer. It is a relatively simple question and that is: where an error ismade by a Minister when answering on behalf of another Minister is the obligation to correct on the Minister who delivered the error or on the Minster to whom the question was asked? Clearly there are two questions that do need correction I think it is generally agreed both to the Prime Minister but one of them was answered by the Leader of the House and the question is whether it goes to the Leader of the House—the obligation to make the correction now.Mr SPEAKER: In the normal course of events it is at the discretion of the Minister who made the statement to determine whether he or she wishes to correct any statement that that Minister has made in the House.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it is a discretion but there is certainly an obligation on someone to correct it and it is a question about—we know that the Leader of the House could correct it but it is a question about whether he is obliged to. We know that the Minister is obliged to correct an error but it is whether the Leader of the House is.Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter for the Leader of the House to determine—if that is the person whom you think ought to be correcting the statement. It is a matter for the Minister to decide whether in fact the statement made needs correcting. That is a discretion that is in the hands of the Minister not in the hands of the Speaker.Questions to MinistersPrime Minister—Statements on Government Agencies’ Activities and Information Security1.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: In light of his statement that Rebecca Kitteridge was the right person to carry out the Government Communications Security Bureau review because “The simple facts of life are the GCSB made some pretty bad mistakes when it came to this Kim Dotcom case. We cannot and I will not tolerate a repeat of them.” why does the Kitteridge report not include findings on illegal spying on Kim Dotcom?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member should wait until he has viewed the report. The report fulfils the terms of reference set out for Ms Kitteridge and it canvasses all the relevant issues. The issues around Kim Dotcom have been canvassed extensively through the courts.David Shearer: Given the findings of the Kitteridge report and the implications for other intelligence agencies does he now accept that there needs to be a fully independent inquiry across all our security agencies; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the Government is not looking at a formal independent inquiry right across. In fact the Prime Minister has been working with the intelligence agencies to make change since the time that he took office because I think he became aware they were not in a state to deal with the new sorts of threats or as has now become apparent to deal with the level of legal compliance that they ought to be able to deal with.David Shearer: Given that he claims to have first found out about the illegal spying on 17 December 2012 was he briefed on the outcome of discussions within the Government Communications Security Bureau with Paul Neazor about the ongoing legality of his agency’s spying in May 2012; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply cannot answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister. I do not have the information.David Shearer: Given his statement that major breaches in Government databases have been simple human error does he believe that the information relating to the victims of crime needs to be held in a secure database; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure what the member is referring to but if he is referring to some publicity today around an attempt to hack the Ministry of Justice that attempt failed.David Shearer: Why is confidential Ministry of Justice information able to be accessed by a member of the public?Hon Judith Collins: It’s not.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only take the advice of the relevant Minister who says that it is not. But the issues the member is raising are issues that underline the importance of having our intelligence agencies in good shape with updated law and technology so that they along with Government departments can combat that kind of behaviour.David Shearer: Following privacy breaches at the Earthquake Commission the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Social Development ACC the Inland Revenue Department Work and Income Novopay Housing New Zealand the Ministry of Education the Medical Council and now the Ministry of Justice when will the Prime Minister act to make sure that New Zealanders’ personal details are not being revealed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He certainly acted before the Leader of the Opposition revealed—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —his personal details about his bank account in New York.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of answer will not help the order of the House. Would the Deputy Prime Minister please address the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has acted. There has been an extensive review of the data-security procedures in all Government agencies. I think what has become apparent is that these kinds of events have almost certainly been going on for many years but now they are drawing public attention and are unacceptable to the public. I can tell that member that the audit of security processes followed by agencies showed that under the previous Labour Government nothing was done. Many of them had no procedures whatsoever and that is why the Government has to move decisively to upgrade those procedures.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the public have any confidence in the assurances that have just been given when the first thing that happened to the Kitteridge report was that it was leaked?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is a more serious issue than the member is giving it credit for. Front-line public servants do need to understand that they will have to follow procedures with email that ensure that they do not email large amounts of information to the wrong place.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question is fairly basically about how we can have any confidence with the answers that the Prime Minister’s stand-in has given when in fact the first thing that happened was that the Kitteridge report was leaked. That is pretty serious. I want him to explain that not everything else that was ancillary to—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the public have any confidence in the assurances that the Prime Minister is giving today when the first thing that happened to the Kitteridge report was that it was leaked?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The assurances that have been given are that the Government is taking action. We cannot yet give the assurance that public servants and their organisations have the correct procedures in place to protect all individual information.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he give the House an assurance that the leak did not come from any staff in the Prime Minister’s office; if so what or who does he believe to be the source of this very serious leak?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can give that assurance. There is no reason at all why the Prime Minister’s department would behave in that way. In fact as the member will know the Prime Minister intended to release the report on his return from China next year and present it to—Hon Members: Next year!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —next week—and present it to the Intelligence and Security Committee which he would have been scheduled to attend and release it afterwards.Economic Growth—Progress2.Hon TAU HENARE (National) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in building economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This week I have received Treasury’s latest monthlyEconomic Indicatorsreport which shows that the outlook for the economy is looking more positive following a robust 1.5 percent increase in GDP in the December 2012 quarter. Also the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s business opinion survey out today shows confidence up moderately in the March quarter to a 3-year high pointing to growth of around 3 percent a year. I might point out that in the calendar year 2012 New Zealand grew 3 percent and Australia with its mining boom grew 3.1 percent.Hon Tau Henare: What are some of the main contributions to the improving outlook?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury reports a range of indicators looking reasonably positive. Commodity prices in March had the third-strongest rise on record driven by dairy prices. Manufacturing and services industry indexes have both risen strongly so there is clearly not a crisis in manufacturing when it is growing. Consumer confidence business confidence and firms’ reported outlook for activity are all around or above long-term averages and our major trading partners Australia China the US and Japan have generally reported economic data a bit ahead of expectations.Hon Tau Henare: What reports has he received on the Government’s finances?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s accounts for the 8 months to the end of February show that the deficit was $3 billion for the first 8 months of the financial year $556 million lower than the deficit forecast back in December. This reflects good control of expenditure as well as marginally higher revenues. The Crown’s operating balance which records change in the value of all the Crown’s activities including its investments recorded a surplus of $4.3 billion. The Government is on track to surplus.Hon Tau Henare: What independent comment has he seen about the Government’s economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen comments from the managing director of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde who said of New Zealand: “All I can tell you is the IMF is very supportive of what is being done by the Government …” and “If you look at the numbers if you look whether it is growth whether it is employment whether it is inflation whether it is debt overall it is very stable and it is also very promising … it’s certainly a lot better than what we see in other parts of the world.”And she went on to say that the economic policies are supportive of good fundamentals and “policies we believe are sound and solid.”Hon David Parker: Do the latest financial statements of the Government show that while “Total labour force earnings were in line with forecasts” this is because the fall in employment has been “concentrated at the lower end of the income scale” meaning that the same amount of income was earned by fewer workers; and what further proof does he need to show that income inequality is growing wider and wider under the settings that his Government pursues?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is I think telling half the story there. As I understand it what the figures showed was that employment for part-time and young workers reduced. It is still a bit of a puzzle because it is likely that one of the reasons it did that is because more of them are going into training. That of course is what that party advocates—that young people should not be in low-paid part-time jobs they should be in training. Well they are moving from low-paid part-time jobs into training and I thought he would have supported that.State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Mighty River Power3.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to theMinister for State Owned Enterprises: Have all the risks for potential investors in Mighty River Power been fully identified in the offer document; if so does he expect the Crown will receive the best possible return for floating 49 percent of Mighty River Power?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes I am advised that the offer document does identify all material information and all risks material to Mighty River Power. Yes the Crown expects to get optimum value within our set of stated objectives including widespread New Zealand ownership. The float of Mighty River Power remains on track and is part of our wider economic plan to help control debt and to invest in important future infrastructure.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has any member of the Mighty River Power board at any point threatened to resign or advised that they would not be seeking reappointment should their remuneration not be increased given that he has stated that the significant increase in Mighty River Power directors’ fees was to be able to “retain” the services of the current directors?Hon TONY RYALL: No no director indicated that. But this Government is determined to make sure that we have a good quality board on Mighty River Power a board that will help lead the stewardship of this company which will effectively be the fourth or fifth-biggest company on the New Zealand Exchange.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that a 73 percent pay increase for the Mighty River Power directors is “realistic” and “sensible” given that directors are already paid an additional $1200 a day to prepare the company for sale; if so does he also agree with the Prime Minister that the Government cannot afford to increase the $14.50-an-hour pay rate for aged carers and the people who clean the Prime Minister’s office?Hon TONY RYALL: I always agree with the Prime Minister. The Mighty River Power directors have received and are going to receive an increase in their fee because of the substantial extra work that will be required in becoming directors of a publicly listed company. It certainly is very very comparable with the $115000 a year that the Contact Energy directors get and also the fee paid to the directors of TrustPower which is a much smaller company. The member may be wanting to talk down the prospects of this company. This Government does not want to.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why according to the Mighty River Power offer document will the joint lead managers—Goldman Sachs Macquarie and First NZ Capital—in addition to their base fees of $666666 be paid 0.4 percent commission to sell shares to New Zealand institutional investors yet—Hon Dr Nick Smith: 0.04?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: —0.4 percent—will be paid 0.8 percent double the amount in commission to sell shares to institutional investors outside New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: It is not unusual to have a fee structure that reflects the relative responsibilities of the people participating. But at the end of all of this process the Government has made it absolutely clear that 85 to 90 percent of this company will remain in New Zealand ownership. I know that that member has spent 18 months trying to talk down the prospects of—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I think the Minister in quite a detailed fashion answered the question then went on with other extraneous matters. I was just wondering whether you were going to stop him.Mr SPEAKER: No I assumed the member was interested in the answer but if the member is now absolutely satisfied with the answer we will move to the next supplementary question.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table page 238 of the Mighty River Power offer document which verifies that these people get a greater commission to flog off the power shares overseas than they do to—Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that information is freely available on the website to anybody.Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: What is the security classification of the full report by Rebecca Kitteridge into the Government Communications Security Bureau and who in his Government had access to the full report?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): The report has not had a national security classification with the exception of some of the appendices which will not be released. It has been classified according to normal Cabinet procedure rather than securities procedure. The Prime Minister’s office has kept copies of the report in the office safe when they have not been required. On behalf of the Prime Minister I can give the House an assurance that the copy of the report that has been leaked has not come from the office of the Prime Minister.Dr Russel Norman:I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were two legs to the question and I acknowledge that the Minister answered the first. But with regard to the second the question was who had access to the full report. The Acting Prime Minister has said that the Prime Minister’s office had access to the full report. It was not clear from his answer whether it was only the Prime Minister’s office.Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister happy to expand on the answer?Hon BILL ENGLISH:Sorry to complete the answer I cannot give the member a list of exactly who has had it because the Government has not inquired into that as yet. But the report in the last couple of weeks would have had fairly broad circulation through a number of agencies and Ministers’ offices.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. It was very specific. It asked who in his Government had access to the full report. He has had a number of hours to ascertain the answer. He has come to the House and failed to answer the question on notice.Mr SPEAKER: Well the Minister may want to elaborate but he said quite clearly initially in his answer that it was around the Prime Minister’s office and addressed that very specifically and then he went on to say that it has been distributed to a number of agencies. He was not specific as to the number of agencies and I am not sure even though the question is on notice whether it would be fair to expect the Minister to list every agency that has had access to this report.Hon Trevor Mallard: This is a matter that has to do with a report into a security agency. I think you are aware that these things are closely held often with numbered copies often with drafts and numbers across them and lists kept. Lists are always kept of these confidential documents as to their circulation. The question did not ask which public servants have it; it asked which parts of his Government have it. It was a fairly simple question to answer and so far we have seen the House being treated with contempt by the Acting Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that last part is fair but I do accept the point raised by Dr Russel Norman and by the Hon Trevor Mallard and I wonder whether I can ask the Acting Prime Minister to be more specific about who in Government had access to the full report.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot be more specific at the moment. I simply do not have that information in detail for the member and some of it may be confidential so we would have to work through that process before the information could be made available.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the very point. We know how the system operates. That question would have come in a long time ago. It would have been assigned to a responsible staff member to complete it factually and make sure that the answer to at least the primary question gives people the information that they are seeking. He cannot come down here and say: “Well I don’t have it at the moment.” We want an explanation now as to why he did not bother to treat this Parliament with respect and come down properly provisioned with the information he had hours to answer.Mr SPEAKER: Again the Minister has now stood up and said that he cannot give an answer. That is unfortunate. I accept the point that Russel Norman has made that this was a question on notice. The Acting Prime Minister has simply said that he has come to the House and he does not have that specific information and then alluded to the fact that it may well be classified and he does not want it released. If that is his answer that is his answer. I cannot do any more to elicit a more accurate answer but the member has further supplementary questions and I would invite him to use them to try to elicit more information.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave for this question to be set down for further supplementary questions after question No. 12 today in order for the Acting Prime Minister to brief himself on a suitable answer to the primary question.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the fact that the cover note on the report says that the appendices are legally privileged and highly classified does he believe that the leaking of the full Kitteridge report is a serious offence?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may be possible but we have yet to see what aspects of the report have been leaked.Dr Russel Norman: If it does turn out that the full report has been leaked by someone in his Government what consequences should face the person who leaked this information which the Government Communications Security Bureau describes as legally privileged and highly classified? What consequences should that person face?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If appendices that have been given a security classification have been leaked then there would be significant consequences for the person who leaked them.Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Prime Minister seem confident that the appendices have not been leaked?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of whether they appear in the public arena. The Prime Minister does not have the capacity to guess whether someone has them sitting in a shoebox under their bed but I assume that if they think there is some political effect from leaking those appendices that is worth the risk then we will eventually see them. They are not in the newspaper today.Dr Russel Norman: Given that so far the only member of his Government who he has told us has had access to this report is the office of the Prime Minister did he or a member of his staff leak the report?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is not what I said actually. What I said to the member was that the report has been circulated fairly broadly across Government agencies in the last couple of weeks.Dr Russel Norman: If he does not know who leaked the report will he launch an inquiry to get to the bottom of it given his previous support for an inquiry into a leak at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade over documents that were probably quite considerably less sensitive?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government simply has not considered that at any length. Our primary concern has been that given the leak of the document it is important that the document is in the public arena so that people can see the significant issues that it raises in respect of our security agencies. The other issue has been less important than that today but who knows? The person who leaked it might own up tomorrow and there would not need to be any kind of inquiry.Dr Russel Norman: If it is found that over 80 people were illegally spied on by the Government Communications Security Bureau as is suggested in the report will he apologise to them as he apologised to Kim Dotcom and will he ensure that all the people who have been illegally spied on are given access to all the information that was illegally obtained?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I think the member is jumping to conclusions. I think the report shows there has been a very thorough investigation of the activities of the bureau now going back to the year 2003 which includes the period of the previous Government and it does raise the question of whether the legislation passed by the previous Government was fundamentally flawed. Whether any individual has been illegally spied on is yet to be determined.Grant Robertson: Given that his own staff took the precaution of locking the report in the safe in their office why has the Government not launched an inquiry into the leaking of a document deemed so sensitive that it needed to be locked in the safe in his office?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I assume the staff of the Prime Minister’s office were following the usual procedure they would with documents that were labelled sensitive in the Cabinet process. As I said a couple of the appendices have a security classification and of course they would be handled very carefully. Of course the Government will turn its mind to the issue of the leak but if the member thinks that we behave like the previous Labour Government—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.Welfare Reforms—Work Focus and Investment Approach5.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theMinister for Social Development: How are the Government’s welfare changes ensuring a fairer welfare system and tackling long-term welfare dependence?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): These changes will deliver real change transforming New Zealand’s welfare system into an active and work-focused approach. A key part of reforms is that the focus is on not only those who are currently long-term beneficiaries but more important those who are most likely to turn out to be long-term beneficiaries. The investment approach gives us information like we have never had before. This will mean that we can spend extra money on extra support where it will make the biggest difference.Mike Sabin: What changes are being introduced to ensure welfare is work-focused?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Alongside the significant changes through the investment approach we are also making sensible changes that are long overdue. Those who have a current warrant out for their arrest and who are avoiding the police will have their benefit cancelled. We will now require job seekers to be drug-free. Up until now people could decline to apply for an available drug-tested job because they would not pass the test—without a consequence. It is a straightforward expectation: drug use should not get in the way of getting a job if you are on a benefit.Mike Sabin: What reports has she received about the new work focus requirements?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Over 40 percent of the jobs that come in through Work and Income require a drug test. Last week in Dunedin I spoke with two of the large employers for the South Island. Both of these employers drug test and said how much of a difference this will make for them. We also know that in Canterbury as part of the reconstruction work most of the jobs that are there require people to pass a drug test prior to employment. It is a straightforward expectation and one that I am surprised that the Opposition is not on board with because this will help people get work.Jacinda Ardern: How many more individuals will have extra work-testing obligations under her welfare reforms and how does this compare with the number of jobs created by her Government?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What the Opposition does not get is that it is not actually the Government that creates jobs; it is businesses. Unless someone in a town or in a city turns round and says that they want to take on someone extra then that person cannot get a job. So what happened in the 2000s was that Labour in Government tried to magic up a whole pile of jobs and what happened was that when things got tough people fell out of them and had to go on to welfare. We have seen an increase in those who will be work tested. If they cannot find a job they will not be sanctioned they will not face any penalties—but you will not find a job unless you are looking for one.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption] Point of order—[Interruption] Order! The point of order will be heard in silence.Jacinda Ardern: The Government’s own Budget statements claimed that there would be 170000 jobs under this Government. I do not think it is unfair to ask for the Minister to produce under a straight question some straight numbers around how many more people—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. That is not a point of order; the question was addressed.Overseas Investment Rules—Good Character Test for Investors6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister for Land Information: Is it Government policy that a person or company involved in the 2008melamine scandal would fail the good character test under section 18(1)(c) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of theMinister for Land Information: It is Government policy that the good-character test should be applied when applications under the Act are being considered. The policy is applied to all applications and considers a wide variety of matters. Involvement in the 2008 melamine scandal could be a matter for consideration. I note that there has been no application from any party found culpable charged or convicted in the melamine scandal.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would the good-character test not be stringently applied to Yashili New Zealand Dairy Company when it was involved in the melamine scandal?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly all these matters are investigated by the Overseas Investment Office. In the case of Yashili and in fact another company called Yili Group they were recipients of milk that had been tampered with in the melamine scandal. They were not found culpable themselves.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is New Zealand’s most valuable asset—its reputation as a source of high-quality food—being put at risk by allowing Yashili to set up a food processing plant right here in New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That may be a question better asked of another Minister but what I would say is that the very reason these companies want to set up in this country is because of the certainty that they can have around the supply of raw milk to their factories here in New Zealand—a certainty they clearly cannot get in China.Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information7.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to theMinister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: When will EQC staff be able to email documents to customers?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): The Earthquake Commission is able to engage with clients by email now but cannot send attachments through email. The member will appreciate the seriousness of the privacy breaches including one that was subject to an urgent question in the House on 28 March. At this time I cannot give a date on which the Earthquake Commission will be able to email documents to claimants but as soon as systems are in place to prevent accidental privacy breaches the Earthquake Commission will be able to resume normal engagement. I note the concerns that her party has about privacy breaches and security as mentioned in question No. 1 today.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he stand by his statement that sending massive amounts of information by email is the same as putting the wrong address on an envelope or does he now accept that data protection systems are required to mitigate human error?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My quote there has I think been significantly misused by people who want to create a degree of menace. The reality is that email is in fact a form of mail system and when the wrong material gets attached by human error it is a disaster. That is why we have shut the system down and will not be opening it up until we can have some certainty about its security.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why was it necessary to take such dramatic steps which further delayed the processing of claims in light of the two major breaches involving Excel spreadsheets and why was it not simply that the Earthquake Commission was required to stop sending Excel spreadsheets by email?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I note that this matter was the subject of an urgent question here in the House with the House setting aside time to deal with it because it was of such huge public importance and I agree with that. I note also that the member over there was calling for my resignation over this matter. To think that we would not react in a way that took it very seriously is as ridiculous as most of her other statements on earthquake recovery.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why has the Earthquake Commission closed down its Twitter account and when will it be reinstated?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have no idea when it will be reinstated and frankly I did not know that it even had one.Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table a snapshot of the Twitter account which shows that it blocked me: “Sorry you can’t”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is available to any member who wants to see it.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can a snapshot of someone’s Twitter account—from her account—possibly be publicly available?Mr SPEAKER: And I think the more important point is that it has been shut down so I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is.Cyber-bullying—Measures to Address8.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Justice: What announcements has she recently made to address the harm caused by cyberbullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Cyber-bullies are able to harass their targets 24 hours a day 7 days a week and the trail of abuse lives on in cyberspace following victims for years. This Government is introducing new legislation to stop the growing incidence of cyber-bullying and its devastating effects particularly for young people and the new anti - cyber-bullying proposals protect victims and hold perpetrators to account sending a very clear message to cyber-bullies that their behaviour must stop.Katrina Shanks: What first line of support is the Government putting in place for victims of cyber-bullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We are creating a new civil enforcement regime and setting up or appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints. The new approved agency will help people get the support they need to stop cyber-bullying quickly including liaison with website hosts and internet service providers to request take-down or moderation of clearly offensive posts. The agency will also be able to investigate and resolve complaints directly and will be able to refer the most serious complaints to the District Court which can issue sanctions such as take-down orders and cease and desist notices.Katrina Shanks: What other steps are being taken to eliminate cyber-bullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Serious ongoing recidivist cyber-bullies can expect to be punished by up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $2000 fine for posting material online that is grossly offensive indecent obscene menacing or knowingly false. We are creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment and the Harassment Act the Privacy Act and the Human Rights Act will be amended to ensure that they are up to date for digital communications. This Government is putting the right support in place and is modernising our outdated laws so victims of cyber-bullying particularly our young people no longer have to suffer as they have been.Resource Management Act Reforms—Environmental Protection9.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to theMinister for the Environment: How will the second round of proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 as they are currently expressed maintain the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The changes as proposed maintain protection of the environment in a number of ways including ensuring the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act in section 5 remains—promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources including safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems. The proposals also provide that environmental matters of national importance in section 6 are all being maintained and we have also retained the directive wording of “preserve” and “protect” despite technical advice to remove these words. Where the proposals include the removal of second order matters in section 7 this is only where it has been demonstrated that they are adequately provided for in other parts of the Act. In addition the changes proposed in the second phase of the Resource Management Act go further than simply maintaining protections and include for the first time introducing national bottom lines for the quality of our waterways—for the first time in New Zealand’s history thanks to this National-led Government which prioritises action in this space something that the Labour-Greens Government never did.Hon Maryan Street: What is the import of deleting the words “the maintenance and enhancement of public access” to waterways from the current Part 2 of the Act which as the Minister knows outlines the purpose and principles of the Act and their replacement with the words “the value of public access” to these waterways and how does she see that as maintaining the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: The proposals provide that the decision makers must recognise and provide for the value of public access to and along the coastal marine area wetlands lakes and rivers. That is what we put out for consultation. We are satisfied that that adequately and properly provides for those matters and we are looking forward to receiving feedback on it.Hon Maryan Street: What is the import of the deletion from the current Part 2 of the Act of these words “the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:” “intrinsic values of ecosystems:” “maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:” and “the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:” and how does she see these deletions as maintaining the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned in the answer to the primary question where we are suggesting that matters currently in section 7 which is second order considerations in Part 2 of the Act are removed it is only on the basis of independent technical expert evidence we have had that outlines that in each case they are adequately and properly provided for in other parts of the Act. In particular I refer to the member’s comment around amenity values. We note that they are already an explicit component of the environment as defined which must be sustainably managed under section 5. In respect of the habitat of trout and salmon I would draw her attention to the fact that the proposal now goes further than simply protecting the habitats of trout and salmon and provides for the protection of aquatic habitats generally including the protection of trout and salmon. We are improving protection.Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister believe that the report of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment from whom I have been quoting in the last two supplementary questions has any warning bells attaching to it for her; and if so what changes does she intend to make to the proposals in order for them not to become simply a charter for big business to exploit the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have read the submissions from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on both the resource management and the water proposals and I note that in some instances she concurs that the changes are much needed and in other areas she raises concern. But I do note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment suggests that economic development is not a relevant consideration under the Resource Management Act. It is the view of this Government that economic development jobs and cheaper housing are all absolutely valid considerations for our planning infrastructure and it is our view that New Zealanders do want things like the provision of jobs and cheaper housing to be relevant considerations under our planning legislation.Mining Marine—Amendment to Restrict Protest Activity10.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Has he requested that the Attorney-General assess Supplementary Order Paper No 205 to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): No.Gareth Hughes: Given that several highly respected legal professionals believe his Supplementary Order Paper breaches international law in human rights will he now request that the Attorney-General undertake a New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment of his amendment?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister support leave being sought to return the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the select committee to allow for expert scrutiny and public consultation on this amendment which has significant constitutional democratic and human rights implications?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I refer the member to my earlier answers.Gareth Hughes: Why is the Minister rushing ahead to pass this amendment which highly respected New Zealand legal professionals have said is in breach of international law and an attack on democratic rights without any select committee scrutiny without any public consultation and without a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis by the Attorney-General?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are not rushing ahead. This was signalled in the previous Minister’s first reading speech. I expect vigorous debate in this House this week where all the views can be frankly canvassed.Government Communications Security Bureau—2012 Briefings and Appointment of DirectorGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to table the question that I intend to ask the Prime Minister next week on his involvement in the appointment of Ian Fletcher so he might prepare an answer for it.Mr SPEAKER: I just warn the member—[Interruption] I do not think it is funny at all. Leave is sought. I am going to put the leave and leave it for the House to decide. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.11.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to thePrime Minister: Why was only one candidate interviewed for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2011?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): The recruitment process had identified only one candidate who was interested in the position and who had the mix of skills and experience needed to lead the Government Communications Security Bureaugiven the challenges facing the agency some of which have been set out in detail in the Kitteridge report released today.Grant Robertson: What opportunity was there for other candidates to be considered for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau given that Ian Fletcher was the only person interviewed only 5 days after his phone call to Mr Fletcher and the scrapping of the short list?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was plenty of opportunity. As the Prime Minister and the State Services Commissioner have outlined they had a discussion about a short list of four people who presumably had been through a process to get to a short list and the State Services Commissioner had the view that none of them had the required qualities to do the job that was ahead of them.Grant Robertson: In light of the Acting Prime Minister’s primary answer mentioning the Kitteridge review does he still claim that he was not briefed by Ian Fletcher about unlawful spying until September 2012 when paragraph 25 of the Kitteridge report says that the legality of spying was being discussed at the Government Communications Security Bureau all the way from May 2012 to September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by his statements on that matter.Grant Robertson: Why is the Prime Minister’s oversight of a security agency that can spy on people so lax that he was not even aware according to his statements that there were discussions about unlawful spying taking place from May to September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He simply does not agree with the member’s assertion that the oversight was lax and actually the report sets out a description of an agency where there was not a strong focus on compliance.Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister assure the House today that he was not briefed about unlawful spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau or allegations of unlawful spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau before September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the earlier answer: the Prime Minister stands by his statements on that matter.Better Public Services Targets—Participation in Early Childhood Education12.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Education: What progress has she made against the Government’s early childhood education priorities?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I have the pleasure of announcing an increase in the number of children participating in early childhood education. Provisional data for the first quarter of 2013 shows that around 95.5 percent of children who were starting school had participated in early childhood education. That is over 2500 more children than the same period last year. The provisional data also shows increased participation from Māori and Pasifika children with just under 92 percent of Māori children and around 88 percent of Pacific Island children attending early childhood education before they start school. That is a 1.4 percent and 1.9 percent increase respectively on the same period last year.Tim Macindoe: What else is this Government doing to get children into early childhood education?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In Budget 2012 we invested $1.4 billion in early childhood education which included 20 hours’ early childhood education funding for all families as well as over $48 million in equity funding to target children and communities who have not traditionally participated. We have established an early learning task force which is working with communities and neighbourhoods to apply or develop modelsthat will work for them and we are taking early learning opportunities to the families whānau and aiga where there is either limited provision or low uptake. As can be seen by the provisional data these issues are working.Points of OrderPrivilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker under Standing Order 407(b). I wrote to you on 18 March—without going into the matter—in respect of a complaint in respect of the acting chief executive officer of Solid Energy allegedly misleading the Commerce Committee. It was an issue of contempt. You replied to me on 28 March determining that “There was no matter of privilege involved.” However you gave no reasons to justify your decision and you did not address the second complaint of contempt in respect of another member of that company.My question is this in respect of the Standing Orders: could you advise whether you will be providing reasons for your decision in respect of these matters as you yourself have done in other privileges complaints in respect of other members of Parliament including I am told Mr Twyford who raised with you recently a complaint of privilege on another member of the House. You replied and gave detailed reasons as to why that complaint was not upheld.Mr SPEAKER: On some occasions I will be writing a very fulsome letter and explaining why I do not believe there has been a breach of privilege. On other occasions I will be less fulsome with my explanation.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just hope there is one other option—that at some stage you might refer one of the letters to the Privileges Committee.Mr SPEAKER: Well I have no doubt that at some stage something will go to the Privileges Committee but at this stage I have not seen something that I think is worthy of sending to the Privileges Committee.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Indeed. Based on your reply—I think you used the words that in some cases you provide detailed explanations and in others you provide less fulsome ones—in the case that I have put before you you provide no reasons at all zero fulsome or otherwise and I am just wondering whether you yourself believe it should be consistent to provide some reasons or am I a special case?Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The member has raised a reasonable point of order. I have adopted the practice of the previous Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith who had an attitude that when something was taken to the media at the same time that it went to the Speaker he was inclined to give a less fulsome explanation. I intend to adopt the same practice.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again—I have the letter and I am going to seek leave to table it—I just do not quite understand “less fulsome”. In this case there is not one reason at all that you have given to turn it down and I am just inquiring as to why you are not being consistent with your explanations to other members of Parliament.Mr SPEAKER: As I have just said to the member I have adopted a practice adopted by the previous Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and it is consistent with his practice as well that where letters of complaint of privilege come to me at the same time as they involve the media I will still make a decision on the value of it going to thePrivileges Committee but I will be less inclined to enter into a fulsome debate in my explanation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a concern that the question that is asked of you as Speaker is not whether there is a breach of privilege but whether there is a reasonable question of whether there has been a breach of privilege. I have the impression—and I would like to be assured that I am wrong in this because this case here seems surprising—that you are looking at whether you should be determining whether there is a breach of privilege rather than ascertaining whether there is a question of a breach of privilege.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making. No I am certainly not in a position where I determine whether there has been a breach of privilege. My duty as Speaker is to determine whether the matter is serious enough whether an attempt has been made to deliberately mislead the House or a select committee and whether any attempt has been made to correct an incorrect answer. Taking all those matters into account will be important to determine whether any case goes to the Privileges Committee.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whether this case has been determined on the basis that it was not serious rather than it being a contempt it is very difficult for the Opposition to know. From the complaint that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove put in it seemed pretty clear that there was a contempt. Are we to take it that you thought that it was a contempt but that it was not serious enough to go to the Privileges Committee?Mr SPEAKER: No. As I have just mentioned to the member there were two important aspects to the decision. One was whether the attempt was deliberate and whether any attempt was made relatively quickly to correct the answer.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to invite you to make a correction to a statement you made earlier I note that the word “fulsome” means excessive insincere offensive or distasteful. I would not describe your reply to Mr Twyford in that manner.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a further point of order on this?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is.Mr SPEAKER: I think the matter has been determined.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Would you be able to advise whether you will be writing to me dealing with the second issue of contempt which was contained in the same letter?Mr SPEAKER: I have already responded to the member to the extent of the complaint put before me.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling but I do have in front of me what I wrote and there were two issues. One was in relation to Mr Diack as you have responded to directly. The second was in relation to information from other members of the executive of Solid Energy that was not provided to the Commerce Committee but some days after the meeting was provided to third parties and the media. You have addressed the issue specifically. You have addressed—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the point?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Can I be heard in silence?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You have addressed the first point specifically and I am not going to further challenge that in relation to Mr Diack. You have not in any way in the letter dealt with the second issue I wrote to you about.Mr SPEAKER: OK. I do not have the original letter in front of me at the moment. The member is welcome to come and discuss that matter with me and I will have a further look at it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No. We are getting to the stage now where you are clearly relitigating rulings that I have made. I invite the member to come with his letter and I will talk him through the issue and make sure I have adequately responded to his letter.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I will hear it.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I seek leave to table your letter to me of 28 March 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Urgent Debates DeclinedEarthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal InformationGovernment Communications Security Bureau—Review of ComplianceJustice Ministry—Security of Online InformationMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the shutdown of the Earthquake Commission’s external email systems and business-to-business data exchange and all systems that allow access to its systems by external parties as a result of another major data breach. The shutdown is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. As significant as such privacy breaches are to confidence in Government information systems not every such breach will warrant an urgent debate. The action taken by the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission to immediately shut down the Earthquake Commission’s external information system was significant but a restricted return to business has been approved and an investigation by the Government’s Chief Information Officer is under way. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.I have also received letters from Grant Robertson and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the Cabinet secretary’s report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The members’ authenticating material shows that the report is due to be released later today. The urgent debate procedure is not a means of debating matters that may occur in the future. There cannot be a debate on the basis of media speculation about what may or may not be in the report. An application can be lodged up until the time the House meets. If something occurs after that time it can be lodged for debate on the next sitting day. The application is also declined.I have also received a letter from Clare Curran seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a serious flaw in the Ministry of Justice’s website. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. The member has not provided authentication of the flaw other than her own press releasenor is there any authentication of the Ministry’s reaction or response. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the requirement of a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility has been met at this time. The application is therefore also declined.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Obviously I am not challenging your ruling but I do note that in your reasons for declining my application you said that media reports were not a basis. I would like to note that it was the words of the Acting Prime Minister that there was a report and that he in fact described some elements of the report—the fact that there were around 80 potential pieces of unlawful spying. So it is not just media speculation; it is actually the Acting Prime Minister’s own words about the report that were in our application.Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure now what the point of order is from the member.Grant Robertson: It is just clarification.Mr SPEAKER: The clarification for the member is that as I came into the House at 2 o’clock the report at that stage had not been released. The member should take note of the ruling.Psychoactive Substances BillFirst ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I will move that the Health Committee report to the House on the bill by 14 June 2013 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Members please show some courtesy.Hon PETER DUNNE: —despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c).Over the last 20 years New Zealand and other countries have been facing an acceleration in the development of new recreational drugs. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—the legislation that protects the public from drugs that are known to pose a moderate high or very high risk of harm—was never designed for an environment in which dozens of new substances can be brought to the market in the space of just a few weeks. It has simply been unable to keep up. Scores of products with unknown effects and unknown risk profiles—indeed some barely known to science at all—have slipped through this regulatory void and on to dairy shelves. The public has been rightly concerned as news reports have highlighted that young adults adolescents and even some children have been taking these so-called legal highs and suffering as a result.About 18 months ago this House passed an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act which has allowed me to issue temporary class drug notices in theGazette. These are time-limited bans and the effect of a temporary class drug notice is to apply the same penalties as we do for cannabis except that personal possession is not an offence. So far I have issued such notices for 33 of these substances affecting more than 50 products. More are still available. But there is a game of regulatory cat and mouse afoot here where an irresponsible industry seeks to elude authorities and circumvent the law by bringing new chemicals to the lucrative market of things that have not yet been banned.Many people have asked me why we do not simply ban these substances altogether. Unfortunately because the retail products are a combination of substances—some areharmful and some are not—it is simply not that simple. What the temporary class drug notice regime has done is make it possible to respond faster to new developments but I freely concede—and did so at the time—that it does nothing to slow those developments in the first place. That can actually have the perverse effect of increasing the range of emerging drugs. This proliferation of poorly understood chemicals and their widespread use should concern all of us. We need an enduring solution and that is what this bill is all about.The Psychoactive Substances Bill ends this dangerous game of cat and mouse by banning the import the manufacture the sale the supply and the possession of psychoactive substances. It reverses the onus of proof by making all psychoactive substances illegal unless the industry can prove their products are low risk. Psychoactive substances are broadly defined in the bill as substances mixtures preparations articles devices or things that are capable of inducing a psychoactive effect by any means in the people who choose to use them. Substances already governed by other legislation—foods medicines supplements herbal remedies alcohol tobacco controlled drugs and precursors to controlled drugs—are excluded from that definition. To avoid situations where the law is circumvented by people labelling products such as bath salts incense or plant food as has happened here and overseas there is a power for a declaration by Order in Council that a substance is or is not a psychoactive substance for the purpose of this legislation.This law will not be mocked by fine print “Not for human consumption” words being placed on packaging. But it is not the Government’s intention to ban absolutely everything for ever. The meat of the bill is a pathway to a regulated market for psychoactive substances if they can be shown to pose no more than a low risk of harm. I emphasise here that to say that a product poses no more than a low risk of harm is not the same as saying that a product is safe. No one will be allowed to claim that a product is safe. The Government has no intention of acting in a way that might be interpreted as an endorsement of party drugs.What the bill does is create a Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority and an expert advisory committee. The authority will be responsible for granting licences for the import and manufacture of psychoactive substances and on the advice of the expert committee approving psychoactive products for sale if they have been shown to pose no more than that low risk of harm I spoke of.To bring a product to market a sponsor will therefore have to demonstrate to the expert committee that the product poses no more than a low risk of harm. Practically speaking this will involve providing the committee with evidence from clinical safety trials similar to those required to bring a new medicine to market. That process will be expensive and I make no apology for that. There will be no room under this regime for fly-by-night operators wanting to sell substances on the cheap that they do not fully understand.Approved products will be made subject to comprehensive regulatory control. So even if they come through the hoop people under 18 will be unable to buy sell or be supplied these products. For retail outlets the packaging the labelling and the promotion of approved products will be strictly limited. There will be requirements for health warnings on the packaging since even products with no more than a low risk of harm cannot be called completely safe. Manufacturing standards disposal and record-keeping requirements will be set.In the legislation itself there is a requirement for product sponsors or licence holders to report all adverse events involving their products to the authority which will have the power to suspend or cancel trading in a product. And finally the bill contains a transitional provision that allows products lawfully sold throughout the 6 months priorto the commencement of the legislation to remain on the shelves if—and only if—an application for approval has been lodged with the authority no later than 30 days after this legislation is enacted. I expect that provision to receive a reasonable level of attention during the select committee process and I therefore encourage the committee to consider it in the light of the bill’s intention to minimise health-related harm and to place the onus of proof on the sponsor.The penalties for infringing against this regime are strong but commensurate with the need to protect the public from unknown drugs. This bill is a necessary measure to protect the health of the public by regulating novel psychoactive substances in a way that is proportionate to the risks they pose. It is a world first and when I attended the recent United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime meeting in Vienna our legislation was the subject of considerable attention and interest. New Zealand is being seen as an innovator. We are seen as a country that is promoting through this bill a viable solution to a problem that many countries are similarly grappling with. I am therefore very proud of this bill and I am very proud now to commend it to the House for its first reading.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Let me say at the outset that Labour wholeheartedly supports this legislation the Psychoactive Substances Bill and we look forward to the select committee process and hearing what people have to say about the bill.There are two aspects of it that I think are particularly worthy of praise. First—and this is the thing that many parents around New Zealand will be very pleased to see—it does provide a mechanism to get some of these substances that have been untested that are unproven off the shelf until such time as they are proven to be safe. I know that there will be people particularly parents around the country rejoicing at the knowledge that this legislation is finally being passed and that that will be the effect. The second aspect though that I think is particularly praiseworthy is the fact that for the first time in this Parliament we are expecting to pass legislation that proposes a mechanism by which some drugs can become legal and make it to market in a regulated—I hope a very tightly regulated—market. That I believe is a very positive step in our drug laws—Mike Sabin: Don’t worry. We will never be doing that with cannabis. Don’t panic.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry. Say that again Mike Sabin.Mike Sabin: I said we won’t be doing that with cannabis so don’t worry.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think this is a very positive step and we may want to look more widely at how it could be applied to other substances. But I know that that is not the purpose of this legislation. That is not the debate we are having today.We need to focus today on the issue at hand and that is the issue of novel particularly synthetic psychoactive substances that are not covered by other pieces of legislation. Things like alcohol tobacco and those conventional drugs that are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act and natural remedies—those sorts of things—are not going to be covered by this bill. This is particularly aimed at things like synthetic cannabis and party pills which we know have unfortunately caused a lot of damage to young people because there has been no mechanism by which those substances can be proven safe before they go to the market.I would like to point out some aspects of the Psychoactive Substances Bill that I think are particularly excellent. The first is that the possession of a substance that is not an approved substance will not attract a criminal conviction. There is no danger of a person being imprisoned. In fact it will be nothing more than an infringement that attracts a fine of up to $500. I think that again is a positive step and one that we might want to reflect on in the future for how that type of arrangement might apply to other substances. Obviously this allows for the substances to be sold only to people who are aged 18 and over and that will need to be tightly tightly enforced.Finally it is an offence to employ someone under 18 to sell psychoactive substances. Again this is an issue that we have seen time and time again in the tobacco debate: youngsters very young people—employed in small retail outfits to be fair—have been in the position where they have been selling a substance that is restricted and to be sold only to people who are aged 18 and over. There is anecdotal evidence of those very young people being bullied—really—into selling tobacco to people who are aged under 18. It would be the same situation with psychoactive substances. I am very pleased to see that provision included in this legislation.As the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne said around 18 months ago he introduced the time-limited bans on certain psychoactive substances. Again we in the Opposition supported that. As the Minister said he has issued notices regarding 37 of those substances. However many more are still available and if anything after the introduction of those temporary bans the pace at which new substances came on to the market to replace those that had the temporary ban applied to them increased. It was never going to be the lasting solution. The Minister freely conceded that. It is fantastic that we have finally got to the stage 2 years after the Law Commission tabled its reportControlling and Regulating Drugs where we are debating the lasting legislation that will deal with that situation.There are a range of aspects of the bill about which we in the Opposition are looking forward to hearing what submitters have to say and are looking forward to discussing at the select committee. Issues such as plain packaging of psychoactive substances whether or not the display of psychoactive substances at the point of sale ought to be banned and whether or not there should be in-store advertising of psychoactive substances are left in this bill to regulation. They are not dealt with in the primary legislation. Therefore it is over to a Minister to decree by Order in Council whether or not we have such measures. I know that there are some people out there who think that is not robust enough and that those aspects should be included in the primary legislation. I for one am keen to hear the debate for and against that. I want to hear what the officials think is the best approach but I do believe that those aspects need to be considered closely.There is a transitional period accounted for in this legislation. That would mean that for some substances that are currently available to which temporary bans have not been applied it would be potentially possible to carry on selling those substances after this legislation is passed. I do not believe that everybody in our communities thinks that is adequate. Many many people will be expecting that by passing this legislation we will be removing all of those substances from the shelf until they are proven safe. We need to look closely at that transitional period.This legislation requires people to acquire a licence to import and a licence to manufacture psychoactive substances. It does not require retailers to acquire a licence to sell psychoactive substances. We have a situation in New Zealand at the moment where we have a substance tobacco that retailers do not require a licence for in order to sell. We have another substance alcohol that retailers do require a licence to sell. Where do psychoactive substances fit in that spectrum? Ought we be leaning more towards a licensing regime? Or ought we as this legislation allows for not have such a licensing regime for retailers? That is another question that needs to be explored thoroughly at the select committee.Although this legislation does adhere very closely to chapter 5 and the recommendations held in chapter 5 of the Law Commission’s report one of the recommendations in that chapter was for price controls to be considered as a method of harm reduction regarding psychoactive substances. The Law Commission stated that just as it found with alcohol it believed that price controls would be a method that wecould use to reduce the harm. However this legislation makes no reference at all to price controls whether they be through a minimum pricing regime or through the use of excise taxes. Again it is another issue that needs to be explored at the select committee.In the short time I have left I do just wish to state that although this legislation is a positive move it is by no means the fulsome consideration of the Misuse of Drugs Act that is required. The Law Commission said that the Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated it is not fit for purpose and it needs to be thoroughly reviewed and replaced. This is far from a replacement for the Misuse of Drugs Act. Other issues canvassed in the Law Commission report such as the classification system for conventional drugs—one that actually considers the real harms associated with different drugs—regulation regarding personal use and possession of drugs as well as the possession of utensils for drug use; regulation affecting offences and penalties; and exemptions from prohibition are all factors that the Law Commission made sound recommendations on and are all ignored by this legislation. It is time for a comprehensive review and a comprehensive replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act. But on the issue of psychoactive substances getting them off our shelves until they are proven safe this legislation is good and the Labour Party is pleased to support it.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this very important Psychoactive Substances Bill. It undoubtedly is an innovative world-leading piece of legislation from an innovative world-leading National Government.Iain Lees-Galloway: Ha ha!Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am glad you agree and I am glad that you are going to support this bill.There is no doubt that over the last 22 years or so party pills and the manufacture of psychoactive pills have escalated enormously in this country. They have been extremely hard to control legally. We have seen all sorts of attempts at this particularly since about 2002 as there have been changes in 2005 with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act and then further changes to that. It came particularly to the notice of the public with benzylpiperazine which I think people could manufacture easily from sheep dip which was cheap and easily available in a country like New Zealand. Sadly we had to grapple with the spectre of many of these party pills being available in our dairies to young people and being sold in a pretty frivolous way by all sorts of people to a variety of people in particular young people for whom these pills when mixed with alcohol could lead to all sorts of disastrous consequences. The trouble was they were legal they were cheap and they were readily available. As I mentioned the Misuse of Drugs Act amendment came in in 2005 and it gave a ready mechanism to be able to categorise drugs such as these as controlled drugs. But the problem was that as soon as one was categorised then another variety just with a slight change in the compound would be made and off and away once again—it would be legal it would be cheap and the manufacturers were taking great advantage of this situation.By 2008 another wave of party pills emerged. These were cannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids. Of course there were a whole variety of these that could be smoked or vaporised and a whole variety of utensils and other things that were associated with them so that literally dozens of new psychoactive substances containing a huge new number of ingredients were being brought on to the market in a matter of weeks and the existing legislation just could not keep up. The Law Commission as was mentioned completed its review in 2011 and came through with a very very comprehensive variety of solutions. It was not entirely clear but certainly the very important concept of requiring the manufacturer to show that the product was oflow risk of harm or to prove that the product was of low risk of harm is the essence of what this bill is all about. That is where it is innovative; that is where it is world leading.In the meantime of course the Hon Peter Dunne introduced temporary class drug notices and they have met with quite an amount of success. I think he said 33 substances had been banned under these temporary class drug notices. This has worked well with a 75 percent fall in the number of calls received by the National Poisons Centre over incidences around synthetic cannabis in 12 months alone. This bill is to replace these current notices. The current notices are due to expire I think by about August this year so indeed it will be important to get the legislation through in a fairly rapid way. New Zealanders indeed deserve to know that products available to them are safe and that they are not being put in harm’s way with untested risky substances.Hon Phil Heatley: I think so.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am glad the Hon Phil Heatley agrees with this.One of the important things to emphasise is that the cost of testing will be borne by manufacturers and not the taxpayer. This manufacturing group of people who have been involved with party pills have made a lot of money in a very very dubious way for a long period of time so I think that it is good to see that they will have to work extremely hard to show that the products are low risk.The bill will seamlessly replace the current temporary class drug notices regime. This regime has made it possible to respond faster to new developments but does nothing to nip them in the bud in the first place. So the bill will indeed hopefully be a much more durable long-term solution. It has considerable support from organisations like the New Zealand Medical Association and the New Zealand Drug Foundation and I must say I look forward very much to the select committee process so that hopefully we can get it into optimal shape. Thank you.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I am pleased to rise and support the Psychoactive Substances Bill because it does one very significant thing: it regulates unregulated psychoactive substances—in other words party pills and legal highs. It does that by shifting the onus of responsibility to the manufacturers who will now have to demonstrate that the substance that they are putting into the market poses no more than a low risk and they must do that before the substances go on the shelves and into the pockets and the parties and clubs and pubs around New Zealand. That makes sense. Why should New Zealanders not know that a substance that they are going to take is as far as possible a low risk to them? We expect that with our pharmaceuticals. We expect that with our food. Why would we not expect that from party pills and other substances?You see I believe that many New Zealanders had no knowledge of the effect of party pills on them they had no knowledge of the content of them and in many cases they were playing Russian roulette with substances that they were taking. The substances were being sold—some of them—by people who were more interested in making a fast dollar than they were in the quality of the product that they were providing to young New Zealanders in particular.Mike Sabin: Fast millions of dollars.Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes as the member across said making millions of dollars out of these products. We expect high-quality standards for products that are sold in New Zealand. These substances should not be exempt from that. So it is a good bill as far as it goes.But I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that there was a chance to completely overhaul the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is an old Act it is out of date and there was an opportunity to do a proper overhaul of this Act. The Government did start long enough ago so that this could happen but it failed to. Work was done by the LawCommission but only one of its recommendations has been picked up. It seems to me that this is almost a repeat of the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol reform. That work—that tremendous work—done by the Law Commission would normally provide a bill as well but it was stopped by the previous Minister of Justice and then the new Minister of Justice picking the eyes out of the alcohol reform report from the Law Commission and in my view not taking the comprehensive approach that was needed to make major changes to alcohol legislation. I was very interested to hear on the television yesterday members of the New Zealand Police and the judiciary—a judge in New Zealand—saying that we have not gone far enough with alcohol reform. So I am concerned that we have not taken the opportunity to do a major rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act.It is a lost opportunity. Everybody knows that the law has not kept pace with the rapidly changing environment that we have in this area. As the member Paul Hutchison has just said the ability to produce one of these substances and then quickly change it by adding something else to it has meant that it has been very hard for the legislation we have to keep up with it. So in March last year Iain Lees-Galloway called for urgent action. We are talking over a year ago when he was calling for urgent action particularly in unregulated synthetic cannabis. So what the Government did at that time was to put in place an interim measure to ban new substances for 12 months. Now we are at this stage where we are having to race to pass legislation.You see this whole process started in July 2007 under the previous Labour Government. We invited the Law Commission to review the Misuse of Drugs Act in response to concerns that the safety of substances that people were taking was not required before sale. As is well known the Law Commission carried out a first-principles review and in that first-principles review it took into account issues such as international obligations and in February 2010 it published its issues paper. It then went through quite an extensive public consultation process. There was some targeted consultation but also public consultation and I believe there were over 3800 submissions to the work that was done by the Law Commission. In May 2011 the final report of the Law Commission was tabled in this House. That is almost 2 years ago and the urgent need to do something was known back in 2007.The Law Commission identified two key issues. One was that there was little or no control over potentially harmful psychoactive substances in the ingredients in the dose in the place of sale or in the purchase age—quite fundamental things I would have thought. There was little or no control over it—what was in it what the dosage was they were taking where it could be sold or the purchase age. The second issue that it identified was that the onus is on the Government to identify that substances are available and then to determine whether they are harmful before placing restrictions on them. In September 2011 the Government responded to the Law Commission. As we know here we are now quite a long time later.So what is the objective of the bill that we have? It is to develop a regime capable of dealing with the rapidly evolving market in psychoactive substances balancing the risk of harm to individuals in society with the demand for access to such substances—and let us face it; there is a demand for such substances. Maybe in the 1950s and 1960s it was Rochdale cider; today there is a demand for party pills and other substances. What they say—Shane Ardern: Taranaki Bitter.Hon ANNETTE KING: Taranaki Green? Well I have never heard of that I have to say. This regime is what this bill does. It provides a mechanism for effectively regulating the psychoactive substances before they reach the market. It provides public confidence about the risk profile of these substances. It places controls on theavailability of psychoactive products including purchase age and also place of sale. It places controls over the product’s contents—the dose the potency and so on. So it does have quite a number of parts to the bill in terms of what it wants to do.When you read the regulatory impact statement you see it was prepared for Cabinet and it was given four options to address the two problems that the Law Commission identified which I have just mentioned. It has agreed on the approach that is in this bill. There are several things that this bill also does. It sets up the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority and the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee. The authority itself is going to be the Director-General of Health. It also establishes the expert advisory committee and it is going to be its job its main function to evaluate the psychoactive substances and products and then to advise the authority as to whether these products should be approved for use by individuals. The members of that advisory committee are appointed by the authority after consultation with the Minister who will be responsible for the administration of the bill.There is also a licensing regime and there is part of that I would like to mention. My colleague mentioned there is no requirement for a licence at the retail end. I would also like to ask what happens if these substances are produced overseas and then imported. I ask because the bill requires the authority to issue a code of practice for the manufacture of psychoactive substances and the authority may conduct an audit of the manufacturing facility where the substance has been manufactured. If they have been manufactured in another country how is that going to happen? What resources are going to be put in place for the authority to be able to travel to another country to check out the manufacturing of these substances? The bill also provides for appeals so it enables an appeal committee to determine whether the decisions of the authority for licensing and approval are correct. There are also put in place offences when there are unapproved psychoactive substances on the market—quite a hefty fine. So it is comprehensive. It could have had more in it but we will support this bill. It is good as far as it goes.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Regulation is a good thing is it not particularly when people’s health and safety are concerned and it is great to be able to take a call in this debate on the first reading of this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill which I think will be supported by members of all parties. The Green Party welcomes the bill. We in particular welcome the fact that it is really the first significant modern attempt to have a rational principles-based framework for the regulation of drugs and in particular to have a framework that regulates on the basis of health and in proportion to the harm that is posed by a particular drug. So it is proportionate it is health-based and it is the direction that our drug policy and drug laws need to move in. I would support the comments that have been made by other members in relation to the overhaul that is required for the whole of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We too believe that that is overdue and look forward to that occurring in the near future. We particularly note the draft National Drug Policy which we expect to see pretty soon. That is going to be a very interesting exercise.There are some issues that the Green Party has with the bill as drafted but we believe that these are ones that can be addressed in the select committee process. I will come to those in a moment to just signal the kinds of issues that we will be looking for in the Health Committee’s scrutiny of the bill. We look forward to engaging with the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne on this. I must add our particular tribute to Minister Dunne for being prepared to take this bold and appropriate move in the field of regulation of psychoactive substances. Synthetic drugs are a global problem and New Zealand has probably been dealing with that problem for longer than any other country or certainly longer than most. So it is fitting that we are leading the charge in actuallytrying to solve that problem. I note the Minister’s comments at a recent conference that he attended in Vienna about the eyes of the world being upon New Zealand and how we address this problem.As others have set out in the early 2000s the issue of not being able to stop these hazardous substances coming to market with New Zealand’s existing law was highlighted when people started buying and taking drugs containing benzylpiperazine (BZP). In a survey conducted in 2007-08 13.5 percent of adult New Zealanders had tried BZP at least once. However when the Government moved at that time to make BZP illegal it was immediately replaced by another substance highlighting the problem that others have spoken about. Previous debates in this House indeed have reflected that the ability of the industry to develop very similar products that are not captured by the specific legal sanctions we place on a particular product is apparently infinite and I believe the number of temporary bans that we have seen is 33 covering in excess of 50 substances. And as Iain Lees-Galloway has said actually one of the main effects of that approach to trying to deal with the problem has been to accelerate the process of replacing products not to solve the problem at all. In the last year alone 57 new psychoactive substances were identified by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction compared with only 13 in 2008. So that is more than one each week.We have all seen the stories in the media and we may indeed know personally of people who have been harmed who have suffered serious health and mental health effects from using these substances. And these are not effects that the manufacturers and distributors of these products care about. We cannot therefore rely on self-regulation or a form of self-regulation to ensure the safety of New Zealanders. Regulation by this House is what is required.The use of party pills as Annette King has said is popular. It is estimated that 50000 four-pill packs are sold every month in New Zealand and that the industry has sales of $24 million each year so it is important that we move to tackle this problem. It is also important to recognise that not all of these substances actually cause harm or cause significant harm and I will come to that in a moment. As others have said this follows a Law Commission review and we believe that we want to see the other recommendations of that review also implemented.So some of the issues that we want the Health Committee to deal with—the first of those is that we believe that the principles in clause 4 of this bill must include health and harm reduction and they currently do not. Those form the very heart of the purpose of this bill and they should be reflected in it. We are looking forward to that being taken up by the select committee. The second point is around the definition of low risk. This is going to be absolutely critical. The select committee I believe is going to need to try to put some parameters around what the nature of the risk is that is being assessed. For example is it the substance itself or is it the delivery mechanism of that substance? So the smoking of a particular substance—is the health effect of that also included in the risk that is to be assessed? And “low risk”—what does “low” actually mean? If the threshold is set too high and no substances actually make it to market what will occur then is that the existing situation will just be perpetuated—actually the illegal trade in psychoactive substances will boom—and that is an outcome that we do not wish to see occur. If the threshold is set too low then we will not be controlling the harmful effects of these substances. So just leaving that to chance is inadequate.We have already addressed—and my colleague Mojo Mathers will address further—the risk to animals from animal testing of the substances. We believe that those should be prohibited by the bill. We also want to address this transition period because we believe that the length of the transition period has been set too long. We expect the lawto come into effect in August but there will not at that point be an authority for applications to go to. We believe the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority must be convened much sooner than a year out otherwise we will have an unregulated period of a year in which very substantial harm could be sustained. We support the calls for the bill to also address plain packaging and point-of-sale marketing. These are significant problems. We would also like to see the select committee explore the other methods of control that we have seen in the Alcohol Reform Bill around venues around hours and around all of those other aspects—and indeed price and taxation—as mechanisms for control.So in conclusion we do believe that this bill will reduce harm and stop unsafe substances being sold and that is absolutely a laudable goal. It provides exactly the controls that communities have been calling for. There are some significant issues that must be addressed and we are looking to the select committee to do that. We are very happy to support this bill at its first reading to allow the select committee that opportunity. We note in conclusion that the international community is watching with interest what we do here. Let us give them a model that is worth emulating.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a privilege as a member of the Health Committee to rise and speak on the first reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I was interested to listen to Kevin Hague the last speaker because for the first time we have actually had a Green spokesman stand up in the House and speak with some clarity and a clear direction. It may be because the member had an involvement in the health system prior to becoming a member of Parliament but he showed absolute clarity about what needs to be done and showed his support for it. So I do congratulate the member on that because that has not been the consistent position of the Green Party in the past.Can I also say that most of us the constituent MPs and list MPs in their role as MPs have encountered an example or an anecdote somewhere or other of people who have been badly affected by psychoactive substances of various different types. The anecdote that I would like to share with the House briefly is this. My good friend and colleague the Hon Chester Borrows called in recently to an outlet in the Taranaki - King Country electorate on his way through and discovered that this outlet was selling these substances or these drugs. Someone had alerted him to that. As a former police officer and an Associate Minister of Justice he said to the proprietor: “Look do you think it is sensible and fair that you sell this stuff into our community which potentially could cause the kind of damage that people are suggesting to me that it is causing?”. The response was: “Well look it’s none of your business. It’s not illegal. If we want to sell it we can and if we can make a dollar from it why shouldn’t we?”.You know Chester’s response to that was similar to my own which is that we need to do something about it. So it is a pleasure to be here today with a bill before us that will at least attempt to address some of the issues that have been raised by members of the public with regard to the trading and selling of these drugs and the effects from them.In this regard members of the community decided they would take action. They protested outside the establishment and suggested that it was unacceptable that this outfit traded in this stuff and I think—but I am not sure—that the proprietor withdrew the substance from the shelf and it is no longer sold from that outlet. But obviously if it is going to take a community response like that there is a need for regulation. So to that part I agree once again with my Green colleague that regulation can at times be a good thing and this is one case where it is.There is an inconsistency as it stands with what is illegal and what is not illegal and what harm can be caused by certain substances if they are used in a way that they werenever intended to be used. So I commend the bill to the House and look forward to listening to the submissions in the select committee.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First today to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill has been a long time coming to this House and we are really pleased that at last it is finally here. We need to front up to the problems caused by these legal highs. We know that actually they are happening right across the whole country and we are looking forward to working on this legislation.We in New Zealand First have regularly consistently urged the Government to actually make a start on this legislation and we realise of course that this particular problem is a worldwide challenge. Week in week out we see reports of these substances leading people into crime. I know that in Hamilton I regularly get reports and I have no doubt that two other MPs from Hamilton David Bennett and Tim Macindoe also get the same reports. Sometimes these are—Kris Faafoi: They don’t read them though.BARBARA STEWART: —oh people come into our offices to tell us too—whether they are about petty offences or more serious crimes in the community. The effect that these substances have on one’s physical mental and social well-being are widely documented and I know there was a television documentary on it just recently.Under current legislation the Government has had very limited means to prevent these substances from being sold manufactured or even imported into New Zealand. Basically what has happened is that we have been putting these manufacturers ahead of the health and well-being of everyday New Zealanders and of course there has been a high cost on the health system.These companies have been able to bring in new legal highs and herbal highs or manufacture them just at will. The Government has had to continually try to monitor these drugs to try to protect New Zealanders. Each substance has had to be placed on the Misuse of Drugs Act when it became a problem. Consequently the Government has always been left two steps behind the legal high industry. It is timely that this situation was changed. We cannot afford as a country to be behind on this particular issue.So of course the health and safety of New Zealanders particularly young New Zealanders is a priority in this area for New Zealand First. A lot of the time nobody really knows what is in these substances or the effects that they have on people. We are very happy that this bill is going to change this situation. It needed to be changed.Legal highs are often marketed blind without the purchaser knowing what they contain. However we do know that these products encourage dangerous behaviour and can make people seriously ill and even endanger their lives not only in the short term but also in the long term. We always read stories in the newspaper about how easy these drugs are to actually obtain. Recently theNelson Mail reported that a dairy near a high school was selling legal highs to students and minors. This is totally appalling particularly when these under-age pupils would have gone into the dairy in their school uniforms to make the purchase. We also had a recent example where the legal highs were being sold at a dairy and free sweets were given away with the purchase. So something definitely has to be done.These substances are increasingly associated with mental health issues. Over the past few years we have seen a growing number of violent incidents and mental health issues presenting at emergency departments around the country and these synthetic drugs can be related directly to this violence. We have had paramedics speaking out about the legal highs and how these are beginning to be a much greater problem for New Zealanders than illicit drugs. We know what some of the problems are with people on these legal highs from being hyperexcited to psychotic and emotional. We had oneNelson paramedic saying that hyperventilation was becoming quite common after someone had taken these particular drugs. Of course we have got other instances of episodes where patients have had convulsions periods of unconsciousness and seizures—they are not safe. It is timely for the Government to clamp down on this particular problem.New Zealand First also supports the tough new penalties that this bill will introduce: 8 years in prison for importing making or supplying banned substances and 2 years in prison for importing making or supplying untested substances. We do however—and we will follow it up in the select committee process—question the choice not to make possessing an unapproved substance a criminal offence. The individuals possessing the substances are putting themselves and others at great risk. We understand the decision not to criminalise the individuals possessing the substances is because so many young people do not want to jeopardise their job and their travel prospects but people under this bill will actually be committing an offence.Like the other members we believe that the purchasing and the advertising restrictions of legal highs are a little less than adequate and could go further. We will be looking for that during the select committee process. We in New Zealand First have always supported greater transparency for consumers. We would however take some extra steps in restricting the purchasing of these—more than what the Minister has done at this point in time. We believe that these highs should be further restricted than alcohol rather than being aligned with alcohol.The bill will ban sales at dairies and advertising except at point of sale. We would actually like to see a step further to prohibit advertising altogether and look into increasing the age for purchasing psychoactive substances—18 we believe is totally inadequate. Perhaps we could look further at the plain packaging of these products. As other members have already said we would like price to be considered and perhaps an increase in the taxation of these particular items. They are not substances that we want to see all of our young people have free access to.We in New Zealand First support the provision to make manufacturers who wish to sell these legal highs in New Zealand pay an application fee and testing costs. This has been missing for far too long in this type of legislation and it should be done. Substance testing will ensure that the ingredients are safe for people to consume. At this point in time we do not know that they are. We worry about the effect that they are having on young developing brains.We are happy with the labelling restrictions that will require all products to have a label listing their active ingredients the phone number for the Poisons Centre and the contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier. That brings it in line with other products that are currently on the market. Of course it also helps those who take these products to have a better idea of the dangers.Despite seeing some areas as lacking in the bill—and we are looking forward to working on them at the select committee as well—we believe that the positives of this bill actually far outweigh the negatives. This bill is a much-needed start regulating the use of psychoactive substances and something that we have been calling for like other parties for a long long time. We are looking forward to working on it and we will support this bill.Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I too am delighted to speak on the first reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. It is not surprising that it has been perceived as a world-leading move and I congratulate Minister Dunne. The bill will regulate psychoactive substances so that only those products proved to be low-risk will be able to be sold.The fact is that the current situation is unacceptable. Basically current legislation has not been keeping up with the rapid growth in this market. As soon as substances are banned there are others coming on to the market. Playing catch-up is not acceptable it is not appropriate and this bill I am pleased to see is getting support across the House today. It is much more appropriate that the manufacturer will have to prove to a regulator that its product is safe rather than the current situation with the Government proving harm before controlling the substance.Importantly the cost of the testing will be borne by the manufacturers and not by taxpayers. A regulatory authority will be set up within the Ministry of Health and this bill will also establish an expert advisory committee to provide technical advice to the authority. It will set offences and penalties which include up to 2 years’ imprisonment and up to half a million dollars in fines. This is an excellent bill. I look forward to it coming to the Health Committee. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Talofa lava. Malo e lelei. Bula vinaka. Thank you for the chance to speak to this Psychoactive Substances Bill and those specific greetings will become relevant to the House a little bit later in my contribution. Can I just join with a number of other speakers—on both sides of the House to be fair—and say that this is a significant bill. I think there are lots of times that law is debated in this House where mums and dads at home will think it is not necessarily overly relevant to them. But I think a bill like this will certainly be relevant to a lot of mums and dads out there who are very concerned about the effects of these drugs these party pills and other substances that give legal highs to people—not only just young people but mostly young people—in New Zealand and think that they need to be cracked down on. I certainly know that it is a live issue as Barbara Stewart has said for a lot of MPs.I want to note a couple of people in my constituency of Mana. The principal of the Porirua Alternative School Laz Tausaga is very concerned about the sale of party pills to his students. His students face enough challenges as it is. He was on Facebook just a couple of weeks ago talking about the bad influence that those pills are having on some of his students and about cracking down on some of the retailers in that area who think it is fit to sell those to his students. Also the principal of Bishop Viard College Teresa Cargo a couple of weeks ago did raise the issue of the sale of these party pills not just in dairies but on the street. Young people from her school were being approached to buy the likes of K2 from people who were not necessarily shop owners but were just people on the street approaching her students to try to sell these substances to them.I would like to acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill the Hon Peter Dunne who I thought made a very good contribution to the earlier debate about troops in Afghanistan when he said that that issue touches the lives of Kiwis very dramatically. I put down those words because I knew we were going to be debating this issue and I know that this issue of party pills and legal highs certainly does touch very dramatically the lives of a lot of people in communities right around this country. The influence of technology is also very apt in this debate in terms of our youngsters. I think it was the Minister who said it was a cat-and-mouse game because the technology and the ability of manufacturers to produce different types of party pills and different types of substances make it very difficult for the legislation governing this to try to keep up. So I think this new law is absolutely a move in the right direction so that we as a Parliament and we as a nation can respond faster to the challenges that this industry has put forward because of its ability to change the make-up of its drugs.In April 2011 the Law Commission released its reportControlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In that report it highlighted two issues: first the harm that these psychoactive substances are doing because of their availability with little or no control over their ingredients the strength of them wherethey are being sold and the age of people to whom they are being sold; and second that the onus was on the Government to figure out just how harmful these substances were. The Law Commission made a number of recommendations and the Government has picked up on this one to crack down on psychoactive drugs. Again I want to praise the Minister for putting through this law but I do have a little sympathy for him. I imagine that he as someone who has been very ardent on this issue wanted to get this issue through a lot more quickly than the 2 years it has taken since April 2011 for this legislation to come to this House.This is not a new issue at all. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who spoke on this issue earlier did say I think it was back in—and I am looking to him here—March 2012 I believe—Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes I did.KRIS FAAFOI: He was asking for a bit more urgency from the Government to make some moves against these psychoactive drugs. To quote him he said: “We think it’s ridiculous that we’ve basically been experimenting on our kids by allowing the substances to come on the shelf and then trying to constantly chase our tails trying to get them off the shelf again.” I am not saying this is a bad bill; I am saying this is actually a very good bill that Mr Dunne has brought to the House but Labour believes much more is needed. We do not believe that this Government has taken the opportunity for a much more comprehensive overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act as the Law Commission proposed back in April 2011. This bill addresses only one of the recommendations that the Law Commission made. We do look forward to the select committee process. I understand that the issue of consideration of the bill by the Health Committee will be debated at length a bit later.Also to go back to my greetings to the Assistant Speaker I think one issue that we have thought about certainly on this side of the House is whether or not kava will be included as a substance in this bill. I did hear someone giggle but that is actually not a funny issue at all. There is a lot of cultural significance attached to the ‘ava and the kava ceremonies. For the Tongan community for the Samoan community and for the Fijian community it will be a psychoactive substance and we wonder whether they would like to make a submission on this bill to make sure that this bill does not cover their cultural rituals. It is a serious issue and I see that the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne is certainly nodding his head so he may be able to speak to that at length a little bit later on.There are some other issues that a number of other members have raised around advertising plain packaging and point-of-sale displays of psychoactive drugs that are covered by this bill. We certainly look forward to having some discussion around that considering that the House in the last term went through some very robust debate on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Act around the advertising of tobacco. We believe that leaving that matter under regulatory power is an interesting move given what we did in this House in the previous term. We certainly look forward to debate on that at the select committee to see whether or not we think it is appropriate to leave that decision on regulatory power to be made by someone other than this House.The bill also establishes a couple of bodies. It establishes the Psychoactive Substances Appeals Committee which will look at some of the decisions that are made by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority and the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee which are determining whether or not some of these substances are legal. [Interruption] Mr Williamson might need a bit of a pick-up over there—someone get him a lolly. I think it is a good move to set up the authority and thebody to have a look at what will be deemed to be safely sold to have a low impact on people using these drugs.I do understand that if people are caught with non-approved substances they will be up for an infringement fee of $500. As Iain Lees-Galloway said that is a very good move and we should perhaps look at expanding that beyond just the psychoactive substances listed here. I also note that anyone who is caught selling or supplying the substances that are not approved offering to sell or supply a substance that is not approved or possessing a substance with intention to sell or supply will be up for imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of $500. That is pretty serious punishment for anyone who is caught selling or preparing to sell psychoactive substances that do not have approval.Labour does support this bill. It does a lot of good. There are some lost opportunities because of the Law Commission recommendations that the Government has not taken up. We are a bit disappointed that this issue was highlighted by the Law Commission back in April 2011 and now in April 2013 this legislation has just been introduced to the House.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Firstly I commend the work of the honourable Minister Dunne on this Psychoactive Substances Bill. I want to just touch on a couple of the points that have been raised by members particularly from the Green Party and ACT in this case who talked about the importance of regulation and broadening what we do in this space intimating that we really look at the issue of cannabis.I find it highly ironic that we are discussing this issue in the House and a member from the Green Party was on the television programmeNative Affairs talking about cannabis as legitimate income support—legitimate income support—and that there are some real entrepreneurial skills of those growing cannabis to support their families. The House will reflect on that. How can members from that party honestly get up and make comments and expect people to take them seriously when they make comments like that about cannabis?Let us at least make this very clear: this is about synthetic drugs. This Government’s position on cannabis is very clear because we do know the harm of cannabis. We do know the harm of cannabis. There are more hospitalisations in this country as a result of the psychotic impacts of cannabis than of any other drug. So let us put that on the—[Interruption] We are talking about illicit drugs. I know that member’s position on cannabis; he might like to get up and share it with the House.Let us make it quite clear: the only safe drug use is no drug use and that is not something that has been discussed. The only safe drug use is no drug use. The world has gone through some concerning evolutions in terms of its fascination with drugs in the last 15 years. Over that time we have seen what has happened in New Zealand with the advent ofmethamphetamine. Well Logan Millar and Matt Bowden made themselves multimillionaires out of the benzylpiperazine (BZP) market selling it on the notion that if there are these safe alternatives then people will not get into P. Yet over the course of the 8 years that that drug was legally available there was a huge growth in methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants. Benzylpiperazine was sold alongside lollies and ice creams in dairies and that really created the notion that if a youngster wants to go out and have fun then they should be popping a pill or smoking a pipe to do that. I want to challenge that and this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill should go a long way towards challenging that because when BZP was criminalised what Logan Millar and his other backyard chemist friends did was they synthesised other analogues and created other synthetic drugs and used New Zealand youngsters as the guinea pigs while they were counting up the dollars on their money machines.This is at the core of what this legislation sets out to do. It is to say that if people are going to produce a substance and people out there choose to take that substance then the people producing it should be able to show that it is low risk. The select committee will need to work very very carefully on what that low risk is because I would submit that there would not be many medical practitioners who would suggest that smoking anything is safe. So that will have to be tangled with by the select committee.I welcome this legislation; I do not welcome the comments by some who seem to intimate that we should shift all drugs into a space where they are regulated because that is not the case. This is dealing with synthetic stimulants and the cat-and-mouse game that we have seen. I hope that for those who are producing the K2s and the synthetic drugs out there and experimenting on our young people that this sends them out of business. I hope it is part of turning the culture round in this country that if people want to go out and have fun it does not have to be by popping a pill smoking a drug or getting off their heads. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am pleased to take a shared call on this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill this afternoon. First of all I would like to note that legislation in this area is notoriously difficult to get right and I commend the Minister of Health for the efforts he has made in this bill to modernise a system of legislation and regulation around harmful substances—in this case psychoactive substances.I would also like to put on record a tribute to my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who has been assiduous about this issue in particular since he came into this House and who when he held other portfolios has been outspoken and prompt in his wish for greater protection of people particularly young people from harmful substances. I commend him for that and thank him for his contribution which could be highlighted by a media statement he made almost exactly this time last year. On 30 March 2012 I think Iain Lees-Galloway put out a media statement exactly on this issue and called for a more comprehensive approach to the Misuse of Drugs Act.In the event what we have got is an interim measure. We had interim measures introduced in 2011. We supported those in lieu of a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Those interim provisions were rolled over in 2012 and they are about to expire again. So again in lieu of or for want of a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act Labour will be supporting this bill. We would rather have this and I accept the Minister’s efforts in this regard that the comprehensive review may in fact be something separate.However in the Law Commission’s report that the previous Labour Government called for in 2007 the commission’s recommendations in its final report recommended criteria against which psychoactive substances could be assessed. These are first the nature of the harms and the benefit of the product; second whether the harms can be effectively managed through regulation; three likely consequences of regulation compared to prohibition; and four potential displacement issues.I hope the Health Committee of which I am no longer a member takes those criteria from the Law Commission’s report and measures the bill up against them. I am sure that that is what the Minister has intended to have happen and I hope that because this bill’s primary objective is to render ineligible for legal sale the products that cause common adverse reactions impact on a user’s health and may cause societal problems such as aggression that the bill will be suitably scrutinised and measured against those recommendations and against its own objective.Young people think that psychoactive drugs are safe because they are unregulated because they are available for sale in shops. They know when things are illegal. Theyknow when there is an impending punishment for taking something that is illegal. They know when they cannot buy something and they know when they are committing a crime when they do. But these unregulated psychoactive drugs or previously unregulated psychoactive drugs are readily available and they morph and transform with every new generation of chemical expertise that the peddlers engage in. So they tend to think that if they can buy it it is safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. I commend this bill to the House and the Labour Party will be supporting it.MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is with some mixed feelings that I rise to speak to this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The Green Party strongly supports sensible regulation of party pills legal highs and other psychoactive substances for the reasons covered previously by my colleague Kevin Hague. However we do have significant concerns about the nature of the testing regime being proposed for these substances.Last year I tabled in Parliament a report commissioned by the Ministry of Health outlining a possible testing regime. All of the proposed tests in that paper involved forcing animals including dogs to ingest the substances by the same route that humans will be ingesting them which means that for some substances such as synthetic cannabis they will be forced to wear masks to inhale them. Even with the notorious LD50 tests ruled out it is clear that the level of pain and suffering involved in the proposed test will be incredibly high.Whenever animal testing is proposed we need to be sure that the benefit to society justifies the level of suffering involved and that all non-animal means of testing for safety have been properly considered. So far neither of these criteria has been met. It was incredible that there was no consideration in the Ministry of Health report of non-animal tests and their effectiveness. Furthermore recreational drugs are not medicine: no one has to take them daily to remain alive or to stay healthy.The Green Party supports the call for a clause to be added to this bill that prohibits animal testing for these drugs. Such a move would be in line with public opinion and within international trends towards reducing animal testing.In the 1990s the United Kingdom banned all animal testing of tobacco and alcohol for ethical reasons and put in place a new system to approve such products for sale. As a result there has been huge progress in the development of non-animal toxicity tests. Innovative substantial advances in cell-culture technology and computer modelling mean that microchips and models can be made to mimic the effects of drugs on human organs like lungs liver and bone marrow to understand the effects that certain substances will have on human health. Although no test is 100 percent accurate in predicting the impact of drugs on humans non-animal tests are increasingly being shown to be significantly better predictors than animal tests. Recent research for example has shown that non-animal tests involving cell lines to be 80 to 97 percent accurate in predicting the impact as opposed to 40 to 60 percent accuracy for rodent trials. The main reason that animal tests are still being done is that legislation and policy making have not kept up with the science.We also need to rule out animal tests to prevent the exporting of animal testing to overseas. The two main countries involved in contract testing are China and India. Both countries have little or no animal welfare protections in place for laboratory animals and there is evidence showing that the way that these animals in the labs are treated falls well short of anything that we would allow in New Zealand. Without a clause ruling out animal tests it is very likely that many New Zealand companies will simply opt to have the testing done in these countries partly because it is cheaper to do so but clearly it just shifts the moral problem elsewhere.New Zealand has often been described as a world leader in animal welfare and it forms an important part of our international reputation. Let us not comprise thisreputation by allowing cruel animal testing for psychoactive substances. I strongly urge the ministry to listen to public views on this issue review the evidence and insert a clause to exclude these cruel outdated and unnecessary tests from this bill. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): This is a very significant and contemporary issue and the public are rightly looking to Parliament to respond quickly and appropriately. So I want to thank the Associate Minister of Health for the work that he has done in bringing this Psychoactive Substances Bill to this House and for all the efforts that have gone in leading to this point. I thank all members for the very intelligent and constructive debate that we have had this afternoon. I wish the Health Committee well in the work that lies before it and I fully support the bill.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Health Committee.Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be reported to the House by 14 June 2013 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).Can I briefly offer an explanation why that truncated process is necessary. The first of the temporary notices expires in early August. That was the one from memory that deals with the product Kronic. If this legislation is not in place by that time then those products will be back on the shelves.I know I am not allowed to refer to a previous debate but if I could refer to some themes that were raised there and just correct one or two assumptions that were stated. When we introduced the temporary amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act nearly 2 years ago it was always on the basis that we would follow it up with this legislation. That temporary legislation contains the power to issue a temporary notice for a period of 1 year which is able to be extended for a maximum of 1 further year. So that is the importance of the April 2013 date. There will be some products that will start to expire in terms of their ban and it is necessary therefore to have the permanent regime in place by then so that we can achieve the objectives that the House has agreed to by agreeing to read the bill a first time.The period before the select committee will be about nearly a couple of months from here. It is an issue that has been well canvassed. I say with no disrespect to submitters that I suspect the issues to be raised will not be extensive in that there are not a lot of new issues; we have dealt with this over the last 2 years. The sort of issue that Mr Faafoi raised and one or two others have raised about specific issues might be where the select committee will focus its attention. It is in that context therefore I consider that the 2-month period is not unreasonable and I also have considerable confidence in the ability of the select committee to do the job thoroughly in that time. That is why I have moved the truncated process.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Can I say that I appreciate the comments made by the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne in opening up this debate regarding the period of time that the Health Committee will have to consider this Psychoactive Substances Bill. Labour will support that period. There was a suggestion last week that it might have been considerably shorter than that. That might have been an error and we appreciate that. But having said that 2 months is considerably shorter than the standard period of time a select committee is given. For people who do not read the Standing Orders closely and who might be watching this athome the normal period of time is between 4 and 6 months and 2 months is considerably shorter than that. Of course the reason given by the Minister is absolutely correct. We need to have this legislation completed before August this year so that those temporary bans issued under the amendments made to the Misuse of Drugs Act some 18 months ago are not allowed to lapse and we do not see products like Kronic Spice Dream and those sorts of things coming back on to the market. However it is important to point out that completing the legislation before August did not require a shortened select committee period; it simply required the Government to get on with the job an awful lot sooner than it has done.Let us look back at the process that has been taken to get to here. This bill was introduced back in February this year. Some people say that it took an awfully long time for the bill to get to the House but the bill was introduced in February this year. If this had been a priority for the National-led Government if this Government was organised and if it thought that it was a priority to protect children and youngsters from the substances that are on the shelves that we think are not safe it could have got itself sorted and got the bill through its first reading a lot sooner than today. If Gerry Brownlee as Leader of the House was worth his salt and was actually able to organise his House and organise his Government then this bill would have been passed through its first reading a lot sooner than today. If the National whips over there could get their team organised then this bill would have been passed a lot sooner than today.This is an important piece of legislation and I actually reject the statement made by the Minister that the issues that people will want to consider at the select committee will be narrow. In this debate alone we have canvassed a range of subjects that we believe the select committee is going to need to consider: plain packaging display bans in-store—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] No no. When I am on my feet there is silence. In this debate any special powers or provisions are restricted to only the reasons why there is a truncated report-back period from the select committee. You cannot get into the substantive matter of the debate like objects and provisions. You cannot do that so I will come back—and there is a Standing Order on this. So just refer to the truncated period of the report-back period.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I accept the Speaker’s ruling but I wished only to list the very large number of issues that were raised in the first reading debate alone that members want to consider at the select committee. That requires a reasonable length of time to give those issues full consideration. I know that at the Health Committee we will do our very best to give this bill the full consideration that it needs in the very short period of time that we have been given.The fact is that this is an important piece of legislation that marks a significant change and we need to get this right. We do not want to come back in 12 months’ time and say that we got this wrong. It is extremely unfortunate that this Government has not placed the priority required on this piece of legislation to get it through the first reading in a timely fashion so that the select committee could give it a more fulsome consideration than what we will be allowed to do.Let us be absolutely honest about this. The Government has left this until the last possible minute. In fact it has gone past the last possible minute. It did not have to quite go around the Standing Orders but it has had to use the full width of the Standing Orders in order to allow the select committee to consider this bill. I think that is a very very poor reflection on this Government’s priorities and it is a very poor reflection on this Government’s ability to organise its own business. It has been said several times in the last few weeks that this Government is looking a bit shambolic and this is just another example of the shambles that this Government has become. Let us lay the blamesquarely where it belongs. This belongs to Gerry Brownlee. As the Leader of the House he should have been more organised. He should have prioritised this bill. It was introduced in February. We could have debated it back then we could have got it to the select committee and we could have given the bill the time that it deserves. This is not an appropriate use of process.People are getting sick and tired of this Government led by John Key riding roughshod over the democratic process. We have a process set out in the Standing Orders for a reason and that is to make sure that one we get legislation right so that we do not have to come back to it in the future; and two we give people an opportunity to have their say. I know that this is an issue that is a real hot-button issue in our communities. I think that people will want to come and have their say but because they know that the select committee is not really going to have time to look at this properly they are probably going to shy away from coming forward. I think it is sad that this Government is sending a message to New Zealanders not to bother submitting on a piece of legislation not to bother coming to Parliament not to bother speaking to MPs face to face about what the impact of a piece of legislation might have on them or their communities and not to bother coming to us and giving us some good ideas. We do not know everything. Some of us might like to think we do but we do not know everything. We should take advice from the public and we should give the public the opportunity to come and speak to us about bills like this one.We do not want to be an obstructive Opposition. We do want this legislation passed by August because it has to be passed by August so we are not going to get in the way. But I think it is important to point out why we have got into this situation. The reason is that this Government has not prioritised getting these substances out of our stores and the other reason is that this Government is a shambles and it cannot get itself organised.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): We have learnt today that there is a report-back date from the Health Committee in 2 months’ time—the Psychoactive Substances Bill needs to be back before August. We understand that and you have heard from my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we will support that but we do have to point out that the gestation of this bill has taken longer than the pregnancy of an elephant. It was in July 2007 that the Law Commission was asked by the previous Labour Government to look at the misuse of drugs particularly this issue. We know that in February 2010 the commission had submissions on such a measure and that its final report came out in May 2011—almost 2 years ago. The Government then responded in September 2011 and finally we got a bill in February 2013.I believe that the Minister in charge of this bill the Associate Minister of Health would have wanted this progressed much faster than it has been. I know Peter Dunne and I know that he would have been pushing to have this bill brought forward at a much faster pace than it has been. He has not had the opportunity to bring forward a bill that the National Party members of the Government are saying is so urgent that they really support and that is needed in our community. Peter Dunne has had his bill blocked because they had other measures they believed were more important. Well I think this bill should have been ahead of a lot of other bills. This bill should have had the priority that the Minister in charge of it wanted for it but he has been thwarted and he has had to wait in line while other Ministers dabbled around with their legislation.So when we hear members opposite saying that this is a very urgent measure I believe they are shedding crocodile tears because this bill should have been debated a lot earlier. It was introduced in February. Now we are waiting and we are going to have to report on it in a fast and truncated manner. We do need time at the select committee to look at all the issues. Minister Dunne I did raise an issue around the overseas manufacture of these drugs and whether the authority is going to be able to audit thoseplaces of manufacture that are outside New Zealand. These are some of the measures that are going to need to be looked at. We need the time to go into them. I know the select committee will try to do its very best. Government members actually should be ashamed of themselves. You cannot tell the public of New Zealand that you really care about this issue that you are really worried about the substances that young people in particular are taking—saying that they are not regulated people have no idea of the dosage or what is in the substances and there are no age restrictions or restrictions on where they are sold—and then delay this bill for so long.Well I say congratulations to Minister Dunne on bringing forward a piece of legislation that is going to address the issue and I think ensure that we have safe products on our shelves. That is what New Zealanders want—safety and as low a risk as possible. But Minister you have been thwarted by your coalition partner in getting this bill to this House and passed. I hope we can do it justice in 2 months. We certainly want the public to have its say on this bill. There will be many many views on it and I hope we come back to this House with an improved bill.But Gerry Brownlee and his management of this House are getting worse by the day—worse by the day. You cannot say something is a priority and then delay it and put other bills before it. It is either urgent and a priority or it is not. So do not give us the crocodile tears; give us the action. We will do our best and we will support it but I have to say that this is very poor management of an urgently needed bill.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I guess what I am going to say is best summed up as that it did not have to be this way. The Law Commission put forward its report on this issue in April 2011 and here we are in the year 2013 in April and this legislation the Psychoactive Substances Bill is being put through this House. Although we are supportive of the referral motion that the Associate Minister of Health is seeking—to bring the select committee period for submissions from around 4 to 6 months which is the usual term down to 2 months—we are very concerned that that really takes away the time for public scrutiny around this bill. There will be plenty of public scrutiny as has been said in earlier contributions. Members from right around this House were talking about the numbers of stories that they had in their own communities around concern around the use of party pills and legal highs so we expect there to be a significant amount of scrutiny and comment from the public. To have that window of opportunity for people to make their submissions reduced from around 4 to 6 months which is the usual amount of time down to 2 months is a concern for us as we would like to have the submissions listened to in a meaningful manner.As the Hon Annette King said you have got to have some sympathy for the Hon Peter Dunne who is in charge of this bill because he has been pushing for this bill for some time. As I said the Law Commission report came out in April 2011 and I am sure that behind the scenes he would have been pushing the Government very hard for this legislation to get in and be passed by the time the temporary legislation runs out and becomes invalid in August of this year. So now we have found ourselves in a situation where the Minister has to come to this House and ask for us to truncate the select committee period in order for his law—a very good law we are saying—to come into effect so that there is no window of opportunity for the likes of Kronic K2 Dream and the other substances all sorts of substances to go back on the shelves.Again I will just reiterate that it would not have had to be this way if the Government had acted faster to get this legislation to the House. It was introduced in February 2013—this year—despite the Government making recommendations in 2012 I believe around September that legislation would be made available to this House. So it has taken a considerable amount of time and I am sure a considerable amount of lobbying has gone on behind the scenes by Peter Dunne to get this legislation to the House. But ithas taken another 6 to 8 months for it to be introduced and Mr Dunne now has to come to this House and ask us to truncate the select committee period. Well we do not think that is good enough in terms of the management of legislation by the Government in this House.As the honourable member said in his opening address to this referral motion he does not believe that there will be a lot of issues raised during the select committee process but one of the issues that he did refer to was one that I mentioned in the first reading around the classification of kava which is a serious issue. Although I mentioned it members on the other side of the House said that it might not necessarily be included in this bill. There is nothing in this bill to say that kava may not be included so I believe that that is one of the issues. And Sam Lotu-Iiga will be interested in this because he is never shy of an ‘ava ceremony. So if you read the bill—Hon Maurice Williamson: It covers synthetic. It covers synthetic only.KRIS FAAFOI: If you read the bill at clause 9 “Meaning of psychoactive substance” it does not say anywhere in that part of the bill that it is just synthetic substances. So that is something that I think needs to be addressed at the select committee. I am sure there will be a lot of interest in the Pacific community around making sure that they put their legitimate questions and their opinions to the select committee. But because that select committee submission period is going to be truncated from the usual 4 to 6 months to 2 months that is going to make it a little bit more difficult for those communities to put their argument across.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Rubbish. Scaremongering.KRIS FAAFOI: It is not scaremongering. It is actually the truth because those communities will now have a smaller window of opportunity to make—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Read the bill if you can.KRIS FAAFOI: I have read the bill. I have read the bill. You go to clause 9 and you tell me where it says that this covers only synthetic materials. It does not so that is one of the valid questions that I think the Pacific community can put to the select committee to make sure that their rituals around the ‘ava and kava ceremonies can be protected for their own cultural identity.Paul Hutchison said in the first reading debate that this Government wants to get the law through in a fairly rapid way which as Annette King said was crocodile tears from the Government because it has not moved in a very rapid way with this legislation at all. On this side of the House we do want to make sure that we get this legislation through in a rapid way but nothing that this Government has done in terms of the passage of this legislation has seen it moving in any faster way at all. The Minister said it was cat and mouse in terms of the particulars around the technology and the fast-moving nature of this industry but this Government has moved more like turtles in terms of the way in which it has introduced this legislation to the House. Again we do have some sympathy for Peter Dunne because I am sure he would have wanted to make this legislation get through this House much much faster.We will support the referral motion to reduce the submission time to 2 months. It is not without concern. It does mean that the window of opportunity for submitters is much smaller and that the public will not get a much more fulsome opportunity to debate this issue.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a very short call in this debate to record my support for the position that the Opposition has set forward which is to conditionally support this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill proceeding to a select committee process of not less than 2 months. It is worth recording that the Government’s preference was a very shoddy 1-month process and that under discussion with the Opposition—Hon Peter Dunne: No that’s not true. That’s not correct. That’s not correct.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Oh that was a mistake? Oh now it is a mistake like so much else that has been happening lately like the appointments of senior and very sensitive Public Service positions like the protection of personal private information and a whole lot of other mistakes.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will come back to the bill. Labour supports in principle the shifting of the burden of proof. This is an issue that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway our associate health spokesperson has spent some time on over the years. He has led a debate within our caucus that shows the value in ensuring that those who would wish to put on the market potentially psychoactive substances are required to meet the full cost and the full standards of medical integrity of providing for those tests. I also wish to just briefly record as a member of Parliament with a large Pacific Island community in my electorate the sensitivity around the issue of kava taking. It is a traditional substance it is part of traditional routines and we will want assurance from—Hon Peter Dunne: Wrong bill. The natural products bill covers it.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —well we will wait for the Minister to go on record when he is in the chair and we look forward to that—the Government that traditional cultural practices will not be inappropriately affected by this legislation. I will look forward to hearing Pacific members opposite taking up that banner in support of those constituencies. It seems to be the Labour members so far who have been championing that issue on behalf of our Pacific communities.So summing up—and I do not wish to detain the House—Labour conditionally supports the passage of this bill through to the select committee process. We hope that the public will have as much opportunity as possible to make submissions. The Health Committee will carefully consider those. It is strange that the Government which has had this bill in development for such a very long time has brought it to the House with such a rushed timetable—only 2 months it has now been clarified shall we say. That is against the normal practice of a full 6-month select committee hearing timetable. That is not ideal. It is part of a trend that New Zealanders are seeing where this Government is playing fast and loose with the legislative process. New Zealanders are becoming increasingly concerned and increasingly disappointed in a Government that is not protecting their rights—not protecting their rights to have their say on legislation not protecting their rights to the privacy of their personal information and not protecting their rights to keep them from the prying eyes of the State. New Zealanders are asking what it is going to look like to live in John Key’s New Zealand in a couple of years’ time if these trends continue. It is something that all New Zealanders would wish to guard against.So although we have no problem with the principle of this bill which is the reversing of the burden of proof here to ensure that the proposed manufacturers and retailers of potentially psychoactive drugs are meeting the costs and the due diligence of proving their safety we are seriously concerned about the shortage of time for submissions and we have been very active in pushing back on the Government for any further shortening. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Child Support Amendment BillThird ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): With a great deal of pleasure I moveThat the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The measures that are proposed in this bill bring our child support scheme up to date and make it much fairer for the 210000 children and families who are involved in the scheme. Since the current child support arrangements were introduced in 1992 child support has been a backstop for families when separated parents are unable to reach agreement over the financial support of their children. But times have changed since 1992 and the purpose of this bill is to update the scheme so that it better reflects the social changes that have occurred in parenting and workforce participation over the past 20 years. That includes a new child support calculation formula which recognises the different circumstances of parents today; the latest research available on how much it costs to raise a child; and improvements to the payment penalty and debt rules in order to reduce the risk of parents dropping out of the system because they are simply overwhelmed by the growing burden of debt. They are the main features of the bill but its underlying principles are simple: that child support payments are fairly calculated and collected for the benefit of the children they are intended for and that parents continue to take financial responsibility for their children when a relationship breaks down.I feel particularly strongly about that latter point. About 40 percent of the correspondence that I receive as Minister of Revenue relates to child support. I am shocked at the number of parents who want to deny any responsibility for their children because the relationship may have been a long time ago. The majority of parents fully understand their responsibilities and they do attempt to adhere to them and that is good. But there are those unfortunately who seem to think this is the most ultimate case of out of sight out of mind. I am grateful to those good loyal hard-working parents who want to see a fair system and to the many others who took the opportunity through the extensive consultation process associated with the development of this bill for their input. I am also grateful for the efforts of officials across several agencies who collaborated on the policy development work and the legal drafters who worked on the detail of this legislation.This has been a long journey. It began in 2008 during the term of the previous Labour Government. It saw a discussion paper issued around the time that the Government changed. It saw the legislation that arose from that discussion process introduced in I think from memory 2009. The select committee process took place following that and now it is passing through the House. The first set of changes will take effect from April 2014 and the second set a year later. We still have a long way to go. But as this bill now stands we are a lot closer I think to achieving better and more equitable outcomes for the children and the parents who are involved in the child support scheme.I want to make this point as I have made at every stage of this debate: child support is not a default position. It is the backstop when things fail. The emphasis has to be on parents seeking to reach equitable and cooperative agreements amongst themselves. We have got to stop this mentality of simply leaving it all to child support because that is where the divisions arise and that is where the tensions occur. I want to see much greater emphasis placed on parents reaching their own mutually acceptable arrangements. I know this was a point that came through very strongly during the Social Services Committee’s consideration of the bill. I thank the committee members for their efforts for their consideration of the legislation and for the recommendations to change the bill in various areas that they proposed.Child support is a vexed area. It is not one that you can ever legislate for every circumstance because of the nature of the way in which families form and relationships occur. But what this legislation can do at best is provide a framework. This is what I think we have achieved in this bill. There will always be those who will fit at the boundary or not fit or who will feel that the system somehow is unfair in respect of their circumstances. There is not a great deal we can do about that. The challenge that we face in looking at changes to the legislation—and it was a point that was highlighted by the Opposition at several stages during the debate—is simply this: we have a system at the moment under the current legislation that in my view is unnecessarily inflexible. It imposes a very rigid formula which takes little account of individual circumstances. That is easy to run because you just simply draw the line and say: “This is the side of it that you fall. If you feel aggrieved tough.”The criticism we faced during the development of this bill and at the select committee was that we were going to be introducing a more complicated system. That is the trade-off for one that is more flexible for one that takes greater account of individual circumstances and of individual stages of a child’s life and the formula reflects payments accordingly. I say to those who say that the system will now be more complex and then say you have got to get an accountant or a lawyer to work your way through it that is absolute bunkum. You do not. But I say to people who run that line you cannot then argue for a fairer more responsive system without accepting that flexibility brings its own challenges. No one—no one—stands up for child support as it currently stands. It is difficult to administer. We have high levels of non-compliance. We have aggrieved parents on both sides of the argument. What this legislation does by recognising the change in circumstances over the last 20 years by increasing the formula for shared parenting arrangements and by also addressing as I say the application of the child support formula itself is make a genuine attempt to recognise the circumstances of the parents who take advantage of that system.But I close on this point. I am delighted at the end of what for me has been a 6-year journey on this bill to see it is going to pass tonight. I am really delighted about that. But I want to send a message to all parents out there that in the situation of a relationship breaking down whatever aggravation there might be or whatever bitterness might surround the situation your primary responsibility is to your children. And your primary responsibility both of you is to sit down and try to negotiate arrangements that provide for the effective care and maintenance of those children. If that cannot be achieved then child support is there to help you. But do not simply look at the system and say “That’s the default. We just go there automatically and we both end up mutually unhappy.” because the long-term losers from that are very clear to identify—the kids. And the kids are the one group who do not choose their parents they do not choose their circumstances but they are influenced dramatically by them.Let us not kid ourselves that this legislation or any legislation is the ultimate answer but this bill recognising contemporary situations is a vast improvement on the current Act. It is one that will be much fairer in many respects for more people. It is in tune with the mood of contemporary society. I think it is a good step forward and I am delighted that Parliament is going to give it its third reading this evening.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): There is a kids’ story about a little engine that was trying to get up a hill. It was trying and trying and trying and to get to the top it had to say that it was the little engine that could. Unfortunately the Minister of Revenue who has just resumed his seat appears to be the engine that could not. This is a huge missed opportunity.We all know that life takes interesting twists and turns that cannot be predicted. We all know that it is impossible to write a law that takes account of every unique personalcircumstance. But if the Minister was so committed in his final words to the paramountcy of the interests of children why did he miss the opportunity firstly to stay around and listen to this but secondly to write into the Child Support Amendment Bill that old principle of jurisprudence that the interests of the child should always come first? Why did National members of the select committee in question I am advised block a request by Labour members that the Social Services Committee write to that Minister and ask that that principle that he has just signed up to in passionate terms—for him—in the House be written into the law? Why was it not good enough for the Minister to put into the law the principle that the interests of the children should come first? It is the right thing to do. It is also in society’s interests because if children are given the best start they go on to be the most productive contributing members of society. As members opposite who have a history of law enforcement experience know well the children who go off the rails early are so hard to get back on the rails and the costs to society of lives gone wrong are so huge.So here we are. We have as a Parliament taken years to look at child support. I just want to flick back to some history. Around the time the Government changed in 2008 there was $1.3 billion of uncollected child support debt and penalties. Four years later under this Minister’s watch that has doubled to $2.7 billion of unpaid child support. It has doubled in 4 years. So the “Minister for Small Change” has fiddled while the child support system has been burning to the ground—burning to the ground.The previous Opposition spokesperson one Judith Collins said: “Writing off debt sends the worst possible message to absent liable parents.”Dr Rajen Prasad: Who said that?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Judith Collins. What does this bill do? It writes down penalties. I happen to think and Labour happens to think that that is an appropriate change to make in that aspect of the bill. The penalties regime is so harsh that when liable parents get behind they quite often cannot catch up. They financially cannot possibly do it. Too many of them leave the country and that has the perverse effect of separating parents—usually fathers—further and further from their children who need that contact.So it is appropriate to reduce that debt but why did it take 4 years for the Government to change its mind? At least Peter Dunne has done the right thing in that respect. It is a shame that Judith Collins took the politically populist way out and simply slammed the parents. I come back to the central point. If this was the right thing why did it take the Government 4 years to do it and why has it now despite the urging of the Opposition refused to even consider putting in the legislation the principle that the interests of the children should come first? This is a huge missed opportunity.Let us talk a little bit about the formula change which is at the heart of this bill. The Minister says it needs to take account of more factors—that is true. Therefore it is to some degree more complex—well yes that may be true. But the formula is still not flexible enough it is still not transparent enough and it is still clearly unable to deal with the full range of family circumstances. And what are some of the key issues? The adequacy of the payments is really in question because the formula cuts in when a custodial parent has the child only 28 percent of the time. I do not know how they worked out 28 percent—Dr Rajen Prasad: Two out of seven.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Two out of seven. There you go—2 days a week. That is a very small share of time for that formula to cut in. And the implication of that is that for the primary custodial parent—which let us face it is usually the mother—the analysis presented to the select committee says that they are likely to get less on balance for the support of those children. Less money will go to the mothers and the childrenunder this formula and yet the costs of administering it by the Government’s own admission in the regulatory impact statement are going to go up. There is $100 million—$100 million—in extra administration cost.Andrew Little: How much?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A hundred million dollars’ worth. The Government is buying $100 million of red tape to wrap a bow round a debt mountain that has doubled on its watch.In addition to that there is $42 million more that is going into the estimated Crown liability for the gap between what liable parents pay and what custodial parents get. So there is $100 million more red tape and there is a gap of $42 million more. This does not sound like a system that has suddenly been fixed. This is a system that is being fiddled with and frankly the children of New Zealand expect and deserve more from this Government than fiddling with a system that it has taken 4 years to bring to this House.So it is with considerable sadness rather than anger in any sense that the Labour Opposition is saying that this is so much of a missed opportunity that we are sorry we cannot support the passage of this bill. We say to the Minister and the Government again now to stop and take it back to the drawing board write in the primacy of the interests of the children introduce real-world flexibility into the payment formula make it transparent protect the position of the mothers and the children and make this a system that is worth Parliament’s time. Let us not be the Parliament of small tinkering changes because we have not got the vision or the courage to make the big ones that we need.Andrew Little: Step change not small change.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Step change not small change—an echo from the Committee stage wonderfully penned by our justice spokesperson Andrew Little. Step change not small change. That is at the heart of this debate.It is doubly disappointing that National has taken this long when it has presided over a doubling of the debt when it has flip-flopped on its earlier criticisms of the bill and when members of the select committee have refused even to write to the Minister on the issue of the primacy of the interests of the child. That all adds up to a missed opportunity.There are some matters that are more operational in nature that I will briefly mention in this third reading contribution. The first is the issue of automatic deductions. Labour has raised concerns about the unintended consequences contained in provisions that strengthen the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to make automatic deductions without consent. I note that today on the same day as the third reading of this bill the same Minister has issued a press release suggesting that the Inland Revenue Department should be able to share for the first time personal and private taxpayer information with other Government agencies for the purpose of crime fighting. That in a week—Metiria Turei: They will just email it.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: They will just email it around the whole Government. And how long will it take for the first civil servant to press “broadcast send” and put people’s personal tax information in the public domain? If you have a problem with that just send it to the Prime Minister and he will probably ring someone and ask them to broadcast it before he makes them I do not know the head of New Zealand On Air or the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau. That is how this “Shon-key” works: ring a mate put them in a sensitive position breach the public trust—and the members opposite are squirming. They are squirming because they know that that is a very serious breach of the public trust. That has got their blood flowing has it not? What a mistake to have a third reading speech on the subject of personalprivate tax information on the same day that the Government put out a press release calling for the broadcast of personal tax information. Dig your way out of that one Mr Lotu-Iiga.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I think that not only this Parliament but certainly the people of New Zealand have heard enough from the past leader of the Labour Party and certainly that sounded like a leadership speech if I have ever heard one Mr Cunliffe. It is a pleasure to actually speak on this the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Social Services Committee that considered this bill I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Revenue—he talked about the long road of discovery for him in getting to this bill—the Hon Peter Dunne. I want to thank him for his constructive assistance as our committee deliberated on this bill. I also want to thank the many officials the committee staff the clerks and also fellow committee members who considered this bill. I do not want to thank Mr Cunliffe because he neither sat in on any of the submissions nor was part of the deliberations on this bill.Mr Cunliffe talked about an old principle of jurisprudence. What was that old principle of jurisprudence? He said it was to take his marching orders from the United Nations. Well we on this side of the House will not take our directions from Ms Clark in New York and from the United Nations. He might take those instructions but we will not—oh!Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.Hon David Cunliffe: Two points. One is that it is a longstanding Standing Order that it is inappropriate to suggest that members are taking orders from any personage or interest outside this House. Secondly it feeds into the broader issue of misrepresentation under the Standing Orders.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first point is upheld. Members cannot be accused of taking instruction from outside this House and that is clearly set out in Speakers’ rulings. The second point—well members I just ask for a little bit more courteousness across the House.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you. He did mention the United Nations convention. I added one plus one to equal two and I thought he was referring to his former boss. But anyway coming back to why this bill is important the child support system—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Some members when they have been corrected by your wise judgment have the generosity and maturity to withdraw and apologise; others repeat the same but in different language. You may wish to decide which of those cases applies here.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When a point of order has been dealt with members should move on and not even refer to the point of order.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I said it is was and always has been a backstop for families when parents are no longer living together and cannot support themselves for an arrangement to be made for the support of their children. It is not about the United Nations. It is not about external parties. It is about what is going on in this country and between kids who clearly need support.Child support was never intended as the Minister said to be the automatic default position and nor should it be that. My strong preference in these arrangements is that when relationships sadly do break up parents should be encouraged to make those arrangements in a private way for the maintenance of their children. And I equally recognise that that is not always going to be fair or feasible in a number of these cases. So it is therefore the aim of this system to ensure financial support is reasonable andreached on a voluntary basis. To do this efficiently and accurately in today’s context it is important that the scheme be updated.Like many in this House I have had several of my constituents contact me about the inequity and the unfairness of the current system. They come to me in my electorate office—and the previous speaker will not know because he neither lives in his electorate nor knows where his electorate office is in New Lynn—and I say that in terms of doing this efficiently child support payments should take into account a greater range of individual circumstances and capacities of both parents which is more in line with modern practice. So it is important as I said that the formula be altered to reflect current modern practices as happens between couples in relationships. In the context of child support it means that child support payments are collected and delivered for the benefit of those children whom they are intended for and parents should not pass those financial responsibilities to maintain their children on to other members of society as the previous member seemed to suggest.We know that there are 210000 children in families who are currently involved in the system. We know that the system is outdated. We know that there are current issues within the system. This new system though will not solve each problem; the Minister has clearly clearly represented that and he stated it up front. But we all know as well and the previous member knows himself that this system is better than the last system.I just want to say that I support this bill. It obviously has a new formula which bases child support payments on a wider recognition of shared care the income of both parents as well as an estimated average expenditure for raising children in New Zealand. Again the previous member Mr Cunliffe said he did not know how we came to the formula. Well I suggest he reads the bill first that he turns up to select committee hearings when submitters turn up and that he actually listens to some of his colleagues who might have an idea about what is going on in this bill. So what happens is people get behind in their payments. He suggested that the debt has exploded. We acknowledge that. We saw that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We saw that people are dropping out of the system and not making their payments. But the changes in this bill are about encouraging and facilitating parents to make more timely payments of child support and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): First of all before I begin I just want to put on record that I think it was unfair and perhaps misleading of the chair of the Social Services Committee Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to make those remarks knowing full well that at the time this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill was discussed at the select committee Labour had a different revenue spokesperson from whom it has now and that the spokesperson subbed in and contributed significantly to every debate and discussion on this bill. Now we have a different spokesperson. I could talk at great length about what happens in reshuffles in Government ranks which Mr Lotu-Iiga might not want me to reflect on because not everyone is served well in such reshuffles but I will not. But I think it is unfair of the chair to try to claim that the member does not have the right to speak on a bill when it is within their remit regardless of when they took it on.I have to also point out that I was a member of the select committee that considered this bill yet I would struggle to suggest to the House the origin of how we came to some parts of this formula because even now I continue to question whether it is the right thing to do. You would not have heard that member the chair stand up and give the origin. You did not even hear him explain the formula. In fact I am yet to hear any National Party member explain the child support formula in this House. The reason for that and I will come back to this is that it is extremely complicated.Some of the members in this House did traverse the intricacies of the formula during the earlier parts of this debate. I was one of them so I will not go through that again butI will highlight that if it is that complicated it has the potential to give rise to issues further down the track. Actually just today I flagged on social media that this bill was going to be debated and someone said to me: “Can you explain to me how the new formula will work?”. I pointed her to the first reading speeches; I am not sure that that was the right thing necessarily to do. But it does demonstrate something quite key.What I can say is not included in this bill is the issue despite Mr Lotu-Iiga talking about the fact that this was not a bill that was meant to be about preserving child welfare that it is not unusual in international jurisdictions to embed basic principles around the paramountcy principle the importance of child welfare into any law that has some kind of jurisdiction over Family Court matters—and things like child support payments you could legitimately put under that umbrella. So it is not fair to paint this notion as fanciful. It is being used in other jurisdictions.All that we asked just to be clear was that we put a specific provision in the bill that referred to the well-being of the child. In fact even the Children’s Commissioner stated quite clearly giving a suggestion that we add a new section 4(a) “to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents and the promotion of their on-going well-being and healthy development following parental separation” and a new section 4(l) “to require that in all decisions and actions made under the Act the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration”. That is the notion of the paramountcy principle. If some member on that side of the House would like to explain to me how that is going to completely undermine what a child support bill is intended to do I would really like to hear that. For what purpose does it exist if it is not to ensure that the ongoing financial support and obligations and responsibilities are met by non-custodial parents? If that is not about the child what is that about? The fact is that when we raised this in the select committee we had advice given to us by those involved in the drafting that it could potentially undermine what the bill was trying to do and that suggested to me that perhaps we had started from the wrong starting point. So that is a point that I think it is only fair that we make.I want to traverse some of the other significant issues that were raised during the process of formulating the bill and its being in front of the select committee. One was ensuring payments are made. I would wager that everyone in this House wants to make sure that we encourage and assert that child support payments must be made by non-custodial parents or those who have shared custody if you will. It is an obligation that I do not think anyone here would dispute. If we can use the system to encourage and ensure that we remove the barriers to that obligation being met then that is a good thing. That means that we had to consider whether or not reducing the backlog of penalty payments was the right thing to do. On this side of the House we were firmly of the view that it was. Actually these penalty payments were not going to the child; they were penalty payments incurred to the Crown. If they stood in the way of a child receiving future payments then we should think about whether or not there were ways to strike the balance between fairness and ensuring an ongoing uptake of someone’s responsibilities. Judith Collins it is fair to note has not always been of that view. In fact she has been quite strident in her view that we should not have any kind of write-off of back payments. It is good to see that the Government though has taken a more open mind on this over time.But I am upset that what was not considered or even discussed and a view was not even put forward by Government members was just some response to what the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has proposed and that is around child support pass-on. We do not know what side of that argument the Government would have come down on and I am not asserting here that it should have taken one position or the other. But I would have thought that it could be discussed at the time we werediscussing child support and the general principle that—and many people will not be aware of this—where a parent who might have primary care responsibilities for a child is in receipt of Government support for instance being on the DPB they will not receive any form of child support even if the non-custodial parent is paying that child support. It will be recouped by the Crown. The notion of pass-on is simply the idea that no longer do you have the Government standing in the middle taking in those payments but instead those payments go directly to the child.The Government may have a particular view on that but we simply do not know and yet when the Children’s Commissioner is standing out there and saying that there is merit to this and there is merit to this because it encourages payment—it encourages parents as instead of just saying “I’m not going to bother paying because it’s just going to the Crown.” they know that the only person who will miss out is the child—I would have liked to hear the Government’s view on that no matter what it was. I think that would have been the time for the Government to express its view particularly given the international evidence that exists.When it comes to penalty payments I am also disappointed that there was very little discussion and movement around the idea of to what degree we are pursuing payments when they are not made. In other jurisdictions you will often see that a Government will come in and make a payment itself and will then pursue the person in question who is meant to have made the payment so that no one misses out from the fact that the person has not shown responsibility. That is what happens in other countries not in our own. But I have cases coming across my desk where for instance a non-custodial parent is living in Australia and has not been paying their child support the Inland Revenue Department has not been able to track them and ensure they do we find out that they are coming into New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department sits on its hands and does nothing. Why are we not pursuing that non-paying parent in the same way we would an unpaid fine at the border? Surely not paying for the upkeep and the care of your own child should be pursued with as much rigour as for instance a fine would be by the Crown.There are many other issues that I could have traversed. I hope my colleagues will pick up the complexity issue which is borne out by the fact that there will be a 15 percent increase in the need for staff time spent on this issue. There will be a $91 million operating cost and a contingency of $28 million and there is a fear that the Inland Revenue Department system might actually fall over under the weight of these changes and that is something for everyone in this House to be concerned about. This is not about just child support; this is about our ability to administer our tax system in New Zealand.But the one thing I want to finish on is the impact on women. The thresholds through this formula change where the primary caregiver has the amount they receive discounted starts as soon as the non-custodial parent picks up 28 percent of the care. That does not mean that that parent picks up 28 percent of the cost that does not mean that they have 28 percent of their life impacted in terms of their ability to take on full-time employment and yet that is the point at which their child support starts to decrease. This will impact the most on women. We felt like their voice was not heard nearly strongly enough and I feel disappointed and let down by the amount we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs on this issue. Because of the children and because of the unfair impact we believe on women Labour does not support this bill.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Similarly to my colleague Jacinda Ardern from the Labour Party the Greens are very concerned about this legislation the Child Support Amendment Bill and we will continue to oppose it. Our view as has been said is that if this legislation is supposed to be about the well-being of children—Mike Sabin: No it’s not.METIRIA TUREI: —and their future care well then why not have in the legislation that that is the paramount principle? But I guess National is just confirming that actually it is not. This legislation is not about children at all. It is about tax take and it is about punishment. So we had Peter Dunne here earlier today thumping the table declaring that the most important thing in his view was the fact that parents should put their children first above all else and yet his colleagues in the National Party are saying: “Nah it’s not about kids at all actually. It’s got nothing to do with them.” No wonder this legislation is such a mess. No wonder the legislation is such a mess where a significant set of provisions about the financial care that impacts not just on the financial relationship between parents concerning their children but also actually on the familial relationships of parents and their children is so confused so complex and in large part irrational. We think there have been some changes around the edges that we agree with but it is so complex now and it misses the point so badly about the needs of children and families that we simply cannot support it.I do wonder actually—and I will not be the only parent in this House who has had some dealings with the child support system in some form. And I really do appreciate the comments made by Jacinda Ardern about women on the DPB for example for whom these relationships are very complex and very much about how to maintain some kind of financial stability for their children and effective relationships for their children when they are in a situation of break-up. They are a sole parent caring for their kids having to manage often a tricky relationship or a tricky break-up with a partner and in the financial circumstances that are involved. Of course you know for all that Peter Dunne said that this legislation is about providing financially for the children—not that National agrees—in fact for a significant proportion of families who are in the most need of the greatest financial support they benefit nothing from this legislation because nothing in this legislation gives them the money. So the money goes from the other parent to the State and the State in its largesse as we heard earlier today provides a benefit to care for these kids but certainly not enough money to care for these kids well and it poses absolutely grotesque obligations on that family to make it even more difficult for them to have financial stability.I do not know whether this is still the case but it certainly was in my time many decades ago now it seems—actually it is in truth decades ago. When I was on the domestic purposes benefit the requirement was that if you did not name or could not name the father of your child and you were seeking a domestic purposes benefit you would take a financial hit. You would lose $20 a week out of your benefit because there would be nobody for the State to try to get more money from through the child support system. If that still occurs now—and I am not sure whether it does; I assume it does because there has been no indication of any change—and it certainly did then I knew of women who would take that financial hit every week. The poorest women in this country would take that financial hit because for them the most important thing was their children. They wanted their kids to have a good relationship with their father and with their father’s family. They wanted their kids to have an easy relationship where the other parent could come and they could meet and the child could go for visits and go for visits with the family and money was not an issue between them. This was especially the case when both parents were very poor where either both of them were on a benefit or one of them—the father in particular—was working on a very low income where money was an issue and was always going to be an issue.So this legislation—does that do anything? Does this help those women who are the most vulnerable and those kids who are in the least financially stable situation? No. It does not do anything because the one major recommendation that came from theChildren’s Commissioner as to how this legislation could and should be amended to increase the amount of repayments from non-custodial parents and to improve the lives of the children who need it most has been ignored. And that is the pass-on so that the State guarantees that the kids will benefit. But that is why National does not and will not put children at the heart of this legislation. That is why it will not put the well-being of children as a core principle of this legislation. It is because it does not want to have to make sure that those kids do OK. It washes its hands of the kids who need it the most and that is clearly laid out in this legislation which fails those children. We oppose this bill. Thank you.MELISSA LEE (National): I would like to start out by saying that the care and welfare of children is implicit in this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill. This bill is not about caring for children or about how parents should be caring for their children; it is about the administrative process of how child support is collected. This child support scheme is a backup arrangement where parents fail to reach an agreement over the financial support of their children. The child support scheme is not the default position that it has become in many many cases.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.MELISSA LEE: Before the dinner break I was actually saying that this child support scheme is a backup arrangement for when parents fail to reach an agreement over the financial support of their children. This Child Support Amendment Bill will provide for fairer assessment calculations of child support payments that take into account a wider range of individual circumstances.The comprehensive new child support formula will better reflect many of the social and legal changes that have occurred since the introduction of the current scheme. There will be more emphasis placed on separated parents sharing the care and financial responsibility for their children and a wider recognition of the care of children because both parents are often working. I think it is unfair to assume that only one parent is solely in charge. As Metiria Turei tried to point out earlier she seemed to think that it is only women who are in fact the carers of children. Sometimes you will actually find that in modern society it is the fathers who stay home to look after the children and in fact it is the mothers who end up becoming the liable parent.The incomes of both parents need to be taken into consideration. This bill will do that. Both parents’ incomes less a living allowance for each parent will be introduced in the formula with costs of raising children being apportioned according to each parent’s share of the total net income.The child support formula will use a new scale of costs expressed as income percentages providing a more equitable system of financial support with regard to the expense of raising children after allowing for likely tax credits. These percentages will vary with the number of children and the age of children with the percentage being higher for children over 12 years of age. Costs seem to rise dramatically with teenagers. Those of us who have teenage children will recognise the fact that they end up costing us a lot of money.It also takes into account that non-parent carers may be eligible to receive a proportion of a child support payment if they provide at least 28 percent of the ongoing daily care of a child. Sometimes that is in fact the case for a lot of parents who tend to work and where there are no persons to actually look after their children at home. It is often upon the grandparents or maybe a family member to actually take on the responsibility of raising children. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I often wondered what Pope John XXIII was thinking when he said: “It is easier for a father to have childrenthan children to have a real father.” One can only assume that perhaps he would have heard a lot of confessions by that time.Tim Macindoe: Ha!Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am glad you enjoyed that Tim Macindoe. The Child Support Amendment Bill has reached its third and final reading. New Zealand First is happy to support the bill in its final reading. It is evidence that our current and outdated scheme for child support payments needs to be revamped and it paves the way for a new system—a system that is more reflective and representative of how families live in today’s world. Family life is changing and so too are our circumstances. More and more mothers are attaining paid work and there is more emphasis on shared care.Getting jobs in recent years has been extremely difficult under the National Government mind you. It has made too many promises and never delivered on any of them I should say.Melissa Lee: Oh goodness me!Tim Macindoe: Oh come on. You know that’s not true.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Well we are still waiting for the 170000 jobs Tim Macindoe and Melissa Lee. More businesses continue to close down due to National’s poor economic performance. Consistently poor performance is not just primarily a matter of weakness stupidity or ignorance but also a matter of miscasting. In other words National has failed to lead New Zealand in the last 4½ years and more important in terms of 2014 and beyond. We get to wonder what is going to happen.Child support payments symbolise each parent’s moral obligation to their child or children. I am somewhat disappointed. I was hoping that the 28 percent shared-care threshold was going to be amended to reflect the recommendation I put forward for it to be increased to 35 percent. New Zealand First is disappointed that that was not followed through. Shared care of a child or children is even more important because it enables the child or children to maintain a close relationship with both parents. This will ensure that children grow up with more stability and consistency in their homes. Nothing that we do for children is ever wasted—nothing. It also allows families to try to make things work despite their circumstances.The new formula is sensitive to a variety of circumstances but there are also issues over its complexity which may cause further confusion. It is our view that these complexities are outweighed by its ability to recognise different living arrangements and also the formula emphasises shared care. This not only makes it fair but also is justice for parents who do look after their children and make do with whatever they have. It is about bridging loopholes that have fostered more problems than solutions. This bill will hopefully remedy some of those problems—only time will tell. Given Minister Dunne’s flip-flop track record it gives no assurance to the people of New Zealand.As I mentioned in my second reading speech on this bill children who are in the care of their grandparents should also be given a fair go—should be given a fair go. Grandparents ought to be recognised as they provide care while parents are away for certain periods of time or because they have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. The grandparents’ role in situations like this provides added value to the stability and security of New Zealand children or parents whose circumstances force them to seek grandparent support. After all—after all—children are made readers on the laps of their parents and grandparents. If there are situations like this—and undoubtedly there will be—grandparents and other family members who are the primary caregivers for children ought to be seriously considered and compensated for the care they provide. Ialso mentioned that this bill will close up some of the loopholes that have been problematic since the implementation of our current child support system. Over the years family life has had to endure many social changes that have affected the way we live and work. In some ways these changes have dictated to us what we can and cannot do.It is our hope that because this bill aims to improve the treatment of families making it more fair it will lessen the burden of chasing child support payments or worrying about payments being made. Our outdated scheme and formula have not been able to keep up and it should come as no surprise that they are futile in fulfilling their purpose. We are however concerned that the Minister responsible for the bill the Minister of Revenue did not do his homework in making sure that the current Inland Revenue Department computer system would cope with these changes. Whatever happened to proper preparation preventing poor performance? We are now confronted with a situation where this bill will be delayed in its implementation in order to allow for the computer system to be brought up to basic standards. Minister Dunne’s lack of planning does not constitute just inconvenience on fathers and mothers out there who deserve better. The cost of living is rising and so too are the costs of raising children—[Interruption] I cannot hear you properly Mike Sabin. If you want to say something speak up—perhaps say it properly.Mike Sabin: I can certainly hear that member. I can hear that member loud and clear thank you.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I can hear you now. Something I can say to you Mike is that you used to be about doing something; now it is about being someone is it not? It is only fair that child support payments reflect the amount of shared care each parent or caregiver has for the child or children so that they are receiving financial assistance that will ensure the child or children are well looked after. The priority in this bill should be for the welfare of the child or children involved—[Interruption] I say to Catherine Delahunty seeing that I am the one who is actually speaking at the moment that the fact that this bill stands before us today in its third and final reading should open the eyes of National MPs to the fact that it is the children who lose out at the end of the day. It is the children who will be affected regardless of the decisions this National Government makes. These are the same children whom we will be protecting from any harm or associated risks that might affect their education well-being and upbringing.Nelson Mandela said: “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” Our children will one day be decision makers. It is therefore our duty to ensure that our children have the best possible start in life. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that New Zealand tamariki or whānau or children are not confronted with issues or problems that come through no fault of their own—especially those people from the electorate of Mike Sabin. If implementing the Child Support Amendment Bill improves people’s circumstances and is perceived to be fairer and just then we as parliamentarians are doing right by the future generations of children. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I happily rise to support the Child Support Amendment Bill because of the considerable thought that has gone into this piece of legislation. Of course when the first piece of legislation was passed those many years ago the intent was clear. It was to ensure that children were raised in homes where they were encouraged to receive the benefit of the financial and social input of both parents. So although the current child support scheme provided a relatively straightforward way of ensuring that that happened particularly in the way of calculating the support that the absentee parent if you like had to give financially—andwhen I say “absentee” I do not mean that they were not in the child’s life of course. What I mean is that they were not the caregiver with whom the child spent most of their time. The liability I guess of that parent was worked out and it was fairly straightforward.Of course the primary assumption back then was that the paying parent was the income earner and the recipient parent was the main care provider. But of course the way that parents raise their children these days in situations where a marriage or a relationship might have split up is quite quite different. There are probably two major changes. First of all more parents are in work and usually both are in work whereas back in 1992 when this was first legislated for one of the parents might have been the key money winner if you like. The second major change is that more often than not both parents now are involved in if you like day-to-day or week-to-week parenting. So you no longer get that sort of split which was often along gender lines where you had the main income earner not necessarily being the main caregiver and the main caregiver not necessarily being the main income earner. That is what happened historically.This initiative is to deal with a recognition that times have changed that more parents are in work—often both parents—and that most parents are involved in their children’s lives whether that parent is the chief caregiver or not. That is why in the new formula for child support payments we have essentially three changes. One is a wider recognition of shared care. That is why we have made sure that there is an opportunity there concerning expenditure for raising children. It is recognised there that when the level of care of one parent reaches 28 percent it is actually significant and it is marked in legislation. Previously it was only from 40 percent that it was recognised. Traditionally of course you might perhaps get a child staying with one parent 100 percent of the time or in situations that are negotiated and have worked really well 50 percent of the time—50-50. But now where 28 percent of the child’s time is spent with the parent who is not the chief caregiver—where that parent spends that amount of time with the child—that is recognised.The total income of both parents is recognised now and the provision of expenditure on children has been updated. That recognises the number of children who are involved and also their age because of course costs change. Anyone who has been involved in raising teenagers from when they were little or who has observed that in their wider family will recognise that the costs of raising young children compared with those of raising teenagers are quite different.I commend this bill to the House. I am pleased and I look forward to it being passed this evening because it does update what were good intentions in 1992—they still are today—and of course it brings things up to the modern era. I support this bill.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): This is my final call on this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill. It has been a long journey. We have debated this in the House in the Social Services Committee back in the House for the second reading and through the Committee stage and now we have the third reading. What we on this side of the House have expressed is disappointment about how this bill has turned out. I have heard the arguments of members opposite on this third reading which are similar to the arguments they have made in all of the other stages.There is a fundamental difference that we have with the way in which the Government has gone about this particular bill. Any legislation ought to have certain principles that guide it. This is the Child Support Amendment Bill and therefore the principles that guide it ought to be around children. We ought at least to have taken the opportunity in this bill to design a system that actually does put the interests of the children centre stage and then to look at how it pans out.The disappointment that we have is that that is something that did not happen. In comment after comment tonight from Government members they have indeed said: “Well that was not the purpose of the bill.” That particular explanation falls very short. The purpose of the bill is child support. I guess the most objectionable comment tonight was from the chair of the Social Services Committee when he said that the bill was not going to be beholden to any United Nations—and what he meant was any United Nations convention around the rights of children. So it was not going to be beholden to any of that; it was going to be what was good for us here in New Zealand right now.I think the chair of the Social Services Committee actually misses a point there because I am sure he would not argue that New Zealand should abandon all of the conventions to which it has been a signatory because if we did that would be untenable. We would become a pariah in the Western World. Nobody would want to do that but Sam Lotu-Iiga was actually suggesting something like that. I certainly found that objectionable—objectionable more from the point of view that he as chair of the Social Services Committee did not express an intense and deep understanding of the notion of building a policy platform that places children right at the centre of it.I know that other members opposite have also said: “But this is a technical bill; it doesn’t do that.” But it ought to have done that. There has been no substantive rebuttal from members opposite to that argument although it is a very powerful argument. The best interests of the children should have been placed right at the centre of this consideration.We on this side of the House are not alone in taking that view as strongly as we do. Many reputable submitters advised of the importance of including a provision in the bill that stated very clearly that the interests of the children would be the central guiding principle. Those who submitted on this point were significant organisations. The Children’s Commissioner submitted a very thoughtful and detailed submission. The Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children the Child Poverty Action Group and the Dunedin Community Law Centre were just some organisations that actually came and said that here was an opportunity to take that principle and put it centre stage.So the theme was consistent and the advocacy was powerful yet it was simply disregarded because here was a bill that was seen as an Inland Revenue Department - type bill because that is where the child support system is based and therefore it was just the formula that needed to be made right. It was a mistake that that happened. The Government flatly rejected the advice of those eminent organisations. I do wonder what this bill would have looked like if we actually did put the interests of children centre stage and really did get the best advice we could from around the country from around our experts. I wonder whether we would have a 21st century piece of legislation for this important aspect of our lives and the lives of our children. The Government was not interested and it proceeded with what it describes as I said as a technical piece of legislation and that view is reflected in the current manifestation of the bill. So the bill is disappointing for that reason.It would be useful for members opposite to realise that every piece of legislation is guided by a set of principles and those principles ought to be articulated. We do have a lot of advice on what those principles are. These are well-established principles in terms of philosophy and ethics as well as good science. If the principles were based on the needs of children putting their interests first then the consideration of their financial interests would have been quite different. But what we have here is just a consideration of financial interests—who pays and how much. Parenting is more than just that. Parenting is about how parents do participate far more palpably and powerfully in the lives of their children. So this bill then is reductionist. It has reduced a complex set ofrelationships between parents who are separated the needs of their children and who pays to just the question of dollars and percentage of care.This approach inevitably has unintended consequences for those who have the primary responsibility for the care of our children. For example there will be a loss of income for the primary caregiver. If 28 percent is 2 nights out of 7 and therefore the income you get is reduced accordingly the needs of the parents do not reduce but the amount of money does. Here there is some attempt—and I recognise it—to balance the cost to one parent of having a child 2 days a week and the other parent having it 5 days a week. But clearly those of us who have been parents those of us who have been around parents and others who have been around children and parents know what it takes to look after children—having full-time responsibility for them even if they go away for 2 nights and the costs do not come down proportionately. So there will be unintended consequences in that particular area. The focus on percentages can easily be gamed particularly by the contributing partner and if it is gamed then its effect will be quite negative.The second point I want to make is that we have had lots of comments in this Parliament and elsewhere about the scourge of child poverty in our country—270000 children live in poverty. That is immoral it is untenable it is unethical and it is almost criminal that we allow children to live in poverty. Quite a number of those are children of sole parents who are surviving on contributions from a partner through the child support system. So here was another opportunity.If children were placed at the centre then at least there would have been a far more robust discussion about how the child support system could be used to address poverty in that segment of our population who live on limited income. In fact what we have possibly done is make life more miserable for parents on very limited income and living on the breadline or in poverty.It actually makes it worse because the provision that was suggested to us by eminent organisations again was the pass-on mechanism which other countries are using as well. We know that the pass-on mechanism does actually encourage parents to meet their obligations to contribute. Yet there was no interest throughout the stages of this bill in looking at that provision seriously. It was simply put aside. We could get no traction in the select committee from the Government members on that.So I think here then was another lost opportunity and this is what happens when we do not develop strong principles—well-argued principles—and operate on that basis. This could have been a cross-Parliament approach to addressing this problem because we ought not to have as many differences as we do. Tonight we will debate other bills as well that reflect that kind of difference of opinion. So it is for those reasons that we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very pleased to take a call in support of this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill. It has been a very very difficult piece of legislation because what we are dealing with here is a very very complex set of circumstances which no two parents of children share alike.But before I continue I want to just touch on a couple of points and concerns that I have coming from the Green Party today. We have heard very much about children being at the centre of the legislation from both Opposition parties—Labour and the Greens. I will come back to that. I am troubled when I hear that Metiria Turei onNative Affairson television this Monday talked about cannabis in the sense that it was some form of legitimate income supplement for families in rural areas—a supplement to look after theirwhānau to support the interests of their children—and that in fact some actually showed some entrepreneurial skills in doing so. How can that member and that party come into this House and seriously stand on the moral high ground—Simon O’Connor: Which party?MIKE SABIN: —the Green Party—that they seem to think they should occupy and talk about the best interests of children when they will advocate growing cannabis and I assume using cannabis as a good way to support their families and their children? I would submit that that is just absurd it flies in the face of their arguments and I think they should be dismissed entirely. It does not surprise me that they are not supporting this bill but there is nothing new in that. I think that that is a fair reflection that this is actually a good bill—that they are not supporting it.Coming back to the point about children being at the centre of this legislation it is important to note that this legislation exists solely because of the parents of children who cannot make their own financial arrangements—those who cannot arrive at a position where they can support their children. I want to make the point that it does not mean that those children are vulnerable. In many cases the incomes will be of a significant order. It is not about vulnerable children. It is not a welfare bill. It is about trying to ensure that there is an appropriate administrative formula to make financial arrangements for those children in the absence of their parents being able to do it. So this is not about welfare and vulnerable children. Sure under this equation there may be some children who are vulnerable but they are being looked after in other ways. First and foremost this is about their parents not being able to agree.So when we come to the formula—and much has been made about that—how do we get that formula right? Well I want to echo the comments of the Minister of Revenue Minister Dunne when he said that we cannot look to have a more inclusive formula in terms of circumstance without having a formula that is more complex. The two do not work. They are mutually exclusive. If we want a formula that is more reflective of the diversity of different arrangements it is inherent that that formula will become more complex. But it is not like people will have to sit down and work that out on their calculator; that is taken care of for them. I think it is very very important to point out that it is about getting that balance right. I do not think that any member can come to this House and say “Well the way it was is as good as it gets.” because quite simply it was not.The point about the formula I think it is very important to note is that what we are also doing here aside from that trade-off on the formula is ensuring that it is more reflective of life circumstances which are quite different from when this law was first introduced. The formula is far more equitable and takes into account shared-care arrangements which are far more commonplace now. That is obviously something that we should be encouraging notwithstanding the fact that there are some 210000 children who are subject to this. That is far too high. But the 28 percent threshold versus the 40 percent threshold is I think a good move and I think that taking into account the financial circumstances of both parents is more equitable. I also think that when we look at the expenditure of raising a child that is also very important and it is covered off in this bill very well.In closing I just want to echo the comments of Minister Dunne when he said that first and foremost it is the responsibility of parents to try to get this right. Do not use child support as a default setting. Let us try to support those families to get it right in the first place. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Split call? Sue Moroney—5 minutes.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. It is with sadness that I echo what speakers on this side of the House have said by and large—that Labour is sadly in the position of finding itself unable to support this bill. Despite the fact that we have got to the third reading and the issues have been well debated there has been no ability for the National Government to beable to think about the concept of putting children at the centre of its policy development. This bill is yet another example of its inability to do that despite the fact that the bill is called the Child Support Amendment Bill not the “Parent Support Amendment Bill”.This bill is supposed to be about ensuring that children whose parents have split up have financial support and the ability to participate in life as any other child should be able to. That is what should be at the centre of this legislation but the National Government has got itself into the trap of thinking that this is actually all about the parents. It has actually addressed this issue by making the mistake of climbing into the battleground between the parents and that is precisely what this legislation ought not to do. It ought not to take sides with regard to the parental responsibility in this regard.This legislation should be in the interests solely of the children and the fact that the Government members on the Social Services Committee quite specifically voted against recording that as being an object of this piece of legislation I think speaks volumes. But it is not just what the objects of this bill say or more important what they do not say. It is also played out in the detail of this bill.I want to talk specifically about the implications for women not because this bill is about women but because the majority of children who should be at the centre of this legislation are in fact in households that are headed up by women and women alone. Therefore the implications for and the effects on women are the effects on children when it comes to this bill because far and away the majority of children rely on a household led by a woman to actually fulfil their financial needs.So what do we find the implications for women to be? Well this legislation does have significant implications for those women because on average women earn less than men and are more likely to be primary caregivers. One of the major things that this bill does is reapportion the financial situation depending on whether there is a shared-care arrangement and it lowers the threshold for what can be deemed a shared-care arrangement. So all that is required now is for the non-custodial parent who mainly is the male in the exercise to have the children for the weekend and then they can actually get a financial benefit from that. That means that the households where women are leading—where they are looking after the child and paying most of the costs for most of the time—actually lose out. They actually end up with less available finance to support that child.This legislation was an opportunity to get it right. It was a review that was needed because things have changed since this legislation was first brought in and it did need review but sadly the Government has got it so wrong. It is penalising women and in turn it is penalising the children for whom they are the primary caregivers and custodial parents and that is not in the best interests of the children.JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak to this inaccurately named Child Support Amendment Bill because I believe it is a rough day for women and children in this country as this Government seeks to pass two bills—namely this Child Support Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill—into law. Both of these pieces of legislation will reduce women’s economic and social independence and as a consequence the security of children in this country.The most recent estimates are that around one in two mothers have spent some time as sole parents by the time they reach the age of 50 and that a third of children have lived with a sole mother for some time by the time they are 17. According to the Families Commission’s research we know that the amount many receiving parents receive the majority of whom are women is considered to be too little to meet the needs of their children. In 2009 90 percent of sole parent families had incomes belowthe median household income for all households with or without children. And we know that women in our country are earning a lot less than men. Women’s average weekly pay is $879 and men’s average weekly pay is $1058. It is a gender pay gap of around 17 percent and we know that on an annual basis it is a much bigger gap. Research just last week by Statistics New Zealand showed that women are still doing most of the parenting in this country whether it be in or out of relationships. This bill will result in a disproportionate reduction in entitlements under the child support scheme for female sole parents and also some male sole parents. Almost 30000 female parents receiving child support could experience a reduction in their monthly child support receipts—30000 families could experience a reduction in income. In one worked example that we were given a sole parent with two children who has the other parent spending 2 nights a week with the children could have their annual child support entitlement reduced by 36 percent or more than $3000 a year. This is significant.These bills being introduced today will further exacerbate child poverty and the feminisation of poverty in this country. And I challenge anyone in this House to tell me that a sole mother’s economic and social status has nothing to do with a woman’s ability to leave a violent relationship. A women’s safety survey in this country conducted in 1996 found that 70 percent—70 percent—of separated women had experienced some form of domestic violence. That is what we are dealing with in this legislation—the safety of women and children in this country and their ability to leave violent relationships. Far too many New Zealand fathers—and this is backed up by evidence—have a long history of not paying child support paying too little and paying erratically. This bill seems to support in part at least the view that child support should be less onerous because liable parents resent paying it. I know of an example of a woman in Wellington who traded sex with a violent ex-partner just to be able to get her child support payments. That is not a rarity in this country because that is what we are dealing with in the imbalance of power in these relationships. This bill will make leaving a violent relationship more difficult and will put more power in the hands of abusers.This bill has been developed as if none of this reality was true and it puts women’s and children’s lives at risk. And this is just 1 month after our Minister of Women’s Affairs committed New Zealand to “a comprehensive approach towards ending violence against women and girls” in this country. Yet here we are just over 1 month later eroding the protective factors inherent in two fundamental pieces of legislation to ensure women’s and children’s safety in this country. It is a disgrace.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am honoured to take the last call in the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill tonight. I firstly want to say that when we talk about children and families they are our children our tamariki our families our whānau as well. We on this side of the House take seriously the roles and responsibility we have so we are very conscious of the decisions that we make in this place and particularly those about the Child Support Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue who over 6 years has worked hard to see this bill come to fruition.Here in the final speech on this bill I want to touch on a couple of things that have been mentioned. There was a petition that was put forward by the Opposition members around changing the objects of the Child Support Act. Can I say this: if they actually read the objects these clearly ensure that the paramountcy of care is still affirmed in this Act as well. In section (4) this is what it says: “The objects of this Act are—(a) to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents: (b) to affirm the obligation of parents to maintain their children:”. That petition was pure scaremongering. It was purely a way of trying to put some fancy idea in there. The intent of the Act is clear—tomaintain at the heart of this Act the responsibility of those parents to care for their children.The bill has been widely consulted on. We are saying that 2300 people were consulted—online participants—and we heard over 112 submissions. We know that the heart of this bill is about families breaking up. In this sense we want to ensure that the care and the support of our children who are vulnerable are at the heart of this bill. So I support this bill. This is a good bill. It will reach and meet these needs. No bill is ever perfect but we believe this will meet the needs of our young our children and our whānau as well. I commend this bill to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I moveThat the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. We are about to effect major change for social support in New Zealand. The bill before the House today will modernise the welfare system with changes that are long overdue and will serve this country well for years to come. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee and officials from the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice who have all contributed to this bill. I would really like to thank my office and all the people who work inside of it who put in extra hours all of those people within ministries who spent an immense amount of time on this. There are people who gave up time over their holidays quite frankly to write this. I said to the ministry the other day that I would like to do a morning tea for them and they said that there are more than 200 people who at some stage have actually worked on the reforms in the last 3 years. That is a lot of people to thank and I really recognise their work their intelligence and their hearts which they put into this.I want to thank the select committee especially the chairman for his stewardship through this. It made some sensible changes I thought and I was really happy to take those recommendations. We took submissions in writing and people came and told their stories. I hear those stories and they are pretty heartfelt. There are people who are in really unfortunate situations and I think that if there is anything that I should say—and I know that we hear a lot of rhetoric—it is that I have an immense amount of respect for people who need the system. I have an immense amount of respect for what we are doing here. I know that we hear a lot of rhetoric that I do not care and that I make changes just for the sake of it without consideration for those whom they affect but I do not think I am calling talkback and I do not think this is a letter to the editor. I recognise that these are people’s lives that they are living them in reality in their homes and that this Parliament needs to give that the level of respect that it deservesparticularly for those who are dependent on the State and who are at a level of vulnerability.Where we disagree—I get that and I understand it—is in terms of what changes need to be made and how to do that. I obviously feel strongly and I have seen the evidence and I back that it is these changes that are needed and will make a difference. I hear about how heartless I believe some think I am but if we go back—and this is really the third stage of changes that this Government has made to the welfare system—over each of the changes we see that last year when we made those significant changes for youth in particular we were told how awful it would be and we certainly did not get the support from Labour and other Opposition members. The reality was that we put an extra $287 million into supporting people up front. What happened is that we now have teen mums who are able to get childcare for their children so they are able to stay in school get into teen parent units or get some form of educational training themselves which they did not have the opportunity to get before this side of the House this Government made changes for them.It is this Government that has stood up and wrapped more support round those young people as they left school and as they did not know where to go and where to get support. That is what this next stage of reforms is also about. It is about recognising where people need more help and where we can get alongside of them. It recognises that at the moment we spend the most money on those who are on the unemployment benefit when what we really have is a whole lot of people who either have illnesses or disabilities or have issues around education and training and confidence and actually if we got alongside of them—the community also—and funded them we would see really really different outcomes for them. I am already seeing them.This bill does make changes to drug testing. I see too many young people with wasted lives—in both contexts quite frankly—and if only we gave them that kind of support where they were able to get into work where they have got people who are mentors in jobs and who actually back them. And I meet employers who are pretty outstanding and who actually get alongside of them. This bill asks more for people and asks more people to look for work but I want to reiterate as I have many many many times that if you cannot find a job you will not be penalised and you will not be sanctioned. We merely ask you to look. And I do say to people out there that beneficiaries you will not actually find a job unless you are actively looking. I think that that is fair and I think that it makes sense.We are asking those who have an outstanding warrant for their arrest to front up to do the right thing; if not your benefit will be cancelled. Quite frankly I am relatively appalled that 600-odd people after 20 days still have an outstanding warrant out for their arrest and have not fronted up and done what is the right thing. We certainly should not as taxpayers be paying them to live that kind of life.All categories will be changed. They will have a different title. But for those on the invalid’s benefit who are going to the supported living payment the criteria are not changing; we just have different expectations. There will be and has been a lot of rhetoric. I cannot help but do a quote because it is that kind of day and the quote is: “I love argument I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me that’s not their job.” That is from Margaret Thatcher which I thought was kind of apt on a day like today. I do love debate and I kind of like that we have differences and quite frankly if we are going to argue about what is best for people and how we should do it then bring it on for these people who perhaps need us the most. I will get lots of rhetoric today on how I pulled up the ladder and how everything was so much better quite frankly in my day 25 years ago when I was on a benefit. Actually I do not remember it that way at all and I do not see comparisons at all either.I commend this bill to the House. I want to again thank all of those people who have put in so much. I know that my colleagues want to spend some time talking about it so I want to zip myself up sweetie and give them a chance to say something as well. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): This year is the 75th anniversary of social security in this country and it is an occasion that I believe we should under any other circumstances be celebrating. Seventy-five years ago as a nation we drew a line in the sand. We determined as any decent society should that the measure of our country would not be marked solely by the achievements of individuals but by how we served and cared for one another and especially our most vulnerable. As a nation we also decided that this line in the sand was not a line of judgment where we lined up on one side the deserving and on the other side the undeserving poor. Social security was for everyone who found themselves in need.But it is time that we all admit the obvious and that is that politics has muddied the waters of social security. There is no better example of that than this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill which we are debating today. If you listen to the rhetoric of the National Party as we have continually you could be forgiven for thinking that at some point along the way the responsibilities that come with a social security system have somehow disappeared. Only a party intent on dividing a nation over welfare issues would perpetuate such a myth.No universally available safety net could survive without an understanding and agreement from the people it serves that it is there for genuine need and that when it is no longer needed you must do all you can to move off it and begin to contribute back to the system that once supported you. It is that simple. This principle has not changed. It is a principle that Labour has always supported and has always defended. What is not simple is the reason why a very small proportion of New Zealanders access our system for a longer period of time. But we will never address this issue as long as some political actors for their own gain pretend that this is the case for the majority and vilify everyone who uses social security along the way.The Minister for Social Development may deny that. She may stand there and claim because she was on a benefit once that her changes are designed to empower and to support. But I have one question for the Minister and that is “How?”. How does labelling everyone as needing to be drug tested empower a job seeker? How does increasing the range of circumstances that sanctions can be used empower a sole parent? How does implying that beneficiaries are getting paid by the State while they have outstanding arrest warrants empower a sickness beneficiary? How does restricting their ability to study empower someone on an unemployment benefit?This bill tells me one thing and that is that that Minister underestimates the power of her rhetoric and the damage that can be done through it. No one is going to argue that we have the perfect social security system as it stands. I agree with the Minister on that much. Change is needed. But if we want to rebuild an active system one that acts as a dignified transition for those who need it for a short time and a dignified support system for those who for reasons of terminal illness or significant disability will need it for a longer period in their lives we no longer need to have the political gains that occur around welfare.It is Labour’s vision that we rebuild the foundations of what we built 75 years ago. We first must start by remembering the social contract and that is that the State has a responsibility too. The Minister may groan. I can hear her from that side of the House dismissing this notion. But it is one thing to tell someone that they will have extra work-testing obligations and another to abandon the idea that the State no longer has any rolein seeing whether you are able to fulfil your side of the bargain and on that score the Government is failing.In 2011 despite talk of 170000 jobs miraculously being produced there were just 20000 produced under the Government in that time. In the face of high unemployment and massive job losses that is the time this Government produced these punitive welfare reforms and ramped up expectations on job seekers who were already looking for work.Let us be clear. It is not like our system has gone from expecting absolutely nothing of job seekers to suddenly one day turning round and asking them to find work. In fact our system goes a little more like this. An individual—any one of us—might be made redundant and go to a Work and Income office to seek help. That Work and Income office will send them away and tell them that they need to demonstrate that they have looked for work before they can get help—fair enough. Then they would also be required potentially to come back and do a course around work readiness. They will have several appointments through this process. It may take several weeks. Some of those appointments will be fulfilled by Work and Income; some of them will not. Increasingly appointments are becoming a guide not a target.Eventually once you have fulfilled these pre-benefit activities which can take up to several weeks you may be granted access to support. You will then be required on an ongoing basis to demonstrate that you are continuing to seek work through applications or in some cases getting signatures from employers showing that you have asked them for employment. In amongst all of that at any point you could be asked to do a short course on anything that Work and Income may deem appropriate for you.This might sound like you are getting some kind of individual one-on-one treatment. Let us be clear—you are not. You are one of up to at least 155 cases that a Work and Income case manager may have on their books. If you have no work-testing obligations you—the job seeker—might be one of more than 350 cases that a Work and Income case manager has.You may know that you need to retrain to get a job but under this bill you cannot. You may know that you need to invest a bit to try to get well from say a back injury or an impairment that is getting in the way of you getting employment. Under this bill you will not get that. And let us be honest—you may have been on a benefit for some time and not have basic literacy. Under this bill you might go on to a 12-week course and then we magically assume work readiness. And everyone—everyone—is battling it out for a handful of jobs. This is the investment approach that this Minister speaks of.This bill tears up the idea of a social contract. The message it sends is that the job seeker’s role is to look for work and the Government’s role is no longer to ensure that there are jobs to train to educate and to help you move into work. No the Government’s role is simply to sanction you when you fail. That is what this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill does and it does not have to be that way. Labour’s vision is that in the 76th year of social security—Hon Hekia Parata: Let’s hear more of the Labour Party’s approach consigning intergenerational dependency on the State while we wring our hands and—JACINDA ARDERN: If that Minister wants to listen—[Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JACINDA ARDERN: —I will share with this House what a proactive system would look like. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JACINDA ARDERN: In the 76th year of social security we have the ability to turn round—[Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to have an incessant barrage. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We are not going to have an incessant barrage. Members may interject if it is rare and reasonable but this is just ridiculous.JACINDA ARDERN: We will begin first with the simple notion that Work and Income case managers have a big and a tough job and there is absolutely no denying that. They must be supported. But equally they are the key to returning the dignity to our system and so is the leadership that comes at the fore.Secondly we must take a long-term view. Why do we treat a school-leaver who for instance might not have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or may have literacy problems so differently from someone who searched for a job but failed and is on an unemployment benefit? One might get free access to further training and education perhaps through a Youth Guarantee a notion that we support. The other may at best get 12 weeks of training through a course like the Salvation Army and then we expect them to suddenly be work-ready.It is time to invest to save but that means genuine investment. That means decent training and education opportunities. There are some who have been on welfare for longer periods of time and whose parents may have been too. No one in this House wants that to be the sum of any child’s life but it would be naive to say that simply imposing sanctions changes everything. It may not be glamorous or something the Minister for Social Development can stick a ribbon on and sell to the media but these are families that need long-term intervention and not just by a work broker—Mike Sabin: That member’s never going to rise to the dizzy heights she aspires to if—JACINDA ARDERN: If we want to make a real difference we need Mr Sabin to get a little more real. We can restore a social security system we can all be proud of. We just need to wait for the architects of that system to come back and we will.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a pleasure to speak on this the third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Before I start I would also like to just add my deep sorrow that we have had the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Baroness Thatcher—who was a great woman a great leader—said: “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” This bill promotes economic liberty in this country. As chairman of the Social Services Committee I want to thank the Hon Paula Bennett for the hard work that she and her officials have put into bringing these reforms into this Parliament. I want to wish her a happy birthday as well. Happy 30th birthday Paula! I want to congratulate the officials also the clerks the parliamentary counsel and also my fellow members whom I may disagree with tonight on this substantive issue of welfare reform.We are here because it is the second phase of welfare reform which introduces new benefit categories ensures a work focused system and requires job seekers to be drug-free ready and available for work.Simon O’Connor: Social contract.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The bill as my colleague behind me says is about introducing a social obligation a social contract for parents to make sure that their children are participating in early childhood education are at school from the age of 6 are registered with a general practitioner and are up to date with their Well Child checks. Those things are positive. They are positive for those kids and their families and they are positive for our country. It also provides for benefit payments to be stopped for those who are on the run from the police. To me that is just common sense. Members opposite think it is the end of the world.The reforms we are making today are about building confidence in the welfare system which we campaigned on so it can regain the work focus that it was intended to have 75 years ago which that member Jacinda Ardern spoke about.Long-term welfare dependency is trapping way too many people in a life of limited choices poverty and poor health. We are doing this for the 220000 children who are living in benefit-dependent homes. Evidence shows clearly—and the Minister sees this almost every day out there in the community—that children are better off when their parents are at work and not on welfare.Sue Moroney: Yes. That happened under Labour. Actually they got jobs under Labour. Under National there’s no jobs.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We are doing this because we are focusing on what those people can do and not on what they cannot do Miss Moroney. But having said all that we still believe that it is about protecting and safeguarding those people who need assistance who need the assistance of the State and who are unable to work. We believe that wholeheartedly.National campaigned on reforming welfare by taking an investment approach. The Minister for Social Development talked about that. We have a welfare system that is active and work focused. Last year we implemented some of those changes—$287 million of welfare reforms—so that young people as the Minister stated and teen parents could access specialist services around things like budgeting services parenting courses and getting them back into school and into education so that their lives can have more meaning into the future.Future Focus implemented in 2010 introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefit system. Since then more than 171000 benefits have been cancelled because people found work. I want to reiterate that for members opposite: people found work which is a good result in spite of a tough local market.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Where? In Australia?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The member there asks where the jobs are. I am going to say it once again; this is the fourth time I have said it in this House on this bill. The jobs: 15000 on the SEEK website. Twelve thousand of those are full-time about 1000 are part-time and 2000 are contract jobs. That is without talking about all the jobs that are advertised internally all the jobs that are filled by word of mouth. There are thousands of jobs out there but Labour does not want to hear about jobs—no it does not.One simple policy change requiring unemployment beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year saw 21000 people come off the benefit. That saved the State $74 million. The Government is focused on supporting New Zealanders whom Labour when it was in office abandoned to a life of long-term welfare—long-term welfare. There are more people working in this country today than ever before. There are over 2.3 million jobs in this country and Labour cannot back it up with its record. When you look at its economic record you see that sickness beneficiaries went up by 17000 you see that the number on the invalid’s benefit increased by 26790. Labour does not want to talk about that because it knows its record was poor and needed improvement. It was actually a former Minister of Social Development and Employment who said that a rise for two quarters in unemployment numbers was “Not bad news actually.” That is the sort of aspiration that we get from across the aisle and that is the aspiration that those members continue to show in Opposition.We are delivering on welfare reforms for New Zealanders because they voted us in in 2011 to get the job done: expecting job seekers to be drug-free ready and available for work; ensuring a work focused welfare system; stopping benefits to those with an outstanding warrant; and introducing health education and social obligations sochildren in welfare-dependent families get the best possible start in life. We are tackling welfare fraud. We are tackling long-term benefit dependency. And this is a Government that will still protect the vulnerable. Members across the House talk about how they built the welfare system 75 years ago but I can tell you they are also the ones who broke the welfare system. We are here to fix it. I commend this bill to the House.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): This Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill epitomises the major differences between the National Government and the Labour Opposition on how New Zealanders should be treated and how to address the development needs of our most vulnerable citizens. While National is trying to pander to the punitive perspective of its conservative well-heeled constituents and supporters and show them that it is tough on those who in their eyes are abusing the benefit system Labour is more interested in finding lasting solutions and pathways to prosperity for its most vulnerable citizens. The backdrop to this bill has always been the legendary stories about mothers on the DPB not taking care of their children spending their moneys unwisely and having more children just to continue to be on the benefit—that it is a lifestyle option for many that they are work-shy and that they care little about the health of their children. In other words they have no social responsibility towards the child-caring role that they should focus on as a matter of priority. That is the kind of rap that National has given the most vulnerable and then it develops these punitive measures.For this National Government the singular focus has always been on reducing the number of people on benefits and its members display no concern about who gets caught up in the backwash. They have created an image of beneficiaries as bludgers and now they must hit them with as many disincentives as possible no matter what might be the impact on vulnerable children. Some of the language used by the Government members in this debate demonstrates this agenda. They use that language and the concept of lifelong costs of benefits to justify their punitive measures.Where National has chosen to be less generous towards the poor and those who rely on the benefit system to keep body and soul together and care for their children at a time when there are few jobs for them to apply for Labour will focus on job creation job training and getting people ready for work through voluntary activities they choose educational opportunities they take up and voluntary contributions they will make to society. The National Government places little value on the poor taking care of their children full-time themselves and it takes away their option to be good parents. The Minister for Social Development is saying that if you are poor and rely on a benefit income you have no rights to the care of your children yourself—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: She’s not saying that at all. That’s nonsense.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Does the member deny that? That is exactly what this bill is saying. That is exactly what the sanctions are about; they are about childcare compulsory childcare for the 3-year-olds. Why do parents not have a choice Mr Lotu-Iiga? Why not? Why not give those parents the choice? No they do not have the choice. What this Government is saying is that when these parents avail themselves of a benefit they forgo the right to provide full-time care themselves for their children over 3 years old. That is what the impact of this bill will be. If this is not nanny State I do not know what is. However this Minister’s spin recasts this as backing the poor to live in her image. Or is it? Or is it? As I recall this was good enough for her but it is not for others. Despite the crocodile tears it was good enough for her but not for others.Labour on the other hand places a very high value on the parenting role and will enable parents to fulfil that role if that is their wish. Labour believes that parents are the best at providing care for their children even if the parents are supported financially to do that. If parents need assistance to be better parents then that is the assistance thatshould be provided rather than compulsorily removing that opportunity for them only because this National Government wants to appease those who cast this sub-population in a negative light—because that is what National members do. National members say that because some parents abuse the welfare system all parents on benefits are tarred with the same brush so rights have to be taken away from all of them. They could not come up with any answers to that in the Social Services Committee apart from saying that it was fair. They are reluctant to go after those who are wealthy and visit havoc in the commercial sector through their unconscionable behaviour but the poor and the marginalised are fair game.There is no leadership in this way of operating. I say this to this Minister: history will not judge her contribution well and she will be remembered for the misery she will cause through the provisions in this bill very much as Ruth Richardson is remembered for her attack on beneficiaries.Simon O’Connor: Oh come on.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Maybe the member back there was far too young to remember it but that is exactly what Ruth Richardson did and that is what she is remembered for. You have to wonder whether this National Government has a compassionate soul or whether it is just politics. Labour places a much higher value on what parents do with their children during the formative years.John Hayes: Who wrote this? You didn’t.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Yes I did and if the member does not know what formative years are I will spell it out for him. At least I do write my own speeches not like that member who barely gives one. Labour understands what the evidence says about those early years unlike those three interjectors opposite and will provide the best opportunities to them to be the best that they can be. The decent society owes this to the most vulnerable not to make life more miserable for them. The provisions of this bill demonstrate no compassion and no understanding of the plight of the poor at all. The Government has come up with words like it wants to be “fair” and to be “balanced” but these sentiments have a very different meaning from what is demonstrated in this bill. There is very little in this bill that is fair.National says the best way to get conformity from sole parents and those dependent on a benefit is to place sanctions on them if they breach some of the conditions of their benefits. All this will achieve is the continued social exclusion of large numbers of people from sharing in the benefits of a society they have helped create. Social inclusion will be the dream and maybe members opposite do not care about that but we do. Those who are reliant on benefits today were taxpayers yesterday or will be tomorrow. Life goes through many phases I say to members opposite and I say to this Government and we must not make it difficult for our citizens especially the most vulnerable to transition through these phases undamaged. What this bill proposes would result in a sizeable proportion of the most vulnerable transiting through these phases much more damaged and yet this is what these provisions will do for many. They will become bitter and will start life without any respect for the collective society of which they are a part. Is that the kind of society—a society of winners and losers—that this Government is trying to create? There may be short-term political gains and there may be short-term dollar gains but there will be no long-term gains for the soul of this society.National has a system of social obligations transactions and sanctions while Labour will work on all the needs of the most vulnerable while enabling them to be their children’s carers while they prepare for work. Work is only one aspect of development. Placing disproportionate emphasis on it over the other roles a parent has and a family has in the care of children and in the care socialisation education and guidance of ourchildren is a big mistake that this Government is making in this particular bill. This will be a cost and future generations of New Zealanders will have to pay for that and a future Labour Government will have to come back and sort out the mess that this will create.But this Government is not listening and is not interested. It knows that this is not about the poor and the marginalised and their needs and interests; it is about quenching the insatiable thirst for punishment and for giving the appearance of being strong. National is punitive while Labour is developmental. There are so many other ways of achieving the goals of bringing up the next generation of citizens as responsible people apart from those presented in this particular bill. There are many other ways of enabling parents to be good parents but this National Government has not been interested in any of its welfare reforms in taking leadership in these areas. Its supporters want the blood of misery the pain of failure the perverse joy of keeping people beholden and the sense of power to do something only because they know they can. There is no science in these proposals. National creates its own method of calculating the cost of welfare which is intellectually dishonest. National wants to divide and rule and this bill is the latest episode in its story of how to achieve that. We remain implacably opposed to this bill.JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with a degree of anger that I am rising to speak again against this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill which will profoundly negatively impact on our collective well-being. I rise to speak against this bill which will against best practice solid evidence and heartfelt pleas further disempower and exacerbate the significant hardship that the most vulnerable people in our society are experiencing—that is namely sole mothers the sick and the disabled and those caring for them.This bill tells those people that the Government knows better than them. This bill tells people with disabilities that they cannot assess their own abilities. This bill tells parents on the DPB that they are likely to be such crap parents that the Government needs to tell them what is best for their children and to threaten them with sanctions if they do not do what Wellington says because Wellington knows best how to be a parent.This should not be an ideological battle yet somehow this Government all the way through the submission process and now still in this House has managed to reduce all of the evidence opposing this direction—from the Ministry of Health from community organisations on the ground from the Human Rights Commission and from you know that radical organisation called the Legislation Advisory Committee which is a subcommittee of the Attorney-General’s office—to an irrelevance. You know that is an extraordinary feat I think. In the face of all of the many perspectives telling us that this bill is more likely to create harm than good somehow this Government can still stand in this House and claim so confidently: “It’s for their own good.”Well several people with disabilities have told us just as one example that they wanted the name changed from the invalid’s benefit which they interpreted as an “in-valid benefit”. They wanted that changed and the Government listened—you know it has changed it to the supported living payment—yet the feedback from those same communities was that actually that is confusing because that is the name of another funding system a district health board support service. Yet in this final version of the bill we still see that same title. This may seem like a really small point but to me it sums up the complete arrogance of this Government. You know this point is not about money. It is not even about anything really substantive that I can see and yet this Government has refused to listen to the people who are most likely to be affected by it.What would it have taken to listen and change the name? The Government’s inability to listen and respond is to me emblematic of a very very deep problem.Last week I was listening to community advocates in South Auckland who told me that a few years ago they were giving out 35 food parcels a week and now they are handing out 200 a day. That is just one organisation. They told me that according to Otago University research a family of four in their area should be spending about $200 a week on food to be able to maintain their health. Yet their clients the average family they were seeing were able to spend only about $44 a week of their income on food. That is $156 a week short of being able to ensure the health—the basic fundamental health—of that family. They told me that the cost of private rentals in South Auckland had gone up by 16 percent in just 2 months and that there is a turnover of about four families a year in private rental housing because the community just cannot afford the housing.I have heard about a woman who is 7½ months pregnant and living in a car because she is $2 a week over the income threshold for Housing New Zealand housing. I have heard about a 15-year-old boy with a disability living on the streets of Auckland moving around on a skateboard. I know of a woman leaving a violent relationship who has had to tell her children to adapt to having holes in their shoes because she cannot afford to replace them. I have heard of a man looking after a son with a disability being asked by Work and Income to sell his car before it would offer him further financial support. I have heard of people with disabilities with PhDs who are desperate for employment but who are unable to get an interview for a job.Our society is showing deep signs of breakdown and people are starting to lose their resilience. Some people are starting to opt out of the formal economy giving up on Work and Income giving up on paid employment because they are just not able to survive.Children are getting sick. We have just seen the report from the Ministry of Health on rheumatic fever and on how the Government’s health programme is missing the fundamental problem of overcrowded damp housing and poverty. Our children are getting sick. Our children’s futures are being stolen from them by this Government’s refusal to address fundamental poverty. These stories are not exceptions. Sadly they are now the norm for the marginalised in this land of plenty.We have been sold a pack of lies. We have been sold the lie that there is no alternative—or at least that an alternative vision is not affordable—that the problem is the individual and that we need to fix them. We can empower them to get a job—the problem is with them. And if we reduce the employment rights of workers then maybe more employers will be more likely to employ more people. Well welcome to the thinking behind the financial crisis. Welcome to the thinking behind growing inequality and social breakdown.I have been listening to the Minister for Social Development. To quote her she was saying that she had heard quite a lot of rhetoric from the Opposition about welfare but that quite frankly she had seen no plan. Well I wish she had come to us and asked us for a plan earlier. We could have solved quite a few problems here because the Green Party does have a plan. The first step for us would be to consider our values. What kind of society do we want? What do we want for our children and our most vulnerable? Our answer would be that we believe everyone deserves decent work a living wage and to be treated with respect. We believe everyone should have enough income to fully participate in their community and to live safe healthy lives. We support welfare policies that are sufficient to ensure this simple to understand and access and universal in their application.In fact that is the antithesis of this piece of legislation the Social Security Act which it is worth noting has been amended 131 times. There are 54 new sections that have been added to the Act since it was first written and it contains over 50 points of discretion which as the Legislation Advisory Committee noted cuts across guidelines for legislation andCabinet Manualadvice.If the values I have been suggesting tonight seem radical to you I would remind you that they are at the heart of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the very possibility that these values could seem radical to you is truly a sign of how fundamentally fixed this society has become. There is a lot that we could do to support the most vulnerable in our society through streamlining our income support service making it easier to use reducing the costs of running it and actually helping to create work about solving some of those social problems that are leading a significant number of people to need social support when they may not otherwise have needed it.The Minister has said that she wants New Zealanders on a benefit to know that they have a Minister and a Government that are backing them to look beyond a lifetime on welfare. Well I want New Zealanders to know that the only people in this country who have ever been likely to spend a lifetime on welfare are people with significant impairments. This bill is going to do nothing to help them earn a living wage and be able to get off income support.MELISSA LEE (National): Just before I actually get on to the core of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in its third reading I would like to mention to that member who spoke previously Jan Logie that I would not be taking her advice. I would not be taking any kind of advice from that particular party considering it is led by two leaders one of whom suggests members sell dope to actually supplement their income and the other of whom suggests that we print money to help economic growth in this country. Perhaps that is the reason why that party is completely not in tune with what this bill is actually all about.I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Social Development and her officials who have done a wonderful job developing this bill. I would like to thank the chair and the members of the Social Services Committee who actually worked very hard to bring this bill all the way through to this third reading as well as the submitters. Often we did not agree but I thought the debate was a good thing to have.During the course of the passage of this bill through this House there have been many times when members have stood philosophically and ideologically opposed to the arguments put forward by different sides of the debate but I would like to say that today I was actually appalled at some of the personal attacks that were thrown at this side of the House and also at the Minister. On the day of the passing of one of my heroes Margaret Thatcher I would like to repeat one of her quotes: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think well if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left.” and nor do they have any solutions to welfare.I know that Jacinda Ardern mentioned that 75 years ago it was her political forebears who created the social welfare system. I have to say that they would be turning in their graves if they found out exactly where this social welfare system has ended up. It was about giving a hand up to help people who were in difficult times. It was never about giving a handout for generations to come.It is a great bill and we have traversed the contents of the bill over the Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava. Allow me to say to Melissa Lee the previous speaker that there is a saying that to one without faith no explanation is possible—no explanation is possible. I also want to acknowledge SamLotu-Iiga. Tonight he quoted Margaret Thatcher. Can I also remind Peseta that Margaret Thatcher also said that if you want something said ask a man; if you want something done ask a woman. [Interruption] Ha ha! But first of all allow me to say to the Minister for Social Development tonight happy birthday Hon Paula Bennett. I think it is better that we start off by wishing you many happy returns for tonight.However I wondered whether the Minister would know one famous leader who actually said: “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East where there is no oil!”—no oil. This bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill reminds me of that. This bill has been introduced for the sake of being seen to be doing something. That is what this bill reminds me of. The Minister is taking New Zealand beneficiaries and ordinary New Zealanders on a fantasy job recruitment where there are no jobs—there are no jobs. This bill is now in its third reading and New Zealand First has not changed its stance. I want to acknowledge all the submitters because we worked really hard in the Social Services Committee to try to make some changes to this bill. New Zealand First has raised a lot of concerns about this bill and it would not surprise me that later on down the track we will be back in the House trying to provide remedial reforms to the unintended or unforeseen circumstances that this bill will create.If I might say so it is troubling that this Government is willing to push through a policy that will create more social harm than social good. The Minister responsible for this bill needs to front up to all New Zealand families out there who will be targeted and unfairly mistreated because of the underlying assumptions and perceptions that pertain to this bill. Is the honourable Minister prepared to take responsibility and accountability for what she has put forward if it all falls apart? Is she? Is she really? Or will she push the blame elsewhere and try to position herself under the National safety net where its Ministers just get a slap on the wrist?This bill as is will be detrimental to the well-being and welfare of innocent beneficiaries. Innocent beneficiaries should receive social security for the right reasons when the need arises. These are real people. These are real New Zealanders. These are real ordinary people with real problems that the Minister has probably forgotten about since she received her last benefit payment. Drug testing beneficiaries in order to get them into paid work is something that needs to be introduced in this country but it needs to be administered correctly.The Government states that it is adopting an investment approach to social security. We all like the sound of that. The public’s expectation of any Government is to do this. I acknowledge that the honourable Minister’s dream is to invest our taxpayers’ hard-earned money in a policy that would revamp and revitalise our economy—and New Zealand First shares the same vision if it means that there will be more jobs—and to ensure that beneficiaries are able to attain the skills and relevant training so that they may prosper in that well-invested economy. No one would think that this is too much to ask; I cannot see why though. However the Government needs to prioritise its commitments properly to ensure that New Zealanders are being treated fairly and justly. It is also equally important that taxpayers’ money is being used in the most cost-effective way possible because that would make it an investment approach.The cost of drug testing beneficiaries could potentially surpass $14 million a year. Well that is according to the chief executive officer of the Early Childhood Council. Maybe this is why the Government intends to test only beneficiaries who are considered to be “at risk”. How it intends to determine who will be in this category can only lead us to assume that racial profiling will definitely be utilised in the process. Inevitably this will create further disharmony within society and will develop certain perceptions thatsome people have regarding Māori and Pacific families who are receiving social security.One of the other main concerns that we have raised in the first and second readings is about the social obligations regarding dependent children. This Government cannot be serious about taking away the rights of parents to raise their children in the way they see fit. In the very early stages any child needs to be around their parents and for goodness’ sake not all parents who receive social security are bad parents nor do they lounge around all day taking drugs. It is impossible to expect them to all be in such circumstances.New Zealand First’s principles clearly outline that money spent on education will be treated as an investment not as expenditure. Educational achievement is both in the national interest and in the individual’s interest. Educational investment is critical for economic and social recovery. So surely the National Government would accept that this is a common-sense principle and one that it should support. Home education is the ultimate investment in education as the parent retains full control of a child’s education. The social obligations of this bill will deny beneficiary families this option at both school level and preschool level.Although many of those who have contacted us share our view wholeheartedly they agree with the need for welfare reform. But New Zealand First completely disagrees with having any restrictions on parental freedom to act in the best interests of children particularly their health and education needs. Parents will not be free to meet the health and education needs of their children under the provision of the social obligations and sanctions in this bill. I am a mother of three children and I know that the first 2 to 4 years of my children’s lives were the most important time when my children learnt specific ethics manners knowledge of their environment and those innate abilities to be nurtured. They learn those values and develop their innate abilities that cannot be taught at school or in early childhood education. Often it is the mother or father who would help nurture their children’s innate abilities at this early stage. We may be having problems with education or underachievement amongst our young children but it is also punitive to enforce such policy.This bill is not a scenario this Government wants to espouse. Unfortunately this is what will happen if this bill continues and is passed in this House. There are other more effective alternatives that would fulfil this Government’s investment approach more appropriately. It is about being tough but fair. It is about reinforcing the egalitarian values that underpin our democracy with people’s basic human rights. These basic human rights lead to self-determination. The people of New Zealand deserve better than what this Government is giving them. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise in support of this legislation the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and I too would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett her officials and all those who have inputted into this legislation over a long period of time. I am disappointed of course to hear the calls from the Opposition asking the Minister to “front up”—the Minister who fronts up everywhere. She fronts up in the city fronts up in the provinces and is fronting up on television in the House to small meetings to large meetings—everywhere and anywhere across the country and has done so for a long time. In fact we have not seen a Minister of welfare fronting up so much in so many places for so long and talking about the hard decisions so I would like to congratulate the Minister on that and also on seeing this bill through—accepting where changes were necessary hardening where it was necessary softening where it was necessary and understanding that the legislation needs to land where it meets people in a practical way.This bill does amend the Social Security Act 1964. It introduces new benefit categories and has a very work-focused approach. Interestingly even the Opposition is calling it the “investment approach” as it can see too that it is an investment in these people’s futures the beneficiaries’ futures as much as it is in New Zealand’s future.The aim of the bill is to make key changes—probably five of them you could say. There is a new system of main benefits to embed a work focus throughout the whole benefit system. The jobseeker support benefit replaces the unemployment benefit the sickness benefit the domestic purposes benefit for solo parents whose youngest child is 14 years old or older and a number of other benefits as well. It delivers a new approach to working with people in the benefit system who are either sick or disabled.It introduces drug-testing requirements where a beneficiary is referred to a job or a training programme where drug testing is a prerequisite and of course there are financial sanctions if they do not pass that test. It is just stunning to think that the Labour Party is telling New Zealanders up and down the country—even on television tonight—that it is OK to apply for a job and actually be full of drugs to have your blood system and breath showing drugs and that it is OK to do that. The Labour Party is so focused on its philosophical standpoints that it stands in front of New Zealanders and Kiwis up and down the nation and says to beneficiaries who are receiving taxpayer-funded support that it is OK that their bloodstreams are full of dope; that when they apply for a job particularly where health and safety is a certain requirement it is OK that they have taken drugs. It is just unbelievable that Labour thinks that one could pass muster in the court of public opinion. Anyway go for your life Labour Party. Keep pushing that barrow.The other aspect that the bill is looking to change of course is using the welfare system to reinforce some important social norms regarding children’s education and health. For example a beneficiary who has a child needs to ensure that the child is enrolled and attending early childhood education enrolled and attending school when they are 5 or 6—if that is the correct age—and enrolled with a primary health care provider and up to date with core Well Child checks. We think that it is very very important that those children from beneficiary households get a good start.Last of all the fifth aspect is stopping benefit payments to beneficiaries with a warrant of arrest that remains unresolved after 28 days. In other words if you have got a warrant for arrest the police are pursuing you and you are on a benefit then indeed with fair warning and your awareness of the situation—certainly you would be given that chance—your benefit could be cut.Again the Labour Party is convincing New Zealanders or has been trying to convince them over the last few months that it is OK to get involved in crime to run from the law to run from police to be involved in serious crime in one way or another and to still receive taxpayer support. Well good luck with that one too! I would not say you are in touch with New Zealand but I would say that most taxpayers and those who are on benefits themselves who lead quiet lives would not think that it is fair that we should be paying benefits to people who are on drugs and not passing drug tests and who are also running away from the law. I commend this bill to the House.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Labour strongly opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. By passing this bill the Government will spread out for all to see the naked evidence of its reckless dismantling of New Zealand’s social security system. By dismantling our social security system the majority of hard-working New Zealand families can expect to be consistently beaten down—more so now under this bill than they may have already experienced since this Government came into power.Families all over New Zealand already feel beaten down by this Government. We were hammered right from the beginning with a tax switch that favoured the wealthy. We were slammed with increased costs by the raising of GST to 15 percent. We were booted with lost jobs and rising joblessness the high cost of living low wages and unaffordable rents while all the time this Government made empty promises and sat on its hands. It promised a brighter future and for the majority of us that has come to nought. If there are any families left who through some miracle have managed to escape being beaten down already by the reckless and punitive legislative agenda of this Government of which this bill is a significant part then just wait and see.This bill formalises the bashing of beneficiaries through a work-testing regime with sanctioned removal or reduction of welfare support from New Zealand families who are most in need. Every hard-working member of our families who finds themselves either unemployed underemployed jobless a solo parent sick disabled or widowed will inevitably be beaten down by this bill at some stage. The Government’s welfare reform bills are punitive to say the least and are designed to encourage beneficiary bashing calling those on welfare “bludgers” when they are the Kiwi families most in need of our collective support.The bill will create deep divisions in our communities by adding a further burden of stress and hardship on families who are already struggling while this Government sits on its hands and its mates continue to earn millions and live their lives of luxury and extravagance. These families the majority being middle to low income families are already doing it tough during these difficult and hard times. The majority of Kiwi families are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of basic food power and petrol skyrockets while their wages plummet and the loss of jobs continues to rise. The majority of hard-working Kiwi families do not know where to turn because of the consistent beatings they have received at the hands of this National Government and this nasty bill.Can we blame New Zealanders for feeling let down by this Government? Can we blame Kiwi families for wanting to leave for Australia? Can we blame any of the community organisations who submitted on this bill and overwhelmingly and strongly opposed it? These community groups are forced to pick up the pieces of this Government’s austere and brutal approach to welfare reform.Even the new arrivals to our shores the new migrants who initially arrive in the Land of the Long White Cloud with excitement dreams and aspirations of a new life a new beginning and new opportunities are soon beaten down by the empty promises of this Government the lack of opportunities the rising joblessness the lack of affordable housing and the low wages. Ever since this Government came into power many Kiwis have believed that New Zealand is fast becoming the “Land of the Long Dark Cloud of Hopelessness”. We owe full credit for our current and terrible state of affairs to this John Key Government.The bill reforms our social security system. The inclusion of the words “Work Focus” in the name of the bill provides a false sense of security. People think the inclusion of the words “Work Focus” in the name of the bill means that they will have jobs. The “Work Focus” words are deceptive as this bill does not help to create jobs in the private sector and it does not create any jobs in the public sector. It does not raise wages or income levels for those most in need or in desperate situations. It does not provide affordable housing for those families living in garages or in crowded houses. It does not value motherhood and the role of raising children. It does not even address the issues that have been identified as barriers to work. It does not make more jobs available.We currently have 16 percent unemployment for Pasifika. We have 90000 young people aged 15 to 24 not in education not in employment and not in training. It does not assist mums and dads with childcare costs. Childcare is getting harder and harder to access with the high cost of private care and long waiting times taking it out of reach for many solo parents. It does not ensure that workers have the necessary skills required to get a job. Anyone studying full-time will not be eligible for jobseeker support which means that those currently on the DPB who are studying will have to have a student allowance or student loan.What this bill will do is punish those who want to work but cannot get a job. It will punish those mothers who want to stay at home and look after their children. This bill does not recognise the importance of the role of raising children. It will punish those with disabilities if they do not go looking for work even when unemployment for someone with a sight disability is at 60 percent. It will punish the close to 300000 jobless New Zealanders who have been discouraged from finding work as they have been turned down time and time again.Under this bill every New Zealander who finds they need welfare support to get by because through no fault of their own they have lost a job will be work tested and will face the stress of imposed sanctions. Every mother with young children who loses a family member who may have been the main breadwinner and then seeks welfare assistance will be required to be work tested and have the threat of sanctions hang over them under this bill. Under this bill anyone who receives welfare support from this Government will be work tested in an environment of high joblessness.If they do not meet work-test requirements they then face sanctions the loss of welfare support in an environment of high living costs low incomes and unaffordable housing. Their benefit may be cancelled with a 13-week stand-down for any beneficiary who fails to accept an offer of suitable employment. Beneficiaries with children will lose up to 50 percent of their benefit. What if the pay for that job is low? What if the job is far removed? What if their benefit is cut or they face a 13-week stand-down period? How will they put food on the table for their family for those 13 weeks? How will they pay their rent during those 13 weeks? How will they pay for their power during the coming winter over those 13 weeks? This bill will increase the underclass which John Key said he wanted to help.The premise upon which this bill is founded was flawed from the beginning. This Government has assumed from the start that people seeking welfare support do not want to work. The basis for this welfare reform bill was wrong from the beginning and remains wrong now. Most people do not want to be on the benefit; they want to work. We know this because when Labour was in Government we saw thousands of people on the benefit coming off the welfare system when jobs were plentiful. Labour believes that the best kind of welfare reform is providing high-quality jobs with wages that help workers sustain their families. A good Government can deliver all of this if it is a hands-on Government. The welfare system is used by the majority of hard-working New Zealanders as a safety net. It is used briefly by most as they get themselves back on their feet and off the benefit.This short-sighted bill will cost us more than it will save in the longer term. In the long run New Zealand will be a poorer country for it. As one submitter said children will be the biggest losers under this bill as this Government does not value their welfare. We can stop this madness by getting rid of this Government in 2014.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am proud to make a speech in this third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. In regards to that last speech all I need to say is this: how about taking some responsibility? I was in a meeting at the New Zealand Educational Institute last year where that member Su’aWilliam Sio pointed at me and said: “That member is part of a Government that has the responsibility for poverty that has the responsibility for underachievement that has all the responsibility.” But that member and that party over there did not take responsibility for its issues.Here is some evidence for this. In theDominion Post editorial of 29 February 2012 this is what was written: “They would have been appalled”—that is the pioneers—“by the thought of thousands of perfectly healthy adults spending more than a decade on the dole and thousands more 16- and 17-year-olds being paid to sit around and do nothing.”Dr Rajen Prasad: How many Alfred? How many?ALFRED NGARO: And here is the bit that Mr Prasad should listen to: “Critics who have branded the reforms ‘nasty’ or claimed they spell the end of the welfare state as we know it have either not studied the detail or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.”So here are the facts—here are the facts as we know them. The Social Security Act 1964 let me remind Mr Prasad and Mr Sio has a principle that at section 1B that says: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”. What have we changed? Absolutely nothing. We have stood on the foundation that was clearly established that work provides the best opportunities for our families for our communities and for our children. Read the detail. The problem is that you have not read the bill. So you keep arguing but the truth is here are the facts. Stand on this. This is what we are doing under this Minister for Social Development. It is to make sure that the opportunities for our communities are there. This is what we are doing. This is the second stage in our welfare reforms to ensure that the Government is future-focused.But this is what we have heard from the other side—this is what they have said. Miss Moroney said: “Go and speak to the real people.” Well we have been to the real people. Here is a question for the other side: when was the last time you were in a Work and Income office? When was the last time you actually sat with a family? Well let me tell you this I say to the member who walked out. Mr Sio I was at the Māngere Work and Income office. As I sat there and as I talked to the people there this is what they said. They said: “Yes there are opportunities. What we’re hearing our clients who are coming in saying is this: ‘For the first time we’ve been given an opportunity for hope. For the first time we’ve been tested on work obligations.’ ”Then there is the rhetoric and the scaremongering saying: “But they’re going to be hard on our mothers our young mothers who are there.” But this is what the case managers are saying: “We know that times are tough so we show discretion.”—they show discretion.It is not the scaremongering that we heard from the other side. It is not the doom and gloom. Instead while I was there they rang the bell. That is right—ring the bell ring the bell. Why? When they ring the bell everyone stands up and they clap because someone has found full-time employment and they give them a chocolate fish. So guess what? We are ringing the bell on opportunities for our young people. We are ringing the bell for those who have been in long-term dependency. We are ringing the bell for opportunity.This is a bill that is making a difference. I commend this bill to the House. I am proud to go out into my community to my families and to our people and stand side by side with this bill to look for the opportunities. Ring the bell.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Yes indeed ring the bell. Give that member Alfred Ngaro a chocolate fish and please please make him sit down.A number of members in this debate have evoked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher and I actually think that it is very very appropriate that the debate on this beneficiary-bashing bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill should be dedicated to the spirit of the late Baroness Maggie Thatcher. It was she who presided over a period of privatisation of State assets the destruction of the welfare State and the smashing of the unions and in her society she delivered levels of poverty and inequality and social deprivation that had not been seen since the 1920s. That was her legacy: poverty and inequality that had not been seen in her society since the 1920s. The National Party members on that side of the House are very welcome to wrap themselves in the shroud of Maggie Thatcher and it is entirely appropriate that this petty nasty divisive punitive little bill that Paula Bennett has brought to the House should be dedicated to the spirit of Margaret Thatcher.Sam Lotu-Iiga started off his speech by quoting Maggie Thatcher who said that without economic liberty there would be no liberty. I sort of agree with that actually because if you do not have freedom from hunger and you do not have freedom from poverty and exploitation how can you possibly enjoy any other human freedoms? But this bill is not about economic liberty; this is a bill that is based on social obligations that imply that a parent relying on the temporary assistance of the State is a poor parent. It is a bill that imposes obligations of drug testing going against the expert submissions that came to the Social Services Committee that said that those provisions would do more harm than good. This is a bill that has work obligations based on the assumption that people who are on benefits do not want to work. This is not a bill that extends economic liberty to the citizens of this country; this is a nasty punitive petty little bill.I wonder whether Paula Bennett when she is in her political retirement will look back on this bill with a feeling of shame and disappointment. Is this what she came to this Parliament to achieve? Is this what she came to achieve—not to develop the potential of our people not to unleash the creativity of a whole generation of young people in this country not to empower people not to step up and wrap support services round people but to actually punish to put down and to denigrate? This is a nasty political divisive law and you know it Minister.Let me give the House some evidence. Let me give you some evidence—I will give you some evidence of why this bill is a nasty petty piece of politics. Nick Smith resigned last year over the ACC debacle. Within 6 days of that story breaking the first part of this package was announced. Oh it may be a coincidence—maybe that was just some random convergence of events. All right then the Kim Dotcom - John Banks story broke and the heat was really going on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was up to his eyeballs in the Kim Dotcom story and then what happened? Paula Bennett announced the whole policy around contraception for long-term beneficiaries. Then in June we saw a rash of resignations from the ACC board and a series of revelations about Bronwyn Pullar and Bill English made the first of three different announcements about drug testing. That was raised again on 21 July a month later and re-announced for the third time on 28 August—all at the very times that this Government was feeling the heat over its own political scandals. And then the police report on the John Banks - Dotcom scandal was released. Coincidentally Paula Bennett then announced the whole package around social obligations.This is the “Minister of Cheap Nasty Political Diversions”. That is what is going on—cynical manipulative divisive politics brought to you by National which would rather demonise and stigmatise people who rely on the temporary assistance of the State than do anything about jobs and develop this economy.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Today is a sad day forme. It is a sad day because I know firsthand what it is like to experience economic hardship and to have to turn to the State for support. It is a sad day because this bill undermines the core principles of social security which are essential to a fair and just society. It is a sad day because I know that this bill will cause stress harm and suffering to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.Social security is the way that we collectively as a country agree to ensure that all of us have access to a safety net during hard times whether that is because of economic recession a lack of accessible jobs illness or disability or because we are caring for dependent family members. I strongly believe that social security must be based on respect for individual dignity and circumstances provide economic security protect children and empower people to have some control over their lives. This bill does not do that. It instead imposes a patronising and punitive model where benefits are to be handed out to those deemed worthy and sanctions imposed on people who are deemed to be not complying with social obligations that the rest of us do not have to comply with.This model has been tried overseas in the UK where it has caused significant harm and suffering plunging people into a downward spiral and forcing them to steal food just to survive. It is a model that has failed there and it will fail here.We need to remind ourselves that there are people who may never be able to access economic independence for many reasons and that many people will need ongoing Government support not just to survive but to have some quality of life so that they can contribute and participate in society. I fear that this bill will be a disaster for many but most of all for those who have poor health or dependent family members or who are mentally unwell. My biggest concern is for children for forcing families into serious hardship will inevitably cause children harm with lifelong consequences.I would like to affirm the right of every parent to be able to determine which combination and level of whānau and family support parent-led centres playgroups or early childhood education works best to meet their child’s needs. The right to decide what is best for your child should not be taken away from you just because you are on a benefit. If it was really in every child’s best interests to attend early childhood education for 15 hours a week from the age of 3 then the Government would make it mandatory for all children not just for those whose parents are receiving a benefit. The reason the Government does not do that is that it knows that actually many children thrive in a secure home-based environment for their early years and that depriving families of the right to choose this option for their child will cause harm.Above all I would like to affirm the Green Party’s support for a strong social security system that ensures that vulnerable people can access their economic rights and social well-being and make a positive contribution to society. This bill will not achieve that. Therefore the Green Party opposes it.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very pleased to take the last call on this very very important bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I want to commend the Minister for Social Development. I want to commend the chairman of the Social Services Committee. In fact I want to acknowledge all members of the select committee. Although we have exchanged some robust discussion in here I think the select committee has worked very very well on what has been a very challenging piece of legislation because this is a challenging area for New Zealand society.What sickens me is that those chardonnay socialists over there stand there wringing their hands about what we are doing and yet they during the boom times of this country sat by and watched thousands upon thousands of people on the unemploymentbenefit migrating on to the sickness benefit and invalid’s benefit without so much as a by-your-leave. They had their chance to do something about that and they did not.Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh come on.MIKE SABIN: That member Rajen Prasad said that this bill is a very good example of what the difference is between the National Party and the Labour Party and it certainly is. It certainly is because the difference is that this party has done something about it. So you can sit there and wring your hands and sip away at your chardonnay but this party has done something about it.This Government has done something about it and are people out there marching in the streets? Are they marching in the streets? Is talkback radio going crazy about this terrible destruction of welfare in New Zealand? No they are not—no they are not. If this is so controversial why are they not? Well they are not because New Zealanders know that this Minister and this Government have got it right—that finally we have addressed what is so important and what has been missing in welfare for so long and that is the work focus.The Children’s Commissioner summed this up beautifully. The Children’s Commissioner said that work is the best route out of poverty. Work is not a negative or punitive thing and it should not be positioned as such. The work focus the intention of this bill and the support that we are putting around individuals are crucial because we say that if a person can work they should work and that is not a bad thing. If they can work they should work. Certainly if they are in a position where they are not in work we should support them to have the requisite skills to be work-ready and work-focused.If a drug habit is the reason that they are not ready for work then we should tackle that. The first message that we should be saying to them is that if it is good enough for other New Zealanders out there in the workforce who are helping support you in your time of need—not you Mr Assistant Speaker obviously—who are helping support those people then it is good enough for those individuals to be drug-free as well in the interests of having a safe and productive workplace. That is a very important thing. It is called a social obligation.I will come back to the Children’s Commissioner. What did he say in the select committee about that? What did he say about social obligations? He said that it is a normal part of life—it is a normal part of life. Social obligations are a normal part of life. Every New Zealander faces that in the workplace. They face that right across society and in clubs and voluntary organisations social obligations are a normal thing. The reality is that rights and choice must be balanced against responsibilities and obligations. That is also a normal part of life.This is an extraordinary bill. This is an extraordinary bill because what it does is address the underlying issues that have dogged our welfare State for so long. This Government has shown and this Minister has shown the determination to do it. New Zealanders wholeheartedly support it and the more that that party rails against it the more those members had better get used to wearing out the leather on that side of the House because that is where they are going to stay and long may that continue.We back New Zealanders into work. We back them to have the skills. We want them to have the opportunities that we should all have and this bill does that. I commend it to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Families Commission Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 21 March.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): The Families Commission Amendment Bill is a cynical piece of legislation proposed by a party that never liked or supported the Families Commission when it was first established by a Labour Government in which United Future was a coalition partner. The mandate for the commission was broadly to advocate for families through consultations with families provide public information undertake research and promote family policy. The National Government is reliant on the support of United Future so it cannot do what it would rather do and that is to get rid of the Families Commission. Instead what the Minister for Social Development has done is set out from day one to systematically destroy the Families Commission as an independent entity that promotes the interests of families and provides the information that they require.Hon Paula Bennett: Labour’s going to close it down.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I shall give the Minister evidence as to why that Minister’s policies have set about destroying this commission. If the Minister listens she might understand the argument.This Minister initially appointed commissioners who had a track record for their somewhat narrow focus on families and their trenchant criticism of the Families Commission before they were appointed. One has only to think about Bruce Pilbrow whom this Minister appointed as deputy commissioner who was interested only in the types of parenting education provided by this organisation. He resigned and soon afterwards he secured a Government grant of $1 million for his organisation to provide parenting education. The other commissioner the Minister appointed was Christine Rankin. Her views are well known. Her claim to fame is related to employment issues with a former Minister. She was critical of the Families Commission right from its inception and she was never going to make any long-lasting contribution to outcomes for our most vulnerable families through this commission.The Minister also appointed a chief commissioner who did not stay very long but who obliged the Minister by shifting the commission from its independent advocacy role for families to become an instrument of Government. During his term he was very compliant and even shifted the commission from its advocacy for paid parental leave based on the state of the economy. The commission’s flagship position was to support paid parental leave. That chief commissioner shifted it to placate this particular Minister. Of course this fitted in very well with the Minister’s own analysis.Interestingly the Minister did not oversee the commission closely enough to avoid the spending of $411000 on one staff member who became the commission’s highest-paid official for the time she was there—a scandal indeed. And now she washes her hands of the whole matter.Now this bill reduces the number of commissioners to one who will not be the chief commissioner and whose role will be determined by the board comprised of members. This Minister has no views on what the role of the chief commissioner is so it will be just another person in the commission whose role will be chief commissioner. In every other commission it is the chief commissioner who leads the commission so again it is a cynical approach by this Minister to effectively destroy this commission.To demonstrate her total contempt for the Families Commission and position it on its path to ultimate decline the Minister has now appointed one of her own ministerial staff and close National Party confidant to head the commission—a person with no substantive experience in the various major responsibility areas of the commission. But then this Government is getting used to doing that. There has been another commissioner appointed elsewhere with a similar kind of background. This is further evidence of the Minister’s cynicism regarding the commission.The new chief commissioner is already readying the commission to get rid of its own flagship programme on family violence the White Ribbon campaign. The commission has had a clean-out of almost all its senior staff since the present restructure—the second restructure under this Minister’s reign. But there is more evidence that the Minister is hell-bent on destroying the commission. This bill loads up the commission with what can only be described as tasks that should rightly be the responsibility of service delivery entities like the Ministry of Social Development and Child Youth and Family. There are clauses in the bill that explicitly state that the functions are to be undertaken on behalf of the Government. So there is plenty in this particular series of actions by this Minister that makes this commission very vulnerable and they are cynical.The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor is now a Families Commissioner. At the financial review recently it was clear to my side of the House that he intends to be his own man and to be a good scientist. He should continue to speak his mind and to expose the Government when it is not operating in an evidence-based way which is often. The last bill we have just passed the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill was not evidence-based. Much of the Government’s welfare reform is not evidence-based and in fact is contrary to good research.What this Minister has done is position much of the work of this commission to eventually be privatised and to simply be a monitoring arm of the Government. This is not the role of an independent commission of this type and so this side of the House will not be supporting this bill. In the Committee stage we will show clause by clause where the faults lie. Thank you.DENISE ROCHE (Green): The Greens will continue to oppose this bill the Families Commission Amendment Bill. We oppose this bill because we believe that the number of changes that the Government wishes to introduce will not serve the interests of families in New Zealand. We remain concerned that this bill dilutes the governance of the Families Commission and neuters its ability to provide free and frank and independent advice. The commentary on the bill states under the heading “Introduction” that the aim of the bill is to improve decision making in the social sector which we agree is a laudable aim. However we are not convinced that this bill will deliver that.Since the introduction of the Families Commission through legislation in 2003 the commission has been a strong advocate for families in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is perhaps best known for its flagship work campaigning around the eradication of domestic violence—in particular the White Ribbon campaign and we sincerely hope that that campaign will not be undermined by the proposed changes. As part of its advocacy role the commission has in the past developed research and providedsubmissions to Government select committees and to councils as well—to name just a couple of examples.In February it made submissions to the Auckland Council’s gambling policy review where it acknowledged that the council’s recommended draft sinking-lid policy would reduce harm to families and therefore the commission supported that policy.Also in February it made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Government’s Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill where it outlined how the changes to the Family Court process could have a negative effect on children and families and that the proposed introduction of costs for Family Court relationship counselling services could be a barrier for some families needing to access the court. This submission also pointed to the need for more research into the needs of whānau particularly when negotiating care contact and financial arrangements for children especially given that 30 percent of parties to the Family Court are Māori.The Families Commission also makes the case for having a role in monitoring and evaluating the impact that the Family Court changes will have and I would say that it would also have a role in evaluating the impacts of the two bills that preceded this one through the House tonight. On the Family Court bill it says that “It is crucial that outcomes particularly for those most vulnerable and for children are assessed. Independent evaluation of the delivery of [Family Court proceedings] will also be necessary. If services are provided for children—these should be trialled and evaluated as well.” Please note that I stress the word “independent”—independent advice independent research independent assessment and independent evaluation. This has been the common theme from many of the submissions the Social Services Committee heard during the hearings process.Out of the 11 submissions received eight were opposed to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. There was a common theme and the major concern was that shifting the social policy evaluation and research unit from where it has previously sat within the Ministry of Social Development to the Families Commission would mean it will be used to provide evidence that reinforces the ideology of the Government’s reforms. This was signalled by the wording in the original clause 7 of the Families Commission Amendment Bill which talked about the functions of the commission being: “to identify opportunities where evidence and research will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector”.I acknowledge that several amendments have been suggested to clarify this particular wording but I remain unconvinced that the bill will enable the level of independence that we need in the social services sector. I note that politicisation of the commission has already begun. It is already under way. My colleague from Labour the honourable Rajen Prasad has already noted some of the appointments of commissioners.Last year in particular the Families Commissioner Carl Davidson contradicted the Families Commission’s own reports from 2010 and 2007 which said that extending paid parental leave to 12 months would be hugely beneficial to families and children and to the country. Mr Davidson was appointed to the commission by Minister Bennett in 2010. Concerns about appointments were also highlighted during the select committee process.In particular there was concern about the appointments and the role of the social science experts panel. We do not have any major concerns with the idea that research should be peer reviewed; in fact it is best practice. However we are not convinced that the social science experts panel has a role in this. We are particularly concerned about the lack of clarity around appointments to this panel and the details around their roles.Originally the bill said that there would be four members of this panel. However the report as it has come back to the House suggests that there should be an amendment soit is a minimum of four and can be extended. Even so I remain unsure about whether these people will have the required expertise to review research independently and with rigorous academic scrutiny.This view is shared by the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children which said in its submission that it was concerned that these panel members “Would be appointed on the combined recommendation of the Minister for Social Development and Chief Science Adviser” because they believed that it did not allow enough independence from the Government. This group echoed my concerns which I raised in my first speech on this bill about the worrying trend by this Government to use ministerially appointed advisory groups.The Auckland coalition also stated that when the Government appoints the members of the social science experts panel it raises concerns of Government interference in the conduct and publication of social science research. It recommends that monitoring and evaluation work be carried out by clearly independent third parties.It goes on to say—and I think it is worth quoting it actually—“We do not believe that that four people irrespective of their experience would have the knowledge and skills to provide a fair and comprehensive evaluation of such a broad range of research. Again this is particularly a concern given the specialist knowledge required in different sectors for example family violence sexual violence and other forms of violence against women and children.” We do need good research about family violence. Australia has undertaken the research to show the economic impact family violence has on the economy. We have not yet done that and that is something that we should be looking at.The Greens support making good public policy based on sound independent research and evidence. There is a role for a lot more research and a lot more monitoring and evaluation of programmes that need to be undertaken particularly since the Government is rolling out a bunch of reforms that have not yet been trialled in New Zealand. We are simply concerned that this bill will not deliver that evaluation monitoring and independent analysis of the research. The changes outlined in this bill would require the Families Commission to publish a families status report on the well-being of families.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.