Volume 698 Week 72 - Wednesday 14 May 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 698 Week 72 - Wednesday 14 May 2014[Sitting date: 14 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 14 May 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsKenya—Delegation Parliamentary Service CommissionMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Parliamentary Service Commission of Kenya led by the Hon Adan Keynan MP is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.Questions to MinistersInequality Economic and Social—Income Gap1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes in particular our policies that support racial harmony every day of the year and the policies that support the rule of law particularly when it comes to extradition.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of the success of 5½ years of his economic and social policies when new census data shows that the income gap between Auckland’s poorest and richest communities has widened?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government rejects the view that income inequality is widening in New Zealand.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of the success of his economic and social policies when the census data shows that the incomes of those living in South Auckland have fallen significantly over the last 7 years while incomes in wealthier areas have risen by thousands of dollars?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a measure of success when the Government will have returned the books back to surplus after inheriting a complete and utter mess from the previous Government having to endure the global financial crisis and of course standing behind the people of Christchurch. It is not a measure of success when you have to take to the country and all of its citizens and make them suffer some form of inconvenience and cost which has been the case from the Australian Budget because that Government inherited a Labor-Greens Government and its policies.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. The Prime Minister failed to address anything to do with income inequality.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question started with “Is it a measure of success” and what the Prime Minister then did was talk about how he would measure success.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of success of his economic and social policies when census data—actual census data—reveals that a whole South Auckland community’s incomes have actually gone backwards by up to 20 percent in real terms over the last 7 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a measure of success when the Government having inherited the economic mess that was delivered to it in 2008 managed to support policies like Working for Families for the least well-off New Zealanders in the most difficult times.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of success of his economic and social policies when in the New Zealand that we live in the richest 1 percent of New Zealanders nowown 16 percent of all the wealth in the country while half of all New Zealanders own just 5 percent of the wealth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a measure of success when the National-led Government over the last 5½ years could turn round the absolute mess we inherited from the previous Labour Government its large spending policies and the inefficiencies it had built into the economy while at the same time standing behind Christchurch making sure that there was over $15 billion there to support the people of Christchurch maintaining Working for Families and accommodation supplements and building a more efficient and effective New Zealand. Tomorrow I think New Zealanders will reflect on the success of this National Government and contrast it with what can only be described as the real mess that Tony Abbott had to inherit in Australia after a Labor-Greens Government.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of success of his economic and social policies when the NBR Rich List shows that the total wealth of New Zealand’s hundred or so richest individuals has soared by 50 percent since National took over as the Government while working New Zealanders are still waiting for a real pay rise?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a real measure of success when 1500 people a week are leaving welfare for work when 84000 jobs are created when we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD and when we are exporting to parts of the world at record levels. One thing that can be taken from the member’s questions and it is something that runs through both the Green Party and the Labour Party is that those parties are not ambitious for New Zealanders to do well.Dr Russel Norman: Is it a measure of success of his 5½ years of economic and social policies when middle-class families have been hit with a 20 percent increase in electricity prices and on top of that they are facing a 34 percent increase in median house prices?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At one level it probably is a measure of success when power prices have gone up by only 20 percent given that they went up by 72 percent under the previous Labour Government. The one thing we do know is that if Labour and the Greens were to become the Government power prices would rise by much more than that because of the expense of the emissions trading scheme and because of the electricity reforms the members want to undertake. I am so much looking forward to making sure that New Zealanders understand exactly how much extra they will have to pay per week under those kinds of policies while they are in the dole queue because that is where they will be when enough jobs have been destroyed under those people.Dr Russel Norman: Is it not actually a measure of the failure of his 5½ years of economic and social policies when the facts show that the wealthy are better off the middle classes are struggling to get on top of their bills and the poor are falling further behind under this Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The facts actually show quite a different picture but what the facts also show is that after 5½ years of good economic leadership by the Government and a huge amount of hard work by New Zealanders this country is on track to be back in surplus—one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. I think that there are many many Australians who will look across the Tasman today and say “Oh the lucky country over there. It’s called New Zealand.”Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister seriously trying to claim that the census data that has been released very recently which shows that the poorest communities in South Auckland have gone back by about 20 percent while the richest communities are thousands of dollars richer is simply false?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that I do not accept the interpretation of that data as presented by the member.Dr Russel Norman: After nearly 6 years in Government—6 long years in Government—is it not time to accept the evidence that shows that his policies have made the poor poorer the richer richer and that everyone else is struggling to get by and that it is time to stop blaming someone else for his own failures?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from blaming anyone for failures the Government is actually very proud of its record of supporting the least well-off New Zealanders supporting New Zealanders right through the recession and rebuilding things. All I can say is that I really hope that when the member was out at the Dotcom mansion drinking champagne—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister proudest of the fact that he increased the wealth of the hundred or so richest people in the country by 50 percent or is he proudest of the fact that he drove down the income of people in South Auckland by 20 percent in real terms—i.e. you made the rich richer and the poor poorer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the assertions in the member’s argument but I am proudest of the fact that I did not go grovelling to the Dotcom mansion to a man who supports a “racist day” and a man who wanted a favour from the member in Government to make sure that Mr Dotcom was not extradited from—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise my point of order under Standing Order 383 around the content of replies. The Prime Minister in the answers to two of Russel Norman’s questions strayed well beyond his responsibilities and you did not pull him up. He then strayed beyond his responsibilities and you did pull him up and then in the next answer he did exactly the same thing that you sat him down for. That is actually challenging your ruling. You have told members on this side of the House when we do that that we will be out and you have thrown people out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! What I do is listen very carefully to the question as well and in that last particular question there was a lot of political loading with the Prime Minister driving up the wealth of the richest hundred and driving down the situation of the poorest 20 percent. [Interruption] Order! So it was in my interpretation a political question and that gave the Prime Minister a fair amount of licence. That is the way I interpreted that situation.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just seek clarification from you either now or later. The Prime Minister I believe just accused Russel Norman of going to somebody’s mansion to gain something and previously—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it must be heard in silence.Tracey Martin: Previously you actually—I believe it was yesterday—stood up and quite clearly made a ruling that to impugn somebody’s reputation in such a way was not appropriate in this House. So I am not sure how there is a difference between accusing one group of people of taking something and another group of people taking something. It appears to be a double standard. [Interruption]Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There was an interjection. I do not know where it came from but it was down that quarter—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. If we are going to have a repetition of yesterday with people interjecting when I am on my feet someone will have to leave. The interjection was completely unnecessary and was not satisfactory. I require that member who said it to stand withdraw and apologise.David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the person who raised that point of order Tracey Martin misses the point. The question was asked of the Prime Minister—forgive my repeating of it because it is a mangling of the English—“What was he most proudest of?”. He then gave an answer saying what he was most proudest of—it should have been “most proud of” but that is the Australianisation of our parliamentary language. In that event there was nothing at all—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee:—unparliamentary in the way in which he gave the answer. He is very proud that he has not grovelled to Dotcom.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part of the Prime Minister’s answer made a suggestion to the member asking the question. If he is offended by that then he should immediately take a point of order and say that he is offended by that. [Interruption] Well I am on my feet. I am on my feet if the member had not noticed. That is the proper procedure so I accept now that we will allow Russel Norman—if he raises a point of order that he is offended then I will be asking somebody to withdraw that last part.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the Prime Minister’s comment.Mr SPEAKER: Order! In that case the member—[Interruption] Order! No I will deal with this first. I will deal with this first. Dr Russel Norman has taken offence at the last part of the Prime Minister’s answer. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to stand and withdraw that part of his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does raise a question about how Russel Norman can be offended by something the Prime Minister did not do.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the point. The point—[Interruption] Order! The point is a member has been offended in this House by a comment that was made. Quite frequently members take offence at a comment and I am surprised they do but that is not for me to determine. If a member takes offence I will require the member who offended that member to withdraw.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points. The first is that and I find myself in—Mr SPEAKER: Can the member just get to his two points of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I find myself in the unusual position of defending the Prime Minister and disagreeing with Russel Norman. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are very clear that if offence is taken it must be taken immediately at the first opportunity. It was not. These things are not able to backdated. The second point is that you are still the arbiter of whether it is reasonable for someone to take offence. Otherwise people could say they were offended by things that are entirely unobjectionable. I think it goes too far for you to say that if someone is offended you will require withdrawal.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be—Gareth Hughes: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I will hear from the member if it is necessary. There will be on some occasions a situation where I cannot see any possibility of offence and I will not bother. But in this case let us face it some members are more sensitive than others about comments that are thrown around this House. It should have been raised immediately but I accept there was a bit of hurly-burly and there were interjections around points of order. I will decide when to accept it.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would invite you to have a look at the tape of question No. 1 in the interests of good order in the House. Severalthings strike me listening to the exchange that has followed. The first is that there were several repeat offences as my colleague Mr Robertson has said that were not pulled up by your good self. The second is that in the last answer the Prime Minister went on at some length in a conversation that was personal that was derogatory and that was out of order and he was allowed to continue. What I would submit for your consideration is that your leniency to the Prime Minister has encouraged the kind of disorder from the Government benches that is now undermining your standing in this House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now getting into very dangerous ground where he is effectively suggesting bias in the way I am interpreting the rules. I always review theHansard after question time. I look very carefully at the way I have handled it. I accept the invitation raised by the member. I will be doing it later on this afternoon.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that under his Government the richest 1 percent of New Zealanders now own 16 percent of all wealth in the country while half of New Zealand owns just 5 percent of the wealth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot verify the facts but I am pretty sure that one of that 1 percent is Kim Dotcom.Inequality Economic and Social—Income Gap and Child Poverty2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Has his Government delivered on his expectation of a “more equal society” and as a result is “every one of our children getting the very best start to life”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): What I actually said in relation to the first quote was the following: “We would prefer that we were a more equal society with less inequality but what the report actually goes on to quite clearly demonstrate is that the vast bulk of the changes that have taken place is due to the global financial crisis. Fortunately this Government has an economic plan that is seeing the economy grow and enabling people to get into work. This Government is focused on welfare reforms to get people into work. This Government has been quite prepared to put up over $350 million to insulate homes in New Zealand. This Government has supported under-6-year-olds to get free doctors’ visits. This Government has supported making sure we reduce rheumatic fever.” and so on. Quite plainly not every child is getting the best start to life which is why we are doing these things that I mentioned.Hon David Cunliffe: Why have recorded offences of violence sexual assaults and neglect of children risen 68 percent on that Prime Minister’s watch and incidentally what is his Government doing to bring back our girls?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the last part I made it quite clear that the Government is deeply concerned by the actions of Boko Haram. That is one of the reasons that the Government listed Boko Haram as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Suppression Act.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the part of the question that the Prime Minister chose to answer I am afraid he did not answer it. I asked what his Government was doing to bring back our girls. If listing Boko Haram was the sum total—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is actually questionable whether the second part of the question should have been allowed in relation to the primary question but I let it through. The Prime Minister has addressed that question. [Interruption] Order! Again I am on my feet. That may well be the opinion of the member but the way I am going to advance the issue now is to ask for further incisive supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: Plain and simple will the Budget tomorrow lift the 285000 New Zealand children currently living in poverty out of it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We do not agree with that number of 285000.Hon David Cunliffe: Would the Prime Minister care to tell the House how many New Zealand children are living in poverty and whether his Budget will do anything to help them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the most accurate number on me but I know it is below 285000.Tim Macindoe: Has the Prime Minister seen any independent assessment of social outcomes in New Zealand?Sue Moroney: Salvation Army.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes that is absolutely right. I have recently seen a quite sobering assessment that says: “The social outcomes which we as New Zealanders have achieved over the past five years are somewhat mixed and in some areas quite disappointing. More of our children appear to be at risk of harm more of our young people are engaged in petty crime there is more violent crime and more people in our jails. … While more New Zealanders are working than ever before … our incomes have risen only modestly we are chronically indebted and home ownership rates have fallen. … What is perhaps most disappointing about these results is that as a country we have invested hugely in the core areas of social spending over the past five years. … While this social spending is essential it seems to have contributed very little to our social progress.” It was incredibly damning reading that I read from the Salvation Army in its state of the nation report. Oh yes and that was the report from 2008.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Salvation Army’s social report this year gave his Government a D for child poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I can confirm is that the report gave a much rosier picture of New Zealand.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance. I invite the member to ask the question again.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the current year’s Salvation Army’s social report gave his Government a D for child poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It may well have but it also gave us a vastly improved report in many categories and a far better assessment than the last 5 years of the Labour Government. Yes what this report says in 2008 was the failure—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has now been answered.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of your previous ruling where you generously afforded me the opportunity to repeat the question because it was not adequately answered—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just get to the point please.Hon David Cunliffe: I ask your leave to ask the question again because the Prime Minister seems to be confused between a maybe and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the opportunity for the member to ask the question again. He did it was answered very quickly by the Prime Minister and then there was some additional information which I thought might have been helpful to the House. When I realised it was not actually going to inform the House I then asked the Prime Minister to cease.Hon David Cunliffe: Could the Prime Minister inform the House why more than 40000 children have been hospitalised in New Zealand for diseases of poverty since 2008?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will be a variety of reasons but what I can confirm though is that this Government has spent more money on rheumatic fever prevention than any Government prior to it. This Government has spent more money insulating homes than before. This Government borrowed billions of dollars to supportprogrammes like Working for Families for the most at-risk New Zealanders. This Government has spent money to insulate well over 340000 homes. The Government has done a lot in that particular area.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister comfortable that on his watch the income of the top 1 percent of New Zealanders has risen nearly 10 times faster than the bottom 10 percent?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the assertion.Budget 2014—Economic Programme and Alternative Approaches3.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to theMinister of Finance: How will the Budget tomorrow support a growing economy including jobs higher wages and delivery of better public services?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): New Zealand is making good progress. Our growth outlook is among the strongest in the OECD and I note its report overnight where it indicates that New Zealand is one of only two developed countries where income inequality has been relatively stable since the mid-1990s. Our public agencies are providing more elective operations are ensuring that more of our young people leave schools with qualifications and are keeping our communities safer. In the past year 84000 more jobs were created across New Zealand. On average wages are rising faster than the cost of living and in the past 12 months nearly 15000 New Zealanders were supported off welfare and into work. Tomorrow’s Budget will build on these gains.John Hayes: What Budget announcements including benefits to more New Zealand families has the Government already made?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Quite a number of announcements actually. Over the past fortnight we have announced $22 million over 4 years for community budgeting services to help families help themselves $10.4 million over 2 years to support front-line sexual violence services $20 million more over 4 years for extra support for children at risk of rheumatic fever an extra $6.3 million over 4 years for bilateral cochlear implants $20 million for an extra 6000 places in the apprenticeship reboot scheme and $3.5 million to provide $3000 for up to 1000 beneficiaries who are prepared to move to Canterbury for work. There have been early indications of significant inquiries to take part in that scheme.John Hayes: How does New Zealand’s economic outlook compare with that of Australia’s in the wake of last night’s Budget in Australia?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Government there has been saying for a while that the outlook for the Australian economy is perhaps a bit better than if you listened to Australian commentary. The Australian Budget forecasts average growth over the next 3 years of 2.75 percent which is lower than New Zealand’s but still significant. It is focusing on a return to surplus and long-term debt reduction. Here in New Zealand the Budget will show a surplus. It will show that the country is on track for growth of around 10 percentage points over the next 3 years and forecasts are showing 172000 more jobs by 2018 with annual rises and the average wage reaching $62300 by 2018.John Hayes: What alternative approaches to economic management has he seen and what impact would they have on jobs and incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have taken particular note of those proposals that are likely to prevent the creation of new jobs if not get rid of existing jobs—that is opposition to oil and gas exploration on the East Coast and in Taranaki opposition to any further growth in our agricultural industries opposition to water storage opposition to the expansion of aquaculture opposition to filmingThe Hobbit in New Zealand and opposition to coalmining on the West Coast. It is not surprising that these are thepositions of Opposition parties because they are opposing everything. They have now promised low unemployment. So their recipe is that there will be no new jobs because they are against all growth but they are going to get unemployment down.Inequality Economic and Social—Income Gap4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Will Budget 2014 continue the trend of widening inequality between the wealthy and poorer areas of New Zealand as shown by the University of Otago 2013 index of deprivation?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The answer to that is you will have to wait and see when you get the Budget. I do notice that the Opposition used to talk about income inequality across the country but because the national measures show that income inequality has not got worse in New Zealand those members are now looking at disaggregated measures and of course it is not surprising that there may be some suburbs somewhere where incomes have risen less than in other suburbs. On average across New Zealand income inequality has not got worse. In fact we are one of two developed countries where the OECD as recently as yesterday has said that it has been stable since 1994—and the Opposition should take some credit for that.Hon David Parker: Are three-quarters of New Zealanders wrong to say that the gap between the haves and the have-nots has grown after five of his Budgets then?Hon BILL ENGLISH: On the measures that are used generally through the Government publication three-quarters of New Zealanders are not correct in their assumption that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting—Grant Robertson: Ah! He was going to say they were wrong.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the facts as laid out in the annual report issued by the Government agency initiated by the previous Labour Government and now backed up by the OECD show that income inequality in New Zealand has been flat to falling in recent years and on average it has remained unchanged for the last 15 years.Hon David Parker: Why after five of his Budgets has homeownership dropped to its lowest level in more than half a century and is this not one of the most important measures of rising inequality?Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would need to talk to homeowners and renters about the choices that they make but the Government has noticed that each of the measures it has taken to undo the damage of the doubling of house prices under the previous Labour Government has been opposed by the Labour Party in this Parliament. We have moved consistently over 3 years to improve supply to the housing market because that is the best long-run solution to rapidly rising house prices and the Labour Party has opposed every single measure this Government has taken because I presume it feels guilty about house prices doubling while it was the Government.Hon David Parker: Does the Perry income inequality figure that he likes quoting exclude capital gains?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The definition of it is income inequality as set up by the previous Government to be published every year as a measure of progress on these issues and on that measure New Zealand income inequality is flat to falling. That is very clear from the official statistics put out by the public agency. Because the Opposition members do not like that measure they have now tried to move to others such as wealth. I agree with the member that the housing market can be a driver of wealth inequality so the Opposition should be supporting the Government’s measures which are thorough and assertive to change the dynamics of the housing market where we can influence them.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a long and interesting answer but my question was very specific and asked whether that measure included capital gains and that has not been addressed.Mr SPEAKER: It is a marginal call to be honest. I think it probably was addressed. The Minister talked about income and then talked about the creation of wealth. On that occasion the Minister has addressed the question to my satisfaction. It may not be to the member’s and I accept that. He can ask further supplementary questions.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the Perry report’s definition of income and the datasets which show that it excludes capital gains.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Louise Upston: According to the Salvation Army in 2008 in what direction were social measures heading and what does this say about fiscal management?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I may have missed the very first words of the question but the finance Minister is not responsible for what happened in 2008. He was not the Minister then. We are not allowed to ask him about things that he did in 2008.Mr SPEAKER: Just because he was not the Minister does not mean he has no responsibility for reports that were tabled at about that time or published at about that time. The difficulty I have is that I could not hear the question because of the noise coming from both sides of the House. I ask Louise Upston to repeat the question.Louise Upston: According to the Salvation Army in 2008 in what direction were social measures heading and what does this say about fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH: When I became the Minister of Finance in 2008 one of the first things I did was get out the Salvation Army report on social progress. It was a frank report and what it pointed to were rising numbers of children in Child Youth and Family Services care rising youth offending rising teenage pregnancy and rising levels of serious crime. I can confirm that each of these measures has seen significant improvement despite the fact that we have had a major recession and despite the fact that we have had much tighter Government spending than under the previous Government. In fact the Salvation Army said this: “What is perhaps most disappointing … is that as a country we have invested hugely in areas of core social spending over the past five years … and it seems to have contributed very little to our social progress—”Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the answer now is long enough.Hon David Parker: Is he aware that according to the OECD income inequality in New Zealand is in the worst half of developed countries in the world and is that not one of the reasons that overall inequality including home ownership rates gets worse every year in New Zealand under his watch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just do not agree with the member. Now that he realises that income inequality in New Zealand is not getting worse he says that it is in the second half of the OECD which is actually not correct. It is about the middle. So we can have a debate about whether that should or should not be the case but it certainly does not avoid the fact that income inequality in New Zealand according to the OECD has been roughly flat since 1994 and in fact in the last few years there is some indication that it has fallen slightly.Budget 2014—Sexual Violence Crisis and Treatment Services5.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: What recent announcement has the Government made about funding for sexual violence services?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of Budget 2014 I recently announced $10.4 million in new funding to support sexual violence services. Sexual violence services do a fantastic job at providing much-needed support for victims and their families and often at a time of crisis. I have listened to the sector’s call for some immediate funding to ensure victims can continue to access services and providers can remain financially viable. The extra funding includes support for front-line crisis response services community-based treatment services services for male survivors and people accessing medical and forensic services.Hon Phil Heatley: I am interested to know—how does this compare with how the sector has been supported in the past?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We know that sexual violence is a serious problem and we also think it is a basic right that people should feel safe secure and free of fear which is too often taken away from people through sexual violence. A 2006 Treasury estimate found that sexual offending costs us about $1.2 billion a year. Not only has there been significant underfunding of services for some years but funding has often been provided in a piecemeal way. By taking responsibility across portfolios for this area we are able to see a cross-agency project that identifies the gaps and we are able to put the funding where it is most needed.Hon Phil Heatley: What kind of response has the announcement drawn from the sector?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we are hearing from providers is that this gives them the sustainability that they need to be able to provide these most necessary services over the next 2 years and this also means that we can then look at their long-term funding and identify where the gaps are. A Wellington Rape Crisis spokesperson said: “We are heartened by Minister Bennett’s announcements … and applaud the Government’s decision to focus on frontline services for survivors right now and plan for prevention to be addressed in the longer term.”Warm Up New Zealand Programmes—Progress and Outcomes6.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Māori Party—Tāmaki Makaurau) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: How many homes have been insulated as a result of the Relationship Accords signed with the Māori Party in 2008 and 2011 and of these how many were in low income households?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): In total as a result of the relationship accords 28000 low-income homes have been insulated at a cost of more than $50 million in Government grants. In total under both the Warm Up New Zealand programmes more than 112000 low-income homes have been insulated and this number will continue to grow. I would like to thank the Māori Party for its strong support and commitment to helping those most in need live in warmer drier healthier homes.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: What geographic regions have been covered by the Warm Up New Zealand home insulation initiatives and what areas are still outstanding?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Since the Warm Up New Zealand initiatives began in 2009 all regions of the country have been covered. The Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme coverage is dependent on third-party providers like iwi district health boards and community trusts. The first round of the programme which started in September last year has seen extremely good coverage from Northland toSouthland. There are still some areas that the healthy homes initiative is not getting to—for example the West Coast the top of the South Island and parts of the central North Island—and I encourage third-party providers to come on board in these areas in the future.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: Has the Minister conducted any evaluations of the impact of the scheme on whānau health; if so what are the findings?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes; an independent evaluation of the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme showed that the greatest benefits from insulation are for people on low incomes and facing a higher risk of health issues. The report found that the avoided health costs to the Government from insulating a house average $850 a year for community services cardholders compared with only $335 a year for non-cardholders. This was one of the main drivers for the decision in last year’s Budget to target low-income households with high health needs under the new healthy homes scheme.Budget 2014—Vote Health7.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Will the total allocated funding for Vote Health in Budget 2014 be sufficient to keep pace with population growth ageing and increased costs?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The member will have to wait until tomorrow but what I can tell the member is that the appropriation for health has gone up an average of $500 million a year under this Government which stands in huge contrast to yesterday’s Australian Budget which is taking about $10 billion out of Vote Health there over the next 4 years.Hon Annette King: Was the Ministry of Health estimate of the shortfall in funding in the health sector operating allowance $376 million in Budget 2012 and $343 million in Budget 2013; if not what was the stated shortfall in funding requiring efficiency and/or reprioritisation?Hon TONY RYALL: I am not really sure exactly what those numbers refer to. The member would have to set them down in a written question. What I am quite confident about is that I can say that our average $500 million increase in the appropriation has meant that Budget on Budget we have been able to cover—particularly with reference to district health boards—inflation and the demography change.Hon Annette King: Does Vote Health require an increase of $499 million in this year’s Budget to maintain the current level of service as stated by an economist yesterday; if not has the level of funding recommended by the Ministry of Health increased or decreased from its 4-year Budget plan?Hon TONY RYALL: The member will have to wait until the Budget tomorrow to see what the numbers are in respect of the 4-year outlook for Vote Health. I would have to say that this Government has increased the appropriation by an average of $500 million a year. But actually it is not just the amount of money that counts in respect of health services; it is what is delivered for that money. We would stand on our record as opposed to another record which is that you double the health budget and have fewer operations which is—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Annette King: Did funds from efficiency and reprioritisation by district health boards and Health Benefits Ltd provide Vote Health with an additional $128 million in 2013 as stated in the Ministry of Health’s 4-year Budget plan; if not what were the savings made in that year?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check those numbers; I do not have them here with me. It is quite clear that what this Government does every year is we make sure weget new money available for health we look at for example the lowest 0.5 percent of spending and we make those savings available for spending the next year because we think we should continue to find those savings and provide more money for patients’ services. That is how we have increased elective surgery by 40000 extra operations a year compared with when that member was last in Government.Hon Annette King: How much in the funding of Vote Health 2014 will come from reprioritisation and savings made by Health Benefits Ltd and district health boards—something he claimed would be $700 million in savings by 2015?Hon TONY RYALL: I would reject the premise that that member is making because that is certainly not what we have said. She will have to wait until the Budget. The member knows that finance Ministers and all Ministers cannot give comments on the Budget just days before it. That was certainly the case when that member was campaigning against Sir Robert Muldoon—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister’s answer which I am sure you listened carefully to he said he disputed that he had ever claimed they would make $700 million in savings. I seek leave to table a press report from theNew Zealand Herald in 2012 where he does make that claim.Mr SPEAKER: Order! First point—if the member wants to seek leave to table a document the member should stand nominate the document and give the date etc. without making a political point at the start and then I will put the leave. If it is aNew Zealand Heraldcolumn it is available for all members to research if they want it.Economy—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Property and Assets8.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Finance: Will the 2014 Budget contain specific measures to improve tighter rules on foreign ownership of New Zealand land businesses and other New Zealand-owned assets; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member will just have to wait until tomorrow to hear what is in the Budget. But I could point out to the member that the nearby market Australia has some restrictions and housing in Australia is relatively more expensive than it is in New Zealand. In terms of the restrictions on overseas buyers of these assets we think the current framework introduced under the previous Government—in fact I think overseen by the Minister at the time Winston Peters—strikes about the right balance.Andrew Williams: Given that as at 31 December 2013 New Zealand’s net international investment position was a deficit of $147.5 billion equivalent to negative 66.6 percent of GDP how is continuing to sell our assets overseas going to solve our debt problem?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am interested the member raises the net international investment position. I think 4 years ago it was minus 85 percent of GDP and it has improved more quickly and further than I think anyone anticipated just 4 or 5 years ago to minus 65 percent of GDP. If it improves further to somewhere around 50 percent that would put us around the kind of national norm for our type of open economy. So we are actually making quite significant progress assisted no doubt by the processes put in place by Winston Peters to ensure that foreign investment in New Zealand was useful for New Zealand.Andrew Williams: Why does the Government continue to talk of foreign investment when most foreign takeovers are simply a transfer of ownership that creates no new asset?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The thing is that with a small open economy we generally benefit from being open to other people’s capital. They bring in other ideas. Foreigncompanies are not too bad at picking businesses in New Zealand that they can grow into something better and more productive. It would be a bit odd to do what all Opposition parties are now promising to do which is essentially stop overseas capital coming into New Zealand. That is a guarantee to destroy jobs reduce incomes and destroy wealth.Andrew Williams: Why is the Government avoiding developing a comprehensive registry of foreign ownership if not to hide the true extent of foreign ownership in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of imposing more compliance costs only if we think there is a benefit that is larger than those costs. It may be possible to track every single so-called foreign buyer although a lot of them who look foreign are actually New Zealand residents. A lot of New Zealand citizens actually live offshore. It would be a fairly large complex exercise. The Government’s view is that in light of the fact that somewhere around maybe 2 to 4 percent of our housing stock is owned by foreigners and around 2 to 4 percent of housing sales are likely to go to foreigners including expat Kiwis it is not a large influence on house prices. A much bigger influence is the decisions made by councils to restrict supply driving up house prices particularly in our larger cities.Andrew Williams: Will the Government commit to New Zealand First’s policy of collecting comprehensive data on the extent of foreign ownership in New Zealand so that the public can actually see what land and assets have gone into foreign ownership?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the least harmful aspect of New Zealand First’s policy. Its real policy is to ban foreign investment of all sorts and I suspect ban foreigners.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for New Zealand First policy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance but I invite the member to go back and look at her colleague’s question. It asked for comment on New Zealand First policy.Andrew Williams: Is the Government’s refusal to have the full picture revealed to the public on the true extent of foreign ownership because it knows that the real figure is much higher than the figure it has been citing from the BNZ of 8 percent and even the Inland Revenue Department’s figure of 11 percent; if so will it finally commit to New Zealand First’s policy of establishing a land register?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I stand by the rough estimates we have used. The 11 percent is 11 percent of investment housing stock which means about 3 or 4 percent of all housing stock. But the member should be pleased that the Labour Party—the party that is meant to be friendly to the migrant communities—has essentially adopted New Zealand First policy of banning foreign investors.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a 2013 article titled “Economic Inequality in New Zealand” showing that in 2009 New Zealand was 14th—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need the source of the article.Hon David Parker: It is authored by Brian Easton.Mr SPEAKER: Is it published in one of the daily papers?Hon David Parker: No no it is published in a journal but I cannot remember which one.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is a Brian Easton article it is published in a journal and it may not be freely available to members I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: I seek leave of the House to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that properties that are rental properties and other properties owned offshore are between 6.4 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The information has been described. Leave is sought to table that particular information prepared by the Parliamentary Library for the member. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Treasury reportData on Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Housing showing that approximately 22000 homes or 1.2 percent are owned by people who live overseas—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again that has been described well enough. Leave is sought now to table this particular Treasury report. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Prostate Cancer—Awareness9.Dr JIAN YANG (National) to theMinister of Health: What is the Government doing to increase awareness of prostate cancer?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Government has previously allocated $4.3 million to raise awareness for prostate cancer and to ensure that men have fair access to quality information and care. Previously advice on prostate cancer tests and management was confusing and there was a great deal of conflicting information. Consistent prostate cancer resources for patients have now been made available to every general practice and general practice team in the country and guidance training and advice tools have also been made available to general practices. This will help men their families and general practices to have a more informed discussion about prostate cancer and help health professionals to provide consistent quality prostate care.Dr Cam Calder: Why is it important to raise awareness of prostate cancer?Hon TONY RYALL: That is a very good question because over 3000 New Zealand men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year. The Government is committed to improving outcomes for patients with cancer and ensuring that New Zealanders are properly informed about prostate cancer so that it can be detected early. Initiatives such as this will lead to improved diagnosis treatment and care.Families—Financial Support10.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he believe families with newborn babies are currently receiving adequate support via Government-funded tax credits and paid parental leave?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes but of course we can always do better. The support that they currently get of course sits alongside significant subsidies for early childhood education which have increased quite dramatically over the last 4 or 5 years free visits to doctors for children under the age of 6 and extensive maternity and maternal support services.Jacinda Ardern: Of the almost 95 percent of new parents eligible for an income boost through Labour’s Best Start policy which of those parents does he think should not get anything?Mr SPEAKER: In as far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I could answer that question if Labour knew what its policy was. Unfortunately I thought the policy was the one that its leader announced on the day but apparently I am told that is not its policy because the document coveredsomething else. So when Labour members clear up that confusion among themselves then I may be able to answer the question.Jacinda Ardern: Does his previously expressed concern that a large number of parents are not eligible for either paid parental leave or the parental tax credit extend to parents who might be in receipt of a Government benefit when their baby arrives; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is concerned about those parents who do not qualify for paid parental leave and in particular the most vulnerable of that group who are young parents of young children. In fact I think figures used in this House indicate that as a result of the very good work done by the Minister for Social Development and others the number of sole parents under the age of 20 has in the last 5 years dropped from 4300 to 2600. The Government provides an intensive support and supervision service for each one of those parents. That is how much care and regard we have for them and their aspirations. I have to say that that is something that the previous Government did not think of let alone do.Jacinda Ardern: Did work on the rumoured additional support that he is considering for families with newborn babies start before or after Labour announced its Best Start policy and Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said I could answer that question if Labour’s policy was clearer but I guess it indicates that Labour is more concerned about the politics of whether it can claim credit than it is about the very real progress that the Government has made with the most vulnerable families. I look forward to the member congratulating the Minister for Social Development on the excellent work that she has done for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and they are the young children of teenaged parents.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with Steven Joyce’s sentiment that investing in a child’s early years amounted to “bribing” the people “the moment we get a lift in the economy”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Minister was referring to Labour’s shambolic policy announcement not to the families who may be the victims of it. The Government has demonstrated its willingness to invest now for pay-offs later. It has developed a comprehensive analysis and performance framework that enables us to confidently do what we have done and that is to spend millions of dollars over and above our welfare benefits on those most vulnerable families with a pretty good level of assurance that we will get long-term pay-offs. I look forward to the Government getting re-elected because we could take that framework an awful long way in New Zealand in the next 3 or 4 years. If the Government did change the framework would get trashed.Census 2013—Release and Use of Data11.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to theMinister of Statistics: What reports has she received on how the 2013 Census data will help shape communities and inform decision making?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Statistics): Statistics New Zealand yesterday published2013 Census QuickStats about a place. This is an online tool that uses a combination of census data and other statistics to give people access to quality information so they can understand their neighbourhoods cities districts and regions across topics such as population incomes housing cultural diversity age and sex.Claudette Hauiti: What has census data revealed about the earthquakes’ impact on Canterbury?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The census data gives us vital information for the rebuild by providing a graphic illustration of how Christchurch and wider Canterbury havechanged. Quality information underpins good decision-making and knowing where people are now living and working allows central and local government to plan where essential services are needed.Housing Affordable—Data on Overseas Buyers12.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that collecting the data on offshore ownership of houses “would be a waste of public money”; if so what would the cost be?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The conclusion of Treasury the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the Inland Revenue Department and the Productivity Commission is that overseas ownership of housing in New Zealand is small. The Inland Revenue Department data I released yesterday shows that 22000 rented properties are owned by people living overseas which works out at 1.2 percent of our 1.8 million homes. This number has barely changed in the last 5 years. The biggest group of these absentee owners are New Zealand citizens currently living overseas like those doing an OE. I do stand by my statement that a register would be a waste of money. My advice from officials is that it would cost many millions of dollars. I cannot justify the spending on trying to work out whether it is 1.2 percent or 1.3 percent. My focus is on the real issues that will increase the affordability of homeownership of Kiwi families rather than on chasing these red herrings.Phil Twyford: Why did he say this morning that it would be a wild-goose chase and a waste of public money to collect data on foreign ownership of houses when the Reserve Bank deputy governor also said this morning that it would be useful if the Government started collecting data on foreign buyers. What makes him right and the Reserve Bank wrong?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the member only half quotes what the Reserve Bank governor said. He said that that is something that the Government would have to look at more broadly. I am quite satisfied with the data that we have from the Inland Revenue Department. It says the number is 22000. That includes many New Zealand citizens who own property in New Zealand. I just say to members opposite: let us focus on the issues that matter and will actually make Kiwi homes more affordable.Phil Twyford: Why will the Government not require the conveyancing solicitor at point of sale to certify whether the purchaser is a resident or citizen and apply the Overseas Investment Act criteria in the case of trusts and companies; and would that not be a reasonable and cost-effective way to gather reliable data?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am just not satisfied that that information will provide any useful purpose to the challenge our country has of making houses more affordable. You see we had a Productivity Commission report. It independently received submissions from all over New Zealand. It said there are five very important things that we need to do. It did not mention foreign ownership because it will have no material effect. It is just the cheapest trick in the political book to blame the foreigners when New Zealand has a challenge.Phil Twyford: Why has he been going around saying his data shows there are only 20000 houses—or 1 percent of homes—owned offshore when he knows full well that that figure is 20000 offshore owners and given the high incidence of multiple property ownership does he not realise that the real figure is likely to be about three times more than that?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report from the Inland Revenue Department said that there were 20000 overseas owners. The first thing it also says is that the largest number of those are New Zealand citizens who own property in New Zealand. I challenge the member opposite: is he going to ban the Kiwi who does his overseas experience frombeing able to own a home in New Zealand? The further point is that the next-biggest group are Australians. Are members opposite proposing to ban Australians from being able to own homes in New Zealand? It is a non-issue. It has not changed in the 5 years that we have been in Government. Let us focus on the things that matter.Phil Twyford: Why should Kiwi first-home buyers have to put up with being outbid at auctions by offshore speculators bidding on the end of a telephone and what is the benefit to New Zealand of his putting the interests of cashed-up offshore speculators ahead of New Zealanders?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is totally committed to improving both the affordability and the ownership of homes. That is shown by the fact that independent studies show that housing affordability has improved 30 percent since house prices doubled and interest rates went through the roof under members opposite. I say to members opposite as well that it is the cheapest trick in the political book—whether it is joblessness or whether it is crime—to somehow invent the idea that it is the foreigners when all the advice from officials is that they are having negligible effect.General DebateRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tomorrow the Minister of Finance will deliver his sixth Budget. New Zealanders will want to see some real serious thinking in that Budget and some straight talking because up till now—Hon Tau Henare: Where’s the horse?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is no requirement to declare a horse so stop the deceit stop the lies stop the character assassination know the law and do not be a dummy like Tau Henare saying any old thing. You will not win on character assassination and gentlemen we are in no hurry to ease your pain. We are in no hurry to skewer you like the tired elephant you are. We are going to do it tomorrow the next day and next week and we will see who is right or wrong. [Interruption]I have heard that sort of claim before. Where is the evidence? Let me tell you if you go back over a long history we have never ever failed to get home. Back to the point—oh by the way there was a former Prime Minister—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. He is enjoying a very robust debate but the level of noise coming from the right-hand back corner is now excessive and I require it to be toned down substantially.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you Mr Speaker. They will be far more hysterical than that I can promise you. But I know what nervous looks like—laughing above the desk knees knocking below it. There was a former Prime Minister who said: “He says he’s got a smoking gun; all he’s got is a cap gun.” That man was David Lange. The Minister was Wētere. When I got back from Hawaii I proved it categorically as I will that Judith Collins deceived the House the public and worst of all those lowly cannon fodder products at the back who are shrieking about the results of this. You mark my words because failure when we are after someone who has committed a grave breach of privilege and a conflict of interest is not in our handbook.But back to the point. They are going to say tomorrow: “You have had the pain; now here is the gain.” When did we last hear that we have had the pain and now here is the gain? All the spin and all the hype and all the nonsensical types of answers you just heard from Nick Smith—what hysterical nonsense! No one knows but Nick knows. Young Nick should not even be there. He should not be there. There are almost 150000 unemployed. On top of that there are another 100000 looking for more work—underutilised underemployed ordinary Kiwis are being squeezed.Soon Mr Henare will know what being squeezed is because he will not be able to get a job. If he was so good why did they give him the bum’s rush? This is a man who is meant to be esteemed in Māoridom. We have a show for Māori that is on at the weekendMaraeand who turned up? That well-known Māori Jami-Lee Ross: “I am in Parliament now—tell me what is my iwi?”. Oh Claudette Hauiti. Oh over there; the most senior Minister at the time—where was Hekia? Oh she could not turn up onMarae. You know why? It would not matter who turned up it was going to be a cakewalk from the start and it was.At the end of last year—[Interruption] Look I appreciate this. I know that really you are loving this but you know it is imperilling your career. I know you are loving it but it is going to imperil your career. Back at home your relations are saying to you: “Boys don’t be silly. You’re going to get taken apart and we’ll have to find a job for you on 21 September. Why did you not pay attention to Winston when he told you? You are on a hiding to nothing in this campaign.”I tell you what: you cannot get away with spin and bumf and all the other things when in fact people in New Zealand want tomorrow afternoon a plan that will diversify our economy. They want a plan that gives our people hope for the future and says to our young people: “Stay in New Zealand because it will be great one day soon.” But they will never get that plan from National. So as they say in Māoridom it is time for a new net to go fishing and go fishing we will.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): When the Hon Winston Peters stood up to speak this afternoon momentarily my faith in miracles was restored because everyone knows that if you have got a bad flu it can take you days to get over it but somehow he appears to have shaken that flu overnight. But then as his speech progressed he told us all by his actions and by his words that he was in a delirium which must mean that the flu still has a great grip upon him. And what was it that sent him off the rails of looking like he was a miraculously cured victim of the flu? It was the mention of a racehorse—the mention of which of course is not in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament. I would put it there because it is—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You went to great lengths yesterday to stop me from making a statement just like that excepting that the difference is that you are not required to declare a horse in a pecuniary interest declaration. He knows that. He has seen enough to know that so tell him to stop making vile accusations.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just take this opportunity to remind all members that if they feel there is an issue with any member’s pecuniary interests it should not be raised on the floor of this House; it should be raised directly with the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I will have to apologise. I will have to apologise for mentioning that particular piece of sporting equipment that was not put in the pecuniary interests register. He is probably right.Mr SPEAKER: Can we just proceed with the debate.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is probably right but I would note that that horse has earned a lot of money and none of that was declared either. That of course is not unusual for Mr Peters.Hon Trevor Mallard: One thing we do know is that Gerry wasn’t the jockey.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member starts I will just wait for a bit of silence so I can hear the point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He made a further statement which is demonstrably untrue that the horse made a lot of money and that that was not declared either. Can I just say that I bought the horse in a charitable auction did not seek a tax rebate and lost a packet on it. It is a total lie.Mr SPEAKER: And I sympathise with the member. This is a general debate. It is a robust debate but I again remind members including the Hon Gerry Brownlee that it is unhelpful to refer to issues around the register of pecuniary interests. There is a proper way to do that established by the review of the Standing Orders of 2010 now incorporated in the Standing Orders.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well that is an interesting interpretation. I might say that he is not the only victim in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member now raising a point of order or continuing the debate?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I am just saying that Mr Peters is not the only victim in the House of some misrepresentation. I never actually tried to be a jockey as it happens recognising my own shortcomings. I was far too disappointed by the fact that the Royal New Zealand Ballet would not consider me either.Tomorrow Bill English will deliver his sixth Budget. He does so at a time when we have had about a couple of weeks—3 4 5 6 weeks—in this House where Opposition parties have tried to attack the Government on a number of issues that relate very little to the daily lives of New Zealanders. What New Zealanders respond to are things like the insulation programme the rheumatic fever programme the immunisation programme the achievement-focused education system that we are working towards the fact that more young people now gain qualifications beyond secondary school the lowest crime statistics in decades in New Zealand at the moment the 84000 new jobs created in the last few years and a Budget likely to return to surplus. Those are the sorts of things that New Zealanders look towards. They look towards the fact that the Government has stood in difficult times with the people of Christchurch to effect a recovery there. They look to the fact that there are 15000 people off welfare now and in work. These are the reasons why New Zealanders are responding so well to the current Government.We have only to look at question time today and the questions that were asked of Ministers by our opponents to understand that that is a party over there that is nowhere near ready to be in Government—nowhere near ready to be in Government. It was interesting that Labour members were asking the Hon Bill English about Labour’s own policy which of course in most cases has been disastrously presented to the people of New Zealand. Mr English talked about the debacle over the policy that Ms Ardern had something to do with.There is of course Labour’s cornerstone policy which is getting on top of interest rates for homeowners. We still do not know how much David Parker would take out of the pockets of working New Zealanders to effect an interest rate change or a reduced official cash rate. We know that 1 percent of KiwiSaver brings in about $400 million. We know that to drop the official cash rate it is necessary to save about $2.5 billion. So that would imply that the Labour Party should it be in Government and should it effect this policy would take a further 6 percent out of the pockets of New Zealanders at a time when they are at the peak of their working years. The Labour Party members sit over there shaking their heads saying “No no that can’t be right.” It is the same as when David Parker stands up and says that a Labour Government will return surpluses and will reduce unemployment to 4 percent but it is not going to support anything that will help it achieve that. That is why Labour is in terrible trouble in the polls. And tomorrow it will only get worse.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Far from being in terrible trouble in the polls we have the gap narrowing. The last but one poll the Roy Morgan poll had Labour-Greens well ahead of National. The poll that was out today from Fairfax had the gap narrowing between National and Labour-Greens by 2 percent. ACT is gone Dunne is down the Māori Party is discredited and the National Party has run out of coalition parties. That is why everyone in New Zealand and all the commentators know that it is all on for the election and that it is too close to call.We know that New Zealanders do not like rising inequality. We know that New Zealanders know overwhelmingly that it is getting worse. Three-quarters of New Zealanders think the gaps are getting wider. The Government denies that. It denies it despite the fact that we have got the lowest homeownership rate in 50 years and still dropping. It denies it despite the fact that 46 percent of New Zealanders got no increase in their wage rates last year—46 percent. Even on average across the whole of the economy including the rich-listers and everyone who got an increase in the amount they earn wage rates went up by 1.6 percent when inflation was 1.5 percent. In other words the benefits of growth are not getting through to everyday New Zealanders and New Zealanders are sick of that.They hate the cronyism of National. Judith Collins sits every week in this House and John Key defends her. He comes out and pretends that there was a perceived conflict of interest when there was a real conflict of interest when she was feathering the nest of her own family. She was feathering the nest of her own family by taking advantage of her ministerial position to advantage Oravida of which her husband is a director in China. That is importing into New Zealand standards that New Zealanders do not want. They do not want those standards imported into New Zealand and the Prime Minister defends it and pretends that the $50000 donation that he got through Oravida was for some independent charity rather than for the National Party.The Government pretends that it inherited a cot-case of an economy from the Labour Party but it inherited amongst the lowest unemployment in the world and zero net Government debt. In fact there were positive assets to the tune of 5 percent of GDP.Hon Annette King: What did Bill English say?Hon DAVID PARKER: Bill English said that the recession and the Christchurch earthquakes happened at a time when—this was the rainy day that Governments had been saving for.Hon Trevor Mallard: Who said that?Hon DAVID PARKER: Bill English said that. Since then we have had inequality rising. We are getting back to Budget surplus and that is a good thing after five deficits. Labour would be doing it too but a good economy needs to do more than that.We need to get money into the pockets of people through decent jobs and high wages. We need to restore the Kiwi dream of owning your own home. The Labour Party policy package is linked up and achieves those things. We have more money going into universal KiwiSaver and through that with a variable savings rate people save more and pay less in interest. That in turn takes pressure off the exchange rate. That enables our exporters to thrive and to employ people in secure high-value jobs. We have got that money going into the right parts of the economy through our capital gains tax which takes money out the speculative economy and puts it into the productive economy and grows jobs. We encourage innovation through a research and development tax credit and more productive investment through accelerated depreciation tax breaks so that we can lift wages. Then we make sure that under fair labour laws people who are working New Zealanders get their fair share.We do not forget about the vulnerable. We know that parents with young children need a better start in life. Our Best Start package improves the incomes of all familieswith young children—particularly in later years for our lowest-income families—and so it should because we have got 280000 children living in poverty in New Zealand. That is a disgrace. Then we had the Minister of Finance Bill English today pretending that income gaps are not increasing in New Zealand when both the census data and the 20-year-old data series from the University of Otago prove otherwise. People will have a positive choice to vote Labour at the next election.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Hello Mr Speaker and kia ora. It is great that we have New Zealand Sign Language Week this week. This is also Budget week and this will be the opportunity for our Government to present the sixth Budget of six extremely good Budgets each appropriate to the circumstances of the year in which each Budget has been announced and I am absolutely expecting that to continue to be the case tomorrow.The Budget will demonstrate the approach that our Government has taken under John Key’s leadership and the prudent yet strategic approach in which our Budgets have been managed by Bill English. We have steered our country out of the troughs of the recession and the global financial crisis and the mess left by the previous Government and we have driven our country towards a much stronger future. We have understood that we have to invest in sustainable infrastructure—in roads and broadband—in those things that make a difference for building a productive economy and most specifically in education.As my colleague Gerry Brownlee has already indicated what New Zealanders are interested in is how strong the economy is how it supports the development of jobs—84000 this year—and how we make sure that we support those who need us most. That is what the Minister for Social Development has been doing by taking a very strong investment focus. This year alone we have seen 15000 New Zealanders go off the benefit and into work because we understand the dignity and respect that goes with work.How do we get better-paying jobs? Well actually we have to invest in better skills and in better education. Our National-led Government understands that investing in an excellent education for every child and every young New Zealander is what sustainably grows an economy is what sustainably gives them the opportunity of having choice in their lives and is what sustainably grows the backbone of our country. We understand the importance of education and we put our money where our mouth is.Over the last 5 years in the area of early childhood education we have been focused on how we get more of our new entrants having a good-quality early learning experience. We are almost at 96 percent which is getting towards our target of 98 percent. Over the last 5 years early childhood education has seen an increase in funding despite the Opposition’s inability to understand through numeracy skills that going from $800 million to $1.1 billion in investment is nearly a 75 percent increase. No matter how much the Opposition says that that is a cut no one else in New Zealand sees how when you almost double a budget it can be a cut. But despite that all power to the Opposition to argue that a 74 percent increase is actually a cut.Overall Vote Education is now at $9.7 billion which is the biggest it has ever been. We have got more kids staying at school more kids taking more subjects and more kids leaving school with a qualification that gives them the opportunity to lead stronger more productive lives and to get the skills and opportunities that had been denied under a previously mediocre and weak commitment to education. The Labour Opposition members look up. That is still the case now because when in our living history has education moved off the front bench as it has done under that Opposition and on to the second row? That is how important this Opposition thinks education actually is. So we have $9.7 billion invested in—Hon Trevor Mallard: Hang on they gave you the portfolio.Hon HEKIA PARATA: And here we have shouting from the other side the former Minister who presided over the closing of nearly 300 schools. We have focused on how we invest. There is $1.1 billion being invested in Christchurch where 115 schools will benefit from that. Across our country $359 million is being invested to create better jobs better career pathways for the people who make the most difference in schools and they are the teachers. Under the policy announced pre-Budget by the Prime Minister 12500 teachers will get the opportunity to share their expertise across classrooms. They will get the opportunity to have the best and brightest stay in classrooms. Nearly 300 principals will get the opportunity to mentor and grow the strength of our 2500 principals across the country. That is how much members on this side of the House care about education. We have grown the investment in it every year at every level of education because we know that that is the biggest contribution you can make to a young person—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Last week I advised the House that the recent US National Climate Assessment report described climate change as no longer a distant threat but a clear and present danger and that that report was a corroboration of the Global Assessment Report by the United Nations a few months earlier. So we now have it officially on record that climate change is a present threat to humankind. I do not think it is possible to understate the magnitude of the threat we are facing. It is a clear and present danger in the form of the extreme weather events we have been witnessing these past few years. On the strength of a 0.8 degree temperature rise we are witnessing the likes of hurricanes Katrina and Sandy in the United States and Haiyan in the Philippines along with floods in Asia and the Americas forest fires in Russia and Australia and heatwaves and droughts in Europe and elsewhere including here.The long-term danger is greater still. Three scientific studies recently released give testimony to this. A report by National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the University of California finds that six major glaciers in West Antarctica seem to be locked in an irreversible thaw linked to global warming. Six glaciers eaten away from below by the warming waters round the ice continent are flowing fast into the Amundsen Sea according to satellite data for the past two decades. According to the lead author a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into “a state of irreversible retreat”. The glaciers hold enough ice to raise sea levels by 1.2 metres over a period of centuries. According to the lead author this has “passed the point of no return”. A separate study by the University of Washington focuses on one of these glaciers. The Thwaites Glacier acts as a linchpin on the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet which contains enough ice to cause another 3 to 4 metres of sea level rise.A third study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research conveys new findings on East Antarctica which contains 10 times more ice than West Antarctica. According to the head of Potsdam’s global adaptation strategies project: “Until recently only West Antarctica was considered unstable but now we know that its … counterpart in the East might also be at risk. … We have probably overestimated the stability of East Antarctica so far.” If half of the so-called ice cork were to melt the discharge would begin and could lead to a sea level rise of another 3 to 4 metres over the long term.Of course the United Nations’ Fifth Assessment Report stretches out just one century to 2100. Its 100-year scenario is of a rise by 0.26 to 0.82 metres but scientists have known that ice melt in Antarctica will occur over centuries and as far out as 1000 years. This raises the question: how far out should humanity be concerned as a result of the consequence of its own actions? I suggest indefinitely—as far out as the humanmind can contemplate—because we temporary custodians today have no right to set a sunset clause on the human future. I invite my National colleagues in the Chamber to read from their script that this is alarmist nonsense. They are the same MPs who failed to turn up to the parliamentary briefing our Kiwi scientists gave on these issues just last October.To the extent that such ice melt is irreversible we must begin to learn to adapt. But above all we must up our game on mitigation reducing emissions—very far and very fast. Why should we care today about future generations? For those who have to ask the question there is a ready and equally self-interested answer. It is because the clear and present danger applies to New Zealand’s way of life. It puts today’s economy today’s jobs the homes we live in today and the local environment we enjoy today at risk—today. This Government’s policies are making things worse and putting New Zealand at risk through its inaction—today. The Green Party is moving as we enter the forthcoming election campaign to make climate protection one of our highest priorities.Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): Very little of what has gone on in this Chamber in the last week or so would have had any connection with New Zealanders who would generally be reviled by the mud-slinging the abuse the name-calling and all of the vituperation and retribution that seem to have become the stock in trade of parliamentary debate in recent times. Perhaps it is forgivable in the smallest extent by the pending election but it is not justifiable nor is it appreciated by the bulk of New Zealanders.For most New Zealanders the challenge is a very simple one. This country has come out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression—the global financial crisis. We have been through 5 or 6 very difficult tough years where the Minister of Finance and the Government have shown considerable discipline in terms of both their spending policies and the direction of overall economic policies. Now instead of name-calling and catcalling and rumour-mongering what New Zealanders are looking forward to is a dividend on the investment they made in 2008 and 2011 when they elected this Government to office. They expect to see in tomorrow’s Budget some signs of progress for the future of steps that give them confidence in the decisions they have to make in their lives to give opportunity and the prospect of hope to their children.One area I want to talk about which I think is very critical to the future of this country is tertiary education. I think it is time to take a more radical approach to the issue of funding tertiary education. The current system of a fees-based system paid by the contributor the student supplemented in some cases but by no means all by a system of student allowances and student loans has I think had its day. The fact that we have large student loan indebtedness and we are doing all we can quite properly to recover that debt suggests that a continuation of the same sort of policy is simply a repetition of what we have done previously.Maybe the way forward is to turn the system on its head to abolish student allowances completely—because not all students are currently eligible—and to use the money thus saved to reduce and if not reduce then eliminate the tertiary fees that they pay. So you would get a system with some modest additional investment from the Government of tertiary education returning to essentially being free to the user. But students are then responsible for their living costs and their course costs throughout and that will be where the loan system in a much more disciplined way could take some effect. Carrying on the way we are will simply produce more indebtedness and more problems for people trying to recover from that indebtedness and trying to make a long-term contribution to New Zealand.There is another area I think is worth considering. For many New Zealanders the option of tertiary education simply is not there because there is no family history of atertiary education. The family does not have that in their if you like set of horizons about what their children might do. I think there is scope for considering some form of incentive to enable first-time entrants from families who have not previously been in the tertiary education system to come in and to benefit. That is the way you broaden the basis of the system. That is the way you give access to those who may well be currently excluded but it is also the way you make it clear that tertiary education is not the preserve of the elite but an opportunity for all to participate. As a consequence not only do you broaden the base of education and achievement and the ability for people to make a contribution to our society that is positive and long term but you encourage future generations as well.When we start to think about the steps forward that I hope this Budget tomorrow will indicate in terms of our having turned the economic corner then it is important to start to think about how we utilise the fruits of those long-term gains to the benefit of the people whom we are elected to serve. I say one thing as I close: the expectation of New Zealanders is that we contribute positively. It is not that we carry on in the way that this House has been doing in recent times. I think we have reached new lows and the danger is that there is an even lower floor to be set if we continue as we are. Tomorrow provides an opportunity to move forward with some optimism. I hope that the Minister and the Government take it and that Parliament responds accordingly.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): The Prime Minister stood up in the House today and as he often does told us of the terrible things he inherited from the Labour Government. They were terrible things like the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and zero net debt—shocking things that cause so much difficulty for the National Government. The Prime Minister is fond of talking about people’s horses. Well John Key’s horse of hypocrisy is tied up at “Debt Mountain” where he has borrowed $57.7 billion since he came into Government. That is nearly $60 billion borrowed by this Government.We on this side of the House will not take being lectured by that side of the House about who is a good fiscal manager about who is delivering on the economy. The Labour Party is proud that on average for 5 years we held unemployment under 4 percent and we will do it again. We will be a Government that puts people at the centre of the economy. Not speculators not big interests not the wealthy few not the mates of Ministers but ordinary everyday New Zealanders will be given a chance and an opportunity.Tomorrow the Government has the opportunity to deliver to New Zealanders. It has the opportunity to deliver to 147000 New Zealanders who are out of work and want a job. It has got the opportunity to deliver to the 46 percent of salary and wage earners who did not get a pay rise last year while the bosses at the top end did. It has got an opportunity to deliver to the 285000 children who live in poverty in New Zealand. That is a figure that the Prime Minister tried to deny today. He tried to not take responsibility for it. He could deliver for them tomorrow. He could deliver for the 40000 children hospitalised with skin infections and respiratory illnesses caused by the cold damp homes they live in. He could deliver for them tomorrow. He could deliver for the thousands of first-home buyers who have missed out on getting on to the property ladder under his Government—but he will not.He will not deliver for them because tomorrow will be Bill English’s sixth big let-down. It will be the sixth time that the wealthy few get prioritised over the ordinary people of New Zealand. It will be the sixth time that Bill English will come to a Budget magically find money for private schools and magically find money for tax cuts for the rich but not find money to deliver to New Zealanders so that everyone gets a good start in life.On this side of the House we have set the policy agenda. We have come out with KiwiBuild. We have come out with NZ Power. They will help get people into homes and improve the cost of living. We have come up with the Best Start policy which will genuinely give all New Zealanders a best start. Sue Moroney has her bill for 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. Labour has led the policy agenda and National has lagged behind. Tomorrow National might try to come up with something to mimic Labour’s policies but it will not go far enough. It will not deliver opportunity for all New Zealanders.What I can promise New Zealanders today is that the first Budget of the Labour Government next year will put people first. We will ensure that all New Zealanders get a fair go by reforming monetary policy and by ensuring that everybody pays their fair share with a tax policy where higher-income earners actually pay their tax and actually pay their fair share and where we have a capital gains tax that takes the speculators out and gives first-home buyers a chance. That will be an economy where people come first not the wealthy few and the speculators over there. Tomorrow is an opportunity for this Government but it will be one more big Bill English fail.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): As we move into the Budget tomorrow I want to rise and congratulate the team at Radio New Zealand. You may ask why I would start my speech with congratulations to Radio New Zealand. Well the reason is that Radio New Zealand appeared before the Commerce Committee last week for its financial review. The chair and chief executive of that august institution reported a significant turn-round in the business. They reported that staff morale was high that the funding was secure for 18 months and that the opportunities for growth were unprecedented. This is after 6 years of no baseline increase.The response from the Opposition members to that improvement in Radio New Zealand was revealing. They were simply incredulous. How could one of their favourite organisations be in better shape after 6 years with no baseline increases? That philosophy that approach to businesses goes to the heart of why that side of the House should never ever take the Treasury benches. Their total philosophy is that the only way we can improve organisations is to spend more—to spend more. That is the only way to get out of a hole. But Radio New Zealand is in good shape. It has transformed from an inefficient bureaucracy to a modern lean business that has a very bright future. That is the same thing that has occurred across the State sector with the policies of this National Government. It is a fantastic way forward and it is a good entry to the Budget.I want to talk about the Budget and I guess the policies because that gives us the opportunity to contrast quite different policies as we get into the next few days. Most particularly I want to focus on Mr Cunliffe’s approach to getting the unemployment rate down. Right now after a recession and significant issues that this Government has faced the unemployment rate has reduced from 7.2 percent down to 6 percent. I predict that over the next few months it will be into the 5 percent range. Unemployment is coming down and it is coming down under the policies of this Government. So let us look. His goal is to bring unemployment down to 4 percent but it is actually an oxymoron—Labour policies and low unemployment. Here are just three policies where we differ quite significantly.The first is capital gains tax. The deputy leader of the Labour Party stood up just before and said that the aim is to take money from the speculative industries and put it into the productive sector of the economy. What Labour forgets to tell you is that it will also tax small-business owners. It does not tell you that in the policy. Actually if you are a small-business owner you have been in the business for 15 years and your business is worth under $200000 then you may be exempted. But guess what! Most businesses that employ lots of people are worth a lot more than $200000 which means they will be subject to a capital gains tax as well. That is totally counter-productive toreducing unemployment. It is a disincentive for businesses to go out and invest. That is a fact.Secondly the other side of the House wants to lift marginal tax rates. It wants to tax the higher-income earners in this country—the rainmakers the people who go out and employ people. It wants to tax them more. We do not. We want to bring taxes down over time. Again it is oxymoronic. Why would someone go out and work their guts out when that side of the House wants to tax them more? It wants to discourage them from going out and employing people.The last policy I want to reflect on as we lead into the Budget is around the differences of our unemployment law. We introduced a wonderful policy—the 90-day grievance-free period—which has promoted much employment in this country. That side of the House wants to axe it. It wants to get rid of it. What is that going to do? It is going to discourage good employers from having a crack at a new employee and encouraging them to come into their business.So just those three policies alone are totally counter-intuitive to Labour’s goal of bringing unemployment down to 4 percent. On this side of the House we back businesses. We are going to have a strong Budget that brings unemployment down. We are going to be back in surplus. It is going to be a fantastic Budget and I am going to be proud to be part of the party that presents it.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I love New Zealand. I stood for Parliament for the Green Party because I am passionate about finding solutions to the long-term problems we face. There is no question that we are facing some pretty big challenges. We heard from Dr Kennedy Graham earlier about the clear and present danger caused by human-caused climate change. This is not a subject that is up for debate. We know it is happening and we know it is caused by us and our use of fossil fuels and our deforestation. We have no choice—either we change what we are doing or nature will change what we are doing for us. But we can change what we are doing and be better off.The National Government does not seem to believe that this is possible. It wants us to keep doing more of the same—the things that will make climate change worse that pollute our rivers that threaten our beaches and that increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor. National says that is just reality. The reality is we cannot afford to keep doing more of the same thing in the long term. The reality is that we have fantastic opportunities to green our economy which will create jobs and make New Zealand an even better place to live. That is what the Green Party is here for.The National Party would have New Zealanders believe that the Greens are against jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want high-wage jobs in a cleantech economy. There is a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers I would like to quote: “The potential economic gains from low carbon development are too significant to be ignored. … with the right policies the clean technology sector in New Zealand could be worth between NZ$7.5 billion and NZ$22 billion to the economy by 2015.” So how do we do this? How do we decouple economic prosperity from resource depletion and fossil fuel use? We need the right policies. We need to remove the barriers to investment in clean technology. That is why our co-leader Russel Norman yesterday announced the policy initiative called the Green Investment Bank. This is just the first of a suite of positive initiatives we will be announcing in the run-up to the election in order to get New Zealand on the right track—that is creating good jobs in a high-tech low-carbon economy.What is the Green Investment Bank? It is Government-owned but it is a for-profit investment bank that will specialise in projects that increase sustainability. It will cost the Government about $120 million over 3 years to set up. We can fund that by raisingour royalties on oil and mining up to international averages. It will be financially self-sustaining and it will earn good returns. Like the Superannuation Fund it will be entirely independent of the Government. This is not a new or radical idea. Like most Green Party policies it has been done successfully overseas. The oldest example is in Germany. The State-owned self-financing bank there has grown to be one of the most successful investment banks in the world investing $73 billion in projects worldwide one-third of which have an environmental or climate protection dimension. Green investment banks can be found in Japan Malaysia and three of the larger states in the United States including California and New York and the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom recently established a green investment bank there.The Green Investment Bank is a perfect example of an opportunity for New Zealand to create smart green jobs that will benefit us all in the long term. It is proven it is practical it is forward-looking and it deals with the reality of climate change and our need to transition to a low-carbon economy. It is in sharp contrast to the National Government’s strategy of doing more of the same—more mining more oil drilling more motorways more traffic more dairy cows and more raw logs—leaving us completely vulnerable to external shocks to rising oil prices and to high costs for the transportation system that we have right now. We are vulnerable to the challenge of climate change and rising oil prices and we have the opportunity to reduce that vulnerability and leave all New Zealanders better off.We love New Zealand. The Green Party is here to look after our precious environment and to ensure that all of our people have great opportunities for good jobs well into the long term well into the future. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am very excited that tomorrow our superb Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English will be delivering his sixth Budget under this National Government. It will provide momentum to keep this country moving forward and will stand in stark contrast to our poor cousins across the Tasman who have had to face harsh austerity measures and heavy cutbacks in the investment on their public services. The reason that the Australian Government is in such a poor state and that its finances are sliding downhill is very very simple—that is years of Labor and Greens misrule. The Labour and Green parties here in New Zealand similarly offer no real substance no real alternative. They can only sling mud.I am sure that the New Zealand public will welcome this sensible sound and stable National Government taking steps to lock in the very hard-won progress that the households businesses and in fact all hard-working New Zealanders are achieving. The public also want to see this Government’s accounts back in surplus back in the black instead of the decade of deficits that was the inheritance of this Government from the previous Labour one. We are starting to see the pay-off from National’s good work. Good GDP growth rates have meant that 84000 new jobs have been created in the economy and real wages are rising. And the future is brighter yet. Here in Wellington in the home of the core public services things are going well. Unlike the Opposition I do not disparage our hard-working public servants who are innovative in finding new ways to deliver on improving services to the public whilst operating in an environment of constrained spending.Obviously the lion’s share of new measures will be announced in the Budget tomorrow but there have been a few announcements already made that I would like to refer to. I support any message that helps grow New Zealand’s exports of innovative products and services. Wellington is a creative hub for New Zealand be it movie making software design or even our craft beer industry. So I am delighted that as part of the Business Growth Agenda the Prime Minister and Minister Groser have announced an extra $69 million over 4 years for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise toboost New Zealand’s trade support teams in China South America and the Middle East. Trade and Enterprise the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and those other agencies that support New Zealand firms selling their products offshore deserve our congratulations and our thanks for the increases in trade that they have achieved alongside those hard-working people in the private sector over the past few years. As an ex - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade employee who had a couple of postings to the Middle East I think it is absolutely fantastic that the Government is investing in giving even more support to exporters in these challenging but highly lucrative markets.I also welcome an excellent measure that supports some of the most dedicated servants of State who have often taken huge risks to safeguard our country—that is the veterans of the armed forces. Today’s announcement by Minister Woodhouse of a $60 million investment in veterans support services is simply wonderful in my view. Extending the veterans pension to every single one of those who have served once they reach 65 years of age is the right thing to do. An extra 16000 veterans will be recognised for their service to the country. I say to Labour members opposite that it is an utter disgrace that they are considering raising the age of eligibility for the veterans pension to 67 years of age. There are members over there who know that that is the wrong thing to do and they should be standing up to their leader on that particular issue for those who have sacrificed to ensure our freedoms.Another announcement that I particularly welcome is the extra $10.4 million over 2 years to support front-line sexual violence services. For those members who do not think that such issues as human trafficking are a problem in our country I would invite them to read this paper by Shimal Sataiya and Mark Calderwood of Waikato University:Critical Analysis of Child Trafficking in New Zealand. We need to take urgent action on this scourge. The situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram is not unique to that area. There are issues here in New Zealand. We are investing in that area. That is the right thing to do. I welcome that initiative as will New Zealanders tomorrow. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): On the eve of the Budget I wish we had a Labour Government and at the next Budget we will. We will be looking at opportunity for all New Zealanders. It will be a Budget that will ensure all New Zealanders can participate to their full potential. But that is not what New Zealand looks like at the moment. On any measure inequality is increasing under this National Government. I find it fascinating to see how sensitive members on the other side are on this issue because they know this to be true. In question time today we saw them all ducking and diving. They do not believe that figure and they do not agree with that figure. Even figures from entirely reputable sources—they do not agree with those figures. Well not only are they out of touch; they are actually trying to hide the facts.I just want to note that on many reputable figures including on OECD measures the evidence is quite clear: New Zealand has high income inequality. In fact Bill English seemed to say as a matter of some pride that even though we are one of the worst for inequality in the OECD we are stable at that position. Well hello that is not good enough. We want to do much much better and we want New Zealand to go back to being a more equal country a country where every New Zealander can get ahead where every child has opportunity. The Prime Minister does not even agree with the figures confirmed by Treasury that 285000 children are living in poverty which is actually 45000 more than when National took office. Of course the Salvation Army scored the National Government a D—a D—on that particular measure. So those figures are there for everybody to see.I want to talk about Auckland. I am a proud Aucklander. I am based in the Maungakiekie electorate and we have seen reports that under National there are two Aucklands. In fact theNew Zealand Heraldtalked about a tale of two cities. It was nottalking about Charles Dickens’ bookA Tale of Two Cities although there may be some parallels there one of the main themes in that book being about social justice. That book talked about two cities: London and Paris. In this case we are talking about within Auckland. The article compared people living in the eastern suburbs—in the Ōrākei area Mission Bay and St Heliers where incomes were up significantly—with those living in Māngere and Ōtāhuhu where incomes have actually fallen. The net effect of that according to the Salvation Army is something like a 19 percent drop for people already on a low income and those people have got an even worse standard of living. That is all under this National Government and that is putting communities under significant stress.I want to reflect on the fact that in the Maungakiekie electorate where I work I can see those inequalities and I am not the only one. If the Government thinks that New Zealanders are not seeing this it is very wrong on that matter. New Zealanders do see it. There was a survey quoted earlier where 75 percent of New Zealanders believed that inequality was increasing. Of course Bill English said: “Well it doesn’t matter what they think. It’s just not right.” Well actually they see it with their own eyes. They see it in terms of family members struggling. They see it in terms of people unable to put food on the table. They see it in terms of their own children unable to even contemplate buying a house. They see it with loan sharks proliferating all around the city of Auckland. Forty-six percent of workers saw no increase in their pay rate in the 12 months to March and yet costs keep going up. That is something the Government wants to try to deny but those figures are correct: 46 percent saw no increase. We need to focus on jobs and we need to focus on lifting wages and that will happen under a Labour Government.Housing is the other big issue. Homeownership is plummeting and that is most pronounced in Auckland. I just want to remind people about the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He said that there were 1100 homes under $500000 in Maungakiekie and that $130000 as a deposit was not out of reach. That is how out of touch the National Government is. Those figures are clearly not correct. Those assertions are not correct. Housing is a significant problem. We have senior citizens worried about being chucked out of their houses. I have talked to people with heart problems and with cancer who are being ripped out of their Housing New Zealand properties as we speak. There is a shortage of housing throughout that electorate. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this general debate today. I begin by congratulating our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance on their leadership in managing the New Zealand economy outstandingly. We in the National Party were handed over an economy that was in a dismal state a country where most of the skilled youth were inclined to migrate to Australia because they could not see a future for themselves in their own country. Not only was our talented and skilled labour force migrating out of New Zealand we were failing to attract skilled migrants to our shores.It is with great pride today that each of us in the National Party can share with you and with all New Zealanders that due to the strong leadership provided by the Prime Minister John Key and the pragmatic approach taken by our finance Minister Bill English they have turned New Zealand into what not too long ago was described as and as noted by an economist from HSBC the rock star economy.In case anyone in the Opposition feels that this was an easy task let me be blunt and say that it took a lot of hard work in the past almost 6 years to undo the damage that was done by our Opposition colleagues when they were in Government. It is because ofthis hard work that we are optimistic that our economy is on the right track to reach our goal of a Budget surplus this year.Our migrant community has played an active role in the success of our economy. At the start of my speech I alluded to Kiwis leaving the shores of New Zealand for Australia because in their opinion Australia can provide a better lifestyle. The Australian Government yesterday presented its Budget for 2014-15 and from what any common person can understand the Government in Australia has to address a number of challenges through that Budget. The challenges posed to the Australian economy are without doubt due to the reckless spending by the previous Australian Labor-Green coalition Government. A recent study by Deutsche Bank says that Australia is one of the most expensive countries in the world. The Australian Prime Minister has said that the Budget presented by the finance Minister is a problem-solving Budget because Australia has very serious problems of debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see but that it is also a nation-building Budget.Therefore I urge all New Zealanders to seriously consider the pragmatic work done by the National Party Government in the past 6 years and start to imagine the negative consequences that a Labour-Green Government can have on the 6 years of hard work done by the National Government. In India there is a saying “Jitne chadar ho utne peer phelana.” which means to live within one’s own means. We in the National Party believe in living within our own means. By comparison all other Opposition colleagues do not share the same thought and have a shared spending plan like the recent opening of the Green Investment Bank. The question they have to ask themselves is of course: where is the money coming from?Here I would like to share that the migrants who come over here have got dreams to be successful. I would like to give an example. Some of my fellow Indians started as taxi drivers but today I see a lot of them are progressing. They are going into the trucking business and here I would like to quote the latest survey by the ANZ Heavy Traffic Index. The index which reflects our truck movement on 11 roads selected because they have historically given good indications of economic activities at the time rose 0.5 percent just in the last month. To me this is a very encouraging statistic as this means that despite—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Food BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsSHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the Committee stage of the Food Bill having sat through endless hours in the Primary Production Committee listening to submissions on the formation of and amendments to this bill. I think it is probably worth noting at the beginning the chronology of the bill. The bill was first introduced into the House on 26 May 2010 it had its first reading on 27 July 2010 and was reported on by the Primary Production Committee on 16 December 2010. On 2 July 2013 it was returned to the Primary Production Committee for a second round having been delayed and then revisited as a result of the whey protein concentrate scare. The select committee had a couple of substantial goes at amending the original bill and then the Supplementary Order Paper that subsequently followed as a result of that.The points that were made by the select committee are well covered in the commentary that the select committee reported back to the House and it is worthtouching on a couple of those. To the purpose of the bill we recommended adding clause 4(ba) to make it clear that one of the primary purposes of the bill is to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a producer and exporter of safe and suitable food. I think that cuts right to the nub of what this bill is about at one end of it and that is that New Zealand is an export nation of protein-based food—and other types of food but predominantly protein-based food—which have the opportunity I guess within them to carry all sorts of potential dangers from a food safety point of view. To have a robust legislative framework around controls and Government responses to those types of risks from a reputational point of view is an essential ingredient to New Zealand’s economy—more than I think most people realise given that something like 72 to 73 percent of all export earnings from New Zealand come from our primary sector. That was a major consideration in the deliberations on this bill.At the other end of the spectrum of course you have the small fund-raising committees etc. such as Lions Rotary clubs marae school calf days those kinds of things where there was a pretty heavy-handed bureaucratic approach and so it was decided that there must be a better way. Through like I say a long process we believe that we have arrived at a point where we have achieved that. I look forward to debating various parts of this bill as it moves through the Committee.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this Committee stage of the Food Bill. I believe I may have just nipped ahead of my colleague Mr O’Connor. I will start this off.I am pleased to be speaking in this Committee stage. This is a significant piece of legislation. As we know it has had many years in development going all the way back to when Labour was in Government. It is a very important piece of legislation because we need a modern risk-based food safety regime.As we are on Part 1 I would like to start my contribution right at the very start where clause3(1) says: “This Act replaces the Food Act 1981.” That is a very welcome provision because that is a very outdated piece of legislation—30-plus years old—and it has caused a host of difficulties for many small businesses and territorial authorities right across the country over a long period of time. It is very welcome that we will be putting this bill through so that we can see the repeal of that particular piece of legislation.Just to give you an example there are many small businesses across the country that have been stymied at times by overly bureaucratic territorial authorities that have been trying to fit the archaic piece of legislation the Food Act 1981 to the operations of modern food vendors and modern purveyors of kai of food. To give you an example we have had a host of some really bizarre situations—for instance a cafe owner in Tūrangi Ms Upston’s great electorate. Unfortunately the district council there insisted that with the installation of a new toasted-sandwich maker that cafe had to install a commercial-grade extractor that cost more than $7000—just because the cafe operator wanted to have a toasted-sandwich maker. Fortunately these absolutely really bizarre draconian measures that have been placed on cafe owners are eliminated through the introduction of this legislation.There are other examples such as the kuias the old ladies up in the far north who made strawberry jam and sold it at the local Kerikeri hospice charity shop. Those lovely dear ladies found that they had to produce their jam in a commercial kitchen so they were technically contravening the law. Again these really bizarre outcomes stymied the entrepreneurial spirit and the generosity of these small businesses.There are other examples of territorial authorities really struggling with the one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach of the Food Act 1981 because as we know back in the early 1980s it was far different from what we have today. I think it was simpler. We did have fish and chips and fast food but we did not have things like I guess onlinepurchases of food. The industrial techniques of producing food have really come on in leaps and bounds over that period of time. Therefore the legislation of 1981 is really out of date and it is a very welcome move under this legislation that we will finally say goodbye not only to that Act but also to the prescriptive regulations that were promulgated under that piece of legislation because those regulations added to the complexity and the cost and the bizarre outcomes for small-business owners. What we are getting under this piece of legislation is a much more suitable piece of legislation that fits all types of food businesses from the small coffee cart and the small cottage-industry jam-maker right through to the big industrial processes and indeed exporters.It is a well-thought-through piece of legislation and can I commend all of the officials who have spent many years on this and also especially members of the Primary Production Committee who have given it very close consideration and made some very good improvements especially Supplementary Order Paper 278 from the Minister for Food Safety. Things like the good old Kiwiana sausage sizzle have been given due recognition that they do not need overly bureaucratic sorts of food standards and other compliance measures placed over the top of them. So there are some real common-sense amendments that have been made to get the bill to this Committee stage.But there is one glaring omission in this bill in Part 1. Thankfully my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has proposed a very sensible amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 440 that there be country-of-origin labelling included in clause 4. That is very important because we on this side of the Chamber and many other parties here—except for Peter Dunne whom this amendment really rests on—believe that Kiwis have the right to know the origin of the food that they consume and that they purchase. It should be implemented through this Supplementary Order Paper. I encourage the members of this Committee to take the opportunity to make this very sensible improvement to Part 1 so that we do add that element of as Mr O’Connor calls it COOL—to adopt the acronym for country-of-origin labelling. I am not really getting any jokes out of this. We need to adopt the cool. We need some coolness. We need to put some cool into the country-of-origin labelling in clause 4.I would like to go back to my favourite example which is the good old Kiwi sausage the banger and bacon. Very few Kiwis know that the majority of the pork that is consumed in this country actually comes all the way from Canada North America. Should there be country-of-origin labelling I think people will be a bit more thoughtful in terms of the origin of their pork of their food and where it comes from. They do have a right to know. So that is one sensible amendment that I do recommend in my contribution on this first part. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I have to apologise to my colleague Rino Tirikatene whom I left out in the lurch a little bit. I was trying to escape a meeting.We welcome the Food Bill into the Committee. It has been a long time coming. In debating Part 1 of the bill I would like to firstly acknowledge some of the officials there many of whom have been around for as long as this bill has and as long as I have which is quite some time. We hope that the ageing of the bill like a good wine has improved it. A number of Ministers for Food Safety have overseen it and I welcome the current Minister’s comments on a number of the provisions.In Part 1 of the bill we have as rightfully it should be the purpose of the bill. I have as my colleague noted proposed an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 440 which we believe is essential to finish off what is essentially a very good bill following almost 10 years I guess of consideration of assessment by the Primary Production Committee on indeed a couple of occasions and as I say oversight andinput from people up and down this country on at least two occasions and other opportunities through consultation with officials.If I can go to the purpose of the bill it is indeed an amalgam of pieces of legislation that have been around for a while. We are attempting to align those pieces of legislation to give better effect to the purpose of producing safe food maintaining New Zealand’s reputation and ensuring that consumers get a good deal from a country that we say—and I think we can rightfully say—is one of the best producers of food in the world bar none.The purpose of the bill and I can read out clause 4 is to: “(a) restate and reform the law relating to how persons trade in food; and (b) achieve the safety and suitability of food for sale; and (ba) maintain confidence in New Zealand’s food safety regime”. That was an amendment put up by the Primary Production Committee to emphasise the reality that the confidence that the public have in the legislation around food should not be in question and that this is not a partisan piece of legislation. It has been endorsed and I hope it will be by all parties across the House because we have attempted to achieve the very best outcome. The inclusion of that subclause in the purpose clause that is to maintain the confidence in New Zealand’s food safety regime was an important addition.The next subclause is to “(c) provide for risk-based measures that—(i) minimise and manage risks to public health; and (ii) protect and promote public health.” That is a very important part and objective of this piece of legislation. The fourth one is to “(d) provide certainty for food businesses in relation to how the requirements of this Act will affect their activities;”We have up and down this country—from the very largest producers of food to the very smallest and most innovative and creative at times—people who in classic Kiwi style get out look around them see what opportunities there are and often through biological production systems be it through grapes or honey and bees or through new fruit varieties come up with a new food that they want to manufacture or indeed to just sell in its raw form. This piece of legislation has to give them certainty so that the time and the money that they might invest in that production system is supported through legislation through good regulations and through a system that is going to give them the opportunity to develop that further.If I can use the example going back some time of kiwifruit the humble Chinese gooseberry which was grown on a few farms and in a few gardens around the place and has now become a billion-dollar industry because the regulations were sound and because of the ability for those growers to develop the intellectual property the varieties and to get out there and develop the systems of handling of storage and of sale—the legislation had to support that development through the years. We are upgrading the legislation to modernise it and to make it fit for purpose.The next thing here is subclause (d) to “provide certainty for food businesses” and then moving on to clause 4(e) which is to “require persons who trade in food to take responsibility for the safety and suitability of that food.” [Interruption] I acknowledge the Minister and I would welcome responses.This is I guess an area where responsibility is placed back on to the people in the food sector themselves. The risk-based system that we are proposing puts trust in them to do what they say they are going to do in administering the regime at whatever level. The people who are taking responsibility are those who are trading in food and it is about ensuring that they deliver to their consumers to their customers food that is not too old does not have contaminants in it or does not have food safety issues that might harm them in any way. The regime that we have is a very stringent risk-based system for those from the very top—Fonterra and the big producers—down to the personselling sausages for the sausage sizzle. There are different requirements that ultimately depend upon the individuals involved or the companies involved to implement what they say they will do. The officials can never be there every moment of every day. I think we are lucky to be in a country that has people of integrity systems of integrity and regulations that are generally sound and sensible. We should be able to trust the systems once this legislation passes.All those objectives we say are sound but there is one missing and I know I have had discussions with the Minister—hopefully she has seen the light of day to come and support us—on mandatory country-of-origin labelling informing the consumers who buy the food where the food was produced and manufactured. We say that it is a core right of any consumer to know where the food they are eating has come from. We are part of a trans-Tasman arrangement the Food Standards Australia New Zealand authority which says that we share with Australia the same regime for risk-based systems for food safety and for labelling. So using CER and the transfer of goods either side of the Tasman aligns and makes that system more simple.But New Zealand sought an exemption from those trans-Tasman regulations that allows us to not have country-of-origin labelling. For a country so dependent upon food production for our survival and our prosperity it is absolutely bizarre that we do not have country-of-origin labelling—something that identifies clearly the food produced in this country under regulation that would allow consumers to know whether that food was produced and manufactured in New Zealand or whether it was produced somewhere else in the world.I am proposing Supplementary Order Paper 440 and an amendment that would add to the purpose clause in the bill a requirement to introduce country-of-origin labelling requirements in accordance with the Australia - New Zealand food standards code. The exemption that we have—and the Minister might say “Oh it’s not appropriate to have this in the bill.” That is absolutely wrong. It is appropriate that we have in the purpose of this bill a requirement to align ourselves with the agreed regulations that are currently in place on both sides of the Tasman. So I welcome the Minister’s response as to why the National Party and its two coalition partners Peter Dunne and Mr Banks are not supporting something that the vast majority of the public expects.Country-of origin labelling is taking place in some areas through a voluntary code but it is not mandatory and in fact there are many occasions when consumers are confused as to where the food they are purchasing is grown and manufactured. We will be putting to the Committee this amendment to the purpose in Part 1 of the bill and I hope that the Government can see the wisdom in supporting that for the good of the consumers and for their right to have information and knowledge about the food that they are going to consume.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): I am very pleased to take this call in the Committee of the whole House stage. Can I start by acknowledging that this is I think a great day for New Zealand. It has been over 10 years in the making. There have been many officials in a number of administrations who have worked on this Food Bill. I want to acknowledge what I acknowledged in the second reading. There have been several Ministers. I also want to acknowledge the huge amount of work across this House that has gone into making this bill better. I acknowledge also that this bill is supported by the Labour Party the Green Party United Future the ACT Party I believe and I think Brendan Horan is supporting it too. I think when we come to the purpose of this bill we can see why it has such cross-party support. It has cross-party support because at the heart of this bill is actually our nation’s economy. If we do not get food safety right then all of us are much poorer and our quality of life is poorer.What this bill does is two things. The first is that it says we are actually going to base our food law on the risk of food and not buildings. We are on the cusp of replacing the 30-year-old statute which will actually ensure that food safety is based on the risk of food not buildings and an outdated un-modern statute. The second key thing that has actually been at the heart of much of what I think was genuine concern about this statute is allowing New Zealanders to do what they have always done and to not have compliance costs on so many small businesses. That is why I am very pleased that the Primary Production Committee gave a lot of attention to understanding the impact on small businesses. This is a sliding scale regime. The advice that I have had is that $40 million in compliance costs will go out the window with this bill. The third thing as we saw was the sausage sizzle issue. That was an issue very dear to the heart of New Zealanders. I think the select committee has really improved the bill to ensure that those community groups that are fund-raising can go on and do what they have always done. I really think this is a great bill from the perspective that not only is it going to help so many small businesses across New Zealand have consistency in terms of food safety regulation but also it is going to reduce compliance costs and it is going to enable New Zealanders to do what they have always done.There are a couple of Supplementary Order Papers and I just want to address both Supplementary Order Paper 440 which Damien O’Connor put forward and also Steffan Browning’s variation within the House Supplementary Order Paper 449. From our perspective New Zealand has country of origin labelling. It is voluntary. I have actually been doing some work to look at what that coverage is. What I can tell the Committee is that the advice that I have had is that in terms of single-ingredient country of origin labelling—and I want to talk about the difference in a second—we estimate about 70 percent of coverage happens in terms of country of origin labelling for single ingredients. That is about 70 percent of fruit vegetables and meat in our supermarkets have country of origin labelling. So the question is twofold. How do we possibly encourage more of that? Secondly is it appropriate in this statute to pass a law that requires mandatory country of origin labelling?The first point I want to make—and I think this is very relevant for the Opposition—is that some of the advice I have had is that we would actually be breaching the Australia - New Zealand food treaty if we passed this law. We have set up a regime where we have been really clear—and Mr O’Connor you have mentioned in your speech—that we develop standards with Australia. Yes they have developed a standard in this area but we absolutely have the ability to adopt country of origin labelling through that process that we have agreed to with Australia. To pass a law via statute rather than the code is actually not the process that we agreed to with Australia. From my perspective it is not appropriate in this bill.However I want to raise a couple of issues generally around country of origin labelling. The other point I want to make to the Opposition is that they may not be aware but Australia has just launched an inquiry into country of origin labelling. The advice that I have had is that part of what the committee chairing that inquiry said in Australia is that there is widespread confusion there around the differences in terminology between “made in Australia” “product of Australia” and “made from Australian”. What this is about is actually recognising that although it may be relatively easy to deal with single ingredient country of origin labelling when you are asking and trying to pass a law for when you may have 10 to 12 different ingredients the reality as I think Australia is finding is one the complexity of trying to then label the source of all of those products; two the cost to business to be able to do that; and then three—and this is why I think Australia has launched this inquiry—how meaningful it is actually to consumers if you have got a whole lot of different sources of ingredients.I want to finish that issue by saying that the Government does at this point support voluntary country of origin labelling. We do think from the advice that I have had—but I am going to do a bit more work on it—that we have got quite a lot of take up around single-ingredient country of origin labelling but in terms of comprehensive country of origin labelling I would encourage the Opposition to look at the fact that Australia is actually launching an inquiry into this issue because I think of the confusion the complexity and the cost.Again I want to acknowledge why we are here. We are here in part to reduce compliance costs to businesses. We are here to ensure there is much greater alignment across the country in terms of food safety laws. In terms of the purpose of the bill as well we are here to ensure that New Zealanders can go on and do what they have always done. I think as well we are also here—and I want to acknowledge the select committee and its patience on this issue—because we had a major food safety incident last year. I think what that incident outlined for us was one the importance of food safety to New Zealand and our economy and secondly the need to ensure that we not only get our primary legislation right but also do whatever we can to reduce complexity in some of those tertiary instruments. I think this is a great bill. It is going to be great for New Zealand. I want to acknowledge again although we may have a few differences in terms of some of the Supplementary Order Papers the incredible support that has happened across the Committee to make this bill better. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we continue to debate the Food Bill. I would just like to say first off following on from the Minister for Food Safety that we will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Damien O’Connor and also Supplementary Order Paper 449 in the name of Steffan Browning which is very similar and complementary. In this part of our deliberations I want to focus on some of the perhaps less glamorous aspects of the bill. In any piece of legislation there will be much that is mundane yet none the less necessary. Not every subclause or annotated paragraph will set the world on fire but each of them provides an essential cog in the machinery of law. With that in mind the first thing I want to look at is Part 1 clause 8 which relates to the meaning of food.To an independent observer this may appear to be a somewhat unnecessary consideration. The average citizen I might posit could perhaps be forgiven for presuming that the definition of “food” was a fairly straightforward affair: if you eat something it is food. Not so in the eyes of the law. The proof of that particular pudding is in Part 1 clause 8 “Meaning of food”. In this bill clause 8(1) states: “unless the context otherwise requires food—(a) means anything that is used capable of being used or represented as being for use for human consumption (whether raw prepared or partly prepared); and (b) includes—(i) seeds plants or plant material intended for human consumption including seeds that are intended to be sprouted and consumed as sprouts but not other seeds plants or plant material intended for planting;”.So a potato is food but a seed spud is not. What is the difference between a spud and a seed spud one might ask. Well a seed spud is a spud that has gone to seed. It may have been grown especially with that purpose in mind. As such it could rightly be classified as not being intended for human consumption. Equally it may be an ordinary spud originally intended for eating but that has somehow been overlooked—it may have languished at the bottom of the bag at the back of the pantry alone and forlorn in the dark until it has thrown out a few of those pale spindly shoots by which the life force of the potato plant attempts to replicate itself. At that time the intention for it to become the subject of human consumption is extinguished. Under the definition in the law as it is enshrined in this bill it is therefore no longer food. That is not to say that such a spudcan be presumed to now be intended for planting. Such an accidental seed spud may well find itself in the charge and care of a non-gardener and it may very well come to end its days in the compost bin or worse. But that is of no matter. The important point is that it is no longer food in a legal sense. This is an important distinction and one that has to be made. I would venture to suggest to the House that this bill makes that distinction rather well.Food is also defined under clause 8(1)(b) as “(ii) live animals intended for human consumption at the place of purchase; and (iii) live animals intended for human consumption that are sold in retail premises;”. I presume this refers primarily to such comestibles as lobster or perhaps live shellfish but equally it could conceivably include live chickens purchased for later preparation. Again this is an important consideration because if the bill did not contain a specific reference to the intention for the live animal to be for human consumption every pet shop in the country might find itself in a very unenviable position. Once again we see the tiny cogs of the great machine performing their sterling service mostly unseen and presumably underappreciated but none the less completely necessary.The bill also provides under the definition of the meaning of food “(iv) any ingredient or other constituent of any food or drink whether that ingredient or other constituent is consumed or represented for consumption on its own by humans or is used in the preparation of or mixed with or added to any food or drink; and (v) anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink; and (vi) chewing gum and any ingredient of chewing gum and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to chewing gum;”. So chewing gum is food. This may come as something of a surprise to members. It has come to pass that generations of children were right all along and their parents were wrong.Chewing gum is food because Parliament by its sovereign power and authority has decreed that it be so. Tobacco however is not food and rightly so. I think most members if not all would agree that tobacco is not food—at least not food for humans. This includes chewing tobacco. Unlike chewing gum chewing tobacco may not lawfully be food. It is not the act of chewing therefore that makes it food or even the non-swallowing of the substance in question. Neither chewing gum nor chewing tobacco are intended to be ingested which may in itself seem somewhat incongruous in terms of the ordinary person’s perception of what food may be given its intended purpose. Rather it is the letter of the law that determines the relative foodness or non-foodness of any particular substance.In closing then I will note that the bill also provides in clause 8(1)(b)(vii) that food is “anything that is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council made under section 355 to be food for the purposes of this Act;” and thus chewing gum may be food but chewing tobacco may not so must it be. These are splendid definitions and we support them entirely as we support this bill. Thank you.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am pleased to be able to speak in the Committee of the whole House stage of the Food Bill. Part 1 is pretty broad and I think we need to visit a few aspects of it. I will just reflect on the broad level of agreement that has been arrived at in terms of this bill across Parliament. But in saying that that does not mean that the Green Party is happy with all aspects of the bill—not just this issue of country-of-origin labelling but other aspects as well. But we think there has been a reasonable move to accept some of our concerns and to address them. In time I would like to see further change to this bill. I referred to it last night that we actually do need a truly independent New Zealand Food Safety Authority—not just the one that we did have but something much more genuinely independent. This bill goes a long way and it has been mentioned about the new part in the purpose clause inserted by newclause 4 (ba) which is that the legislation will help “maintain confidence in New Zealand’s food safety regime;”. That is all about external trade and that is obviously important with agriculture being 54 percent of our export value. It is absolutely critical.However New Zealanders are being fed some very very poor food. This bill could deal with that but will not necessarily. The bill is full of mays and possibilities—the Minister may do this or the Ministry for Primary Industries may do that. But what we actually need is some serious compliance. We need to be looking at what is in our food who is measuring it and how they are measuring it. I have been involved in this issue for many years—more than a decade—looking at issues around pesticides in food genetically modified foods and how they are coming into the country and antibiotic resistance and that. The bill can address them all but so could the Food Act and successive Governments have failed New Zealanders in the application of legislation and regulation to ensure the best food is going to them their children and in fact their unborn children as well. So I am looking forward to seeing very good and appropriate application to ensure that this bill works well once it is passed.There has been a fair bit of talk on country-of-origin labelling and I am sure we are going to address that several more times. I was just taking some notes when the Minister for Food Safety was talking. We have had some of these discussions before. I do not think it is right that we rely on the joint partnership Minister. I have just been reflecting on it a little bit over the last hour or so. The joint partnership with Australia has some sense. We are a small country Australia is a much bigger country so let us work together on food standards. But what we are getting from them and what the Minister is unfortunately being advised about are not necessarily good outcomes for New Zealanders. I know that through and through on genetic engineering. I am not sure when I will do a speech on that through the course of what we are doing now but I will.Ian McKelvie: Oh dear!STEFFAN BROWNING: And Ian McKelvie is waiting for that. I promise you Ian I will give it to you.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the member’s full name and title.STEFFAN BROWNING: OK—Ian McKelvie I look forward to it. I aim to have that very very much clarified—not his name but the issues around genetic modification and how the Minister almost has her arm being held up her back to rubber-stamp it because of the advice she has been given and these trade imperatives that seem to overrule food safety for New Zealand consumers.Country-of-origin labelling comes into that turf to a degree too and people want that. People want country-of-origin labelling for a range of reasons. Some of them are for food safety and their assumptions and ideas around the food safety that is achieved in various countries. But others will be for a range of reasons about how that food is produced. Is it produced by a big agrichemical company? It could be because a big rainforest has been slashed down and they do not want to get food that was produced in that sort of area. It could even be the parochial thing and that they want to look after New Zealand producers and make sure that their food is consumed first.Reflecting on the pork industry 45 percent of pork—and I think it is more than that now—consumed in New Zealand comes from overseas. But the voluntary scheme that the Minister has referred to is not dealing with that. What pork does anyone in this Chamber any member anyone who works in these buildings or anyone in our communities see that is labelled with its country of origin saying that it comes from Canada or maybe China or Australia or countries in fact that even have diseases which we should not be importing from? There are a number of consumers who would say they do not want to contribute to that but who do not get the choice because as it iscountry-of-origin labelling is voluntary. There is nothing mandatory. What is the backstop to that? There is no enforcement because it is voluntary. The only thing is that if a consumer can be absolutely sure that something is misrepresented then they can go to the Commerce Commission through one of the trade Acts.We do need mandatory country-of-origin labelling. I agree that the stuff through the trans-Tasman joint partnership stuff is maybe not the clearest or the best method or form of that country-of-origin labelling. The reason for that—and I agree with the Minister—is the level of complexity. That is why I think Supplementary Order Paper 449 in my name is slightly superior to Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Damien O’Connor because that one is relying on that system. This has got three parts to it. Firstly if it is imported you actually label it with the country that it comes from. But then it has got this word “or”: or if you put a little bit of local stuff in there you say “local and imported goods” and it tells you nothing at that point. Or it goes on again and you get a mix of imported products but I might want to know the difference between Canada and Argentina for a range of reasons and perceptions. It is a bit messy that way. So the Supplementary Order Paper I have put up is talking about single ingredients and very very clear country-of-origin labelling there.My Supplementary Order Paper goes further to also suggest a change in clause 4(e) to require regular monitoring and enforcement of food labelling requirements. There is a very good reason for that. The food labelling requirements that we have now—and GE is the one that I know so well—are not being enforced. The bill does have—and discussions with the Minister support this—some provisions that would suggest that there is a certain liability on the regulators to do that job. Maybe my Supplementary Order Paper is not needed. We certainly see it as pretty needed because that labelling that I was just talking about has not been enforced or even monitored since 2003. We are talking about 11 years since a certain labelling requirement which is legally applicable has even been monitored and enforced. Even if the Hon Damien O’Connor’s Supplementary Order Paper or my Supplementary Order Paper were to be agreed to—and I would really like the Minister to reconsider—DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is good to be able to stand and speak on the Food Bill. It is a hefty tome of a bill and I guess that speaks to the time that it took to go through the Primary Production Committee and the 570-odd submissions that were presented to the committee in order to cover it. This bill was introduced on 26 May 2010. It was more than 2 years in 2013 until it came back here and now we are still going through it in the Committee stage. We support this bill. Labour believes this is a step forward and that it clarifies considerably the issues around food safety. As the Minister for Food Safety points out and we completely agree with her New Zealand should have the highest standards of food safety because our economy depends on it. The scare around botulism last year emphasised that a scare around that sort of issue can have an enormous impact on our ability to export and on the way that we are perceived across the world.This bill I think successfully balances the need for safety on the one hand with the need to preserve at the same time our way life. We talked about the sausage sizzle and the earlier possible requirement in the bill for those things to be heavily regulated and effectively regulated out of existence. I do not know how much campylobacter is spread through sausage sizzles but I like the idea on a Saturday morning when I am going around the sports teams in my electorate of picking up a breakfast snack from one of the charities that are around there in order to help them out. That is part of our way of life. So the fact that that has been balanced with the need for safety in our food is I think a step forward. The fact that small businesses will be able to save money on this in terms of their compliance costs is also a step forward.When we look at the Food Bill what it effectively does is to look more at the risk of what might happen in terms of handling food rather than at the actual businesses themselves that are affected. It looks at risk in terms of about five different areas. I just want to run through these very quickly because they are in and around the purpose of the bill. They are the food control plans around the control of food; national programmes to be implemented for medium and low-risk food handling; food handler guidance so those companies and others who will be handling food will be able to obtain guidance; monitoring obviously of those programmes which is absolutely necessary; and also a much clearer requirement set out for the issue around food imports. Obviously within that when you have got monitoring you are also going to have penalties and the penalties are updated as well as part of this lengthy tome. All in all this has been a good piece of work which has been done cooperatively across the select committee with good input from officials from what I understand although I was not serving on the committee and we have come up with a good piece of legislation that we are happy to support.But I want to come to the point that Damien O’Connor and Steffan Browning were just mentioning before which is the point about country of origin labelling. The Minister in the chair Nikki Kaye spoke to this and I have to say that her reply or response to this was a bit unconvincing. She said that we do not actually need this because 70 percent of our single-ingredient foods are already being looked after voluntarily. The issue is not really about the 70 percent that are being done so voluntarily; the issue is about the 30 percent of those foods that are not being looked at and their country of origin not being submitted because those are the ones that we have to worry about.I give as an example walking into your local fish shop. When I walk into our local fish shop my assumption up until fairly recently was that the fish in that shop were largely caught or harvested in New Zealand. I know that there are going to be certain standards. Actually that is a long way from the truth. It is a long way from the truth. The cheaper pieces of fish are actually sourced from places like Viet Nam where the fish are grown in ponds and fed hormones and a whole lot of other artificial products in order to grow them. They are brought to New Zealand and they are sold alongside New Zealand fish. I would like to see “Fish grown in Vietnam” clearly on the fish that we see in our fish shop but we are not seeing that because if you did that probably nobody would buy it. They would go for the New Zealand fish. The voluntary code is simply not working in the way that I believe—and New Zealanders have a right to believe—that it should.Then the Minister said that we can do it in another way rather than through this piece of legislation. As this is a comprehensive examination and regulation of our food industry in New Zealand why would you not put that into something like this bill in the form of a very simple Supplementary Order Paper rather than try to do it through some other means? On the one hand the Minister is saying that we do not need labelling because 70 percent of it is already done although the 30 percent that is not done is actually a real worry. On the other hand she said that if we do need it to be done—well does it need to be done or not—we can do it in some other way rather than this way. So the argument is very unconvincing. It is very unconvincing and I believe that what we should be doing is moving through with these Supplementary Order Papers and getting them through Parliament. What we need is for Peter Dunne to sign off on them and we can actually do that—and I would hope that he will actually be coming to the Committee later on to be able to help with that—so that we are able to have country of origin labelling that is clear and well set out for New Zealanders to see where their food is coming from.It is very simple. I believe we have a right to that and a right to enable that to happen. Although we have controversy elsewhere and the Minister says they are looking into country of origin food labelling in Australia let me just show you this chart here. People on television or anybody else might not be able to see this but this long column down here represents the list of countries that do have country of origin labelling. They include all of the OECD countries that we trade with. This small group here is the countries that do not have country of origin labelling. There are about a dozen of them. We are in the company of Guatemala Colombia Honduras Philippines and Viet Nam. Good old New Zealand is with them. Well if we are a food-exporting nation and we take food quality seriously then we should be in the other column. We should not be on this side of the ledger where countries are looking to us and asking why New Zealand cannot regulate its food industry in the same way that they can. So if these counties can do it why can we not do it?The Minister has been completely unconvincing in her argument that somehow it is not necessary because 70 percent of it is already done. Of course in relation to the 30 percent that is not done they are not doing it for the reason that it would discourage people from buying their products. Of course that is the case. So as a result of that for 30 percent of the products that we are buying in our shops nobody has any idea where they come from or what is actually inside them either. That is a whole other issue that I will bring up another day. I believe that although this is a good piece of legislation the country of origin labelling is a serious omission from what is otherwise a very good piece of legislation that could have actually advanced us up the chart and put us on the on the right side of the ledger with all the other countries in the OECD rather than languishing alongside Colombia Honduras and Viet Nam.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 449 in the name of Steffan Browning to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Risk-based measuresThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to Part 2. This is debate on clauses 19 to 96 and schedules 1 to 4.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Part 2 of the Food Bill refers to risk-based measures. I guess in summary it is appropriate standards for appropriate risk—the volume and type of food where the foods are sold and what kind of system I guess the company in the most part can afford to run. I have to say that these things have been kicked around for some time by select committees and by the Minister for Food Safety and I think we have got the balance about right.But what I am concerned about is the Minister’s statement earlier on about the savings that this bill would create for the industry. The Government has been very good at working on costs but not on value. This is a piece of legislation that affects arguably the single biggest part of our income generation across the economy both at the primary level in terms of animal production and food and also at the secondary and tertiary level—that is manufacturing and then the sale at retail. So it is a very important piece of legislation.The cost savings which the Minister claims are around $40 million may be there. In my view they are a lesser part of our consideration than the value that we may assist to create for the food industry and for the primary sector. So I would like to think that we are assisting in the establishment of a system of integrity—a robust system of integrity—that allows anyone producing primary produce or food or whatever in this country to get out there and sell with confidence that at every part of the supply chain we have avoided any possible contamination we have not allowed an infiltration by anyone or anything and we have got food that is true to label—in spite of us not having country-of-origin labelling—and that what is said on the pack will indeed be what the consumer buys and the person eats and consumes. That is very very important. So the risk-based measures the systems put in place to work through every part of possible systems breakdown or contamination are really really important.There have been concerns of course about over-regulation. The Primary Production Committee has moved on a couple of occasions—with the assistance of the Minister who has clarified a few things—to hopefully not over-regulate and perhaps that is where the Minister is pointing to the possible savings. The reality is that most of the laws that we pass in this House are for the people who are potentially going to break them not for the vast majority of people who understand the wisdom of running a system that delivers safe food.There will always be people who want to cut corners. There will always be people who want to mislabel or to put in horsemeat when beef is what the food is labelled as. There are numerous examples across the world of inappropriate labelling—effectively fraudulent operations—to the point where in the UK now and in the European Union there are major inquiries around the counterfeiting of food. Gangs are moving from drugs to food. So let us not underestimate the risks that we are talking about here.Although the Minister may be focused on reducing costs we in the Opposition are more focused on having a robust piece of legislation that actually prevents this kind of counterfeiting and fraudulent behaviour. So that is the approach that we have taken to this. We have not looked at each and every clause through Part 2 of the bill and said: “Well this is going to save a bit for people here and there.” and in fact at the same time we are doing this in the meat industry for example the Minister is allowing the dumbing down and the deregulation of meat inspection. So on the one hand we are hopefully moving to a comprehensive piece of legislation that has appropriate risk-based measures in it but on the other hand the Government has been moving in the wrong direction.Although it is not a specific part of this what happens in the slaughterhouse and what happens at every part of food manufacture will have to be identified in the food control plans that are currently covered by this area. Also of course in Part 2 we have how we develop the food control plans how we oversee them how we register them what are the national programmes and how we deal with I guess the monitoring of course which is really really important.Can I go back to the point I raised in relation to Part 1 that an independent food safety authority which this Government got rid of is going to be an essential component to any robust system as we move forward. Just as the Chinese were confused when it came to the botulism debacle about whom they should speak to and whether we had a food safety authority—in fact going back to the meat issue they demanded certification from the Food Safety Authority the old agency because they did not trust the Ministry for Primary Industries.The point is that the implementation the oversight and the enforcement of all these risk-based measures should be carried out under the control of an independent food safety authority. We in Government will reinstate that independent agency. There are numerous examples now of the Ministry for Primary Industries not having the appropriate focus or expertise—with all due respect to its officials—or independence to focus solely on food safety. It is compromised by considerations of trade of biosecurity in some instances in other areas of responsibility across the Ministry for Primary Industries. If we are to have the risk-based measures upheld adjusted where necessary and implemented we need a separate food safety authority.Without getting into the details—the Minister might want to go through the details; there are quite a few in here. I do not think anyone in the gallery would want me to read through these things. In principle we believe it is appropriate to have risk-based measures at the level needed to ensure food safety but not at a level that undermines the ability for food producers to innovate to create and to get out and deliver new products to the market place.We have got to get the right balance. In the select committee we hope we have. But without an independent food safety authority we cannot guarantee that all our good work here is going to be carried through and will deliver an absolute assurance of food safety for our consumers. So that is something we have to continue to work on.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Part 2 of the Food Bill with the risk-based approach is the piece of the bill that we very much support. That is the part of the modernisation that was envisaged back something like 11 years ago when this bill was first raised. Of course when the bill first came there were some parts in it that looked particularly Draconian and that seriously concerned a lot of people. A lot of small producers thought they would automatically be going out of business when this bill was implemented and that they would have to go into levels of bureaucracy I will call it that currently they did not and they could see lots and lots of expenses coming from that. There are still concerns about that. There are concerns for some processorsparticularly—rather than say fruit and vegetable producers but more the people processing cheeses and the like. We had very good submissions on that from people who are anxious that their costs will come down as the Minister for Food Safety has outlined and they will be able to carry on their business in a very good way.One of the changes though that was put through that we are very happy about is the inclusion of a good Samaritan clause to allow people to keep donating food to those in need. There are organisations—and there is a great one in Wellington here called Kaibosh which was a submitter—that go around and pick up food that at the end of the day a supermarket café or restaurant will not be running through to the next day but that food is still healthy or certainly viable and safe food. I am not sure about healthy as a lot of them might be sweet treats. Those organisations are able through this clause to carry on with that without having to go into some sort of compliance level that would prevent them doing that. So that is fantastic.Swapping food over the fence was another area that really really concerned people. You could read into the bill the way it was that that might actually be a transaction. It could be under bartering and of course barter according to the Inland Revenue Department is a sale and it should be because we can barter some pretty big things that would be effectively avoiding tax and the like. That was teased out and there was a solution to that. People in the community—through their families over the fence down the road and at the community gardens—could do that swapping. Seeds as was outlined earlier might get caught up in it. That was sorted out.What we will be needing now is some very good work with the Minister around the point of exemptions from these different tiers of approaches to risk and she has agreed to meet to try to do that. I think the tiers are great and that the different schedules we will get into later reflect those tiers of risk. However the smallest producers do not need to be incorporated into that. I did suggest through the select committee process that for the smallest ones there should be an affidavit system and maybe through the regulation we can still do that. For the smallest ones actually sign an affidavit to say that they do understand food safety issues and they know about washing their hands and making sure certain contaminants do not go near the food and potentially under a certain level of production they will not have to go into a situation where they would say “Blow it. I’m out of here. I’m not going to carry on this business.” We would be all the poorer if they did not. To have those extra safeguards put into the bill allows for the scale of the enterprise—so the Fonterras the peanut butter manufacturers or whatever—to be treated differently from somebody growing a few lettuces or picking a few apricots and wanting to sell but not being able to afford the compliance costs.There will be ways of achieving that. It could go the other way and it will depend on the people implementing it. A lot of the fears were driven by video clips and the like of activities in the US where food safety officers were going into businesses in a fairly heavy-handed way and appeared to be driving some people out of business. So it is I think an achievement that we all did come to common agreement. Some of us actually visited some of the producers at their homes or at their points of business and I know that members from both sides of the Committee met one of the cheese makers and saw what the real situation was for them.Ian McKelvie: What’s the cow’s name Steffan?STEFFAN BROWNING: Pardon?Ian McKelvie: What’s the cow’s name?STEFFAN BROWNING: Well one of them will be called Daisy would it not? I am not sure. But this was someone with just three or four cows who was making a handcrafted cheese. Seriously think of their production and the total turnover of $20000 and yet they end up with compliance fees of thousands of dollars. So clearlythat was not about $20000 of profit; that was turnover. So it was absolutely critical. Some of that is not caught up in the Food Bill because it is under the animal products regimes too. So there is some crossover there that I know the Minister and all sides of the Committee will want to sort out in time to make sure there is good harmony and that we can make some good progress.There are other parts of the bill that I would like to speak to particularly and I hopefully will not be cut short because I had more to debate on Part 1. I am hoping that when we get into some other parts that we will have the debate in full rather than it being cut short because I do have something I need to outline around genetic engineering which does not quite fit with this risk-management part that is around the production of food in New Zealand. I am pleased to say that no one is legally able to produce food that is genetically engineered in New Zealand at this time. So it does not actually need to be outlined in the risk-management strata that are in Part 2. The Greens are happy to support this aspect of the bill.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak on Part 2 of the Food Bill. This is really the guts some of the core provisions in terms of the new risk management approach under the Food Bill. We know what those measures are. As the Minister for Food Safety explained earlier there is a sliding scale of measures that food businesses will have to comply with based on whether they are high risk and the types of foods they produce. At its most fundamental level there are the food control plans of which there are two types. There is the template plan which I am sure will be very helpful for those particular industries that fall within that category right through to individualised plans. Then it cascades through to other measures such as the national programmes and monitor programmes and a lot of that detail will be implemented by way of regulations once the Act has come into force.But I want to focus on the most very basic level. This is not even about just food businesses. It is around the food handler guidance that is also promoted through this legislation. This piece of legislation impacts on all food businesses but it also applies especially to Māori and maraes. I know that maraes are the heartbeat of the hapū of the particular community or hapū or whānau that they represent. They are the actual engine room of the marae complex. It is not actually the big house. It is not actually the whare tūpuna. The actual engine room of the marae is the wharekai the dining room because from that wharekai emanate all of the orders that go around to all the different parts of the marae including the big house. So when kai is served those orders go out and they have to listen to the cooks in the kitchen.In terms of the way that the marae operates this bill does have potential implications because a lot of maraes around the country do have aspirations to trade in food. They do have aspirations to perhaps set up cafés or restaurants—Shane Ardern: This bill will help them. This will help them.RINO TIRIKATENE: —and this bill definitely will help. At its most basic level there is the Te Kai Manawa Ora programme which has been promoted by the former Food Safety Authority. It is a very sensible programme that provides good guidance to marae in terms of proper food handling. With a lot of it especially when you talk to your old aunties they will get quite offended if you tell them what food handling standards or food safety standards are. They have been doing it mai rā nō as we say—for a long long time. But it is good that these measures are being promoted to Māori and that there is the pathway that they can follow to indeed become businesses that trade in food and that comply with the relevant food control plan.This is a good part. This is the guts of the legislation. It is about risk management as opposed to as I mentioned earlier the old hygiene regulations which were more worried about the fixtures and the fittings and what was on the walls and what was onthe floors and what was up in the air ducts. All of those are basically irrelevant with the passing of this legislation because everything will be based around the whole process of the handling of the kai the food—right through its production to the end product and ultimately the consumer.As I mentioned the wharekai is the engine room of the marae. As Māori we know that the mana of the hapū of the whānau is very much determined by the quality of the food and of the feast that is put on for the guests. It is very exciting for our kuias and our ringaweras around the motu. There are hundreds of marae. We know that there are many food businesses but equally there are hundreds of marae around the country with their caterers in the kitchen that will be covered within the ambit of this legislation. We know how important it is because the mana of the marae is based on the quality of the kai and the worst thing that could happen to any marae would be if the manuhiri got crook after eating the hākari. Unfortunately I have been the victim of such an occurrence but I will not name the marae. I will not name anywhere even close to where it is—the geographic proximity. But I can tell you that it was not pleasant for me and for many other whānau who attended that particular hui.That is the very reason why we need to have this legislation in place. We need to have this legislation which provides the full gambit of all food suppliers food businesses and food purveyors right across the country from all levels working under a much more user-friendly food safety risk management - based framework. That applies as I have mentioned right from the marae wharekai through to the coffee cart through to the cottage cheese-maker and right through to the big industrial export processor.I did want to touch on the fact that the food sector in general is critically important to the economy of our country. I cannot stress that enough. Māori in particular are major stakeholders in the food production sectors of our country. We need to look only at the agribusiness sector sheep and beef dairy production seafood fisheries aquaculture horticulture viticulture—you name it; Māori are major players. There are many many successful industry-leading organisations around the country that are doing wonderful things in terms of producing food employing people in the regions and earning good foreign exchange dollars through the exports of their fine produce. So it is great that this legislation can be in place so that they have a much more user-friendly regime to be able to work under. Ultimately that will see the increase in export returns and the increase in the standard of living that we want across all of the country.It is vitally important for Māori but we know that there are many many hundreds if not thousands of food premises and food businesses and there are many many people who rely on the food industry for employment. Likewise it is significant that half of our export returns as a country come from food production and food exports. So this is a very very significant piece of legislation. It has taken a long time to get to this point but as I mentioned yesterday good things take time as the Mainland cheese ad said. But it is true that this is a very very good measure in Part 2. Having the sliding scale and the range of different plans means that businesses will have certainty that they know they operate under or a means by which that can be determined. That is really the central aspect to the risk management approach. I commend Part 2. Kia ora.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Food imported for purpose of saleRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): We are now moving on to Part 3 of this very finely drafted bill the Food Bill which has had many years of input from officials from Governments both on this side of the Chamber and the other side of the Chamber—some 10 years in the making—and with some very good contributions made at the Primary Production Committee to where we are today. We are on to Part 3 which concerns food imported for the purpose of sale and as we have mentioned in other parts it is not only the food that we produce from the bounty of our land and our sea but also the imported food ingredients that form a vital part of our food industry and our food production.I am just scanning my eye over Part 3 and I see here that at the end of Part 3 there are provisions relating to the Joint Border Management System something that is very dear to the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries at the moment. It is a very comprehensive computer system which will ultimately make ease of reporting and recording and facilitating the import and export of goods across the border. It is a major IT system roll-out and means that the businesses concerned have a single registration point whereby they can register and have a lot more ease of processing. Reporting paperwork is all eliminated through a computer-based system. Businesses can work through this Joint Border Management System and the key element to that is the Trade Single Window.Clauses 122A and 122B feed into the Joint Border Management System. Clause 122A states: “Border information supplied using JBMS must be supplied in an approved form and manner”. Clause 122B states: “Duty to use JBMS to supply border information”. So it is good that this legislation aligns with that significant piece of information technology system which is critical. We can have all the food production in this country that we want—and importation is really important—but it has to cross our borders whether inbound or outbound and we need to have ease of transacting of business for those companies that are involved so it ultimately reduces the red tape.The Joint Border Management System is a key part of that as mentioned in this Part 3. We know that there are issues around the implementation of that system. We are unsure as to whether an evaluation has taken place. The system has cost in excess of $90 million and we are still unsure about the effectiveness of that system and whether all aspects around the functionality of that system have been delivered by the IT contractor concerned. I do not mean to be straying off from this bill but the Joint Border Management System is a central piece of the joint system between the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service. It is contained within this Part 3 and therefore I did feel obliged that I should make those few remarks around that system. But this bill does align with the IT systems.It is good that there is now a coordination between food businesses and the importers that they will be dealing with and the facilitation of the products that they will be using in their production of their end goods which will ultimately be ending up in the pukusof us Kiwi consumers and also our customers in international markets around the world. As I mentioned our food sector is the most important economic sector in terms of the value that it creates for our country.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): As I said before on the Food Bill I would like to speak on the GE food process because absolutely all genetically engineered food in New Zealand is imported. We do not grow any—and that is a very good position—and there is a need for enforcement and independent advice. First of all if an applicant generally a big agrichemical company like Monsanto Dow or Dupont wants to introduce something into the food chain here the authority is Food Standards Australia New Zealand and there are variants around that through our joint partnership arrangement. If the company wants to do that it applies to Food Standards Australia New Zealand say and then a notification is sent out after Food Standards Australia New Zealand has done an administrative assessment. It prepares what it says is a safety and nutrition assessment but I can assure you that it has very very limited information when it does that and it bases it on some very crude assumptions.Food Standards Australia New Zealand publishes that assessment report for public consultation. It includes whatever safety and other data is provided. It is fairly complex in the technicalities but very very low on the genuine safety appraisals. Then the public are invited to make submissions on that assessment. That is it. The public of New Zealand through this process get one chance of submitting on an issue that is dear to their food health and safety. There is just the one chance. The Ministry for Primary Industries makes submissions to Food Standards Australia New Zealand and it also gets what it calls an independent review by the National Institute of Environmental Science and Research on available information only. Then Food Standards Australia New Zealand considers the public submissions and puts out an approval report. That is signed off by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand board.Then it comes down to the next part the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. That is where our current Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye is as were other food safety Ministers in the past. There was another name for this part but it is now called the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. The forum gets an opportunity at that point to either accept or seek a review of what Food Standards Australia New Zealand has put before it. Let me just spell out that there are 10 Ministers on that forum. Our Minister our New Zealand Minister for Food Safety is one of the 10 because Australia has got various federal—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Part 3 of this bill is a very small part and this member is not addressing his comments to any aspect of Part 3.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well I have the bill in front of me and I am looking at clause 122A which talks about border information. I have sought some advice but I just ask the member in his comments on Part 3 to be more succinct.STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you Mr Chair. Part 3 is all about imported food. It is not about any domestically arranged food; it is all about imported food. Ministers can accept it or seek a review and they have done that a couple of times. The food is ultimately always accepted. It has never not been ultimately accepted. It gets gazetted in Australia then it goes to the Ministry for Primary Industries for an amendment and then it goes through and gets gazetted into New Zealand law. It gets put into the New Zealand food chain if it is available. So in Part 3 we are talking about who can actually import food how they are registered how they will comply and how they can be deregistered. Only certain people can do that. It is good that we are going to have a better overview on food that is imported but I do want to go through that process on how the decisions are made for that particular food on how that process goes.I just mentioned that New Zealanders and Australians for that matter have only one possibility. I do want to give an analogy on this. I know this is Part 3 but I need to show where that process is not fair.Tim Macindoe: Which clause is the member referring to?STEFFAN BROWNING: I will open it up again for you. I question the questioner as to what the concern is on having this spelt out. It needs to be spelt out. We have got the Food Bill in front of us.Tim Macindoe: What’s the relevant section?STEFFAN BROWNING: It is about importers. I am saying that this is a totally imported food. New Zealanders have only one opportunity to submit on this imported food. Then you ask: “Can they actually appeal it? Can they complain about it?”. The only possibility is to complain to our Regulations Review Committee to say that this should not have been imported. It should not have been approved. But the Regulations Review Committee when it has gone through a comprehensive look at it has said: “No we cannot uphold the complaint because Food Standards Australia New Zealand has ticked all the boxes.” At that point all a New Zealander an organisation or anyone can do is go to the High Court for a judicial review and yet this stuff is not fit for purpose because it has not been appraised properly or independently.Will we administer this bill—and this might be a way that the Minister can do it—by saying that these importers cannot import this food? You may feel compelled to gazette it and tick it through as suitable but I think you need to find a way of stopping it coming into the food chain. There is more on that and I will do that in Part 5 which may be the better part to finish this in. I will not be able to complete it in this section. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Part 3 of the Food Bill as speakers have said previously relates to food imported for the purpose of sale. On reading through all the clauses here they basically refer to administration and administrative requirements. Not much of it actually refers to the food itself. It perhaps is part of the design but given the absence of country-of-origin labelling the assumption will be that when the food comes into the country it is safe. Nothing in Part 3 specifies that clearly. The person importing the food can be suspended or have their licence suspended if the food imported by the importer may pose a risk to human life or public health or there has been serious failure of the operations or there have been other matters that cast doubt on the safety and suitability of the food. That is in clause 113(1)(a) and (b). That is almost the sole reference to the food itself. The rest of the provisions here relate to the registration of individuals and what they must do the chief executive’s requirements around that their ability to refuse to register etc. Let us come back to the heart of the matter and that is imported food. Is it safe? We as a country export food and all the growers all the people involved have to meet very high standards to export food from this country. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for all other countries importing food from us or exporting food to us so we are reliant on systems. We have some authority within our own country but have very little authority in other countries to ensure that their systems are robust. There are big issues around biosecurity none of which are referenced in this particular part of the Food Bill. The Ministers may say that that is not necessary. I however think that it is and while the committee has kicked these things around there are still questions. I do not think any piece of legislation is perfect. We are learning every single day in this area of trade and its importance to us. We import things like pork from Canada where the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome is endemic. There is a real risk of biosecurity not direct food safety as such but it certainly does affect or has the potential to affect our food systems in this country because the syndrome leads to ill-health in pigs andthat inevitably leads to at times the slaughter of animals that are not appropriate for human consumption. When importing pork from Canada we have to trust their system to deliver us pork from healthy pigs. That is an issue of trust and one that is not always delivered on I have to say from other countries. Garlic for example—we import garlic believe it or not bizarre as it is. An onion fly was found in a garlic clove in a house in Nelson. It is a real pest for this country. Obviously it has come in in larvae form and was part of a biosecurity risk but it did question the systems of delivering to us as an importing country safe healthy and certified food. It was supposed to be certified as clear of all biosecurity risks just as it would have to be certified as healthy food. If there is a systems failure for one thing there can be systems failures for other things. We import a huge amount of meat into this country—a lot of it through Progressive Enterprises the Australian supermarket chain I have to say; Countdown and the like. They are importing meat out of Australia. We assume that it is safe meat although the Australians have been known before to export kangaroo meat as beef. Although I do not want to challenge the Australians directly there are other countries exporting food to us and I think we need to double-check their systems. The ability in Part 3 of the bill for the director-general to cease registration of any importing body company or individual is essential. The chief executive may do that. But I hope that the powers that we have offered through this part of the bill are extensive enough to say to someone—where for example the garlic imported into this country delivered a real biosecurity risk—that that allows us to go back to that importer and to cease imports immediately until the importer can prove that their systems are robust. I have to say that we have as the Opposition challenged the Minister to halt imports where we have identified biosecurity risks. The Government has been reluctant to do that. They say: “Oh no. Things are OK. We don’t want to upset our trade people and our negotiations.” Well sometimes we are going to have to harden up. Sometimes we are going to have to make a call and suspend an importer’s licence immediately if we think there is a biosecurity risk or in this case here a food safety risk. We have been reluctant to do that as a country. We have been reluctant and I think we have to take a tougher stance in this area. As I say country-of-origin labelling would better enable consumers to identify that food that is imported and in their minds might carry a higher risk than the food that is produced in New Zealand which we believe should be of lower risk particularly in the area of food safety. We pride ourselves in our systems but the Government is not prepared to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We are speaking on Part 3 of the Food Bill in relation to food imported for the purpose of sale. This I guess refers to the growing amount of food that we are importing into this country which many Kiwis think is quite bizarre really given that we produce some of the finest and safest food in the world. But we do have our borders open so that we can then reciprocate and export our food to those countries. So making sure that we have a good system in place is important. The Primary Production Committee has looked at all the issues here and has intended through its changes and improvements I guess to have a fair system that allows people to bring in food. But the specific references here are to systems that we hope are robust and that we trust are being met and implemented when people put up their plan to import food. We want their assurances that it will be safe food and ultimately that there is a check in the country of origin that the food has indeed been produced in a safe way.I made reference to the importation of particular products like pork for example out of Canada where the Government has been in a legal battle for some time with the Pork Industry Board. It has spent probably close to $1 million trying to defend its right to challenge the changing import health standards that relate primarily to biosecurity but indirectly to the possibility that pork in that country because of disease has been produced from pigs that are not entirely healthy. We have to rely on the systems in Canada to deliver that pork to the border and trust that everything has met the basic requirements. We probably can have some confidence that in a country like Canada that has occurred but there are many other countries from which we import food where I am not sure we could be quite as confident. So these provisions place a duty on the importer to make sure that all the applicable requirements of the Act are met. It allows the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries or in the case of the new Labour Government of the food safety authority that we will form and set up once again to cancel the registration of any importer who does not meet the basic requirements. There are in clause 113 mandatory suspension provisions that relate directly to the food and its risk to human life or public health. But other than that all the other provisions in Part 2 relate to systems and an obligation for the importer to meet those systems.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes77New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes41New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.Part 4 Provisions relating to recognition territorial authorities administration and enforcementHon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Part 4 of the Food Bill relates to the enforcement agencies the territorial local authorities and the other organisations that will be expected to—and obliged to now of course—go out and ensure that the systems we are putting in place here will be met for the benefit of mainly local consumers I guess so that those people buying and selling food around the food markets farmers’ markets and other places can deliver safe food to consumers. We do not want to belittle in any way the importance of this. There was much debate around the requirement for monitoring as we said before the relative risk relating to the provision of food and the sale of it to people.Farmers’ markets are a relatively new evolution in food sales. They are certainly far more significant now than they were when the review of these Acts was first initiated back in the early 2000s under the Hon Annette King. Things like food markets were very low key. Now thankfully they are a far larger part of the whole food supply chain and if we here had our way they would be far greater. We would remove from the two big supermarket chains the absolute and total dominance that they have in the supply of food to Kiwis up and down this country. An interesting aside I must say is that a study out of Otago University said that if people purchased their fruit and vegetables from farmers’ markets rather than buying them from the supermarket chains they would save $2500 a year on average. That is something I would like to crow from therooftops and I am doing that today to promote the farmers’ markets because it is about the only way that we will keep the supermarkets honest.We are now dealing with Part 4 of the bill. Again I guess it goes through a whole lot of technical requirements such as the withdrawal of recognition and the ability of as I say territorial authorities to come in. At the moment of course they have pretty much sole charge of local food outlets in terms of restaurants takeaway bars and all the rest of it. There are changing oversight requirements for them but in the end they will still have to do a lot of the front-line work. But of course it will be checking different requirements that are related to food safety plans and to general provisions laid out in the bill here.The cost recovery provisions were something that the Primary Production Committee did focus on in spite of my comment earlier to the Minister for Food Safety that her focus and that of the National Government might have been just on cost savings which is kind of common. We were looking at taking a balanced approach to cost which could have been incurred on small businesses unnecessarily and I think we have got that balance about right. I mean we do of course go through in fine detail the penalties the fees and the charges—all of those particular provisions here. I am not going to go and quote from the bill because I think it would probably bore people to tears but there are not too many things in here that we have not thought of keeping in mind that the cost of compliance is not over the top.The offences are clearly in keeping with the risk and the threat to public health but we run right through things like offences involving intentionally hindering or obstructing officials. There was of course the ability for people and officials to enter without warrants which is a highly emotional provision in many pieces of legislation. Officials can get a bit overzealous and if they have the ability to rush in and investigate take food off the shelves and take it away without warrant then that is a significant power that needs cautious oversight. I hope—and I do believe—that the committee has got it about right. We did not spend too much time reviewing these particular provisions in the second round and in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister put forward Supplementary Order Paper 278 but we believe that we have got it about right.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 4 of the Food Bill. I would like to pick up on the remarks that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor made regarding the power to enter premises without a search warrant which is conferred by this bill. I understand that the Primary Production Committee considered that and some amendment has been made but I am particularly interested in the provision that involves marae. I know that certain marae around the country are food businesses now. They have commercial activities or cafes or they sell food in their wharekai or across their marae facilities so they clearly fall within the ambit of this bill.I guess it is reassuring to know that the select committee I understand has taken consideration of the fact that it is not appropriate even though there may be good cause for a search warrant to be carried out—there may be some terrible gastric outbreak and to try to find the source of it a marae may come into the mix and it may be important that the authorities act quickly. I think that sensitivity does need to be applied particularly as we know that maraes do perform a lot of cultural practices for Māori whānau and hapū. I am particularly thinking of when a tangi is on. It would be insensitive for authorities to barge on to a marae and barge into a wharekai without a search warrant claiming at that particular time the powers they have under this bill when there are so many other things that are going on with the marae whānau. That is just in the event that there are customary practices tikanga and other things going on around a tangi. So I understand that under this provision they are not allowed to enter onto a marae without a search warrant when those sorts of things are taking place. We do commend that aspect.Otherwise there are wide powers conferred under Part 4 to the many different territorial authorities and all of the different charge officers and the like who will be performing functions under the Act. Obviously the functions have all been well thought through. But one thing that I think will be interesting to see operate in practice is the wide powers that are conferred on the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries. If you go through the bill particularly in this part there are very wide decision-making powers that rest with the chief executive. Those approvals relate to documents facilities and persons and it is quite a large discretion. I would hope that the chief executive would have the right skills and the right advice being given in relation to all of these matters because it is a statutory power that they have and a lot rests on that role. I think back to the former Ministry of Agriculture I guess. The senior role used to be in the hands of the director-general. The director-general role was different from a chief executive - type role. The director-general generally had some sort of agricultural or agribusiness-type background. Obviously a chief executive is quite different. It is modern Government corporatisation-type State sector terminology.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I just want to take a short call. Part 4 is a significant chunk of the Food Bill. It runs for about a third of this massive tome that we have here which the Primary Production Committee has been working on assiduously for nearly 3 years bringing it to a tumultuous and very exciting end as part of this Committee. Part 4 goes through the nuts and bolts in terms of the need for this bill and how it is going to operate in practice. I believe that what it will do and this has been touched on before by the Minister for Food Safety as well is ensure that the compliance charges and complications and some of the ambiguities of the previous legislation are removed. It will enable compliance issues to be simplified so much that it is estimated that about $40 million or $50 million I think will be saved particularly by small businesses which are obviously very concerned about that sort of money. It will make a big difference to their ability to make a profit so that is very good.The second part to what I think this bill does in a sense is that it really identifies the risk and how we are going to deal with that risk. As I said in the beginning at the introduction of the bill I believe that what this bill does is move the emphasis from the premises or the proprietor across to the risk that that particular food poses and then on to how to mitigate and build regulations around that risk. This part in a sense gives the guts and it gives the detail in and around that.My colleague mentioned the ability to search. This is something that is very much on the minds of New Zealanders as the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation was smashed through Parliament ignoring protocols and opportunities to argue it and negotiate it sufficiently. It is also relevant at the moment to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) that is being looked at because that bill will give immigration officials much greater ability to conduct searches knock down doors in the middle of the night etc. which was not previously possible under the existing law.So I would like the Minister for Food Safety to perhaps take a call on this issue and reassure people because I do think that it is at the front of people’s minds that the search procedures as contained in Part 4 of the bill will be sufficient to ensure that we are able to crack down on those operators who are not operating responsibly but also at the same time that we do not step over the bounds of our ability to have basic human rights—that people do not come crashing through our doors and kick over our chip fryer or whatever. So that is I think the balance here and I call on the Minister to give us that assurance and just outline the procedures that are in place to ensure that that balance is maintained.I refer also to what the previous speaker Rino Tirikatene was just talking about in terms of marae. I do think that is quite a specific and in many ways quite a unique situation that exists in New Zealand the way that marae food is prepared and distributed to people but I think the bill deals with this adequately. It comes in on clause 294 on page 274. That gives you the idea actually—we are only halfway though this bill but we are up to page 274. People who are sitting at home watching this must be thinking “We’re really making big progress here!”. It is the day before the Budget and we are thumbing through 400 or 500 pages of the Food Bill. Not that it is not important but it is just building up to that momentous day tomorrow when for the first time this Government will be able to announce a Budget that is in the black. I think that is wonderful. I think that it is wonderful that after five tries the Minister of Finance has finally got a Budget that is going to go into the black. I think that is wonderful and he deserves recognition. The only thing that we do not mention is that every year that you run a deficit you have to borrow. So what we have ended up doing is having a $60 billion debt that somehow—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman I am getting back on to the bill now.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Please do.DAVID SHEARER: There is a way forward. There is a track that is leading inevitably back to this bill. I will take only a couple more minutes and then I would really appreciate the Minister talking on the issue of search and surveillance.But certainly the $60 billion debt is a big debt to overcome. That means that we have to be sure that we are able to export confidently—see I told you I was going to segue back on to this bill again. Being able to confidently export our food and make sure that our food is safe will enable us to give confidence to the export markets that they will be able to buy our products. So it all comes back to the same thing.I do not want to say too much more. Once again Part 4 has been gone through very comprehensively. There are pages and pages and pages here from the previous draft of the bill that have been eliminated and whole new sections have been written in. I think those people out there in the food industry and in both importing and exporting food will have some confidence that the bill has struck the right balance with the exception with the clarification of the search provisions that are contained in Part 4. I would welcome the Minister being able to speak to those.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Speaking on Part 4 of the Food Bill this is one of the core points of the bill. There were the tiers of risk. That was an important part of the bill—isolating and working out which food industries would be considered under what level of bureaucracy. But the other point of the bill was to what I would call homogenise the approach of local territorial authorities throughout the country. There are people whom I know—farmers market producers and the like—who will be selling in one part of a district of a region and they will be operating under one local territorial authority one council then the next day or even later the same day they will be wanting to sell the same stuff in another area and yet were being mucked around and had different standards or hoops to jump through as the different councils used the existing Food Act in different ways to interpret it. They had different fees and of course it was crazy that quite often they had to pay multiple fees to do the same thing even though they were only 20 kilometres away.I am aware that in Christchurch a number of the councils have at last come together in a sort of a hub and allowed producers to work to the one level of inspection and fees. In a way this is what this part—this is my interpretation of what this part of the bill is strongly about. That is one of the reasons the Green Party supports that. It is a very common-sense approach to try to have some commonality throughout the country. But what it also means is that we will still have to watch and make sure—and I say we; thatis the community—that we do not get little tsars of food safety inspectors who still try to make life miserable for people from time to time because it still does come down to personalities and people. But the bill is certainly setting up the way to make sure that there is this sort of more homogenous approach. That is good.All the same there is an issue around fees where the fee structures ideally are within a band and it is not meant to be going over the top. The bill allows for the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries to curtail some councils if they are going over the top and to potentially allow other people to do those inspections and everything to keep the costs down. So again we support that part of keeping costs off our producers. I think there possibly does need to be—and maybe it will come through the regulations—a little bit more clarity all the same of what those costs actually would be. As I say we just need to keep those costs down.The search and surveillance part was an area of great concern for a lot of submitters and it still is for a lot of people. As Damien O’Connor was saying before that is through a number of Acts—through all sorts of legislation and regulation. We have these rather strong powers through the Search and Surveillance Act actually that allow strong levels of inspection and basically breaking and entering at times. I have supported the intent of that in different public meetings because if there is something that has gone wrong and if there are people being admitted to hospital after contracting a food-borne illness and if people are becoming seriously ill we want that stopped. We want to be able to follow through and find where that food comes from. We want to also know where it has been distributed to. If that requires breaking down a door because we cannot get hold of somebody I think that is very sensible and practical. Again it will be a matter of how that aspect of the Food Bill or when it comes to it the Search and Surveillance Act is used—that it is not used inappropriately in any way—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I can see the Food Bill is so big that it is falling apart in my hands here. I hope it does not once it has been passed. This is actually at the heart of the amendment brought to the Primary Production Committee by the Minister for Food Safety. The issue here sparked by the botulism debacle was that the Ministry for Primary Industries the Minister and the National Government got caught with their pants down to some extent because they did not know whether they had the ability to recall the infant formula or whether they would be subject to a legal challenge by Nutricia or Danone as it is now of course. So the uncertainty around the recall provisions by the Minister gave rise to the amendment that is effectively addressed in this Part 4 of the bill here now.The select committee looked very very carefully at this and the consideration rested on one word. It is a word that is spoken of but not often implemented in Parliament—that is “reasonable”. There is I think judicial precedent around the word “reasonable” and the committee asked whether there was a requirement for officials to be reasonably convinced I guess in summary that there was good cause for recall. You could take either side of the debate. Some could say “Well of course officials are always reasonable and we have to provide them with the powers to recall because the risks are great.” That is indeed what many of us would think.However I personally was able to bring to the table an example of when officials were not reasonable. They had demanded the recall of a product—a wine-based product—and almost put a small innovative wine producer out of business. It was quite ironic really because the Government has just handed out money through the Primary Growth Partnership to the wine industry for innovation and yet a few months prior to that it had stamped down and clamped down on an innovative wine producer. I am notgoing to use the name of the wine but I will say that resveratrol was the component. It is a by-product of the wine-making process the filtration process. It was added back into the wine and it could be said it added a slight health component to the wine to be consumed.The point is that officials because it was a small producer demanded the recall take place. That was a huge cost and impost on that person. Of course the officials did not exert the same authority—or were not sure whether they had the authority to do it—over someone like Nutricia or Fonterra. So the Minister quite rightly I guess wanted the matter clarified. The amendment brought the matter to the select committee the committee considered it and I think we have arrived at the reasonable position that we trust the officials to initiate a recall only when necessary. I think on balance we should support the officials. If we have got the right Government and the right Minister in place I have every confidence. We have some concerns at the moment. No personal reference to the Minister—it is just that her regime leaves a bit to be desired. Under a Labour-led Government I would have every confidence that officials would make the right decision if a recall had to be made. As a cross-party Committee we have decided on I think a measure and a threshold that is fair and protects New Zealand’s reputation and position.Ian McKelvie: What’s the difference?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That member must have been asleep at the select committee. It is the silence of the lambs over there—or the sheep I should say. If they were allowed to speak out they would be able to explain and endorse the proposition I am putting forward but anyway the silence is deafening. Can I just say that this is a key part of the bill. The Minister put forward a proposition to clarify the recall provisions. We have I think tested it thoroughly and robustly. I think the position that we have arrived at is one that does allow officials—and under a Labour Government they will be food safety authority officials not officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries with all its multitude of obligations. It will allow the food safety authority—SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Part 4 agreed to.Part 5 Miscellaneous provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We move to the debate on Part 5 which is clauses 314 to 406 plus schedules 5 to 7.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): I am very pleased to take a call on Part 5 of the Food Bill. I want to first acknowledge the Hon Kate Wilkinson who is in the Chamber. She did a significant amount of the heavy lifting on this bill and I want to acknowledge the contribution that she has made. Look this part is quite wide in terms of the regulations and exemptions but I want to make a number of points that have actually been made in the debate already that tie up with this part.The first thing that we heard from the Labour members was that if they were in office they would get rid of the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries in this areaand they would have an independent food safety authority. The point that I would like to make there is that we have just had an independent inquiry. We have had experts internationally say in the independent inquiry that the typical comments that came from submitters across New Zealand were that biosecurity and food safety are two sides of the same coin and that the ministry and industry both benefit from the synergies between food safety and facilitating trade. There was a very common theme there. People do not want to go back. That is the first point that I would make. It is important to acknowledge though that we must ensure the role of the regulator is quite separate from what we are doing in terms of facilitating trade but I want to acknowledge what the independent inquiry said. We want the merger to work in terms of the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety roles.The second point that I want to make which is tied to our miscellaneous provisions in this area is around compliance and enforcement. You cannot have a good food safety system without having not only good legislation but also good authority like what the Ministry for Primary Industries is currently doing in terms of its role and having the dial turned appropriately in terms of compliance and enforcement. I think some of the provisions in this bill are going to be incredibly important in terms of people’s confidence in our food safety system. I want to acknowledge Steffan Browning in terms of his Supplementary Order Paper 449. The point that I would make around his amendment is that actually the law currently puts requirements on the chief executive of the ministry to ensure there is adequate compliance so we do think that the amendment is redundant.The other point I would like to make following the conversations that we have had Steffan around ensuring that enforcement is there is that I completely agree with you. That is why one of the powers in this bill that is so important in terms of ensuring that compliance is fines for things like labelling. At the moment the issue is not that we do not investigate these incidents; the issue is that the Food Act is so outdated that we cannot actually punish these people unless we take them to court. So these fines are going to be incredibly important in terms of the integrity of our labelling system.The next point I want to make is that there have been a number of comments in terms of the balance. Damien O’Connor has made a number of comments around the cost versus ensuring that we have appropriate regulations in this area. Let me be very clear: the whole point of this bill is that there actually will be businesses in New Zealand that will have more compliance costs out of this because they will have higher-risk food. They will be the people who will be at the forefront. If they get it wrong people will actually die. So we need to acknowledge that the whole point of this bill is that yes there will be less regulation for some people but for some people who are producing higher-risk food the compliance will be stronger. So I just regret any assertion that this bill has not got the balance right in terms of compliance versus the risks of food.The next comment is very relevant in terms of this part and also the whey protein concentrate inquiry. I want to say to Mr O’Connor and let me be really clear that the recall provisions that came to the Primary Production Committee have been at the heart of the whey protein concentrate incident. It is about understanding that we have to have an appropriate threshold here when there is an uncertain situation. With whey protein concentrate there was some uncertainty. Obviously there have been a number of investigations in that area but people have died in other countries in areas of food like brussels sprouts because there has been uncertainty but not the ability to act. I think this Parliament has absolutely got those recall provisions right. We have changed the test basically lowering the test to enable officers to act.That brings me on to the next point which David Shearer raised that is effectively around food safety officers. This bill absolutely acknowledges that there has to be abalance there to make sure that for those small businesses in New Zealand there is not a heavy-handed approach where it is not proper to have that approach unless people are at risk. But I want to make this point and I want to acknowledge the situation that Damien O’Connor referred to. There are two things. One is that in terms of food safety officers for 30 years we have had powers in terms of entry. So the point that David Shearer raises has actually been in the law for 30 years. The difference here is that because we are actually enabling less regulation for certain people who may have home-based businesses if there is an outbreak of listeria tomorrow and we have mums at risk of losing their babies we absolutely need to go in. That is the only change that has been made. It is about food safety.The second point I would make is in terms of the situation Damien O’Connor raised around a particular company. I do not want to go into the detail of that but what I want to say is that that member knows very well that actually the point we made to him is that we would be ignoring the law and breaking the law if we had enabled people to put something into food that had not been agreed to by the code. The point that I make to him is that I agree with him generally that it is very important that when we are thinking through this legislation we have that appropriate balance of the powers in terms of the law versus officers and versus the Ministry for Primary Industries. But there are certain situations where you just do not let people add stuff to wine if it has not actually been agreed to in the code. That was the situation we both dealt with.Overall can I just say again that there has been amazing support across the Committee and huge work from the Opposition to really improve this bill. Finally in terms of country-of-origin labelling the points that I made before are that this side of the Chamber is not convinced of comprehensive country-of-origin food labelling because you have got an inquiry just being initiated in Australia—our closest trading partner—that has said that this is confusing and that it is adding complexity and costs to business. The other point that I would make to Mr O’Connor and to members of this Committee who want to vote for Mr O’Connor’s amendment—and I understand the good intentions there—is that they need to know that the way that his amendment is worded it would actually tie New Zealand for eternity to whatever Australia does in country-of-origin labelling. And for the Green Party here which constantly raises issues of sovereignty to be voting for Mr O’Connor’s amendment which ties us for eternity to Australia’s position I think is wrong.The second point that I would make is that I do understand Mr Browning’s amendment and although we are not going to vote for that amendment we have made the point that we do support voluntary country-of-origin labelling. I am doing more work in this area. I do support as much as possible getting more of that country-of-origin labelling in terms of single ingredient foods. It is actually pretty meaningless complex and costly when you take the Labour Party’s position of comprehensive country-of-origin labelling. The point is that to pass that in a primary statute would breach we believe the treaty between Australia and New Zealand. The whole point is that we have a flexible code that can be amended and that does not require Parliament to keep coming back every time we want to change labelling. That is the point. It is not at all that I do not support your intention Mr Browning of having consumers know as much as possible about the source of single ingredient foods. The point is about what the appropriate vehicle is.So can I say that I want to acknowledge all members across the Committee for their outstanding contributions and their support for passing this bill. We may disagree on certain aspects that have been put up but I commend this bill to the Committee.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I guess you may allow a little bit of scope in my speech. Although I acknowledge the theologicalapproach of the Minister in the chair the Minister for Food Safety I doubt there is much that we do in this place that will be for eternity. I acknowledge the point that she raises about the word in the Food Bill that says “must” and could be amended to “may”—David Shearer: Intended to be in the bill.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —yes but I still do not understand it and her attempt to dance on the head of a pin around country-of-origin labelling has not convinced me. I know that the Minister and her Government are trying the best that they can to do some work around the branding of our country and the New Zealand Story and all the rest of that but it will not amount to anything unless we can clearly identify that which is grown and produced in New Zealand as being a product of New Zealand. It is called country-of-origin labelling and it will enable us to build a brand and to sell that around the world.If I can just step back from that and point to another strange situation I will say that the Minister in the chair does not actually have a ministry. So it is a bit confusing when she advocates so strongly for the Ministry for Primary Industries to oversee food safety when as the Minister she does not actually have a ministry. The Ministry for Primary Industries answers to the Hon Nathan Guy. So this is where some foreign authorities like China have difficulty in understanding our regime—that is we have a food safety regime embedded in the Ministry for Primary Industries overseen by the Minister for Food Safety who has no real ministry and yet the Minister for Primary Industries who is in charge of forestry fishing agriculture horticulture biosecurity and food safety—David Shearer: It’s confusing isn’t it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well little wonder. People have enough trouble understanding the English language let alone Kiwi ways which leads to the confusion that we have been having on a fairly regular basis—and are still having—with Chinese authorities over our food and health standards. At the moment we have still got some dilemmas around dairy and our ability to convince Chinese officials that we can produce safe products for infant formula. In fact Fonterra has not done it yet. None of the base product from Fonterra is currently able to be exported to China.I do not wish to regurgitate the botulism thing. The Minister referred to independent reports done on food safety. There are a couple of them. One makes reference to—and it is in my press statement—the need for clearly and authentically identifying the source of the product or authentication of the product through some might say country-of-origin labelling. The second thing pointed out in the independent report was that there is the potential for conflicts within the Ministry for Primary Industries over food safety and other obligations. In the first report that the Minister has on her desk—I have not got the wording in front of me and she knows that which is right. I do not have time to go through it and I could; in fact I might do that. The point is that I think we have a bill that has general support across the Committee but I do not in any way apologise for scrutinising each and every bit of it because it is arguably the most important piece of legislation for our economy. Our reputation and that which we are hoping to build around the production provision manufacture and sale of safe food is absolutely paramount. We cannot in any way compromise that.I think that the Primary Production Committee and the silent members over there probably endorse the fact—if they choose to take a call they might—that we have made great progress. The Food Bill has taken a long time to get here. I come back to the key point which is about why we believe that we need an independent authority. We need clear accountability clear responsibility certification authentication—all of that—and clearly tied back to a Minister who has responsibility not one who is well meaning smart intelligent and who is nurturing this bill through her colleagues in theCommittee but who actually has no ministry with which to administer the provisions that we are laying down in the bill. I do not want to be unnecessarily negative but I want the Committee to take note of a few qualifications that the Opposition is laying on the table. This is a good bill but it requires resources independent authority monitoring and implementation of all these provisions to be really effective. Then we will get on and produce the finest high-quality food for the world into the future be recognised for that and then paid for it which is really really important so that the Chairman can get fair return for his efforts. Thank you very much.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I just want to touch on a couple of things that the Minister in the chair Nikki Kaye spoke of before. One of them is whether the joint partnership between Australia and New Zealand on food standards is the right place to be addressing food standards and particularly labelling. The amendment of Damien O’Connor certainly might have locked us in and we might have lost some sovereignty but what I would say is that we have lost that already. The Minister is one Minister out of 10 when it comes to decisions coming out of that body. What my amendment would have done is to say “Let’s do it here in New Zealand.” The Food Bill is the right place to do it because it needs only to say that we will set country-of-origin labelling regulations in New Zealand. It is the right vehicle and it may be that the Minister does another Supplementary Order Paper herself to give us that level of sovereignty.My concern is around sovereignty and this may take a couple of calls to finish. I started earlier in Part 3 on the genetic engineering issue and went through the process by which New Zealanders can make a submission to the process and if they do not like it the High Court is the only place that they can go.My concern is that successive Ministers—and it goes right back through to the Labour Governments as well—are being given advice that is not up to it. They have been given advice to say that this food has been checked that it is OK that the science is robust and that there has been independent peer reviews or whatever around that and that they could accept that. But you know as a Minister—the Minister knows and others who have been in that same position here know—about the advice that you get.I want to touch on some of that advice. The advice said accepting that an organisation like GE-Free New Zealand was likely to seek a review of the approval—and it did through the Regulations Review Committee—“MPI is confident that the correct processes …”. What does it know? We do not have proper independent advice going into our Ministry for Primary Industries or the Institute of Environmental Science and Research when it comes down to it. Certainly when it comes in it is not independent nor is the advice going to Food Standards Australia New Zealand independent.When the independent scientists in the world come out—Séralini Judy Carman even our Professor Jack Heinemann in Christchurch—they get criticised snap like that all around the world. Why? Because there are such big vested interests from agribusiness for these foods—these bad poor-quality very unhealthy and risky foods—to come in. Big business wants that because it has got the patents and it has got the control. Since the last time that happened we had the Food Standards Australia New Zealand scientists in front of the select committee here and I put it to them that one of their chief advisers was not independent. They said: “Oh we barely talk to him.” Rubbish! That same man Langridge from the University of Adelaide gets direct funding from one of the companies that applies for these things. Not only that but he was the chair of a committee to look at new technologies that they wanted to take on so that they do not go through the system.Those are the people who are advising you Minister to say that this stuff is good for New Zealanders and it is not. I have given you a tome of information on that as I didwith Kate Wilkinson when she was the Minister for Food Safety. They say that not accepting the approval was “Inconsistent with scientific evidence.” I would say that that is wrong. They said that “A majority of FoFR members”—you are one in 10—“are likely to vote to accept the FSANZ approval.” New Zealanders would not expect this but they said: “New Zealand would be obliged to accept a majority decision”—where is our sovereignty now—“as there are no ‘exceptional grounds’ for us to ‘opt out’.” A unilateral decision by New Zealand to you know exercise its sovereignty to reject the Food Standards Australia New Zealand approval “would be a breach of the Food Treaty and would undermine the joint food system which underpins the valuable trade in food between the two countries.” Well whoopee-do! If this stuff is not fit for purpose and it is bad for New Zealanders to be consuming why are we just bowing over because of the discomfort maybe in a trade deal? This is not good enough.The next point was: “A unilateral rejection of the approval which is based on international guidelines may also be inconsistent with New Zealand’s WTO obligations.” I do not think so. The last one in there was: “If a New Zealand response is delayed beyond 8 April”—that was for that early approval or the option to go back and seek more information—“this may cause irritation in the joint food system relationship.”Do you know what this is about everyone? This is about a food that is going to be doused with 24-D glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate—three herbicides—with no inspection or checking on the health and safety of those being used in conjunction as they would be used. What do these guys in Food Standards Australia New Zealand do? They look at each one independently check out its maximum residue limits and things and see whether it is going to be an issue. Not only that but they put up the maximum residue limits so that the producers can do it. Three different herbicides let alone whatever else not looked at properly not safe and they are telling you: “Tick it through please because it will be an irritation to trade if you do not.” Well that is not fair to New Zealanders. I think we do need to get that independence back and we need to be doing it in New Zealand.Of course they tell you: “We will work with your office on a communications strategy in relation to any proposals by GE Free NZ or other groups to seek a review of the decision by the Regulations Review Committee.” Yes they will get your messaging right and they will get your public relations right but New Zealanders are stuck with it and they are stuck with it through this bill if we do not implement it properly. We could have that sort of food in here and all people can do is go to the High Court. If it were the Resource Management Act and you wanted to put up a three-storey building you would have your notification you would go to the council you would see other people’s submissions and you would get a decision. If you did not like it you could have a hearing de novo at the Environment Court then you might go to the High Court. You have got all those opportunities to comment.This is our food. This is the food for our kids. It is coming through into the blood supply of women. It is going into foetal blood the different parts of it. This is not good enough and it is time that New Zealand stood up and had genuine sovereignty. That is why people want sovereignty. They know as well that the Codex Alimentarius Commission—which is a fantastic organisation in principle because if we are importing stuff we want to know that it is safe; we want to know about the international trade stuff—has been taken over. We know how we do the dairy part of it. We make sure we get in there for that influence. But these same companies which do not give a toss apart from their bottom line for their unknown shareholders—Monsanto Dupont Dow—do not care about New Zealanders’ health but they are in there influencing thosedecisions. It changed from its original genuinely independent people. I know people who worked on it and said that it was great but it changed.So we do need sovereignty and Part 5 of the bill is about that. There are opportunities there. I implore the Minister and I implore this Committee to make sure that we turn round the 80 almost 90 different types of GE food that have been allowed in New Zealand and it is not understood except the independent science is coming out and it needs to be listened to. That might be in a minority because it is independent—there are no vested interests driving it—but I am hoping that this Minister will look at this in a much more robust way and at least have some further discussion with me on it. But do make some changes.You can see why I want GE food labelled. You could have made it labelled. The rules are there. They are not comprehensive enough—some GE food does not have to be labelled. But the stuff that is there is meant to have been labelled. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand stuff says that it is labelled but since 2003 there has been no monitoring and even in 2003 what did it do? It tried to put out of business the people who were trying to be GMO-free. When it found 0.008 percent and some of that was intentionally going GMO-free but clearly it had been contaminated it fined the hang out of them. It put them off labelling GMO-free but that then seemed to be the trigger not to bother monitoring—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak on Part 5 of the Food Bill. I really just wanted to focus on the provisions relating to immunity delegation and review in Subpart 2. I think it is very important when we are conferring powers on to particular officers or bodies that there be some balance or review that can be applied. But on my reading of these provisions there is pretty much complete immunity for the chief executive right down to food safety officers from any civil or criminal liability in the exercise of their powers under the legislation. That is a very black pass that we are providing to those officers and we do not want to see a situation whereby an overzealous officer or verifier or whoever is exercising their rights under this bill is able to get—on my reading of this—a free pass from any civil or criminal liability however it may arise for any acts or omissions that they may be doing in the performance of a requirement under this legislation. That is a real broad black pass that you can get.I would like to think that there would be some proportionality or some sort of countermeasure to just giving them open slather to do anything in the exercise of their functions. I am thinking that when you talk about civil and criminal liability that is very broad. I am thinking about the instance of serious economic damage to a firm to a company through an erroneous food safety exercise of powers or a requirement under the Act that caused real serious damage to a firm or its brand or for instance a criminal act that may have occurred through exercising those requirements. There is complete immunity—complete immunity—for these officers.I do understand that the intent of the bill is that we maintain confidence in our food safety regime. That is a given and we do support that general aim. But when you give complete immunity to all of these powers to all of these people who are exercising powers under this Act it does give rise to abuse and there should be some check some review some mechanism. I am thinking of the Tūhoe raids as an example. That was a completely different arm of the police but that was an overreaching and a totally disproportionate act by the police at that time. At least their actions were subject to a review but under this complete immunity that is passed on to the chief executive and all the way down there is a free pass that they have. I am very concerned about thatbecause I would expect that the integrity of the jobs and the roles that they carry out needs to be paramount and that there would be appropriate training given to these food safety officers all the way through to verifiers and the like—people who are exercising their requirements under the Act.On the face of it it is very broad. I will just go over it again. They are protected from civil liability and criminal liability however it may arise. It can also be in the performance of their functions or duties but it also goes further to the purported performance of a power or a requirement that they have under the Act. That is an extremely broad immunity and I think we need to be very careful as a Parliament if we give out these blank free passes to these persons who are exercising these functions. I think we need to be very careful as a Parliament that we make sure that we do not just give all these powers away and that people get a free pass. It is very dangerous. It is a slippery slope. We want to see some proportionality in terms of the exercising of functions. An officer might think “Oh I can just get away with anything.” and that he or she can just waltz into any premises and exercise any search and seizure secure any documents or information demand a whole bunch of things and know that they are actually immune—no matter what damage it may cause to the business or if they commit a criminal act. Who knows? They might have bowled over a person in the process and hurt them or caused serious injuries yet they will get a free pass under this bill. I would think that this needs to be closely looked at because we do not want to be giving all of this power and a free pass and immunity away because it could lead to some disproportionate acts being able to be given a free pass. Cheers. Kia ora.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Part 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 449 in the name of Steffan Browning to Part 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 5 agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Schedule 3agreed to.Schedule 4agreed to.Schedule 5agreed to.Schedule 6agreed to.Schedule 7agreed to.Clause 1agreed to.Clause 2agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Vulnerable Children BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 13 May.Part 3 Amendments to ActsJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to resume the debate on the Vulnerable Children Bill. When the Committee rose last night we had moved on to I understand Part 3 of the bill. We have skipped from Part 1 to Part 3. I think it is important to at least acknowledge why that is. Part 2 which was the substantial part of the bill consisted of the child harm prevention orders. Just to recap I have a little bit of a visual aid here. You can see that this middle section of the bill was quite substantial. This was all the child harm prevention orders. That part of the bill was quite a significant step in our criminal justice system in the sense that it allowed for an order to be made for an individual to not work for instance or to not be in contact with children for up to 10 years without any conviction or sentencing having occurred. It was an order on balance of probabilities that could be ordered as set down by a court. It was a significant step to be able to do that without there first being any conviction for that individual.The Minister for Social Development decided whilst this bill was still before the Social Services Committee to remove that element of the bill. There was not a lot of explanation given. The Minister explained that one of the reasons why she had removed that provision—which we ultimately agree with—was a small reference to the fact that the Government was looking at a sex offender registry. If there are any other issues that the Minister would like to give as an explanation for the removal of that from the bill Iwould really appreciate the Minister using the Committee stage to do that because there was very little explanation about the removal of those provisions even though as I have said we were very sceptical. We said that we would support the bill going to the select committee in order to allow that bit to be debated but we remained sceptical even after the select committee process. We are not disagreeing with the decision; we would just like a little more context from the Minister given that it was such a significant part of her bill.As I highlighted last night we do support this bill Part 3 in particular. This is an omnibus bill and it has a range of measures that are all a part of the Children’s Action Plan. I want to traverse in particular three parts of Part 3 that are particularly notable. Some I will leave because there are many bits and pieces in this bill.The first is a provision around subsequent children. Currently within Child Youth and Family if there are care and protection issues within a family and if multiple children are removed from a family and if a subsequent child is born into that family the onus is still ultimately on Child Youth and Family to demonstrate that there are concerns for the safety of that child in order for that child to be removed. The bill essentially removes that onus and instead the onus is on the biological parents to demonstrate that they have the ability and have made the changes necessary to care for that child. I think that reversing the burden of proof is probably the right way to go. We have seen a substantial number of cases where subsequent children have been subjected to the same care and protection issues that their siblings have but they almost go through a trial period themselves before any action is taken. It is a very sad state of affairs to have to put in that provision but it is a necessary one.We do need to make sure that there are adequate protections in place because again it is an incredibly significant thing for the State to remove a child. So we want to make sure that we have got the oversight over Child Youth and Family that is required to ensure that robust decisions are made particularly when we have had issues with social worker practice and whether there is enough supervision for our social workers. They are under significant stress and there is high turnover.One of the things that we have argued for for instance is having a separate complaints body for Child Youth and Family in the same way that the police currently have the Independent Police Conduct Authority. That would give people faith in the system. They would know that if a decision is made that they ultimately believe is wrong there is a separate organisation they can go to in order to have it investigated adequately. When we are making changes as significant as this I think that adding in some of those processes to ensure that people have that extra level of comfort is very important indeed and we continue to advocate that that happen for Child Youth and Family as we have done in the past.I want to come now to the special guardians provisions. I think it is important to look at these provisions in context. The Minister some years ago now recognised that there was a desire amongst foster carers for greater certainty in their relationships with the children they were looking after. I would think that that would have been a useful time to review our adoption laws which are antiquated and not used because of the fact that they are not fit for purpose. But instead a decision was made to explore the notion of Home for Life and I think it had good motives—I absolutely do. It ultimately allowed greater certainty for those foster families. But unfortunately at the time foster carers moved into Home for Life situations it did remove a lot of the extra support for those families. I do not mean just monetary support; for most families that is not the concern they have. It is the support when there are behavioural issues. It is the support particularly when parents end up going through the court system as many do on anongoing basis to battle for the right to act as the primary caregiver for that child and to make decisions for the benefit of that child.My concern is that when Home for Life was set up this was actually the time when we probably needed the special guardians provision so that we could meet people’s expectation that if they are part of a Home for Life they are the primary caregiver and they get to make decisions and they will not be constantly hauled through the courts by biological parents who have ultimately proven that they no longer show the level of the responsibility required to be able to make all the decisions in that child’s life any more.My concern in terms of special guardianship orders—which are meant to give greater weight to a caregiver over a set of biological parents who have basically proven they are not fit to parent—is that one still has to go through quite a rigorous process to get to that place. The order of course must be made through the court but if you look at the provisions for instance around the point at which the court makes the orders it states that the court may give a special guardianship order only if the court is satisfied that under section 110(2)(b) in clause 117 “the person has exercised all available mechanisms available under the Care of Children Act 2004 to resolve disputes with any parent or other guardian of the child or young person …”. It also states specifically in relation to the child that they must show as section 1104(a) states that “the child’s or young person’s welfare is being threatened or seriously disturbed as a result” of an ongoing dispute perhaps between the caregiver and the biological parents. So the threshold is very very high.We need to keep in mind that some of these foster carers often have to battle biological parents who might for instance have a drug and alcohol issue and they have done something serious enough to have their children removed. They are going through the courts over issues such as extra visitation rights whether the caregivers need to move for work or taking the children on holiday and I have even heard parents raise issues with the caregivers just taking the children in their care to church. All of this can trigger having to go through the court to battle a parent who again as I have said ultimately has had their children removed from them.So yes there is definitely a need for these provisions in this bill. My question is whether we are going to lose too many solid long-term foster carers on the way to getting to that point because of the threshold. I have certainly a number of cases—as the Minister will have—where foster caregivers have simply been exhausted by the system and felt unsupported in the process of simply trying to provide a stable home for the children in their care. What that would probably mean is that we would have to lower the thresholds for these provisions or simply maybe it is time that we looked overall at the balance of rights between parents who have had their children removed and their caregivers particularly the long-term caregivers.That is a big call to make. But if we are trying to build a system that is ultimately focused on the needs of the child and the welfare of the child then perhaps that warrants a review on that balance of rights keeping in mind of course that we know that we constantly battle the long-term effects of children who are removed from their families and are constantly trying to strike a balance between those very very difficult issues. But those are the statements on that particular provision that I wanted to make and I will come back to further points later.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Bula vinaka Mr Chairman. I want to talk about Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Bill and share with the Committee a number of concerns I have and work my way through to talking about Supplementary Order Paper 437 which is in my name. I accept that this part of the bill is a sincere attempt to alter the practice around vulnerable children so as such it is to be taken seriously and as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said Labour supports this bill and we support explicitlythe kinds of provisions that this section is about. I want to go through those and end by saying that there is a critical element missing. Let me say that for me as a professional social worker and a practitioner in this field for a long time this is probably the most serious amendment that I would seek. It is one that the profession has required for a long time but one that successive parliaments and successive Ministers have not been able to address and I am suggesting that the time has come to address that.This is the part of the bill that suggests some very very serious changes. Clause 102 talks about taking a holistic approach. These are words that we hear very often both in the social work field and in others as well but when applied to social work and social work practice these words carry a particular meaning. Clause 102 takes the real sense of holistic. It is really saying that the approach taken in decisions affecting children has to be holistic. That means that all of the factors that impact on a vulnerable child must be taken into account. To do that requires access to a whole lot of knowledge and that is often missing in the thinking practice and behaviour of many who use terms like “holistic approach”. A whole library is written about the holistic approach in social work practice. Very little of that translates into those who tell us that they are practising using a holistic approach because it simply does not happen.These are critical tests about what holistic is what its components are and how theoretical ideas research ideas and research findings dovetail with the ability to do the work the ability to use your skills to get the point at which you are able to assess or analyse the particular situation for a vulnerable child. That is a particular one. So in order for that clause to be satisfied requires a particular kind of practitioner—one whom currently we have no guarantee is regularly available not just in the State sector but in the voluntary sector as well.There is another clause clause 104 that actually requires that when a person who has been found guilty of abusing children has subsequent children they have to be carefully assessed “to the satisfaction of a social worker”. The amended legislation is silent on what kind of social worker that is so it could be anybody. I think this Parliament ought to seek guarantees that the social worker who is to be satisfied that a parent who has a subsequent child will be disabled from having that child must be a person who demonstrates his or her skills awareness knowledge and attributes to the satisfaction of some external authority. But there is nothing in this particular bill or in the current policy surrounding social work in New Zealand that will actually give us that guarantee. The assessment of parents of subsequent children is a very serious holistic assessment and the person or the group of people doing that must be able to demonstrate a particular set of attributes.As to clause 110 I say to the Minister for Social Development that in the end I would like her to respond to my Supplementary Order Paper and the change it recommends because if there are strong reasons as to why the Minister is not going down that track then I think this Committee ought to be given that explanation. The family group conferences are also being redeveloped by clause 110. To develop plans and plans that will list the kinds of changes an individual or a family would have to go through to satisfy in respect of the vulnerability of another child is no longer an issue. In order to do that the practice more often than not is to bring a group of people together who then out of their own experiences suggest the kinds of changes that a family would be required to go through and often that is not even vetted by those who have expertise through training and the professionalism to do this. Yet to meet this particular requirement the Minister requires very skilled interventions and we are not guaranteed that.The same applies to courts requiring a report from a social worker before making certain orders of the type that Jacinda Ardern was talking about earlier. What kind ofsocial worker what kind of report and what are the attributes of that social worker? What my Supplementary Order Paper says is that social workers will within a 5-year period be required to be registered. Five years is enough time; in fact it is too long. The Social Workers Registration Board and the training institutions tell me that to get social workers professionally trained and registered can be done in a far shorter time. This Supplementary Order Paper says we should start that process. I ask the Minister to be bold and accept that because it is simply saying that in 5 years’ time this will happen and the process can start. We do have the training institutions. There are not many but they are very variable. What they produce is very variable: some good some bad some indifferent. There are many others that are not.If we look at the figures within Child Youth and Family of the 1337 total staff 856 are registered and of those 228 are supervisors so that means there is still a significant number of front-line social workers who are untrained and here is a risk. To satisfy the provisions of Part 3 this bill requires well-trained social workers who are held to a particular standard. The registration holds them to that standard and we can improve on that as well. This Supplementary Order Paper does that and I really urge the Minister to think about that and to accept it and I hope that her party will support this. I know that this Supplementary Order Paper has been to Cabinet and been put aside. The White Paper for Vulnerable Children the vulnerable children programme was supposed to be addressing all of this but it is not. The kinds of requirements that are contained in Part 3 are serious and they require a much higher level of skill than those currently guaranteed across the board.If there are reasons as to why it is not the time to require social workers to be registered I ask the Minister to explain what those reasons are. The Supplementary Order Paper was designed with some thought. These are comments that I have made elsewhere. These are comments that others have made. These are requirements the profession has and I think that Parliament should now move on that with some urgency. The time frame is there. Five years is plenty of time to develop our courses to take our social workers through to the level of this provision. I think that even those within Child Youth and Family who are currently untrained and not registered but doing very very serious work will get to meet the standards far more quickly. In the past Child Youth and Family has fought against these kinds of standards and it will not get itself there. It has to be this Parliament that requires it to get to that point. If that happens then I think there is a good chance that the higher requirement of Part 3 of this bill the interests of vulnerable children might be satisfied.I really would like to hear the Minister on these particular concerns that I have raised and on this particular Supplementary Order Paper and on the reasons for not supporting these kinds of provisions which I trust—POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Meitaki Mr Chairman. I was hoping to speak on Part 1 of the Vulnerable Children Bill last night but the opportunity did not happen so thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 3.I want to talk about how excited we were in the community family violence sector to be given the chance to make submissions on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children—the process that kick-started the development of this bill. The organisation that I was with at the time worked really hard in partnership with many agencies in the community to ensure that we had as many people as possible who had the opportunity to present their ideas on the paper. We even co-hosted the Minister for Social Development on one of her roadshows and I recall thanking the Minister at the time for providing us with the opportunity to work on what I thought was going to be the most important children’s legislation for many years.It does seem at this point to be a bit of a wasted opportunity. There were over 8000 submissions made and all of the ones that I read clearly stated that it was impossible to make a worthwhile submission without a working definition of vulnerability rather than targeting universality of services which was with the preferred option and that we should define and measure the outcomes we wanted for our children. The sector was clear. We should set out our bottom lines for children: warm dry housing access to medical care food to eat decent education and being safe. You can say that that is what we want for all of our kids. But when you make a statement about what you want for your kids you need to be brave enough to measure your work against it. You need to be brave and ambitious for our kids.Specifically in Part 3 there are a couple of parts I want to talk about: family group conferences and Home for Life. Although I support the intent that every child deserves to be in a stable home environment and that the responsible caregivers and that child benefit from the formalisation of this agreement that permits the carers to carry out their duties lawfully I worry about the number of children who have been harmed while in the care of those carers.The intent of this bill is to protect children from harm but so many have actually been harmed while in the care of the State-supported caregiver. Let us face it the Government has been a bad and neglectful parent. Although I express concern at this aspect I must also from personal experience tell you that I am not comfortable with the ministry’s ability to assess and monitor those people whom we entrust our children to. I do not in any way want to diminish the work of our Child Youth and Family social workers. They have extraordinary workloads and they do the very best that they can but they have way too much to do. The Minister herself said in the House yesterday that the number of notifications and investigations was increasing and there was an ever-increasing burden on the teams of social work staff to get the job done and done properly.I have through very dear friends of mine some knowledge of when this can go wrong. My friends are a lovely couple who at the time had a 10-year-old and they became caregivers. They wanted to share their home with another child so they filled in the application submitted to the police vetting attended a couple of meetings and were part-way through the vetting process as it was not completed by the ministry only to get a request for a placement to be made with them. A very troubled 16-year-old boy was placed in their care. Why was this boy placed in their care before they had completed the proper security clearances? Because the ministry is desperate for somewhere to place our children.It is not just him. There is an extraordinary amount of pressure on the staff to find suitable placements and often as in this case there is not enough time to complete all the processes. There is just a child needing a placement and the staff acting in the best way that they can to get the job done. In the case of my friends it did not go well. It could have gone better. When the boy who was placed with them started acting out in a sexually inappropriate way towards their 10-year-old son they had to call Child Youth and Family to take him back. They could not continue to put their own child at risk.This situation speaks to me of the woeful lack of support the ministry has for its placement teams. It has to rush through prospective caregivers without proper checking in order to fill placements for kids and they do not match the placements well. Mismatched placements do not make for successful placements.I have to say from my dealings with Child Youth and Family that there are significant staffing resource pressures in every area of social work. The Minister confirmed it yesterday when she said that notifications and investigations were increasing and yet this bill which could have delivered so much as my colleague saidyesterday to stop the children from falling in the stream is not delivering enough. If we want to ensure the safety of our children in a Home for Life placement we need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to make that placement safe for all involved.I also welcome the intent to strengthen the family group conference process. Family group conferences are a great mechanism to gain the support of the child’s wider community be they grandparents aunts and uncles and other people who are keen on ensuring the child does well such as teachers social workers and the like. I know having sat in on a few of these conferences that they are staff resource - heavy and as the process of engagement is set out in legislation it must be followed accurately in order to comply. In this regard I support any measure that makes the process easier on the child and the family while retaining its robust character. I do worry that the increasing use of the family whānau agreements which are not binding will increase as the level of resourcing for family group conferences is high in comparison.I mention my concern for the staffing resources available to Child Youth and Family to conduct their core businesses as I have seen firsthand how hard they work but when they are required to do more and more investigations and respond to increasing levels of notification I worry that they are only able to give these cases the most cursory attention.I want to pick up on a comment that Jan Logie made yesterday regarding family violence about the incidence of family violence as a factor of vulnerability for children. You are absolutely right. The Chief Social Worker Paul Nixon talks about the unholy trinity in relation to the top three indicators of vulnerability for children who come to the notice of Child Youth and Family and those indicators are when the parent is impacted by mental illness problematic substance abuse and family violence. The unholy trinity and vulnerability for kids is a big concern. Family violence being a factor in that child’s home is not an automatic criterion for Child Youth and Family to investigate the safety in that child’s life.It is not widely known but family violence in the home does not meet the threshold for which Child Youth and Family is required to investigate. It is only when family violence is a repeated issue in that child’s life. How much trauma must a child experience before our Child Youth and Family social workers will be permitted to investigate and intervene? It is astonishing and it is very wrong. It is so not in keeping with the intent of this bill which is to make our most vulnerable children safer.If Child Youth and Family do not as a matter of right investigate when family violence is a feature in a child’s life until that harm is well and truly done then what can be done for that child? There are too many kids impacted by family violence for the social workers to deal with. We have a bill called the Vulnerable Children Bill with no working definition of vulnerability where the Chief Social Worker’s definition of vulnerability includes family violence and we do not intervene when family violence is present. Are you confused? I certainly am. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I would just like to echo the speech before me really from the member Poto Williams. It is not all the time that I feel that a speech from a member of the Labour Party is like one I could have given myself. That was a speech where I really agreed with a lot of what you were saying and I thank you for making those points around family violence. Again I do not think that most New Zealanders realise that Child Youth and Family does not as a matter of course look to intervene to protect children when there is family violence present. I do believe that it would be an expectation of our public that our systems work to protect those children because regardless of whether those children are physically abused when there is intimate partner violence they are harmed. There is harm from witnessing violence between parents. As a country that is trying to grapple with this issue we need to havethe systems to respond in order to protect them and to change our society and get rid of this curse that we have at the moment.There are a few points I would like to speak to in Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Bill. This part does contain quite a few policy points and there are questions I would like to ask of the Minister for Social Development. I have not been the primary MP for this bill so I am not sure where some bits are and I have been trying to find them in reading the bill. One of them—the primary point that I would love for the Minister to provide some clarification on—is whether this bill is fixing the concern that has been raised by the Human Rights Commission and various disability groups. This is another area where I think most people in New Zealand would be surprised to find out that we have a differential provision in law for the treatment of children with disabilities and the ability to take them from their family and put them into placements into care.We have been asked by most of these groups to delete sections 141 142 and 144 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which enable children to be taken from their homes. It was pointed out that children are often being placed outside their local community sometimes in really lengthy placements without a clear point of review and sometimes those communities are not even a good social or cultural fit for that child. As we have heard there are definitely some struggles in New Zealand about providing the right support for those families that are taking children in. We know actually that attachment to the family of birth—and from a really early age to a parent at least—is really important for the development and the opportunities of all children and that includes children with disabilities.The Human Rights Commission as well as specific disability groups have asked Parliament to give consideration to this issue and to the need for more to be done to actively increase the opportunities for disabled children to be supported in their homes including as the commission said “facilitating tailored and creative solutions that are properly resourced and which enable a child to safely remain with their family or to retain a strong family connection.” I could not find this in the bill and I am really hoping that the Minister will point out to me where it is because it may well be there but I just could not find it. To me if we are talking about vulnerability then to be explicit about the needs of our children with disabilities and what we can do to support them and families that may be struggling in order to enable them to have that parental attachment is incredibly important. It is hard to see how their needs could not be right up there at the top of the hierarchy of the most in need.Currently the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—this is from the Human Rights Commission—gives disabled children “lesser rights than others”. It allows disabled children unlike non-disabled children to be placed into full-time residential care for an indefinite period and the provisions that enable non-disabled young people to have a say in their care are not extended automatically to disabled young people. That seems wrong. If a child has a disability it does not mean that they do not have needs and that they cannot communicate. I believe that the onus should be on the State to create systems for those children to be able to communicate their needs wherever possible. Also we have been told that our law enables children with disabilities to be sterilised and that we have no protection in our law to prevent that from happening. That seems just so horribly wrong that I am hoping that the Minister will tell me that this bill is correcting that.Another issue that I would like to talk to around this is the requirement for consideration to be given to requests for support for young people leaving State care to live independently. We heard from the Dingwall Trust on the day I got to hear some of the submissions to the Social Services Committee and from a very amazing young man who had left State care at the age of 17 with no identification and no ability to signtenancy agreements or any other agreements. Sadly he ended up on the streets with alcohol and drug problems just trying to cope with these things that had been thrown at him at the age of 17 but later he came in contact with the Dingwall Trust and with the support he got he was able to turn his life round. He is now in pre-med and is working with Māori Television. It was a truly inspirational story.The trust was calling for there to be a transition period and an extension of State care to the age of 25 I think it was suggesting that as a matter of course because we are throwing young people out earlier than any other English-speaking country. I just cannot understand why we are being so harsh in this country to our young people whom I do believe we all care so much for. The view of young people who have experienced this system and of their advocates is that this bill needed to provide extended duties of care—not just exceptions and the ability for the State to intervene in exceptional circumstances but providing extended duties of care to enable gradual plans to transition young people to independence.Some Monash University research found that the cost to the State of a poor transition was $738000 per person. So even if you have to go to those rational economic arguments and everything coming down to a dollar figure which is painful to me this is still a sensible investment and I do think it would pay off. I am very disappointed to see that the bill has not separated the transition from birthdays or taken the opportunity to link it to the end of exams and put it in the bill that care continues until somebody has finished those key milestones in their life. But to extend it right through that period of youth up to the age of 25 which does not preclude independence I would have thought would be ideal.Another point I would like to speak on which is a core point for us and maybe one of the main ones why we are having to oppose this bill is placing the onus on the parent of a subsequent child to demonstrate that he or she is safe to parent if a child was previously permanently removed due to abuse or neglect. We know that protective parents are losing custody of their children because of the behaviour of abusers. That is happening. We would hate to see a situation where a woman had managed to escape—and even imagine if her partner had been through treatment and managed to get himself sorted and they were back together—but where she would face the possibility of losing her next child because of the actions of an abuser. That to me does not seem to be about justice. Reversing the onus of proof is a very big step and one that we do not believe in.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No I have seen Asenati Lole-Taylor miss several calls so I am going to call the honourable member Asenati Lole-Taylor. Malo.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Fa‘afetai lavaMr Chair. I am going to take a very brief call on Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Bill. I know that last night when we talked about Part 1 and Part 2 I felt that there were very important contributing factors to Part 3 when it comes to the caregivers and permanent guardians or special guardians for children. I am going to take a bit of a different approach to this. There are three areas that I really want to look at. One is the situation of social workers engaged by Child Youth and Family. The other one is cultural identity as in section 5 amended by clause 102 of this bill and also the suitable placing of children who are often in a situation of vulnerability or risk.You see there is a young man aged 14 in Whangarei who fell through the cracks of the current legislation and I am talking about New Zealand’s current legislation. This young man of 14 years of age stopped going to school. The mother had lost control in terms of guiding him in the right direction and the grandmother had also tried reallyhard and was not able to provide this child with the right approach in order for him to get back on the right path. Both the mother and the grandmother had been trying to seek help both from Child Youth and Family and also from the police. I was called to go all the way up to Whangarei to try to attend to this poor family. What I discovered was that this young man started having his problems from the age of 6. He experienced the issue from the age of 6. The young boy was faced with challenges and there was no way of knowing what the challenges were. One would hope that this bill will address situations where the mother and grandmother can identify and pick up what those issues would be at that age.The influence of negative behaviour aggressiveness and violence became obvious at that time and it was at the age of 7½ to 8 that this child’s name became a regular name in the police records. Often the police would pick him up. It also started when the police actually advised the mother and the grandmother that perhaps the child should be moved out of the family because he would no longer listen to his mother and grandmother. The sad thing in this situation is that both the mother and grandmother are loving people. They really care about this 14-year-old boy. The 14-year-old boy at the same time was actually manipulated by other people. These other people were very heavily involved in drugs and were heavily manipulated by outside influences to serve their own needs. The system in New Zealand had actually failed to provide a safety net for people like this 14-year-old and also his parents. The education of this particular child had actually suffered. Education in New Zealand should be made available to every young child in New Zealand yet this was one child whose own school in Whangarei could not bear to see coming to school because of the issues that the child created in order to be seen to be the man in the school environment.When I look at Part 3 of this bill the part that talks about the responsibility of Child Youth and Family and also the engagement of the social worker it is one area that I would like to put a very strong emphasis on. That is it is all very well for us to appoint and engage so many social workers put a lot of money into them and have to look at them as an investment and I accept that there is a need for that to happen but there is another fundamental part to this and that is the specialised area where it deals with—and I am really using that word “specialised”—cultural perspective. It is not—COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. I am going to call the honourable member Sue Moroney. She has been seeking the call for some time.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I have been thank you Mr Chair. In rising to speak to Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Bill I just want to let those listening to the debate at home know that if they were listening last night heard us debating Part 1 and are now wondering why we have suddenly gone on to Part 3 the whole of Part 2 was entirely struck out. That is because it was dedicated to the issue of child harm prevention orders. Obviously a lot of effort had gone into drafting up this new concept but it was ditched. We on the Labour Party side are pleased that that sensible approach was taken but a little worried that there was so much effort and I guess ministerial time and drafting resources going into something that was clearly never going to work. It is a bit sad that it took so long to actually get as far as it did before it went away. But the good thing is that that approach which was going to be extraordinarily difficult to actually bring about has gone from this bill.In this debate on Part 3 I want to address some of the issues that were raised with us by submitters that unfortunately have not been dealt with by Part 3 as far as I can see. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister for Social Development on the issues that were raised with the Social Services Committee. One of them was the issue which was traversed a little by Jan Logie when she spoke around children with disabilities. Itis something that I had never even thought about to be honest until submitters came before our committee to tell us of the plight of children with disabilities who are treated differently and not given the same rights under our current legislation as children without disabilities. They asked us to use the opportunity of the Vulnerable Children Bill to address that because they said—and I think they were quite right—who better fits the definition of a vulnerable child than a child with a disability so severe that their family cannot cope or chooses not to cope and who is therefore committed to a lifetime in a residential care facility? Who could be more vulnerable than a child in that situation?What the submitters—and there were three or four of them from memory—asked us to consider was why these children should not have the same right as other children whose families had given up on them or perhaps not been able to cope with them or not treated them well and to have the opportunity that other children have under the same legislation for a family who did want to have them in their lives to take care of them. It was a really salient point I felt that the submitters made because it was one that I certainly thank goodness had never come face to face with before. But it made a lot of sense. Why is it that children with disabilities in that situation do not have that right if there is a family that would like to take care of them? Why can they not have a home for life that is not in a residential care facility? If their own family is unable to provide that for them why not another family? I think that is something that I would like to hear from the Minister on because it would have been under Part 3 that that would have taken place had we been able to take the opportunity to use this bill the Vulnerable Children Bill to actually address that issue.I want to support the amendments to this part proposed by my colleague Jacinda Ardern and my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad as well because they are both very very sensible and really important amendments for this Parliament to debate tonight. The amendment from Jacinda Ardern that I particularly want to address is the concept of actually fixing the problem where at age 17 children who are in the care of the State are suddenly out on their own. That submission that Jan Logie again referred to—it was incredibly powerful to hear from that young man. What an amazing effort he had made. He was able to describe very eloquently to our select committee how he felt abandoned—how he felt abandoned by the State and by the country effectively at the age of 17. It was really poignant for me because I have sons of my own who are rapidly approaching that age and the idea that they could be cast out into society without any backup and without any ability to find—as he said he did not even have the legal right to sign a tenancy agreement—TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put. As many who are of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I have been consistently seeking the option of another call. I have Supplementary Order Paper 436 which I have been unable to speak on. Part 3 is the final—and is still a very substantive—part of this bill. Although I had the chance to speak earlier on it was only on two parts of the bill. There are an extra two sections I would like to speak on including my amendments. I ask that you consider that I have the opportunity to do so.Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need help. Can I just advise the member that once the Chairperson has accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question it does not matter how far the Chairperson gets. Anything else isdeferred until the closure motion and any subsequent consequential questions are determined.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 435 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 436 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 131 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 436 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 141 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have to advise the honourable member Dr Rajen Prasad that your amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 437 inserting new subpart 3 in Part 3 is out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes98New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes22Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Clause 1 TitleJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is with great sadness that I rise after my Supplementary Order Paper 436 has been defeated but we now come to the point—the summary debate in a sense—around the Vulnerable Children Bill and whether or not itis appropriately titled through the fact that it is indeed called the Vulnerable Children Bill. I think my colleague Poto Williams really summed up some of the issues around the problematic nature of trying to partition off who is vulnerable and who is not when you are referring to children. It was a really significant debate amongst the children’s workforce and the children’s sector when the first green paper went out. I think that in particular she has raised an important point around family violence and the fact that technically if you are taking a definition of vulnerable children in the way that Child Youth and Family currently behaves being exposed to family violence is not by default what it tends to be treating as a vulnerability. The fact is that you are not automatically brought within the remit of work of Child Youth and Family simply by witnessing family violence. I do not think that that is because the evidence does not stack up for that—to the contrary the evidence absolutely does—but simply because the scale of cases faced by Child Youth and Family means I think that it is unable to do so. That needs to change. That absolutely needs to change.I became even more convinced of that some time ago now after I read every coroners report from the past few years that involved the death of a child in the care of Child Youth and Family—every one. The thing that struck me the most was not the similarities between the cases or how devastating each and every one of them was but the number of cases where children and young people had harmed themselves. It was not necessarily because they had been subjected to direct child abuse or because they had had violence against them but in every single one of those cases where that child or young person had harmed themselves there had been significant family violence in their home—significant family violence. There was one case in particular that still stays in my mind. It reminded me of how important it is that we recognise the impact that family violence has on a child and the vulnerability that flows from that. The fact that there is no default support or counselling even for those children is a significant issue let alone the fact that there is no default position that Child Youth and Family takes heed of when children are exposed to family violence. We heard from the Children’s Commissioner some time ago that there was a move to try to move away from the default of police referring family violence cases to Child Youth and Family because it was simply being overwhelmed with cases. We must be mindful of the impact that family violence has on vulnerability.When you use the words “vulnerable children” as well—and again I refer to whether or not it is an appropriate title for this bill—this actually should be about vulnerable children and young people. As my colleague Sue Moroney has said we have sought and will continue to seek for the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act to take into its auspices 18-year-olds. The care of the State should not cut out at the time a child turns 17. That point was made so strongly by the Dingwall Trust in the magnificent submission from a young person there. But on behalf of young people there was a written submission from Robin who is 20 years old. She said: “The average age of leaving parental care in New Zealand is 23 so why does the care system relinquish all responsibility for us when legally we are not deemed adults? Why are we taken out of care when we cannot legally sign for papers such as tenancy housing bill payments let alone vote. We don’t need the added stress. Picture your average teenager dealing with emotional hormonal or physical changes to the body with the added strain from school exams peer pressure all while trying to fit in and develop their own identities. The difference between this teenager and a teen in care is that at age 17 your average teen is not expected to do this on their own. At 17 your average teen has emotional support from family. We do not. Financial support from family. We do not. Has a place to fall back on we do not. We are alone. We’re alone.” I think that completelysummarises what needs to change in the care and protection system for those young people.Yes the Minister for Social Development has put in provisions particularly in Part 3 where if a young person who is over the age of 17 and in need of additional support is referred to the chief executive the chief executive “must provide or arrange the provision of such advice and non-financial assistance as the chief executive in his or her discretion considers necessary to enable the person to achieve independence;”. So around the notion of vulnerability we still have a high level of discretion and that is where it becomes problematic. So we wanted to take out some of that discretion. We wanted some of those places where it says “may” to become “must” particularly when the bill talks about financial assistance. Currently in this bill the chief executive is able to make a judgment and “may provide or arrange the provision of such financial assistance … in his or her discretion”. There is also no obligation for them to provide for housing and that is probably the biggest gap we have.This bill applies presumably to vulnerable children but also to young people because special guardianship orders for instance can apply to an 18-year-old and yet the additional arrangements under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act apply only to 17-year-olds so already we have a bit of a gap there. But when we are talking about the vulnerability of children we are putting children out of State care at 17 without having adequate housing arrangements for that small little gap of young people. If you are 18 Housing New Zealand can suddenly take an interest in you; if you are 17 it will not. I have seen examples of that. I visited a youth services provider once and heard the story of a young person who had gone to it for housing help. They were no longer under the care of Child Youth and Family. The only place the youth services provider could refer them to was the women’s refuge. That was the only place the provider was able to find shelter for that young person. So we have an absolute gap that would be fixed simply by moving the obligation of Child Youth and Family so that it continues to have a responsibility to a child who has been put under the care of the State until they turn 18.Granted the Minister has said in the debate on this bill that up until the age of 20 we want to make some options available for their transition to independence. But there is just a bit too much discretion around that. It is very much an optional thing. Sure some young people will not want to continue to be in residential care but let us keep the option open for them and let us put the onus on the State to provide that if that is what they seek.Additionally you can see then why the Vulnerable Children Bill perhaps should be the “Vulnerable Children and Young Persons Bill”. They are whom it should have covered. Perhaps our wider point all the way through this debate though has been that actually the word “vulnerable” is fraught. If we want to lift the well-being of vulnerable children we should actually be focusing on the well-being of every child. If we put in place provisions that have an element of universalism and then we overlay that with additional targeted support for those who need it most we are more likely to have beneficial outcomes for a wider range of children. Yes of course there are going to be families and children who are at the hardest end of neglect abuse and offending who need the direct and immediate attention of the State. None of what we have said around lifting the well-being of all children tries to dilute that—not at all.As I made the point yesterday we have tried too hard in this bill—or the Government has—to try to separate out social issues that cannot be separated out. The Government has tried to say that abuse sits here neglect sits here other issues like domestic and family violence sit over here—you barely get a mention of it in some of the work that we have seen off the back of this action plan—and material deprivationand poverty sit way over here. In fact let us dump a whole lot of personal responsibility mantra over the top of it. The Government has tried to compartmentalise and partition it and you simply cannot do that when it comes to children.Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I stand up at the debate on the title clause of the Vulnerable Children Bill and I just want to speak in response to a few of the things that have been raised. This is the Vulnerable Children Bill which is for those children who are most vulnerable. It is for those who are most at risk of abuse and neglect and who are already being abused and neglected. The point that I did want to make in respect of that title and this bill is that this legislation is actually one small part of the work that is going on in this area. You do not have to legislate for everything that you do and in so many ways it is the actions of those who are on the front line and the actions of those non-Government organisations the Children’s Teams and the Government departments and how they are working that are actually going to make the biggest difference. Legislation has a part to play but it is not the only response to what we have to do for children.Members have raised what they consider to be missing from this legislation. I think the work is going on. There is more work that constantly needs to be done but it is not work that needs to be legislated. For example no one denies that some of the causes of child abuse and neglect are around in many cases mental health issues for parents and families ongoing alcohol and substance abuse issues obviously domestic violence long-term poverty intergenerational welfare dependence and I think really a real hopelessness that you see from many of the causes that have now led to the symptoms of people feeling incredibly isolated and not part of a community not part of a family or extended whānau and as a result I think living in extreme dysfunction and chaos. We as the State have a role to step in and work for those children. We do it well and we have amazing front-line social workers who are doing an outstanding job but there is absolutely no doubt that we could do it better.This work is about getting into more preventive action. So when members raise the point that the Vulnerable Children Bill is not getting into the issues around family violence and the issues of what is happening in the home I have to tell them that they are simply incorrect because that is what the Children’s Teams are doing in the work that they do. That is where you see joint chief executives having to have a plan for vulnerable children which this bill does include. If they are not addressing some of the causes and looking at preventing those very children from getting into the places where they are most unsafe then they are not going to be doing their job. I have said that they will have to report transparently to Parliament on the progress that they are making on that plan.Already we are seeing in Rotorua and Whangarei real differences in having one plan for that child and seeing them have faster access to all Government agencies to make sure that we wrap support around them. Whānau Ora is getting on board. It is very much about those vulnerable children—and that is why we called it that—getting into that home. We have examples where they are working with the mum to get her drug and alcohol counselling and are working with dad to get him support for his issues that have led to domestic violence. They are there for the long haul. They have one key lead that they know that they trust and that they work with. We do not dictate who that is. We do not say that it is someone who works for the Government. It can be Whānau Ora or it can be iwi-led. It can be that but they are all connected through this Children’s Team so that we have a group of real experts who are overseeing it from paediatricians to psychologists to social workers to those experts in education—across the board. So you actually do have those checks and balances that are testing back against the plan allof the time and they are also breaking down the barriers. So this legislation is important and I am not saying that it is not.There are things in here that obviously I think need to be done but I do not want this Committee to think that the Vulnerable Children Bill is by any means all the work that is going on for these children. If you wanted me to put a percentage on it this bill is about 25 percent of it. The other 75 percent relates to the Vulnerable Kids Information System which is the hub where we know all of the information is going so that we can then make sure that those children who do not reach that threshold of Child Youth and Family can get a response.I thank members for their contribution through this Committee of the whole House stage. It has been helpful. It has raised I think some interesting debates but as I say it is wider reaching than just this legislation. It is the work that happens on the ground that makes the biggest difference.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I thank the Minister for Social Development for her contribution. I also want to make a contribution on the title of this Act as it is called the Vulnerable Children—sorry; the bill which will become an Act as it is called the Vulnerable Children Bill. When it becomes an Act I think that my only real reservation about the title is that I think it gives an impression that it deals with many more issues than it does.I am going to come back to where we really started on this debate. I know that it drew an angry response from the Minister at the time but it also was the view not just of the Labour Party but of most of the organisations that actually took part in the consultation over the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and then the green paper—I think it was the other way round: the green paper and then the white paper—and that was the very strongly held view that if we are really going to get to the bottom of this issue we do need to recognise that children living in poverty is an issue that makes children vulnerable. So to have a Vulnerable Children Bill and action plan for children that does not recognise that at all seemed to a lot of the people involved in the consultation on the action plan and all those processes—and it seems to the New Zealand Labour Party—to be denying that a significant issue exists.So I guess that although we see that there is progress on dealing with a group of children who are vulnerable there are—I do not even know how many—thousands or hundreds of thousands probably of children who are vulnerable and whose needs are not addressed at all by this bill and will not be addressed when it becomes an Act.What I want to say to the Government is that on at least three occasions today in question time I saw representatives of the Government deny that poverty exists in this country. If that continues then we will see a growing number of vulnerable children in our country because unless the Government fronts up to that issue recognises that it exists and deals with the causes of it then we will not get to the bottom of these problems.We may start to feel OK about ourselves for passing a bill like this one tonight that deals with some of the issues—and it does deal with some of the issues—but let us not kid ourselves. I think that the Minister just said that it might deal with 25 percent of it. I would suggest that it is a great deal less than that actually because we are not recognising the breadth of the issue and the vulnerability of children who live in poverty in this country. However I am ashamed to say that it exists in this country because it ought not to—it absolutely ought not to.Think about the resources of this country. We are actually a wealthy country. We are a food-producing country for goodness’ sake! We are a food-producing nation. We have children in our country who go to school hungry. They go to school hungry and they find it difficult to learn because of that. That is a disgrace Minister. That is adisgrace in this country. We ought not to have that problem. We do have the problem and the Government—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Honourable members the time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Food Bill without amendment and progress on the Vulnerable Children Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.