Volume 703 Week 9 - Wednesday 25 February 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 703 Week 9 - Wednesday 25 February 2015[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 25 February 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersPrime Minister—Human Rights and International Relations1.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “Get some guts and join the right side”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Absolutely I do.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister take his own advice to “Get some guts” and stop negotiating a trade deal with Saudi Arabia a regime that executes children?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Metiria Turei: How does the Prime Minister reconcile negotiating a trade deal with Saudi Arabia where children are imprisoned for life and publicly flogged while claiming the suffering of children as a justification for going to war?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The New Zealand Government through successive foreign Ministers and through the ministry for a long time has advocated strongly for human rights and stood up and made clear our concern when we see those incidents. That does not stop us from negotiating free-trade agreements with countries about which we have some concerns about their human rights. We have done that over successive Governments.Metiria Turei: Why will the Prime Minister not make any trade deal with Saudi Arabia conditional on the Saudi Arabia regime halting the execution of children?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier—I stand by my answer to the last question—we advocate strongly for human rights but that is not a condition for which we set a free-trade agreement nor has it been for the Labour Government. But of course we would also need to look at the conditions and the claims the member is making and check the veracity of them.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister take his own advice to “Get some guts” and make the $20 million in aid he gives to Indonesia each year conditional on the Indonesian regime not shooting dead children in their school uniforms?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again we would have to check the veracity of the member’s statements; they sound fairly outrageous. Again I stand by the same record which is that New Zealand gives humanitarian aid because the aid is actually aimed at supporting the people who are most in need. Like many countries they cannot always necessarily control who is in charge.Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister explain if child soldiers are a reason to go to war in Iraq why then not go to war in Nigeria where Boko Haram has kidnapped hundreds of children and recently murdered a 7-year-old girl by using her as a suicide bomber?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is outraged by what we see in Nigeria with Boko Haram. We continue to follow the principles that we are also following in Iraq and Syria and Libya and other countries which is in relation to the diplomatic and humanitarian work that we do. The Iraqi Government in particular has asked for help in relation to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and we believe that in doing that we are not only supporting the people of that region but actually supporting New Zealanders themselves. I heard the member saying to the press gallery words to the effect that we should live in some cocooned world where we do nothing because somehow New Zealanders will be safe. Well I am sorry about that but New Zealanders travel and there are domestic terror threats from ISIL whether that member wants to accept that or not.Metiria Turei: So is the Prime Minister telling this House that he will accept taking economic benefits through trade deals from countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and others where children are routinely tortured where they are imprisoned and where they are murdered by those regimes and he thinks he is doing it in New Zealand’s name?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am simply making the point that there are many countries in the world that New Zealand has free-trade agreements with—and has negotiated those across successive Governments—about which there are human rights concerns that we have and we raise those issues.Budget 2015—Social Investment Approach2.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What are the features of the new social investment approach the Government will use in Budget 2015 and in future Budgets?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The social investment approach is an extension of the way this Government has operated in the social sector for a while—for instance with the investment approach to welfare and the formation of Children’s Teams. Now we are making it part of the Budget process as well. What we are talking about here is using the best information available to understand which people where need our services the most whether the current interventions are actually helping those people or undermining their resilience and testing whether with different interventions we can do a better job of getting results for our families and communities. For too long Governments have measured success in respect of the social needs of our population by how much money they spend rather than by what results they achieve.Andrew Bayly: How will changes through the social investment approach benefit New Zealanders who rely on public services?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place it requires a much better understanding of the individual and unique needs of those who use our public services—for instance now we can understand the achievement progress of every single child in our primary schools. As a result of the welfare liability we have a much richer understanding of which people are on a benefit for a long time and the reasons for it. As a result of our social housing reforms we already have a much better understanding of the needs and aspirations of State house tenants and also of those people who are waiting for a State house. So those people are all going to benefit from the Government having a better understanding of what their needs are and therefore more capacity to meet those needs.Andrew Bayly: How is this new approach related to the Government’s Better Public Services programme and will providers come only from the Public Service?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is directly related to our Better Public Services programme because that is all about achieving meaningful results. If I can use a couple of examples. There has now been some improvement in hospital admissions due to rheumatic fever a disease we should not have in New Zealand. Achieving those results has involved both the Public Service and non-governmental organisations in a much more cooperative effort to identify those at-risk populations and take action. Another is our efforts to reduce recidivism. In respect of the new prison to be opened in Auckland actually we are paying not for rehabilitation programmes but for actual reductions in recidivism. The private organisation running that prison will work with iwi and the public sector to achieve less recidivism.Andrew Bayly: How will the social investment approach help deliver better fiscal results for the Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is a Government that believes that what works for the community is what works for the Government’s books. So every time we keep a teenager on track to stay at school long enough to get a qualification or have one more person pulled off the track of long-term welfare dependency we get an immediate saving of course an immediate benefit for those individuals and for the community and a long-term saving in taxpayers’ money.Iraq Military Deployment—Purpose and Length of Deployment3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “We recognise ISIL is not a short-term threat and there is a lot of work to be done in the long-term”; if so does he accept this means New Zealand’s deployment may last longer than 2 years and involve more than training?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and no.Andrew Little: Is sending 16 trainers and support troops for a maximum of 2 years the absolute limit of New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq even if the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is undefeated or does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that mission creep is like a force of nature that cannot ever be ruled out and UK Foreign Secretary Hammond who says that this is a generational war?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yesterday the Government laid out clearly its contribution of military capability in Iraq. That is the extent of what I see us doing and it is a shame that the Opposition did not have the courage to support it.Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister in the heat of his presentation yesterday got away with alleging or implying that members of the Opposition did not have guts or did not have courage. To say it explicitly is against the Standing Orders and I would like for you Mr Speaker to call him to account.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The comments made yesterday were certainly robust. I do not think they were out of order. I do not think that on this occasion the answer is out of order but I do not actually think it has addressed the question that the member asked. So I am going to ask Andrew Little to—[Interruption] Order! It is not helpful when I am on my feet for a whip to continue to interject. I am—[Interruption] Order! I am going to ask Andrew Little to re-ask that question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Well no I have ruled. I am asking Andrew Little to ask that question again.Andrew Little: Is sending 16 trainers and support troops for a maximum of 2 years the absolute limit of New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq even if ISIL is undefeated or does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that mission creep is like a force of nature that cannot ever be ruled out and UK Foreign Secretary Hammond who says that this is a generational war?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the expectation of our military contribution.Andrew Little: Now that US and Canadian troops have already moved from training operations to combat operations will he give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the same will not happen with our troops?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think the member is incorrect. In fact actually the Canadians and I think the Australians started with the premise that they would be there to advise assist and accompany. The New Zealand Government has made it quite clear that we will not be sending in combat troops unlike Labour who sent the SAS combat troops to Afghanistan.Ron Mark: If the Prime Minister feels so strongly about “showing some guts” and “not standing by whilst atrocities are committed” why did he not just deploy the SAS in a combat role to help take out high-value ISIL targets without having to expose our infantry trainers to the unnecessary and inherent risks that lie in training Iraqi soldiers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that is quite interesting because I think the member Mr Mark a former military man is actually showing that he disagrees with his leader and the position that he took yesterday.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer should be to the point and address the question that was asked. The Prime Minister began with a very contentious statement demonstrably false as everybody knows and you should stop him.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The trouble with the question is that it was not a clear concise question. It was a very—[Interruption] Order! It was an elaborate question that gives the ability for the Prime Minister to respond that way. If the member had simply asked why the Government did not decide to send SAS troops in combat that would have been a clear question and we could have got an answer. But when members embellish the question like that they give the answerer the opportunity to give an answer that addresses the question not to the member’s satisfaction. If members could only learn to ask concise supplementary questions they would get a better answer.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Might I ask you in later times to read my Hansard and reconsider the consequences of that decision that you have just given?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I can assure the member that I will reread the Hansard as I assure the House I do after every question time.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify—is this a fresh point of order?Ron Mark: Yes most certainly.Could I ask you to allow the Prime Minister to finish his answer because he was only part-way through when he was cut short?Mr SPEAKER: If the Prime Minister wishes to continue his answer he is welcome to do so.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will hear the point of order but it is getting to the ridiculous stage when we are getting points of order now that are leading to disorder in this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: My colleague asked a question and I contend that the Prime Minister was not answering it. It is not sufficient that he does not bother to answer it at all and that is what I am asking you to rule on.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have if the member would only concentrate on what is going on—I have already—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have already ruled that the Prime Minister addressed the question that was asked.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders a 100 percent—[Interruption]—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If these interjections are going to continue I will be asking the right honourable gentleman to leave the House. Now I am going to ask Andrew Little to restart his question.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the Iraqi soldiers New Zealanders train will not use that training to help the Hezbollah terrorist group and the al-Assad dictatorship as they are currently doing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think realistically one can say that some person could not go off and do something else or their own thing. In reality that is an impossible thing for any person to do. But what I can do is say that the Iraqi Foreign Minister made it clear in my meeting—and I suspect he made it clear in the meeting that the member had as well—that security is their No. 1 priority. They need help. Andactually we should provide them that help as I pointed out yesterday not just to help them stand up against the people ofISIL—who would attack Iraqi nationals and others—but actually because they are standing up to protect New Zealanders. And that member is better positioned than any other New Zealander as Leader of the Opposition to understand the threats and the risks to New Zealanders. And that member knows like I know that the risk to New Zealanders increases the stronger ISIL is. I stand by my statement yesterday—he should back the right thing.Andrew Little: Given that Australian special forces are already working with Iraqi units accused of war crimes can he give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the Iraqi troops we train will not be using that training to commit war crimes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking me to give guarantees that no leader could but what I can be sure of is that we are following something that will in my view in a small way make a contribution to ensuring that ISIL is weaker and that protects New Zealanders more.Andrew Little: Does he seriously think that there is any chance that his objective of “Sunni Shi’a and Kurds harmoniously sharing power and working together in Iraq” will be achieved in 2 years; if not does that not mean a longer larger commitment will be needed or is he just going to give up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether it can be achieved in 2 years but what I do know and what I have been saying for a very long period of time is in fact the strongest thing that can happen to stand up against ISIL is actually a Government in Iraq that is inclusive. Secondly as I have been saying it actually is a long-run process but that is why we are applying so many different parts to this and that includes humanitarian support it includes diplomatic support it includes the work we are doing on the United Nations Security Council and it includes some military capability.Andrew Little: Has he not seen the plaques around this Chamber—Malaya where New Zealand’s involvement began with cargo planes and ended 17 years later and Viet Nam for which the National Government said sending troops was the price of being in the club and the cost was 8 years of a quagmire? Has he not learnt the lessons of history—poor planning lack of strategy and lack of judgment lead to mission creep and disaster?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly there will not be poor planning when it comes to our troops going to Taji air base. I am quite confident that if you look at the work that the Chief of Defence Force is doing and the work that will go in there it will be a well-planned mission. Secondly I genuinely believe that the member with a weak argument does a disservice to all of those who fought in these battles for the values and principles that underpin New Zealand. As I said yesterday and I stand by this the member is taking politics over people.Regional Economies—Northland4.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he received about employment growing across New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): The household labour force survey released earlier this month showed an additional 80000 more people in work than a year ago. What was particularly pleasing was the broad-based nature of that job growth across a range of regions. Over the year Waikato saw an increase of 17400 jobs Canterbury 15800 the Bay of Plenty 15600 and in Northland a region that has historically struggled 7500 additional jobs were added in 1 year. To put that into perspective Auckland a region that is 10 times larger in terms of working population saw an increase of 22400 jobs so the Northland growth is very impressive. There is of course much more to do but this Government’s plan is boosting jobs investment and growth across New Zealand.Dr Shane Reti: How is Northland performing compared with the rest of the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday’s ANZ Regional Trends report highlighted that Northland recorded the strongest annual rate of economic growth in the country in December up 5.1 percent from a year earlier. It also posted the largest increase in merchandise exports in the December quarter lifting 9.1 percent with exports up 20 percent from a year ago. In addition a strong 5.7 percent rise in employment ranked Northland second across all the regions—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to raise a point of order.Grant Robertson: The Standing Orders require answers to be concise and to the point. If Mr Joyce wants to be the Northland candidate for National I am sure it would have him.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a valid point of order ruined by the latter part of the point of order. Does the Minister wish to continue?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Certainly. We acknowledge of course there is more to be done but what is clear from these figures is that the Northland economy is growing strongly under this Government.Dr Shane Reti: What other proposals has he seen to grow regions like Northland?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In contrast to the positive policies that are seeing growth in Northland and other regions around the country I have seen policies that would halt the roll-out—Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order and I expect it to be heard in silence.Denis O’Rourke: The question was about regions like Northland not about Northland itself and the Minister is talking about Northland—and should not be.Mr SPEAKER: The question was more about other policies so I am going to allow the Minister to continue his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is very interesting. In contrast to the positive policies of the Government in regions like Northland I have seen policies that would halt the roll-out for example of ultra-fast and rural broadband policies that would cancel the construction ofvital infrastructure like core roading projects that connect regions to our big cities policies that would discourage businesses from hiring new staff by getting rid of 90-day trials and the starting out wage and policies that would introduce an expensive capital gains tax and reject—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can sense where the answer is going and there is no ministerial responsibility there.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of the Minister’s answers are remotely true why did a leading New Zealand economist recently describe the capital of Northland Whangarei—Mr Reti’s electorate—as a zombie town and if he is so confident why does he not settle in Northland himself?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I did not realise the member still lived there but I can inform the member that this Government is strongly encouraging the growth of Whangarei and Northland and it is succeeding.Government Financial Position—Crown Debt5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No 4 on Tuesday 24 February 2015?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.Grant Robertson: With regard to his statements on prudent policies how much lower would debt levels have been had he not gone ahead with his 2010 cut to the top tax rate?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No lower—in fact debt probably would have been a bit higher because when you take into account all the decisions made about tax cuts after the 2008 election our tax package has resulted in a net increase in revenue compared with what the Labour Government expected to collect.Grant Robertson: Is it in fact correct that the cost of his reduction to the top tax rate has so far been around about $5 billion and how is it prudent to pursue policies like that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the member is wrong. He may forget that actually the first thing we did when we came in as a Government was cancel tax cuts that were on the books quite significant ones that were put in place by the previous Government simply because they could not be afforded. The net effect of all the decisions around tax packages is that they collected more revenue than the Labour Government expected to collect and more important we have now got a tax system that is well-balanced; favours incentives on work savings and investment; and taxes consumption and property more and that is a good result.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library which shows the cost of the top tax rate cut in 2010 to be $4.7 billion to this day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Is he aware of any New Zealand Government that has run up so much debt in so little time as his Government has?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not checked back but I am not aware of any other New Zealand Government that has dealt with the Christchurch earthquake. On “Planet Labour” perhaps it happens all the time but in New Zealand it has happened only once and actually it has generated something like $15 billion or $16 billion extra of debt. Yes it would be better if we did not have to deal with that but I am certainly not going to follow the member’s advice which is to cut spending so that we can accommodate the Christchurch rebuild. That would be nuts.Superannuation—2015 Annual General Adjustment6.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to support older New Zealanders receiving New Zealand superannuation?Hon Member: Not much.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Quite the contrary. As a result of the annual general adjustment superannuation and veterans pension payments will grow 2.07 percent from 1 April 2015. This year’s increase is in line with the Government’s commitment to keep the married couple rate at least 66 percent of the average wage. It means $11.68 extra each week for married superannuitants and $7.59 a week for those living alone compared with increases last year. Including this increase New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension payments will have increased by 31.01 percent since April 2008 which is double the consumer price inflation of 15 percent in that time.Todd Muller: How will other beneficiaries benefit from the annual general adjustment increase?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Benefit payments to around 440000 New Zealanders will also increase on 1 April 2015: an annual general adjustment of 0.51 percent. That annual general adjustment will see a 0.5 percentage increase to benefit rates student allowances student loan living costs and the foster care allowance an increase to rates and thresholds for supplementary assistance like the child disability allowance and also an increase to the threshold for the community services card. In 2011 we passed legislation to make sure that benefit payments increase each year in line with inflation and this increase will benefit thousands of New Zealanders receiving a wide range of assistance through Work and Income and StudyLink to keep up with the increase in living costs.David Seymour: Given the Minister’s desire to preserve these levels of benefit for superannuitants has she seen any reports from for example Treasury of what percentage of GDP will be required to do so as the current workforce heads into retirement?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.Housing Market—Impact on Financial Stability7.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he agree with KPMG that banks are warning that the “significant deals done at ridiculous pricing” for New Zealand land and property could spell disaster for them?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of theMinister for Building and Housing: On the face of it no I do not actually agree with KPMG although I am not exactly sure what it means. If banks feel that they are lending money on “significant deals done at ridiculous pricing” then they should not be and it would be their own fault if it led to disaster. But in fact they are subject to a fairly detailed supervisory regime that is intended to ensure that they do not take significant risks at ridiculous pricing in their lending.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with KPMG that “ ‘The risk for New Zealand is that while all this money comes flooding in and creates over inflated prices New Zealanders are forced to buy at these over inflated prices.’ That was leading to a sense of hopelessness among some young people about ever owning a home.”; if so why will he not do something about that flood instead of just tinkering with the Resource Management Act and selling off State houses?Hon BILL ENGLISH: KPMG has not produced much evidence to back up the statement that there is “a flood of investment”. You do not have to go too far though to find a young couple who do find it a struggle to buy their first home particularly in Auckland. They can buy them a lot more easily in other centres. That is why the Government is focusing strongly and increasingly successfully on improving the flexibility of supply of land the reduction of consenting costs and the reduction of building costs so that we can have more affordable homes particularly for low and middle income earners who have actually had a problem for quite a while and it is good that the member has now noticed.Phil Twyford: What is he doing about the pressures of offshore speculators driving the price of housing out of the reach of young first-home buyers and creating a risk to the whole economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are doing what we have described many times in this House and that is as a top priority focusing on expanding the supply of land and the more ready availability of low and moderate value homes particularly in the Auckland market which we are doing through special housing areas. We will have the opportunity to do this through more rapid development of the State housing areas in Auckland. We are getting good cooperation from the Auckland Council. As indicated by the number of consents we are starting to make some real progress but there is a lot more to do.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked what the Government is doing about the pressures of offshore speculators. That was not addressed in the answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was. The Minister then went on and said exactly what the Government is doing. Whether or not that in the member’s mind is a satisfactory answer clearly the question was addressed.Phil Twyford: Now that the banks and KPMG say that offshore speculators are a problem and now that Tony Abbott’s centre-right Government in Australia has announced a tax on foreign buyers a register of foreign property ownership and tough penalties for those who break the law will he reconsider his policy or is this just another case of him being right and everyone else being wrong?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No it is a case of focusing on the highest priority the issue that will make the biggest difference. The fact is that in Australia the work being done to put together a foreign buying register has had absolutely no impact on house prices in their main cities whereasactually the underlying issue is supply. That is why we continue to focus on it. You can of course make some adjustments to demand but it is the case that in a strong economy where incomes are rising and interest rates are at 50-year lows people are willing to pay more for houses. In that respect it is a sign of success.Phil Twyford: Is it a sign of success when the ASB Bank says that Auckland house prices are now “a critical financial stability issue” meaning that people’s debt levels are getting too high to handle a fall in house prices and the Reserve Bank warns of a sharp correction in house prices and is it time for him to admit that the Auckland housing market is out of control and his policy has failed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The ASB Bank of course has the choice of not making silly lending decisions and stoking along the market if it is believed that that is what is happening. It should not be taking big risks with shareholder capital and depositors’ money. I am pleased the member has now noticed there is a challenge in the housing market because the Government started working on it 4 years ago with the Productivity Commission inquiry followed by the special housing areas legislation which Labour opposed. But others such as the Auckland Council are working constructively with the Government and we are starting to make some real progress. The member should support the Government’s efforts instead of opposing them.Government Procurement Policy—Small Businesses8.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Small Business: What measures has the Government implemented to support small businesses in accessing the Government procurement process?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Each year the Government spends approximately $39 billion with third-party suppliers accounting for approximately 19 percent of our GDP. This expenditure covers a wide range of goods from services for contracts for prisons to IT systems social services research and of course the rebuild of Canterbury. To ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to bid for and supply Government contracts the Government procurement policy has been structured to ensure that it is open fair and transparent. To assist small businesses further the Government has implemented—[Interruption] listen carefully; you may learn something—the Government Electronic Tenders Service to ensure that businesses can easily find and bid for Government contract opportunities. This new service went live last July. I encourage all small businesses to register and get on the Government Electronic Tenders Service website.Sarah Dowie: What else is being done to help small businesses access all-of-Government contracts? [Interruption]Hon CRAIG FOSS: Grab your pen. A range of other initiatives has been developed to assist small businesses. These include the development of Government Model Contracts for low-value and low-risk procurement to create standardised simple plain English sets of conditions for contracts of common goods and services and a supplier online resource centre has been created to assist small businesses to navigate their tendering process. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has developed a programme called Better by Procurement which aims to improve tendering proficiency and the strike rate for New Zealand suppliers.Sarah Dowie: What proposals has he seen that could mean small businesses have less time to tender for all-of-Government contracts?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen proposals to introduce additional and complex new tax compliance on small businesses. If small and medium enterprises in New Zealand had to spend extra time working out how to comply with complex new taxes such as a capital gains tax then they would most certainly have less time for businesses and tendering for contracts. Sadly for New Zealand’s small and medium enterprise businesses that is exactly a proposal from—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of this House.Jacinda Ardern: Will he commit to increasing the proportion of procurement undertaken by small business to 20 percent as Labour has committed to do?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I welcome the question from the member. Over 107 Government agencies are part of the procurement policies of this Government. But I do note the policy of the Labour Party that the member mentioned is actually restricted to only Public Service departments the New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Police. So in no way would they get the 20 percent of Government spend on that.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question as to whether or not he too—Mr SPEAKER: Order! My difficulty is that I actually had trouble hearing the question because of the level of noise. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.Jacinda Ardern: Will he commit to increasing the proportion of procurement undertaken by small business to 20 percent as Labour has committed to do?Hon CRAIG FOSS: As part of those commitments that Labour has committed to actually its commitments to achieve that 20 percent—which I checked out earlier—would actually be restricted to only Public Service departments the New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Police. So on that basis I could not commit to such a number.Biosecurity Management—Baggage Screening9.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: Yes. In particular he stands by his statement that the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing a fantastic job on the ground in responding to the localised incursion of Queensland fruit fly. This morning there were around 180 field staff working on location in Auckland with more staff coordinating aspects of the response from the Wellington head office. I also want to take this opportunity to thank members of the public for their patience and cooperation.Richard Prosser: Does he stand by his statement that “We have stepped up a very quick response to this detection of one Queensland fruit fly in Auckland at the moment.”; if so was he expecting that more fruit flies would be detected?Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes it is expected that there will often be in the localised area—and that is why I referred to this as a localised incursion—further fruit flies detected. That is why we are looking to determine that they are within that area otherwise the area that has been covered with this incursion response will be changed should there be any elsewhere. But this is entirely what we would expect.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that the continued use of the green lane direct fast exit pathway is wise given his own department’s assessment that “Fruit fly is most likely to arrive with plane passengers bringing in infested fruit in luggage.”?Hon JO GOODHEW: Analysis shows us that the direct exit lane or the green lane as it is known by passengers coming through in fact has a much higher level of compliance—sticking to the rules in other words—than the other tracks through the airport. We know that having Ministry of Primary Industries officers who are in touch with every passenger coming through the use of dogs and the use of high-risk application of X-rays are all part of the way in which we put the taxpayers’ money to good effect to detect and have the highest possibility of detecting any incursions. No biosecurity system is ever 100 percent but we are focused very much on where the highest risk is.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Primary Industries’ pest and diseases hotline is operational during business hours only so that if someone finds a Queensland fruit fly they are encouraged to leave a message or call back on the next business day; if so given that the number of fruit flies detected is now five and increasing does he agree that the hotline should be operated 24/7; if not why not?Hon JO GOODHEW: I have heard some claims to that effect. I can assure the member that the hotline the pest line that we have at the Ministry of Primary Industries operates 24/7 and then we have a further triage off to the Queensland fruit fly line which is operated from early in the morning right into the evening. But what we are doing again in a thoughtful and measured response is that every single call that comes in is triaged and the calls that represent the highest risk of new information are treated first. I am sure the member might not be surprised to hear that if somebody rings us from the West Coast of the South Island a place too cold for fruit flies thinking they may have seen a fruit fly their call will be a little lower priority than one from someone in the next street over to where we have found other flies.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that biosecurity risks are active only during business hours; and further to that what can he tell the House regarding the potential activity of biosecurity risks on public holidays?Hon JO GOODHEW: This—from the member who thinks we should fumigate everything and everyone at the airport—in fact is a ridiculous question. I have already answered the member had he but listened. The pest line is 24/7 there is careful triage of every call that comes in and prioritisation for those who represent the information we need to deal with swiftly.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister tell the House which would be the greater amount: the cost of instituting 100 percent biosecurity inspection of all incoming passengers luggage mail and freight or the cost of losing the three-quarters of New Zealand’s economy that depends on primary production through not instituting such essential biosecurity measures?Hon JO GOODHEW: The member seems to have missed the point. There are a number of ways in which we can have the biosecurity system that this country depends upon. X-rays are but one of those measures. X-raying high-risk entry through the border is the way we are operating at the moment. In addition there is 100 percent screening of international arrivals using dogs currently. But the member must also remember that there are signs everywhere that there is education that we have a Ministry of Primary Industries officer speak to every passenger. He must realise that 100 percent X-ray screening is a not a silver bullet.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. The question was very straightforward. It was whether the Minister could tell the House which would be the greater amount. That matter was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister just address that part of the question.Hon JO GOODHEW: Any biosecurity incursion represents a very great and many millions of dollars’worth or more threat to this country. I believe that the money that is spent on biosecurity is well spent. I would add for the member that we had 100 percent X-ray screening from 2000 to 2008. We also had varroa painted apple moth didymo and Asian gypsy moth so maybe the member is mixing up what he is comparing.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to consider something that has come up a number of times today during question time and in a number of previous question times and that is that increasingly we are seeing Ministers at the beginning of their answer or during their answer attacking personally the person asking the question. I accept that there is going to be an element of political exchange in question time and a very political question will draw a very political answer but where a member is asking relatively straight questions that do not attack the Minister and do not actually have that political element in them it is not inappropriate for the Speaker to perhaps rule out of order an answer that begins with an attack on the questioner. Otherwise it is going to be become a very one-sided question time if this practice is allowed to continue.Mr SPEAKER: Allow me to have a look at the point the member is making. If it is a blatant attack I normally do rise to my feet and tell the Minister answering the question that it is not appropriate. Today there has been as the member refers to in his point of order the normal political exchange. I will go back and review Hansard. I do not think there is anything that has been out of order warranting my early intervention but it is something that I appreciate the member raising because the political barb at the start tends to then create more disorder to this House.Prime Minister—Donghua Liu10.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf last year about his contact with Mr Liu that: “As Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party Mr Key attends a number of functions up and down the country which are attended by a large number of people. While we don’t have a record of who attends these events Mr Key recalls seeing Mr Liu at various functions including a dinner as part of a National Party fundraiser”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Parker: Why did he omit to disclose that the various functions included a private dinner with Donghua Liu at Mr Donghua Liu’s own home?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not.Hon David Parker: Did he know that Mr Liu’s citizenship application was then in process?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Hon David Parker: Were immigration issues discussed that night?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The dinner the member is referring to was a fund-raising dinner. I went there in my capacity as leader of the National Party. That was the capacity I was in quite obviously.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Regardless of the capacity in which the Prime Minister originally attended the dinner if he discussed ministerial matters such as immigration matters then he was attending in his capacity as the Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: No no. [Interruption] Order! We have learnt that the Prime Minister attended the dinner. It is for the Prime Minister to judge on what basis he attended that dinner whether it was as the leader of a political party or as the Prime Minister. He has determined to answer in that way. That is an acceptable answer. I can understand that it may not satisfy the Opposition but that is a legitimate answer to the question that has been raised. Further supplementary—[Interruption] Order! I just want to be able to hear the questions.Hon David Parker: Was his private meeting with Donghua Liu before or after the private meeting that took place between his Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse and Donghua Liu?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I simply do not have those details. You will have to put it down in writing.Prime Minister—Child Poverty11.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we’re actually going to stand up for human rights…”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Amnesty International that Māori and Pasifika children are suffering human rights abuses here through systemic discrimination that is forcing them into poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think I accept that characterisation. What I would say is that there is demonstrated evidence that Māori and Pacific children need more help and this Government has been giving them a tremendous amount of help over the last 6½ years.Catherine Delahunty: Will he stand up for the human rights of Māori Pasifika and other children in poverty and at least ensure that they are provided lunch at school?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is asking us whether we are going to be backing the bill introduced by Hone Harawira and transferred to Metiria Turia the answer is no.Catherine Delahunty: Does he believe that all children have the right to lunch at school?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that children are fed. I think we should congratulate the vast overwhelming bulk of New Zealand parents and caregivers who do an outstanding job of making sure that happens.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Prime Minister believed that all children have the right to lunch—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member may want to design an answer satisfactory to her question; that is not the way question time occurs. On this occasion the Prime Minister has addressed the question.Skycity Convention Centre—Negotiation of Costs12.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: What was the “range of price escalation” for the New Zealand International Convention Centre as recorded in advice to the Minister dated 26 February 2014?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): As is clear in the other released documents that were written around that same time the figure was a net $30 million to $40 million. It was the Government’s expectation at that time that any additional costs would be effectively designed out in a subsequent preliminary design stage. As we all now know the preliminary design came back on 15 October at a much wider cost differential and that was put into the public domain before the end of last year.Dr David Clark: Has he sought and received a revaluation of the land Skycity acquired from Television New Zealand for the purposes of building a convention centre and upon which Skycity now intends to build a five-star 300-bedroom hotel; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I have not to this point but I have made it clear in response to questions from Green Party members that we will absolutely be taking into account any changes that are to Skycity’s benefit and calculating that into the overall value of the centre and what we will accept for the concessions that Parliament has legislated for.Dr David Clark: Can the Minister give an assurance that the originally proposed column-free design for the large convention space will be retained?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is interesting—I collect a lot of criticism for designing it personally and obviously in the instance I might not be designing the exact placement of columns in the convention centre. Look we will assess for the member at the time the next iteration of the preliminary design and the public will get the opportunity to assess that and we will all be able to decide whether that constitutes the international convention centre that we are all seeking for Auckland.Dr David Clark: In light of that answer did Skycity seek assurances he would not be involved in the convention centre construction process and was it because it was concerned to avoid further “Gerry-mandering” “John-mandering” and “Joyce-mandering”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have news for the member: I have no intention of being involved in the construction of the convention centre. It is fair to say I am not the most adept at carrying a hammer and wielding a hammer but I would defer of course to my friend Mr Brownlee who does have some experience in that regard but I can inform the member he does not intend to be spending his time constructing the convention centre either.General DebateANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well there is only one question that New Zealanders are asking after the first few weeks of this political year and that is: “When will the half-truths the double-speak the dissembling and the obfuscation come to an end?”. If there is one thing that these Government members have mastered it is that they cannot tell it straight. From the Prime Minister to the Minister for Economic Development to the Minister of Finance they cannot tell a straight story to New Zealand. They have to dress it up. They have plenty to hide. They have plenty to conceal and they have had plenty opportunities to do so. But it is all coming to an end—it is all coming to an end.It was very interesting hearing the “Minister for Construction of Casinos and Hotels” just now talking about the Skycity deal. It was another example—just another example—of Government members having the chance to tell New Zealanders the full truth the chance to be upfront and straight-up with New Zealanders and not being able to do it. They could not do it. When they knew 15 months ago that they did not have the money—that they might be ponied up for a bit more money because the poor old gambling company Skycity could not afford it; it could not afford to make its promise—Government members did not say a thing about it and John Key and Steven Joyce continued to promise that we would have a free convention centre.Then Government members started the softening-up act. They won the election and they thought: “That’s it. We’re quids in here brothers. We’ll soften them up and they’ll have no objection. We’ll tell them another $140 million—what am I bid? What am I bid?”. They tried to soften us up but it did not work. The people of New Zealand said: “No—a promise is a promise.” When John Key the great helmsman says he makes a promise he should stick with it. It is an unusual occurrence actually for New Zealanders to see the Prime Minister make a promise and stick to it but on this score this time on this occasion they said: “No. He made the promise; he must stick to it.” And so Government members were forced to back down. Of course it was not the Prime Minister who had made the promise who had to perform the somersault. It was left to the ever-agile and nubile Steven Joyce to do that. He had to perform the U-turn.Then we have Donghua Liu’s story. This is a never-ending story. Before the election National members thought they had it all sewn up. Their mate their little mate wrote out a cheque for $25000 and personally handed it to Jami-Lee Ross—personally handed it to Jami-Lee Ross—who put it in his bank account and had it sitting there earning interest at the sky-high rates that the Government keeps telling us about. Donghua Liu wrote them out a cheque and they thought they had it all over us. It was like “Oh the poor old Labour Party. Look you wrote a letter. You had this.”We had the allegation of a $100000 bottle of wine. Nobody had heard of the bottle of wine. The affidavit that they claimed to be sworn was nowhere to be seen. The written statement that followed the affidavit was nowhere to be seen. They had a thing on a paper napkin that they then talked about. That could not be found either and it all turned out to be just a load of old codswallop. But what was not codswallop was the cosy relationship between the Prime Minister John Key and Donghua Liu—the man now facing court charges. Oh yes! It was not the mythical $100000 bottle of wine; it was the very real $25000 cheque that found its way into the bank account of Jami-Lee Ross but they would not front up and tell us the truth at the time.Then there is State housing. They are very important State houses. Many New Zealanders are dependent on them because they cannot afford to buy their own. They cannot afford to live within the private rental market. Was there one word spoken during last year’s election campaign where they promised they would sell off the State houses? No way and they would not front up about that. And now we have the deployment of troops to Iraq. Did they ever tell us that 16 personnel would be sent up there for training with 106 sent to provide security? Did they ever tell us that they would be within spitting distance of the front line of the Islamic State? They would not tell us that either.They cannot tell the story straight—they cannot tell the story straight—and now they cannot be straight about how long those personnel will be there. This is not a job that will take 2 years. This is a long-term job dealing with one of the most evil organisations in the world and we have a Prime Minister who cannot be straight with New Zealanders about exactly what the Government is committing good New Zealand troops to. They will not tell us everything. They will not tell us what the facts are. They will stand up here in the comfort of their leather armchairs and accuse others of not having courage but they do not have the courage to front up to New Zealanders.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I seek leave to table a photograph showing the Hon Rick Barker handing over the $100000 bottle of wine to Donghua Liu’s partner.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of this House.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have sought leave.Mr SPEAKER: Oh the member has sought leave; that is true. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am delighted to stand and contribute to this general debate. I want to do so on the basis of discussing what kind of country we are what sort of leadership we are entitled to expect what sorts of values we want to see inculcated in our young people how we provide that and the sort of leadership that is available to them. Yesterday the Prime Minister exhibited all those values. We are a country that plays its part. We are small. We are distant. We are descended from people who were great adventurers and navigators who crossed the Pacific looking for something better and who were prepared to build that something better but in so doing recognise that we have links across this world. We are part of a community that is connected and linked and we are bringing up children in this society who understand that connectedness who want to continue the traditions of our country of travel of meeting other people and of being safe to explore and go on adventures. That means that we do have to be aware and wary of many of the risks and dangers that characterise the world that our young people are growing up in.We also want to make sure that they understand the history that they are descendants from. Before them there have been many New Zealanders who have gone into theatres of war who have seen that defining our belief of what the quality of citizenship is in this country. It is important that we continue to not only maintain the respect for those traditions that are invoked on Anzac Day and in the year of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli but keep that responsibility current.The Prime Minister in announcing yesterday the decision of the Government that we would continue to play our part is continuing to invoke that pride of citizenship that is so important to us and to who we are as New Zealanders and as Kiwis. I for one am personally absolutely committed to that direction. I for one am one of those young people—well actually I am not that young. In comparison to some of my colleagues on the other side of the House I probably am. But certainly I grew up going to dawn ceremonies on Anzac Day in Ruatōria and now in Wellington. I grew up with the names of heroes and heroines on our war memorials and in our marae around this country. Now I am a proud chair of the Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board which invokes all of those memories. The people who joined those battalions and who join our Defence Force today joined knowing that they want to be able to have that opportunity. The whole point by definition of having a defence force is that they are training to carry out those responsibilities. So we cannot on the one hand evoke the emotion of turning up to Anzac Day and then turn away from the actual practical reality of what that means. No this Government is not prepared to do that and this Prime Minister has demonstrated the courage the wisdom and also the great belief in who we are to take that stand.As the Minister of Education I consider that critical for young New Zealanders because we have a curriculum that says to them that these are the values of who we are. We play our part. We want them to be travellers. We want them to be explorers. We want them to be mindful of risk. We want them to be relationship developers. We want them to be communicators. And we should not turn away as a nation when that responsibility looks us in the face and says: “Will you stand alongside the allies whom in times of both war and trade we look to for those relationships?”. So no this Government will not turn away from those responsibilities and it is important that not only we confront them in a timely fashion but we demonstrate to young New Zealanders that that is part of who we are. We are descended from people who played their part who took the risks and who were prepared to do what was necessary. And so as the Minister of Education I believe that our schools are playing their part and are making those contributions. We have invested in connectedness. We have invested in ensuring that young people can critically think—critically think—and analyse what their responsibilities are.We are seeing progress in our education system and that actually should reassure all of us that we are continuing to build a strong nation and a nation that is being led by a Government and a Prime Minister who understands that we must govern not just for now and the immediate future but for our future and our ability to hold our heads high. That is why New Zealand got such a big vote to go on to the United Nations Security Council. It is because we are recognised for our integrity and for the part we play. So I am proud to stand alongside our Prime Minister our Government and the decision that has been made to continue this responsibility as New Zealanders.RON MARK (NZ First): Well I guess today’s paper pretty much sums it up if you look at the front page of the Dominion Post. On the right-hand side you have photographs and a story about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS): “ISIS fight: Key fired up”—or not apparently; and “Emphatic no for the super-city in voter poll”. I want to speak briefly about both these issues. I think probably the one part of the front page of the Dominion Post that I would like the members of the Government to focus on is the part here with United States journalist Steven Sotloff standing beside—that is “Jihadi John” is it not?Hon Member: Kneeling beside.RON MARK: Kneeling beside “Jihadi John”. The question that I have for this Government is: what is your contingency plan? If one of our soldiers ends up in an orange jumpsuit beside “Jihadi John” what is your plan? Will you pay the ransom will you send in the SAS or will you stand by and allow one of our soldiers to be beheaded? That is the real question and I have not heard anything from this Government. And I put it to this Government: before the troops go—Hon Paul Goldsmith: It could happen tomorrow you great goof.RON MARK: Do not make light of it silly Mr—what is your name?Barbara Stewart: Goldsmith.RON MARK: Goldsmith. Do not make light of this. See the thing I know about people in Parliament—and I used to say this to Keith Locke—is that most often the people who have the loudest voices when it comes to deploying people into theatres of war are those who have never worn a uniform and never want to. And very very often sadly you find that they do not allow their sons or daughters to go either. So button it Mr Goldsmith—button it. You have no place commenting on this because quite frankly you do not know what you are sending troops to.The other point I want to talk about is the Local Government Commission and the super-city amalgamation. As the Mayor of Carterton I tried to have conversations with various Government Ministers and a range of people—indeed yourself Mr Speaker when you were the Minister of Local Government—and I tried to impress upon people what was going to happen. I know this Government passed legislation to make it easier to force amalgamations and it has relied on the Local Government Commission to put together the necessary papers to effect that. That is the aspiration. We know that. But what we have right now is two things: an incompetent Local Government Commission—and I did ask the Minister of Local Government whether she had confidence in it. She said yes. The trouble is that since the commission’s Wellington proposal has been released it has had to make three corrections of fact and there is still one major glaring error of fact in its proposal where it has estimated the costs of merging the Wairarapa councils’ IT systems into one at $25 million—wrong. The three Wairarapa councils have been doing that work for the last 5 years and had the commission bothered to pick up the phone and ring one of the chief executive officers over there it would have been told that the cost was probably about $1.5 million to polish it off—$1.5 million not $25 million. I am sorry but the Local Government Commission reeks of incompetence.And now we have an amazing statement a ruling coming out of the Broadcasting Standards Authority which has found that the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Fran Wilde have lied—lied—in their marketing propaganda to the people of the Greater Wellington region. I have got to hand it to Stephen Franks who has taken Fran Wilde and the Greater Wellington Regional Council to task and the councillors of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and is asking them as honest members of the council: “How do you feel about this? Will you seek an inquiry into the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s propaganda?”. I stand here ready to assist this Government to a sensible solution for the Wairarapa which is a unitary authority and it would help if the local member stood up for his people as well. But we are not going to lie down and let this Government and the Local Government Commission allow the people of the Wairarapa to be forced into a Wellington super-city when 85 percent of them do not want it.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Xin nian Kuai le. Gong xi fa cai. Sun nin fail lok. Gong hay fat choy and a happy New Year a happy lunar New Year to you Mr Speaker. Over the past few weeks I have been attending functions throughout my electorate and across this country to celebrate the lunar New Year.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You haven’t.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have not seen Mr Peters there and we know why he does not turn up at these functions but these events culminated last night with a function that I hosted here in Parliament that you Mr Speaker attended. The one thing that these events draw together is that they remind us that New Zealand is a place where cultures can thrive and flourish. Different heritages and languages are part of the thriving web of interaction that is our country one that we all love and admire. We know it is the Year of the Sheep and of course many in this country have close associations to these fine animals including you as a former sheep farmer Mr Speaker. For me there is a rich history of sheep in this country: 39 million out there today. I think that based on that this will be New Zealand’s year the Year of the Sheep. People born under this sign are known to be creative and resilient and to persevere.That can best describe the role of this National Government in 2015. This country is going into this year in good shape: resilient and strong. Our Prime Minister leads a Government that has stabilised this economy. It grew 3.2 percent last year and average wages have grown 15 percent over the last 5 years and are forecast to head even faster into the future. Employment is strong. As the Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce has said 80000 more people are now employed than a year ago—80000 more people. There are 217000 more—Dr David Clark: Unemployment is still higher than when Labour was in office.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —people employed than 5 years ago. And how do I know that? I say to Mr Clark come to Maungakiekie come talk to the employers that actually create jobs wealth and opportunities for our people and our communities and they are saying to me that they want to hire more people that they are growing and they are confident that this Government is delivering for them.Unemployment remains low: 5.7 percent. This is forecast to drop down to 4.5 percent. Some of the things I am proud of about this Government is that in terms of my role as Minister for Pacific Peoples we now have 116300 Pacific people employed and that is the most at any time in our history—the most at any time in our history. We know that meaningful long-term employment is the best way not just for Pacific families but for all families to succeed and thrive in this country. These positive statistics reflect that more young people are in jobs gaining qualifications and moving into sustainable higher-paying jobs. That is what the people of Maungakiekie expect of this Government and that is what Pacific people are now reaping the benefits of in such a positive economy.As the Minister of Corrections I am focused on reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. We all know that the crime rate is at its lowest in three decades but there are still too many people reoffending. We are taking measures through education programmes and rehabilitation programmes in our prisons and also through converting every prison in this country to a working prison. Why? Because we know that employment is the best way out of poverty the best way out of welfare and the best way to stay out of our prisons. We know also that specialist aftercare services are being promoted in our prisons and we are working hard to deliver on drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes which are heavily placed in our prisons.Lastly can I just say that I am 100 percent behind our Government’s decision to stand alongside its allies and fight this evil organisation that calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It poses one of the biggest threats to this world since World War II and we must do whatever we can to defeat it. We cannot ignore the fact that we are part of the international community and there comes a point as the Prime Minister said yesterday when we must stand up and be counted. I am proud to be a New Zealander just like Mr Mark is. I am proud to be part of a Government that will not bow down to the fear and terror of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and I am proud that we have made this decision to go to Iraq.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Last night TV3’s Campbell Liveshowed us a side of New Zealand that frankly made me sick to my stomach and should make the National Government deeply ashamed. A class of 28 teenage girls at Kelston Girls’ College a very nice west Auckland high school were asked whether they had eaten breakfast and what they had in their bags for lunch. The result was that 18 girls had no lunch. That is right—18 out of 28 girls had nothing for their lunch and eight of them had had nothing for breakfast either. I find this hard to get my head around. Eighteen girls are expected to learn to focus and to function well in their school for the whole day and to come away with National Certificate of Educational Achievement success at the end of it when they have got grumbling tummies and have had nothing to eat. I find that staggering.I would like to know something. Since when did the idea of classrooms full of hungry kids become tolerable in a country like New Zealand? I just do not know what else to make of the Government’s blasé response to the numbers of kids turning up to school without food other than to assume that it thinks that that is OK. Well I will tell you what—kids going hungry for the whole day at school is not my new normal. Child hunger in this country is a national emergency and we today—today—can do something about it.Tonight it is likely my “Feed the Kids Bill” will come up in this House for debate and a vote. Before MPs vote on it I just want to say this: there is no reason on earth not to vote for my bill. If you do not like the idea of feeding kids lunch at school—if that grates with your sensibilities—then vote the bill down at the second reading or at the third reading. Do not deny Parliament the first real opportunity we have had to sit down with others across the political spectrum with experts with families and with schools to hear what the solutions are for this national emergency. That is what you will be doing if you vote the bill down. You will deny the House a unique and crucial opportunity to put politics aside and do something for our kids who are in need.I also want to say this to all MPs: when was the last time that you worked a whole day without having had anything to eat since breakfast? Do you think you could do your job if you did not eat something at morning tea or lunchtime? We all know that breakfast is not enough to get anyone through a whole day so let us not pretend that a bowl of Weet-Bix in the morning is enough to see our kids through a whole school day either. Kids need lunch—it is simple—like we all do.Last night we heard from KidsCan and the principal of Kelston Girls’ College that the problem of hunger in schools is increasing every day. It is not—with respect to the Prime Minister who has not visited many low-decile schools—a problem for the odd one or two.Hon Anne Tolley: Stop making it up. That’s not true.METIRIA TUREI: No—Julie Chapman from KidsCan said that around 22 percent of children in schools that she deals with are hungry every day. The number is up from 15 percent just a year earlier. Kelston Girls’ College is not an isolated story. The parents of the girls love their kids just as much as anyone in this House loves their own kids but the school principals are saying the parents just do not have as much money.It is a compassionate country that we live in—Aotearoa. We act before we judge people. When the earthquakes struck we acted to help people without judgment or favour. If a child falls over and is cut we help them regardless of why they were hurt. We act because we care for all the kids in this country. So today I am asking members across this House to have the guts to do what is really right and vote for the “Feed the Kids Bill”. Hungry kids are not the new normal in this country. It is a national emergency and tonight we all have the chance to do something about it. Thank you.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It has been a significant week for New Zealand and it is only Wednesday. On Sunday we had the 4th anniversary of the Canterbury earthquakes and yesterday we made the commitment for our Defence Force to train in Iraq. Both provide us with an opportunity to reflect on being a Kiwi what we value in New Zealand and why we need to protect our people and our quality of life.Rebuilding Canterbury so that it is a great place to live work and raise a family is one of the Government’s priorities. The 4th anniversary on Sunday gave us an opportunity to take stock of how far we have come. There is a new normal in Christchurch in Canterbury. What we think about what we care about and what we do is different now. People are more precious; things less so. We take pleasure in the small things like a smooth road—things that we took for granted in the past. We are more creative. We are more community-minded and public spaces and events are more popular.Physically there is huge change in our area. When you look you can see building everywhere. Roads are being repaired houses are being built and suburbs are being recreated. The central city newly focused on a cleaned and restored Avon/Ōtākaro River is coming alive. The anchor projects are taking shape. Businesses and organisations are returning to the town and there is a real buzz of activity.Everyone can see the physical rebuild but what about the people of Canterbury? Everyone has lost someone or something. Everyone has their own experience and their own story and everyone copes in a different way and in a different time frame. But as the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery I am concerned about the well-being of the community as a whole and how they feel about life. The latest research part of the All Right? campaign for greater Christchurch tells us that fewer people are now worried about having another big earthquake. Significantly fewer people are dealing with the things that happened as a result of the earthquakes. But in terms of well-being and community respondents feel better connected to greater Christchurch and more respondents reported regularly giving their time to help others.When we compare Christchurch with the rest of New Zealand in the local government Quality of Life Survey we see that across the six cities 82 percent of people rate their quality of life as positive and in Christchurch that figure is 80 percent. In those six cities 17 percent of people feel stressed most of the time and in Canterbury that figure is 19 percent. But the statistic that I found the most interesting is that across the six cities people tell us that “they have someone to turn to for help if they are faced with a serious illness or injury or needed emotional support during a difficult time”. In those six cities 92 percent of people feel that but in Christchurch the figure is 94 percent of people. So we do stick together. We are supporting each other.So we have made some progress but we have still got some way to go. But I think we are seeing a benefit in that people feel engaged and are participating in our community. Last weekend alone as well as the memorial services in the city we had a Cricket World Cup match a well-patronised fun run and disabled surfing. The ethnic communities had a soccer tournament and we had the Chinese New Year celebration and that all on top of our normal events. Cantabrians are out and about and enjoying themselves.We are championing creativity and the arts in our rebuild. We have the Gap Filler events and recently we had the Spectrum Street ArtFestival which will make Christchurch the leading city for street art in New Zealand. We have restored the Isaac Theatre Royal. We have got the Court Theatre running and performances in Hagley Park. There is something for everyone. While I am here I would like to draw the attention of the House to the public consultation on the new earthquake memorial. From an international call for ideas we got 330 proposals and six of those have been chosen. You can have your say online.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Yesterday in the House was one of those rare occasions when we saw some raw honesty from the Prime Minister—in his breathless justification as to why we should send troops to Iraq. If the Prime Minister could ante up yesterday why could he not ante up before the election when he made quite different statements about his Government’s position on sending troops to Iraq? Before the election it was a completely different story. Before the election Mr Key was quite adamant that there would be no SAS or troop deployment to Iraq. He was telling people before the election that this was National’s solid policy. Asked again whether he would rule out deploying our special forces to Iraq even in an advisory capacity Mr Key said: “I would say yes.”Why are there two different stories from our Prime Minister? Before the election he said that there was no way we were sending our troops to Iraq not even in an advisory capacity but yesterday in the House he was breathlessly justifying sending troops to Iraq as well as sending troops in an advisory capacity. What happened? Why the lies? Why the mistruth? Why the different story before the election and why the story we got yesterday—that we are in boots and all?Also when that side of the House sends a message to this side of the House that we are not supportive of our troops I say that we will always be supportive of our troops whenever they are sent anywhere. You can play politics and throw out that accusation about us but we will always support our troops. On this side of the House we do not support the nature of what you are doing in Iraq but we will always support any of our troops and anyone in our Defence Force when they are sent out on a mission.But there is a pattern for me here. Just like Mr Key softened the New Zealand public up with sending troops to Iraq there are half-truths and mistruths with him everywhere. The Prime Minister made accusations about the Labour Party getting donations from Donghua Liu when at the very same time hewas going around to Mr Liu’s house for dinner: “Come on in John. Have a $25000 cheque.” Have a $25000 cheque. So it was hypocritical for the Prime Minister to throw barbs at our side of the House when he was going around for dinner. Mr Liu and Mr Key were sitting around the dinner table—but no Mr Key did not go around; he said that he just saw him at occasions and fundraisers. Well I am sorry Mr Key but the public does not buy your story that you saw Mr Liu at fundraisers and functions because you went around to his house for tea. I certainly would remember if I got invited around to someone’s house and then $25000 arrived in my bank account as a campaign donation. So I am sorry Mr Key but the public does not buy it. The public does not buy your web of lies and web of deceit around Iraq or around Mr Liu.And of course there is another issue here which is dear to my heart and that is the sale of State houses. There was not one mention of the mass sale of State houses before the election but post-election it is all on. There are 8000 State houses on the chopping block. What did Mr Key say about the sale of State houses before the election? He said that the truth was there are not a lot of other assets that would fit the category where they would be appealing to send to the market. But we know that at the same time his Minister Nick Smith was talking to the Housing New Zealand Board and saying that the Government expected that Housing New Zealand would own a significantly smaller number of houses in 10 years’ time.What I do not like about this is the way that this Government has dressed it up. Hundreds of homes in my electorate were made vacant—the tenants kicked out—under some kind of premise that it was for earthquake strengthening. But that is not what was going on. Those people were being kicked out of their homes for those properties to be readied for sale. That is what was happening. A lot of them are still vacant and the way they have been looked after—or have not been looked after—has caused crime in our communities and we will find out more about that. This Government has just left those properties to deteriorate. It is deserting communities and crime is happening in them. This Government has sat around and done nothing with those houses. It had an agenda of selling them off but we did not hear about that before the election. We will hear more about that later.There are many many other cases where this Government has told one story before the election and another one afterwards and the public are getting used to it.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to start my contribution this afternoon by acknowledging the pain of the Ōāmaru family who lost a daughter—a little 5-year-old girl; a sister she had grandparents—as a result of a fatal accident at Moeraki just south of Ōāmaru. My heart goes out to them. My love and my sympathy are with them. They are a well-known North Otago family. When a tragedy such as a fatal accident such as this one occurs it goes further than just the immediate family—and God knows they are feeling enough pain at this time—it goes right into the local community and even more widely. I just want to say as their local member of Parliament that I am absolutely backing the need for us to make all roads in New Zealand safe for everyone.The Upper Clutha and Otago area is a hot spot for fatalities and serious accidents involving foreign drivers. The impact is felt not just in New Zealand but on the families of the drivers from other countries around the world—the effects are felt there. I want to acknowledge the work already done by this Government and by Government agencies in their efforts to make New Zealand roads and New Zealand driving conditions safer for all drivers. I want to acknowledge the work of Ministers who are very concerned about this issue. I am concerned as the local member of Parliament but I want to acknowledge that they too are concerned and that there is a considerable amount of work going on to see whether we can make conditions for driving better in New Zealand. I want to see more however. I want to see closer attention on what more we can do.Is it that we can put in more yellow lines? Is it as simple as putting in more directional arrows so that when somebody drives out of an intersection they do not find themselves disorientated? If we can do that to make our roads safer for New Zealanders and visitors alike let us do it. Let us just do it. So this Government and this Parliament is not sitting on its hands over this issue. There is a petition sitting before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I know that it has done a lot of work on this issue and that it is about to hear a submission by a petitioner whom I support—young Sean Roberts from Geraldine who lost his father 3 years ago in a motorcycle accident. I supported that petition into Parliament; I sponsored it into Parliament.This Parliament is taking this issue seriously. The select committee is doing something about this issue. I have said this before in contributions in the House but I mean it and I mean it from my heart. I want to see our roads in New Zealand made safe for New Zealanders and visitors alike. On a happier note in the few minutes—Dr David Clark: Why is the Government not acting? Why does it keep delaying?JACQUI DEAN: You see there is a member from Dunedin North who should know better. He should know that this Government has done a significant amount of work on making our roads safer. In the time of the previous Government we did not see directional arrows did we? As an Opposition MP I had to cry against the wind to see whether we could get these basic safety measures in place. That was during the Clark Government. It had 9 years to make our roads safer. It took this Government to put the investment into roading.It took this Government to put the investment into educating our visitors to New Zealand through the Tourism New Zealand website and through information on aeroplanes coming into New Zealand. All these measures have happened under this Government. Although the Opposition can sit back and cry doom I ask those members to look inside their hearts and ask what they did to fix this problem and contrast that with what is happening now. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Getting the whole truth out of the Prime Minister is like pulling teeth.Chris Bishop: Oh rubbish!Hon DAVID PARKER: “Rubbish!” he says. There goes the man who used to work in his office alongside Jason Ede. Yeah that is right. Where is Jason Ede? Tell us that. We never hear Jason Ede coming out to tell us what went down in those days.Andrew Little has traversed some of the ground today. We had the Government not saying anything about State house sales at the time of the election and then miraculously having as its major focus at the moment the sale of State houses. We had the Skycity deal presented as being no cost to the Government for the full monty the whole shebang. It was going to be absolutely free.Dr David Clark: Not a cent more.Hon DAVID PARKER: “Not a cent more.” was the phrase that was used. We now know that 14 months ago Mr Joyce knew that that was not the case. Either it was going to be trimmed as to scope or the taxpayer would have to get the cheque book out. Then shortly after the election we had both the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce softening up the public for having to spend more money on it getting beaten around the head by New Zealanders about that and now conceding that they will get a smaller convention centre. We have not had the whole truth there except what was dragged out reluctantly.Then we come to Iraq. “No boots on the ground.” was the phrase. “No boots on the ground.” was what the Prime Minister was saying before the election. New Zealanders were understandably suspicious because Bill English John Key and Gerry Brownlee all said that New Zealand should have gone to war in Iraq in 2003 as part of the coalition of the willing. Lo and behold those suspicions have been proven to be right this week when just a week after the Prime Minister said that it is the cost of being part of the club—which at that time meant was the “Five Eyes” club our traditional allies the United States Australia and Great Britain; that club—he now tries to reinterpret that as being the United Nations and has been roundly criticised by the media for spinning on that particular issue.Then this week as if all of this is not serious enough we know that he is misleading us about Donghua Liu. In the middle of all of these controversies—Mr Williamson resigning as a Minister as a consequence; Judith Collins in trouble with Oravida and her donations from them and the conflict of interest in her meetings with Chinese border officials in China—he put out a statement through his staff and he omitted to tell us that he had a private dinner with Donghua Liu.That sort of omission just does not ring true. He was quizzed about this in the stand-up this week. It reads like a Clarke and Dawe script. It would almost be funny if it was not so sad. He is asked whether he is misleading by omission. “Are you misleading by omission?” the reporter asked. PM: “No. I mean look at the end of the day we’re never going to start getting into a process of saying where we had dinner.” “At the end of the day” is one of those catchphrases that he always uses as a filler when he is in trouble.Next he said: “I knew it was a Cabinet club dinner.” The reporter says: “Just to be clear last year your office denied the dinner was a Cabinet club dinner. Emphatically they said no.” PM: “Right.” Reporter: “You’re saying it was a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well that’s only what I read in the paper in the weekend. People have their own definitions of it.” Reporter: “So to be clear was it a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “I don’t know. You’d have to ask Jami-Lee Ross. He organised it.” Reporter: “But didn’t you say it was a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well like I say.” Reporter: “How do you define a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well that’s right. How do you?”. Reporter: “Well we don’t go to them.”It gets worse. Reporter: “So you seem to be contradicting your office. You emphatically said it was not a Cabinet club dinner.” PM: “Well probably it wasn’t then. I don’t know. I don’t know the details.” Reporter: “But just moments ago you said it was a Cabinet club dinner.” PM: “Well only because that’s what I read in the paper. If you’re telling me it wasn’t then it wasn’t.” Reporter: “But you were there.” The catalogue of events where the Prime Minister has to have the truth dragged out of him does him no credit whatsoever.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker ā ka nui te mihi ki a tātau i tēnei ahiahi. Ko tāku wāhanga tuatahi ko Te Reo Māori hei whaiwhai haere i te aroha nui ki ahau o taku reo ā ka mutu ka huri ki te reo Pākehā mō te wā. Mr Speaker me huri ki tētahi kaupapa hei whaiwhai atu i te mema rā. He kaupapa harikoa kaua ko tētahi kaupapa āhua titi ki te ngākau he mea pōuri rawa ēngari ko te kaupapa nui ko te kaupapa ātaahua nei tērā ka tū ki roto o Ōtautahi ki te wāhi e noho nā koe i Ōtautahi.Ā te wiki e tū mai nei ka kitea atu Te Ao Māori e whakaeke atu ana ki runga i a Ngāi Tahu otirā ngā iwi e noho nā ki Te Wai Pounamu. He aha te kaupapa? Ko Te Matatini! He aha Te Matatini? He huihuinga ā-tāngata he huihuinga Māori ki te whakanui i a ia anō. Ko te mata arā ko te kanohi o te tangata tērā āhuatanga tini. Ko tērā wāhanga tērā kupu e mea ana ko te tokomaha. Ē hia kē nei! Nō reira he pai tērā whakamārama a Wharehuia Milroy mō Te Matatini -he kohikohinga ā-tāngata he huihuinga ā-tāngata he huinga ngākau.He aha te mahi i Te Matatini? Ko te mahi kapa haka ka kitea mai ai ko te kapa ā-haka ā-poi ā-waiata ā-ngākau. Ko te painga ake o Te Matatini ka rongo te motu i ngā take nui o roto i Te Ao Māori. I ngā rā kua hipa ake i te wā i a Tākuta Pita Sharples ko te mahi petipeti tētahi. I ngā rā o wētahi atu Minita ko te whakahē i Te Pire Takutai Moana a Te Rōpū Reipa te mahi. Ka pai![Thank you Mr Speaker. Huge accolades to us this afternoon. My first part will be in the Māori language to follow up the huge fondness I have for my language and I will switch to English for a time. Mr Speaker to follow on from that member let us turn to a euphoric one and not just one that pricks the heart somewhat a really mournful one but with a huge and beautiful philosophy to be held in Christchurch at the place where you reside in at Christchurch.Next week Māoridom will be seen alighting upon Ngāi Tahu but at the same time upon the tribes living down there in the South Island. What isthe purpose? It is the Matatini.What is the Matatini? It is a gathering of people and of Māori honouring itself once again. Te mata is the face in other words the face of a person that aspect of the myriad. That part that word tini is referring to the great number to the myriad; anabsolutely massive number.So that explanation by Wharehuia Milroy for Te Matatini is a good one—a collectionof people a gathering of people an assembly of people performing from the heart.What is done at Te Matatini? Cultural performances that will be seen will be posture dances poi dancesand performances from the heart. The real good thing about Te Matatini is that the nation will hear about the big issues within Māoridom. In recent years just pastintheHon Dr Pita Sharples’ era gambling was one such issue. During the days of some of our Ministersopposing the Labour Party’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill was the task. That is fine.]Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My apologies to the speaker. I do not know whether other members are having the same difficulty but I cannot hear the interpretation. I see that you Mr Speaker are straining to hear it too.Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly very faint coming through. I am listening very intently. We will take it up with the interpreters subsequently. The member may decide it is more appropriate to continue his speech in English on this occasion but it is entirely over to him. You can hear it but you have got to listen very very carefully.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ka pai. I will help you out Mr Speaker. Can I start again with my 5 minutes? No no. It is all right.Mr SPEAKER: A good try but no.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Anyway to all the ones who are in the gallery and so on I was saying that I was not at the function that Mr Parker was talking about and I was not talking to a reporter so I cannot comment on anything that was stated there. But I do want to tell the member that in another week or so come next Wednesday pretty much most of the towns will be emptied out of Māori. They will all be heading to Christchurch to the land of Mr Speaker—I hope you are still there; I think you are still there. [Interruption] Oh you are still there. That is all right. There is going to be a heap of Māori there and they are all going to go and celebrate the good things. The kaupapa the main function is going to be called Te Matatini. What does matatini mean? Mata means face and tini means many—many faces—and of course that encapsulates the statement by our Professor Wharehuria Milroy who named the function. What goes on at kapa haka and at Te Matatini—I tell you what. Having been the stage manager for Te Matatini for three festivals you have got food you have got entertainment—the highest calibre of entertainment in terms of Te Ao Māori that you will ever see. Thousands and thousands of people will be going.The great thing about it is that being held in Christchurch it will give a huge boost to the economy of Canterbury and indeed Christchurch. I think most of the motels are sold out. I do not know what Christchurch did but it took the Cricket World Cup and by taking Te Matatini it is taking money off Māori as well. That has got to be good for the economy. I just wanted to ask all members who happen to be in the Chamber and indeed those listening and those who might be listening around the country right now to take up the opportunity to go and see Te Matatini in all of its beautifulness—even if there is not such a word as “beautifulness” go there be in Christchurch and see the beauty of Te Matatini.The great thing for all members of Parliament if you go there is firstly you will struggle for votes because they are going to the Māori Party. [Interruption] I am just saying that. The second part is that you will hear the issues of the day. In the past there have been issues in respect of gambling and drug use. All of those things are taken up and are spoken about by way of haka by poi by action song. It is all there. All of the stuff is there if you want to see hear and feel Te Ao Māori. So I will just ask all the members whether they can take some time to be in Christchurch from Wednesday of next week. The pō’hiri is at 11 o’clock. Come and join us and the thousands of Māori who will be there. The final is on Sunday. It is going to be a great occasion and I am sure it is being broadcast. It will be a great celebration of being Māori. I hope you all have an opportunity to be there. We will take up the issue about interpretation later on. Thank you. Kia ora tātou.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the general debate. First of all I would like to congratulate all my fellow Kiwis on the new lunar year. This is a time when we all celebrate the lunar year.Tim Macindoe: Gong xi fa cai.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes—gong xi fa cai. Yesterday we celebrated the lunar new year in Parliament and we are attending lots of functions around the country.The Sydney siege highlighted for us in this part of the world that New Zealand cannot be considered immune to the dangers posed by terrorism. Due to our distance we may be a bit far away; however our geographical positioning is by no means an excuse for us to take a lacklustre approach. Our leader the Rt Hon John Key outlined yesterday the brutal and unfortunate realities of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Some recent events further highlight the threat that ISIL poses. The beheading of journalists who are on the groundonly to report on the current situation in that region and the kidnapping of hostages are some of the many serious threats that we have to keep in mind when we discuss the serious complex decision that the Government announced yesterday.As we have seen three young teenage girls have just left the UK and have gone to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists in Syria. It is a very serious thing that we need to understand—that those guys are influencing the young generation and asking them to join them in the Middle East and to create a threat.Over the past few months the world has witnessed the ability of ISIL to attract train and keep foreign fighters motivated. Further as an organisation it is well armed and has access to a constant flow of funds to it. Anyone who despite knowing all these details still feels that ISIL is not a threat needs to re-examine their facts. Based on the facts available I am of the firm opinion that ISIL is a threat not just to the peace and stability of the Middle East but as a region globally.We live in an interconnected world and we have to play an active part while ensuring that New Zealand’s interests are taken care of. As the Prime Minister mentioned today during question time New Zealand’s approach is that we have to be part of humanitarian diplomatic and capacity-building exercises in the region. By doing so we are standing by the values of New Zealanders. We are taking the righteous decision of helping support the rule of law internationally. Furthermore we are doing it only on the request of the Iraqi Government which has time and again sought international assistance for ensuring the safety and security of its citizens.Although I am speaking about the rule of law internationally I now want to focus on New Zealand. I was pleased to take over as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. The Prime Minister recently set Better Public Services targets and I am pleased that we are on track to achieve those. The crime rate is the lowest in the last three decades. People feel safe at home at work and on the streets.I would also like to share the announcement made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse increasing the minimum wage from $14.25 to $14.75 from 1 April 2015. I think the wage rise strikes a perfect balance between the needs of employees and the ability of employers to pay. This is what we can call a win-win situation. The annual inflation figure stands at 0.8 percent while the minimum wage has risen by 3.5 percent. This will directly benefit 115000 workers and lead to increased wages of $60 million a year. This shows once again that we are listening closely to the needs of stakeholders and that we are making decisions based on their needs.Another example that I can share here of where the Government is listening to the community is the decision by the Minister for Ethnic Communities—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to follow on from my distinguished colleague. Can I begin by paying tribute to Dame Thea Muldoon who passed away peacefully yesterday at the age of 87. Dame Thea held obviously the courtesy title of “Lady” as the wife of Sir Robert but I think it pays to point out that in her own right she was made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order in 1986 by the then Labour Government and was actually made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She was made a Dame in her own right in the New Year honours in 1993 for the contribution she made not only as a very dignified first lady of New Zealand during Sir Robert’s premiership but for the innumerable community and charitable contributions that she made. So I think it is appropriate that all of us in this House pause for a moment to pay tribute to Dame Thea.This weekend we have an opportunity—not so much in New Zealand but we will very soon thanks to an investment that this Government is making in ultra-fast broadband and the soon to be available Netflix service—to see the next season of that much-awaited series House of Cards which is released at midnight Eastern Standard Time in the United States. This political drama for those who have not seen it features the machinations of an American political character. I do not want to give too many spoilers away for those who have not seen the first two seasons but needless to say these are the Machiavellian machinations of Frank Underwood a political character. I am not going to take a cheap shot at the Opposition but one could make any number of comparisons between Mr Underwood and some of the more Machiavellian characters across on the benches over there.For this Government I think it is a very positive mark of our level of contribution to developing ultra-fast broadband throughout the country that in March that Netflix service will be available. As we roll out ultra-fast broadband to households throughout this country New Zealanders will be able to take advantage of much faster speeds and get modern access to the sort of entertainment that those in other countries enjoy.This morning on the Education and Science Committee we heard in public hearings from a couple of our tertiary education institutions—the Tertiary Education Commission and also Education New Zealand—about some very positive work that is being done under this Government’s stewardship not onlyto help develop New Zealand’s economy but to get better outcomes for New Zealand students to make sure young Kiwis have a good opportunity to get a great education and go into good employment and also to make New Zealand a friendly and welcoming place for international students to come to.I was delighted to hear of the efforts and work being done to boost Pasifika and Māori trades training. The chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission pointed out that at the moment we have gone from about 1000 to 1400 over the last year since the announcement in last year’s Budget of that extra investment. So it is sitting at about 1400 and he fully expects that number to go up to 5000 over the next couple of years. Those young Māori and Pasifika trades trainees are going into a system that will help them ensure that they get jobs. In fact the employment rate coming out of those qualifications is very high. That work is being done in partnership not only with educational institutions but with iwi like Ngāi Tahu particularly in Christchurch and building companies like Hawkins Construction to make sure that those young people are well quipped to participate in the modern workforce and to take advantage of some of the economic gains that this Government has hard-wired into the economy over the last 6 years.Another very positive story that we heard in that committee was around international students. I was delighted to hear that we had a massive growth of 10 percent over the last 2 years in the dollar contribution of international students to the New Zealand economy from $2.6 billion to $2.85 billion. We are on track and fully confident that a $5 billion contribution by the year 2020 can be made. Not only do those students cross-subsidise young New Zealanders doing courses but actually they are creating a business network and a politically influential network around the world that will be favourable to New Zealand. They are also giving New Zealand students a cross-cultural platform a level of competency including in languages through to just an understanding of other people’s life ways which will be very valuable and serve them well going into the future. This is just one small example of the excellent work that this John Key - led Government is doing.Mr SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. As this is the first general debate for this parliamentary year I just want to remind all members of Speaker’s ruling 47/1. The general debate is a type of debate that I expect to be political and impromptu and I think it is unnecessary for any member to have to read a speech through the general debate. Today I have observed three members reading their speeches and disappointingly two of those members are senior members of this House. If a member was a new member or if a member was to use a general debate slot to state something quite technical I may be lenient. But in the future if a member comes into this general debate and proceeds simply to read a speech do not be surprised that their speech may well be curtailed.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) BillSecond ReadingHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) on behalf of Su’a William Sio (Labour—Māngere): I move That the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill be now read a second time. This bill has a long history—a very very long gestation indeed. On 22 November 2005 the former member of Parliament for Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins introduced the first of these bills. It was the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. It was introduced in the 48th Parliament. The bill provided for local control over street prostitution in Manukau City. On 7 December 2005 it was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. At the time of its introduction the Hon George Hawkins outlined what he said were the local problems relating to street prostitution in the areas of Hunter’s Corner Papatoetoe; the Ōtara town centre; and the Great South Road Manurewa. They were concerned as a local council about the growing number of sex workers soliciting on the street. It was not a bill—and never was—about the legality of prostitution. That bill had been passed some time earlier so it had nothing to do with legalisation or decriminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand.So 10 years on—from 2005 until now—we are debating today the reading of a second bill to deal with this issue. I need to tell those who are listening that so much time has gone into this issue—probably more time at a select committee on a local bill than at any time in the history of this Parliament. We have had report after report. We have had evidence backwards and forwards legal opinions given the evidence of that legal opinion given and another legal opinion given. And in the meantime throughout this the Manukau City Council disappeared altogether and was replaced by a super-city.The first select committee report on the first bill recommended that the bill not proceed and that it be voted down at the second reading. It was voted down by the select committee on the grounds that having a local law different from national law in respect of prostitution was unworkable. Seven members of that original committee have now left this House. Those left are Pita Paraone the Hon Nick Smith and Metiria Turei.Then on 11 October 2006 we had that second reading. It was voted down by 46 votes to 73. But I have to tell the House it did not deter the Hon George Hawkins. He came back with another local bill the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill and on 20 August 2010 now the 49th Parliament this bill was introduced. This bill in clause 3 authorises the council “to make bylaws specifying places in the district where the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services may not occur otherwise than in a brothel or a small owner-operated brothel.” This bill went back to the Local Government and Environment Committee.In the 2011 election George Hawkins retired and the bill was then picked up in the 50th Parliament by the former member for Manukau East Ross Robertson. I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee for 2 years and I need to tell members of this House that we gave this bill serious consideration. Once again we heard evidence we reheard evidence and we sought legal advice and advice from the Auckland Council.By the end of 2014 before the election the committee had come to the conclusion that the bill was not needed. That was the conclusion of the committee. We had looked at the evidence; that was the decision. And it was the decision for the following two reasons. Auckland City we were told by all the opinions we got could already make a by-law. It did not need this House to make a by-law for it. It could make a by-law to control street prostitution. We did not need to waste the time of this Parliament making a by-law.The second reason was that we knew and heard that lining up behind this Auckland City were a whole lot of councils wanting their by-law. So we could in theory have up to 70 councils coming wanting their particular by-law around street prostitution. We said that this was a nonsense. We could not have a whole lot of local bills clogging up this Parliament when there was the ability for Auckland City to make a by-law and it ought to get on with it. Certainly Christchurch was one of the first that was lining up but there were others around New Zealand. Unfortunately the bill was not concluded before the House rose for the last election.So finally we get to the 51st Parliament and this bill now in its fourth Parliament has reached this point today. We think it is time to stop after 10 years of Parliament’s time and money and say to the Auckland Council: “Pass a by-law because you can. If that is what Auckland wants to do just get on with the job.” The select committee recommends that this bill not be passed and that we conclude this bill here at the second reading as we did with the first bill that the Hon George Hawkins introduced way back in 2005.Can I just say in conclusion that I want to thank the committees that have worked on this bill. I say to the people of Auckland and the councils that have been involved that it was taken very seriously. We looked at all the issues. We believe that we have come up with the right solution. Also I want to thank the three members who have promoted this bill—as good members would promote a local bill—George Hawkins Ross Robertson and Su’a William Sio who have faithfully brought this bill and argued it for their local community. I know that they will be disappointed that it has not proceeded but they also understand and know that Auckland City can go ahead tomorrow if it wishes and prepare a by-law—Hon David Parker: Some councils have.Hon ANNETTE KING: —and in fact Hamilton is one of those that has so we know that it is possible. In fact some of those that have joined the super-city had already created their own by-laws.So I say to those former members who may be missing thank you for your hard work but this is going to hopefully be the end of this bill and the end of the time of this Parliament dealing with it.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill in my capacity as the current chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Annette King for her very detailed thoughtful and good analysis of the history of this piece of legislation and its long march and journey through the Parliament of New Zealand. I think the Hon Annette King made a very good point about now being the time for Parliament to bring this matter to an end and to encourage and in fact invite the current Auckland Council if it wishes to pass the by-law that it so clearly can should it wish to do so.About 25 years ago I was manager of a business called Protector Safety. It had a branch in Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe in Manukau City as it was then. I can assure members that even that long ago we as local business people were having to contend with the issues of street prostitution and particularly the issues that related to tidying up the mess that was there every morning as we opened up the business for a day’s trading. We had to sort of clear away the goings-on from the night before. So I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the business folk of Hunters Corner and other parts of South Auckland where street prostitution has been without doubt an ongoing issue for many many years.But as the Hon Annette King has so clearly pointed out the reality is that after years of deliberation after years of getting advice after years of consultation and after years of hearing from every kind of expert possible on these matters we as a committee came to the very clear decision and the conclusion that in fact Auckland Council already has the power to create a by-law should it so wish. Indeed other councils around the country have done so—Hamilton City Council has been mentioned—and before the amalgamation of the Auckland super-city Rodney District Council had in fact passed its own legislation which under the rules of amalgamation and the way Auckland City has been set up actually stand in place today.The Local Government and Environment Committee concluded that it was absolutely possible for Auckland Council to regulate street prostitution should it so wish and that if it were to do so it would not be in any kind of contravention of or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or indeed the Prostitution Reform Act which has been cited as a reason by those people who would want this Parliament to make special legislation on this matter. They think that it may in some way be an inhibitor or a roadblock. In fact it is not; the advice we have had is very clear that it is not. It is very possible for Auckland City to do so if it wishes in a way that is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not inconsistent with the Prostitution Reform Act.The Local Government Act 2002 specifically allows local authorities to make by-laws to protect the public from nuisance; protect promote and maintain public health and safety; minimise potential for offensive behaviour in public; and regulate trading in public places. Under each of those heads there is more than sufficient scope for Auckland City should it wish to pursue a by-law in this area. In fact this very day representatives of Auckland Council appeared before the Health Committee to tell us about by-laws it had made to regulate solaria and sunbed operations in Auckland City. It strikes me that Auckland City has the capacity—and in fact the history—to regulate by by-laws all manner of behaviour and business and human activity. It seems to be able to do it with great gusto and great enthusiasm on a whole range of other subjects. Why it has chosen not to do so on this matter defies my understanding.Many of the complaints about street prostitution relate specifically to issues relating to noise to littering and to slow-moving vehicles which is usually referred to as kerbcrawling and of course they relate to issues relating to disorderly behaviour. These are actually all matters that are able to be dealt with under the existing by-laws that the Auckland Council has available to it.After all this time after all this history the select committee of the 51st Parliament came to a unanimous conclusion that this bill should not be passed. The Hon Annette King made the very good point that if that was not the case and in fact if this Parliament did pass this piece of local legislation then we would be inundated with requests from all other local territorial authorities seeking us to pass the same type of legislation in a way that I think would be a gross misuse of this Parliament’s time and resources particularly given that the opportunity for by-laws already exists.So we come now to the 51st Parliament nearly 10 years on from the time when the first iteration of this bill was introduced by the Hon George Hawkins all those years ago. It is time I think for this House to support the recommendations of the 51st Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee and support the recommendation of the committee passed unanimously that this bill not proceed. That is the course of action that I commend to the House and I do so with confidence that it will be supported by the vast majority of members across the House. I commend the committee’s report and its recommendation to the House.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to disagree with both previous speakers. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to explain why we disagree. It is not that we do not understand. It is not that we do not understand the advice that was given to the Local Government and Environment Committee way back in 2005 and 2006 nor is it that we do not understand the advice that was given to the select committee only last year. We understand that we had a member on that select committee Andrew Williams. However it is our view—it is our view—that the people of Manukau have been let down by this Parliament. It is our view that the select committee could have done more. Although it might have recommended that this bill not go forward it could have made other recommendations.I note very clearly that the two previous speakers have relied on advice that Auckland Council can already create a by-law and that is true. That is absolutely true. As a person who was part of the submission process with regard to the Rodney District Council and the laws and the by-laws that were created then to create areas where this industry could do its business without interfering with the everyday lives of the other citizens in that area I know that what Mr Simpson has said is true. The Rodney District Council had very strong laws. Actually of all the amalgamated councils the Rodney District Council had the most conservative by-laws around this particular industry. It was threatened on several occasions with being taken to court because it wanted to protect and fit within the current legislation but it also wanted to make sure that its citizens who pay the rates in that area had a level of protection. So we created those by-laws. And then the Rodney District Council was absorbed into the super-city of Auckland and because the super-city of Auckland’s absorption has not worked as quickly as perhaps was imagined those by-laws still stand in just the 46 percent of the land mass of Auckland that was Rodney District.However it is a cop-out quite frankly to rely on what is a true statement—a theoretically true statement—that a by-law can be created because it absolutely can be. But then it must be enforced. I think the other thing too that is interesting about that is that as a member of the Rodney Local Board I knew that the by-laws staff had to go around every local board once we had this amalgamation of the super-city and had to ask about prostitution as a business and what sorts of controls we would want to put in place to flatten out the by-laws across the whole of Auckland. And there is one of your other things—I assume that the select committee had a briefing on the fact that this is now about flattening out by-laws across the whole of Auckland. Any by-law created or any issue that you might have in what is now Manukau City inside the super-city would actually have to be assumed across the whole of the city.But what was interesting about that consultation was that the Auckland Council staff told local board members: “You don’t need to create a by-law. You don’t need to create a by-law because they are hawkers so really this is just about hawking. So we can just use the current by-law”—which is a hawking by-law—“and then we can actually go and issue these people with a ticket.” Let us just have a think about the practicalities of that. What has just been said is that this bill wastes 10 years of this Parliament’s time but this is a real issue to real people who are just trying to go about their daily lives. So apparently there is a hawking by-law already on the books and we can send out by-laws officers at 3 o’clock in the morning 4 o’clock in the morning—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise to the member for those members’ rudeness. Thank you.TRACEY MARTIN: That is all right Mr Assistant Speaker. We can send by-laws officers at 4 o’clock in the morning to go and give a ticket—to go and fine the prostitutes who are outside these people’s houses leaving used condoms up on their doors and abusing them when the resident of the property wishes to get some sleep. Apparently—and it is a truism—we can send out a by-laws officer and give the prostitutes a ticket. How does Mr Simpson think that is going to go down?It is all very well and good to say: “You can.” and it is all very well and good to say that you have the ability to but it is another thing completely to say how that will take place. How? You can but how do you do it? There is absolutely no practical thought inside the select committee’s response to this bill. In all three parliaments that dealt with this matter over the 10 years where was the will to actually sort this out for the people of New Zealand? Where was the will to address street prostitution? It is not only the residents who are being affected by it but what about the under-age trafficking that is now taking place on the streets? What about that part which some sort of legislation in this House might have addressed?Hon David Parker: We’ve already got it. Just go to the police.TRACEY MARTIN: So here we go—we have got it again. We are going to leave it to the people on the street to have to deal with it. This Parliament brought in a law—[Interruption]; and those gentlemen are apparently very supportive of it—and then it dumped it out there for the people of New Zealand to deal with. When the people of New Zealand come back to their Parliament and say: “Something’s wrong with it and we would like Parliament’s assistance to actually fix it.” apparently it is in the too-hard basket. Apparently it is 10 years of wasted time which is what the two speakers before me said.These are citizens of New Zealand who pay our wages who have come to this Parliament and said that something is wrong with a piece of legislation. They are not asking for that legislation to be overturned—nobody here is. What they are asking for is recognition of a problem and for us to come up with a solution and this House is supposed to be here for them.So although this bill will fail New Zealand First will support it. We will support it because it actually is an issue that this House needs to address. We—Hon Member: Actually it’ll end up wasting the House’s time.TRACEY MARTIN: It needs to be addressed. We refuse to actually slap these citizens in the face and say: “It wasn’t important enough. We decided not to put any other solution in here or any other recommendation in here. We decided to just say it was 10 years of our time. Too bad. Go away and deal with it yourself. Ring a by-laws officer at 3 in the morning. Call a police officer and go into court and take all that time out of your day and your life because this Government and this Parliament decide that it is not worth our time.”JAN LOGIE (Green): It is—in contrast with the previous speaker Tracey Martin—with a certain amount of relief that I rise to take a call on this bill the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. This is the second time that legislation like this has come before this Parliament. As has been very well outlined by Annette King earlier there has been 10 years of consideration of the detail of this issue. This Parliament has spent a huge amount of time listening to the community and considering these issues. It has not in any way as the previous speaker may have suggested been a flippant dismissal of the concerns of the community. There has been a rigorous process of looking at the appropriate role for responding to this problem. My understanding is that the Local Government and Environment Committee has possibly spent more time on this issue than it has on pretty much any other piece of legislation in recent years. This has not been a flippant dismissal.The Green Party was on the committee and supports the unanimous decision of that committee for this bill not to proceed further. I am also aware that some people will be really unhappy with this recommendation. I went and met with some people at the committee and we heard the submissions. I have real empathy for their situation. We were told of businesses losing money residents losing sleep parents fearing their children were having to see and hear things that children should be protected from. I absolutely believe that they are valid concerns. This is a problem that needs a solution. I sincerely wish to see those concerns resolved.I would commend anyone who is listening to this debate to go and read the full report of the select committee to find out the detail of what we considered. It came down to whether legislation was the way to solve those concerns. It was the unanimous view of the committee that legislation is not going to solve this problem. The problem needs a solution but legislation is not the answer. We listened and we really engaged but ultimately our role is to consider whether legislation is the appropriate response and in this case whether a local bill that applies to only one area—albeit an area that covers a third of our population—is appropriate.Local bills need to address local issues and not national issues. We heard previously that several other councils—in response to lobbying I must admit initiated by the Manukau city councillors—indicated that they may see this as an area of concern and want to have a response to it. So it is quite clear that there is ambiguity about whether this is a local issue. We considered all the evidence and came to the conclusion that the problem was best solved at a local level as well as potentially looking at other legislative solutions on a much wider level through the Local Government Act.It was the contention of Manukau and the then Auckland City Council that they could not regulate street prostitution by existing laws. We disagreed with that solution and we have heard that assessment. We noted that the Rodney District Council had specified that street-based sex workers meet the definition of “hawkers” and as such are regulated by its by-laws on trading in public places and require an operating licence from the council. Further Hamilton City Council has created a prostitution by-law that restricts the location of brothels sets out signage requirements and also prohibits soliciting in public spaces and within view of public spaces. So we have evidence that by-laws are able to be used to regulate this.The committee heard from a previous member that there is still the outstanding issue of enforcement. You can put a law on your books but can you enforce it? The question that the committee then had to consider was whether that issue would still exist if we legislated. The answer was yes. We would still have the problem if we legislated of the police needing to enforce the legislation or to enforce the by-laws that we would enable to be created by this legislation. That problem would not go away. In fact we also were told that the police currently have the ability to prosecute on summary offences which covers a wide range of behaviours such as suspected disorderly behaviour indecent behaviour threatening or indecent language and wilful damage to property. They can arrest without warrant when they have good cause on any of those groundsalready. All the behaviour that was described to us by businesses and residents fitted those areas of concern.So the police have the ability already to arrest without a warrant. Why would we create a duplicate law for one specific area of the country or even enable by-laws to duplicate that provision when obviously the problem is around the resourcing of the police to enable them to do that? If that is the problem then we encourage the community and we encourage the council to be lobbying the Government for increasing resources to the police to enable that to happen. But we would go for a more empowerment-based model ourselves. Clearly the answer is not in legislation in duplicating existing powers.Another reason we were told for putting forward this legislation was that it was expensive to introduce these kinds of by-laws. Therefore the council wanted Parliament to spend the time—and it has spent 10 years—to develop legislation. We acknowledge that maybe there is an issue around the cost of developing by-laws and the processes of developing the regulations under that but that is not an issue specific to prostitution or for the Auckland Council. That is a much wider issue that should more appropriately be dealt with through a wider piece of legislation and we would encourage any council to negotiate with its member of Parliament for such legislation to be put forward. So we are not dismissing that concern; we are just saying that this piece of legislation is not the way to deal with it.We were also told that enforcing by-laws can be resource intensive and that proving an offence can be difficult. Again we believe that these challenges would remain if this legislation was introduced. There is nothing in this legislation that would solve that problem. Evidence has always been a really difficult thing in this area. In fact one of the reasons for the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act was as a public health measure to create an environment where we did not disincentivise the use of condoms because prior to that legislation passing condoms were used as evidence in prosecutions against sex workers. We would not want to see a return to that situation.In some ways legislation is presented as a simple way to fix this problem. There is no simple way to fix this problem. But we would say that the discussions and the work that have been happening at the local level post the introduction of the bill this time have seemed to be really positive. There is work happening at the moment. It follows on from the Ministry of Justice’s report recommendations from 2009 where it went into the Manukau community and investigated the best possible response to solving these acknowledged problems. It came up with a really long list of actions that it recommended take place in that community like having toilets open at night with lighting putting in extra rubbish bins put in and having control around the sale of alcohol in the area.I do need to point out to the members in this House and to anyone listening that although we were told that all of those measures had been implemented what we found was that they had not been and that some had been implemented for only a short period of time and had then been unwound. Really this community has not been served well by its council. The appropriate place for it to be solved is in the community. We believe that more resources from this Government to support the community to do that would be appropriate but not legislation.A party vote was called for on the question That the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 11New Zealand First 11.Noes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillRecommittalSUE MORONEY (Labour): I move That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be recommitted for further consideration by the Committee of the whole House.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.Third ReadingSUE MORONEY (Labour): I move That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I thought I would never ever get to say those words because what a wild ride this has been—what a wild ride this has been. This bill was pulled from the ballot almost 3 years ago in April 2012. Actually it was the Thursday just before Easter. I recall it very well because a lot has happened since then. Can I at the outset thank all of the parties that have contributed to making sure this bill did in fact get to its third reading. I want to thank the Green Party New Zealand First the Māori Party United Future and Mana when it was in Parliament for ensuring that these families families of newborn babies had their issue debated in our Parliament. It is only because of the support of those parties that wehave got to the point where we are.But I want to reserve my greatest thanks and gratitude to my Labour colleagues. It is the Labour Party that had the courage and—yes Mr Key—the guts to stand up for families when no one else would. It was my Labour colleagues who at the height of a global financial crisis understood that this was where the brighter future really did lie for New Zealand. It was my Labour colleagues who despite the fact that the Government was running a scare agenda of saying that nothing could be spent on anything positive actually decided to turn the tables and trust New Zealanders’ instincts and say: “Yes New Zealanders will back a positive initiative that will make a real difference.”—and did they ever. New Zealanders got this. They were able to demonstrate that it was the Labour Party that is completely in tune with the thinking of decent hard-working New Zealanders.Despite the fact that the Minister of Finance at the time over-inflated the bill said it was going to cost $500 million and tried to frighten the New Zealand public into not putting families first and not supporting children in this way it backfired. The New Zealand public sensed that the Minister of Finance was exaggerating. They knew he was wrong and they knew in their hearts that this was the right thing to do. The New Zealand public was in tune with the New Zealand Labour Party and the New Zealand Labour Party was in tune with the New Zealand public.We know this because there were a couple of polls that were conducted and I imagine that the National Party did more than a couple of polls—I think it was polling regularly on this issue. It is the only reason that it has actually capitulated on this because it knows of the public’s support. When Television One went out and surveyed about a thousand New Zealanders and said “It’s going to cost $500 million—do you want it or not?” 65 percent of respondents said “Yeah.” Even at that exaggerated level—[Interruption]—yes they did. And the members opposite still do not believe it but the poll said 65 percent wanted paid parental leave extended to 26 weeks despite the fact that the Government was exaggerating the cost of it and threatening a financial veto against it. So from the get-go there has been this sort of controversy and that sort of degree of push-back from the National Party opposite because it did not trust the public on this it did not want to prioritise families and it just did not get how important it is.When it came to the select committee process we had almost 4000 submissions come to the Government Administration Committee on this. That is how strongly people felt about it. And 99.6 percent of those submissions were in favour of extending 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to all the families who are currently eligible. Only 0.04 percent opposed it—0.04 percent opposed it. I remember one of those submissions really well for all the wrong reasons because Business New Zealand in its desperation to try to support the National Government’s opposition to this bill decided to come and argue in front of the select committee that the reason it opposed this bill was that if women had 6 months away from paid employment they would completely forget how to do their jobs and they would need complete retraining and this was going to be a big imposition on business. It was going to cost them a lot of money and that was why it should be opposed.Well I think Business New Zealand very soon crawled back into the cave that it had crawled out of on that occasion because we had to point out to them that actually the law as it stands already allows women to have 12 months’ leave from their jobs and then they come back and do their jobs quite successfully. That was the level of desperation from the supporters of the National Party’s opposition to extending paid parental leave. That is how desperate it did get.The first deception happened in the select committee on this bill in this wild ride because the National Party MPs faced with seeing the strong support that this bill had and knowing how bad it was going to look for them decided that they needed to try to turn this round somehow. So they came to me and asked for an extension of the time for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to stay in the select committee so that they could have some time to talk their colleagues into supporting it. I took that in good faith and I probably should not have. A very wise woman told me quite some time ago: “Never trust a Tory.” Never trust a Tory she said and I should have remembered that. I forgot it at precisely the wrong moment and I trusted the Government MPs when they promised me that if they extended paid parental leave it would be done in a bill in my name. That is the commitment they gave me. They lied. They reneged on that commitment—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!SUE MORONEY: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker—they misled me. They deceived me. They misled and deceived all of the families who were relying on an extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.Tracey Martin: And they laugh about it.SUE MORONEY: And they laugh about it because they think that is clever. They have played politics with this bill from day one but they have forgotten—because of their arrogance—that they are in fact playing politics with people’s lives. They are playing politics with those very important first few months of a baby’s life and I think it is disgraceful.We came to the second reading of the bill when it came out of the select committee and there was more drama. I do not know whether people recall this but the National Party whips made a mistake when they cast the Māori Party vote and they had the Māori Party voting against the bill instead of in favour of it. That meant that the bill could not proceed. When Pita Sharples came down—when he realised what had happened and he came down to try to correct the vote—he got taken outside by the National Party whips he got taken outside by some of the Ministers and he got bullied into not correcting the vote. It did over time get corrected but that is part of the interesting political story about this bill.We moved on—we did eventually get that vote corrected—and we moved on to the Committee stage and wow. Was that the National Party’s finest hour or what? It filibustered a bill that would give 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to families—filibustered it in order to try to stop it from going ahead. In the National Party’s finest hour it put up Mike Sabin to do four speeches lecturing New Zealanders on how to raise children. I am just going to say that again. It had Mike Sabin stand up on four occasions to filibuster this bill and lecture New Zealand families on how to raise children properly. Do you feel proud? Does the National Party feel proud about that? Well I hope that it will feel proud about that particular issuein the months to come.So after all of this what have we achieved? What we have achieved—what Labour and our allied parties have achieved—is we have pushed the Government into extending paid parental leave to 18 weeks over the course of the next 2 years. We know we have pushed the Government into that because Bill English looked right down the barrel of a TV camera when that bill came out of the ballot and said: “It is not a priority for us to extend paid parental leave. Even when we are in surplus we will not extend paid parental leave.” And look what has happened. But today the story has got even more interesting because now the Government is promising to deliver what my bill does today but not do it in my name because it is still playing politics. It has promised that it will do it in a bill in its own name. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I do appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As it is a members’ day it is customary that members of the executive do not tend to speak on members’ bills and I do appreciate that I have been given the opportunity to do so.Firstly I want to talk a little bit about what we have heard from the person sponsoring this bill Sue Moroney and also as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to lay out what the Government does intend to do by way of improving and extending paid parental leave to parents over the next year or two. I will say this about Sue Moroney: she is certainly passionate about this issue. I have no doubt about the authenticity with which she has championed the issue of paid parental leave but I do worry that she has mixed the politics and the passion to such a degree that it is impossible to work out which is which. Nevertheless I do want to touch on a couple of elements of what she said.I heard her say that it was her Labour colleagues who have in her words “had the guts to support this bill” and that is perhaps true except that what she did not say was that that was not the case when they were in Government. When money was sloshing around and Labour was spending money like drunken sailors locking in structural costs that this Government has had to deal with the very canny Dr Michael Cullen—of all of the things that they could have done of all of the passionate things that they could have supported increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks at a cost of who knows what but several hundred million dollars is the best estimate was not part of the Labour Government’s agenda. It is very interesting that as this is a member’s bill—and knowing that it is not possible for members’ bills to have that kind of financial impact—Ms Moroney would say: “Right now we are in Opposition it is time to increase paid parental leave”.When we are in the most straitened times that this country has seen in 80 years suddenly it is a priority for Labour when in previous years they did not see raising the length of paid parental leave to 26 weeks as a priority. Lions in Opposition—lions with other people’s money when it does not have the fiscal costs of the decisions that it wants this Parliament to make—but lambs in Government.Indeed there are some other statements that have been made by Ms Moroney about what the Government did or did not say about paid parental leave and I want to make it very clear that the Government always said it was prepared to extend paid parental leave as and when fiscal conditions allowed. It is really important to understand that the fiscal conditions did not allow that. What did the Government do? An amount of $500 million has been bounced around as a possible cost but I think that overly exaggerates the cost of Ms Moroney’s existing bill. Let us remember we are not debating the original bill. This is not a matter of principle and passion because Ms Moroney herself has watered down her own bill. Why? Because the goal is no longer to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks; the goal is to embarrass the Government. The goal is to expose the Government and that is the politics of this. That is the politics that is interfering with the passion.The Government in these straitened times the toughest conditions in 80 years—which was left with the legacy of structural deficits for 10 years which we have seen halved despite the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes—has come up with around half a billion dollars of measures to support children and their families. We have seen that in the free general practitioner visits for under-13s. We have seen that with the breakfast in schools programme.Do you know what the most disappointing thing about the Labour Party in Opposition was? It campaigned in 2008 on the fact that this Government should we have the privilege of taking the Treasury benches would gut Working for Families and would gut interest-free student loans. Do you know what made it most angry in the 49th Parliament? We did no such thing. Through those vulnerable periods we made sure that the supports that were locked in place stayed for our most vulnerable.The Government does intend to increase paid parental leave. Not only is it prepared to do that but it has already locked in through Budget 2014 the fiscal appropriation to do just that. It is necessary now to change the legislation to give effect to that and it is my intention to bring a Government bill to the House in about June of this year and have it passed this year for effect on 1 April 2016 as we have already appropriated. It will increase the duration of paid parental leave for those parents who are already eligible for it. It will go to 16 weeks in the first year and then to 18 weeks thereafter. But it is going to do more than that. It is going to broaden the range of people who are eligible for paid parental leave. At the moment the legislation provides I think for a very one-dimensional view of employment and a one-dimensional view of employees. I think what we know now is that employment relationships but also parenting arrangements have changed significantly in the last generation or two. Firstly people work in more than one role. They work in different ways: they may be self-employed they may be contractors they may have multiple employers and they may have moved recently before expecting a child.None of those conditions are currently met by the existing legislation or by the bill that Ms Moroney has introduced. The Government will change that. The Government will extend the range of parents who will be eligible for paid parental leave to include those different working arrangements to include multiple employers and to include those who have been working for their employer for only 6 months which would actually rule them out under the current regime.It is also going to recognise the fact that parenting arrangements can be different as well. I take for example—and I acknowledge the Māori Party intervention into this particular part of the policy that is being developed—the concept of whāngai or traditional Māori adoption which is not recognised presently in the law and will be when the Government introduces the bill into the House in the middle of the year. That will be very important and I want to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell for his intervention to ensure that that very longstanding traditional means of bringing up children will be met in this scenario.What we have is a passionate member who has no concern for fiscal impact introducing a bill that I believe she introduced with the best of intentions—although it is a little hard to untangle the politics from the passion—who then watered it down when she realised that she would not have the numbers and actually that the Government was coming up with a better arrangement to support families by increasing the duration of the support and broadening the nature of the relationships and the number of employment relationships that would be covered by it. I do acknowledge her.But the Government takes this very seriously. Support for parents and enabling mothers in particular to re-enter the workforce is a very important part of growing this economy and ensuring that people stay connected with the workforce. I should also add actually that the bill being introduced in June will allow parents to keep in touch if they are on paid parental leave. At the moment if you go back for a single day you lose your entitlement to paid parental leave but that is often not practical for people who are in highly skilled jobs who want to keep in touch with training and development or who need to cover for leave. There will be sensible provisions in the bill that will enable that to occur.The National Party will not be supporting Ms Moroney’s bill. It will be introducing a very sensible range of measures that will deliver a better outcome for parents. I look forward to Labour’s support when that bill is introduced.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call in this final reading of Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Perhaps I need to start by correcting the record. The Minister who just resumed his seat Michael Woodhouse stood and asked the House why if Labour cared so much about this issue it did not do anything for paid parental leave when it was in Government and running a Budget surplus. I find it extraordinary that the Minister who claims to have responsibility for this area does not know the history of paid parental leave. It was introduced Minister Woodhouse by the previous Labour Government. Let me repeat that again: paid parental leave was introduced by a previous Labour Government. Can I just point out that at the time it was introduced in 2002 National opposed the introduction. It opposed the introduction of paid parental leave when at that time in 2002 we had a surplus of $2.5 billion. It was absolutely financially responsible for Labour to say we have the ability to do this and it is the right thing to do and it was National that opposed that we did that.We did not just introduce it; we extended it. In 2004 we looked to expand and extend it again. National again opposed it. At that point we had a surplus of $5.6 billion. Again it was possible to do it we did in it a fiscally responsible way and it was the right thing to do. Perhaps if the Minister missed all of those points he might like to be reminded of the National Party’s positioning at that time because it was not oppositionjust on monetary grounds or fiscal grounds. It is not that the members stood up and said: “Lovely idea but we really can’t afford to do it right now.” because at that time they were begging for tax cuts. They knew that we actually could financially afford it. That was not the rationale for which they opposed it. They opposed it because they ideologically did not believe in it. They ideologically did not believe in it. Anne Tolley in 2002 said: “This legislation … shows how the Labour-Alliance Government is stuck in the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s … and is completely out of touch with women of the 21st century…”. Anne Tolley never supported paid parental leave. Those were her words.Nick Smith said that the draft bill was a “dumb bill”. Paul Hutchison said that it was cementing State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility—what for an infant? I do not even know what he means by that statement. Judith Collins in 2004 said it was another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes. I find it absolutely rich for that Minister to try to tell this side of the House that we have never believed in paid parental leave when it is that side of the House that is only supporting it for the pure politics because when you strip it away it still does not believe in the concept of supporting women and newborn children when they are unable to work at the most vulnerable period of a child’s life.Members talked about dependency being out of touch with women and harking back to a feminist era of the 1960s. Well actually if it is harking back to feminism that is not something I would apologise for. But the point is that that Government is extending paid parental leave only because of the hard work of Sue Moroney and the support of parties like the Greens Labour and New Zealand First. That is why the Government eventually shifted.If we want to talk about anyone being out of touch it would have to be the Government. Only yesterday a report was released by Growing Up in New Zealand a longitudinal study that 7000 children are part of. It is the most in-depth study we have seen of children. It tracks them from birth to adulthood. That report has found that more than 50 percent of New Zealand mothers experience hardship between late pregnancy and the first 9 months of their child’s life. I repeat that: 50 percent of New Zealand mothers experience some level of hardship between late pregnancy and the first 9 months of their child’s life. And here we are with some arguing that we cannot afford to do more to support those families in the most vulnerable period of their child’s life. That is not something I am saying off the cuff without research and evidence.You do not have to look at the UN’s feedback—of course it supports breastfeeding in the first 6 months. That stands on its own. But organisations like the Brainwave Trust have long argued that if you want to invest anywhere invest in those first critical months of a child’s brain development. Their connection with a parent is critical. It is what determines whether or not they are able to build trusting relationships in adulthood. It determines whether or not for instance they will experience some of the behavioural issues that we then grapple with as taxpayers further down the track. Conduct disorder something that is connected to whether or not a child forms those trusting relationships and bonds costs the taxpayer $1 million—$1 million—per child. We have been shown what we need to do about it; yet we turn a blind eye.We literally cannot afford not to do things like what Sue Moroney has proposed in this bill. So if we want to talk about cost I can tell you that that is where the real costs exist. If we want to talk about being in touch with what new parents are experiencing we should be looking at the evidence like the longitudinal study Growing Up in New Zealand. It is interesting that when mothers were first interviewed before they gave birth the mothers’ plan was to go back into the workplace to use up what paid parental leave they had and then return. What the study found was that a number of mothers would use up that paid parental leave then they would try to use up all their holiday leave and they would then try to take unpaid leave. They would do everything they could once their baby arrived to stay with their child as long as they could. That was when mothers started exiting the workforce. When they used up all that leave and realised that they were not ready to go back they exited the workforce.So if that Minister was really serious about mothers trying to maintain bonds with the workforce he would recognise what the evidence was telling him and maintain that link via decent paid parental leave. That is what would make a longer term bond to the workforce and that is what he should be looking at and listening to. That would demonstrate that he was truly in touch with what New Zealand families are experiencing.That study was the kind of information that we as the Labour Party looked at when we established our Best Start policy. Not only did we ensure that paid parental leave in our policy would be 26 weeks but after that we said that for the rest of that year we wanted an additional contribution for those families to ease the burden that almost any family no matter what their financial circumstances experiences in that first year of their child’s life. We absolutely stand by that policy. It is the right thing to do and it is the most cost-effective thing to do.I want to use the last moments of my contribution to pay respect to Sue Moroney and the work she has done on this bill. The audacity of the Minister—to claim that she has confused politics and passion. There is no harder thing than to compromise as a politician and yet Sue Moroney saw an opportunity. She could not get 6 weeks’ leave for every family—or try to at least do that for families who experience a premature birth or a multiple birth or who have a child with a disability—so she compromised her bill in order to try to make gains for at least some families. That demonstrates that this was always about the issue more than it was about the politics. It was always about the issue and it is extraordinarily disappointing that that Government has been unwilling to accept that sometimes when you see a good idea you should vote for it regardless of who puts it up.Labour votes with National on good ideas. That is what we do. That is what a good Opposition does. What a good Government should do is recognise that a good idea can come from the Opposition as well. I am saddened on behalf of New Zealanders that the Government did not recognise that. So let it be said and let it be on the record that when that side of the House comes before this Parliament with a bill that will allow those families to access greater paid parental leave it was Sue Moroney who did that for them. There is no way that that Government deserves any recognition.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. I call Sarah Dowie—5 minutes.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for allowing me to take this short call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I would like to start out by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Sue Moroney. Like the speakers before her I do acknowledge the intention she has in bringing this bill to the floor of the House and the spirit of the bill but unfortunately this Government cannot support it on the grounds of fiscal responsibility. I also want to respond to the claims made by the member opposite Ms Ardern who pointed to a number of dissenting opinions in 2002.I stand here and say as part of this Government that we do support the spirit of the bill—we do support paid parental leave—but we disagree as to the fiscal constraints and how we are going to implement it. As such talking about the spirit of the bill we are saying that this is not a case of one size fits all and as a Government we have to balance competing priorities and look across the board as to the well-being of children and their mums. In that vein I want to reiterate as the Hon Michael Woodhouse did that this Government is extending paid parental leave from 14 to 16 weeks on 1 April this year and then again to 18 weeks on 1 April 2016. That meets the fiscal responsibilities of being in Government and it will be a very good help to those families having children.But again in response to the spirit of the bill we are looking at measures across the board and I want to take time to talk about one of them that I as a mother found extremely helpful. I am talking about the $20 million extra invested into maternity services and Well Child services for new mothers and babies. For me the Well Child services were a godsend. I as a new mum relied heavily on the support of my family but also the experts such as the community nurses who worked for Plunket. They provided me with advice as to how to deal with children and how to bond properly without getting too concerned about the colic I faced or the other issues I had to work through. Just in terms of that example although paid parental leave is being extended by this Government and is of help the advice that those nurses gave me rounded out that support and was incredibly well received by me. It helped me enjoy the time I had with my newborn baby.I also want to talk about this Government extending free general practitioner visits and prescriptions to children under the age of 13. Again from a cost perspective for a family to be able to take your child to the doctor and not worry about the cost is extremely important. You do not need to worry about the cost. You certainly do not worry about the burden that you could be putting on your finances. Again that support from GPs to enable your child to be seen to get the treatment that they may need and to help them to flourish into the future is another example of an all-rounded package that this Government is bringing into force. Again I stand here as part of this Government and I say we support the intent and spirit of the bill. Again I do acknowledge the member who sponsored this bill for her passion but there are fiscal constraints when you are in Government and as such we cannot support this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jami-Lee Ross—5 minutes.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):There is a bit of a theme developing right now on the Opposition benches. The theme from the Labour Party seems to be that National is so mean that it will not let the Labour Party pull out the credit card to spend up large. That is effectively what the Labour Party is saying.We have to be clear when we talk about paid parental leave that there is one party sitting in the House right now that is extending paid parental leave and that is National. I do not know whether the Labour Party was listening during the Budget last year but the National Government has announced and has enacted changes to extend paid parental leave in New Zealand. The National-led Government has implemented a package worth $500 million to support families. Included in that package are two extensions of paid parental leave which will eventually take paid parental leave out to 18 weeks. I have heard the Labour Party today say that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks is affordable. I am sure it would also try to find an argument that extending it to 52 weeks would be affordable and then it will go to 2 years 3 years and 4 years.The problem with the Labour Party—and we found this during the election—is that it thinks everything is affordable. During the last election campaign the spending promises from that side of the House amounted to $30 billion. Those members think everything is affordable. This side of the House instead does things in a measured way. We support families we support New Zealanders but we have to recognise that every time the Government spends money to support New Zealanders it also comes out of the pockets of New Zealanders. I think the last thing that New Zealanders would want is for any Government to put New Zealanders into more debt which the other side wanted to do and to have to raise taxes which the other side wanted to do when there is a more affordable and measured way to do it.We are supporting families. Families in New Zealand are getting paid parental leave extensions. As part of our $500 million package as well families in New Zealand are going to have the ability to send their children to the doctor for free up to the age of 13. Families in New Zealand because of the National Government’s changes that we have enacted will see parental tax credits extended. Families in New Zealand because of the changes the National-led Government has enacted are seeing more funding going into early childhood education and more funding going into welfare changes to support families in this country. We have the track record to do it.I feel a little sorry for Sue Moroney. I feel that she has been hung out to dry by her party. The Labour Party has found in the last election that its promise is unaffordable; that its promise is not one that the Labour Party was able to sell to New Zealanders and she has been left to hold out this bill—which actually says nothing at the moment. It has a title it has a commencement date and it has a clause that outlines the principal Act that she wished to change but it has nothing else in it. If she had some honour she would have asked the Business Committee to drop the bill but she was hung out to dry by her party.We are extending paid parental leave. We are enacting changes for New Zealanders.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am offended by that misrepresentation by that member and I would like him to withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well I am not quite sure what the point of contention is. There has been quite a robust exchange across the benches. What specifically are you objecting to?Sue Moroney: I am objecting to the member saying that I was hung out to dry by my party when in fact it was his party that filibustered the bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. [Interruption] No that is not a point of order.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?Tracey Martin: It is a new point of order. Can I seek your clarification? During Mr Ross’ last contribution he said that if Ms Moroney had any honour she would have asked for the bill to be withdrawn. Is that parliamentary language?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is certainly parliamentary language.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Sometimes the truth is hard to believe. I was interrupted in my flow but I was outlining the fact that the National Government has been supporting families. When members on this side of the House go out and knock on doors stand in the main streets of their cities and talk to New Zealanders about what they want they want a country that is affordable for their children to live in. They want a country that supports their children in their time of need but does not tax them and rack up debt to pay for it. They want a Government that lives within its means. They want a Government that provides proper housing for New Zealanders—we are doing that. They want a Government that provides good-quality education services for their families—we are doing that. They want a country that provides health services for their families—we are doing that.Families in New Zealand are far better off because of the changes implemented in the past 6 years. The Labour Party may wish to go out and say that the National Government is not doing enough for families but our track record speaks for itself. We are extending paid parental leave. We are doing so in a measured way. That is what this country deserves and asked for. It passed its judgment in September last year.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise again to offer the Green Party’s support for Sue Moroney’s member’s bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks even though sadly the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill does not contain that provision any more because it was previously voted down by this Government. I do want to take just a moment to properly commend Ms Moroney for the work that she has done in the very long process of shepherding this bill through the House and providing an opportunity for New Zealanders to express their overwhelming support for paid parental leave and the care of the smallest members of our society. That support has been overwhelming and the Green Party appreciates your work and all of the compromises that you have made to try to get even the barest amount of provision through to those New Zealanders who were consistent on what they asked for through the select committee process.We have just heard from the previous member Jami-Lee Ross that when National members are out on the streets they hear New Zealanders asking for everything but paid parental leave. I would ask that member to go back and look at the submissions and consider the parliamentary process and our democratic process which presented this bill and asked New Zealanders for their opinions. I would remind that member that there were 3809 submissions made on extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. I would just remind that member again that 3795 submissions out of those 3809 submissions supported the extension to 26 weeks—that is 99.6 percent of submissions said that they wanted 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. And even the other 0.4 percent were not necessarily against the bill; they just had some concerns around some aspects of it for some of them. So you know this is completely overwhelming support from the population saying that they wanted 26 weeks. To say that when you are out on the streets you are not hearing any support for this bill—I find that hard to believe. I refer you to the Parliament of which you are a member and ask you to listen to the democratic voices coming through this Parliament. I remind every member of this House that we are here and we set up these processes for people to participate for a reason—to inform us in the decisions we make in this House. To ignore the views of New Zealanders when making those decisions does a discredit to this institution and to every single member of it.I also go back to the process to reflect on some of the process of this. We have heard a lot of politicking tonight. It has been suggested by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that the member Sue Moroney has offered passion but that it has been confused with politics. I really do want to challenge that—not that the Labour Party needs the Greens to support it or defend its honour. But it really does just seem horribly unfair and misrepresentative to me when the member extended the submission time and the consideration within the Government Administration Committee to enable the National Party members of that committee who were overwhelmingly convinced by the evidence to go back to their caucus to try to get support for this bill. That then turned into the Government putting something forward in the Budget that was entirely different which I absolutely supported. We voted in support of it. I totally agreed with the extension of the provisions of paid parental leave to groups that were missing out. That was a really important initiative. But it was not what Parliament and the people of New Zealand had been discussing. There was one clear submission that asked for that to happen and I supported it but the others did not. The others were saying that 26 weeks was the fundamental thing that they wanted addressed and that is what this bill has been seeking to do.There was a huge amount of accommodation made by that member. And then the Government turned round and sought to make personal political gain from it. Then we hear that now Sue Moroney in looking at the numbers in this House went and spoke with the ACT Party about whether it would seek to have this bill go back to the Committee stage to debate some of the substance again. She was able to convince the ACT Party member of the need for 26 weeks and the democratic process and the request from New Zealanders. When the National Party heard that that was happening it called the member into the Prime Minister’s office and said: “You can’t support this bill. To stop you doing that we’ll put forward and deliver the content of this bill. But you can’t support it through a Labour initiative. We’ll do it.” That is politics. I have to say that that deeply offends me. I am not in this House to play political games. I would have thought that every member of this House was here to deliver for New Zealanders—to listen to New Zealanders and to deliver for them. That kind of politicking is not doing our job in my opinion. It is playing politics and doing a disservice to New Zealanders.Good on David Seymour as a new member for actually listening to and hearing the arguments and seeing what the provisions of the bill had been reduced down to by Sue Moroney: ensuring 26 weeks for when there was a premature birth or when there was a child with an impairment that would entitle a person to Government-funded disability support or when there was a multiple birth. So 26 weeks’ leave for those people—I am so pleased that Sue Moroney’s bill has prompted the delivery for them because who could not think that there was a clear need for those families to have time out of the workforce to be able to bond with their babies to take care of health needs to just be able to cope.The submissions that we heard during the select committee—again I want to thank those submitters because they were tear-evoking submissions for every single member on that committee. We heard of people who had missed the early years of their child’s life and had to look at photos of their babies to remember what they looked like at that time because they had had to go back to work. We also heard of people who had managed to get 10 months to spend with their babies and who had bonded with them and found a love of parenting even though they actually had not wanted to be a parent before that. They had managed to use that time to bond and connect and find joy. We can only imagine the flow-on benefits of that time to the parent to the family and most important to the child. In the submissions that we heard—to get to the point of what this is all about—the evidence was overwhelming that the benefit of 26 weeks’ leave is that it facilitates bonding and attachment between parent and baby and improves the learning and the development of the baby the health outcomes for mothers babies and children. The World Health Organization recognises 6 months as the minimum for breastfeeding.This provision supports families and ensures stability of their incomes. It allows choice for women in maintaining workplace attachment and it updates our employment conditions to recognise the contemporary world that we live in. Most of us have families and it is appropriate for workplaces to adapt to that. Twenty-six weeks makes it easier for employers to manage time out and substitution of workers. So this bill the 26 weeks’ leave provision is not just a matter of what would be nice. For $110 million which is the cost of what this would be the return to us as a country was judged by 99.6 percent of submitters as worthwhile. It is a shame on this Government that it has subverted the democratic process and is refusing to deliver that.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to be able to stand this afternoon and speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I like others also want to commend Ms Moroney. She is not here right now but I just commend her intent.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot refer to the absence of a member.ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was trying to speak in acknowledgment of the member who is not here but I do want to acknowledge—Iain Lees-Galloway: For goodness’ sake Alfred learn the rules.ALFRED NGARO: —OK—the sponsor of the bill. It is a bit of a mean spirit there. I am actually acknowledging the sponsor of the bill and her intent. That is what I want to do because the intent is right.It is of interest I know to all MPs to be able to have their own member’s bill pulled out of the ballot and to have it presented to the House. It is important to us. The reason why it is important—and I know that later on tonight in the House Tracey Martin’s bill will be debated—is that the ability to have your own bill drawn out of the ballot means that you can become the champion of a cause that is important to you. That is what members’ bills allow you to do especially for those in your community who advocate for the importance of a bill. So I take nothing away from the sponsor of this bill and the importance that the issue of this bill tries to address around paid parental leave and employment protection.With that I acknowledge the intent like the intent of all members who are honourable members in this House. However where we begin to differ is in the how. How do we ensure that we meet that demand and that need in the community? I want to just make some comments because there have been previous speakers in the House who talked about the previous Labour Government and what it did when it introduced paid parental leave. They talked about the extension of that paid parental leave. I want to just go over those points. For instance in 2002 paid parental leave went from 10 weeks to 12 weeks—that was in 2002. In 2004 it went from 12 weeks to 14 weeks which is what it is currently until its extension later this year from 14 weeks to 16 weeks. And in 2016 it will go from 16 weeks to 18 weeks.The reason I make mention of that is that those increments of change are the same increments of change that this Government is also making. They are the same increments of change by 2 weeks so it is no different from what the Labour Government did in its time to increase paid parental leave by 2 weeks in that period of 2 years from 10 weeks to 12 weeks and then from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. For us it goes from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then 16 weeks to 18 weeks. So I make the point that we are making the same responsible judgments which we think are absolutely important as well.The other thing I want to make mention of is that there was talk about this Government being mean-spirited in this. It is my understanding that the Hon Ruth Dyson who was a Minister at that time was also presented with a brief about extending paid parental leave even further and at that time it was declined. So again under a Labour Government there was no intent to try to increase it even further even though petitions were made on the same issues relating to parental care and responsibility. Again under a Labour Government it was not increased.The other point made by Ms Ardern the previous speaker was in regard to a Labour Government looking towards introducing bills that it felt were important to New Zealanders. Can I mention that this was talked about by a member who was previously here in Parliament the Hon Tariana Turia when she talked about the issue of Whānau Ora. I want to make mention of this in the House because it is not often talked about but when she talked about Whānau Ora at a number of conferences she made mention of the fact that it was under a Labour Government—under the leadership of Helen Clark—that she introduced the idea. She talked about Whānau Ora being important for Māori and their families. She talked about having a better way to meet their needs and to have self-determination so that they could be self-determining for themselves for the hapū the iwi and for the nation of Māori all together. It was a Labour Government under Helen Clark that declined—she declined—to even introduce this into the conversation. Yet it was under a National Government that Whānau Ora was not only introduced with a commitment of over $137 million over 4 years but we now have three commissioning agents—two for Māori; one for Pasifika.That is the care and concern—that is the difference between a National Government and a Labour Government that seeks to create continuing dependency rather than saying to those communities in particular that it can find a way to help support them. I make mention of that to say again what this National Government is doing to make a difference to families in our community.Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us a bit more about the bill.ALFRED NGARO: Let us talk a little about this bill for Mr Lees-Galloway because he probably has not read the bill. Changes to the parental leave framework—here is the difference that we are making. We are going out and having a consultation process to talk about how we can change the bill in an appropriate way that is fiscally responsible—as was talked about before on the other side of the House—and that ensures that the changes that we make meet the different complexities that different families have in this day. Over 900 submissions have already been put forward and from that the changes will allow for greater access and increased flexibility.Here are some of the key proposals that we are introducing which are really important and which we believe supersede the intent of this bill and instead show what we are doing to support and care for families and children in New Zealand. The key proposals are as follows. We are extending parental leave payments to people in less regular work such as seasonal and casual workers those with more than one employer and people who have recently changed jobs. We are extending parental leave payments to primary carers providing permanent foster care akin to adoption such as Home for Life parents. People who have permanent guardianship biological fathers and grandparents caring for grandchildren will be eligible provided they meet the work test criteria. Employees will be able to work limited hours or days and keep up skills development during their paid parental leave. We are allowing workers who have been with their employer for more than 6 months but less than 1 year to be entitled to some form of work and unpaid leave. These are some of the things that we are doing and that we believe are making a difference to families. We believe that that is the way that we are showing we care.The reason why we oppose this bill is that we are increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks but we are doing more than that. We are introducing a number of things. I want to mention this one again because it relates to Mr Faafoi. I remember him saying in his speech that down in Porirua in the Mana electorate he went to a pharmacy and what he saw as a clear image was the number of prescriptions that were lined up. He said this: “How can we allow these prescriptions which need to meet the medical and health needs of our children and our community to be sitting on a bench on a shelf? What are we going to do about it?”. Mr Faafoi help is on its way. This is what we are doing about it. We are extending free GP visits and prescriptions to children aged under 13 from July this year.So Mr Faafoi you can go along and know that when you look into that pharmacy those prescriptions will be free. They will be free for them and they can access them in the pharmacy. In fact I look forward to it. Maybe you will take me out there and we will look at that pharmacy. We will meet the pharmacist and talk to the people in Mana as well.The other thing that we are doing is making homes warm and dry. In the communities where I have begun to talk to constituents we have talked about the importance of having warm and dry homes. Over 300000 homes have been insulated. We think that those things are important. Why? Because they contribute to the care and concern for families which relates to the fact that their needs are being met by this Government.Just lastly I want to talk about offering free breakfasts in schools. That is absolutely important so that parents know—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member is wide of the mark. I know that it is a small bill and there has been some licence but you are getting well outside the scope of the bill so I ask the member to come back. The bill is about paid parental leave. That is what we are talking about.ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Yes it is about paid parental leave. It is also about how we care. We have had robust debate from Opposition members and I know you have given them licence to talk about all the things that we are not doing.So in my final comments I want to say this. Again as I said—and now that Ms Moroney is here—I applaud the intent of the bill but I cannot agree with the approach. The Government is making a difference. It is extending paid parental leave. We believe that that measure will meet the needs of our families and our communities. On behalf of the Government I say that we do not support this bill and we oppose it in its third reading.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you very much. First of all can I commend Sue Moroney and can I just say that she has gone above and beyond the call of duty really—and I am referring particularly to a breakfast this morning—to support New Zealand families. But I also want to say that New Zealand First is not suggesting that the Government has not supported New Zealand families. The reality is that this Government in the last Budget did exactly what Mr Ngaro said. It has extended paid parental leave. It is a thrill actually to hear Mr Woodhouse—and I am going to see about subbing-in on that select committee actually on this bill that is going to be brought to the House in June with all these other manipulations and mutations of paid parental leave that might better assist New Zealand families.Hon Jo Goodhew: They will.TRACEY MARTIN: It is great. I am really looking forward to it Ms Goodhew. I am really looking forward to it. I think there is a wider conversation that needs to happen—the fact that it is actually going to start to take in the concept of whāngai which I mentioned when I spoke at the first reading of Ms Moroney’s bill. Let us hope that there might be a conversation about a requirement for fathers to take some of this paid parental leave because what we know is that with all the efforts we have made in trying to get pay equity inside the workforce those countries that have been successful in doing it have actually made parents equal at home. It also removes the stigma for those fathers who want to stay at home and take paid parental leave. Perhaps if we actually start looking at and talking about that part inside the bill that this Government is going to introduce in June I think it was—we will all be looking forward to that.Could I just send a message to Mr Seymour—it is time to pull on your “big boy” pants. It is time to actually stand up in your own right. If you believed this morning that it is important that you support this bill then do not allow any other member of this House to bully you. I think that if you are bullied there is a sign up by your photocopier saying that you can gain support. You need to read that sign Mr Seymour call for support pull on your “big boy” pants and cast your vote as you believe it should be cast. That is what the people of New Zealand expect of us.I also want to explain to the listeners and the viewers of New Zealand that the reason why the conversation in this House has got so snarky is not that there is not recognition that at Budget time—Jami-Lee Ross: It’s not snarky.TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Ross says it is not snarky and yet his contribution was the most disgusting contribution that I have heard in this House in the 51st Parliament. It became personal and it was beneath him. If he wants to continue and still be considered to be a valuable member of the community and highly respected I suggest he goes back and changes the way he attacks other people in this House. Ms Moroney’s comments were robust but they were about policy and they were about a party and about a Government. Mr Ross’ comments were personalised and they were insulting. [Interruption] It hardly adds to the debate Mr Ross—it hardly adds to the debate—but perhaps after a few years and a bit of wisdom we might see a better politician.So if I can just go back to the point I was trying to make the reason this conversation has got quite snarky is not that there is no recognition that the Government has not made movements. It is actually because there was a betrayal of an amount of trust that was brought into that select committee process and Mr Ross possibly got so snarky because he was one of the people who were pivotal in the loss of that trust.What I want the New Zealand public to understand is that Ms Moroney believed in this to such a point that she took Government members inside the select committee—and I believe that the backbenchers need to listen to this. I believe that the backbenchers went out of the select committee with goodwill with a true commitment. They understood the people who came in and submitted to them and the importance of this bill. They took all of that information all that support all that voter information back into their caucus and their executive decided they had another way to do that. The executive decided: “We’re going to make sure that Sue Moroney doesn’t get any credit for this. We’re going to make sure that we can use this against the Labour Party at the next election and gain those votes from those voters.” And they did it very well. They have done it several times actually usually in chunks of about $10 million. So if the voters of New Zealand would like to go back and have a look at what happens when an issue starts to get traction this Government rather than withdraw—mind you there have been a couple of times: class size Novopay those sorts of things—tends to find $10 million of your money and dumps it there just to keep that little lid on that little pot.So the reason why this conversation got so snarky was that Ms Moroney absolutely tried to participate in a cross-party conversation. The backbenchers on that select committee—in good faith we believe—walked out of there and took that information back to their caucus and then the National caucus decided to pull the rug out from under Ms Moroney. The caucus decided to betray the very thing it consistently asks for when it decides to send troops overseas or when it decides to send anything else out of the way—it asks the Opposition to work cross-party; it asks the Opposition to work collaboratively.The Ministers say when we ask an interesting question that they are more than happy for the member to come and work with them but “why would you?” would be the question. Why would any member of this House do that after this example—and new members look and learn. Why would any member of this House go and take the word of any Minister or any member of the Government after what just happened there? So New Zealand that is actually what happened to this bill.Nobody is denying that the Government has moved forward. Nobody is denying that historically the movement inside paid parental leave that Labour made could equally be matched by what has recently happened with National. Nobody is denying that Mr Woodhouse is probably—keep your eye on it though once the pressure goes off—going to bring a bill here in June which will then go to select committee. Maybe it will take 10 years to get through the select committee though because National members will need so much conversation around it. It is going to have so many little paddles and angles to it that if the will is not there it might never end up back in this House.But the point as to why this has got so snarky the reason this has got so vicious is that there was a massive betrayal of trust by this Government when this bill was at select committee and there is nothing it can do to take that back.BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this bill although as my colleague Mr Ross pointed out a little earlier there is quite frankly no substance in the bill to oppose. The Parental Leave and Employment (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill has three clauses: it has a title it has a commencement date and it references the Act that it amends by not doing anything. There are quite frankly in this third reading absolutely no amendments and no substance.If this House were to pass this bill at this reading it would not actually do anything and that is quite telling. It is quite telling because what I would like to say what I would like to point out is that in its original form it was possible to disagree with the bill because of the financial implications. This Government did. This Government opposed the original bill because it considered it to not be viable under the financial constraints of the times and in Government. But it was very open and transparent about that. We told all of the members across the House that we could not support it and why we could not support it. We did more. We told the people of New Zealand why it was that we could not support the bill in the form it was in.But I have to say that even though we could have disagreed and did disagree with it at the time at least it could be argued it was a highly principled bill. The sponsoring member was introducing it under a matter of principle and she was highly impassioned about what she thought it would achieve for families.But let us look at it now and this is the most disappointing thing. It has been watered down to be a completely nothing bill—a bill that can do nothing. It is normal for anyone in this House or more important for the public to question why—why has it become a bill of nothing from where it started. I think it is quite possible the public might say that the changes have come about for reasons of pure political expediency on the part of the sponsoring member simply to get runs on the board by getting a member’s bill actually passed.There is a saying that one is either on the bus or under the bus and the Opposition has thrown many many New Zealand families under the bus of its bill. Let us look at them. Parents having a pregnancy with one child? Under the bus. No change for them. Parents with multiple children facing all of the challenges and financial pressures of having multiple children to care for and one more on the way? Under the bus. Nothing extra for them.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am offended by that member’s suggestion that we are throwing children under the bus. Will he please tell the truth about the bill?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look there are two points here. [Interruption] Order! First it is probably unhelpful to use phrases like “families under the bus” so I will ask the member to constrain himself on that. Then I say to the member on this side that there is Speaker’s ruling 42/3 which says that you cannot use “Tell the truth!”. So it is one all—all right?BRETT HUDSON: The other condition is that parents where the pregnancy will go full term get no addition to the paid parental leave that currently exists under this bill which actually has no content. That is the greatest disappointment of all. When the bill was first introduced it claimed a need for families and it said that it sought to satisfy a real need. But since then that need has been undermined to the point where it is offering so little to families and only to specific families.It must be pointed out that the original bill was unaffordable and that is why the Government opposed it. It ignored the reality of the constraints of governing in an environment following the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes. It also ignored the reality the disgraceful condition that the previous Labour Government had left the country in with projected deficits going out for at least a decade. New Zealand needs and New Zealanders want—and they have shown us through the elections we have held that they want—a practical and pragmatic Government. With this National-led Government that is exactly what they have got and what we have delivered for 6½ years.Within those constraints—that reality—this Government is making a real and positive difference to New Zealand families. We are extending paid parental leave to 18 weeks over two affordable steps in subsequent years and under this Government everyone can benefit from that extension not only those in very limited specific circumstances because this is a Government that is governing for all New Zealanders.We recognise that families come in many forms now. They have many different priorities and many different specific requirements for assistance and this bill would help those people not only specific limited-interest groups. We offer broader support in the broader forms and nature of our assistance. Not only are we extending paid parental leave to 18 weeks not only are we doing that but we are going to extend the paid parental leave to caregivers because we recognise that in some families’ circumstances it is not going to be the biological parents who will be the ones looking after the child in those early weeks.Not only are we doing that but also we are going to raise the parental tax credit by 40 percent to $220 per week. That supports parents who choose to remain in the workforce. And not only that but also we have effectively indexed that maximum rate to the average wage so as the average wage rises—and it has risen in recent years under this Government to be higher than the rate of inflation—so too will that support for parents.We understand that the well-being of children of families is broader than merely the first few weeks so we have a programme that not only deals with parental leave parental tax credits and the form of the family support but also is going to provide things such as free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13s. It is going to provide more funding $155.7 million for early childhood education to raise participation to a 98 percent target.We are also implementing further comprehensive risk screening for people who work closely with children as we are also adding a further eight Children’s Teams to help protect our most vulnerable children. Our free breakfast in schools programme for the children who want it—Sue Moroney: The bill is about paid parental leave.BRETT HUDSON: Well no actually. I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. The bill is not actually about—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. No no—[Interruption] Order! Just concentrate on the bill. That is not a point of order. If the member has got nothing to say well that is easy; you sit down.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just trying to make the point I think that care and concern for families including children is a bit broader than merely the first 18 weeks of their life or even as the member originally had in her bill 26 weeks. There is more to concern New Zealand families than simply that.What we have is a Government that is focused on ensuring that we are caring for families across all of New Zealand. But what has been presented to the House to consider tonight and make a final resolution on is in fact—well if we forget the fact that the bill has no amending provisions in it and the way the members opposite have talked about it—that all the bill would do is extend a small amount of additional financial support to a very limited number of groups. That is an absolute disappointment because as I began by saying the member originally had a fundamental position of principle which was that she felt—and the Labour supporters felt—that the financial support paid to new parents should be more across the board but that has been completely diluted.Meanwhile while Labour is diluting what it is trying to do this Government is actually taking real action real action that addresses the needs of a far broader group of New Zealand families and provides very positive and real outcomes for them. So I oppose this bill and I call upon members across the House to vote against it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is with regret that I rise to take this call on this bill because I see it as yet another lost opportunity. It seems that every time I speak in the House it is about lost opportunities.This was a great bill. I pay tribute to the sponsor Sue Moroney who brought a bill to the House that was a call for 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. I pay tribute to her skilful shepherding of this legislation through the meandering corridors of Parliament and the process the frequently Byzantine mechanisms you have to go through to get a piece of legislation back into the House. I refer particularly to sending it to the Government Administration Committee instead of any other committee which I thought was a very good tactic and then to compromise—to go through an incredible compromise with the Government—and attempt to reduce the scope of the bill so that 26 weeks’ leave applies specifically to families who have had multiple births or those who have had births where their children had suffered health or disability issues. I think that was very skilful.So today as we come to the third reading we have a gutted bill as the previous speaker Brett Hudson outlined. I think “guts” is the word of the day and I would suggest that this bill has certainly been gutted. We bring this bill back and it has been eviscerated essentially and that is a tragedy. We know for a fact through various research—research that has been canvassed; we have used the entire resources of Parliament through the select committee process to look at the benefits of paid parental leave—that investment in paid parental leave to 26 weeks or beyond can stimulate the economy even during a recession. That is according to Australian research.We know that we are not keeping up with other countries. We are 24th out of 25 OECD countries for our leave provisions on paid parental leave. If we want to attract skilled workers in a global labour market then we need to ensure that we have policies and leave provisions that will attract those skilled workers to contribute to our economy here in New Zealand.The benefits to first-time parents accessing paid parental leave and to their families to their children in those first few months are well canvassed. We know that the bonding with families means that there are fewer cases of neglect and abuse of children. We know that children who have had their parents with them in the first year of their lives have better cognition and fewer behaviour problems which means that we save money down the track. Investment in paid parental leave is certainly an investment in the future which is quite a change from the short-term thinking we see in this House.We know that paid parental leave is good for all of us and yet this Government has allowed the bill the brave bill that Sue Moroney brought to this House to be completely and utterly gutted. I have to say that Sue Moroney can take credit for the fact that in the last Budget announcement this Government has actually moved on paid parental leave at all. The fact that it will this year extend paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then next year to 18 weeks is to her credit. And it is to her credit that the Government was able to see that it was going to lose votes if it did not shift on this because there are thousands of New Zealanders who want better provisions for paid parental leave. It was also Sue Moroney’s bill that meant that this Government has decided to shift on how paid parental leave can be applied and to extend the categories that it can apply to.So although we are voting on a bill that has been gutted has been emptied and is a shell of what it was Sue Moroney can take credit for shifting this Government a few tiny steps in the right direction.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Iain Lees-Galloway. Five minutes.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There has been a lot of waffle and distraction from the National Party members in this debate. Let us cut to the chase. If it was not for Sue Moroney and if it was not for her bill absolutely nothing would be being done about paid parental leave. That Government would not have done a thing to extend paid parental leave if it had not been for Sue Moroney.Let us talk about the facts. Some background—the fifth Labour Government introduced paid parental leave. National voted against it. The fifth Labour Government extended paid parental leave. National voted against it. In the last term of Parliament Sue Moroney introduced this legislation and at its first reading National voted against it. If it really believed in this issue it would have taken the bill to a select committee. It would have voted for it to go to a select committee and it would have worked with the Opposition parties to get it right and to reach a compromise. But no it voted against it. But the bill went to the Government Administration Committee anyway. It went to select committee and the support for it from the public was absolutely overwhelming. National started to understand that it was out of touch that it was on the wrong side of this debate and that things had to change. It started negotiating with Sue Moroney. Sue Moroney thought that maybe there was going to be a deal done with the National Party and that it might agree to support her bill if she reduced the extension of paid parental leave. And then the National Party—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. 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.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The paid parental leave bill got to select committee and that is where the National Party realised that it was completely offside and completely out of touch with public opinion. So National members came to Sue Moroney and they indicated that they actually wanted to move from their previous position where they had consistently voted against paid parental leave to actually being prepared to extend it. Sue Moroney wanting to see the best in all people thought that the National Party wanted to make a compromise and work with her on this legislation. But that was unfortunately incorrect. What the National Party wanted to do was to play politics on this and to block Sue Moroney’s bill and then introduce a weaker version of it of its own.So the bill came back from the select committee and to the Committee of the whole House. That is where the filibuster began. That is where the National Party MPs stood up in the Chamber and put the brakes on this legislation because of course National was in the minority on this issue. But they just thought that if they could hold the bill up until they got to the election Parliament might change and they might be able to get a majority and block the bill properly. Sadly they were successful and that is exactly what happened. When we came back from the election National used its majority with the ACT Party to gut this bill to actually put this bill into the position that it is in now where it actually has no substance in it. I have heard National MPs talking about the fact that the bill now has no substance in it. The reason is that the National Party voted to remove all the substance from it.The National Party has at every turn from when paid parental leave was first introduced by the fifth Labour Government voted against it and moved to block it. The only reason National is going to introduce legislation of its own is that Sue Moroney has championed this issue and National members have belatedly realised after a decade that they are on the wrong side of this issue and they have to do something to appear to be in touch with ordinary New Zealand voters. That is the only reason National has been prepared to do this.Then today we get this bizarre situation where David Seymour tries to strong-arm the Government and now what is going to happen is that the compromise position that Sue Moroney tried to get agreement on with the National Party which it still voted against—National is now going to do that through its own legislation as well. I am fascinated to know what the libertarian argument is for extending paid parental leave. I would love to hear David Seymour tell us about that. Maybe it is something the Athenians were into—I do not know. But we got into this interesting situation where the National Party is now going to move. It is not going far enough. It is slow off the mark. But thank you Sue Moroney for your advocacy. Thank you Sue Moroney for standing up for parents. It is only because of Sue Moroney that anything is going to happen at all.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is split into two 5-minute calls.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I rise to take this call on the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the first time I am speaking on this bill. I must say probably like many viewers and listeners at home listening to that last member of Parliament I am very confused and probably not terribly interested in the he-said she-said they-said—what happened. At the end of the day I think viewers and listeners are interested in what is going to happen. I think it is right that this Government supports our children. It is right that this Government protects that parents have the time with their children. I think it is right that this Government promotes attachment between parent and child. But at the end of the day a country has to live within its means. The Opposition can have all the best intentions it wants for social policy but if you do not have the money to pay for it it is just all talk. That is what we have listened to—just all talk.Last year I had the amazing experience of witnessing the birth of my first child a fantastic experience that I am sure many people in this Chamber have experienced themselves. I was very proud to be in a country that supports parents and supports parents to spend time with their children. I know for myself it was great to watch my wife enjoy some time with our child and enjoy some time off work. My wife did not qualify for paid parental leave but she did qualify for parental tax credits. I cannot say I have spent much time in the dirty world of politics that that member was referring to—more the dirty world of changing nappies. But I have a lot of pride in being part of a country that is supporting parents to stay home with their children.I know for a fact that it is valuable for children to have that attachment with their parents. I worked at the Tavistock Clinic in London where the attachment theory was developed by Bowlby. We know that parents spending their time with their children the attachment is part of children’s emotional development and their mental health development. I am very proud to be part of a National Government that is committed to giving children the best possible start in life and a Government that is prepared to extend parental leave but in an affordable way. We have always said that where we can afford it we will do more—where we can afford it we will do more. I think Budget 2014 was a good example of this where we invested $500 million more into the well-being of children and young people in this country. When we can do more we are doing more. This Government is extending and will extend paid parental leave in a way that is affordable.Budget 2014 provided a comprehensive package of measures focused on young people and those who need the help the most. What this Government is doing is providing 4 weeks of extra paid parental leave. This will happen in two steps. The first will go up to 16 weeks on 1 April 2015 and then up to 18 weeks on 1 April 2016. Not only that but we are increasing parental tax credits by $70 a week to $220 a week. That will be extended from 2 weeks to 10 weeks. The fiscal cost of this is $180 million over 3 or 4 years and a further $30 million to increase paid parental leave eligibility following that consultation process. What we are doing is realising that you cannot throw money at everything. When I went to the state of the nation report a couple of weeks ago it said that child poverty was tracking down. It was not tracking down because benefits had increased; child poverty was decreasing because of job creation. So that is why we are modernising paid parental leave. We are modernising it in relation to modern working arrangements. This is why I do not support this billTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to talk to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill at its third reading. Well what an extraordinary process listening to Labour on this bill. Quite frankly the Labour Party is all over the place. At question time over the last few weeks all I have heard particularly around questions to the Minister of Finance is that we have borrowed too much to get through the tough years through the global financial crisis and that we should have been at surplus earlier—the inference being that we should have cut spending more aggressively than by our measured approach. And now all I hear and have heard particularly over the last 2 hours as we have discussed and debated this bill is typical Labour: spend spend spend. Spend regardless of the impact on the economy; spend regardless of the impact on New Zealand families with higher interest rates; spend regardless of the fact that ultimately to pay for it you need to tax middle New Zealand and small business out of existence; and spend regardless of the fact that this Government has done more for parents and children than any other Government in recent memory including paid parental leave.This obsession that somehow only the Labour Party has the moral high ground to hold a view on paid parental leave is absolute nonsense. This party has campaigned on extending paid parental leave and we got a huge endorsement from this country because of it. What I have struggled to accept and watch from members on the other side of the House particularly from the Labour Party is an absolute almost precious sense that unless their view of how paid parental leave is be applied it does not matter and therefore it does not count. Well it does count. This party has promoted it and has got it through the last Budget and it is delivering real value in terms of family support in this country.Sue Moroney: Don’t be mean-spirited; come on.TODD MULLER: It is not mean-spirited. That is far from the truth. This is a party that is committed to paid parental leave has campaigned on it and has delivered real outcomes for New Zealand. Spend spend spend—that is what we get from the Labour Party. Well guess what? It is not yours to spend. You have not earned it. The hard-working people of New Zealand have earned it and they have afforded us the privilege to spend it on their behalf.The Government has said all along—as my good colleague said earlier and I think very effectively—that we are prepared to extend paid parental leave but in a way that is affordable. We can afford more when we can afford more and we were very clear in Budget 2014 that over this financial year we would make some adjustments in that regard.This is a Government that is focused on delivering a comprehensive package of practical measures—practical measures that deliver real value to New Zealand families right here right now. It is not some utopian view whereby you can provide everything for everybody. This is a package that delivers real value that we can talk to. We have lifted paid parental leave to 16 weeks and then we will extend it beyond that to 18 weeks. For our young families we have provided the opportunity to have free GP visits. This is real stuff OK and when you get the extreme anger that we hear expressed on the other side of the House because their particular view of paid parental leave does not progress I think it is a nonsense.We can talk to a record that is very very strong for families in this country. In only a couple of months’ time we will be able to extend paid parental leave out to 16 weeks and then of course next year from 1 April we will extend it to 18 weeks—18 weeks. This is not a Government that is not supporting families. That is 18 weeks’ paid parental leave from next year and we will increase the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week. They smile and say: “Oh that’s not good enough.” but that is real money in the pockets of families in New Zealand at a time when we have got a whole lot of competing objectives. We can I think talk quite confidently to this country about our record of achievement. That is why quite frankly when we took this to the country we got the result that we got last September. I have appreciated the opportunity to spend a few moments talking about why our approach is the right one and why I will vote strongly against the bill that is front of us tonight. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Sorry about that momentary interruption. I had to pick up my pen that I dropped in stunned surprise actually at the contribution from that member. I am unable to recall his name. He is a new member and perhaps that is why he gave such a confused rambling speech. I intend to put the facts on the record so that that member will not come into this House and make things up and talk about voting against a bill that earlier on this very day his Minister committed to introducing. He calls other parties confused. That member will be voting for this legislation when it is in the name of National. That will be the only difference.He calls Labour financially irresponsible. This legislation would have cost $6 million for the three target groups that Sue Moroney narrowed this bill down to in an effort to get some compromise and support for the most vulnerable families so that they could have the additional support they need. When Sue Moroney offered that compromise to National costing $6 million—a quarter of what National is spending on referendums for flags—that member and his party said no and tonight his name will be on the record for voting against extending paid parental leave to families of premature babies to families who have multiple births and to families who have disabled children or children with specific health needs. There are not many other families who are more deserving of additional support than those. If there had been the member could have added them at the Committee stage of this bill but instead he is voting against those families.That is one of the best things about our Parliament. The name of every member of Parliament is on the public record alongside how they voted. The member who split his call with the member who has just resumed his seat gave the second speech that he has given in Parliament. The first one was his maiden speech and that was his second contribution. I want to congratulate him on the birth of his baby. I know that it is a delight to him. I have seen him out and about in Christchurch showing off his baby and well-deserved too. Tragically he talked a load of nonsense as well—beautiful baby; terrible speech. He said: “If we don’t have the money it’s all just talk.” Well what about in 2002? In 2002 the Labour-led Government Budget surplus—I know that is a strange word for the National Party to hear but we did it every year—was $2.5 billion.Chris Bishop: Wasted the surplus.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Bishop should remember that—$2.5 billion. He wrote the speeches for the National Party front bench to come in and say: “You’ve got a surplus. Why don’t you give tax cuts?”. And we said: “Because there are better priorities—higher priorities.” So we introduced paid parental leave in 2002 with a $2.5 billion surplus and what did the National Party do? What did the National Party do? This party comes in here making stuff up like: “We’ve always supported paid parental leave. We’ve always supported families and babies.” Every single member of the National Party voted against the introduction of paid parental leave in New Zealand. We were finally taking a step towards getting up to speed with the rest of the world that we like to compare ourselves to. Every other country that we like to compare ourselves to has got paid parental leave. In 2002 we had a $2.5 billion Budget surplus and National voted against it.In 2004 the Labour-led Government extended paid parental leave and that year we had a $5.6 billion surplus. Eat your heart out Bill English—a $5.6 billion surplus. And what did National do then? “Oh we don’t have the money.” It had the money for tax cuts but it said it could not afford to extend paid parental leave. And exactly the same thing happened in 2006. We became in 2006 the first country in the world to have a form of paid parental leave for the self-employed. That is a very good thing because we have a lot of self-employed people in New Zealand. We broke new ground. What did National do? For that similar-sized Budget surplus—listen to those words; you will not hear them much while there is a National-led Government—National voted against it.So Mr Doocey and Mr Muller do not come into this House making stuff up because the Budget surplus and the voting record of your party are on the public record. And what you said—“If only we could afford it. It’s all just talk. You’ve got to walk the walk.”—is absolute nonsense.Chris Bishop: Laila made you do it.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Bishop knows it because he wrote those rubbish speeches that Bill English and his colleagues set up. I want to congratulate Sue Moroney on her attempt to get paid parental leave extended. I think New Zealand families would have welcomed this. In fact I can say that with a lot of confidence because I chaired the select committee that considered this bill and there were over 3000 submissions to the bill and 99.6 percent of the submissions on this legislation totally supported it. About 0.5 percent of submitters said that there are some good things and some bad things about it you know—that there were perhaps some tinkering measures that should take place before they would be 100 percent supportive of it. One single submitter—one single submitter out of over 3000—opposed it and that was a tragic submission actually. It was tragic. The young man who presented the submission clearly had been obliged to on behalf of his employer and clearly did not want to.Sue Moroney: The National Party I think.Hon RUTH DYSON: And the National Party I am sure strongly encouraged him. It could find only one person in the whole country. He said that one of the difficulties with giving women paid parental leave was that generally after having a baby and taking time off they forgot what their jobs were and they had to be completely retrained—so it is total amnesia. I am sure Mr Doocey would know about it. I am not sure whether his wife would share that view; I doubt that she would. She looks pretty on top of things to me actually and she has recently had a baby. But this submitter said that women who had a child should not have time off from work because when they went back they would have completely forgotten it. He also forgot that of course at the moment we have an entire year’s entitlement in the law for unpaid parental leave so this bill is actually just filling that gap of absence from the job with some money to support the family. For a lot of families of course it makes the difference between them being able to choose genuinely to stay at home with their newborn baby and have the attachment that Mr Doocey has clearly had experience with which everyone in this House will know is so important.Listen to the health experts and the family support experts who say that breastfeedingfor the entire time of 6 months if possible is best for the development of the baby. Of course the stress and pressure of having to work in a job part-time or full-time as well as having a new baby is big. So the more genuine choices we are able to offer families by giving them the financial support that can make that choice a reality the better it is for New Zealand families. So I am just stunned not only that the National Party fought so pathetically against this bill by filibustering on a member’s bill for hours and hours and hours when it had been watered down if you like or tailored to a meagre $6 million a year. It was a compromise on a plate that National could have accepted so that those who might be considered the most vulnerable of families the most in need of that additional support because of the pressures they are facing could be the ones who got the first additional assistance.This is less money than it is costing the Government—taxpayers—to move the Treaty of Waitangi one block from Archives New Zealand to the National Library of New Zealand. That is costing $6.7 million—a very good spend I am sure. It is a whole block that the Treaty is moving—$6.7 million. The implementation of paid parental leave for this targeted group would have cost $6 million. As I have said it is a quarter of the amount of money that the National Government is going to spend on referendums for a flag.Simon O’Connor: And how much in the second year? And the third and the fourth and the fifth?Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr O’Connor you should take a call and explain to your constituents and the country why your name is going against extending paid parental leave. Sue Moroney did her best to introduce—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to table a letter to Government MPs asking them to support this bill to extend leave to 26 weeks—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose.SUE MORONEY: Can I just describe who the letter is signed by and who the letter is from?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have described the letter. Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? The document will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Sue Moroney’s bill. This bill is to extend the paid parental leave entitlement of 14 weeks to 26 weeks. It was good to see that the member who spoke beforeme Ruth Dyson acknowledged that National gave tax cuts when we had money because we do not believe in taxing and spending. I acknowledge that newborns’ and mothers’ health and development benefit from a period of absence from work without worrying about income. This also helps with the balance that is needed in family life and work life and also helps settling in with the changes coming to the family with the birth of a newborn.The National-led Government continues to invest in different public services to help children and families. The Government has already announced changes to parental leave provisions as part of Budget 2014. As for the changes coming soon we know that the current entitlement of 14 weeks is going to be increased to 18 weeks in two stages. From 1 April 2015 the current entitlement of 14 weeks is going to be increased to 16 weeks and on 1 April 2016 leave provisions will be extended to 18 weeks. Not just that but from 1 April 2016 parental leave payments will apply to more workers: those who have just changed jobs seasonal and casual workers and workers with more than one employer. Also from 1 April 2016 primary carers Home for Life parents and other carers with similar permanent arrangements will be able to access paid parental leave. For babies born on or after 1 April 2015 the Government is increasing the parental tax credit from $150 to $220 a week and is extending the payment period from 8 weeks to 10 weeks.Parenting is an important and also complex issue and a process that can be stressful and difficult. Raising children is enjoyable I know but it can be difficult no matter how many children one raises. It is important for children to have their parents or caregivers or their family with them especially as a newborn. I acknowledge that. Parenting is an ongoing commitment but families do like to keep that balance between the time a person spends at home and the person’s commitment to their field of work. It is necessary that we take into account both sides and find this balance and that is what the National-led Government did. It announced that paid parental leave extension from 14 to 18 weeks.Stuart Nash: Give women a choice—don’t speak on their behalf.Simon O’Connor: With everyone else’s money.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes it is everyone else’s money. Paid parental leave is a Government-funded entitlement. It is one of the uses that the taxpayer’s money is put towards; hence we must use this money effectively. The paid parental leave programme is a great initiative and it is important that we make it as effective and efficient as possible. But we need to operate at an affordable level. The extensions announced by the Government are optimal for both family life balance and affordability.I will share my own experience. Just like many others I did not want to stay away from work for too long as I wanted to be an active contributor in my field of work. As well as this I know the opportunity to bond with my children is limited. This is why I truly believe and have learnt that it is the quality of time that you spend with your children not the quantity of time that you spend with them.The family structure is changing. Our families are becoming diverse and our needs are changing as well. Therefore the Government is also developing further changes to ensure New Zealand’s parental leave framework reflects current working arrangements in today’s diverse family structures. To do this a discussion document was released in July 2014 seeking feedback on the Government’s proposals to enhance and modernise parental leave. Almost 900 submissions were received and those submissions are under consideration currently. The Government aims to put these changes in place by 1 April 2016.The Government continues to stand with New Zealand families and children. The National Government is known for delivering value for our taxpayers and is always striving to deliver more for families and children. The Government is doing a number of other things to help children in our communities like extending free general practitioner visits to children aged under 13 and free immunisation against rotavirus. It is about fiscal management and balance. We do not support this bill.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I would just like to congratulate that last speaker Parmjeet Parmar on a very fine speech which was representative of somebody who has intelligence integrity and a desire to make a difference unlike the speaker before her Ruth Dyson who attacked her when she was speaking and tried to make it personal. That is a disgrace from that member from Christchurch from the Labour Party who has not got the ability to debate in this House like that last speaker has. It really is something that is the nature of this Parliament. I would like to also congratulate Mr Matt Doocey as well. I thought he gave an excellent speech. I thought he was right on the mark there. He talked about families commitment making things work and how there is that time and desire to do something by the Government for families. I thought his speech was brilliant and I thought that for a new member coming in that speech was a real speech of integrity as well. I think those last two National speakers can be very proud of the way that they have not played politics with this issue. They have talked about it and they have worked through the issues in a constructive and balanced way just as the Government has. I also think it is important to acknowledge Sue Moroney here today. She has put a lot of work into the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Sue is also from Hamilton and I know that this is something she is passionate about. Whenever we have debates in Hamilton she brings it up and I would like to commend her on that. I think that she has shown passion within that area.Phil Twyford: Always a gentleman.DAVID BENNETT: Yes yes! No I do. I think she has done a good job on that and it is a shame that some members of this House try to play politics with the issue rather than actually look at what is going on and work towards getting long-term solutions that everybody can work with and that are in the best interests of New Zealand families.I think that is the most important thing because we all want the same thing. Nobody in this House wants to deny New Zealand families the best start that they can have. That is part of being in this House; it is the future of our country. Of course we want that. Of course everybody will work within their own ways to do this. Did you say something Mr Nash?Stuart Nash: Are you going to cross the floor and vote for it?DAVID BENNETT: Mr Nash wants me to cross the floor—it is more likely Mr Nash would cross the floor this way and vote against the bill but that will not happen will it Mr Nash? I am sure that cosy seat there is just too nice to do that. The fact of the matter is that all members of this House will feel the same way. It is a matter of balance and of what can be done constructively within the Government. This Government has made changes in regard to paid parental leave. We are working towards making more available for those in that situation and towards giving our youngest and our brightest and our families the best opportunity we can.There was one point that was raised by the previous Labour speaker: she mentioned the surpluses that Labour had encountered when it was in Government and that is true. It had great economic times. It did not have a world recession. It did not have to rebuild our second-biggest city. It had great economic times and it was probably set up by some great policies before that. It also took New Zealand into recession a year before the rest of the world but we have to forgive it for that because it did not know what it was doing. It was just following the economic policy that it had learnt that was inherent to its beliefs. It had the opportunity then to extend paid parental leave but it did not happen did it? Did it happen under Labour when it had the money there? No it did not. But then the provision comes into this House and Labour makes it an issue now. And I think that is sad because Sue has spent a lot of time on this bill. Sue really did mean well and it is disappointing that Labour has not reflected that in her role in Labour now. I think that is an indication that it does not believe in what it is doing. I am disappointed for you in that regard Sue. I think that Labour had that opportunity; it did not do it. We have been in more difficult economic times and we have still made moves in that area. OK it is maybe not what everybody wants but we have to take the steps that we can. This is a balanced approach.In summary I would just like to say that everybody in this House will no doubt want to see the best for our families and our children. There is no doubt about that. This bill is part of that process of getting the best for our young children and our families. There are going to be some changes. There is a programme ahead in the Government that has reflected a number of Government initiatives that will deliver for our young people going forward. I would like to thank everybody who has been involved in this bill. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 3 December 2014.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in the second reading of this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. In the debate on the previous bill I talked about how all members of this House have the opportunity and hope of having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. What that does do is it means that a member of Parliament can champion a cause. Just as we have debated the championing of a cause in the previous bill in regard to paid parental leave Kennedy Graham who drew up this bill intended to champion a cause. So the intent of all members who are honourable members was to ensure that there would be trust and confidence in the judicial system. So the register of pecuniary interests of judges was proposed. I read here from the explanatory note of the bill: “It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach”. That is the intent of this bill. We applaud the intent and also the cause that Mr Kennedy Graham was championing.During the 50th Parliament Mr Graham indicated to the Justice and Electoral Committee that he would withdraw the bill. That was because preceding this bill was the Judicature Modernisation Bill which has now been returned to the House. Its withdrawal was on the understanding—and also from hearing some of the submissions it was believed—that the Judicature Modernisation Bill would address the key issues. Also the majority of the submitters were not in support of this bill. It is I suppose somewhat of a disappointment because instead of withdrawing the bill the Greens are now making Parliament in a sense take time on a second reading—even though they know it will not pass because it is with an overwhelming majority that the judiciary and the judicial system believe that this is a bill that is not needed. However we are still here today to continue to debate this in its second reading.I just want to make some background remarks. There may be constituents and others who are listening and are trying to understand how this bill came to pass and what its intent was. Again the intent was true. The bill was introduced after the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s preliminary examination of complaints in regard to Justice Bill Wilson who had failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case. Justice Wilson had a business relationship with counsel at that time. He resigned before the commissioner could conduct a further preliminary examination. So this was the test case. This was I suppose the intent—to ask questions of the judiciary and to ask whether they could be beyond reproach. The register of pecuniary interests is similar to the one that members of Parliament are having to complete—their own register of pecuniary interests. We have a responsive and effective justice system which is key to our priority of delivering Better Public Services for New Zealand. So again we must ask the question: does the public have trust and confidence in the judicial system?So with that there are just a couple of notes I want to make. National does not believe a register of pecuniary interests is the right mechanism for avoiding conflicts of interest. In fact in March 2011 the Law Commission released an issues paper that examined the possibility of a register of judges’ pecuniary interests. In fact it became an international paper that was reflective of the New Zealand and England and Wales judiciaries and it also described key features of financial registers in the United States India and South America. The Law Commission strongly recommended in its final report that a register of pecuniary interests should not be established in New Zealand. There were concerns that the public register of assets and the financial information could compromise judges’ privacy and in some cases safety and could also expose them to external pressures.We believe as the Government that the current ethical codes and common law around when judges should recuse themselves from cases are satisfactory. Our codes and law are substantially the same as those of Australia England and Wales and Canada. If a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case they are automatically disqualified from the hearing. If there is doubt the judge has a duty to disclose this. Failure to disclose this as a conflict can amount to misconduct and can result in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. This is what happened in the Saxmere case. Justice Wilson was accused of bias. He should have recused himself and after complaints were lodged Justice Wilson resigned. That is an example of a test case that shows that the system was working. The checks and balances that were important were in fact in effect and were working.Again I just want to summarise the submissions. Generally most of the submissions did not support the bill. It was noted again that there was a lack of evidence of public confidence. In fact what we saw was quite the opposite. There was confidence in the judicial system and this is reflected again when we look at the system of law—we are really privileged to have the lowest crime rate in 35 years I think. I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins for her work and her leadership in that regard in order for us to achieve such a result for the safety care and well-being of all New Zealanders.Just in summarising some of my points there were also suggestions that a register would be an unwanted intrusion into the personal affairs of judges and we have seen the impact that could have. The bill does require returns of pecuniary interest from judges and does establish a register for these returns. We believe that this bill will in fact be detrimental to the role that judges play—that is to be impartial. One of the things that I think is also important which came out in the report is that our existing law with its appeal processes its guidelines for judicial conduct its judicial complaints process and its bench protocols is sufficient to address any conflicts that may arise. National is already modernising our courts. National is modernising legislation in order to overhaul our courts and bring the justice system up to speed with the 21st century. In the last 2 weeks we have had the final reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill before the House to change the legislation governing how New Zealand’s courts are arranged and operate. That bill implements reforms responding to the Law Commission’s report and review of the Judicature Act of 1908 in order to move towards a consolidated Courts Act as well.Our proposals aim to improve the flexibility the responsiveness and the transparency of the New Zealand court system—again adding confidence which we believe has been challenged by this bill. This Government wants to move from a system focused on paper and buildings to one that is focused on victims and customers and that makes the best use of new technology. People can now pay fines online and lodge claims and counterclaims with the disputes tribunals. We have reformed the Family Court including a new family dispute resolution service to support those who need help to solve their parenting and guardianship disputes out of court. We are trialling defendants sitting upfront in the court room not in the dock watching their own case.I stand as a member of Justice and Electoral Committee. I want to acknowledge our chair Scott Simpson who led us ably through the submission process. Again I believe that we came to a fair and amicable result and we felt that we had had negotiation with the sponsor of the bill. So it is with some disappointment that we see the bill continuing on. However it is in its second reading in the House. On this side of the House we do oppose this bill. We feel that the checks and balances that are currently there are adequate enough to meet people’s needs and for them to have trust and confidence in the court system. I say on behalf of the Government that we oppose this bill.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to make a personal statement.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I have just come down to the House from my office. I was not intending to be here having spoken already on the bill. It is not a hugely critical point but I think it requires a personal statement.The previous speaker was expressing what he called “disappointment”—I am not sure whether he used any other word—at what he seemed to imply to be an act of bad faith on my part in withdrawing the bill from the Order Paper and then putting it back on the Order Paper for a second reading. I would not have bothered to come down to the House but it is not the first time that there has been such an insinuation. So I just wish to take the floor and explain to the House the developments that occurred to prompt that action.During the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations—and I assume that certainly some if not all National Party MPs are aware of this but possibly not. During the committee’s deliberations—I was not a member of the committee at the time—I was visited in my office by the then chair of the committee who—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down please. Just by way of guidance to the member the member must address his personal statement to specific comments if he believes he has been misrepresented. So he should outline what those particular comments are and then state succinctly his response to that during the course of his personal statement. Carry on.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Thank you. I am quite capable of doing it succinctly. My point was with regard to an expression of disappointment by Mr Ngaro at my putting the bill back on the Order Paper for a second reading. If there is any insinuation of bad faith then I wish to make a personal statement. If he wishes to get up and say there was no intent of any insinuation of bad faith there is no need for one.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of making a personal statement by a member is to speak to specific allegations that have been made by another member. A member should refer to what those specific allegations are rather than speculating that there may have been some allegation of ill will or bad faith or such and such. The member needs to confine himself to those specific matters. However I realise that he has resumed his seat and that we have moved on.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is good to follow the contribution to the debate from the member Alfred Ngaro. I just want to preface my comments by saying that the member has been subject to some fairly harsh things said on Facebook and Twitter recently. You have to acknowledge that actually it took a lot of audacity—quite a bit of chutzpah actually—to march in the Auckland Pride Parade after having voted against marriage equality. That took audacity and I want to acknowledge that in the member and say that I do not believe all those things that were said on Facebook about that member. The word “hypocrisy” was used and I do not condone that. In fact those things that were said about Alfred Ngaromay have been a little harsh. I am sure he means well. I am sure he means well and I am sure that marching in the gay pride parade after having voted against marriage equality is something that will be forgiven by people as time passes. But I really think we should continue with—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this member needs to focus on the bill. He has not mentioned the bill or done anything about the bill in a whole minute or two and it is just not relevant.Chris Hipkins: The only judge of relevance in a debate is the Speaker and it is in fact disorderly to interrupt a member’s speech to question the relevance. The only person who is allowed to do that is the Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And unfortunately the Speaker was distracted at the time. I will listen carefully to the rest of Mr Twyford’s presentation.PHIL TWYFORD: Would you like me to repeat my comments Mr Deputy Speaker?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I would like you to stick to the matter at hand which is the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.PHIL TWYFORD: OK thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the member Alfred Ngaro in a debate in this House. I want to just really acknowledge the member who made a personal statement Dr Kennedy Graham. He brought a member’s bill to this House with the best of intentions and I think what we can see is the journey of this bill through to the second reading after the Justice and Electoral Committee has according to its report unanimously recommended that the bill not proceed any further. After considering all of the issues after hearing expert submissions it has concluded—I think with the support of all members on that committee—that the bill should not proceed.Labour supported this bill at the first reading. We thought that on the face of it it was worth sending it off to a select committee for scrutiny. I think that the report that has come back from the Justice and Electoral Committee makes the case very clearly that it considered the bill on its merits it heard the submissions and it concluded that legislative intervention—as this bill would do—not only to establish a register of pecuniary interests for judges but to place on the bench the requirement that they submit regularly their pecuniary interests would not be in the interests of the judiciary as a whole and that it would undermine it. I will mention some of the specific concerns that submitters raised but particularly that it would not necessarily aid the cause of transparency.It is worthwhile I think for the benefit of those who may have just tuned in to the debate to recall that it was the Saxmere case that really inspired this bill. That case involved the then Justice Bill Wilson who was found to have failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd  in spite of being the joint owner of a racehorse with counsel in that case. The judge resigned before the commissioner could conduct a preliminary examination but it was that case that really put the spotlight on whether or not there should be some kind of register of pecuniary interests. MPs live under such a regime. We are now used to the regular annual submission of our pecuniary interests.But I want to just mention briefly the concerns that were raised by submitters: that the bill’s proposed requirement for automatic disclosure might actually result in delays to hearings being undertaken while potential conflicts of interest were investigated; and that it might also limit the ability to recruit and retain top-quality judges to the bench. Other adverse effects that were raised by submitters were that it could also potentially open the door to the abuse of information. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call James Stewart.Hon Members: Shaw.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shaw—sorry.JAMES SHAW (Green): That is all right Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been one of those weeks where my name—I was called “Mr Grey” by the Speaker twice the other day so I am just enjoying the references to “Fifty Shades of Green”. I rise in support of Dr Kennedy Graham’s Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill which is a very good if perhaps doomed piece of legislation.This week I sort of filled out my own pecuniary interests register—it did not take a long time unfortunately; it would have been a more interesting exercise if there had been more to put on it. But it occurred to me that although filling in the register could be seen as onerous and an inconvenience and although the time it takes to fill out our own pecuniary interests gets in the way of some of the other work we could be doing—Chris Bishop: Your vast asset wealth—that’s why.JAMES SHAW: —yes—the register is actually there to protect us. It serves us. It covers our backs and in fact that is the intention of Dr Graham’s bill. It is not designed to make things more difficult for members of the judiciary and it is not designed to get in their way but it is actually designed to remove from any doubt the perception that there may be conflicts of interest in their judicial role.We know that New Zealand has a world-class independent judiciary. The point of the bill is to strengthen the judiciary by further increasing transparency and by strengthening public perception and trust in the judiciary. Last year we progressed the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill through the House and as we did so it was noted by a number of speakers on that bill that New Zealand has for many years been in the top three countries—if not the No. 1 country—seen as being free of corruption according to the Transparency International index. It was also noted that in order to maintain this hallowed position we cannot afford to stand still. We have to continue advancing our standards and as technology changes and as public expectation changes we need to maintain our competitive positioning. As a New Zealander living in London for many years and working for one of the world’s leading assurance businesses I was very aware that I was accorded extra respect because I came from a country regarded as having one of the world’s least corruptible cultures. So we know that we cannot rest on our laurels and that was the intention behind Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill.On 1 November last year the Government signed up to the Open Government Partnership which includes in its declaration the following words: “We acknowledge that people all around the world are demanding more openness in government. They are calling for greater civic participation in public affairs and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent responsive accountable and effective.” Obviously this also applies to the arm of Government that is the judiciary. So we acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained commitment. Dr Graham’s bill adds a dimension to this country’s ongoing quest for ever-greater openness accountability and public trust.So I recognise that this bill is not going to make it through the House but I do want to recall that when this bill started in its opening stages there was a great deal of collaboration both in the Justice and Electoral Committee and between the Greens and National and the Attorney-General was heavily involved in it. It was sort of widely acknowledged that it has good intentions. So as this bill finds its way to legislative heaven my colleague David Clendon will be moving an amendment to the Judicature Modernisation Bill in its Committee stage that will bring some of the principles of Dr Graham’s bill forward into that bill as well. So this bill does have good intentions. It is designed to enhance transparency and trust in the judiciary and we hope that David Clendon’s amendment makes it through in the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I commend this bill to the House.CHRIS BISHOP (National): What a learned contribution by James Shaw. It was an excellent speech—by James “Grey” I should say. I have to say it was in stark contrast to the disgraceful remarks by Phil Twyford about 10 minutes ago. After the embarrassing month that he has had—being called out for misleading the social housing sector before the election endorsing the National-led Government’s reforms in social housing and then campaigning against them and criticising them afterwards. He was called out. We found the speech. It was a highly embarrassing month for him. So for him to come down to this House and criticise on spurious grounds my good colleague Alfred Ngaro—he talks about chutzpah ladies and gentlemen; well he had a lot of chutzpah himself. Phil Twyford should come down here and apologise to Alfred Ngaro and also apologise to the social housing sector for telling a social housing conference that he agreed with the thrust of what the National-led Government is doing in social housing. I recognise I am straying a little bit far from the bill but I am only following the lead of Phil Twyford who started with a disgraceful personal attack.Anyway we know that the Greens do not engage in that sort of behaviour so well done to Mr Shaw for his contribution to the debate. Mr Shaw pointed out quite rightly that it is an interesting time to debate this bill because of the pecuniary interests that we are filling out. I think it is fair to say that Mr Graham did put forward this bill in good faith and the Government did take a look at it in good faith. It has had a long journey. It was first introduced in 2010. A previous speaker—I think in the first or second reading debate that I was reading before—noted that this was the first member’s bill to prompt a Law Commission paper or inquiry. That is an achievement and one day I hope to have a member’s bill adopted. I hope that we will just pass it without a 5-year-long gestation period and without it being voted down. But I hope that I will also have such achievements in my parliamentary career.If I could summarise why the Government is not in favour of this bill it would be for five reasons. Firstly the Law Commission recommended that it not proceed; secondly there are legitimate concerns I think about the safety and the privacy of judges if there were to be a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges; thirdly and this is important there was concern about the chilling effect that a pecuniary interests register would have on the incentive for judges to move from commercial practice or the Bar to the bench; fourthly it is the Government’s belief that the current law is satisfactory and indeed is actually being strengthened through the Judicature Modernisation Bill which other members have mentioned; and fifthly and finally there is no evidence we believe that there is a lack of confidence or faith in the judiciary.I want to run through those reasons starting with the first point about the Law Commission not recommending that a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges be required. As I have mentioned the Law Commission did issue an issues paper in 2011 and Sir Grant Hammond who is a former President of the Court of Appeal and his team at the Law Commission put out a thoughtful paper. I am not sure whether our colleague on the Government benches Dr Mapp was on the Law Commission at that point but I am sure that his expertise and intellectual acuity—Hon Todd McClay: Wily.CHRIS BISHOP: Wily as my colleague Todd McClay says. I am sure that the discussion of the submissions on the issues paper was considered by Dr Mapp.Then what happened was the Law Commission also undertook a review of the Judicature Act 1908. It was actually quite remarkable in some ways that the Judicature Act which is actually a constitutional Act in our unwritten constitution—the foundation stone in some ways of judicial review which provides the mechanism by which ordinary citizens or non-ordinary citizens can hold the Government and the executive to account. The Judicature Act was reviewed. It was in some ways remarkable that it had not been reviewed in that time. The Law Commission also reviewed the structure and the framework of our superior and lower courts. I will not use the word “inferior”; that word has fallen out of favour as time has gone on—the superior and the lower courts. They did a review of these. There was a very very wide scope to that review and it has ended up in the Judicature Modernisation Bill which of course had its second reading I think last week. In that bill there is a recommendation that the heads of the bench develop recusal guidelines. The Government agreed with that submission and that is reflected in the bill. That is at the heart of why the Law Commission says that essentially there is no need for this bill to progress. There are better ways of managing the conflicts that judges may potentially have and the Government has recognised that.Secondly there are real concerns about the privacy and safety of judges. I do not want to overstate those concerns because generally in New Zealand we live in a fairly peaceful country but there are concerns about people being able to use a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges to put the privacy and the safety of our judiciaryat risk. That is not something that anybody in this House would want. Those concerns were reflected in some submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not on the select committee—unfortunately I was not a member—but I think it is fair to say from talking to my colleagues that there was some cognisance of those concerns. There was some recognition of them and some agreement. So that is another reason why the Government’s view is that the bill should not proceed.Thirdly I think it is important to canvass the chilling effect that this bill could potentially have on the ability or on the incentive for people to join the judiciary. The Attorney-General in his contribution to the second reading of this bill noted that we have a very very good judiciary in New Zealand but that it is sometimes quite difficult to persuade excellent lawyers either in the commercial field or at the Bar to move to the bench. One reason for that is that a lot of our very best lawyers—some of our top silks some of our top commercial litigators—are on a pretty good wicket. They can earn a fair degree of money in the roles that they are in. For some people going on to the bench does involve a pay cut. That is one reason. There is also a concern about workload and there are some other concerns—particularly about being a judge who travels around the country a lot. But we do not lack for good judges. We have an excellent judiciary I believe and a lot of judges whom I have had the privilege of knowing—a couple—do it in some ways out of a sense of duty and in the belief that being a judge is a good way to give back to the legal system; that they have in some way a duty to give back to uphold justice and to dispense the Queen’s justice. But a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges is a barrier to judges making that decision to move on to the bench. The Attorney-General expressed concern about that and I think it would be reflective of the concerns of the profession and that is fair enough.The fourth reason is that the current procedures work and they are being strengthened—I have mentioned that already—through the Judicature Modernisation Bill. If I could just touch briefly upon the suggestion from the Green Party and I think Jacinda Ardern in her contribution earlier also made mention of this: that perhaps the recusal guidelines that the heads of bench are developing could perhaps be strengthened a little bit by including them in the primary legislation. I think Dr Graham is going to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in that regard. In my view that would be to tread a little bit too far over that very fine line between Parliament and the judiciary. It is my belief that it would disturb the comity between Parliament and the judiciary and the recognition of the appropriate lines between those two things. I do not believe that there is a need to put those recusal guidelines into legislation. I believe it is appropriate—and constitutionally appropriate—for it to be left to the judges to do that. We would be treading too far into the realm of the judiciary if we did that.Fifthly and finally just to close my speech on a good note there is no evidence of corruption in New Zealand. Our judges enjoy high levels of public confidence. I guess one of the good things about this bill is that it has ventilated some of the arguments about transparency and it has ventilated some of those issues over the last 5 years. The bill was advanced in good faith. I think there is general agreement that it will not be proceeding. But well done to Mr Graham for advancing it and to the Green Party for its mature contribution to this debate unlike the members opposite.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to addressmy remarks in my contribution to this debate which has actually had some quite interesting parts to the discussion broadly around accountability and transparency in our democratic system in a general sense while obviously concentrating on this bill in hand tonight.First of all I want to say that this bill is not a waste of time which is what one of the previous speakers from the National Party said at one point during tonight’s discussion. I think that is a real shame. I am pleased that Chris Bishop disagreed with him and said that it was not a waste of time because clearly it is not a waste of time. I really do commend Kennedy Graham for his work in bringing it before the House because I think it has allowed there to be a very useful discussion about transparency around a really important part of our system around how judges operate and dealing with some of the constitutional issues around that. So it was definitely not a waste of time. There is a high degree of integrity in the intent of this bill.I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I have read the committee’s report and I have looked at all of the previous speeches on this bill and at how this debate has evolved. I am also one of the speakers on the Judicature Modernisation Bill that weighty tome that we debated last week and I am looking forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper from the Green Party on the matter before us tonight.The first thing I did was to go and look at what Charles Chauvel said in his first reading speech. He gave great credence to the intent of this bill which is the principle of the open administration of justice. I do not think you can go past that in the sense of how important it is but of course he raised the point that there were serious constitutional and other legal issues that the submissions focused on obviously when the bill went before the select committee and the fact that there was no comparable precedent anywhere to show how such a register of pecuniary interests could work in other jurisdictions. Clearly that proved to be problematic.Then I looked at the speeches at the beginning of the second reading of this bill. I particularly want to refer to Jacinda Ardern’s comments around the alternative proposal around the recusal guidelines which came out of the select committee and to be honest I do not think there is any disagreement around the House on the fact that that is a better way to deal with it. What Jacinda Ardern pointed out was that if the Law Commission was so clear that those guidelines need to exist in primary legislation then surely Parliament should take some interest in the nature of the guidelines themselves. That is why I think there is more room for debate and when the Judicature Modernisation Bill comes back to the House for further debate and the Supplementary Order Paper comes before us I think that we do need to have that discussion.I do note that in the Hon Chris Finlayson’s speech in response—which was by and large a pretty good speech can I say—he said that this issue was not lightly touched over and nor was it done in a slapdash way. Well I am not sure that that is the case and I am not accusing the Government of being slapdash about it. I just think that we have to have a further look at it so I want to make that point tonight.Going back to what Jacinda Ardern said in her second reading speech the other point I will make is to touch on the register of corruption and how parliaments are held to account around corruption. When Transparency International released its latest report on this late last year New Zealand had slipped from No. 1 to No. 2. On the face of it that does not seem particularly significant but in reality I think we have to look a little bit beneath it. The other thing that we must do is remain vigilant on any anti-corruption measures and on any accountability measures in all parts of Government and all parts of our system of which the judicature is an important part.I want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there is a measure that New Zealand still has not taken. One of the obstacles to New Zealand leading that index of least corruption is its failure to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It is 11 years since we signed it and in 11 years we still have not ratified it. There are I think 10 Pacific nations that have ratified it and there is always another excuse in this country from this Government as to why we should not ratify it. It would certainly give credence to the perception that New Zealand is taking very seriously the measures against corruption.In 2013 there was a letter sent by Transparency International to three Ministers of this Government—Murray McCully Judith Collins and Tim Groser—asking and pleading for the convention to be ratified. The response came back from Judith Collins in August 2013 saying that she thought it would be advantageous but that there were just a few little rats and mice pieces of legislation that needed to go through in order for us to be able to ratify the convention. Well we are still not there—we are still not there. It is an important measure and an important index.Another important index that the House may not know about which is a measure again of anti-corruption against which New Zealand will be judged is the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index which has only occurred once before in 2013. It is being done again this year and New Zealand is going to be included in it this year. It reviews the corruption risk and vulnerability in defence ministries and armed forces. The 2013 index looked at 82 countries.Paul Foster-Bell: Nothing to do with this bill.CLARE CURRAN: I put it to you that this is highly relevant—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): To judges—if we can get to judges’ pecuniary interests.CLARE CURRAN: —because it is a measure of anti-corruption and transparency and accountability. It is one of the measures that is used and by dismissing this bill tonight and saying that another bill includes a small part that has guidelines for judges’ interests we are still leaving open the question of whether we are as a country putting enough measures in place for anti-corruption for vigilance and for transparency and accountability.So this measure of our defence forces is actually one of those measures and it is new measure that is going to be appearing later on this year. It covers off on appointment processes for the independence of the Defence Force and security establishments. It looks at how top positions such as those in the Government Communications Security Bureau are being appointed and whether or not there is enough independence from the political masters. So that is another very important measure of accountability and transparency in our country.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member for her last three-quarters of a minute and say that the transparency of defence ministries is certainly not part of this bill.CLARE CURRAN: In closing my remarks I say that New Zealand does have a high reputation for anti-corruption. It is very important that we remain ever vigilant on ensuring that we have measures in place right throughout all of our processes of government and all the parts of government. This bill has not been a waste of time. It has provoked extremely good debate throughout the House tonight and we look forward to seeing the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicature Modernisation Bill which takes this issue a little bit further. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I think this is the third time today I have called members—in every case new members—to order. It is not the practice of members to stand in the aisles and talk to other members unless they are the leader of a party the deputy leader of a party or a whip. It is actually quite rude.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It must be members’ day if we have speeches like that last one from Clare Curran which went on for 10 minutes and was completely off track with regard to the bill but I guess the Labour Party is looking at—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat—DAVID BENNETT: It was just an introduction.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —and the member will not reflect on the Chair and my responsibilities or my predecessors’ responsibilities as part of his speech. He was doing that.DAVID BENNETT: In regard to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill we certainly would not be doing what the last speaker did which was talk off the topic. We intend to talk on the topic in regard to the relevant issues that are encompassed in such a bill. But it is an unnecessary bill in the sense that it does not achieve any worthwhile purpose.We have a very strong judiciary in this country. It is part of the rule of law that is the strength of New Zealand and many democracies around the world and to tinker with that through registers of pecuniary interests just so that members of this House can feel that they have some role of importance and can dictate to the judiciary is a sad effect of members’ day. But in saying that I guess the Green Party members did find some peculiar interest in this bill probably because they feel that there is a role for Government to control everything in this country and especially our judges who have a very independent role. As that last speaker failed to see their role is very very strong in our communities and something that is sought after and supported through all parts of our community from our police to our judiciary to our corrections to our wider community and to this Parliament as well.As parliamentarians we need to back our judiciary. We do not need to look at them and say that there are potentially issues there. Our judiciary are fine people who have shown a tremendous commitment to their country over many years and the last thing we need is politicians in this House taking pot-shots at them in the sense of trying to create their own self-importance.When we look at registers of pecuniary interests they are fine for politicians. You know everyone here has filled—or is filling—one in this week and some may feel that they are an imposition. But in reality they are a very very broad canvas of what a person may have interests in or may have a connection with. The issue with them is not so much what they present; it is the lack of information that is presented and then other third parties who may wish to interpret them will try to make some definition of what those interests may be. That is the danger when you come to judges and the judiciary—that we have the media or other third parties then making lists of judges and what they may or may not own lists of judges and their interests in different businesses and lists of judges and their connections with businesses or community groups or any individuals. All those things can lead to dire circumstances where we are actually questioning the integrity and role of our justice system and the people who put their name forward for those roles. That is the danger. That is the real danger out there.We have one of the best justice systems in the world. Why would we want to tinker with that? Why would we want to put in a level of exposure which is not greater exposure? It is not greater exposure for those involved. It creates the opportunity for third parties to make their own interpretations of the judges’ assets and connections with individuals which does not provide greater exposure and actually compromises the ability of those people to present and do what they do. So this is not good legislation. It is typical of what the Green Party would put forward but it is not good legislation and National will not be supporting this bill through the House.I would just also like to give my support to my colleague Alfred Ngaro on whom Phil Twyford made a needless attack when speaking on this bill. The Labour Party has failed to stick to the knitting of the bill and that is a disappointment but it shows their lack of understanding of the judiciary I guess in this case. In essence this is something we do not need to do. It will create more problems than advantages and the National Party will not be supporting this bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Before I begin if I can indulge the House I would like to mark the passing of Dame Thea Muldoon. As the MP for Tāmaki I am very conscious that Sir Robert looms large still and those of us who have followed politics or knew him would know that Dame Thea played a significant role in his life in the life of Tāmaki and in politics in New Zealand. In doing so I acknowledge that early on of course she was Lady Thea but then took on a knighthood—or in her case she became a Dame—in her own right. She ended her days peacefully in Ōrākei in Tāmaki at 87 years of age and I would hope the House would join with me and others as we just pass on our condolences to her family.It is a pleasure to turn now to speak for this short call on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. I want to acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who put this forward. I think that all members genuinely and with great enthusiasm do put forward ideas in the House. Members’ day is an opportunity once every 2 weeks to articulate views and ideas that are important to us. Dr Graham and I would probably disagree on many things this bill included but he has taken it through the Justice and Electoral Committee and it is back here now for a second reading in the House. Like other colleagues I do not support the bill. I am sure the intention is right but the bill itself is not really where Parliament needs to be.First and foremost Chris Bishop in his contribution talked about comity—that is the balance if you like between the judicial and the parliamentary wings of our constitutional structure. There does come a point where we as Parliament do not need to unnecessarily engage and interfere—if you like—with the judiciary. I think that—as I have read what the select committee has come up with in its report—from the feedback I was getting from judges lawyers and constituents of mine they do not see this as a necessary bill. There are in fact a whole range of activities already that enable judges to recuse themselves where necessary. In fact it is just being part of civil society in its very basic structure that any of us who have a competing interest a conflict of interest would declare that and step back. As David Bennett mentioned in his oration earlier—Hon Member: Who?SIMON O’CONNOR: —yes a very good oration—Hon Member: It was very generous.SIMON O’CONNOR: It is amazing. What he was saying was that actually as politicians there is a right place for us to declare our pecuniary interests. But I would say that even as politicians we can understand the dynamics that come with this. I think that fundamentally the judges of New Zealand do not require a pecuniary interest register. The main reason is as I said there are already avenues for this and the other reason is ultimately around control. It is the fundamental problem. Something we do not want in the judicial system is control that is not needed.First and foremost we do not need our judges and judicial workers having to spend an enormous amount of time filling out forms and then try to defend themselves from the various accusations perceived or otherwise around their interests. That is not helpful and not a good use of their time. There is that great principle that justice delayed is justice denied and I think it came out very clearly from the select committee that the register was not something that was needed.The other element—and I mention again the word “control”—is that it is very easy to take documents like this and to have the vexatious the litigious starting to “have a crack at” people to use the non-technical phrase. We do not need pecuniary interest registers for judges to basically be used by third parties as David Bennett was saying to attack judges to then try to influence or to have a say or to change the outcome of a court proceeding by attacking the judge or the bench on a whole range of perceived issues. It is just not helpful.I do have to say in a much broader sense than just this particular bill—and it does primarily come from the left but not always—that again there is that desire to control. It is always put under the notion of transparency but really it is: “We want to know about you how you are funded whom you talk to who your friends are and where your family go so we can ultimately have a crack at you. We’re not going to ever argue the rational or substantial point; we’re just going to have a crack at you emotionally.” If you want a quick analogy of that you only need look at the initial attack from Mr Twyford on Alfred Ngaro tonight: “Why talk substance when actually we’ll just identify an issue and emotionally have a crack at you?”. That is not what we need in a good transparent democracy.I will finish by saying that New Zealand should be very proud of its transparent system. It does not come from signing meaningless UN documents; it comes from having a constitutional structure that works well. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 16Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillSecond ReadingTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I move That the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on my bill and I do not take that lightly so I appreciate the time of the House. I wish to start by acknowledging the members of the Social Services Committee: Melissa Lee who was the chair at the time Phil Heatley Jan Logie Asenati Lole-Taylor Sam Lotu-Iiga Sue Moroney Alfred Ngaro Rajen Prasad Mike Sabin Chris Tremain and Louisa Wall. I acknowledge them because their support—unanimous support—for this bill from the select committee has absolutely nothing to do with me. I acknowledge them because that select committee took seriously the submissions of the people who came to speak with it—submissions like those of David White and Di Vivian who is the founder and the chair of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. After this speech I will hold my breath and see who is the first contributor for the Government side and I will listen carefully to what they say because I know that at the select committee there was a will—a genuine will—to support the righting of what is this terrible inequality between these children.So to just quickly recap what this very little bill does—it is not very long for people to read—is it gives a clothing allowance of at the most $1600 in a year to orphans and unsupported children who have been taken in by somebody related to them by blood. At the moment if you are an orphan or an unsupported child and you do not have a family member or a person related to you by blood who can take you in—who is in a position to take you in—and you are placed with foster parents or a foster family you have access to at a maximum $1600 per year for clothing. Now $1600 per year does not sound like much but what I think what I hope is that the members of the select committee and I hope all the members of this House will agree with me that the point of this bill is not actually about the money; it is about the fact and the recognition by this House that if you are an orphan you are an orphan and if you are unsupported by your immediate family members then you are unsupported. It does not matter into whose home you go from that moment you become an orphan.Again I challenge any member of the select committee who listened to the submissions to not agree with that statement when you heard or read David White’s submission and how his grandchildren ended up with him and his wife. I am not going to recount that story here because it is their story and David very kindly came to the select committee to tell it to us to make the point. He has placed it in a book because it is the story of his daughter and this journey of her children after incredible tragedy.It is a shame that this bill has taken so long to come here. Again I hold my breath and I hope that it goes forward because the grandparents the kin carers have been calling out for this assistance for a large number of years—certainly for a lot longer than I have been here. They do a much harder job than I do when I walk into this place every day and all they have asked for is the same support. All they have asked for—and it is not for themselves. This clothing allowance cannot be spent on an adult’s clothing. This clothing allowance cannot be spent on anybody’s rent or anybody’s alcohol or anybody’s cigarettes. It cannot be spent on anybody else but the child and it can be spent only on clothing for the child. So it is not possible to take advantage. It is merely righting what has been a serious discrepancy in equity for these children.I think the other thing that has moved the members of the select committee has been the reality many of them knew. I also want to acknowledge the right honourable Paula Bennett or the Hon Paula Bennett—Chris Bishop: Not quite yet right honourable.TRACEY MARTIN: —I know I apologise; I take back the “right”—because I know she also has a will to fix this inequity. I recognise that the Minister was kind enough to place me on a ministerial working party to work on a $10 million fund to put in some immediate support for these families and these children—that is the school and year start-up payment. I think there has been a 73 percent pick-up of that this year. There is no requirement to justify your application but you do need to register for that money and we would encourage any kin carer caring for an orphan or an unsupported child to do so. But the maximum of that fund is $550 for school start-up and what concerns me is that I am already hearing that that is covering just summer uniform. That is another issue we are going to have to deal with—the fact that in this country $550 covers only summer uniform in some State schools.Again we come back to the fact that although it is $550 that is not the point; the point is that the legislation right now discriminates against these children merely because a policeman and a Child Youth and Family services worker showed up at the door of these grandparents or these kin and said to them: “These children need a home. Will you take them in?”. That is the single thing that differentiates them from foster children on this issue and yet the grandparents did not seek them out in most of the cases; the State came looking. The State came knocking on the door with these children and said: “Somebody needs to care for them. Will you do it?”. And just as David White said to his granddaughter when he picked her up from primary school on that day and she said to him: “Who will we live with?” when he told her that her mother had been murdered by her father the answer is: “With us.” What else is the answer?I challenge anybody who has argued against this equity before and used the argument that grandparents just should—well grandparents just do. But grandparents do not have a limitless bucket of money. Contrary to popular opinion many grandparents are living on the fixed income that is the superannuation. Contrary to popular opinion and popular I guess perception these children do not all come as smiley-faced Rosies. They are not all Annies. They are not all Annies dancing up and down the corridors. Many of them come seriously damaged. They have seen things they should not have seen. They have lived through things they should not have had to live through. They have psychological disorders. They require many of the things that cost that bit extra.Again there was a special fund that these families could apply for out of that $10 million pool and I am sure that Mr Ngaro when he contributes will expand on this. So that pool is for things above and beyond—extras that can be applied for and if the need is accepted by the panel that reviews those can be paid for. I know at the moment that some of the largest numbers of those requests are for orthodontic treatment. This bill would not fix that but what it would do is it would give $1600 at the most—that is the maximum this bill will do—to supplement the clothing so maybe some other money could be spent on dental work.Before I finish my contribution there is an amendment that the select committee made and it is around the implementation date of this bill. If this bill does pass through this House it would come into force on 1 July 2018. I agreed to that because I understand the financial constraints. But I just want to add that 1 July is my birthday and so I think it actually was somehow fate that 1 July no matter what year was taken as the day that this bill would actually come into force. I commend this bill to the House and I seek the House’s support. Kia ora.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This is my third speech in the House today. On members’ days I have always begun a speech by acknowledging the sponsors of the bills that I have been able to speak on. Like all members we look for our member’s bill to be drawn out of the ballot because it allows us to be the champion of a cause that we believe wholeheartedly and passionatelyabout. It allows us to connect with our communities and to advocate in a way that we believe makes a difference. However the challenges before any member with their member’s bill is to see that it aligns with the Government of the day with intentions that are true and right and that it obviously connects with that which is fiscally responsible—all of those things that make it important. I just want to acknowledge the member Tracey Martin for the cause that she has championed. I can start off my speech by saying that the National Government will support this bill in its second reading and it is fortuitous that 1 July is Tracey’s birthday.Tracey and I were on the ministerial reference group. We heard from a number of different members who are part of the sector of support who are out there in the community like Katherine Rich who was the chair. There was also Diane Vivian from the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust who is a feisty little grandmother who has a bucket of energy and just wants to go out and make a difference. She shared with us the survey of what the trust had polled its grandparents on. What it clearly showed was that at the moment we have around about 8500 kin carers who are out there caring for approximately 12000 children. As Mrs Martin has said often these children through no fault of their own are in circumstances of brokenness and despair and are really just looking for some support and help. I totally support this bill and I know the Government supports this bill because it is the right bill for the right need and for the right purpose. We believe that it is important to do that.Then it comes down to the aspect of how we make this work within our means but at the same time too how we make it work for those in need. I believe that our role in the reference group was to be able to hear from those providers and to hear the things that were important. Diane Vivian talked about the importance of grandparents and how we make sure that their support is there. Often children would just end up on grandparents’ front doorsteps and grandparents had to immediately meet their needs—things like beds drawers clothes and food in the cupboard. Many of them were still of working age and yet at the same time too they were only making ends meet for themselves so they needed that support. We heard that from Diane Vivian. We also heard from Linda Surtees who was with Fostering Kids and she talked about the importance of the system playing its role working with schools and how that worked in regards to the allowances which is what this bill is actually about. It is about parity for the allowance of clothes for children. I know Mrs Martin made it clear to us all the way through that all the other allowances we are providing are important and are for the needs but that did not include what this bill is about. I commend you Tracey Martin that we are true to what this bill is.I also want to mention Katie Murray from up in the far north. What she reminded us of was about some of the reality. Although people keep saying: “We want more and more and more. More money more resources.” she also was a challenger for those who are receiving that. So from the inside looking out she said that sometimes we also need to challenge those who receive this resource. How are they prioritising? That is something that we cannot do because from the outside in the sense of trying to give these sorts of messages it can make us look like we are mean-spirited cold-hearted and trying to force change when really for Katie Murray and the work that she does in the far north it was important to say that this is what she is seeing and these are the challenges that she is seeing as well. An important fact that also came out of that conversation was the fact that nearly 45 percent of those 12000 children are Māori children. I think that is an important issue to be raised because out of this although we talk about the generic aspect of children there are our Māori children and whānau who absolutely need this help. We believe that this bill will be a way of being able to address that.I just want to comment on a few things. Just as Mrs Martin has talked about at the Social Services Committee we believed that there were two amendments that needed to be made to the clauses. One was amending clause 2 to delay the commencement of this new legislation should it be passed until 1 July 2018. It seems like a long way away but as they say 1 week in politics can be a long time—it can be a short time—but I believe that we have come to an agreement where we will work towards that and I believe that it is important. Also too there will be parity in the payment of clothing-related allowances for foster children orphans and unsupported children should the school and the year start-up payment be no longer available.The second amendment that was made in the select committee amends clause 4 to clarify that an orphan or unsupported child would be entitled to a clothing allowance only if the chief executive used their discretion to set a rate of payment for a clothing allowance for foster children under section 363 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act.National does support this bill. We believe it is a good bill. We have had positive negotiations with Tracey Martin. National believes that we can provide further financial assistance to kin carers in a better way and a more targeted way. Although we talked about the universal aspect of providing generically for all children in need in regards to the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit we also then looked at some of the targeted approaches. I just want to make mention of them because I think that the targeted approaches also came out of the ministerial reference group. Here are some of the things that it talked about. The Government recognises the incredible work done by these families so there is the Extraordinary Care Fund. More than 300 children and young people have benefited from the first round of this fund. This fund recognises the job that grandparents and extended family members do in raising children who come into their care. What we have done is provide grants that are now available for up to $2000 per child and this round of funding distributed more than $360000.The example I want to give came from Katie Murray. For instance she said: “There are times in which yes you provide for the basic needs for the children in your care such as uniforms beds food and so forth. But then how do we help them to achieve their dreams when in a sense their lives have been tragic and with trauma? How do we find a way to excel that?”. She talked about how there are times when the children whom she has cared for had an opportunity for them to excel in sports. She talked about a number of the young children whom she cared for—so taking them to for instance representative sports teams or functions or events. She said that this is another part that if we are going to help them overcome their circumstances and not allow their circumstances to define their destiny then this Extraordinary Care Fund would be an important inclusion in the fund as well. I want to acknowledge that we heard this and believe that this was a very important part of the support that we wanted to offer as well. There had been about 36 applicants who were successful in that inaugural funding round and we are providing extra support so that the children whom these carers are looking after have the opportunity to truly reach their full potential to thrive achieve and belong. The second round of the Extraordinary Care Fund opened in January 2015 just past and an additional three funding rounds are planned for 2015 and 2016 as well.Just a couple of other comments that I want to make as I begin to summarise is that we heard from the ministerial reference group from the dedicated person at Work and Income in regards to being able to provide that support because often when grandparents went there they felt that sometimes some of the front-line support people they got were a bit unsure about what they needed. They asked for a dedicated person to work with them and also for some greater parenting support. This is from Diane Vivian. She said that many times grandparents were having to sort of re-parent themselves. It has been a long time since they have been parenting. So in partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place we have also developed a tailored tool box programme specifically for kin carers at a cost of around $600000 a year. It is a refresher course for grandparents.I conclude my remarks by congratulating Mrs Martin on her tenacity and her passion and her ability to be able to advocate very strongly. She has put together what I think is a good bill a practical bill which I believe will meet the needs of and support for our children and especiallythose who are our kin carers. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to contribute to the second reading debate on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I will begin as other members have done as well and thank and commend Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. It is absolutely the right thing to do and I am pleased to see that it has been supported by the Government. I wonder whether or not greater immediacy on the implementation of the bill would still equally be supported by the Government. If the Government indeed agrees that this is a beneficial amendment then it is beneficial tomorrow rather than in some time in the future. So we would continue to encourage Government members to just take that extra step.I think the member Tracey Martin has done well to bring the stories of the origins of this bill to the House. I want to just expand though a little bit on the distinction that we have in our legislation currently around a foster child and the difference in treatment that their carers would receive if they were on an unsupported child’s benefit. There is not parity between the two in terms of those additional allowances. I guess that extending the clothing allowance is a significant contribution but our concern is that we would like to see parity in all allowances. Why the difference for a child who is being cared for by someone who is not their biological parent but through reasons that are not of their own choosing are having to be supported by someone else? It is through the goodwill of that someone else that they are being raised in a loving and caring home but often without the financial resources to necessarily deal with that new member of their home.In fact if anything it is often a foster carer who may be able to do more pre-planning around these circumstances to deal with the change in income that they may experience as a result of taking on a child in their home whereas those who are on an unsupported child’s benefit are often family members who are taking in a child because they feel compelled to ensure that that child is still cared for within their family. So they are less likely necessarily to be able to manage their financial circumstances or to plan their financial circumstances to accommodate that extra cost. So it is Labour policy that we would like to see for instance grandparents raising grandchildren—which represents a significant number of people who are in receipt of the unsupported child’s benefit—receiving the same access to allowances as a foster care family would. We think that makes absolute sense.One of our other concerns about the unsupported child’s benefit—and it seems wise to raise it at this juncture—is that a number of families struggle to access the unsupported child’s benefit. I have had a number of grandparents who have contacted my office seeking assistance just to get that basic allowance let alone access to the other allowances that the member is trying to extend to them. The threshold for an unsupported child’s benefit is very high but the family member has to demonstrate that there has been a breakdown in the relationship that means that that child is no longer able to be cared for by their biological parent or their long-term guardian and caregiver. That often places a grandparent in a very difficult situation where they are forced to demonstrate the dysfunction in their own family even though they may have been caring for that child for a number of months thus demonstrating that they are the ones who have been compelled to take up the care of that child.The other issue that it causes is that if a grandparent seeks the unsupported child’s benefit and there is a situation where there is a parent who is in receipt of a benefit that is a result of caring for a child the grandparent seeking that benefit and support triggers Work and Income to see that the parent is no longer caring for the child and is no longer eligible for for instance sole parent support. That causes that parent to then go to try to take back a child from a grandparent who has cared for them because that is the best place for them to be cared for. I am not arguing that it is right that someone be able to access an unsupported child’s benefit when they are not supporting a child but you can see the complexity of the family situations that these grandparents are often having to deal with. They are difficult and we should ease the path as much as possible. At the moment having to care for a child for up to a year to demonstrate that they are the long-term caregiver is a significant barrier for those grandparents.Two other issues that I would like to raise that are relevant to this debate include that a lot of our foster carers are currently in receipt of these allowances—and they might include allowances for Christmas and birthday presents health and education costs and other financial assistance for recreational items that just come with caring for a child. A foster carer who may be in receipt of those allowances often is now being encouraged by the Ministry of Social Development to take bulk one-off payments in exchange for becoming Home for Life parents. There are two issues with this. Home for Life seems to have been used as an intermediary for adoption rather than actually reforming our troubled and antiquated adoption laws. Secondly Home for Life in and of itself has meant that some families have thought that they would get greater legal certainty by moving to this different classification when actually to date they still deal with the same issues that they might have dealt with as a foster carer—for instance a litigious biological parent who constantly challenges any decisions or battles for access rights when that is clearly not appropriate—and none of that is necessarily resolved with Home for Life. In fact all it does is leave what was previously a foster carer without the allowances and access for support that they may have otherwise had.A lot of families who moved to Home for Life do so because they want to indicate to the child they care for that it is not about that financial support and that they want that legal recognition. But when they do so they are also finding that they are abandoned by Child Youth and Family in terms of long-term support on the legal challenges they face with biological parents and with other issues like conduct disorder. So if we want to make sure that we are giving a secure family home for a child who isbeing supported either on an unsupported child’s benefit with a foster care family or by Home for Life we need to make sure that the support is appropriately tailored for each of those different circumstances and currently it is not.The second point that I wanted to raise relates to the age at which a child is covered for these different categories. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services Act currently classifies a child as being a child until their 17th birthday. If I asked any parent in this House whether they at the time that their child turned 17 would pack their bags send them out the door and tell them never to return ask for money help support housing food clothing or even emotional help because it is game up they are 17 and on their way—I know plenty of parents who at times would like to have done that but reasonably never would have. And yet the State the parent of last resort does exactly that. It functionally switches off all legal support at the age of 17. I think it would be hard for many of us in this House to fathom that which is why those who work in the care and protection space—the Dingwall Trust Lifewise and many other agencies—are calling upon us as parliamentarians to lift the age from 17 to at least 18. Let us at least bridge the gaps so that a young person is eligible to sign a tenancy agreement get a Housing New Zealand house or access the unemployment benefit if they need to. But at the moment we have a gap in our law.I would plead with members of this House to take up the opportunity to bridge that gap. We have asked Ministers before but it seems pertinent here because that would of course—as far as I understand it—extend the support that this bill would give to what I think is a reasonable age and that is just the age of 18. These are extra issues that I would ask this House to consider but otherwise I commend Tracy Martin for the work she has done in bringing this bill to the House.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Well we have heard it all tonight—party at Tracey Martin’s house 1 July 2018. I am rising to support the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill in its second reading and I would like to acknowledge Tracey Martin. This bill is common sense. I know her party stood on that platform. I would not agree that all their policies were common sense but this one has made it and I think it is very much common sense.I did take the time to read some of the notes around this bill and I would like to acknowledge Tracey for sharing some of her personal stories and her personal connections to this bill as well. And it is very much—from someone who comes from a mental health background—our stories our personal stories our shared experiences that bind us all together and it is something that we can work towards in improving the well-being of this country. It is very much focused on improving the well-being of not only the young people but the kin carers in this situation.As we have heard from previous speakers there are around 12000 New Zealand children being looked after by kin carers and this is a great opportunity to acknowledge their work and everything they do. I know for myself that I have had a kin carer come into my office seeking help and her story was amazing. Making no real thought about her own situation she swiftly moved in to take over guardianship of a niece and a nephew. It is right that we look to support these kin carers and give them all the resources that we can.I would like to support the words of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern around that transitional age of young people going into adult services. I have worked a lot with adolescents in my mental health work and we do know that that transition for young people is very difficult and it is where a lot of problems can happen. I would say after spending a lot of time doing one-to-one counselling with young people—and many young people who were in foster care or in kin care—you can tell the difference when they have those people in their lives who are steering them in the right direction. No amount of money will ever support a young person to stay on the right track but having adults in their lives who teach them the right way to live is the way that that will happen. This is why we should support this bill. This bill is seeking parity between the financial entitlements for orphans and unsupported children and financial entitlements for foster carers. It is only right that foster carers and kin carers have this parity.There was some acknowledgment of the Hon Paula Bennett and I would like to reinforce that. I have had the Minister in my electorate and we have taken her around social services. It is very clear that people relate to the Minister. They know that she knows what they know and they get that. I think that it is very clear in this situation that it is about common understanding of what people need and what people need to improve their well-being.I would also like to take this time—because this is my first time speaking to this bill and I am also new to the Social Services Committee—to just acknowledge the work of our hard-working Social Services Committee chair Alfred Ngaro who is very much guiding us in a collegial approach which this bill is taking as well. It is right that the whole of this House will support this bill.I have become a new parent over the last year and it has given me some understanding of the commitment patience determination and resources needed to bring up a young one in the world. I think it is only right that we look to support kin carers in any way they can be supported as they provide this vital role. I do know we need to focus on young people of all ages. From years zero to 3 a lot of our personality our characteristics and our traits are formed. Working in the mental health field for a number of years—we do know when we talk about early intervention that it very much is as early as possible that we can make sure all young people have the resources they need to do well in life. Just for the many listeners and viewers at home—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! You have got to address the Chamber not anyone out there.MATT DOOCEY: Oh OK.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is against the Standing Orders.MATT DOOCEY: I just want to talk a bit about the technical aspects of this bill. Under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 Work and Income weekly benefits are paid for the unsupported child and orphan the same as for a foster child. However unsupported children or orphans are not eligible for a clothing allowance. This is very much the nub of the argument for this bill. Although children under 13 years do get a quarterly allowance which covers some secondary school uniforms this very much aims to increase that support.The bill proposes that unsupported children and orphans get this clothing allowance in parity with foster children. It amends the Social Security Act of 1964 and I must say I am very proud to be part of a country that has a social security Act has strong social welfare provision and has a strong economy that pays for that welfare provision and we must always remind ourselves of that. We can have all the best intentions in the world for social policy but at the end of the day if you do not have the money to pay for it it is all just talk. So it is great that we are able to support this bill and back it financially.The amendments made by the select committee were around amending clause 2 to delay the commencement of this new legislation—which Tracey Martin has talked about tonight and is supporting—until 1 July 2018. The amendments are also about amending clause 4 to clarify that an orphan or unsupported child will be entitled to a clothing allowance only if the chief executive under their discretion has set a rate of payment for a clothing allowance for foster children under section 363 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act.I must say I am very very happy to say that this is really only the start of this type of work. We can do more and the Government is committed to doing more. As part of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children we committed an extra $10 million to provide further support to kin carers. We believe as a Government that we can provide further assistance to kin carers in a better and more targeted way and we have agreed with Tracey Martin to look at further options as to how that $10 million can be capped. We have also agreed to explore further financial assistance options in supporting this bill at its first and second readings and in thinking about how we are going to spend that $10 million.The Government does recognise the incredible work done by family members raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with them. We know that there are more than 12000 New Zealand children who are being cared for by their wider family members because of a death of a parent or a family breakdown. I am very happy to report that a ministerial reference group has been formed which includes a representative from Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and is currently working through options for how this extra funding will be applied and Ms Martin will be part of that. I am very happy to report that I support this bill and commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call Jan Logie the Speakers’ rulings that I was looking for before were Speakers’ rulings 47/3 and 47/4.JAN LOGIE (Green): I am very pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the second reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I commend the member Tracey Martin for bringing this to the House and for her excellent advocacy and communication of the issue as we went through the select committee process. I will come back to your submission in the process of my speech. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust for its advocacy on this. Even more I would like to thank these people for their wonderful precious work that they do which is making such a difference to their grandchildren and to our society as a whole.This bill as it was introduced and as it is now is fundamentally about fairness. It is about addressing a very small but important inequity in the funding that goes to support some of the most vulnerable children in Aotearoa New Zealand—those who have gone through death or family breakdown lost the support of their parents and are in the care of a family member.Although the quantum of the funding discrepancy may appear small to us sitting here in this House of Representatives it is very significant for many of the carers and children who receive it. It makes a tangible real difference that is visible in the lives of those families. There has been no logical reason for the inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. It seems to be just one of those many anomalies actually that have developed over the years from the highly complex and much amended legislative and regulatory provisions Governments have put in place in their attempts to fix a system when issues have come to their attention with the goal I suppose of supporting our most vulnerable but which have left so many gaps because they have lost sight of our contemporary world and that vision of what we are hoping to achieve with our legislation.During the select committee process we heard really moving submissions from a range of kin caregivers and particularly grandparents caring for grandchildren who spoke about their desire to do the best that they could for their grandchildren after so many of them had already been through such terribly traumatic experiences. As I think Ms Martin described in her speech those children have experienced things that we would never ever want children to have to experience have seen things that children should never ever have to see and have ended up many times traumatised and with psychological disorders as a result of those experiences as well as physical disabilities in some cases.These children in the care of their grandparents who desperately want to do the best for them were missing out on the same opportunities the same support from the State that children who went into the care of strangers were getting. There were examples given to us of family members—I think it was grandparents—who were caring for a grandchild but also had a child in foster care. Quite often the generosity of spirit of these grandparents extends to foster children. There was bizarreness in that fact that they were getting money from the State a clothing allowance for that foster child and not for their own kin. They did not have the financial resource to be able to provide their grandchild with the same clothing support—imagine that. Imagine if that were you and you had your own grandchild in your care in the same house and you were not able to offer them the same clothing support that you could offer a child who was not a family member. That is a very bizarre situation and one that is rightly being fixed by this bill. I am thankful that there seems to be unanimous support in the House for fixing it. For them the clothing allowance is meaningful.I think I said in my first reading speech that as a greenie I am quite into second-hand clothing. I get the whole concept of making do and reusing and recycling. It is a thing I like. But I get that when you are in high school or at primary school actually there are only a certain number of kids who are into that and it is really important to fit in when you are at school and you have been through hard times. To be in a position where your family does not have a choice for you to have new clothes is unfair and we do not want that for our most vulnerable children. It is good to be fixing that. So this allowance is meaningful but is also symbolic. It is really important that those children and their caregivers know that this House this society supports them and wants as much for them as for every other child in this society.I do want to come back to Tracey Martin’s submission to the select committee. It was a thing of beauty I have to say. I seem to be commending other members in the House tonight and I am just going to go with that goodwill. But it really was. She came to the committee with two cut-outs one of Henry and one of Audrey and demonstrated to the committee what this bill was about by using Post-it notes. So we had Henry who was in the care of foster parents and Audrey who was in the care of a kin caregiver. Those families were both entitled to the same amount of basic allowance but Henry who was in the care of foster parents was also entitled to pocket money of $6.30 a week—he was a 6-year-old—which was $327.60 a year. Audrey who was in the care of a kin caregiver was not. So there are two children with the same needs and the same likely background but one is entitled to $327.60 a year and the other is not. Again Henry was entitled to an allowance of $82.60 for birthdays and Christmas. Audrey with kin caregivers got nothing. There was a really tangible feeling in response to it.Then we got to the clothing allowance. Henry was entitled to $1129.64 at that time a year. Audrey who was in the care of family got nothing. They could be in the same household. They could be being cared for by the same people with a really fixed income and an inability to match that $1129.64. That is unjust and I thank the member for making it so clear for the committee. She has done negotiations and accommodations in getting us to this point.This bill does not introduce absolute parity yet. It recognises that the Government through some initiatives has put in up to $550 a year for school and start-up fees by 2015 alongside a one-off establishment grant of $350. That comes to about $900 a year. It does not actually reach full parity so we are still not going to get there but you have made that allowance because that is a whole lot better than nothing. Although that money is there and guaranteed until 2018 this bill will ensure that money is available after that guaranteed funding stops.It is a really really important initiative but it does I have to say still seem a little bit mean-spirited of the Government not to just simplify the system make sure nobody misses out and just create the parity. To me it does not seem too much to ask particularly when really we acknowledge that this is a band-aid on the sore of poverty that is killing our children.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I would like to speak to the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. It is nice to be able to speak on such a positive bill and to be able to talk around an area where we have got broad agreement. Certainly over the last few hours we have had examples of where perhaps members on both sides of the House do not agree. It got pretty heated there and perhaps unfortunately a little bit personal in my view. It is nice to be able to have a conversation here around a piece of legislation that by all accounts we have significant alignment on.I do want to acknowledge Tracey Martin as has everybody else who has got up to speak on this bill this evening. Mrs Martin is clearly someone who has a huge passion for those people in our society who are vulnerable and I suspect it has been quite a journey for her in terms of designing this proposed bill initially and ensuring that it reflects values that are important to her. Then of course once it gets pulled out of the ballot it goes through the journey of negotiation and compromise working with both sides of the House through its introduction. Then it goes to a select committee and it is now back here for its second reading. That takes tenacity. I think it also shows judgment around when to call an agreement so I do want to acknowledge that. Perhaps I might even say I am slightly surprised Mrs Martin that such a good idea could come from your side of the House and potentially even you because in my experience to date which I acknowledge in this esteemed Chamber—with so much experience both surrounding me here and also on the other side of the Chamber—you could perhaps somewhat generously be described as a typical Opposition contributor with your sharp and frequent barbs although it would be fair to say that your voice never fails to reach this side.Chris Bishop: We hear it up the back.TODD MULLER: We certainly do—right up there we hear it every day. So at least audibly it reaches its target if nothing else.Because we are getting very close to 10 o’clock—and if Mr Assistant Speaker can just bear with a novice—I will say that I was out in the Ayes lobby before talking to my son when we were two members’ bills back. The passions were high and Mrs Martin was in full flight if I could describe her like that and I am sure that we can all understand what that was like. I was talking to my little boy on the phone. I was trying to talk to him about how his day was as it had been swimming sports and he said: “Daddy who is that lady in the background?” and I said: “Oh that’s one of the MPs.” He said: “She sounds nice. Is she one of us?” and I said: “Well yes she is nice in a sort of broad generic sense and who knows if she is one of us.” but—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to encourage the member to come back to the bill I think.TODD MULLER: Yes OK right. I will return to the bill and thank you for your generosity Mr Assistant Speaker.This is a fantastic bill and as I said it is great to be able to stand here and support it and support Mrs Martin who has promoted it. It is good to identify the inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. Clearly it made no sense to have funding for a clothing allowance for one group—in this case foster parents—and not for the other group. National supports this sensible solution as our speakers have already said. It is aligned with our philosophy in terms of our ongoing improvement in social delivery. It is aligned to part of our additional $10 million investment which has been touched on before and that of course came out of our White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Children’s Action Plan which I may get on to shortly.In the context of this bill I do actually want to acknowledge grandparents in particular who spend time looking after their grandkids. There are some big numbers here in terms of this kin carer space in New Zealand. There are 12000 New Zealand children being cared for by wider family members because of the death of a parent or a family breakdown and half of the 8600 who are caring for these children are grandparents who are by and large of limited income. When we think of grandparents and we have all had them—I had two very special ones—there is this sense of them being part of your lives. For those of us lucky enough to have good relationships with grandparents they step into your life. You have a great period of time with them for a day or two or a night or two and then you step back and you get handed back. You go back to your parents and that is probably a relief in some cases for the grandparents; certainly it has been a relief for the parents to have a little bit of a break. But what an extraordinary effort it is from the grandparents.As we have heard in the scenarios expressed this evening and also I understand in the very moving scenarios that were spoken of at the Social Services Committee there are grandparents who find themselves in a situation of needing to step forward and I think make pretty much an ultimate sacrifice—it is right up there in terms of an ultimate sacrifice. Now that their own children are not in a position to care for their own children the grandparents step in to provide support. In many respects they have already done that right? They have reached the quieter stage of their lives and no doubt have other priorities but they give up their twilight years to help out for the family’s sake and for the children’s sake. That is a huge personal sacrifice. I have never met a grandparent who would not put up their hand for some babysitting but as I said they are pretty pleased to be able to flop back into a chair when that is finished. But what an extraordinary commitment to be in the twilight of your life and to say: “I’m going to stand here and provide unconditional love day in day out. Even though my energy reserves might be low even though to be honest in my heart I wouldn’t mind playing bowls instead I’m going to be here and I’m going to be here for my children’s children.” It is really hard work and I do want to acknowledge those who do that.Chris Bishop: Bowls?TODD MULLER: I have not played it. Have you Mr Bishop? I could imagine it is very popular in the Hutt.Hon Member: You will be.TODD MULLER: I suspect I will. But it is hard work and I think we do need to acknowledge it. I would like to acknowledge tonight not only grandparents but kin carers generally who are giving up an extraordinary part of their lives to be able to provide that love and support.We have introduced a lot of initiatives to be able to support this general theme particularly around greater parenting support. My colleague Alfred Ngaro mentioned it earlier but it think it is worth repeating further that in partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place we have developed a tailored tool box specifically for kin carers at a cost of $600000 a year. I think that should be acknowledged. In my earlier context in respect of grandparents putting up their hands at a time in life when perhaps they are not attuned to being parents in the modern world I think the refresher course that is being provided to provide insight into how children’s early experiences might be affecting them now and into the future and giving them tools to be able to be as good parents as they possibly can be is a practical example of actually standing beside families who are needing support when this challenge arises. This takes the form of videos manuals informal discussions and tool boxes often delivered in someone else’s home over six sessions. Clearly the feedback we have had—and I understand we got this back through the select committee—is that this example of our support is working very well.Another example and I may not be able to get to expand on it tonight is the work we are doing in our Children’s Teams. Obviously Rotorua and Whangarei are now well established.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.