Volume 707 Week 22 - Thursday 23 July 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 707 Week 22 - Thursday 23 July 2015[Sitting date: 23 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5271. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 23 July 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.AppointmentsDeputy Clerk of the House of RepresentativesMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am pleased to announce that pursuant to section 7 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 the Administrator of the Government has appointed Rafael Ignacio Gonzalez-Montero Tejada as Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives for a term of 7 years commencing on 27 July 2015. [Applause]Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Can I just offer my congratulations to both gentlemen who have assumed their roles this week. It is a new era of Clerks’ advice to the House. When the House resumes on 28 July the Government will look to continue the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill and make progress with the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I also offer the congratulations of the Opposition to both the new Clerk and the new Deputy Clerk. Can I ask the Leader of the House whether it is his expectation that the estimates debate will be completed during the course of next week or does he intend for that to be interrupted by other Government business?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): You never quite know how these things are going to play out. The Government is a very busy Government. It has got a lot of legislation that it wishes to get through. If there could be some accommodation reached with the Opposition then that would be quite wonderful. The appropriation debate is a set-piece debate that runs for some 11 hours. The House as people will be aware sits for only 13½ hours next week so it is most likely that it will be disrupted.MotionsWellington—150th Anniversary as Capital of New ZealandGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate concerning the 150th anniversary of Wellington being the capital of New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.GRANT ROBERTSON: I move That this House note that 25 July 2015 marks the 150th anniversary of the day on which Wellington became the capital of New Zealand and also note that 26 July 2015 is the 150th anniversary of the first official sitting of Parliament in Wellington.Motion agreed to.Points of OrderMāori Language Week 2015—RecognitionHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Rafael tēnā koe. In the sense that points of order are to point out issues of disorder that could arise next week is the celebration of Māori Language Week and I would ask that members of the House think about that as we celebrate Māori Language Week—for fear of disorder. If there is a mispronunciation the appropriate Minister will obviously have to stand to his feet to assist members in their pronunciation and I am hoping Māori members and those who are aware of how to pronounce Māori words will take up that opportunity. If I can if members get stuck they might like to look at a Facebook page of a young man by the name of Finnian Galbraith from Kāpiti College who has done a great job in respect of promoting Māori language. I look forward to all of us getting in the spirit of the week. Kia ora tātou kia kaha ki te kōrero Māori.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I am sure all members will do their best myselfin particular.Questions to MinistersMt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco Contract1.DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: What specific events has he been made aware of at the SERCO-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility that could trigger a specific deduction from the performance-related fee and which of those events have resulted in a specific deduction?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Some of the incidents include insufficient staffing levels mixing accused prisoners with other prisoners minimal entitlements and incident notification. In the financial year 2014-15 these deductions amounted to $300000.David Clendon: Given that there have been deductions why did the Minister only very recently praise Serco as “performing exceptionally”?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I said that statement with regard to the performance tables for prisons where they have been given an “exceptional” performance rating.David Clendon: At the Minister’s meeting with Serco today did they advise him of any additional incidents at Mt Eden Corrections Facility that may result in a deduction?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No.David Clendon: Given that the Department of Corrections produced a report on fight club incidents over a year ago and given that the department reported on a dropping incident earlier this year yet the Minister knew nothing about it until last week will he concede that there is a dysfunctional relationship between him and his department?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No I do not believe that there is a dysfunctional relationship but what I can say is that I expressed my disappointment to the department for not elevating that to the chief executive and me.Mahesh Bindra: Now that he is caught between his own career and Serco’s survival which will he choose?Hon Gerry Brownlee: No that’s not a reasonable question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to listen to the question again please.Mahesh Bindra: Now that he is caught between his own career and Serco’s survival which will he choose?Mr SPEAKER: No I consider that that question has ministerial responsibility.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well I believe in my own career thank you very much.David Clendon: Does the Minister stand by his statement that Mt Eden Corrections Facility is “performing exceptionally” under Serco’s management; if so why?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That performance table was in respect of the year ending 31 March 2015. However I did say to Serco in our meeting this morning that there was room for improvement and that it needed to improve its performance based on some of the evidence and incidents that we have seen in recent days.David Clendon: Will the Minister now guarantee that Serco’s contract for the management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility will be renewed?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I cannot guarantee that that will happen. What I can say is that we will get the findings of the review in terms of the incidents that were reported and going forward we will make decisions that will be based on its performance.David Clendon: Why is Serco only on notice and not facing immediate cancellation of its contract following the death of a prisoner a prison riot video evidence of fight clubs evidence of the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco; or do they actually need to burn Mt Eden Corrections Facility down before the Minister will—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well unlike the Green Party we believe that there is a process to follow—due process. There needs to be a review we need to get to the bottom of the facts around some of the incidents that we have seen in recent days and then we will make the appropriate decisions.Dairy Price—Impact on Wider Economy2.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on dairy prices and their effect on the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Members will have seen the results of the recent dairy auction: international dairy prices are now around 40 percent lower than the recent peak in early March and there are indications they could fall further. For the dairy sector of course times are turning out tougher and perhaps for longer than industry experts were forecasting and more than the Government was forecasting earlier this year. The dairy sector makes up 5 to 6 percent of the economy taking into account associated service industries so obviously a fall in prices of this magnitude on a sector that makes up around 20 percent of exports is going to have a flow-on effect on economic growth.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How is the fall in dairy prices impacting on other sectors of the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I mentioned lower dairy prices will obviously impact on businesses with links to the dairy sector. It is somewhat mitigated by the fact that dairy farmers still have to spend a certain amount of money to achieve their output. Unfortunately some of that spend in the next 12 months will be financed by debt rather than by revenue. Offsetting this somewhat is the recent fall in the exchange rate. The exchange rate is down around 25 percent against the US dollar compared with this time last year. That of course will support all exporters by softening the impact of lower prices on the dairy industry but underwriting more profitability for other export sectors like meat and wool horticulture information and communications technology and tourism—all of which are doing well and whose competitiveness has been strengthened by the lower dollar. An important continued part of the success of the export industry are our free-trade agreements with Taiwan for instance and we expect significant benefits from the free-trade agreement with Korea which we hope to have in place this year.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does the resilience of the New Zealand economy compare with when the Government first came into office in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course New Zealand is always going to be subject to international pressures because we are a small open economy. However we have become a fairly resilient one. Alongside the automatic adjustments of flat to lower interest rates and the lower exchange rate that I mentioned earlier New Zealanders have been strengthening New Zealand’s balance sheet. The household savings rate is now positive consistently for the first time in 25 years offshore debt has reduced by 20 percent of GDP since 2009 the net international investment position has improved from minus 85 percent of GDP to minus 64 percent of GDP the current account continues to outperform forecasts—currently sitting at 3.6 percent of GDP—and of course the Government is heading towards surplus and the beginning of paying off its own debt.Ron Mark: If the Minister believes what he has just told the House—that auction prices are down 40 percent and that they could fall lower and those prices could remain low for considerably longer—Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the question please.Ron Mark: —why does he believe that it is economically sensible for his Government to block dairy exports to the world’s second-largest dairy importer that being Russia when our rural and provincial communities are in such dire straits or are they expected—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not absolutely clear that a change in the situation in Russia would make a material difference to the current dairy prices but ongoing discussion with a range of nations trying to deal with the challenging behaviour from the Russian leadership will continue when there is an opportunity for dairy exports to resume there and I am sure that opportunity will be taken.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does the forecast of New Zealand’s expected economic growth compare with the growth in previous years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s economic growth over the last 4 years averaged 2.6 percent per year. The Reserve Bank said today that the growth outlook is now softer than it expected in its last forecast 6 weeks ago but I would note that those last forecasts included a substantial reduction in dairy prices but still projected a growth of around 3 percent for the next couple of years. I expect the Reserve Bank will update its forecasts in another 6 weeks’ time. So although expectations of growth may be coming back a bit from recent forecasts low interest rates higher construction activity and high net immigration indicate that we are on track for solid moderate and sustainable growth for New Zealanders which will underpin more jobs and higher incomes.Health Personnel—Resourcing3.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government is adequately resourcing the public health workforce?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. New Zealand’s public health budget will reach a record $15.9 billion in the coming year—an increase of over $4 billion since 2008-09. Under this Government this additional investment has allowed us to grow our front-line public health workforce. The latest information available confirms that there are 7648 doctors and 22092 nurse full-time equivalents employed by district health boards. That is 1718 more doctors and 3768 more nurses compared with 2008.Hon Annette King: If there is sufficient funding why have doctors at North Shore Hospital this week warned of a mismatch between staffing levels and patient workload which is putting patients’ safety at risk?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well North Shore Hospital is in the Waitematā District Health Board. It is the fastest-growing district health board in New Zealand in terms of population. There is an increasing workload there but I have got every confidence in the senior clinicians and the chair Lester Levy that they are up to the task of matching resources to the demands. At North Shore Hospital—I can tell you it is the hospital that my local electorate goes to—people who go there are very very happy with the service because actually they are not waiting under fluorescent lights for 24 hours like they were back in 2008.Hon Annette King: If resources are keeping up why did the North Shore Hospital doctors this week warn that the work environment is dangerous to staff and patients and patients—listen to this Minister—have been left unseen for long periods with only cursory medical attention 10 years on from when I was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of that question.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I can tell you a story about going to North Shore Hospital with Tony Ryall in 2008 and meeting a young man with a broken leg who had been waiting in the foyer for over 24 hours. That just does not happen anymore. And as for anything that that member says she wants to check her own record I think because you know you would have to see how it is now.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table for the Minister the Resident Doctors Association newsletter dated this week—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I just need to ascertain from the member how easy it is—Hon Annette King: It is an internal document.Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular internal document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: If the medical workforce in our hospitals is sufficient why did “an overwhelming 81.3 percent” of GPs responding to the latest New Zealand doctor poll say that they face problems in getting first specialist assessments for their patients in public hospitals up on the same poll taken in 2006?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can say is that we are providing 50000 more first specialist assessments per year. So I think when you delve into those facts it is actually easier than ever to get a first specialist assessment. I would be very interested to see what the question actually was.Barbara Stewart: What plans does he have to prepare for the future shortage of dental therapists in New Zealand particularly as over 70 percent are now aged 45 and over and an increasing number of dental graduates are being employed by private dental practices?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We could recycle Mrs King but I do not think that is going to happen. Apart from that if you go to the Ministry of Health’s website you will see all the Health Workforce New Zealand plans there. It is all laid out very carefully so go and have a look.Hon Annette King: In light of his answer to my last supplementary question if there is a sufficient medical workforce in New Zealand why did the number of people being sent back to their GP having been refused a first specialist assessment increase by a whopping 38 percent at the Waitematā District Health Board—his own district health board—in 2014-15?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well we know that that is not actually correct because that data has never been collected. But what we do know is that under that Government when Labour was there it kicked 30000 people off surgical waiting lists. That is the only fact in this conversation.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request to the Waitematā District Health Board pointing out the 38 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the date of it.Hon Annette King: The date of it is 21 July 2015.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act request. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: What was his response when he was informed by the Ministry of Health just over 2 months ago that five large district health boards are blowing out their staff budget because of demand and the high cost of covering medical vacancies due to the lack of a trained workforce?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is just not correct. There is a trained workforce there. We have got over 5000 new doctors and nurses compared with 8 years ago and our hospitals are well staffed. In addition we have put an extra $1.7 million into the budget which will come into effect over the next 4 years. So I just do not agree with what you are saying Mrs King. Sorry.Carbon Emissions—Target Setting4.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Given criticisms that the carbon target he set is inadequate will he set a more ambitious target ahead of the Paris climate negotiations in December?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of theMinister for Climate Change Issues: The New Zealand target of a 30 percent reduction on 2005 emissions is ambitious and it is consistent with this Government’s policy of New Zealand doing its fair share. It is comparable with targets from similar countries like the US Japan and Canada despite the unique challenges that New Zealand has with 50 percent of its emissions coming from agriculture and 80 percent of electricity being renewable. We know from the experience of the last Government that setting wildly ambitious targets like carbon neutrality and then having net emissions go up by 25 percent do absolutely nothing for New Zealand’s credibility on this important international issue.Gareth Hughes: Well in light of that answer is he aware that only Russia South Africa South Korea and Ukraine have more inadequate targets than New Zealand according to analysis undertaken by four reputable European research organisations?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not agree with that analysis at all and actually there are key elements of that analysis that actually disagree with Green Party policy. If I look at the target for Japan it is minus 25 percent which compares with our minus 30 percent off the 2005 baselines. If I look at the figure for the United States they have said 26 to 28 percent which compares very well with our minus 30 percent. It will be interesting to see what other countries like Australia that face similar challenges to New Zealand do when they announce their targets prior to Paris. New Zealand’s position is very credible.Gareth Hughes: So does he disagree with renowned climate scientist Professor James Renwick who said recently “If all countries followed New Zealand’s lead we would be in for very significant climate change impacts and catastrophic damage to the New Zealand and global economy.”; if not why will he not consider setting a more ambitious target?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A minus 30 percent target on 2005 emissions is ambitious. Perhaps the Government might have been able to set a more ambitious target if during the period of the previous Government supported by the Greens emissions had not gone up by a net 25 percent.Gareth Hughes: So does the Minister think that he can negotiate with the science of climate change; if not which countries does he expect to pick up the slack if we are as a globe to avoid catastrophic climate change?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can simply repeat that we think this target is ambitious. It is going to require New Zealand to do a lot more over the next 15 years than what both the previous Government and the Government prior to that have done. In respect of the negotiations I think every member of this House should be proud of the level of contribution that Tim Groser is making to the process. He has been more influential than any other climate change Minister since this issue first developed in the 1990s.Technology Incubator Programme—Results5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government seeding more high-tech start-ups in the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Yesterday I published the results of the first year of the new Technology Incubator Programme funded through Callaghan Innovation. So far the programme has approved funding of $7.8 million to support 18 high-tech companies through the repayable loans scheme each receiving funding of up to $450000 over 2 years. Those companies are involved in commercialising technologies in the information and communications technology sensing and automation food and beverage technology advanced materials design and manufacturing and bio-tech industries. The programme is just one part of a wide suite of initiatives that are helping to further diversify the economy through growing smart new Kiwi companies.Paul Foster-Bell: How does the Technology Incubator Programme support the growth of these high-tech start-ups?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Technology-focused incubators promote businesses that concentrate on commercialising complex intellectual property sourced primarily from research organisations such as universities Crown research institutes and private institutes. They are modelled on the successful Israeli incubator system. The incubators include Powerhouse Ventures Astrolab and WNT Ventures. Budget 2013 allocated the programme $31.3 million in new funding over 4 years for the repayable grants. That Government funding is matched 1:3 by incubator owners. The grants will be repayable out of each company’s revenue.Paul Foster-Bell: How many other Kiwi companies are being supported to innovate invest and grow their exports?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Almost too many to name. For example through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s Focus 700 we are working closely with 621 companies which will rise to 700 in a year’s time. Since 2011 New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has helped 9514 companies through the regional business partner network. With Callaghan Innovation our high-tech HQ for New Zealand businesses we have supported more than 150 companies with research and development growth grants and around 750 companies with research and development project grants. Through incubator programmes we are supporting 115 new companies and of course the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund contributes to 187 companies including 131 as part of the Seed Co-investment Fund. When it comes to encouraging New Zealand companies and to diversifying the economy this is a Government of action not one of hackneyed student political rhetoric.Economy—Commentary6.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s statement that “the growth outlook is now softer than at the time of the June Statement. Rebuild activity in Canterbury appears to have peaked and the world price for New Zealand’s dairy exports has fallen sharply”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Generally although not with exactly every word that the Reserve Bank Governor says. But I also agree with what the governor said when he said that the economy is currently growing at an annual rate of around 2.5 percent which is stronger than the OECD average of 2 percent. Although expectations of growth may be coming back a bit from recent forecasts we are on track for moderate sustainable growth as the Government has been saying pretty much all year.Grant Robertson: Is Westpac’s analysis correct that the Canterbury rebuild has already peaked and will not add materially to economic growth over the remainder of this year or the next and from 2017 will reduce economic growth by almost two-thirds of a percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen any of the detail of that analysis. There have been a lot of forecasts that the Christchurch activity has peaked and it just keeps on peaking. So for instance while the residential rebuild is well through the public sector rebuild which is quite substantial is only about 10 or 15 percent complete and there are still billions of dollars to spend. I think we have yet to see whether Christchurch activity has peaked.Grant Robertson: Is ANZ senior economist Sharon Zollner correct when she says: “Commodity woes are far from specific to dairy. It is a sea of red across the entire commodity complex.”?Hon Steven Joyce: No she’s wrong actually.Hon BILL ENGLISH: To quote my colleague she may well be wrong on that one.Grant Robertson: Everyone’s wrong.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member likes to quote bank economists when he thinks they are negative and he will not quote them when he thinks they are positive. Actually in respect of prices for exports some export prices are down and some are certainly up.Grant Robertson: Does he agree with the chief executive of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Colleen Milne that house prices in Auckland will continue to rise after today’s rate cut and with predictions that the median Auckland house price will break the $1 million mark before the end of next year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: All I can say is you do not have to be a real estate agent or even the Opposition spokesman on finance to predict that Auckland house prices might rise.Grant Robertson: Is it not the case that with the Canterbury rebuild peaking and commodity prices across the board tumbling the only thing left in his master plan for the economy is the Auckland housing bubble—that is it?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and just to orientate the member as the Reserve Bank has said today the outlook is a bit softer but the economy is expected to grow between 2 and 3 percent over the next 12 months. That might not suit the member. It might be easier for him to talk the economy down than try to understand what is happening. But that is what New Zealanders are doing each day. They are out there investing another dollar there is job growth there is income growth and there is innovation. This economy has good prospects.Grant Robertson: Is his new plan for the economy the further sale of State assets given that he told the competition and regulation conference today that “State assets are relics of a bygone era.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no change in the Government policy about the sale of State assets but—Grant Robertson: Why did you say it then?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well if the member wants to talk about where the economy is headed and he does not know that the post office is losing the competition with the internet then the Labour Party is in very serious trouble.Grant Robertson: Can he confirm to the House that today at the competition and regulation conference he described State assets as a class of assets as relicts of a bygone era?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well if the member thinks that—[Interruption] I can confirm that I made a statement like that with reference to companies like New Zealand Post. I mean if the member thinks that the postal service is the cutting edge of innovation and growth in the New Zealand economy that is like thinking the Labour Party is the cutting edge of politics in the New Zealand economy.Education System—Public Achievement Information for Regions7.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on education in regional New Zealand?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I am absolutely pleased to have released today our annual Public Achievement Information which gives students parents teachers and principals and their communities a picture of what is happening in their regions and nationally. The information shows among other things that primary school achievement in writing and mathematics has increased in 15 of the 16 regions since 2011 that achievement in reading is up in 13 of the regions and that early childhood education participation has increased in 14 of the 16 regions. I am particularly pleased and I am sure the entire House will be by the progress in areas such as the West Coast Gisborne and Northland where the percentage of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or an equivalent qualification has risen by between 11.7 and 18.4 percentage points.Mark Mitchell: How does this report help young New Zealanders achieve educational success?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under this National Government student achievement continues to rise. However we can always do better and we strive to ensure that all our students are given the best opportunity to do so. Public information about education system performance is vital for students their teachers and principals iwi parents and employers. It helps families and communities understand how their children’s schools are performing it helps teachers provide the right support to the kids who need it the most and it assists schools employers and training providers to work out what skills are needed to boost local economic performance. May I commend to the House this fabulous at-a-glance chart of how well New Zealand’s education system is doing. It is not usual that I bring charts to the House but this one unlike others is very meaningful. Kia ora.Housing Market—Auckland8.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How does he intend to reduce the shortfall of Auckland houses in the next 2 years given that under this Government the shortfall is increasing by 5000 a year and the Productivity Commission predicts on current rates the shortfall—now 32000—will hit 60000 by 2020?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): We have lifted the house build rate in Auckland for the last 4 years by 20 percent or more every year and that is the largest and longest sustained period of building rate increase in Auckland’s history. We have achieved this by freeing up land and breaking the metropolitan urban limit; speeding up consenting; record numbers of new apprenticeships; and a wide range of reforms on building materials on infrastructure and on regulatory changes and Government initiatives in places like Weymouth Hobsonville and Tāmaki. I do not accept the member’s interpretation of the Productivity Commission. I would also draw his attention to the Construction Pipeline report that I will be releasing next week which shows very different figures to those that he is quoting.Phil Twyford: Why did he tell the media that he had consulted with Auckland iwi about his plan to develop vacant land when official documents now confirm that he did not consult with Tainui or Ngāti Whātua before his announcement?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first right of refusal in Auckland is with the Tāmaki Collective not with Ngāti Whātua so the clear legal advice the Crown received was that the consultation should be with those who have an interest.Phil Twyford: What about Tainui?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of the member’s interjection with regard to Tainui there is only a very small area of Auckland in which Tainui has a first right of refusal. The Government has not identified any sites in that Tainui area where there are suitable housing developments. If we do identify suitable sites in that area we certainly will be consulting with Waikato-Tainui.Phil Twyford: Why will he not adopt the Australian policy of allowing non-resident foreign investors to only build new properties off the plan which a cross-party committee of the Australian Parliament recently reported was helping to reduce house prices?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note reports in the Sydney Morning Herald today that house prices in Sydney have gone up even faster than in Auckland. That is why this member’s attack on people with Chinese-sounding names and overseas persons as though they are the problem is incorrect. The problem is a lack of supply and that is why the Government is putting its primary efforts into growing supply.Phil Twyford: Which is the correct version of the Government’s position on a register of foreign property ownership: his statement that the Government would release information showing how many non-residents have bought property and which jurisdiction that they come from within 3 months; or that of the Minister for Land Information Louise Upston who told the New Zealand Herald that there would not be a foreign buyer register and no decision had been taken about whether it would be publicly released?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can assure the member that the data provided by the Government will be a lot more accurate than the dodgy Chinese-targeted attack that he made on one group of ethnic New Zealanders which most members of this House found abhorrent. In respect of the data that will be collected with the bill that the Government announced the details of that are in the legislation. It is not a foreign buyer register; it is a tax record for non-resident taxpayers. That information will be released when it is collected more accurately from 1 October.Joanne Hayes: Does the Minister think that the Auckland housing problem is caused by people with Chinese-sounding surnames; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No it is not the Kiwi way to target one ethnic group let alone to judge people on the basis of their surnames. It would be as unfair to ask what is little about Mr Little or whether Mr Twyford is a twit.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not—[Interruption] Order!Phil Twyford: Does he believe it is “blaming the foreigner” for Beijing Shanghai Singapore Malaysia and Hong Kong to have restrictions on non-resident property ownership to prevent investment from China overheating their housing markets; if not given that Juwai.com estimates $16 billion of investment from China is heading towards—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is too much in that question. The first part can be addressed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not noted the Governments or political parties in China Malaysia or Indonesia collecting lists of people with Kiwi-sounding names and targeting us with their housing problems. I note that in Australia where they have some restrictions they have not worked. I notice that in countries similar to New Zealand like the UK the US and Japan there are no such limits. If we are going to put any rules in place we are going to do so on the basis of sound information not on the sort of dodgy ethnically targeted information that the Labour Party now does for political opportunism.Joanne Hayes: What changes has this Government made that reduce the attraction of residential property investment and address the demand side of housing in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There have been five significant changes made by this Government in that respect. The first is that we removed the power to be able to claim depreciation on buildings a measure that cost building owners over a billion dollars. The second change is the brightline test that was announced in the Budget and the requirement to provide tax numbers and if non-resident an overseas tax number. The third change is the announcement of a non-resident withholding tax. A fourth change is the new Reserve Bank loan-to-value ratio limits which will mean from 1 October that those in property investment will have to have a minimum 30 percent deposit. I would also note that the changes made by the Government requiring insulation on older properties has a direct cost impact on those who invest in properties. All five of these measures do have a cost impact and a cooling effect on investment property.Phil Twyford: Does he accept the advice of the Dominion Post which said that his handling of the housing policy has been a mess that it is more of an attempt to look busy than to solve the problem that it is too hands-off and too small in scope?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would love to read to the House the commentary on the botched attack on Chinese-sounding New Zealand names by over a dozen media and not only that the criticism from members of his own party who are embarrassed by the way that he has trashed the name of the Labour Party which historically has stood for a diverse New Zealand.Beneficiaries—Support for Higher EducationMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): My question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member Matt Doocey has been called. He deserves a chance to be heard with his question.9.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to support people off benefits and into higher education?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): On 1 July the accommodation benefit rose to match the accommodation supplement for sole parents so that sole parents who take up full-time study are now eligible to receive the same rate of accommodation support as they would on a main benefit and could be up to $165 a week better off. These parents are at the highest risk of long-term welfare dependency and there is good evidence that this risk reduces substantially when sole parents have educational qualifications. The new rate will apply once students apply for their next period of study which is usually the next academic year.Matt Doocey: What feedback has she received on this policy?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was delighted to see that the New Zealand University Students’ Association president Rory McCourt—he used to be a Young Nat before he went to the dark side—issued a press release welcoming the policy. He says the changes will “dramatically” improve the lives of solo parents in study. Of the changes he said: “Being a student and a parent at the same time is one of the hardest double acts someone can do. Students have to live on less than the benefit which adds unwanted financial stress to parents juggling coursework and raising a family. This increase is a recognition that we need to back students who are parents and we welcome it.” And we agree.Matt Doocey: What else is the Government doing to support parents off benefits?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The number of sole parent support clients on benefits has reduced to 69240 down 1.6 percent for this last quarter. We now have the lowest number of sole parents on benefits since 1988. Our welfare reforms have significantly reduced the number of people on sole parent support by almost 5000 in the last year. To achieve that we have invested millions into intensive support and training as well as help with study and childcare for those sole parents so that working while raising children alone is achievable and rewarding. Of course Budget 2015 will see an extra $25 a week for all those families receiving a benefit.Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance and Incident Reporting10.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Why did he state that he only learned about the practice of dropping this week when he was directly told about it one month ago at select committee?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): I made that statement because it is true.Kelvin Davis: Why has he the Department of Corrections and Serco continued to insist that dropping does not happen despite media reports in February of an inmate being thrown two floors from a balcony at Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: With regards to this incident in February the chief executive of the Department of Corrections has released a statement that concludes that there was no suggestion made in the report of any practice of dropping.Kelvin Davis: What does—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The interjections from both sides must cease to allow Kelvin Davis to ask his supplementary question.Kelvin Davis: What does the closed-circuit television footage show of the dropping that took place in February and was referred to in a Department of Corrections news release today?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have not seen the closed-circuit television coverage of that but the investigation is quite clear as I have said that there was no dropping involved in this case.Kelvin Davis: Did Serco notify him of allegations of any similar attacks at the time?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No it did not inform me of any other attacks at the time.Mahesh Bindra: Given the number of stuff-ups—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will give the member one chance to ask his question correctly. If it starts that way it will be immediately ruled out of order and the member will have lost his opportunity.Mahesh Bindra: Given the number of incidents mishaps—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Get the question out quickly otherwise the member will lose it.Mahesh Bindra: —escapes and even deaths at Serco-run prisons under his watch what will it take for the Minister to resign—another death in custody?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you recall that question there was some assertions in there that have not been made anywhere other than by this member. I do not think it is reasonable for the Minister to be asked questions about what is essentially an assertion by someone that is quite independent of the actual issue we are dealing with.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is a very marginal question. I am trying to be lenient to the member because he is a very new member and has not asked a lot of questions. The last part of the question does fall into ministerial responsibility and it is not a difficult question for the Minister to now answer. I invite him to do so.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No but I understand that the corrections system has improved since that member left the corrections system.Kelvin Davis: Does he know whether it is true that following recent events Serco—[Interruption] Can I start again sorry?Mr SPEAKER: Yes the member can start again.Kelvin Davis: Does he know whether it is true that following recent events Serco has had to lock down Mt Eden prison since Sunday at 4 o’clock with prisoners not even allowed showers in that time?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No. I am aware though—and Serco has stated this quite clearly—that it has increased security checks on visitors and it has increased checks for contraband on prisoners and that is a good thing.Cycle Trails—Progress and Economic Contribution11.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received on the progress on the New Zealand Cycle Trail?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism): on behalf of theMinister of Tourism: Good news for the House. More than 2500 kilometres of the cycle trail have been completed in New Zealand now. This year’s Budget included new funding—an extra $3 million for the Far North District Council and to finish the Twin Coast Cycle Trail. It is fantastic growth in regional tourism which has seen over $7 billion being spent by international visitors in New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s cycle trail is going fantastically.Jacqui Dean: How is the cycle trail contributing to jobs growth in our regions?Hon PAULA BENNETT: So far 1225 people and I know you are going to want me to repeat that—1225 people—have been employed on the construction phase alone of the cycle trails. This includes 150 people on the Twin Coast trail in the far north 63 on the Mountain to the Sea trail in the Manawatū 45 in the Bay of Plenty and 107 on the two West Coast trails.Jacqui Dean: In what other ways are the cycle trails contributing to regional economic growth?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is so hard not to trifle with your time because this could be such a long answer but I will skip to the many small businesses that have sprung up or expanded throughout regional New Zealand. At least 50 new businesses have started to provide service to tourists using the trails. At least 43 more businesses have been able to expand. The Mayor of Ruapehu was just telling me the other day about going from being just a winter destination to now having about 11000 visitors most weekends in summer because of the cycle trail. I see my friend Alastair Scott. In the Wairarapa alone Green Jersey Cycle Tours in Martinborough has gone from 20 bikes to 130 just recently employing more people. Get on your bike!Social Services—Privatisation12.DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements in regard to the provision of social services?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes.Darroch Ball: Does she still stand by the statements she made on Q+A on 21 June “If they … deliver good results … why not?” and “if private enterprise can deliver those sorts of results I wouldn’t hesitate to use them.” when she was asked about Serco providing child services in New Zealand?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: To the first part of that question—yes of course because this Government is all about making sure that the money we invest in social services gets results for the people they are designed for. But I did never ever answer any question in regard to Serco and I have had no conversations with them about any social services. In fact it was the interviewer who talked about Serco using it as an example of private enterprise.Darroch Ball: Does she still stand by her statement made in that same interview in regard to Serco’s provision of services that it “maybe needs tighter controls” and does she not think she should have mentioned that to the Minister of Corrections some time ago?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think the member needs to be just a bit careful about how he selectively quotes from discussions because the discussion on Q+A was about whether I would consider using private enterprise to deliver social services and in that conversation the questioner talked about Serco. But in fact this Government has partnered with a number of private enterprises like Fonterra with the kick-start like BNZ with the small loans and we will continue to do so as long as we get results for the people who need the services we are delivering.Darroch Ball: What would her actions be if she continues with her plans to privatise social services with the likes of Serco and Serco fails as extensively as it has in corrections but this time costing children’s lives?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Anne Tolley in as far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I will say it in words of one syllable so the member can understand. I have had no discussions with Serco at all about the provision of social services but this Government is determined to make sure that the money we invest in social services actually is effective and makes changes in people’s lives.Darroch Ball: I seek leave for the benefit of the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can start this again and do it correctly if he expects me to give him a chance to be putting the leave.Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Q+A interview—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not necessary to go any further. If the members want it they can get it themselves.Point of Order—Treatment of New Zealand FirstRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is we hope a genuine point of order. We will listen to it. [Interruption] Order! But it will now be heard in silence.RON MARK: Could I ask you in time to reflect on the tape today. There is a feeling in my caucus that on occasions we are subjected—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He is very lucky that I am allowing the member to even stay in the House for that sort of accusation. I always review the tapes and I will always continue to review the tapes.Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. As part of our 2014 election manifesto we committed to extending the Youth Service approach. We said that we would extend it to 19-year-olds and to many other 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency. This Government is committed to supporting young people to make positive transitions into adulthood. We know that when young people have the right supports from the Government society family and whānau they can make this transition successfully. However when young people do not have the supports at the right time it is much more difficult to make that positive transition. Problems can become entrenched and difficult to shift later on.This Government introduced the Youth Service in 2012 to support some of our most vulnerable people to get an education to have a better chance of getting a good job and to live full and successful lives. Youth coaches currently support about 3000 young beneficiaries to get back into education. These coaches also get involved in other aspects of a young person’s life including help with budgeting and health concerns and depending on their needs sometimes just some plain old parenting for teen parents. Early findings from the Youth Service show that it is having a very positive impact on many of these young people and is helping them to turn their lives round. Over the year to March 2014 70 percent of the youth payment recipients were able to live independently rather than moving on to an adult benefit. At the end of March 2014 87 percent of young parent clients were engaged in some form of education; 43 percent gained National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA) credits in the first year compared with 20 percent of their predecessors. If we look at just the numbers 18 and 19-year-old youth on jobseeker support will spend an average of almost 13 years on a benefit. Nineteen-year-old parents are likely on average to spend almost 18 years on a benefit. The outlook for them and their children is not bright and this Government believes in them wants them to succeed and recognises that they just might need some extra help and support.That is not to say that everyone who comes on to a benefit at a young age remains on a benefit. In fact of the 18 and 19-year-olds who left jobseeker support because they found a job 67 percent did so within 6 months of first coming on to a benefit and we celebrate that. So this bill reflects the Government’s commitment to doing more for those young people who are the most likely to remain on a benefit for a long time. It focuses on better education for some clients and training or work for others. Teen parents face many disadvantages which is why we are extending the eligibility from 18 years to 19 years so as to make sure that we cover all of our teen parents. A 19-year-old parent whose spouse or partner is an older beneficiary will be referred to the Youth Service and will receive the same support as their peers. They will have a youth coach who will help them to focus on their education and gain better parenting and budgeting skills including being money-managed. For many teen parents this will allow them to continue to receive the Youth Service for another year because recent figures show that 66 percent of the 19-year-old sole parents support clients had previously received Youth Service support so it simply makes sense to reduce the bureaucracy for this group and keep them on the Youth Service.This bill also reflects the diverse needs of 18 and 19-year-olds who do not have any children and it will allow the Ministry of Social Development to target more intensive support to those 18 and 19-year-olds most at risk. The ministry can determine their chance of gaining employment in the market and refer those at significant risk to the Youth Service for support. The bill covers clients who already have existing work obligations—that is 18 and 19-year-old jobseeker support clients and any 18 and 19-year-old partners who have work obligations. They will remain on their existing benefit. Where a young person is not at significant risk they will continue to receive case management support from Work and Income. But those who are deemed to be at risk will be referred to the Youth Service and the youth coach will then help them to find work or training learn budgeting skills and be money-managed.Some of these young people do not have NCEA level 2. The bill allows the Ministry of Social Development to defer their work obligations so that they can study full time towards this qualification where this is the best outcome for them because we all know that this qualification is the minimum needed for most jobs in the workforce today and for any ongoing training and qualification. An initial estimate shows that for every dollar spent on the existing Youth Service the taxpayer’s liability reduces by $2.53 and I expect that there will be a similar return on investment for this older cohort.Currently a lot of young people finish in the Youth Service on 31 December once they have completed their studies. That includes about 10000 young people who participate in the Youth Service voluntarily. They are not on a benefit but have left school and are not working and we commonly talk about them as “neets”. Finishing in the Youth Service on 31 December means that a lot of young people have no support from their youth coach over the holiday period when the labour market tends to slow and schools and tertiary institutions are on a summer break. So it makes good sense for Youth Service providers to stay in touch with these young people over this time to make sure that they are ready for their next step in the new year and that could be to get their first job out of school or to continue with study.To assist this transition period and give Youth Service providers the time that they need to help these young people the bill changes the exit date from the Youth Service to 31 March for those who finish school or a course in December. However if the young person is completing their study at another time of year they will finish with the Youth Service then. This is what happens currently and we have no intention of changing that. The bill also allows young partners to be eligible to receive incentive payments. These young partners are not eligiblecurrently but in all other ways are treated the same as other young beneficiaries in the Youth Service. In my view these young partners should have access to the incentive payments which means that when they meet their obligations they will also be able to earn an additional $10 to $30 a week.We are taking the opportunity in this bill to correct four matters to improve the clarity of the Social Security Act and to ensure that the Government’s policy intent is upheld. It also means that the practice and understanding that has been applied to date by the ministry is validated and that it avoids any financial costs to the Crown that were not anticipated. First it will mean that people are able to review or appeal only decisions made about their own financial assistance not someone else’s. Where some of that benefit needs to be recovered from the partner the partner will still be able to review and appeal that decision. Secondly it means that the Ministry of Social Development can continue the practice of paying terminal benefits into the deceased’s account if a surviving partner or a person caring for a surviving child has not applied for these payments. Benefits will continue to start the day after a stand-down period ends—this is current practice and the bill ensures that it continues. Finally the bill will allow the Ministry of Social Development to pay money held on a payment card directly to a young person when they cease to be money-managed. Many of them have not spent all their entitlements. Some have saved deliberately and they should have it paid to them.The Youth Service initiatives previously introduced by this Government have offered life-changing opportunities for many at-risk young people. This Government believes in them. We want them to have every opportunity to thrive and succeed. I am pleased to introduce this bill which represents this Government’s commitment to extending these opportunities to more 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. I commend this bill to the House and move that it now be read a first time.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We had much discussion about the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in our caucus. It is with some major reservations that we will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee but we will be raising those concerns at the select committee and today I will highlight with the Minister for Social Development and with the National Government some of those very serious concerns that we have.I am going to start by saying why we will support this bill or the aspects of the bill that we can support. Really that starts with the fact that 19-year-olds will have access to the Youth Service and all the wraparound supports that come with that Youth Service. We support the idea that we put measures in place to ensure that our young people have access to—and all beneficiaries actually should have access to—higher-level education and have access and support to get into work. We do not disagree with the fact that our youth who are beneficiaries should have access to not only education but budgeting support and if they are young parents parenting programmes. We support that. We support the fact that in here there is a very small monetary incentive but at least it is a monetary incentive—a $10-a-week incentive payment—for those who meet their obligations. It is good to see a little bit of carrot rather than the stick that we have constantly seen from the National Government.But as for some of the concerns we have I am going to start with the fact that even in the purpose of the bill these young people are deemed as being at risk of long-term welfare dependency. I want to ask how the Government can assess these young people from such a young age as being at risk of welfare dependency. It is a stigma that the Government has already attached to them and actually it is part of the National Government and the Ministry of Social Development’s predictive risk model framework for risk of long-term welfare dependency that actually we are a little bit uncomfortable with. The reason we are uncomfortable with this predictive risk model is the fact that no beneficiary is informed that they are being rated in any way as being at low medium or high risk of welfare dependency. They are not being told that they are being rated. They are not being told what they are being rated for or what the measures are that they being rated against; they are just being assessed. They are actually being used in some ways as research guinea pigs and they do not even realise that this has happened. I have got real concerns that that is a breach of their privacy because when you are being ranked or rated by a Government department for anything you at least should have the right to know what you are being rated and ranked for and what measures are in place for that.We have got real concerns about the general culture of Work and Income. In some ways that is why we will support this bill because our young people are getting support from the Youth Service rather than the Work and Income offices which are providing very poor support actually under the National Government not because there are not good people in there wanting to do a good job but because they are working under a framework of a toxic culture that has been created by that National Government. That is one of the reasons why we have to support this bill. If it takes our young people out of that toxic culture of Work and Income and provides them with the wraparound services and support that Work and Income actually should be offering then we have no choice but to support that.We have got real concerns in general about the way beneficiaries are being treated and that actually includes our young people here. When we are talking about the $10 incentive that these young people are going to get as I said it is good to see a little bit of carrot but that is not going to go far. When we look at what this bill is asking for it is actually saying that these young people—19-year-old parents—will be required to go into full-time study or work in some instances when their child is 6 months old. I am not opposed to young people being put into study or being encouraged to go into study or work but there has got to be some discretion in terms of people’s different circumstances. I am unsure of whether or not Work and Income or Youth Service or the Government for that matter are able to discern or use their discretion to decide when that should be or should not be used. We saw on the website when looking this up that they will be required if there is a teen parenting unit to go into full-time study or work when the child is 6 months old. If there is no teen parenting unit within their area it will be when that child is a year old.So there is a little bit of a difference here—well actually a huge difference—between the way in which these young parents are going to be treated compared with the 20-year-old or older sole parent who actually does not have to go into part-time work or study until at the moment their youngest child turns 5—but we know that the Government is looking at shifting that to 3—unless because the Government implemented this other measure they have a subsequent child while on a benefit and then have to go into part-time work or study when that child turns 1. So there is a differentiation here between the way young parents are being treated compared with the way that parents who are 20 years old or older are being treated. We in this House all know whether or not we are in this situation ourselves that it is a really hard task not just being a sole parent but being a young parent. I want to have faith in the National Government that it will provide the supports that these young people these young parents need but how can I have faith given some of the things that we have seen recently?The Minister says that she wants to have a focus on making sure that these young people are in education that they are in employment and that the National Government is focused on ensuring that their aspirations are met but the reality is from what we have seen with people on the jobseeker support that it has not been about helping people realise their aspirations; it has been about getting them off benefits regardless of whether or not they are going into work. We saw that recently actually with the Minister’s own numbers that came out at the end of March when there were 11696 benefit cancellations and of those 11696 benefit cancellations only 2410 of them were cancelled because beneficiaries obtained work. What happened to the rest? Well actually the Minister does not care what happened to the rest. Actually the Minister said in the Social Services Committee during the estimates that it is not necessarily about going into employment; it is about going into independence. How independent can someone be if they are not only no longer in receipt of a benefit but not in paid employment? How independent can someone be? But did the Minister hear? No. Is the National Government collecting information on what happens to people when they go off benefits? No. Should we not therefore be concerned that the same behaviour the same actions the same process is potentially going to be rolled out here with our very vulnerable young people? Well yes we should be concerned and we are concerned and we will be monitoring this very closely when it goes to the select committee to try to make sure that the same things do not happen with these young people.The Minister says she is aspirational for these young people who are on benefits. Well I simply just do not believe that. In fact I want to go back to the select committee where her own chief executive officer of the Ministry of Social Development when asked “Aren’t you concerned about these people who have had benefits cancelled but who have not gone on to work?” said “Well they have other means.” If someone is not in receipt of income from work or from a benefit then what does he mean by “other means”? The Minister sat there and she nodded her head like that was true. Well they have got no income coming in from work they have got no income coming in from benefits and the number of those who have gone on to further study is minute. The number of those who had benefits cancelled because of the fact that they had passed away or moved overseas or their marital status had changed was minute. What are the other means that the Minister’s official was talking about? To be completely honest we were left there gobsmacked going: “Well actually how could they make money if they are not getting any money from paid work or from a benefit?”. And the only answers we could come up with were crime possibly; begging on the street; or prostitution. Those are three examples of other means which are perhaps what the Minister is implying when she talks about people being independent from the State. Obviously they are independent from paid employment because there is no information to prove that they are going on to work.We have real reservations about this bill but we will be supporting it to a select committee and we will be having robust discussion at that select committee to make sure we hold the Government to account on the way in which it treats our young people who are in receipt of a benefit. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. As the chairman of the Social Services Committee it is an honour to be able to receive this bill because again it is the vision and direction of this Government to ensure that we provide every opportunity for our youth our young people and particularly for those who are vulnerable to I suppose achieve their dreams their moemoeās their sense of vision for the future.The previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni has continually talked about the concerns. What I want to put forward again constantly and continually is the sense of vision and intent of this bill which is to provide opportunities for the future of our young people especially those who are in a vulnerable state. One of the comments of the previous speaker was about using the predictive assessment tool in a way to create a sense of judgment and to look at the I suppose long-term dependency rates and issues. I just want to make it really clear that the figures that are being used are actually by fact. They are taken as in a sense the average of those who are actually on long-term dependency on the benefit.So if we look at that here is what the figures say. If we look at the numbers 18 to 19-year-old youths on jobseeker support will spend on average almost 13 years on benefit. That is not a judgment; that is purely a fact. It clearly states here too that a 19-year-old sole parent on average is likely to and will spend almost 18 years on a benefit. The outlook for them and their children is not bright and this Government believes in them and wants them to succeed and recognises that some of them just need some support and extra help. Again that is not a judgment call; that is a fact.So the question that needs to be put there is around this: in the previous Labour Government all we saw was the benefit rates continue to increase and increase. So what are we saying? That judgment upon the leadership of a Government of a nation is in the fact of how we have treated our young and our old. So in particular if we talk about our young when we saw that more and more of our young people were actually being dependent on benefits the initiative for us was to ask what we were to do about this. That is what this bill is about. This bill is about saying simple things like this: you do not have to allow your circumstances to dictate or define your sense of destiny. In other words we all make mistakes; we all make choices. But just because we have an increase—and we have had a decrease as of late under the National Government—in teen parents we do not allow their being parents to be something that will burden them and hold them back from achieving their dreams and their aspirations as well. So clearly what this bill is looking at is that we want to ensure that we make sure those opportunities are available to them.Let us just talk about that. I just want to highlight some areas of the bill that we believe head us in this direction as well. Nineteen-year-old parents will now be eligible for the young parent payment as the age of eligibility will now increase from 18 years to 19 years. Young parents receiving this payment will continue to have an educational focus. This is absolutely important. We have an indicator that we call “neets”—not in education employment or training. We know there are a number of our young people who are in this situation as with young teenage parents. So we know what the goal and the focus is—that education is a key for their success as well.Not all 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children will be referred to Youth Service. In particular only 18 to 19-year-olds who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency and who have work obligations will be referred. These young people will continue to have a work focus. However some who do not have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 will have a deferral from work obligations or exemptions from the work preparation and obligations to be able to study full time. This part of the bill again makes recognition of the needs at times. It allows for variance. It allows for flexibility of the needs. Again the focus is an educational focus. The focus is to continue to have those building blocks to succeed in the future of our young people. This is different from youth payment recipients who will have an education focus.As with current youth services young people who are referred to Youth Service will be required to undertake a budgeting course and have budgeting conversations with their youth coach. This is not about the sense that people may feel we are micro-managing. Yes young people are able to budget but there are young people who also have asked and requested that they have that support. Those who are running our teen parenting units know that the need to have support around budgeting is absolutely important. We know that under the Commission for Financial Capability—and I attended and spoke at one of the summits there. The whole issue around financial literacy is an issue and a need right across New Zealand so it is no different here. This is not a judgment call; this is purely about saying that actually managing your affairs is something all of us may need some support and help with and all this is doing is providing that wraparound support that is absolutely important to those young people in that regard as well.The second thing and part of the bill is also that parents will be required to undertake a parenting course and have other social obligations related to their child’s well-being. Again we have got a number of courses. There are courses like The Parenting Place. There is Roots of Empathy. They go right across. They are both mainstream and they are right across in other parts of our community. Again this is not a judgment call. It comes under the aspect of social obligations. It is around providing that wraparound support.Previously in the work that I have done actually in the community—parenting is something that is absolutely critical and a need. People just assume that once you have a child you automatically become a parent. That is not the case. We know that we need lots of support. All of us have required advice and support which comes along from family members and friends and sometimes we have attended courses as well. So this is no different from us again providing parental support to those young parents. In particular if you think about it young teenagers who are 16 to 18 to 19 years old are at an age where often you would sort of say they are children having children. Therefore even more so there is a need to have parental support and guidance to help them along the way to be able to deal with these issues.We are often dealing with young people who are in a vulnerable state. For no fault of their own in many circumstances they have found themselves vulnerable because they do not have the support that wraps around them: family and whānau and aiga who would normally be there and friends who would normally be there. Again I want to reiterate that this is not to be put on as a burden but simply as a means of support for our young people for our rangatahi as well.They will also be eligible for incentive payments of between $10 and $30 a week for meeting these obligations or for 6 months of participation in education and in training. We believe this is important. This is the same as for existing participants and it is expected that fewer young people will be on long-term welfare dependency. Again I want to reiterate our intent as the Government. We make no bones about that. We are unashamedly saying this: we want our young people to move off that sense of dependency and into an opportunity where they can be self-determining for their future and for their direction as well.I want to make some comments around Youth Service. This becomes quite important because although we talk about the social obligations the benefit wraparound support that we have we also want to talk about the initiative of Youth Service. In 2014 the Youth Service evaluation showed that Youth Service is having a positive impact on helping young people on a benefit to be independent of welfare support. It is also reducing benefit liability. At the end of March 2014 the number of youth payment recipients moving to a working-age benefit dropped eight percentage points from 38 percent to 30 percent compared with previous young beneficiaries. We see that this is a positive thing. I know that the previous speaker talked about how we track them and what we should do. We know that this has been a long-held tradition for many years and that this department’s role of responsibilities as stated in its statement of intent is very clear. It is to provide the opportunities to move off the benefit and into some form of work. That is where its roles of responsibilities lie. We believe this is important.The last point I want to make is that Youth Service has been very successful with 86.5 percent of participants engaged in education training or work-based learning at the end of March 2015.We look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee. As the chair I look forward to also hearing the submissions. We think they are important and yes we are up for a robust debate. I want to reiterate very clearly the direction that both the Minister for Social Development and this Government are taking. Our belief is this: the longer our young people who are both vulnerable and at risk stay on a benefit and are dependent on a benefit the less likely they are to achieve their dreams. The vision that is held by this Government by the Minister and by those of us who are part of the caucus is very clear. We want to provide every opportunity available so that a young person’s circumstances do not have to define their destiny so that they have the opportunity to achieve their dreams into the future. I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This is a bill that Labour is prepared to support through to the select committee and one that we will be very interested in hearing submissions on because we do have reservations about supporting this bill. As with many of the bills that this Government brings in it has some good aspects and it has some very dubious aspects. This is another one of those bills that has both things going on with it. For us we will be weighing up where the benefits come in and what is best for our society and our communities in total.The part of the bill that we can readily support is the extension to 19-year-olds of the Youth Service and the wraparound benefits and supports the additional educational opportunities and maybe the additional $10 that is tagged with that although sometimes that seems a little laughable. But none the less I guess we prefer the incentive type of approach to the punitive sort of approach that this Government is wont to take with regard to people who have fallen on hard times and have very difficult issues that they are grappling with. The mode of operation of this Government is to blame the victims and to blame people who have the least opportunities in their lives. I guess from that perspective we are pleased to see that there is more of an incentive-based approach with this bill.However the part that we are very concerned about and that we will want to explore through the select committee process is the idea that young people—and most of these young people will be parents of young children. I guess the reason why I am keen to speak in this debate is that many of those people will in fact be young women. They will be young women. The vast majority of people being subjected to these mechanisms will be young women with young children. So the idea that they are going to be put through some kind of risk-rating process fills me with dread.The reason it fills me with dread is that I also happen to be Labour’s ACC spokesperson. Have we not seen the shambles of risk rating under this Government when it comes to motor vehicle ACC registration levies? That is the sort of mentality that is going to be applied potentially again but this time to people. I just want to rehearse because this is a significant part of this bill—I just want to remind the public what transpired when the Government recently applied this risk-rating approach to motor vehicles. It has been an utter shambles. It has turned out to be utter chaos. The Government has got the risk rating wrong of at least 24 makes and models of cars and that has been discovered in just the first 3 weeks of the scheme being implemented.The reason I raise this is that if the Government can get it so wrong with something that is relatively straightforward actually and that is the safety of vehicles then when it comes to assessing and doing risk rating on people’s lives how on earth is that going to go? Will it turn out to be the slow-motion car wreck that that Government has proven to have brought about in the area of ACC?Hon Anne Tolley: How embarrassing.SUE MORONEY: Yes it would be embarrassing Minister. I agree that the shambles that has happened in ACC has been absolutely embarrassing for the Government. What I am saying to the Minister is please do not visit that embarrassment on our young people. It is actually the same model. It is that idea that there is an actuarial kind of assessment that can be made and that it is going to be a perfect science. In this instance it is not going to be applied just to motor vehicles. You know that is bad enough actually because that affects people’s payments for car registrations. But in this instance this is going to affect young people’s lives and the tags that they carry with them throughout their lives due to that Government’s idea that you can just apply an insurance model an actuarial kind of assessment and deem someone to be at high risk or low risk of being a beneficiary.It gave me great cause for concern when I heard the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro use that model to tell us that apparently 18 to 19-year-olds who are on a benefit today on average under the Government’s assessment process will be on a benefit for 30 years. On average?Carmel Sepuloni: What? He said that?SUE MORONEY: That is what he said. That is what he said.Jono Naylor: 18 years—you’re not listening.SUE MORONEY: No he said 30 years.Jono Naylor: No he didn’t.SUE MORONEY: Well go and have a look at the Hansard.Did he get it wrong? He said 30 years. But again this fills me with dread because if members opposite are going to make those mistakes in first reading speeches about using this risk-assessment tool how wrong are they going to get it when they actually roll it out and apply it to people’s lives? And what evidence are they using to make these decisions? I think all of us hearing that figure know that this cannot possibly be true. For an 18 to 19-year-old today on average if all of them are going to end up being on a benefit for 30 years it means that some of them must be on a benefit for 60 years in order to balance out the ones who are going to be on a benefit for 1 year. That is just an extraordinary claim to make. It is an extraordinary claim to make.So I think that these are the reasons why we will be putting a lot of scrutiny on this bill at the select committee stage. This is the tool that the Government is going to use to make an assessment of how low risk or high risk people are at the tender age of 18 or 19 and therefore what their future is going to look like—how bleak it is going to be or not. Given the Government’s record in using risk-rating models in other settings it is something that we will take a lot of notice of.Jono Naylor: I can’t believe you’d compare our young people to motor vehicles.SUE MORONEY: Well the member says you cannot compare. I think that is a really hopeful statement from him. He is hoping this will not turn into the slow-motion car wreck that the ACC levies has. I understand that because if I was in his position I would be deeply embarrassed about that as well.Hon Todd McClay: But you’d be in Government if you were in his position so carry on with your speech.SUE MORONEY: Well what I am pointing out here is that they might think it is funny that it has happened to people paying their ACC levies on their motor vehicle registrations but when it comes to putting labels on young people about what their future looks like then the Government needs to be very very careful. We know it is already prepared to label a lot of our primary school children as failures when they are just 5 or 6 years of age. This is another extrapolation perhaps of that whole idea that you give people these labels based on goodness knows what data and what information. We know that that can harm them for the rest of their lives so we will be looking into this very very carefully.I also want to raise the issue that my colleague Carmel Sepuloni raised. That is the issue about the people who come off benefits. Where do they go? The Government does not seem to want to know. I have not seen these figures myself recently but Carmel Sepuloni talked about roughly 12000 people coming off a benefit but only—was it 2600—Carmel Sepuloni: 2410.SUE MORONEY: Only 2 410 people found their way into a job. So what has happened to the rest of them? What is that—about only 28 percent?Carmel Sepuloni: 20 percent.SUE MORONEY: About 20 percent of them are finding their way into a job. What is happening to the other 80 percent? Is this the reason—Hon Anne Tolley: Your figures are wrong.SUE MORONEY: Well these are the figures of the Minister herself. These are the figures. She is getting very agitated. I think it is because we have hit a really important point here. What is happening to the rest of them? Is this the reason why the food banks in every town and every city in New Zealand have got more clients? Is it that they are coming off the benefit all right and the Government is saying: “Well isn’t that great?”. Well if they are ending up at the food bank no it is not. If they are ending up sleeping on the street no it is not. If they are ending up being in the endless stream of people who are coming into MPs’ offices saying they cannot afford their housing any more—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and a pleasure to rise and speak to the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It is a bill that I will be wholeheartedly supporting.Members across the floor still do not get it. If we go back to the 2008 Salvation Army state of the nation report it said that for all its increased expenditure the Labour Government did not increase social progress by 1 percent. Fast forward 6 years the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report last year reported that there was a reduction in child poverty and there was a reduction in the number of people presenting to food banks. We asked the Salvation Army why there was that reduction in child poverty and people presenting to food banks and it was because of job creation—job creation. They still do not get it.This bill is not about the money; it is about supporting vulnerable young people through education through training to get into employment that will get them into independence and that will get them to where they want in their lives. It is giving them a vision. It is giving them a hope.Carmel Sepuloni: They’re not doing it for any other beneficiary.MATT DOOCEY: They still do not get it. Their second-biggest loss was in last year’s general election. The voters gave us their opinion. What they wanted is a National Government that cares for the people; a Government that cares for the working people and listens to them. We are a Government for the working people.We spoke yesterday in the general debate about the strong economy. We have a strong economy strong economic growth and strong economic management. But that is only half the story. The reason we have that is we want to improve the social well-being of the people in New Zealand. Look at increasing free general practitioner visits to under-13s. Look at the educational achievement results that we heard today. Look at some of those core planks of that Budget 2015 a plan that is working. We gave 3500 Kiwis more access to social housing. That was a bill that that party voted down New Zealand First voted down and the Green Party voted down. We gave through the Support for Children in Hardship Bill vulnerable families low-income families and the most deprived $12 to $25 a week. New Zealand First members voted it down. They are not putting New Zealand first; they are putting their own party first.Now after focusing on young kids going to GPs on their educational achievements on the Budget reforms for social housing and also on the Support for Children in Hardship Bill we are quite rightly focusing on our young adults—the future of New Zealand. What this bill is about is transitions. Transitions are important in our lives. We transition from being a child to a young adult and to being an independent and productive adult. That is a very key part of anyone’s life course as they go from a child to a young adult and to an adult. It is quite right that we put policies in place to support people transitioning them through the life course.If we take a social investment approach—and that is what this Government is doing—we know that if we can focus on the most vulnerable and give them the resources it will make them more productive later in life. This was a key part of the Government’s 2014 welfare manifesto where what we want to do is reduce benefit numbers and to reduce those numbers by 25 percent.In 2014 there were 295000 people on a benefit and we want to reduce that to 220000. We know that we can reduce the long-term investment of dependency by $13.5 billion. That is a huge amount. If we look at the current Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that reduction will surpass anything that we will make through a free-trade agreement. Not only should we be generating new income for this country through free-trade agreements but we should also be reducing expenditure. It is not just making a small Government; it is making big communities. That is what we need to do and to reduce the number of customers that we are serving here for the State.When we look at this vulnerable group—I was amazed when I looked at some of the statistics at how vulnerable this group of young people whom we are going to be working with is—38 percent of these young people have been victims of domestic violence 76 percent of this group of young people whom will we will be focusing on have had emotional neglect and 5 percent have been homeless or victims of sexual abuse. We know through the developmental approach that when young people experience this range of abuse and neglect it plays out in such things as the classroom and in high school. We know that a lot of these young people whom we are working with have experienced educational difficulties and have not attained as high a level as they can in education. So it is quite right that we are putting services together that will wrap around these young people keep them in education keep them in training and support them into work.If we look at previous attempts at this—just paying a young person a small benefit and putting them straight into a low-skilled job—that did not give them anything that they needed. All it did was to perpetuate their problem and not give those young persons any skills that would take them forward.A great asset and resource of this bill will be in allowing this group of young people up to the age of 18 and 19 to now access the Youth Service. We know that the Youth Service is working. There is a lot of research that has come out currently that shows that by the end of March 2014 four out five enrolled in the Youth Service were engaged in education training or work-based learning in either a full-time or part-time capacity. We do have to get the balance right. At the end of the day we are giving these young people payments and we need to ensure that they are using them correctly.When we give these young people payments to put them into education training and employment the payments are partly distributed through redistributions that will cover their accommodation and utility costs payment cards so that they can buy food and groceries and an in-hand allowance. But they have to live up to expectations. Again an important developmental stage for young adults is to understand expectations of them in their community and in their society. So for those payments they will have to engage in training education and employment.If we look at the social housing reforms with wraparound services if we look at people with mental health issues—with wraparound services—there is a whole range of social groups that can get targeted support. With the developmental age of young adults that we are dealing with here that will be targeted support that is age-specific to the needs of young people and the issues they are working through at the time. It is great to be part of a Government that is thinking about the people of this country and the support that they need at all life stages as they go through the transitions of life.One thing I would like to highlight is how smart this bill is. If we take the concept of allocative efficiency and if we look at the total expenditure along the life course we know that if we invest in certain points of the life course then that will cause a reduction in expenditure in another part of the life course. If I take my own background in mental health we know that if we work with young people from the age of 0 to 3 when their personality is being formed and with young adolescents when there are issues around early psychosis—if we front-load the resources and services at that end we know we reduce the number of people entering services later in life.This is very much the same. We have heard the Minister say that one dollar spent at this stage reduces a future liability—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill on behalf of my colleague Jan Logie. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill largely because of the quite paternalistic attitude that it takes towards young people. When this Parliament has debated the drinking age in the past the argument was made and it was accepted that if you are old enough to be sent to war to get married and to have children then you should be allowed to drink. It seems inconsistent then if you are allowed to do all of those things that with parents under 20 the State sees itself as being able to impose significant obligations on those young people in order to access social security. So because of the paternalistic approach we are not supporting the bill.The bill amends the Social Security Act and its main purpose is to extend the ability to access Youth Service provisions to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term dependency. But these youth services involve significantly more social obligations and more social control by the Government over young people. We certainly support for example young people having access to education and the wraparound service that is provided there but some of the other obligations include attending regular meetings with a provider to discuss activities spending and budgeting; having key bills paid directly out of the benefit; using a payment card; and being restricted to $50 a week in cash unless the young person can prove that they deserve more.As Carmel Sepuloni has noted there is a two-tier system in relation to young parents because the obligations on young parents to return to full-time education training or work are much harsher than they are on adults over 20 who are receiving a benefit. So in our view these provisions in the bill are quite discriminatory on the basis of both age and family status. They take a patronising approach to the provision of social security for young adults. The assumption that the Government seems to be making is that young people are incapable of managing their own financial and personal affairs.So although one of the requirements on young parents is that they enrol their child with a primary health organisation—that is obviously something that should be encouraged when it is being encouraged in a supportive environment. But when such decisions are tied to the potential loss of benefit income we do not think that those obligations are appropriate to put on 18 and 19-year-olds because it is creating the basis for quite a punitive regime rather than a constructive and supportive one. It is also suggesting that young people aged from 18 to 20 are not able to take important life decisions themselves without reporting to someone else. It is suggesting that they sit around and that they are unfocused without the threat of sanctions and so that paternalism is at the heart of our objection to this bill.We in the Green Party certainly want to support young people who are disadvantaged. We want them to have the same opportunities as others but we do not think that the way this bill goes about it by restricting life choices and removing control over key life decisions is in any way desirable for 18 and 19-year-olds. They are adults and it is patronising for the State to seek to control their decisions in the way this bill does.Certainly with the youth services concept—everybody has talked about it as wraparound services and there have been some good stories that have been reported back around the country but we have also heard some stories that worry us. We have been told of dairy owners who are charging young people $100 to get $50 cash on their payment cards. We have been told of young parents in teen schools who believe that they are potentially in breach of their obligations if they tend to their children and settle them while they are in class. We have also been told of parents having their incomes sanctioned for spending too long away from their course to attend a tangi. So that is the sort of paternalism and the sorts of examples that we are concerned about.We have also got quite serious concerns about forcing single young people up to the age of 20 into a model with quite onerous accountability based on the State’s identification of them as at-risk young people. That is being done as the regulatory impact statement makes clear using a behind-the-scenes formula. It is likely to mean that some young people will be identified as being at risk and that they could have a friend who is the same age and in the same circumstances but they have got a slightly different profile and so they get dealt with by Work and Income while the other one gets directed towards Youth Services.This sort of situation where you get assessments of people being made by a State agency who are then put into separate streams and receive different services based on the State’s assessment is quite risky in terms of alienating people from Government processes. And it is at risk too of arbitrary and unfair decision-making. We do not want a system where people feel that they are being stigmatised that they are being labelled and where they potentially become quite resentful and mistrusting of the Government. When you look at the regulatory impact statement—Hon Anne Tolley: Unbelievable.EUGENIE SAGE: The Minister says it is unbelievable. But the regulatory impact statement says that it “… makes a number of distinctions based on age family status and other risk factors …”. That leads to 18 and 19-year-olds who are identified as being at risk of long-term benefit dependency being treated quite differently from 18 and 19-year-olds who are not considered at risk. [Interruption] The Minister says that is right but she cannot see that this is a huge infringement on human rights by having the State determine which category you fall into and therefore which services you should have access to.One of the key principles in the regulatory impact statement is also that the liability for the Crown to have to pay for future welfare services for these people is a major determinant in the Government’s decision making around the bill. So it seems to be based on the Government saving itself money in the future rather than actually delivering and embracing a social security system. We want to support human dignity and human rights and not have this categorisation process that has the State intervening to cut across people’s ability to make decisions about their future when they are aged over 18 and when elsewhere they are considered an adult in terms of being able to drink to go to war to get married but not according to the Ministry of Social Development and its categorisation.In the Green Party we want jobs for everyone and we are not about beneficiary bashing the way this Government is. Making it harder for people to live on a benefit will not somehow magically create jobs for them to move into. The welfare “deforms” in this bill will increase inequality and it will make it harder for people to live on a benefit. That is going to compound the challenges that are faced by people who are unemployed and by disengaged young people and it will undermine the ability of parents to take care of their children.We cannot support this bill because it is the Government’s thinking that if you make it hard enough and tough enough for beneficiaries if you introduce enough work tests and if you threaten them with enough sanctions somehow jobs will magically appear that they can move into. We know and the Government knows that it does not actually work like that in the real world. Officials have told the Government that but the only response that it has developed in this bill seems to be a paternalistic one where the State is making critical life decisions on behalf of people aged 18 and 19 who are old enough to make those decisions for themselves.We know that there are good providers but we also know in terms of youth services that there are some problems that have arisen and that we do not want to see the privatisation of social security that this bill is extending. That is another one of the reasons why the Green Party is opposing the bill. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought to make a personal explanation on what matter?CARMEL SEPULONI: I was challenged by the Minister for Social Development on some numbers I used earlier.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. Those are debating points and the member has a chance to debate them. During the course of a debate a member can put their arguments and they are disputable but a personal statement is where something has been said that you take offence to as opposed to the material. Just to correct numbers though is a debating point.Hon Annette King: You didn’t give her a chance to say what she was going to talk about.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I did. She told me what she was going to do.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I seek leave to table some information that confirms the numbers around benefit reductions that the Minister said were incorrect—parliamentary written question No. 4740 and parliamentary written question No. 6927.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this in the public domain?CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes but the Minister—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No that does not matter.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First—[Interruption] It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill but we do have—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look I would like to hear Darroch Ball.DARROCH BALL: Thank you. It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. We will be supporting this bill through to the select committee because there are a few questions that we would like to flesh out and some concerns that we would like to hear some explanations for. But fundamentally the bill itself—and the purpose and the intent of the bill—is a good one. At the moment we have got youth who are on young parent payments eligible from 16 to 18 and on the youth payment from 16 to 17. The provision of the wraparound services for the youth is obviously a good one. The extension of that on the face of it and the intent and purpose of that is very good. So that is why we are supporting it but I will get to the issues and questions shortly.With those youth who are on those payments I have worked with some of them throughout my previous career. I was in the military in the army and I worked with Limited Service Volunteers and a few of them were on those payments. I also worked with the youth in the community and most if not all of them were on some sort of youth payment. Also to some extent when I was a secondary school teacher I could see those youth who would be moving on to those payments. So I have got a little bit of context about what those struggles are for those youth and the need for the wraparound services that this Youth Service does provide them and the benefit of being able to extend the ability to be on the young parent payment or the youth payment itself.I would just like to mention first what the intent is and why New Zealand First agrees with it. Going to the departmental disclosure statement it is extending the existing Youth Service to “all 19 year old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.” New Zealand First agrees with that. The Youth Service provides wraparound support to young people with the aim of reducing long-term welfare dependency. That is obviously a good thing and New Zealand First supports that intent of the bill. As a result of this extension 19-year-old parents will have obligations for full-time education leading towards National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 budgeting courses youth coaching and going on parenting courses. If they meet all the obligations they will get a $10 incentive every week and they will be money-managed.But the position we are coming from is that this is just another form of an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. So if we are looking at the Youth Service those youth who need the Youth Service youth payments and youth benefits needed to get to that stage to begin with. If we are looking at extending that is that solving a problem or is that just making the ambulance a little bit bigger at the bottom of the cliff? So one of the questions that needs to be answered by the Minister—and hopefully that will be fleshed out during the select committee process—is what are the reasons behind why those youth are getting to that stage in the first place? One of them is obvious. We have got very high youth unemployment. We have had consistently high youth unemployment for some years and especially in the regions. We have got high youth unemployment in the regions and that lends itself to higher beneficiary numbers in the regions and especially with our youth.But obviously it is a complex situation. We have got problems with the ability for these youth to have a proper education or fit in within the formal education system. We have got the job creation. Where are the jobs that these youth will be going into if they are not in any formal education? And where are the training opportunities? So the Government can talk about the “neets”—the youth not in education employment or training—but where is the solution? The solution is not another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff extending an existing service that catches those who are in need. The answer definitely is not to make it mandatory with mandatory provisions put on those youth who do take up the benefit. By making it mandatory it is an indirect admission that there are failures elsewhere in the system that is failing these youth. Not only do the youth not have the opportunity to make those proper decisions—so that they would not need to be on the benefit—but those options are not out there and readily available for them to choose in the first place. So that is one of the concerns for New Zealand First.Another of the concerns also has already been brought up by the Labour members which is the risk-predicting tools. One of the main reasons is that it has the potential to discriminate against some youth and it has the potential to pigeon-hole some youth when there is no need for that to happen or to occur in the first place—unjustly and unjustifiably. A lot of the time throughout the debates in this House we have Government members standing up and saying that one of their principles one of the aims in all of their policies is to ensure the maintenance of equitability and fairness. But with the predictor models and predictor tools and risk-predictor tools there is a leaning towards going away from equitability and away from fairness. We have got to remember also that by extending this out—we have got 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. They are not children. They are not minors. These are adults who are being pigeon-holed and cubby-holed and they have the potential to be stigmatised and they have the potential to have labels placed on them.What I would like to go on to is actually going into the regulatory impact statement which talks about the risk modelling. It says that “Through risk modelling MSD can determine which young beneficiaries have the highest risk and would benefit the most from the Youth Service.” and that risk modelling is “used to target services to those most in need. Risk factors for long-term benefit dependency include but are not limited to: low education levels; benefit history; previous contact with Child Youth and Family; and parents or siblings with a benefit history.” So firstly it is including but not limited to. So who decides what those criteria are and how those criteria or boxes are going to be ticked? What we will have is the potential to have for example two 19-year-olds who are receiving two levels of different types of service and that will be dependent on only those criteria and those outcomes are dependent obviously on the use of the risk-predictor tool. So for example one would be getting a $10 extra bonus a week if they maintain the obligations and the other will not. Where is the equitability and where is the fairness in that and who decides?We have also got a couple of issues with the investment approach in itself. The regulatory impact statement indicates that it is actually too early to accurately measure the reduction of average years on the benefit and that it is not possible to isolate effects of the Youth Service interventions from other influences to date. So on the one hand we have got the regulatory impact statement saying that there is not enough data there is not proof but then we have got the Minister for Social Development and the National backbenchers standing up and saying that this is all working fine and that the Youth Service is doing a great job. But where is the data and where is the evidence that they are going to use for the investment approach?We have also got some advice and some opinions on the bill from the teen parent units. At the moment the teen parent units—there is no comparison between this Youth Service payment and the teen parent units. In order to be consistent with the intention of the bill the Government must look at the existing eligibility-age range for young parents attending teen parent units because this bill currently excludes the 19-year-old parents to whom the bill extends the Youth Service and identifies as likely to spend an average of 18 years on the benefit in a lifetime. Currently young parents need to be enrolled before they turn 19 in order to be eligible. This is in conflict with the extension bill.So there are a few questions that come out and there are a few concerns that New Zealand First has that we would like to have answered and robustly discussed at the select committee. At this stage we will be supporting the bill through to the select committee and I look forward to discussing it there. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Todd Muller—5 minutes.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak for a few minutes on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Well what an extraordinary last 15 minutes we have had to endure here. Firstly there was the speech from Ms Moroney. Fortunately I managed to catch only the last 4 minutes of that and I would have to say that those 4 minutes will last me a lifetime. Her critique of our social investment model and our actuarial approach to identifying a full-term cost of social welfare in this country was some of the weakest analysis that I have heard in the 10 months that I have had the privilege of being the MP for the Bay of Plenty. I am sorry but you are caught in a time warp. The fact that you think that the way we help people in this country is to just throw money around with gay abandon—I am sorry. You need to actually get close to people—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need to get close to people.TODD MULLER: No that is probably true Mr Assistant Speaker.Ms Moroney I would suggest that in getting out of this House and actually talking to people you might actually get some reality around what is happening out there. Your analysis was weak and feeble. You need good data. Ms Moroney you come from a party that has a philosophy of throwing money around without data without an understanding of where that should go and here we have a Government that is focused on finding the information and then delivering that investment to the people who need it most.Then we had to sit through 10 minutes of the Green Party accusing this Government of being paternalistic—saying that we should not be providing support for 18 and 19-year-olds was the most extraordinary thing quite frankly. Again I would ask the Green Party members to get out of their little theoretical bubble and actually go and talk to some of these service providers who are actually out in the field and providing the services to these young people. They tell us—and they told me when I was in Tauranga talking to EmployNZ only a few months ago—that the one key thing that they want this Government to consider is to extend this Youth Guarantee scheme and the youth services from 16 17 and 18-year-olds up to under-20-year-olds. Why? Because it works. And those who oppose it on purely ideological grounds have lost the argument. You have lost the argument I am sorry. You have lost it because the people who are benefiting from this Government’s focus on ensuring that we have education and budgeting and parenting advice for those who need it are the ones who are actually helped. It is their families and their communities that are supporting this Government and your party is on the wrong side of it and you will see that over the next few months.Can I please say just a few words to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley. Again in stark contrast to what we have heard on the other side of the House here is a Minister who actually gets out of Wellington who actually goes and talks to the agencies—Government and non-Government agencies—that are on the front line of complicated and difficult and systemic issues. She listens to them and understands what actually works. She hears them and says: “Yes you have a case. This is a platform that is working and delivering and yes this Government will stand behind you and expand the youth services from 16 17 and 18-year-olds to include 19-year-olds and that will deliver real benefits for people and real benefits for families.”For those particularly in the Green Party who argued that somehow actually providing budget support and parenting support to those young people is paternalistic I say again that you are not close enough. The Green Party is not close enough to that reality and I specifically put a challenge out to the Green Party this afternoon for its members to go and talk to those providers and go and talk to those who are currently benefiting from this service. What they tell us is that this is a huge help for them. These are people who were falling through the cracks. These are people who are not in our education system and who have been identified and services and guidance and support are being wrapped around them to enable them to participate in this society into the future. This is a Government that cares this is a Government that is focused on delivering results and it is one I am hugely proud to support. I look forward to this bill being debated through the select committee. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Smith—5 minutes.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I am going to focus a little bit on jobs but before I get to that—this bill is going to extend youth services to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.Youth Service provides wraparound services and support with the aim of reducing long-term welfare dependency in the future. As part of that activity these beneficiaries will be required to undertake youth activity obligations and that is important. These people are in a position where they have been identified as likely to be long-term beneficiaries. They need to get out and enjoy life with other youths in a proper way. That is what this obligation will do.They will also be required to undertake full-time education leading towards National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 undertake budgeting courses and have ongoing budgeting discussions. That is really important. When you go and talk to family budgeting services you realise how that really small step can make a big difference to people’s lives and how they can get themselves saddled with a lot of debt really just because of a lack of planning at the front end. So that is really important. They will also undergo parenting courses and activities to support good parenting and they will receive $10 a week if they meet those obligations.There has been a lot talked about jobs and people speculating that there are not jobs out there. Well in 2011 there was a Government forecast of 171000 new jobs being created over the next 4 years. But we are actually going to make 193000 jobs. That is 22000 more jobs than we forecast—just under 200000 jobs. There are jobs and the forecast from 2015 out to 2019 is 150000 new jobs.To illustrate what that really means at the sharp end I was talking to a contractor in my electorate who was desperate to employ New Zealanders. He is a recognised seasonal employer and he would love to have Kiwis so that he can have long-term people in there to help supervise. But the difficulties of getting people are really quite stark so he is working with Work and Income. He came over to this side of the strait to the lower North Island and sought out and interviewed people. He wanted to initially employ eight workers. He interviewed 22 and he was so impressed with the standard of the young people he was interviewing that he decided to double that and employ 16 and he took those 16 people back over to Marlborough to work. The reason he came to the North Island is that that piece of water—Cook Strait—is quite a barrier for those people.The idea is to get those people out of their environment and with all of the services that are being provided by Work and Income to help these people and ease them into work it is really working. Out of those 16 four have since dropped off but he has now got 12 people—that is 50 percent more than he went over initially to employ—and they are working and working out well. But it does take time and those wraparound services that are part of this bill are there to help those people get through that initial stage of learning good habits around work. It is about changing behaviour. It is about resetting values and so on.I was really disappointed with what I heard earlier particularly from the Green member. I thought she was better than that. She would have those people stranded on a benefit for the rest of their lives damning not only them for the rest of their lives but their children and their families and that is really sad. We are much more ambitious for those people and we are not just telling them to do something; with this bill we are actually giving them the tools to achieve it themselves. When you see those people—the change in their behaviour and their values and their pride in themselves—it is worth every single penny. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I rise to take a call on this bill because it is one of the issues that our constituents at Manukau East come to see us about on a daily basis. Labour supports the referral of this bill with reservations to a select committee. We strongly support the wraparound services that encourage higher education with appropriate childcare assistance and we also strongly support extending the Youth Service to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children.Labour only supports this bill going to a select committee at this time though and I would like to share some of the concerns that we have about elements of this bill. Young people are the future of our country. Our young people are currently suffering though because they are having to deal with housing that is way too expensive they are suffering from poor educational outcomes and they have high rates of unemployment and very few pathways into jobs. In fact 40 percent of our total unemployed in this country right now are young people which is way way too high.Unfortunately some of our young people particularly Māori and Pacific young people are going to end up in prisons. Given the fact that prisons have been highlighted in the last few days it is not my wish—and probably not the wish of any other member in this House—for any of our young people to end up in prison. The majority of the young people whom this bill will apply to are most likely to be Māori and Pacific youth and those who will come from low-income families.Earlier on today my colleague Mr Ngaro stated that we all have choices. I agree—as adults we all have choices. However for many of our young people the choices that are available to them are limited in comparison with the choices that other young people from more affluent households actually have. Our children have no choice about being born into or growing up in child poverty—as another example. This Government however has a choice. It can choose to ensure that every child—that every single young person—in this country has the same opportunities regardless of their socio-economic status. The Government also can choose to address and to measure child poverty.The Government in considering the predictive risk modelling that this bill is actually proposing has been considering it since 2012. The Government later modified the predictive risk modelling and then decided to test predictive risk modelling but only to enhance front-line decision-making about cases of suspected child abuse. According to Professor Vaithianathan: “Predictive risk modelling may be used to enhance the decisions that Child Youth and Family makes on the frontline. But that will be after abuse is suspected—worlds away from the proactive model the research team proposed which can identify children at risk early—more than two years before it occurs—and can allow for preventive support and intervention.” which these can actually access.What this bill proposes is worlds away from the proactive model that the research team proposed which can identify children at risk early so that these issues can be addressed much earlier on. Beneficiaries are being rated within the Ministry of Social Development’s predictive risk model framework for the risk of long-term welfare dependency but they are not being told that they are being rated or indeed what the grounds of this rating is actually based on. They have a right I believe to this information and they should be given a chance to ask questions and the opportunity to challenge the assumptions that are being made about them. They are effectively being researched without any information on how the research is being undertaken the way in which information might be used or the implications that it could have on the supports that they are likely to receive.The Minister for Social Development and her department ignored the most basic ethical procedure with regard to gaining information from participants which is to obtain their consent. Given the fact that the majority of the so-called high-risk young people are going to be Māori and Pacific and those from low-income families the question I would like to ask the Minister is: has her department taken into account how it will use this tool to rate and then to measure the cultural components of how it might affect Māori and Pacific groups? All of the young people in this country deserve a better future as well as to have equal opportunity for everyone to achieve.My colleague from the other side Matt Doocey also stated earlier on that this bill is important because it is about transitions and it is about supporting our young people to transition during their life course. Well right now too many of our young people are transitioning into “neet”—not in employment education or training. In fact about 70000 of our young people under the age of 24 are currently not in employment education or training. That is way way too many and it is an issue that this current Government should actually address.This Government talks a lot about being aspirational. Yes that is right—we also agree that our young people should all be aspirational—but how about ensuring that many more of our young people actually leave high school and are actually able to have literacy and numeracy skills that would enable them to get better jobs and to get ahead in life?We as I stated earlier on are supportive of this particular bill but we have major reservations moving forward with it. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It has been a pretty entertaining afternoon. We have heard people with hearing problems unfortunately it seems who have been picking up wrong numbers. I am going to correct them a little bit on that. I will sort that out for them as I go through this speech.I particularly want to talk about this programme in the context of everything else that this Government is doing. This programme again shows the commitment of this Government. This bill reflects the plans and the ideals behind this Government in wanting to help our young people who need help the most to be able to achieve goals dreams and aspirations. I am aspirational. I want to see our young people succeed. I want to see them achieve everything they are capable of doing and that is exactly what is behind this bill. It is not paternalistic; it is empowering and I will talk about that further as we go through.When new programmes are introduced as this initial programme was back in 2000—whenever it was—Fletcher Tabuteau: 2012.JONO NAYLOR: 2012 thank you very much. That is exactly when it was introduced. It is important before you make any changes or tinker with it at all that you assess these things before you make a judgment. It is appropriate. We have had some early assessment done on this programme. It has been really interesting that it has been talked about already this afternoon that perhaps we should wait until this big longitudinal study is done so that we can find out what the long-term effects of this programme are before we do anything else with it. It just seemed bizarre to me considering that this is a programme that is hopefully going to help our young people for many years to come. We should ensure that we are assessing as we go. That is exactly what was done in 2014 with this Youth Service evaluation report that was done by the Ministry of Social Development.Let us look at some of the key findings within that. What we discovered was that in the first 12 months of enrolment in the Youth Service young parent payment participants were more likely to gain National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits. Well I think that is a pretty positive thing. I think it is important that we have things in place that are going to help our young people get more NCEA credits. Our young people who are participants in this programme are more likely to meet the requirements of NCEA level 2 in their first 12 months within this Youth Service. We have been able to look at that. We have been able to see that that is occurring and everyone would agree I am sure that the more young people we have within our communities who have NCEA level 2 the better their opportunities are for success the better their opportunities are for meaningful employment the better their opportunities are for being able to raise their children in a way that they will be proud of.It is important that we recognise that this programme has been working for our 16 to 18-year-olds. There has been a little bit of talk around this House about people being out of touch and not connecting with young people. Well I can say that I was privileged along with the Prime Minister to visit one of our community service providers a month or so ago and it was actually quite interesting to talk to a young woman there who has been a part of this programme. She was somebody who had a young child. I think she was about 17 years old and she was working her way towards getting her level 2 credits. I thought that was fantastic because in the past often somebody in her situation might have been sitting at home not because they wanted to but because they lacked the support around them they lacked the encouragement and they lacked the resources to be able to get out and get on and move forward with their lives. But what was most encouraging about speaking to this young woman was that level 2 NCEA was not where she was hoping to stop. No. This young woman having been in an environment where she was seeing early childhood educators working was absolutely committed to wanting to further her studies to become an early childhood educator.When we talk to these people when you get alongside them and you find out the positive impact that programmes such as this are having on them it is fantastic to hear. It is encouraging to hear and it gives us the motivation and the interest to say “Well if it’s working for this group of people why don’t we look at helping out some more people as well?” which is exactly what we are doing by extending this programme through to 19-year-olds as well. I think we need to remind ourselves whom it is that this programme is for. This is for those parents who are in the age bracket that we are talking about and we are also talking about 18 and 19-year-olds who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.I heard Sue Moroney talking and the words that she used before were that we were sort of going to shift some blame on to these young people. We are not blaming them for the situation that they find themselves in but what we want to do is we want to empower them to be able to have the skills and the education and the support to be able to get out of the situation that they find themselves in. There has been talk about putting labels on them and how this is not fair. It is a crazy situation to be in. It is like people are saying that because you cannot do this for absolutely everybody you should not do this for some people.What we are doing is identifying those young people whom we think are going to have the longest-term risk of being on a benefit for a long period of time to make sure where possible that that is not the outcome they are looking for. There are not too many young people whom I have come across in my experience in youth work and in working with young people who have told me that their aspiration is to be on a benefit for most of their lives. It is not what people aspire to do. So we are going to put these programmes in place to help them. As with the current service young people who are referred to the service are going to be required to undertake budgeting courses and have budgeting conversations with their youth coach.Yes there are some obligations on them. I think that is not a bad thing sometimes when people do have a few obligations that they have to meet. But I think—and this is the sad part; hopefully Sue Moroney will listen to this before she leaves because she said that the $10 to $30 a week that they might receive was laughable—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the member has not been here long but the reference to someone’s absence from the Chamber is not acceptable in his speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No what he said was “before the member leaves”. He did not say that you were absent. You would be right if that were the case.JONO NAYLOR: If I have caused some offence by that I apologise. But this is the important thing that I want to draw attention to. Sue Moroney said that the $10 extra that somebody was going to get was laughable—her words. Well I can say that when I was raising a young family while I was on the student allowance when I spent some time in our family when we were trying to have a couple of young kids and we were on a sickness benefit if someone had said to me “Here is an extra 10 bucks a week.” I would not have found that laughable. I do not think that the beneficiaries in our community now would actually find it laughable to be getting an extra $10 a week. If you are struggling to get by on a week-to-week basis when you are struggling to pay for groceries when you are struggling on a benefit because we all know that it is not an easy thing to do when you are trying hard to budget—if somebody had said $10 was laughable I would have found that insulting. I think those people would find it insulting that the member who has referred to it in that way was so out of touch—so out of touch—with the plight of the people whom we are talking about.I know my time is almost up but I just want to come back to this last point. This is a cost-effective programme. We know that for every dollar spent on the existing Youth Service taxpayers’ liability is reduced by $2.53. Eugenie Sage when she was talking earlier sort of talked about this in a way that was perhaps negative. I cannot understand how somebody would think that investing now up front to be able to save the Government money in the long term is negative. And she talked about it like the Government was trying to save its own money. Well I am sorry but we do not have our own money. The only money we have is that money that has been given to us sometimes not particularly willingly by the taxpayers of this country and it is beholden on us to make sure that we invest that money that we spend that money in the way that is going to deliver the very best outcome for those people.As I said earlier I am aspirational for these young people in our communities. I want to see them do really really well. I think they can do more and I think that we can get behind them with these youth services. By expanding the youth services out to include those 18 and 19-year-olds who currently are missing out on the ability to be able to participate in this very very good programme we are helping more people. We are not blaming people; we are not looking down on people. We are empowering them and I really look forward to us helping more and more of them. Thank you.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon. It has been an interesting debate and I propose to add to it. We as my colleagues have already stated will support the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill through to a select committee. We do that with some trepidation and a lot of concern but we think that the best place to examine this further is at a select committee. There are some good things in this bill and as I have said there are some things that we are very concerned about. My overall comment on this is that although the age of eligibility has been increased to 19 years old by this bill it also seems that the Government is raising the threshold for qualifying for these services.I turn my attention to the regulatory impact statement. In point 87 it refers to the statistical risk model. In point 88 it states: “The risk model is purely a statistical tool so cannot include all factors that determine someone’s risk of remaining on benefit (eg gang affiliation or the presence of tattoos on the face may affect the chances of a person finding employment but cannot be captured by a risk model). However additional factors such as these will be able to be added manually by Work and Income case managements or Youth Services providers to indicate that a young person is at greater or lower risk than the risk model might suggest.” I think that we need to examine that really closely. It relies on the judgment of a Work and Income case manager and I think that more and more the feedback that I am getting from that sector is that the caseworkers are having to carry out the role of social workers and they are not appropriately qualified as social workers. I think it would be much better if this work were carried out by a social worker. There should not be judgment. They should be robust assessments by an appropriately qualified worker and I think this process is flawed and it needs to be examined more closely.I think also I am bound to ask the question and probably answer the question as well as to how this fits with the Government’s Whānau Ora policy. To me this is in direct conflict with the Government’s Whānau Ora policy. Let me explain. If we were applying a Whānau Ora model to making an assessment of all the benefits of these young people you would include the entire family and you would ask about the aspirations of that family not make judgments based on what a young person looks like because that is what this regulatory impact statement is saying. We are going to look at the person and there might be some things that are not captured within this statistical risk tool and that Work and Income worker will then make a judgment on whether that person is actually a low risk or a higher risk and then from that judgment determine whether they will qualify to participate or be required to participate in this programme or be excluded from it.The Whānau Ora model the Government’s policy that I am talking about says that it ought to be about the family’s the whānau’s aspirations—how you would work with just part of the whānau in this instance. As my colleague Jenny Salesa spoke about most of the people whom we are talking about are Pacific Islanders and Māori—a great percentage of them. Until we get to the stage—and the Auditor-General pointed this out in her report as the failing of the Government’s Whānau Ora policy—where there is communication between Work and Income New Zealand and the social services and as part of that Whānau Ora policy then we are not dealing with the fundamental issues that affect the members of our families. I propose to the select committee that it look very closely at these issues. They are not simple issues to be resolved overnight and certainly not by the bill as it stands at present.My colleague Carmel Sepuloni also raised some very valid issues which I totally endorse. The issues that the bill purports to address I think are only partially addressed. Of course I am also bound to comment on the level of payment. It is as Carmel Sepuloni pointed out more stick than carrot. I think that based on the members opposite and their contributions to this debate about the future savings within this bill surely how it is helping those parents who are required to engage in education which I think is a great thing to be able to do that ought to be looked at. I think $10 is at the very lowest level that you could possibly have. I suppose $9 $8 $7 or lower would be even worse but when you think about the costs that some parents will have to pay to actually get to their educational course $10 is not much to assist them. I think that the select committee should explore that. Also the regulatory impact statement has got some cost analysis. I have not had a lot of time to dig too deeply into it but it would seem to me that there is enough scope within the savings that will be made. As my colleague Jenny Salesa pointed out preventing people from going to prison is going to save our country a lot of money in the long term. I think that $10 is very much on the low side.I think also in respect of the requirement for someone to participate in this at the age of say 19 years and 8 months and someone who is at the age of 20 that there is a significant difference between what is required of the person 19 years and 8 months old and the 20-year-old person in terms of the age of their child as to when they then have to go to these courses. I think you cannot have a one-size-fits-all model and there should be some transition between those ages. I think that the select committee ought to look at those as well.Those are the main points that I want to make in this debate. I think there have been some comments made that are totally outside of this bill today and I am not proposing to add to them. But I just want to say that we are actually talking about real people’s lives—real people who matter. I can think of a whole host of constituents in my electorate who will be affected by this bill and I want it to be the best that it can be. That is why we are supporting the bill in its first reading.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.As the last speaker in the first reading of this bill I have had the privilege of listening to all 11 speakers before me.What shocked me is that Labour members compared people with cars. They have compared our teenagers with cars—a very insensitive very disconnected approach.I come back to the bill. Currently in Part 5 sections 156 to 180 of the Social Security Act 1964 the financial support that is available to young people consists of youth benefit payments for 16 to 17-year-olds with no children who have exceptional circumstances and then there are youth payment payments for 16 to 18-year-old parents. This National Government is working hard to reduce welfare dependency. We know that when people fall into the trap of welfare dependency at a young age it becomes very hard for them to come off the benefit. That is why we are interested in working with this age group. This bill is to help this age group by extending the maximum age of eligibility for youth services from 18 years to 19 years.How it works is that when a person receives a youth payment that person is automatically referred to a Youth Service provider and is linked up to a youth coach.The aim of this bill is to amend the Social Security Act to implement extensions to the Youth Service.In particular the bill extends the existing youth services to all beneficiaries 19 years of age or under with children and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries who are considered to be at significant risk of becoming long-term beneficiaries.Youth Service providers provide support to these teenagers to help them build the skills that are required to get into jobs.We know that our youth services are giving us really great outcomes.As per the March 2015 numbers 86.5 percent of youth enrolled in the Youth Service were engaged in some kind of education training or work-based learning.This is an increase of 10.4 percent when compared with the same time last year.In terms of numbers this is an increase of around 1000 people so it really is a great outcome which shows that these teenagers are responding to the support and services that are available through Youth Service providers.This bill is to extend these youth services to 19-year-olds. This is to provide that support which is much needed during those years to get back into education or into employment. We know that the pathway to success is education and work. Welfare is there for those people who really need it those who are in real need.The general expectation is that when people go on a benefit they are continuously looking for job opportunities and as soon as they find a job they get off the benefit.But this bill is to help those people who are at a higher risk of going on a benefit for a long period in their life.We know that by extending these youth services the cost will go up.It is estimated that the cost of this will be somewhere between $10 million and $15 million.This is going to help about 4000 teenagers on a benefit which includes 1200 19-year-old teen parents.So yes the cost is going to go up but in the long run it is a good investment in the future and it is a good investment in our teenagers.This is going to save taxpayers money in the long run as it is estimated that for every $1 that is spent on youth services New Zealand’s long-term financial liability reduces by $2.53.We cannot have our teenagers hanging out on street corners causing social trouble or being on a benefit or developing mental issues because they do not know how to cope with their circumstances and they do not know how to come back on track.This is also going to help us reduce intergenerational welfare dependency as it is a general observation that those children who grow up in families where caregivers or parents are dependent on a benefit are highly likely to be reliant on a benefit when they grow up.The best part of this bill is that there will be activity obligations for these teenagers. That includes going back into education to work towards National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 and taking up a budgeting course that is to help with managing their money.They will have to take a parenting course as well and they will work with their youth coach to pick a parenting course that suits their needs.As a result if they meet all of these obligations they will receive an incentive payment.They are subject to controlled payment so money goes on to their card and that card can be used at any approved grocery store to buy food. Rent or boarding and the power bill are paid directly. There is an allowance that is handed to these people as well. Another great thing about this bill is that if there is any money saved by someone on their card that money will be handed over to these teenagers once they come off that money-management period.In a situation where both spouses or partners are aged 19 years or under they will be transferred to the youth payment and they will be receiving youth services as well. In the case of beneficiaries with children they will be required to enrol their child or children with a primary health care provider so that the medical side of that is taken care of. Nineteen-year-old spouses and partners of other main beneficiaries who have children will have activity obligations and they will be newly entitled to receive the incentive payments.Those 18 and 19-year-olds who do not have NCEA level 2 will be assisted by these Youth Service providers to get into education and work towards achieving NCEA level 2. If they already have NCEA level 2 then they will be provided assistance to get into jobs. The Youth Service providers’ numbers show that the NCEA level 2 achievement numbers are increasing.We know that these Youth Service providers work like mentors with these teenagers. This is like full-time mentoring providing them help with budgeting parenting and also learning getting training and helping them to get into the workforce as well.We know that mentoring helps with social and emotional development; it also helps in the improvement of youths’ perception of parental relationships. It can also increase their chances of getting into higher education. These things all lead to increased self-esteem and self-confidence and they do not have to rely on a benefit in their life.These findings are consistent with neuro-scientific research that shows that the portion of the brain that is responsible for impulse control analytical thinking judgment and future-orientation gradually develops throughout early adulthood. So young people in their teens do need this structure care support and guidance during those years so they can learn the skills that are required for them to get into education or get into jobs.Generally speaking when beneficiaries go on a benefit I do not think that they want to be on a benefit for their whole life. But once they are on a benefit for a period longer than they had originally thought they start doubting their ability to become independent and that is why this wraparound support is needed.Our focus is on people. Our focus is on their better future. This bill shows that we are delivering on our promises. This is a great bill and I support the bill. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 10Green Party 10.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) BillFirst ReadingHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move That the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. This bill will amend seven statutes to enable a wider range of suitably qualified health practitioners as defined under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 to undertake certain functions currently restricted to medical practitioners.In response to changing health care needs the manner in which our services are delivered is changing. The emphasis is shifting to delivering new models of care and better services to patients closer to the communities in which they live. In response to this the health workforce is evolving. Many health professional groups are now capable of performing tasks that were previously the sole domain of medical practitioners. In the future health care will be delivered by multidisciplinary teams in an integrated team environment. Health professionals will be supported to practise to the full extent of their skills and to engage in collaborative evidence-based practice that delivers high-quality interventions for patients. Expanded scopes will be more common and innovative practice will be encouraged.These trends in health care service delivery will have significant benefits for patients. Such benefits include improved patient experience early access to preventative healthcare and where necessary early intervention and a greater availability of health care services closer to people’s homes. In addition patients will have a sense of a continuum of service delivery where health practitioners have a common understanding of patients’ health care needs and are able to make more timely and appropriate interventions than at present.Current legislation does not support the new direction of the health care workforce. The amended statutes will enable health practitioners with the required competencies and knowledge to perform certain statutory responsibilities lawfully under those statutes. There are currently seven statutes that allow only medical practitioners to undertake certain functions. Other practitioners are unable to perform them. This bill if approved will enable more health practitioners to undertake some of the functions currently limited to doctors. More services could be delivered in the community rather than in hospitals and patients’ access to services will be improved.The bill will not pose an increased risk of harm to the public. Each health practitioner is required under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 to perform only those tasks that are within their scope of practice. Scopes of practice and the qualifications that practitioners must obtain in order to perform tasks within each scope of practice are set by the relevant responsible authorities that have been established under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 such as the Nursing Council of New Zealand the New Zealand Psychologists Board and the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand.Although the bill has been a long time in the making the amendments are a welcome change as they recognise and enable a greater range of health professionals to work together to deliver safe and timely services to the people of New Zealand. I am advised that although the initial work to identify legislative barriers originally considered the potential contribution of nurses given the significant role that nurses play in health care service delivery the proposed amendments will also enable the potential contribution of other regulated and suitably qualified and experienced health practitioners particularly in the primary care context.I would like to provide some examples of where this bill can make a real contribution. The Holidays Act 2003 allows only medical practitioners to provide proof of sickness. The Accident Compensation Act 2001 limits who can participate in claimants’ rehabilitation plans. The Land Transport Act 1998 states that only medical practitioners and optometrists can provide medical reports on persons unfit to drive. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 restricts medical examinations of children to medical practitioners whom the court considers qualified for the purpose. Amendments under the bill will extend these duties to appropriate health practitioners other than doctors such as nurses with the appropriate knowledge skills and training. The Government relies on competent suitably qualified health professionals in the health sector and supports expanding the role of nurses pharmacists and others to improve health service delivery.This bill will contribute to making the best possible use of our available health workforce. By enabling more health practitioners to undertake the functions currently limited to doctors there will be real benefits to patients and their families. Changes to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 will allow health practitioners other than doctors to request patients under their care to have further assessment or treatment by their medical practitioner when required. This change will enable health practitioners involved in mental health care to more easily refer patients under their care for medical help. The amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will enable suitably qualified nurses to treat drug addiction where unfortunately there is a growing need.The passing of this bill will also mean that nurse practitioners caring for patients will be able to certify the cause of death under the amended Burial and Cremation Act 1964. That change is especially important in rural areas and in aged-care services. Currently where there is not an available medical practitioner to certify the death there may be unnecessary delays for family and whānau to be able to move their family member from the place of death for burial. This bill means that current arrangements for certifying death will be more in line with what happens overseas. For example in the United States registered nurses have been able to sign death certificates since 2004.I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the nursing sector in the creation of this bill. The Ministry of Transport the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the Accident Compensation Corporation the Police the Ministry of Justice the State Services Commission and Treasury have also been involved in the development of the bill so you can see that there has been quite extensive and wide input. I commend this bill to the House.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I rise to support on behalf of the Labour Opposition the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners Bill. I am pleased it is going to the Health Committee. Where else would it go? It is a committee that is made up of some very good members and it is very well chaired by Simon O’Connor. So we look forward to having more work at that committee; we are underworked at this stage. What this bill does as you have heard from the Minister is it amends a number of Acts to increase the range of health professionals who are able to function in certain roles that are currently carried out by medical practitioners.I want to begin by saying that I really welcome this change. It has been very very long in the making. The first nurse practitioner was introduced into New Zealand in 2002 13 years ago. The reason I know that is that I was the Minister of Health who brought in the first nurse practitioner. And what is a nurse practitioner the listening public might ask? A nurse practitioner is a registered nurse practising at an advanced level in a specific role who has a Master’s-level education and is recognised by the Nursing Council of New Zealand. We have literally thousands of nurses now with Master’s-level qualifications and above.Back in 2002 it was very much part of what we as a Labour Government wanted to do. I would just like to recall something that I said at that time. I said that nurses provide consistently high-quality health care to New Zealanders but there is considerable potential for them to contribute even more positively through responsive innovative and collaborative health services. I said that nurse practitioners will have an important responsibility in advocating health promotion and disease prevention and part of their role will be to encourage self care. But they also have the skills to consider a wide range of health services that may suit individual patients. I then went on to talk about the Primary Health Care Strategy because diversifying our health workforce—a high-quality workforce—with a focus on better health for the whole population and reducing health inequalities was the very very basis of the Primary Health Care Strategy. Fundamental to that was ensuring that people got the right services in the right place from the right practitioner.So we have had for many years the ability for nurses to be able to carry out a much more broadened role. On 12 September 2005 I actually announced the first prescribing rights for nurse practitioners. That was 10 years ago and the Cabinet of the day under the Helen Clark Government approved new regulations to allow nurse practitioners the ability to prescribe a range of prescription medicines and controlled substances. It took 6 years of work to get to that position and it allowed something like a hundred nurse practitioners to start prescribing.Since then there has been one big long wait for anything else to happen. And so I note that in the Cabinet paper on this bill I received from the Minister some time ago it was back in October 2011 that Cabinet did approve a number of changes to widen the range of health professionals who could undertake the functions that are currently carried out by medical practitioners. We are 5 years on and this has not been concluded. The work has taken this long by this Government. So important was it to have an extension of the role of health professionals that it has had to wait 5 years to be introduced today.You see the rhetoric on health is all very well from the Government but the follow-up and the follow-through just do not match.The role of different health practitioners could enhance our ability to provide health services particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand. Last week my colleague David Clark and I visited all the small rural hospitals in Otago and in part of the Southland area. We went to Timaru to Ōāmaru to Maniototo to Queenstown to Clyde and to Clutha.We spoke to those people who work there on the ground and heard at first hand what they said.One of the things that they need—desperately need—is a workforce suitable to provide the health services that they need. They mentioned the need to have nurse practitioners able to carry out a wider range of services. It is often hard to staff those areas with GPs with doctors. It is very hard at times to get the right staff in the right place but a nurse practitioner with broadened skills with the ability to prescribe and to carry out a range of functions would enhance their ability to provide those health services.One of the things the Minister said in his speech about this bill—he said that the Government wants services closer to home. Well that is the very fundamental principle of the Primary Health Care Strategy. It is the fundamental principle of a good primary health service. Services closer to home—there would not be a member in this House who would not want their family to have services that could be provided as close to home as possible. And we could provide so much more in those communities with the right health workforce and a real commitment to closer-to-home services.So what happened when we went to Queenstown? We got the example of how services closer to home by the right health professional are not happening. They have just seen three out-patient clinics in their town—a town of 30000 that rises to 90000 in the season—losing out-patient services. And that is the kind of message we got where we went. The services are not provided closer to home often because of the lack of a health workforce often because of the lack of commitment and often because the rhetoric does not match the action. So I am delighted that now there is going to be a greater range of health professionals able to provide health services and able to prescribe. I have to say again that it has taken far too long. We should not have waited this long if we really cared about providing those services to our communities.I then looked at the regulatory impact statement that was provided for this bill. I note that it was done by the Ministry of Health and one of the things that it did say in it was there was going to be no cost—there was going to be no cost to this. Well I have to tell you perhaps there is no additional cost to business in theory but if we are really going to expand the role of nurse practitioners and other health professionals there is a cost because they cost more. You cannot pay a nurse practitioner who has a masterate in higher qualifications extra training and the ability to prescribe the same as you would pay a practice nurse. Unfortunately the money that goes with a nurse practitioner has not flowed through to district health boards and there are too few nurse practitioners in New Zealand right now. So there is a cost and will that cost be picked up and provided for by the Government in its health budget or will it be told to take it out of the budget it has already got? If that is the case regardless of this extension to the role of nurse practitioners and other health professionals there will be little that happens unless the money follows to pay for them.One other thing that is in the regulatory impact statement is around the consultation. It said that overall the sector was in favour of the amendments that the Minister of Health is making in this bill. It said it would improve efficiency reduce some of the workload burden on doctors and enable professionals to use their skills more. The submitters came from the Nurses Organisation. They were very supportive of the change and they have been supportive since 2002—very patient and have waited a long time.But unfortunately there were groups that opposed it. And unfortunately I say again the groups that opposed it were medical practitioners. We have these old demarcations that still exist. If we are to have a fully operating primary health team it is not a matter of who has got what; it is how you can give the best service to the patients that you are attending to. That means using all the skills—the pharmacist skills the nursing skills the nurse practitioner skills and the skills that exist in the community—to provide an excellent service to patients as close to home as possible. So I still think we have got some battles to go through in terms of that old demarcation. We do support this bill. I see it is supposed to be passed by December. In the Health Committee I can assure you that the Labour Opposition will be ensuring it is passed by December.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I would like to thank the honourable member who has just taken her seat the Hon Annette King for what was an excellent contribution and also for her very kind words and compliments. I am always a bit worried though as my colleagues might be when Labour is giving me accolades and what that might signal. But no I am very pleased to work on the Health Committee with the Hon Annette King. In fact in beginning with this bill I want to acknowledge the entire Health Committee and the work that it is undertaking across a whole range of topics at the moment. This will be another one we add to it as we discuss the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I thank the Minister of Health for introducing this into the House.I think genuine questions have already been raised around the timeliness—why has it taken so long? I think there is a hint of it in the last few minutes of the Minister’s speech when he noted all the various groups that had to be engaged and consulted with from the likes of the nurses unions through to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment obviously the Ministry of Health and a whole lot of other groups. Although this is a relatively simple bill it is a bill that has significant implications. So I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House and although it is predictable that it would come to the Health Committee I think it is something we are looking forward to being part of.This bill is very similar to a number of others that we have had of late. In the committee we are just finishing up the work on the Radiation Safety Bill and we finished work a while back on a bill that looked around the use of solaria and around contact tracing. What links all of those together is that they are playing into the Government’s focus in this space around health care that is sooner faster and more convenient and that this is ultimately about inefficiency and the updating of the statutes. This has been something that has required a long time in coming but in this space we are also trying to be responsive to the changing nature of health care in New Zealand.The terms “medical practitioner” and “health practitioner” are often used interchangeably but they are actually quite distinct terms and I might take the liberty to go through it a little bit for the edification of the House and for those listening but also to put it into context. A medical practitioner as currently defined is effectively a physician or a surgeon. We would classically just think of that as someone who is a doctor or a specialist. So your GP your dermatologist your plastic surgeon your general surgeon and your vascular surgeon—that is whom we are talking about. One of the examples that the Minister used a little bit earlier was around the use of death certificates. Part of this bill is actually going to reword what they are called but at the moment you need a medical practitioner—in other words you need a physician or a surgeon—to sign off on that document. We are saying that actually there is another group of people who can be involved and those people we call health practitioners.You will excuse me if I have to read this part because health practitioners are those who fall within the ambit of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003 that very well-loved and well-known Act I am sure. Section 5 of that Act defines a health practitioner as a person “who is or is deemed to be registered with an authority as a practitioner of a particular health profession”. So obviously a doctor a physician or a surgeon falls within that but there is a whole range of other groups that fall within that. Just to give some examples—I do not intend to go all the way through them—midwives would fall under the definition of a health practitioner. Obviously that is the profession and it sits under the Midwifery Council. You have occupational therapists. They are health practitioners and come under a therapy board there. Those working in optometry osteopathy pharmacy physiotherapy—again these are people we are quite innately aware of who work in the health space.So primarily what this bill is doing is saying people within these professions within the correct scope of practice can actually begin to help us in the health care space. Again using the death certificate as an example why should it only be a physician and surgeon who can sign one when in fact we can ask as the bill suggests a nurse to have that power? A big part of that for those of us who have worked in the health care sector is that we know that it has changed we know that there are a number of people now who practise within the health space whose core competencies or scopes of practice are such that they can do things that we may not have thought of in the past.The best way to illustrate this is the change from the tertiary to the primary care sector. So when we talk in health about tertiary care we are talking about specialists. Think about elements say of dermatology plastic surgery. Think of the likes of endoscopy. Now they are primarily being done by specialists. If you had a skin cancer in times past you would pretty much if not exclusively go and see a dermatologist a plastic surgeon and a general surgeon to get that done. But actually the scope of practice of general practitioners over time has increased. Their skill levels have increased the technologies and the advances have increased so that you can now go to a general practitioner to have that done. It can now be done in the primary care sector. There are advantages to that not only financial but also it is just more convenient. So again if you have got a lesion you can go to your GP. He or she will take it out rather than having to send you down to a specialist.To further illustrate what has happened it is actually nurses now who are able to begin to act in this area. We still have some steps to go but nurses also have the necessary skills to work within this space. I think the Hon Annette King alluded to that and the great work that she introduced years ago as the Minister of Health to allow nurses the scope to expand. The same is happening in the endoscopic space—do not think about this too much but it involves cameras going down one of two areas. Again it has always been the domain or primarily the domain of specialists but actually now nurses can be trained to do this service. Again it can be done more cheaply and that is a real win for the taxpayer but it is also again more convenient. You can go down to a local surgery wherever your nurse or GP is and if they are suitably trained you can obtain their skills.So that is just an illustration of I suppose the background of why we can update these definitions through this particular bill why we are saying it is quite safe and prudent for us to allow health practitioners to work in a space that was traditionally just medical. So I think that is a positive. I think it is prudent and something I have certainly heard out in the community.It was alluded to earlier that some were doing a bit of a trip to the rural health practices—something I have been doing as well. In fact I was down at Gore Health recently and hearing about what they call a physician assistant. It is effectively a person who acts as a doctor in all but title. A physician assistant is a role that has been around—I think—about 30 years in the United States and we are trialling it here in New Zealand through the health workforce. It is a postgraduate level degree. Obviously it is not a doctor’s degree as we would understand it here in New Zealand but a person who has postgraduate training in a very particular clinical space and is able to do probably about 80 percent of what we think a doctor could do. That is being trialled in Gore Health.Again how do we increase the workforce and get them involved? So how that is going to manifest itself—it will be in a number of areas: one quite key one is in that multi-disciplinary area. Here are two very quick examples. We already know that within ACC if you need help obviously you are going to have a GP involved. You may be seeing a specialist if say you have got a back issue. You are going to be seeing an osteopath probably around that if not an orthopaedic surgeon. You are going to have occupational therapists involved and so forth. A lot of the paperwork at the moment still must be done by the medical practitioner. We are saying that we can make some changes through this bill that will provide that the lead person who is helping you through ACC can sign some of those documents.Similarly one of the announcements in the Budget was around the introduction of pain teams. In other words for those people in our community particularly in the orthopaedic field who are in pain we are going to bring multi-disciplinary teams together—nurses occupational therapists doctors. At the moment and without this bill only the doctor can sign off on forms. Through this bill it will actually be the lead provider in those pain teams. So it may be that the occupational therapist will be enabled to do the documentation required.So I think it really fits in as I said at the start to services in health that are sooner faster and more convenient. I think it is what New Zealand wants and I say that with some confidence not only as the chair of the Health Committee and obviously from going out in the community but from the fact that so far we have heard—I wait for the other parties but I am pretty sure—that we have got widespread support in the House. I can see nodding from New Zealand First. I know Labour is going to support it and the Greens. I assume therefore that everyone is going to support this bill. We as the New Zealand Parliament see that this is something important something that Kiwis will understand and will find appropriate which will make for better health care for them.Chris Hipkins: Why is it taking so long then?SIMON O’CONNOR: Finally the most excellent Chris Hipkins wonders why it is taking so long. Well we do have about eight other speeches to go. We can always just forgo those and go to the vote and call it a close for a Thursday. Thank you very much.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a delight to follow that member Simon O’Connor who has been praised by the Hon Annette King as a good sound member and in fact as a sound leader of the Health Committee. I think what we have observed there in that speech is that following Annette King is something that many people should do. It is something wise people do everywhere. Actually the member said he followed the Hon Annette King to Gore Hospital not long ago and he might do well to advise the Hon Jonathan Coleman to also follow the Hon Annette King because where the Hon Annette King goes there the health officials follow.I have to say that there have been many stories recently that have been broken in this House about what is going on in the health system. The Minister clearly did not know about the North Shore stuff we heard about in the House today about the staffing shortages there and the crisis and the challenges of meeting the medical need and the real struggle that is going on behind the scenes. He had no idea. The Hon Annette King was informing the public and I can bet you—not you Mr Assistant Speaker—I can bet the people at home bottom dollar that the health officials will be jumping as a result of Annette King’s words today.It was no different when she announced about a week ago the loss of orthopaedic accreditation in Dunedin at the hospital there. And it was not a couple of days either side of that when she announced the loss of accreditation of intensive care training in Auckland. The Hon Annette King is the one who is driving the health portfolio right now. She does not collect the salary; I think she could be a bit disappointed about that. The Hon Jonathan Coleman is still carrying the lunch box around with the silver plate on it and collecting the salary but he is not driving the officials and he is not driving the health portfolio. The visionary here is actually the Hon Annette King and this bill today is somewhat late in coming. The Hon Annette King put a very similar but better one into the ballot 6 months ago. The Hon Annette King is once again well ahead of the Government—Grant Robertson: Visionary.Dr DAVID CLARK: Visionary some would say. In fact along those lines we observe that it was the Hon Annette King who introduced the first nurse practitioner in 2002—2002. In fact beyond that in 2003—and I have a speech here from the Hon Annette King that describes some of the things that nurse practitioners could be doing which we are going to make happen today. This is from a speech in 2003. Twelve years on the Government is catching up. It is no wonder that everybody else in this Parliament thinks it is about time this happened. Twelve years ago the Hon Annette King was saying “Nurses provide consistently high-quality health care to New Zealanders but there is considerable potential for them to contribute even more positively through responsive innovative and collaborative health systems.”Sue Moroney: That’s leadership.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is leadership. She said: “Nurse Practitioners will have an important responsibility in advocating health promotion and disease prevention. Part of their role will be to encourage self-care but they will also have the skills to consider a wide range of health services that may suit individual patients. The vision for the Primary Healthcare Strategy includes developing a high-quality workforce a focus on better health for the whole population and a reduction in health inequalities.”Of course we know that under this Government things have been going in the opposite direction but we do congratulate it on finally 13 years down the track putting through some legislation that will enable these further steps that the visionary Hon Annette King suggested way back—way back—in 2003. It is cost effective as the Hon Annette King noted further on in that speech. It has more of a community focus and the nurse practitioner concept is one that is now proven. It is one that we know brings cost-effective efficient health care to New Zealanders. So this bill is a long time in coming a very long time in coming. It makes a lie of the mantra of the Government that says “faster sooner more convenient” and I noticed that even Simon O’Connor was struggling to remember that mantra in his speech. It did not roll off the tongue and I do not think it would roll off the tongue of many New Zealanders.The Hon Annette King’s bill interestingly if we note does suggest a few extra things that could be achieved and maybe they will be put forward as amendments later in the process. Maybe they will be discussed at the select committee. For example there is the recognising of the role of a nurse practitioner in legislation properly: amending the Adult Adoption Information Act 1985 which would enable a nurse practitioner to provide information on medical grounds; allowing for the provision of genetic counselling; amending the Civil Aviation Act to enable a nurse practitioner to conduct medical examinations; amending the Education Act to enable a nurse practitioner to certify whether a child is well enough to go to school; and so on. It is visionary stuff.A bill was put in the ballot 6 months ago when Annette King’s frustration at the lack of Government progress became clear. She decided: “Well let’s try to do it ourselves.” The Government could have adopted it then in fact and we could have had it in law by now. But this is a Government that has been dragging its heels. It seems a little distracted by other issues and is failing to realise really the urgency of change and the savings that are possible in our health system to deliver better provision of health care for New Zealanders. We can think of examples recently: $140000 TV screens $260000 sun decks New York apartments that cost $11 million hair straighteners and so on. The Government is distracted by these issues rather than focusing on sorting out a health care system that would really benefit all New Zealanders.As the Hon Annette King mentioned in her speech she and I did a tour through many rural hospital areas recently and we heard from the people running those hospitals how useful it would be to have more nurse practitioners and how useful it would be to have that flexibility in the rural health workforce to help deliver the services that are needed. Of course part of that requires this kind of enabling legislation that makes it possible for those jobs to be there and of course for the training of the workforce.We travelled down through Timaru. We visited Timaru Hospital which is considering interestingly amalgamation with Ōāmaru Hospital because of the crisis with funding. Ōāmaru has been threatened with a 5 percent funding cut in its hospital because of the underfunding of health services by this Government—a 5 percent cut after having had its funding frozen previously. We visited Maniototo Hospital where its struggle is to actually deliver services into the future with any kind of certainty in its rural community because the buildings are earthquake prone it has a rating base of 1800 people and a trust runs it because the Government was not keen to provide the health care services there. In Queenstown we heard about the lack of availability of services there for a population of 30000 people that swells to 90000 in the tourist season. At Dunstan Hospital there is another model there and further on in Clutha there is another model there where they are doing more integrated services delivery.In all of those areas we heard how much more benefit we could get out of having this more flexible health workforce that was trained in a contemporary way and overall I guess the feeling is that this Government is dragging its feet. I have to say that the communities we spoke to across the Otago region were very concerned about the cuts in funding in real funding during this Government’s tenure. That has meant that there are service cuts proposed in all of those rural areas. Several of those hospitals have accepted funding cuts next year. They have had their funding frozen previously and they have accepted funding cuts in the coming year.So it is amazing that it has taken so long to get this bill on the Order Paper when the need is so great in the health workforce. We do have Annette King to thank for her leadership in this area and for introducing those nurse practitioners with the master’s qualifications recognised by the Nursing Council to conduct a range of activities that they are entirely able to conduct to create a modern health workforce that is responsive and financially sustainable.I for one look forward to the Hon Annette King not only nominally driving the officials in the health ministry but actually also having that title of Minister of Health. I hope that time will come sooner rather than later. We also heard I have to say in Otago that the halcyon days of health were under the Hon Annette King. Public audiences told us that. They are still looking back to the brief time when Annette King was Minister of Health. They are looking forward to her being health minister again as am I and then we will know that we will not only get this kind of positive progress but get more of it faster sooner and more conveniently for the people of New Zealand.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a real pleasure to stand up here on behalf of the Health Committee this afternoon and speak on this piece of legislation. Actually it is about seven statutes and it is about correcting all of those in order to be able to let our nurse practitioners operate in a way that will be really really useful for our society. You know we have heard a lot about Mrs King today and her introduction of nurse practitioners. I actually think the introduction of this piece of legislation is extremely exciting and it really is only the beginning of a number of things that we can do in this area. Some of those have been outlined today in terms of how we may be able to expand on this in the future.Really it is about primary care. It is about people being able to get access close to home to their health services and as we have heard about this afternoon it is really really critical in our rural areas not only for people to be able to get care closer to home but actually for our nurse practitioners also to be travelling closer to the people. So this Government is dedicated to developing this pattern further and investing in areas that will allow care to be delivered this way. This bill is a key step in actually helping us to enact what we are working on. I welcome the change along with the committee and I welcome this opening up of a whole range of things to nurse practitioners.What it is doing is removing the legislative barriers that we currently have to innovative practice and that is why I find it quite exciting. Since I have been a member of Parliament which has been only a short few months I have actually been tracking around and looking at various health services in my electorate particularly in relation to rural ones. I had a really really fantastic experience where I watched an operation on the Mobile Surgical Unit bus. It actually travels around the country on a 5-week cycle and the nurses from the various health boards actually participate in the area when the bus comes to that area. So there is an opportunity for nurse practitioners to get more involved in terms of the scope of their work and be able to do more and help people closer to where they live.When we are talking about health we also talk about things like telehealth and Skyping health. I think this is really important. Our Rural Broadband Initiative is really going to help us to bring those nurse practitioners even closer to where people live once they have the ability to work with that equipment with the rural broadband rolling out across the electorates. We also heard the member David Clark talking about buildings and about some buildings perhaps losing services and not being up to scratch. But I am really heartened by places like Te Awamutu where we had a building that was pretty old and dilapidated that was being used for midwifery. Now that building has actually closed down and there is a core group of midwives who have started their own business and they are putting a purpose-built building in. So although in rural areas we can no longer live close to a big hospital in a lot of situations we can make purpose-built buildings.I have just recently been out at the chamber of commerce in Raglan where it is talking about building a purpose-built health centre. From that aspect we can have all sorts of nurse practitioners and all sorts of people who will come into the community and be able to work on that which saves people travelling long distances. The other thing that excites me a lot about this is that we currently have a lot of nurses who are travelling long distances to get to specific locations to do the job. The patients are also travelling long distances to those specific locations to get their medical help. If we can actually allow some of those nurse practitioners to do things closer to their home and also closer to their patients’ homes then it certainly is going to give us faster primary health care because it is going to save a whole lot of people having to travel around. I really welcome that change.The other reason that I welcome that change is that we have got 40000 nurses who are working around the country. Recently I was asked to speak and open the Rural Nurses Meeting. There are a huge number of rural nurses who are living in our communities. Actually I found out that the average age of those rural nurses is 55 years of age. There are a lot of women who are out there who are actually taking huge pride in the work they do but cannot take any further steps in their careers because of being limited because they are not able to undertake some of the duties that we are trying to open up for them today. So I think in terms of those particular people it is going to give them the opportunity if they do not already have the nurse practitioner qualification to be able to then go and get extra qualifications. They will then be able to build their own careers while they are actually still living close to home. For a lot of them I would not say that that is necessarily close to home where their children are. In some cases they actually have grandchildren in their communities. So it gives them an opportunity to be able to continue their careers for quite a long time.So really it is about a more flexible workforce. It is about people being able to be accessed from all around the community. We would actually love to have more doctors out in our rural communities and that will be part of the scope of hoping that we can work more closely with them to get them out there. But this step will actually give them a whole range of people that they can work with and it will be able to open up the scope of what we do in some of our rural places. In all that I have read related to this change in this piece of legislation it is a low risk to public safety. These nurse practitioners are very very capable people and it would really engage those people to have far better ability in our rural communities.What is really important for me is access to health and I think that since I have been on the Health Committee—and I do enjoy being on the Health Committee. It is a group that works extremely well together and we have a great collective of people and skills. A lot of what we talk about is that access to health—people’s access to primary care. Doing this in terms of what we are trying to do today will make it easier for the public to access timely and effective treatment. What we have also got is that if people cannot access timely and effective treatment people will actually go and start self-diagnosing themselves.Barbara Stewart: Which they do.BARBARA KURIGER: They are doing it now.We have actually got a wonderful initiative going on at the moment in our rural communities where we have got a doctor who used to do a TV series called Doctor Global. His name is Dr Tom Mulholland and he has bought an old ambulance and he is actually going around rural communities. He is doing health checks. He is doing blood pressure checks. He is doing diabetes checks. He goes out into rural areas like Whangamomona. He has been at Fieldays. He is travelling the country. A lot of those people would not actually get up and go to the doctor and he has picked up a few reasonably serious health situations just from those checks where he can sit in the community. It is quite amazing. You can sit for 3 hours in a community hotel where he comes in and everybody takes their turn. It is quite a supportive attitude where people are supporting each other to get these health checks and they are actually looking after each other.He is a qualified doctor and if we can get more people even out there being able to do those basic specific checks and health can come to the community rather than the community going to health then we are going to have a far better society. So I am supporting this bill and I am looking forward to being part of its passage.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill is certainly a useful bill which the Green Party is pleased to support. It will change the relationship between New Zealanders and medical and health professionals. That is because it amends seven statutes to increase the range of functions that health practitioners can perform by changing references in the law from “medical practitioners” to “health practitioners”. That means that health practitioners can perform certain statutory responsibilities quite lawfully such as issuing certificates of the cause of death rather than medical certificates.As Barbara Kuriger noted this is certainly going to provide recognition of the range of skills that nurse practitioners have developed provide for more professional development and increase flexibility across the health system. It is a fact that we rely on health professionals very considerably for their knowledge and their skill and the bill recognises that both the medical and the wider health profession have evolved with time. We have now got new technology more advanced training techniques. Health practitioners particularly nurse practitioners are upskilling and diversifying their knowledge base and they are now capable of performing tasks that previously were solely the domain of medical professionals. The fact is that nurse practitioners have done this only to find that the law actually stymies them carrying out work so this bill is overdue.It will allow for a more flexible and efficient use of the health workforce and that is particularly important because of the deepening shortages in particular parts of the country—in rural areas for example. Because we have got a nationwide shortage of GPs who are available to work in rural areas when they go and make a visit to some areas they often find that a large chunk of their time in small communities may be taken up with quite laborious administrative tasks such as signing certificates for ACC for Work and Income. They are for the people whom the local rural practice nurse will often know much better and those nurses will be in a better position to sign those certificates.So the bill with the changes to the seven statutes will allow health practitioners to participate in ACC claimants’ individual rehabilitation plans and to take blood specimens from road users. And where an employee is required to provide to an employer proof of sickness or injury that person will be able to get a certificate from a registered health practitioner rather than from a medical practitioner which is currently the case.One of the interesting things in the bill I think too is the widening of the ability for the signing of certificates for the causes of death which at the moment is able to be done only by a medical practitioner.I think there may well be a concern by some that some sectors of the health profession may not have the competence and the necessary skills to sign off cause of death but there had been extensive consultation before the bill was introduced including with the Law Commission.I would draw people’s attention to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act because that makes it quite clear that health practitioners can perform only activities that they have got the expertise and capability to do.You cannot have people going beyond the functions that professionally they are identified as being able to do within the scope of their practice.So I think that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act is a very important safeguard for people who may be concerned that some health professionals may be less responsible than medical practitioners.Certainly within that legislation you have responsible authorities that regulate health practitioners in any particular profession.They identify the scope of the practice and they identify the activities that each class of practitioner is deemed competent to undertake.That said we still look forward to the submissions to the select committee from professional organisations and colleges nurse practitioners and others to establish that the bill establishes flexibility in the right places and to the right degree and that there is overall support for the changes that the bill provides. But it is a very timely piece of legislation. I note Labour members’ comments about it being overdue but it certainly will provide a practical recognition that nurse practitioners have significantly diversified their skills.They play a hugely important role in the health system and the current law in these seven statutes by restricting their ability to take on roles where they have got the competence is overdue for reform. We support the bill. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I was busy watching the time to see whether or not I would manage to get a turn before 6 o’clock because this is one of the bills that I had hoped would go to the Health Committee next week so that we could start work immediately on it. It is my pleasure to support this bill. New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. This bill actually makes common-sense changes to a whole range of Acts that are currently in force. The current legislation is very narrow. It sets out a whole range of functions that can be carried out only by medical practitioners in order to protect New Zealand’s health and safety. It is really great to hear from the Hon Annette King that nurses are in favour of these changes.As the bill points out in the explanatory note the training of health professionals has changed drastically over time. New technologies and treatments have been developed and the workforce has adapted and diversified. Many groups are now capable of performing the tasks that were previously solely the domain of medical practitioners. Extending the scope of tasks that are able to be completed by other health practitioners will hopefully free up our medical practitioners so that there are more doctors appointments available treatment can be faster treatment can be more timely and treatment can be at a place of the patient’s choosing to a far greater extent than what it actually is today.In New Zealand First we believe that this bill puts into practice the process of respecting what our nurses actually do in the roles that they have. The skills and the training that they have and the work that they do under extreme pressure really make it essential that their competency is recognised in the terms of this bill. Of course as has been previously mentioned this is a change that may increase the number of nurse practitioners which is a very positive thing. We will be supporting the bill. We will be looking forward to the nurses coming and submitting on this particular bill.We know that the definition of practitioners under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act was quite narrow. It is appropriate for some professions. We know that there are 22 professions in New Zealand that are regulated by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. We assume that the public make assumptions as to what professions are actually covered by the definition. We know it covers nurses. Nurses are the most prominent health practitioners in need of having their roles extended and this is something that we support. It also covers psychologists. This is quite appropriate because we know that psychologists should be available to examine young people particularly if it is deemed appropriate by the courts. It must cover pharmacists. We know that they have got an increasing role in diagnosing and prescribing in the community and many people find it far more useful and convenient to actually go to their local pharmacy. They are right there on the spot.But one of the unregulated professions that we would like to see included in the bill is the paramedics. Paramedics frequently work unsupervised and they often make lifesaving or life-changing decisions right on the spot at the side of the road in terrible circumstances. The skills needed by these paramedics are highly advanced and the interventions they make can save a life. Yet because they are not recognised under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act there are no universal standards for the skill sets or the capabilities that define what a paramedic should be able to do or what they cannot do. Because of this there is a loophole in the law that we have been seeing. Anybody can call themselves a paramedic anybody can set up their own ambulance service and no one would be any the wiser.If an ambulance comes we assume that these people are competent. We know that the current existing ambulance services train their paramedics to a high standard and they deliver a very high standard of care to the about half a million patient call outs that they attend on an annual basis. But unfortunately paramedics would not be extended the same respect or acknowledgment of their skills as those professions that are regulated. We believe that this is something that we really need to have a look at even during the select committee process.We know that paramedics take their patient to a hospital. When they get to the hospital the doctors or nurses take notice of their diagnosis and treat that patient accordingly. We think that it would be really appropriate to have paramedics included somehow in this particular legislation. It is something that I will be following up when it comes to the select committee. We are quite happy to ensure that paramedics are given the courtesy that they need. They take blood samples outside of the hospital and on the side of the road which is far more appropriate than the role of a doctor waiting until the patient actually gets to hospital.Just to finish before 6 o’clock New Zealand First supports this bill. We will be looking for some changes during the select committee process which we hope the Health Committee will listen favourably to. We look forward to working further on this bill and ensuring that it passes speedily through the House. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): As there are about 30 seconds left to go before the House rises I seek leave for the House to rise 30 seconds early so that the next speaker will have their full allocated 10 minutes.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): We have no objection to that course of action.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think what I will now say is that the debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day and the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 28 July.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.