Volume 688 Week 38 - Thursday 28 March 2013 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 688 Week 38 - Thursday 28 March 2013 
[Sitting date: 28 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9055. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 28 March 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week recess. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 April the Government will look to progress the Psychoactive Substances Bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and other bills as they become available. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am just checking whether it is the intention of the Government to move with the Plumbers Gas— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry I didn’t hear the start of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please repeat his question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sure. Is it the intention of the Government to move forward with the plumbers etc. legislation which is currently before the Regulations Review Committee or with any other matter that might involve the promotion of Mr Williamson? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Well the pace of that bill the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill as the member points out is in the hands of the select committee. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Reports and Tiwai Point Smelter Contract Negotiations 
1. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he recently received on business confidence investment and growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I have received a number of reports showing that business confidence is continuing to be strong and positive. For example ANZ yesterday published its latest Business Outlook survey. It confirmed that business confidence remains elevated with a net 35 percent of businesses expecting general business conditions to get better over the year ahead. Also yesterday Statistics New Zealand reported that spending on research and development by New Zealand businesses reached $1.2 billion in 2012 up almost 25 percent since 2010 and official data on Tuesday showed that the value of exported goods rose $290 million or 8 percent to $3.9 billion in February compared with February last year. 
John Hayes 
: What observations did ANZ’s Business Outlook survey make about business confidence and the improving outlook for the economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Business Outlook survey growth indicator is pointing to 2.8 percent growth in the economy during the year ahead. After accounting for seasonality there was a rise of confidence in March which ANZ said was encouraging against the backdrop of concern about the drought. It noted that the current net 35 percent of businesses expecting better times in the year ahead is well above the historic average of 8 percent. It also noted that the services sector which accounts for nearly two-thirds of GDP is now the most optimistic followed by construction. Finally a net 32 percent of firms are optimistic about their own business prospects and that compares with a long-term average of 26 percent. 
John Hayes 
: What does Statistics New Zealand’s Research and Development Survey for 2012 conclude about investment in research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Statistics New Zealand noted that the almost 25 percent jump in research and development spending by businesses to $1.2 billion was very widely based. In fact the increase was observed across almost all industries. Total research and development spending across business Government and higher education was more than $2.6 billion in 2012 and that in itself is a 9 percent increase over 2 years. Statistics New Zealand noted that as a proportion of GDP New Zealand’s research and development spending continues to be below that of many other OECD countries—and that is a long-term issue but the trend is in the right direction—and that Government funding directed at business research and development has helped grow research and development by businesses. 
Hon David Parker 
: Were the number of hours worked in New Zealand in the latest quarter for which there is data fewer than the number of hours worked when he took office and is that because the economy under National is not working for ordinary New Zealanders or is it because so many people have left for Australia? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not have that exact data to hand for the member but I do know that he combs through the data to find convenient data at all times to continue to talk down the New Zealand economy. There is no doubt that there are still challenges in terms of job growth—and in particular in part-time jobs—in the New Zealand economy but what we are seeing is increasing confidence. We are seeing faster growth of around 3 percent year on year last year which is actually bodes well for a continued pick-up in employment in the year ahead. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
John Hayes 
: What factors were behind the encouraging increase in New Zealand’s merchandise exports in February? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: With the normal caveats about monthly statistics Statistics New Zealand reports that the $290 million increase in merchandise exports in February was led by an increase in exports to China which is up by over $0.25 billion or 49 percent compared with February a year ago. Milk powder pine logs and sheepmeat were amongst the main exports to China during February. It is important to be cautious. The ongoing drought is expected to have an impact on dairy volumes in the year ahead at least although offsetting price movements will help contain those issues. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he encouraging Kiwi mums and dads to invest in Mighty River Power when the value of those investments is in doubt due to the risk of the Tiwai smelter closing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Investors in the Mighty River Power offer will make their own assessment as to whether to invest or not. But in terms of the matter the member raises it has actually been well-known about the Tiwai Point smelter and the reliance that Meridian Energy places on it for many many years and these are not new issues. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has Rio Tinto not got the Government over a barrel with regard to the Tiwai Point negotiations because it knows that the Government has committed itself to the asset sales and now it is going to try to get as much money from the taxpayer as possible because Rio Tinto knows that if the smelter closes the asset sales programme is bunk? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well whatever Rio Tinto’s view is if it is as described by the member that is not shared by the Government. In terms of his supposition at the end of his question I do not think that is the case at all. 
State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Tiwai Point Smelter Contract Negotiations 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is it the Government’s intention to proceed with the asset sales programme? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Absolutely yes. The programme of minority share floats in a world of a deteriorating international debt crisis is a very important part of the Government’s wider economic plan to help control debt and fund important social infrastructure like schools roads and hospitals. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with Meridian Energy Chief Executive Mark Binns that if the Tiwai Point contract falls over power prices and State-owned asset sale values will fall? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not sure whether or not Mr Binns has made those comments. I would have to rely on what the member said. But what I would say to that member is that that is a decision that individual investors will be able to make because that information will be made available. All the material information will be made available in the offer document for Mighty River Power. That is what the Government has always said and it is an opportunity for analysts and investors to chew over the information as they are now and make whatever conclusions they want to draw. 
David Shearer 
: What is his Government’s best estimate of the loss in the value of Mighty River Power in the event of the Meridian Energy and Tiwai Point deal falling over? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I hope the member will appreciate that under the Securities Act Ministers are not able to speculate on the likely value of the various mixed-ownership model companies. But I would say this to New Zealanders in light of what the Leader of the Opposition has said: I would not take investment advice from anybody who has— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —a couple of hundred thousand dollars in a bank account— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That answer will only lead to disorder. 
David Shearer 
: Is the Government negotiating separately with Rio Tinto and has Meridian Energy been kept fully in the loop on these negotiations? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member will appreciate the negotiations have been run by Meridian Energy up until recent times. They are continuing to discuss it this week. The Government was in contact with Rio Tinto to see what it might be able to do to bridge the gap in the short to medium term with a very moderate amount of money. The longer term is a more significant area. Meridian Energy is aware of the broad parameters of the Government’s discussions with Rio Tinto. 
David Shearer 
: In light of the last part of his answer how does his answer square with Meridian Energy’s advice to the select committee today that it has had no advice on the discussions between the Government and Rio Tinto? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not able to comment because I was not at the select committee but I am aware that Mr Binns did say in the media stand-up that they were aware of the broad parameters. We look forward to continuing to discuss those matters. This is a very very serious issue for New Zealand. The Government is determined to make sure that we can do what we can to assist those two companies to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement for the two. 
David Shearer 
: Now that the Government has intervened will it now promise to be transparent about the impact on electricity prices and State-owned enterprise sales values? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Did the Minister adequately hear that question? Otherwise I can ask for the question to be put again. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I did hear it. I think this Government is being very transparent I would say to the Leader of the Opposition—transparent. All of these matters will be declared as material in the offer document for Mighty River Power. This is what we have said all along. These negotiations between Meridian Energy and Rio Tinto have been ongoing for 9 months. People have been very well aware of them. All material matters will be declared in the offer document. 
David Shearer 
: How many people are employed either directly or indirectly through the operations of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think there are about 750 people who work at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter and there will be other people whose jobs are dependent on that. So it is quite a serious issue. But the Government has been in touch with Rio Tinto because it recognises the seriousness of this issue to say that if there is such a small gap in the short to medium term we are prepared to see what we can do to bridge that but the gap in the longer term is significant. I want to be very clear on this: this Government is not interested in subsidising a foreign multinational in the long term. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with Brian Fallow who wrote in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “It is folly to press on full steam ahead with the partial privatisation of the state-owned power companies when the future of Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter is unresolved.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No I do not agree with that. I think the New Zealand electricity market is well capable of dealing with all the issues around Tiwai Point and these contract negotiations. There is no surprise there is nothing new to this issue in terms of uncertainty. What is important is to remember what this is all about. This is all about the mixed-ownership model as part of the wider plan this Government has to control debt and to continue investing in important social infrastructure. 
Young Offenders—Family Group Conferences and Children’s Action Plan 
3. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What difference will the Children’s Action Plan make for vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 As part of the Children’s Action Plan we are committed to ensuring the very best outcomes for vulnerable children. The white paper identified care and protection family group conferences as an area that could be improved highlighting the need for better integration and stronger engagement from health education iwi providers non-governmental organisations and families. 
Melissa Lee 
: What advice has she received on the family group conference process? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have had advice that there are key areas we need to improve: practice can be variable particularly recording parental objectives and responsibilities in plans; the need for greater clarity and accountability about the changes involved; the time frames within which these need to be made; and that there may be a need to legally require and specify what these plans require and contain. The family group conferences have been running for quite some time. We very much support them but it is a good time to be looking at them and seeing how we can improve them to move forward. 
Melissa Lee 
: How could the system work better in the interests of the child? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is work already under way. We are taking action. The reality is these children cannot wait. Child Youth and Family has already commenced implementation of the new family group conference performance standards which will begin to lift the quality broaden the participation and deliver meaningful plans for these children. 
Police Resourcing—Operational Funding and Station Closures 
4. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What specific warnings if any has the Government received from Police around service delivery in relation to line-by-line savings within personnel and asset costs? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Police: The Minister is not aware of any warnings but she is aware that advice was provided in a briefing in February 2011 in which Police said they were making changes to improve performance and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. These changes were delivered successfully. It also said “should Police be required to find line-by-line savings in the future there is the risk that service delivery could be impacted”. The Government has not asked Police to make such savings. In fact since then there are now 600 additional front-line officers police foot patrols were up 70 percent last year crime is at a 30-year low and we are just about to roll out 6500 smartphones and tablets which means that police will have more than half a million extra front-line police hours to invest in crime prevention every year. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I seek leave to table a briefing paper to the Minister dated 9 February 2011 where Police advise the Minister of Police that there is a risk that service delivery will be impacted if they are forced to find further savings in personnel and asset costs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kris Faafoi 
: What was the dollar increase in costs for the Police from the new collective employment agreement negotiated in June last year? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I do not have that information with me today. I am sure the Minister will respond to any question that may be put to her when she returns. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Has the increase that is needed to meet the renegotiation of the Police collective contract been met with new funding or within Police baseline funding? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I can say that I have not been briefed in respect of this line of questioning and cannot answer that question. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I seek leave to table a briefing paper dated again 9 February 2011 where the Police advised the Minister that wage risks beyond June 2012 have not been factored into Police forecasts and that there is a risk that police may not be able to manage those costs within existing budgets. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister repeatedly tell me during the estimates hearing for Vote Police this year that there would be no closure of police stations when that statement made repeatedly is patently untrue and misleading? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: There are no plans to close police stations. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If there are no plans to close police stations can the Minister please explain to me why there is a notice on the door of the Mount Albert Police Station at the moment that reads: “Closed permanently.”; why there is a notice on the police station at Blockhouse Bay that reads: “Closed permanently.”; and why in my own electorate of Mt Roskill there is a sign that reads: “Temporarily closed.” but it has been that way for a month? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I have been advised that there have been no plans to close police stations. What I can say of course is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am trying to hear. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —that the new plans to roll out technology amongst police will mean that they will be able to work in a far more mobile way. It is not bricks and mortar that catch crooks; it is cops on the road and under this Government there are more cops on the road for longer catching crooks. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a number of documents. The first is a notice on the window of the Mount Albert Police Station saying: “If you want community policing go to Ponsonby on the other side of town.” That is the first photo. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that photograph. Is there any objection? There is none. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The second photo here is from Blockhouse Bay. It has: “Yes we’re open.” on the floor and over the top of it it has got: “This station has been relocated to Mount Roskill Police Station.” I seek leave to table that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order is being heard; it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Since people were referred to the Mount Roskill Police Station the third paper I seek to table is a photo on the door of the Mount Roskill Police Station saying: “This station is temporarily closed. We apologise for any inconvenience.” We have been inconvenienced for 4 weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a briefing to the Minister of Police which says that you have to have a network of stations to provide visibility and accessibility to the public. 
Hon Member 
: Dated? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A question has been asked about the date of that briefing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes the date of that is 9 February 2011. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: How did he come by it? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It is a briefing for the Minister of Police—oh this Government leaks like a sieve. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Does the member want to know how it was acquired—or is leave sought to table the document? Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a corrected transcript from the estimates hearing for Vote Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No those transcripts are available to members. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No they are not Mr Speaker. The transcripts of evidence are not available publicly—only to the members of the select committee as I understand it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the estimates hearing has been reported the transcript will be available. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister repeatedly deny at the estimates hearing that the Police budget had been cut in real terms when she knew from the briefing paper tabled by my colleague that the Police had warned the Minister of Police in that briefing document that ongoing cuts which are represented in that budget would lead to the failure of the police being able to deliver services such as keeping their police stations open? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The Police budget has not been cut. It is over to the Police how they spend their operational funding. It could be that from time to time for instance shop-front police premises are relocated. They are not police stations. I was not giving evidence before that select committee. He will have to speak to the Minister of Police on her return. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a photo of the Porirua community police base taken this afternoon which is closed to cut costs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What proof is there that the station has been closed? 
Kris Faafoi 
: Well it is two doors down from my electorate office and it is closed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that photo. Is there any objection? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: In respect of the point of order I was unable to hear the location of the premises— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Porirua. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: And is it a shop-front police kiosk or is it a station? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is important to the leave. The leave has been sought. I am putting the question. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Schedule 4 Land Permits 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Does he stand by his statement that “In 2010 I spelled out very clearly that we won’t be going into Schedule 4 land …”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister stands by his full statement which is: “In 2010 I spelled out very clearly that we wouldn’t be going into Schedule 4 land”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I apologise to the member. A point of order has been called by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If you heard that question and saw what is on the paper today for questions for oral answer how did you reconcile the two? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was a very minor transposing of words. It was accidental by the member. I did not think that in any way it made any difference to the delivery of the question. The Minister has it on notice. I agree that it was not word for word but members occasionally make very slight mistakes in this House which I find— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No this is not a mistake. There is a pattern emerging here where people are abandoning their questions of which we have all got notice before us all and doing as they please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The easiest way forward—because the member is obviously upset that it was not said exactly correctly—is that I am going to ask Catherine Delahunty to restate the question. 
5. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “In 2010 I spelled out very clearly that we wouldn’t be going into Schedule 4 land …”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister stands by his full statement: “In 2010 I spelled out very clearly that we wouldn’t be going into Schedule 4 land or world heritage sites. The reason that the survey work is being undertaken as I understand it is because there are many other benefits that may flow from that data collection …”. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given his promise that prospecting on schedule 4 land will not lead to mining there why is there a mining permit currently being considered by New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals for schedule 4 land in the Coromandel? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there is a difference between what are effectively recreation and hobby - type activities and large-scale mining. Recreation and hobby - type activities have been allowed on schedule 4 land since its inception. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given that one company moved from a hobby mine to an exploration and now is applying to mine on schedule 4 land is it not a reasonable conclusion that other companies will be expecting to do the same? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: They may well expect to make an application but in this case there is no decision. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given that National has made other promises it has broken like increasing GST when John Key said he would not should we take this latest promise with a grain of salt? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I just want to point out that although the member might like to make those allegations it is easy for me to also point out to her that during the term of the previous Labour Government there were six mining permits granted on schedule 4 land for 180 hectares of schedule 4 land. If that is not a breach of a Green promise I do not know what is. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Prime Minister resign if he breaks his promise and allows mining on schedule 4 land? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not an appropriate person to answer that question. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that shows a mining permit—not a hobby mining permit but a full mining permit—is being sought for schedule 4 land in the Coromandel. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fire Service Review—Progress and Proposals 
6. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What progress has been made on the review of Fire Service functions and funding? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I received the report of an independent review into Fire Service functions and funding in December and released it in early February. Since then I have been meeting with key stakeholders and seeking feedback on the report. There has been a very positive response and a high level of consensus around many of the changes especially those relating to the Fire Service mandate. Based on this feedback a series of legislative and non-legislative changes are now being finalised. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What are the key initiatives the Government is considering as part of this review? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: We are still making final decisions but the key initiatives will include firstly changes to the mandate of the Fire Service to bring the legislation into the 21st century. Secondly I am investigating ways of enabling the Fire Service to work more collaboratively and efficiently with other emergency services. Thirdly we will be comprehensively looking into the future funding options. The independent reviewers indicated that more work needed to be done here. We will be looking at ways to improve the equity of the Fire Service levy by removing opportunities for levy avoidance. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why are the changes to the Fire Service mandate so important? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The Fire Service legislation is almost 40 years old and firefighters now perform a much wider range of tasks than they did in 1977. However they are still mandated only to fight fires. This means that firefighters are not legally protected or legally required to perform tasks such as motor vehicle extractions which they currently spend 18 percent of their time doing. These issues have been apparent for a long time. It is very important to maintain the momentum and consensus on this rather than let it fall by the wayside as has happened with previous reviews. 
Immigration Parent Category—Allocation of Visas 
7. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement of 12 March 2013 “… last year we made changes to give priority to migrants who can make a real contribution to New Zealand which we expect to lead to significant savings for the taxpayer …”? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Given that the new parent category now prioritises migrants with $500000 settlement funds how are they making a real contribution when they are adding to the Auckland housing bubble? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I will need to check with the Minister of Housing but as I understand it everybody needs shelter and a house not just Chinese people. But I do note that the BNZ-REINZ Residential Market Survey released recently “found no evidence of Chinese buyers snapping up large numbers of Auckland properties despite reports to the contrary.” 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How can there be significant savings for the taxpayer considering the impact of parent category migrants on New Zealand’s stressed health care system when 50 percent of all health care spending is spent on the elderly over 65-year-olds? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The savings mentioned in the question on 12 March refers to savings in social development costs not health costs. Under the previous policy setting some 24 percent of parent category visa holders were in receipt of emergency benefits. The changes the Government has announced but not yet implemented will have when fully implemented savings of up to $34 million a year. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How can there be significant savings for the taxpayer when parent migrants of only 10 years’ residence without any requirement to work are entitled to full New Zealand superannuation at age 65? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: As New Zealand residents those people are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as all New Zealanders—and I stress that that is all New Zealanders whether or not they have worked during their working lives. That includes being in New Zealand for 10 years including 5 years over the age of 55. I do not see any inequity in that and I think that is fair for those who can call themselves New Zealand residents. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about how there could be savings when that was the case. The Minister did not even address that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He went on to say there are probably no savings in the position of superannuation because they are treated the same as all other New Zealanders after 10 years. That question was addressed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you check the  
Hansard 
 you will see that he most certainly did not give the answer you gave. He gave an explanation that said they were entitled to the same as anybody else who had lived in New Zealand all their life and did not work but he did not say that there were no savings. You cannot just go and make it up as you please. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I am happy to elaborate on the answer if it will aid the member. The costs mentioned exclude New Zealand superannuation and therefore by inference the savings cannot come from that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is this a point of order or a reply? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a response to a point of order. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Does the Minister agree with a comment on www.skykiwi.com the largest Chinese website in New Zealand which says: “A fat pension for foreigners? Isn’t the New Zealand Government being rather stupid? Sounds rather stupid. The New Zealand pension system provides foreigners with the same entitlement as its own citizens.”? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I seek leave to table a translation of the article from www.skykiwi.com the largest Chinese website in New Zealand from which the quotation in my last question was drawn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is something that is obviously not widely available. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is still a Standing Order that says that points of order are heard in silence—certainly there is a Speaker’s ruling. I think there were about 15 National Party MPs interjecting during that point of order and I wonder whether you might draw their attention to the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has himself very adequately and very helpfully drawn all members to a correct Standing Order that points of order will be heard in silence. I would be grateful if that would be adhered to by every member in the House. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Given that the parent category now prioritises $500000 settlement funds or a guaranteed lifetime minimum annual income of at least $27000 or about $40000 for a couple why are these people getting the same New Zealand superannuation aged care and health care entitlements as Kiwi taxpayers who have worked here all their lives? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The short answer is they are not until they become eligible under the New Zealand superannuation guidelines which means that they need to be in this country for at least 5 years and probably 10 or more. 
Customs Revenue Collection—Data Audit and Improvements to Systems 
8. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What work is the Government doing to ensure correct revenue is being paid on imports and exports? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The Customs Service’s trade assurance arm works to verify that import and export entry data is accurate and to ensure the correct revenue is collected. I am very pleased to say these audits have resulted in an additional $48 million being collected for the Crown in just over 18 months. This supports the Government priority to responsibly manage Government finances. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What do the audit results reveal about the systems in place? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: They show that the systems the Customs Service has in place are working and working really well. The integrity of data is critical and a number of initiatives are under way within the Customs Service to make submitting import and export entry information even easier than it is now and electronic for all clients. Given the Customs Service collects around 15 percent of all Crown revenue it is vital that these right systems are working well and are in place. 
Genetically Engineered Food—Government Response to Report on Risks 
9. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What action if any is she taking in response to the recent Canterbury University study that found food safety risks from GE are not being considered adequately by regulatory bodies? 
Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I understand that Food Standards Australia New Zealand is reviewing Professor Jack Heinemann’s study and will be publishing a response in due course. I intend to seek advice on that response once it is available. 
Steffan Browning 
: Why is Food Standards Australia New Zealand not requiring specific testing for the health effects of foods that have new GE molecules to ensure that they are safe to eat? 
Hon NIKKI KAYE 
: We have some very established processes in terms of Food Standards Australia New Zealand. I do note that it is standard practice for the Ministry for Primary Industries to review Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s advice on GM applications so on the issue of testing I am very confident that we have got some very established processes. 
Steffan Browning 
: I seek leave to table this report that shows that new genetically engineered foods are not being adequately tested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this the report from the University of Canterbury? 
Steffan Browning 
: It is. It was published in the most recent— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is widely available to any member who wants it on the website. 
Steffan Browning 
: I am not sure that it is actually. It is in an academic journal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am advised it is on the University of Canterbury website. 
Steffan Browning 
: Was Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s chief scientist Paul Brent wrong when he told Radio New Zealand this morning that Food Standards Australia New Zealand does not require companies to test foods with double-strand RNA molecules to ensure that they are safe to eat? 
Hon NIKKI KAYE 
: I just want to make a couple of comments about the study— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon NIKKI KAYE 
: —and I will answer the question that Mr Browning has asked. But I think it is very important that the member is really careful when he quotes particular studies. We get hundreds of those studies. With regard to the testing— 
Steffan Browning 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could get into dialogue on this too but that is not the actual answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the way forward because the Minister did say she would answer the question is that I would appreciate hearing the question again and then I will ask the Minister to address it directly. 
Steffan Browning 
: Was Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s chief scientist Paul Brent wrong when he told Radio New Zealand this morning that Food Standards Australia New Zealand does not require companies to test foods with double-strand RNA molecules to ensure they are safe to eat? 
Hon NIKKI KAYE 
: I very much doubt that he is wrong but the point that I was trying to make to the member is that we get hundreds of studies. We will be reviewing that study but there has been significant criticism of that study. I want to read out a couple of quotes about that study: “It is disappointing that these authors continue to ignore the bulk of the scientific literature but in this case they are even ignoring common sense.” 
Steffan Browning 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I said I can get into dialogue on the rights and wrongs of the different commentators on this as well. I do not think that is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question has certainly been adequately addressed. If the member does not find the additional information of any use to him then that is his privilege. 
Steffan Browning 
: Will she commit now to halting any further approvals and withdrawing any existing approvals of GE foods with these molecules until testing regimes have actually been developed to prove that they are safe? 
Hon NIKKI KAYE 
: No I cannot guarantee that. There are several reasons. The first is we have a very established set of processes with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The second is that with regard to the study that the member is actually referring to the advice that I have had is that it will not necessarily be applicable to another GE application. The third thing that I would say is that it is very standard practice for the Ministry for Primary Industries to review Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s advice on GM applications. I think we can have confidence in our systems. 
Information and Communications Technology Sector—Jobs 
10. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he stand by his answer to Oral Question No. 7 on Thursday 21 March 2013? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes particularly my statement that the information and communications technology sector is probably the sector with the highest demand for skilled workers and my example of one website alone advertising 1300 information and communications technology vacancies in Auckland alone. 
Clare Curran 
: Has he or his office had any contact since last Thursday’s question time with Telecom board members or senior executives about the imminent job losses; if so what was the total number of job cuts he was told would occur in 2013? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I spoke to the chairman of Telecom last weekend. I asked him where they were up to with their restructuring plans. He told me they were still in progress. He could not offer any numbers at that stage because the board was yet to meet to consider them. 
Clare Curran 
: Has Telecom informed him of its plan to reduce the workforce by 20 to 30 percent from each business unit which would mean job cuts of between 1500 and 2300 employees? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. Telecom informed us this morning just prior to releasing its statement of what it was saying today. Could I caution the member to be very careful about those statements because she is talking about a publicly listed company. Last week in this House she suggested that there would 1500 positions lost and that has turned out this week to be incorrect. The numbers are significant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. That’s only to June. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well that is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s just the first tranche they said this morning. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well as I read the statement today that is incorrect and I just caution the member to be careful. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an email from a Telecom employee revealing the company’s plans to cut 20 to 30 percent of staff from each business unit. 
Hon Members 
: Whom is it to? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whom was the email to? The members are asking whom the email was addressed to. 
Clare Curran 
: To me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? Yes there is. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! Supplementary question? 
Clare Curran 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am trying to give Clare Curran a fair go at asking another supplementary question. 
Clare Curran 
: Does his Government have a sector strategy in place to support the engineering technicians and professional support staff who will lose their jobs at Telecom or is it just another example of his hands-off approach to job creation? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government as the member knows has a number of ways in which it supports people in situations of job loss including through the Ministry of Social Development and through skills-matching processes. We have in fact talked to Telecom from my office in terms of offering assistance in relation to matching workers who may lose their jobs from Telecom with the very high demand for other workers across the information and communications technology sector in New Zealand. We have as I say offered on that basis but if the member thinks that a bureaucrat sitting down and planning where every individual goes is actually going to have an impact she is particularly wrong. 
Clare Curran 
: When will he admit that his Government is failing on job creation given today’s announcement and that 30000 people have lost their jobs since he became employment Minister? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I will answer that question in two parts. For the second part the member is simply incorrect and in fact if you look at the quarterly employment survey it has gone up 53000 in the last 2 years. But the other point is that the member has to decide which argument she is running because one minute she is saying telecommunication prices are too high and they must come down for consumers and the next minute she is complaining when companies restructure to actually make themselves more competitive control costs and presumably get prices down. I know that in Clare Curran’s world you can both hold every job in place and keep prices down but she is incorrect. 
Shellfish—Catch Limits 
11. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What changes has he recently announced to shellfish catch limits? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 Last week I announced new catch limits for rock lobster scallops and surf clams. The commercial catch limit increases have the potential to grow the surf clam industry and could add up to another $20 million a year in export earnings. Increases for rock lobster catch limits will also generate over $3 million a year in export earnings. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why has the Minister made this decision to increase catch limits? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: These catch limit increases are based on new scientific information showing that large numbers of surf clams and scallops are available for sustainable harvest. This is another case of this Government’s focus on sustainable economic development. These economic opportunities and new jobs will benefit many regional communities including Hawke’s Bay Gisborne Taranaki Manawatu and of course the Coromandel. 
Government Communications Security Bureau Director—Appointment Process 
12. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was Ian Fletcher the candidate or one of the candidates named in the report to him from the State Services Commissioner following the panel interviews for the position of Director of the GCSB; if not who suggested that Mr Fletcher be considered for the position of Director of the GCSB? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is a question on notice. There are two specific parts to the question. 
Grant Robertson 
: No because the second one is “if not”. If the answer is “Yes” then that’s fine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member happy with that answer? 
Grant Robertson 
: I am extremely happy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then we will proceed. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the Prime Minister accept the first recommendation of the State Services Commissioner for the person to be appointed to the post of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau following the process begun in May 2011? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My understanding is yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the Prime Minister either directly or indirectly intervene in the process for the selection of the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The State Services Commissioner has the role of identifying persons who might be suitable for that role then conducting appropriate discussions with those people and finally making a recommendation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ultimately makes that appointment and of course there were discussions through that process. 
Louise Upston 
: Would the Prime Minister please outline for the House the background of Ian Fletcher? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I would like to do that. Before being appointed as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau on the recommendation of the State Services Commissioner Mr Fletcher was director-general of the Queensland Department of Employment Economic Development and Innovation. He performed that role under the state Labor Government at the time. Prior to that Mr Fletcher was comptroller-general and chief executive of the British Intellectual Property Office. Prior to that Mr Fletcher was managing director international for UK Trade and Investment a similar organisation to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The facts are that Mr Fletcher had a strong background that spanned across a number of countries and he was appointed because he was the best candidate for the job. 
Grant Robertson 
: In the first report from the State Services Commissioner on the recommendation for who should be the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau was Ian Fletcher in the top two candidates? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My understanding is that there were no recommendations in the first report. 
Grant Robertson 
: In the first report were there two short-listed candidates recommended to the Prime Minister? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My understanding is that in the first report there were no recommendations for appointment and there were therefore no one-to-four rankings supplied. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straight: were there two short-listed candidates? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was related more to whether there was any favoured ranking for those and the Minister said that there was not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it was a very straight question: were there two short-listed candidates? I could not tell from that answer whether there were or there were not. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well no we are going to make progress. I am going to ask the member to ask the question again. I will listen very carefully to the answer and I will then make a decision whether I think the question has been adequately addressed. 
Grant Robertson 
: In the first report were there two short-listed candidates? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is my understanding that there was no short list in the first report. 
Urgent Questions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that you have received an urgent question relating to $23 million worth of bank account details leaked by the Earthquake Commission which has been revealed today. The names the amounts and the bank account details of hundreds of Christchurch people— 
Hon Member 
: 2000. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —2000 Christchurch individuals with money amounts totalling $23 million—have been revealed in yet another leak from the Earthquake Commission which has become apparent only this afternoon. We are approaching Easter and we do need a level of assurance from the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission that he is on top of it. I cannot think of anything more urgent than ensuring that a Minister is ensuring the privacy of people’s bank account numbers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was dealing with this matter through question time. The advice I have received is that this was information that was available this morning prior to the lodging of questions and on that basis I did not accept that it—[ 
Interruption 
] Because it was the information that was— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I provided authentication that showed that this was available to the Opposition at only 1.23 this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the information that I have been given by the Clerk of the House is that it was available. The member may not have picked it up— 
Hon Members 
: How? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not got that detail with me but it was available earlier in the day. Therefore on that basis— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The authentication that was given to you showed that it was available to the individual to whom it was leaked over a month ago. It was available to that person. That person followed it up with the Earthquake Commission. He asked the chief executive to respond. The chief executive did not respond. All the evidence about this massive breach came to the attention of the Opposition and we understand no media—yet—at 1.23 this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just seek some advice from the Clerk because the authentication has not actually been provided to me as the member states. It certainly has been provided to the Clerk of the House throughout question time. I will take just a minute to seek some advice. [ 
Interruption 
] On seeking advice and particularly on the basis that Mr Brownlee has indicated he is quite comfortable with the asking of the question I am going to allow the question to proceed as an urgent question. 
Earthquake Commission—Release of Personal Information 
1. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission 
: What action is he going to take to stop further Earthquake Commission breaches in light of today’s revelation that they have sent claim details including names and bank account numbers to a claimant? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission) 
: 
 The member speaking just before indicated that the Labour Opposition received this information at 23 minutes past 1. I left my office to come to the House today at quarter to 2 and that would mean that there was about 23 minutes or so in which those members could have told me prior to leaving my office that they knew about this breach. I have not been informed about the breach. I will certainly check it out and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Earthquake Commission does get on top of its system so this sort of thing does not happen. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he accept that with over 2000 names bank account details and the amount of the unpresented Earthquake Commission cheques wrongly released to a claimant there is systemic failure in the Earthquake Commission’s data system and will he now take ministerial responsibility for this scandal? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I said I am not aware of this. If the member was aware at 23 minutes past 1 and considers it to be the breach that it would appear to be I am disappointed that she did not contact my office to let me know that she is now in receipt of people’s private information. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table with the names removed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table with the names removed from the emails and from the ANZ bank and from the individual claimants—I am not going to table the 2000; I am talking about just a summary of what is there from the person who sent it to my office at 1.23 and my staff member who gave it to me at 5 to 2 this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that compounds the problem here. The member has now said herself that she did not get this information until 5 to 2. It is plain to everybody who has been either in the House or watching the proceedings that I have been in the House all of that time. I cannot possibly respond and I think it would be irresponsible for the House to grant leave for private information to be laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I appreciate—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! I appreciate the point that the Minister is making. At this stage the member has sought leave to table a document. It is in the hands of the House as to whether that document will be tabled. Leave is sought— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: May I give the House a reassurance that there is no private information on what I am seeking to table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In that case what is being tabled? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is being tabled is the information that she has received but she has made it very clear that she has removed the personal names so that people cannot be identified. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I will go through it individually. I have got the email to my office which includes the email from the EQC info mailbox that came to the person who has released this information to me. I have got the letter that he received from the Earthquake Commission which shows that there are attachments and the attachments are the stop payment requests from ANZ. There are no details on that at all. There are the stop payment requests and I have removed the names of the individuals and the serial number which is their bank account number. I have done the same with this form as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that is a very very full and adequate explanation of what the member is attempting to table. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Meridian Energy—Tiwai Point Smelter Contract Negotiations 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the announcement by Meridian Energy that it is unlikely a new agreement can be reached with Pacific Aluminium. For there to be an urgent debate the matter raised must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A particular case of recent occurrence must either be a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held. Negotiations are still continuing and the current contract remains in place. The business of the House should not be set aside just because an announcement has been made of ongoing negotiations. Not every such announcement will give grounds for a debate to be held. The application is therefore declined. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill continues the Government’s commitment to the proper governance of this major Crown asset by introducing new measures to bring greater fairness and transparency to the student loan scheme. The principal measure in the bill proposes to broaden the definition of income used to determine the loan amount a New Zealand based borrower has to repay each year. That will bring the definition of income used for student loans broadly into line with the definition used for the purposes of Working for Families tax credits and other social policy contracts. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Would members leaving the Chamber show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the business of the House. It is good conduct and it is being considerate of others. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As I was saying the broadening of the definition of income to match the definitions we use for Working for Families tax credits and other social policy programmes will ensure that the repayment obligations of New Zealand based borrowers are determined on an equitable basis irrespective of the type of income that they earn and will hopefully put an end to the mounting criticism over the years about people being able to shelter or hide income to avoid student loan repayment obligations. 
A second important measure contained in the bill proposes an information match with the New Zealand Customs Service. The point of that is to allow the Customs Service to identify borrowers at the border when they are in serious default on their loan repayments and to then be able to forward the contact details for those borrowers to the Inland Revenue Department. In turn the Inland Revenue Department will be able to make contact with those borrowers to discuss their situation. Again that is part of making sure we have a better approach to the handling of overseas-based borrowers—being able to track them down identify them and make sure that like their domestically based counterparts they meet their repayment obligations. It is part of a theme that lies behind all of the changes we have made to the student loan scheme which is that the requirement to repay a student loan is an important part of the taking out of the loan in the first place. There is an active responsibility involved which too often gets overlooked and particularly so in the case of some of the overseas-based borrowers. 
The remaining measures of the bill are largely administrative. They are designed to improve the operation of the existing legislation. They include clarifying the repayment obligation rules for new borrowers in their first year of borrowing confirming the current late-payment interest rules and repealing changes from earlier legislation that are now no longer needed. When the package is taken together the changes in the bill will bring greater value more efficiency and better fairness to the existing student loan system. 
I want to record my thanks to those who have contributed to the successful passage of the bill so far: firstly to the policy officials and the drafters who have worked on the detail of the bill; second to those who made submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; and third to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its recommendations to further refine the bill’s form and function. I also acknowledge that this bill has widespread support in the House and I thank members for that. With that I now commend the bill to the House for its third reading. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Labour is supporting the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) because we see that a fair system for the repayment of student loans is very important. Student loan repayments are a huge burden on hundreds of thousands of Kiwis. For those struggling to pay off student debt while paying the bills and saving for a house it is galling to hear of overseas-based borrowers making no attempt whatsoever to pay back their loans. We support the principle that underlies this bill in terms of making the system fairer in terms of data matching to ensure that those who are trying to evade their responsibilities are called to account and the broadening of the definition of “income” to ensure that these things are treated fairly. 
The bill will enable the Inland Revenue Department to share information with the Customs Service to make it easier for officials to get in contact with overseas-based student loan borrowers who are in default. Labour expects every borrower to make an equal effort to pay back their student loan whether they are overseas or at home. There are some enormous challenges here when we acknowledge that half of those borrowers overseas are of unknown address. So we commend the Government’s effort to make the system fairer. 
There are problems with this bill again. Many of them have been noted in the earlier stages of the debate. Those problems are tied back many of them to— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: This is the worst speech for 50 years. 
Hon Annette King 
: You’re the worst member of Parliament for Tauranga for 50 years. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: My colleague is interjecting that Mr Bridges is the worst member of Parliament in Tauranga for 50 years. I cannot possibly disagree with that but I want to come back to the point. 
The Inland Revenue Department is unlikely to be able to implement many of these changes. That is illustrated very well in the bill which contains a number of back-downs. There are in this bill a number of embarrassing positions for the Government to be seen in. It is in this bill very clear that the Government has been forced to go back on legislation that it has recently passed because it is unable to implement it with the outdated computer system at the Inland Revenue Department. That outdated computer system is over 20 years old—the first mainframe computer system. The Government has spent tens of millions of dollars on consultants to get advice on how it should replace that system but as yet the public of New Zealand is none the wiser as to the time frame for that replacement or indeed whether the Government has any kind of credible planning around it at all. That is a disgrace. 
The transparency around this process is also an embarrassment to the Government. I have sought personally under the Official Information Act to get briefings on the tens of millions of dollars that have been spent in the effort to get advice on how to upgrade this 20-year-old computer system. We know that the Government is expecting to spend in the range of about a billion dollars on this upgrade in due course—or at least that is the estimate Mr Key has put out there. The department itself suggested up to $1.5 billion and there have been other estimates in the media of somewhere around $700 million or $800 million. If we take a central point there and say that it is over a billion dollars that is about to be spent it is shameful in my view—it is shameful—that the Government cannot release anything other than the titles of documents for the past 2 years. I would assume that the department’s advisers will be giving common-sense advice on process for selecting somebody to win the tender when a billion dollars of taxpayer money is being spent. I would assume there is transparency around this process and a desire for the wider public to understand that the Government is really taking this seriously. 
We have had all kinds of debacles of which Novopay is probably the highest-profile and most recent. We have had debacles around the Government’s efforts to implement computer systems. We on this side of the House have fears that this Government is really not across the issues has not laid out a plan and is stumbling along spending taxpayers’ money hand over fist for what may well be a disastrous project. There is no doubt that the systems need to be upgraded. The Inland Revenue Department is a department under pressure. There is $7 billion in tax that remains outstanding—the most recent estimate was that $7.8 billion of New Zealand taxpayers’ money remains outstanding. 
There are currently over a million returns at the Inland Revenue Department that are unprocessed. It is a department under pressure. There were 70000 phone calls that went unanswered in last year’s July GST filing period. My colleague David Cunliffe has pointed out the problems with getting through on the telephone system of the Inland Revenue Department at the moment. It is a department under stress. It is not being supported by the Government. Staff have been cut around the areas. I know that dozens of staff have gone from my own area in Dunedin because this Government has been taking jobs out of the regions. The services are dropping. The experiences of services we heard in the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the general public are becoming increasingly poor. The public are saying that they are unhappy with the level of service being offered and we know that the system is creaking along but the Government seems like it is sitting on its hands it is not addressing the issues with the computer system and consequently in this bill here we have further retractions. We have the Government stepping away from measures it has put forward because it now knows that it cannot implement them. It is stepping back. 
It must be humiliating being over there on the backbenches on the other side of the House because they see their own Ministers putting legislation through costing expensive parliamentary time only to later on have to make embarrassing speeches—embarrassing speeches—that speak favourably in glowing terms about their Ministers and the bills that their Ministers are putting through when they know that a good part of the content of this bill has embarrassing backgrounds. It must be an awful place to be in and that is probably why they take very short calls—those backbenchers opposite—and I can kind of understand that. If I was in their position having to witness such embarrassing performances from the Ministers I too would be taking short calls because it is not a nice position to be in. Many of them are honourable and fine members of the House and I do respect their integrity in being embarrassed by it— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which ones? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: I cannot point out which ones Mr Cunliffe. It would be unparliamentary to label the others and unkind. 
There is also in this bill one part that we object to in principle and that is the creation of a tsar clause—the creation of a “Henry VIII” clause in this bit of legislation—which is the Government’s attempt to cover itself for future humiliating back-downs. This bill itself containing humiliating back-downs contains another clause that says that in future if there are embarrassments if we cannot put things through on the computer system because it is too hard and we have not dealt with the computer system we will give the Minister regulation-making powers. The significance of that should not be underestimated. We have heard from the select committee that oversees these things in Parliament that this is an increasing trend under this Government. It is failing so miserably in managing Government departments that it is giving itself powers to circumvent the usual parliamentary scrutiny that we would expect from any responsible Government. It is embarrassed—embarrassed—by its own performance and rightly so. 
Mike Sabin 
: Go and check the facts. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Mr Sabin I think understands the embarrassment and is feeling the embarrassment so he from the backbenches is defending a Government that has to put “Henry VIII” clauses into small bits of legislation that tinker with the rules around loan collection. I would be embarrassed too Mr Sabin; I understand your position. 
This bill creates some small steps towards fairness as I said at the beginning of my address and for that reason Labour will support it because we believe that everyone should have to make a fair effort to repay the debt. We want to see a sustainable student loan system because we believe in supporting more students into tertiary education not like this Government which is increasingly putting restrictions in place so that only those who are privileged can access education. We believe in expanding free education because we are the party of education. We do not believe that it should be for only those who are already privileged. We have a very different view on this from the current Government. The principle of fairness which creeps into this bill probably against the Government’s wishes is one we support and we are pleased to see that there are some small loopholes being closed. We acknowledge the humiliation the Government is facing with the back-downs in this bill and we hope that it will deal with bigger issues and make a change for New Zealanders rather than having to come to the House again with many many many more embarrassing bills. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Todd McClay. Having said that of course I should acknowledge my assistant on my right whose birthday it is today. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It’s not my birthday! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is Roland’s birthday—it is Roland’s birthday. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 May I start my speech by joining you and wishing Roland a very happy birthday and the very best for the year. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Full names in this House. 
TODD McCLAY 
: No no Roland and I are on a first-name basis. Can I start by saying that I am thankful to Dr David Clark for telling us in his speech towards the end of his great speech there that Labour was supporting this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) because it really was not obvious for the rest of the 9½ minutes. Indeed Dr Clark is known to come to this House and proclaim the 50 years of everything. Well that was the worst haircut of 50 years the worst tie of 50 years and certainly the worst speech of 50 years when it comes to issues like this. There was absolute doom and gloom all the way through it. But surprisingly Labour has decided to join the Government in doing something that is right for New Zealanders and right for taxpayers which is helping to remind our students who have been able to get an education because of the generosity of the taxpayer and the overwhelming support of this Government that they must in turn repay their debt to the taxpayer and indeed to society. 
So there have been some important changes here because Dr Clark was correct in that the only reason why we are able to afford as taxpayers to offer this opportunity to students is that hard-working New Zealanders work and pay their taxes their taxes are loaned to students and those students have an obligation when they leave—just as under this Government they have the very best chance in over 50 years to purchase a home and get a mortgage with interest rates that are the lowest in 50 years. They must pay that obligation back to the bank to pay off their house and in this case they must pay their obligation back to the taxpayer by repaying their student loan. 
I want to explore for a moment a couple of important changes in this because what the bill has done is it has broadened the definition of income on which students must start their repayment obligation. It has also lined it up with Working for Families and the in-work tax credit that this Government is a champion of. In looking at this we have heard and decided in the Committee that we need to look at different types of income that should be applicable when that obligation kicks in for a student to repay the loan that the taxpayer has given them. We heard about fringe benefit tax and incomes being put in trusts and so on and there was agreement across the House. 
 I asked the Minister of Revenue earlier after his speech what other types of income would be included that would trigger the obligation for a student to have to start repayments—a student who is overseas for instance. If they had a bank account overseas and they had money in that bank account—I had an email the other day that somebody sent. Let us say they had half a million dollars in a bank account in a bank in New York that was receiving 2 percent interest a year that would be a return of about $10000. If that was income to them would they need to declare it to the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department if they were a tax resident here? The answer was yes. And would that income be treated as part of their earnings to trigger their obligation to start repaying their loan? The answer was yes. But what if they left America came back to New Zealand and the exchange rates were not in their favour to change American dollars to New Zealand dollars at that time? If they were still earning that income and declaring it to the Inland Revenue Department in New Zealand but not telling anybody else about it would there be an obligation on their part—with $500000 that might be in that bank account at 2 percent interest which was giving them a return of $10000 a year—to pay income tax on that in New Zealand? The answer was yes. 
And would that be counted as part of their income when it was time to meet their obligation to repay their student loan? The answer to that was yes as well. I am glad that both sides of the House are supporting this bill and that both sides of the House are agreeing that when people do have income that is declared and that they are earning they have an obligation to repay their obligation. They should declare that they should tell people about it and they should assess that as part of their obligation. So in the case of an overseas bank account in New York that was secret to everybody but I do not know the Inland Revenue Department would that be part of the obligation to include that as their earnings so they could start repaying their obligation to the New Zealand taxpayer? The answer to that was absolutely yes. 
Finally the sharing of information between the Inland Revenue Department and the Customs Service is very important because it is important that the Inland Revenue Department knows what is happening for people who come and go so they can meet their obligations. We do not want people overseas not meeting their obligations. We certainly do not want them coming back to New Zealand and not telling people about money they might have overseas in bank accounts in New York. But in this case the Inland Revenue Department and the Customs Service could share information. As an example if a New Zealander was returning to the country from a posting in New York where they had a bank account with half a million dollars in it at 2 percent interest earning $10000 a year when they came back into the country if the Customs Service stopped them to look for I do not know—we have very strong biosecurity measures in New Zealand because this Government takes it very seriously—an apple found a bank account or a bank statement and it looked like there was a hidden account that nobody should know about would it tell the Inland Revenue Department about that? Yes. Would it tell Parliament about it so that it could be declared in the member’s pecuniary interests? No that would not be part of this bill. But certainly in the case of meeting your obligations to New Zealanders who have lent money to others so that they can study so that their obligations will be kicked back in yes that bank account would be declared to the Inland Revenue Department so that New Zealanders could meet their obligations. 
So I say to Dr Clark who spoke earlier that I am glad that Labour is joining us with this. He should have moved a Supplementary Order Paper earlier to say that any information shared between the Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department about secret bank accounts that might come into the country could be shared with this Parliament as well before the last day of January when we make our pecuniary interests; he did not. But I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) to continue talking first about why it is that Labour does support this bill but also about some of the concerns that we do have with it. 
It is a bill that introduces key changes to the student loan scheme. The first of these around the definition of income is something that we are very supportive of because what this bill does is broaden out the definition of what income is from just wages to include income from trusts companies and superannuation schemes. We are very happy about this and what we are seeing is—we are hoping that it is the start of a road to Damascus for members opposite where they will start to see that maybe we do need to tax things other than just wages and salaries in this country and to recognise that. We see this as the beginning of a dawning of a new era for the Government members opposite and that maybe they will see that a capital gains tax would be something that would be preferable too because much of the logic that they have applied in this bill would equally apply to them thinking about income and the way we treat that for other matters of revenue. So that is something we would like members opposite to pause and think about over the Easter break as they sit down to their hot cross buns and their Easter eggs. 
Labour does find this a particularly appealing change within this legislation because we think that it is fair. We think that it is fair that people who are earning income other than wages and salaries do make their student loan repayments and that it is not just the plumber who goes out after he or she finishes their apprenticeship and starts their job who makes repayments through their wages but also that you have people who receive income from family trusts for example making payments back into their student loan obligation. 
The other thing that this bill does of course is enable information sharing and the data matching at the border. This is all around the issue of tightening up at the border and wanting to make sure that people who have taken out loans who are now living overseas are making their contribution back into the scheme. I think that the member who spoke previously Todd McClay just thought he could score some cheap points around that point but this is something about which I would like to get Labour’s concern on the record. 
Actually if we are going to talk about data and information matching and how it is that a Government has responsibilities towards the security of that data I do not think members opposite should really be making jokes and scoring cheap points around that. Just today we have seen the Earthquake Commission in Christchurch with yet another security breach in terms of people’s data that it holds. This time it has released the bank account details and names of claimants to that scheme. What we have had— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: But that’s the point. David Shearer didn’t. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: The point Mr Bridges is that you are a Government that is not to be trusted with people’s data. You have shown this with ACC. The Inland Revenue Department—the very agency that is being empowered under this piece of legislation—has previously shown that it does not have all the measures in place to protect data. So we on this side of the House are asking this Government to give some assurances that when it is dealing with individuals’ private information it does have the necessary measures in place to ensure the security of that information. That is actually not too much to ask. I think it is what we all expect when we as citizens of this country empower the State to have a whole lot of information about us—we do expect some level of security around that and it is certainly something that we in Labour think should be a priority for any Government and we invite this Government to dwell on that fact. 
We see this legislation as pretty much benign legislation. It is doing some things that are good but we do have concerns and one of my primary concerns as the spokesperson on tertiary education is that this is yet more tinkering around the edges on the issue of student support. What we are not seeing is any comprehensive examination of how we want or expect our young people or anybody in this country actually who enters into training or tertiary education to support themselves through this year. 
What we have is a Government that wants to dampen down demand in the area of tertiary education. This is something that the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce has made very clear and there have been a number of policy initiatives over the course of National being in Government that certainly demonstrate that the Government does want to dampen down demand. What we have seen as part of this dampening down is that there are now 25000 fewer people who have access to the student loan scheme because of the initiatives of Budget 2010 and 2011. There were 800 people who lost their access to student loans because of retrospective measures that were put in place—things that the Government could not even acknowledge were going to happen before the legislation was put in place following those Budgets. 
Labour would rather see rather than these tinkering around the edges pieces of legislation that we are seeing from this Government—and I would like to note that this is the second bill in 2 years—a comprehensive review of how we manage the very complicated issue of supporting our students through their study. For Labour that is a priority because we see training people gaining skills and people gaining education as absolutely vital to our future. 
It is certainly not something we want to dampen down because on this side of the House we believe that education and training are absolutely vital. We are not about just the rhetoric of an innovation-led economy; we are about doing the things that you need to do in order to have an innovation-led economy. Supporting tertiary students and making sure that the necessary mechanisms for student support are in place are very much a part of that. But what we have seen from National over the half-decade—the 5 long years—that it has been in Government is it stopping people aged over 55 from accessing the student loan scheme and it did this in the 2011 Budget. 
What this means when you put this together with a period in our history when we are experiencing very high unemployment which the Government is not doing much to address is that not only are these people not going to be able to find jobs but also for many of those aged over 55 their access to go back and retrain has been cut off. The reality is that for many working people they still have quite a long working life ahead of them from the age of 55 onwards but this Government has not put in place the student support in order to ensure that that can happen. The bill that it is considering in the House today does nothing to address this issue of student support. 
Of course one of the most alarming issues around student support for us and one that makes absolutely no logical sense is the removal of allowances for people studying at postgraduate level. If you really do want an economy a future a country and a society that is based on innovation why would you stop people doing postgraduate study? This is the very thing that drives innovation. If you look at any of the countries around the world that excel in the area of innovation they have very high levels of Master’s and PhD students and graduates. This is something that this Government does not believe in and it has stopped access to that level of training. That for us is just an absolute—we cannot understand any of the logic behind that and why it is that you would do that. 
What we are seeing here is a piece of legislation that does tinker around the edges. My colleague Dr David Clark talked about it actually being a bill that is a bit of an embarrassment to this Government because it is coming back and playing fix-up. Not only is it coming back and playing fix-up but also it has tried to play fix-up in areas where the department that has to do this the Inland Revenue Department lacks the capacity to do it. 
If we have a look at the officials’ report to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the submissions on the bill what they spelt out to members of the committee was that “The bill includes a number of amendments needed to ensure the delivery of the remaining core policy changes enacted in the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011.” But then it goes on to say that it is not able to do this because “the new loan management system proved to be more complicated than expected”—i.e. it did not get it implemented—and “Because of the complexity of the student loan system the detailed analysis has identified that the systems design development and testing required to implement some of the 1 April 2013 changes is significantly greater than originally expected. To ensure timely delivery of the core Government policies contained in the 2011 Act and the policies that have the greatest benefit for borrowers it is proposed to not proceed with some of the measures in the 2011 Act.” 
So I guess the best thing you can say is that at least we did not have another Novopay with a system that was not ready to go. But this is a piece of legislation that does not systemically address a lot of the issues that we need to address around the very complicated issue of student support. We do support the measures that it is taking to redefine income for the purpose of student loan repayment but we do have some cautions against the information sharing and how it is the Government is going to manage this. We would like to see the Government doing more in the area of student support not just this tinkering. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. First up I would like to wish Roland a very happy birthday. He is one of the very hard-working parliamentary staff and we wish him all the best and I hope you and all the rest of the staff have a fantastic Easter break. I rise to oppose this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green arguments as to why we and Mana are the only parties opposing it have been laid out very well by my colleagues Holly Walker and Jan Logie so I am going to make a short contribution. 
The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is quite a common name. We have had a number of these bills over the last 10-plus years. But although it has a common and maybe boring title I think a more accurate title would be the “Focusing on the Small Things Bill”. Or perhaps it should be the “Tinkering Around the Fringes Bill” or the “Fiddling While Rome Burns Bill” because we really have to question the priorities of this Government at a time when students and graduates are struggling and they really are struggling with the economy under that $12 billion millstone—that $12 billion debt that surrounds those nearly half a million graduates’ and students’ necks. But these Government members would spend their scarce parliamentary time their scarce governmental focus on broadening the definition of “adjusted net income” and “net income” to align with the definition used for Working for Families tax credits and then secondly introducing an information match with the Customs Service. 
There are some huge fundamental questions facing our country and particularly our students and graduates but at the heart this Government is tinkering around the edges. But what it is really doing is focusing its attention on an anti-education stance which we have seen very clearly over the 4 to 5 years that National has been in power. Let us list just some of them. We have seen considerable and significant year-on-year funding cuts. We have seen our universities decline down the international rankings. We have seen lifetime limits to student loans. We have seen restricted access for over-55-year-olds. We have seen the Government—the Government—decide how student levies should be spent not students as it goes ahead and guts our students associations around the country. We have seen the Government restrict access for permanent residents to student loans. We have seen the Government literally lock the door—it has locked the door—to thousands of students with its punitive retroactive rules and incredibly those prospective postgraduate students— 
Mike Sabin 
: How’s that member’s student loan going? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I have paid off my student loan Mr Sabin thank you very much. But we know that New Zealanders are struggling with that $12 billion because this Government is just not supporting them. This Government is not supporting them. 
Mike Sabin 
: The man is a model—a model student. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Let us go through that list because we have still got quite a few more of the anti-education initiatives from this Government Mr Sabin. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for a member of this House to say that another member of this House is lying. I would ask that you ask the member to apologise for his comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right. We do not refer to members lying in this House because it actually brings disrepute to the House of Parliament itself. If the member did that I would ask him to stand withdraw and apologise because it is an infringement against the House. 
David Bennett 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. And also I might add too—I am sorry Mr Hughes—that when we are on the cross benches it is common courtesy and it is also convention that members do not interject on each other in those positions because there is a muffled effect it can have on the microphones. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Good stuff Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Just continuing on that list of the anti-education initiatives we have seen under this current Government—you know Government members have locked the door to thousands of students. Unfortunately for them they could not reintroduce interest on student loans because interest-free loans were just so popular to New Zealanders so what they did is introduce it by stealth with the new class of special fees which they have put on student loan graduates and students. They have abolished the loan repayment incentives—the carrots if you will. They have increased the repayment rates to 12 percent of gross salary. 
All in all under National what we have seen is tertiary education become more expensive less accessible and in some cases downright impossible as National locks the door to students who want to study who want to upskill and who want to contribute to our economy. This Government has made it harder more expensive and in some cases impossible. It is not smart economics. We know that across the Ditch the Australians have invested in their tertiary education sector. They have spent $5.7 billion over 4 years— 
David Bennett 
: We spend more than they do. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: We know that the New Zealand spend is in the second half of the OECD average for Mr Bennett’s information. As a percentage we spend less than most of the OECD countries. It is not smart for our economy. 
I struggle to think of a single positive thing this Government particularly under Steven Joyce has done for tertiary education. I seriously do struggle to think of a positive initiative. But in contrast what the Green Party would do is actually prioritise it because it is in our economic interest. We want to support our students. We want to support our graduates. It is in our economic interest and this is what I just do not get from National. You know National is penny-pinching and reducing access to education yet it is finding billions of dollars for motorways to bail out various industries and to subsidise fossil fuel polluters. I think the priorities of this Government are just round the wrong way. 
So we see this as yet another tinkering around the edges bill. This bill does three main things that we have some issues with. The first is the definition of “income”—one of the two main parts of this bill. It is problematic in the way it relates to the Working for Families changes because with the Working for Families calculation your loan repayment which the Government in the Budget last year increased from 10 percent to 12 percent is not taken into account. We would prefer that Working for Families was taking into account student loan repayments because what we do not want to see is our families struggling with those increased repayment thresholds the Government brought in. 
With the Customs Service information sharing we have no issue with that but it is a reminder to this House that just last year we decreased the overseas repayment holiday time. It was 3 years and the Green Party originally supported that. Peter Dunne supported it and spoke very favourably many years ago but Peter Dunne was the Minister who reduced that to 1 year. Again this is going to have perverse incentives because Kiwis who are on their OE and traditionally do spend more than 1 year overseas are going to struggle to return to New Zealand given that the repayment holiday is only a single year now. Lastly and most egregiously is again this trend we see with the National Government in power. It is what I consider the abuse of the Order in Council regulatory-making provision inserted into this bill in the select committee consideration. This Government is abusing this quite considerable powerful tool where we are seeing less parliamentary oversight of important changes being made. 
So in summary this bill tinkers around the edges while $12 billion in debt is still negatively impacting our students and graduates. On top of all the negative initiatives this Government has taken to students it is clear it is not out for students and it is not out for a smarter economy. But that is what the Greens would focus on and it is what we would prioritise because it is in our economic interest. When people are going to the election and thinking about their votes those students will be voting Green. They will not be voting National. People who care about the future of our economy will be voting Green. Kia ora. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Have we quite finished? Good. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Can I join those other colleagues who have wished Roland a very happy birthday today and let us hope he has a very happy Easter celebrating his advancing years. 
I want to address the comments that have come here this afternoon into the House from the Green Party. These are the people who think that money grows on trees and when it does not they find a photocopier and they produce it. They are going to give money to all directions of our community and try to buy the young person’s vote. I say to you Mr Hughes that the young people in this country know that money does not grow on trees and they will not be voting for the Green Party in large numbers because they have got far more sense. 
Apart from the Green Party growing money on trees we have got the Labour member for Dunedin North I think—the “Red Reverend” Mr Clark—saying yes we have got to give more money to everybody and that this is a bad piece of legislation because it is not giving enough money to our students. Can I say this: money does not grow on trees. Money comes out of people’s pockets. It comes out of all of the pockets of those people who work in this country including Roland. He pays his taxes. Money for these students comes from the workers’ pockets and you would say to the workers: “Here’s some money—we’ll take it out of your pocket and give it to the students. And by the way students you don’t have to pay it back.” What nonsense! 
Metiria Turei 
: You did it. You did it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: No we did not do it. No we did not do it. We watch the students sitting on the roofs of their houses in Dunedin burning their couches and saying: “No no no; we don’t want to pay this money back.” Well I have got a lot of taxpayers in my electorate who advance money from their pockets to the Government to advance to students. There is no problem about lending money to students. We want to see them do well we want to see them educated but we will not put up with the knowledge that these people do not need to repay their obligation to our society for using that money interest-free for a period of time while they complete their studies. 
Metiria Turei 
: You pay your loan back—you pay yours back. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I paid my loan back—and my children paid their loans back too to the community. My family has met its obligations unlike you. My family has met its obligations which I suspect is more than is the case for you madam. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a sad thing when a member of the growing experience of the member who is currently speaking has drawn you into debate by speaking to you. He may have been referring to the very eloquent co-leader of the Green Party who was entering into the spirit of the discussion I see but there is no excuse for drawing you into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for that and the Assistant Speaker has noted it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: He was the member yesterday in the Shane Jones committee who was sitting there wriggling with great excitement because every time Jones was getting shafted he was benefiting from that—you know using the Audit Office to benefit from that inquiry. 
Let me come back to the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Using the misrepresentation rules in Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings I will just clarify that I recused from the matter in which the member was alleging that I was present— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is it. That is a debatable issue and there the matter ends. 
JOHN HAYES 
: This is a bit like the BBC programme  
Repetition 
—you know I am sick of it—from that fellow on the other side of the House. He needs to sit and listen and learn and look after his colleague Mr Jones. 
This bill is about repaying money borrowed from taxpayers and used by our children for education. They need to learn that a core policy of this Government—one of the priorities of this term—is building a more productive and competitive economy. It is only by lifting our economic performance that we can create jobs boost incomes improve living standards and provide world-class public services that our children and their families need. That is why we are making this student loan scheme sustainable into the future by reducing the need for more Government borrowing and preparing students for jobs for the future. Our interest-free student loan scheme is one of the most generous in the world and we are going to keep it this way. I support this bill totally. 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Before I begin on my prewritten comments can I just comment how sad it is—how sad it is—when as some of our members begin to age their minds begin to wander. Let me just remind the House of a few facts. The student loan scheme was introduced in 1992. It is 21 years old. Mr Hayes may no longer be aware of that fact. Mr McClay surprises me also. I understand that Mr McClay has a youthful appearance and that some may think that he is still in his twenties but I have it on very reliable information that he is somewhere in his forties. Mr McClay tried to lay a guilt trip on the younger generation of today by saying—and let us use Mr McClay’s phrase what was the phrase—that they have the “generosity of the taxpayer”. They owe the “generosity of the taxpayer”. Mr McClay does still owe the generosity of the taxpayer as do the 120 other members of this House. But at the time that he went to university— 
David Bennett 
: Like you— 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: I agree Mr Bennett. At least I recognise it and am grateful Mr Bennett unlike the lack of memory Mr McClay apparently now reveals in the fact that when he gained his education he did not have to pay it back. 
Mike Sabin 
: Add some bass. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Neither did you Mr Sabin who is well into his forties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Neither did the good-looking Mr Sabin who is also into his forties. Let us put a bit of reality around this shall we? None of the members who have spoken yet apart from the young Mr Hughes have actually had to take out a loan for their education. They have had an obligation to this country— 
Metiria Turei 
: I did. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: I do beg your pardon madam. There are obviously younger members of this House behind me whom I neglected to mention. But many of the speakers currently from the Government benches got a free education. The speakers to date got a free education. So for them to lay a guilt trip on the young people of today I think is exceptionally disappointing. 
I think the other thing too Mr McClay also mentioned with regard to this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is this phrase: “the overwhelming support of this Government”. All I can say is that if this is the overwhelming of support of a National-led Government then Lord help us as we go forward. While we are all going to be away watching Easter bunnies and eating chocolate Easter eggs on 1 April the student loan repayment rate will increase from 10 percent to 12 percent. That is a 2 percent increase out of the pay packets of already struggling people whose income has not risen but the cost of living has risen. So let us bring a little bit of reality back into this shall we? Mr Hayes at the Committee stage of this bill had the audacity to attempt to manufacture a greater divide between the younger generation and our older generation by suggesting that student loans were required because of the introduction of the SuperGold Card separated by at least 10 years in introduction with student loans being introduced in 1992 and the SuperGold Card being introduced in 2008. I worry. I truly truly worry for that member and his ability to retain information for long periods of time. 
I was particularly interested in Mr McClay—again let us come back to “the overwhelming support of this Government” for our young people. Where was the overwhelming support of this Government for fairness when I had Supplementary Order Paper 184 on the Table at the Committee stage which would have brought some fairness into this bill for New Zealand based borrowers—to allow them to be recognised in hard financial times? The Government does not reject the fact that we are in difficult financial times; it uses it often to justify many of its actions. Where was its overwhelming support for New Zealand based borrowers when I had a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table that would have allowed it to provide some of that overwhelming support for New Zealand based borrowers in recognition of a 1-year repayment holiday due to financial duress? Where was that support? It was not to be seen. Somehow—oh that is lovely—that overwhelming support was not obvious at that time. I would hope that possibly in the future—the next time this legislation comes into the House because I do not believe that this Government has finished with the student loan scheme—there might be an opportunity for that to be supported further. 
As a previous credit controller I do support the concept of people paying back their debt. I have worked with people over my professional life and I know the subconscious burden that debt places on an individual. So the faster debt can be addressed if debt must be incurred then the better it is for the individual out the other side. So New Zealand First did support originally in the previous amendment bill the shortening of the repayment holiday for overseas-based borrowers. But we also recognise that we are providing an overwhelming debt burden for our young people with this mechanism of borrowing for education. There needs to be a wider return to the concept of the social contract where you gain from your State your State supports you to educate yourself and then you give back to your country through your skills and your time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. 
I met a young gentleman the other day who is embarking on a short course around coding. I do not personally know much about coding but what I do know about coding is that there is a worldwide shortage of young people expanding that knowledge base particularly in this country around the writing of code for programmes. In this conversation with this young 18-year-old he expressed to me how he was thinking about not following his passion not pursuing that educational pathway because he was looking at approximately $10000 to $20000 worth of debt at the end of it. I hope that I convinced that young man to continue on that pathway because in this country we have just seen the information and communications technology awards and we have just seen five of our game manufacturing companies in the top 10 internationally win awards. I hope that I convinced that young man and even though right now he works under a regime where his State decides that he must borrow to live and he must borrow to actually educate himself that he will continue to pursue that pathway. 
But it is a shame that we have to have those conversations. I think that is what has been tried to be expressed by New Zealand First again and again and again over the years since 1992 since this was introduced. We are putting young people off further education and it is not this high-end tertiary education only that is affected. Every single student who goes on to StudyLink is looking at a student loan and borrowing for their living allowances which gets tacked on at the end of it. They come out in their 20s. We all know. We all had the opportunity to come out in our 20s to go to work to start saving money and to try to get into a home. These young people carry this debt like a millstone around their necks. 
New Zealand First will support this bill because let us be frank it does two little things. It is nothing major. It is not earth-shattering but it does bring it in line with some other relatively practical mechanisms inside the Inland Revenue Department and around information matching with the Customs Service. So of course we are not going to oppose these little practical steps but an opportunity was lost. The continual insistence of members of the Government to try to shame our young people into being grateful for something that they got for nothing is I think disgraceful. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of the description of the documents that I referred to in the House during the urgent question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member has been quite clear. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may make a personal explanation. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When I referred in the House at question time to the transactions report that had been received with over 2000 names on it I referred to it as containing bank account numbers as well. The person who sent it to me said that it had names and bank account details. The bank names were on each of the different pages and so I just assumed that that was what they were. On closer examination they are probably cheque numbers. I just wanted to confirm on the record of the House that that was my understanding at the time. I did not want anyone to be left with the impression that it was not correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! When there is a point of order—sorry. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is fine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are fine? Good. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think it is very sad that the last speech from the New Zealand First Party showed that it tries to take advantage of our young people in this country and say that the Government is making them feel sad about having to repay a debt. I think it is very sad that the New Zealand First Party has to stoop to those levels but that is traditional for that party so I do not think that it is that unusual in this House. 
The bad thing in this debate is actually the Green Party. The Green Party is a party that goes on to all these campuses and says that it represents young people. It puts out the image of dealing with environmental issues that it does not actually really care about. Then when Green members actually look at the facts they will not represent the facts as they are. They will not say it as it is and they create a lot of disharmony in our country and that is a very sad thing. 
When you look at the facts New Zealand spends more on tertiary education than Australia does—New Zealand spends more on tertiary education than Australia does. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: That’s because they earn more. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is because of what? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Neither per capita nor percentage. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We spend more than they do as a percentage of GDP—we spend more than they do. The other thing is that if you look at the student support part of our Government expenditure on tertiary education it is far far in excess of what the Australians spend. So what happens is that in New Zealand we spend more money on tertiary education but a higher percentage of that goes on student support. It does not go to the institutions; it goes to student support and that is the student loan scheme. This is a scheme that has been around for a number of years now. Most students will say: “Well we don’t want to lose it.” and that is rightfully their case because it is something they take advantage of. 
But there is a problem with that because if New Zealand continues to spend more money on tertiary education and a higher percentage of that goes on student support then what actually happens is the money that is spent on the institutions—the universities the polytechnics and suchlike—is actually lower than what is spent on institutions in Australia. In New Zealand we spend less on our institutions than they do in Australia and that is because we spend so much more on student support. That is a shame because that can actually mean that our institutions are not funded to the level that they should be. That is the difference that we are looking to try to find a solution for through the changes in the student support scheme. 
We want to make sure that there is that balance there so those institutions get that funding so that they are competitive. And I want those students in New Zealand to listen to the Green Party because the Green Party wants to give you money to live for today but it does not want the ticket that you are going to get to mean much in the future. That is the issue. The National Party wants that ticket that you are going to get to actually mean something. We want to give those institutions the ability to deliver those tickets to the future so that those young people get the income-earning potential that they strive for by going into tertiary education. 
That is the difference between these two political parties. That is the truth of the matter. That is what the Green Party needs to actually go out there and say. It is too much for the New Zealand First Party members to understand because they have to wait for their leader to understand before they can say anything. The Labour Party will be looking at it and going: “Oh this means that we need to give more money to tertiary institutions.” Well that would be lovely and we need to be able to do that over time and that will happen as New Zealand gets richer and we deal with our financial issues. But at this time this is the best we can do. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I take a short call to support the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). It provides an opportunity to respond to David Bennett the member who has just resumed his seat who has just presented the House with what could only be described as a relatively incoherent diatribe even for him. He has alleged—[ 
Interruption 
] They do not like it. They do not like it. They can give it but they cannot take it. He spent most of his speech abusing— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Maybe this member would like to return to his normal seat in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. Look that is not a point of order. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order you probably do not need to explain to the public that giving a speech is not the same as an interjection and therefore that was not a valid point of order. The member has alleged that New Zealand spends more per capita on tertiary education than Australia does. That is I am assured by quick research by my staff incorrect both in absolute dollar terms and as a percentage of GDP. Clearly he was being defensive against the perception that the Government’s measures today are a funding cut and the irony is that he need not have been so defensive because this bill really trims only $7.5 million over 5 years. Really the big lesson of this bill is that it does virtually nothing at all. It does no harm and the measures are measures we can support but in the face of a $2670 million student debt it tidies up about $1 million a year. 
So Mr Bennett I would say you need not worry and you probably should not have resorted to that last attack on the Green Party which was to accuse it of promising young people free tertiary education. That will surely drive them into the arms of National in droves—political genius from the member for Hamilton! 
However he was trumped by the elephant in the room the previous National speaker Mr Hayes who gave a stunning example of the generation gap really—the intergenerational inequity to which this bill really refers. He said—and it was a piece of sterling wisdom acquired over a lifetime of experience around the world—“Money does not come out of trees; it comes out of workers’ pockets.” This is clearly what National members think. Like some latter-day Robin Hood in reverse they will take the money from the poor and give it to the rich like they did in the tax switch. They will take the money from the young and give it to the old like Mr Hayes or the Hon Peter Dunne. 
 The problem with it is that it begs the obvious question: how did the money get into the workers’ pockets in the first place? Is it a kind of fungus that just grows there or might it be that people earn it—that they might earn it hour by hour through wages or salary or perhaps unit by unit through a retirement home development? I do not know but it is certainly not always a living wage and that is part of the problem. But when you learn—not you Mr Assistant Speaker but when the generic young person learns they tend later to earn. We learn then we can earn. Therefore we invest in tertiary education; we do not just spend on it. But enough about the Government’s A-team. 
Let us go back to the bill. What the bill does do is two small things. It is a typical bill from the “Minister for Small Things”. It broadens the definition of income to include income from trusts companies and superannuation funds. It is obviously sensible to get a real picture on that income. It provides information sharing between the Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department so that people who are grossly overdue on their student loan repayments when they are overseas can be more effectively traced. Although there are civil liberties issues at the margin we believe that measure is warranted. 
But this bill is most interesting to the public for what it does not do and does not say. Here is a short list. It does not address the yawning and growing intergenerational equity gap between today’s young generation who acquire a mortgage during their tertiary education who cannot buy a home because of the rapid escalation of the housing crisis and who are saddled with debt from day one in their careers and older generations. That is not an issue that faced the “Minister for Small Things”—Mr Dunne—or many members of this House when they were acquiring their tertiary education but it sure as heck is an issue for our young people today. That is unfair because we are asking them to pay the escalating superannuation and health care costs that are going to support the baby boomers while taxing our young people more and more heavily. That is not fair. That is why a generation of them are leaving our shores. 
The bill does not promote access to tertiary education. By National’s own numbers 25000 young people have been excluded from tertiary education due to its last round of cuts—25000 young New Zealanders have been excluded from the tertiary education system by National’s previous round of cuts. Postgraduates are finding it almost impossible to survive in the tertiary education system because among those cuts the current Government has limited student loans to a cap of 5 years of education. But a PhD takes with a Master’s degree 2 years or with an honours degree 3 years. That is 7 years and people are struggling to get through. Many are giving up and many are going to Australia. Export education has become the export of the educated. That is not a profit-making solution for New Zealand. 
This bill obviously does nothing to reverse the Kiwi brain drain. We have lost 54000 New Zealanders in net outgoing migration in the last 12 months. We would have had 8.4 percent unemployment. The Government has the worst economic management record in 51 years and that is what Bill English himself described as a safety valve. We are exporting our smartest young people as a “safety valve” to keep the unemployment numbers down and stop the Government being embarrassed. This country is in decline. It is in decline. We are depopulating. We are losing hope. We are losing steam. We are losing identity. We are losing a vision for our future. 
In the face of all of those problems what does this bill do? It does two tinkering little changes—unobjectionable though they may be—which should have occupied about one page of a proper bill on tertiary education and not have taken up the whole time of the House doing tinkering little changes that are frankly wasting Parliament’s time. That is not because they are wrong but because they are so minuscule in the face of the challenges that this country has. The Government and the Minister should be embarrassed to take up the time of the House on them. 
The changes in this bill do not even make the student loan scheme sustainable. They save as I said earlier $7.5 million at best over 5 years which is a little over $1 million a year. In the face of a $2670 million debt mountain with over half of all overdue borrowers overseas—ironically there are 54000 at last count which is equal almost exactly to 1 year of the brain drain. There is $400 million of overdue debt—$409 million to be precise. This bill solves at best $7 million of that over 5 years. It is inadequate. It is desolate. It is devoid of ideas. It is devoid of vision. It is as one commentator said of the Prime Minister like a map with no compass—a map with no compass. It does not serve this House well that we take a whole session of House time to debate what is essentially a bill of two substantive clauses. 
Is this Government so run out of ideas that this is the best it can do for tertiary education or for revenue? Is this the best it can come up with? I would warrant that officials if given the encouragement could come up with way more than this. There are so many gaps in the tax system that it looks more like a Swiss cheese than a revenue—like a Swiss cheese it has got so many holes—or a motorway system because you could drive buses through it. 
In the face of that we get tinkering nit-picking little bills like this or measures like last week’s debacle of the car-park tax and the iPad tax which no sooner had gone into the public domain than the Government flip-flopped and rolled over because they were patently absurd. It is not just that they are bad it is not just that they are inadequate but it is that this country is going to rack and ruin because of the Government’s inaction. We want vision. We want a future. We do not need just this petty—although relatively unobjectionable—little bill. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I take a short call on behalf of a colleague. I was not part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee but after that tower of Babylon doom and gloom over there the question that must be put is this: do they and will they support this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2)? The answer is yes. I ask the New Zealand First members whether they do and will support the bill. The answer is yes. That is what the public want to hear. Despite all the goings-on they will support the bill. 
I simply want to answer the question asked of those members on the other side. Have they received a student loan and have they paid their student loan? I am one who has received a student loan. I have repaid that student loan. The question that this bill asks is this: is it fair and is it just that you should pay back that which you have received? The answer is yes. It is fair and it is just. I think what this bill does is fair and that is the reason it has support. It simply answers the question—that with an increase from 10c to 12c it is fair enough that the repayments mean that in a shortened space of time you can pay back what you have received what I have received and what many New Zealanders have received which is a great education through this Government. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). I can say to the member Alfred Ngaro who has just resumed his seat that I too had a student loan and I too have paid it off. I did take the responsibility of paying back my student loan very seriously and I was very pleased to. It was a great relief when I paid my loan off because it meant my pay went up every week. The money was no longer being taken off me so I was very pleased about that. 
I want to respond however to some of the comments that the member David Bennett raised earlier on. I think he completely misunderstands the way tertiary education in New Zealand is funded. When he talked about the large percentage of tertiary education funding that goes to student support and therefore argued that the institutions were being underfunded what he did not seem to acknowledge was that the majority of money that is tagged as student support actually goes to the institutions. It is called student fees. The form of student support that is paid as student fees goes to the institutions. That is the way we fund the tertiary institutions. A significant proportion of their income comes from student fees. It is tagged as student support but is money that goes to the universities and to the polytechs and so on. So to argue that because such a large proportion of our tertiary education budget goes into student support and therefore the institutions are underfunded suggests that the member has not done his homework and has not made any effort to actually understand how tertiary education funding in New Zealand works. 
The Labour Party is supporting this bill because we do believe that people have an obligation to repay their student loans. But we also believe that those people who are able to hide their income in trusts and in other complicated mechanisms should not be able to get away with not repaying their loans. It would be blatantly unfair if someone on a low income say doing a cleaning job had to make all of their mandatory student loan repayments while someone on a much higher income who was able to disguise that income did not have to make the same level of mandatory repayments simply because they were better off in the first place and able to disguise their income. This bill tightens that up and I think that is very important. It broadens the definition of income to include income from trusts companies superannuation schemes and the like. I think that is a very fair change because it means that people are not able to hide where their money is coming from and it means that everybody gets treated the same when it comes to making student loan repayments. 
The second key change that the bill makes is that it allows information sharing between the Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department so that the Inland Revenue Department can have access to the contact details of overseas-based borrowers who are in serious default. This is probably a more controversial aspect of the bill. One of the reasons that we know graduates go overseas is that they want to get away from their student loan debt. I have done a lot of work on the student loan scheme over many many years including working on the policy of introducing interest-free student loans under the time of the previous Labour Government. I do encourage anybody who is going overseas to make sure that they make arrangements while they are away to keep their student loan repayments up to date because a number of people unexpectedly have been stung with very large penalty repayments when they return to New Zealand. It was not necessarily that they deliberately did not keep up to date; it was simply the fact that they I guess took the opportunity once they had finished their studies to go overseas to do an OE and then things might have changed. They might have met someone while they were overseas. They might have got a job. They stayed away overseas for longer than they anticipated. In some cases they might have been away for 4 or 5 years. They might even have got married and had kids in that time. They come back to New Zealand and they try to get a job. They suddenly find that they are stung with this massive bill for student loan repayment penalties because they have not kept up to date with their payments while they were away overseas. That is something that we do want to avoid happening. 
I guess the sharing of information so that people can be contacted and made to be aware of all of their obligations to repay their loans is probably a good thing. But we should not overlook the reason why people get into default in the first place while they are away overseas. Many many times it is unintentional. Also I guess we should not overlook the fact that problems with student debt are one of the reasons why students feel compelled to leave New Zealand in the first place. Of course one of the key reasons is that if they have got a large student loan balance and they can earn more money by leaving the country they may feel that they are actually in a better position to repay their loan by leaving the country. The crux of that debate therefore is how we get New Zealanders earning more money. How do we get higher-paying jobs in New Zealand so that it is not necessary for people to leave the country in order to earn enough money to repay their student loans? I think that is a very important point. 
At the Finance and Expenditure Committee privacy issues were raised. I understand from members on the select committee that they have been reassured that those issues have been addressed. The Labour Party has supported many other measures to crack down on those who are not meeting their obligations to repay their student loans although we do not agree with many of the measures that the Government has taken in respect of restricting access to student loans and in respect of other more punitive measures that in our view restrict access to tertiary education. I just want to check that this is a split call and I am going to get a— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. You have got 10 minutes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No it is a split call. If I have used my 5 minutes I just wanted to make sure that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. Yes you have had more than that. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: OK. Well I will finish. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: So you had better stop. I did ask and I put my— 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And I nodded. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That meant 10 minutes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I said “split”. I did say “split”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. I will call Catherine Delahunty. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on behalf of the Green Party and also to confess as that seems to be what the House is doing that I did not have a student loan. I went to Victoria University and it cost $100 a year. We did not value our education any less because we were not indebted; we really appreciated the opportunity to see a country where the Government invested in the student. We went to university and took it seriously and got a lot out of it. 
 Then we had the opportunity—my privileged generation had the opportunity—to buy homes and to have children without worrying about whether we could afford it and to value our education without the perverse incentives that are now built into the student loan scheme and that are effected by this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). My word of the week is “omnishambolic” and it actually describes the student loan scheme which has now become so omnishambolic that many many people cannot understand it let alone interact with it honestly and fairly. Although this bill as others have said changes a couple of things that are not necessarily objectionable we will not be supporting it because yet again it fails. It fails to deal with the substantive issues that make the student loan scheme such a mess and such an albatross around the neck of the next generation from me who were not lucky enough to be born in a time when we got basically a free education. 
So the tinkering the contradictions and the inconsistencies will continue. There will be more bills like this before the House because this omnishambolic mess is going to continue to need changes made as the tax system changes as people’s Working for Families and other mechanisms change and because the Government does keep changing the goalposts on student loans including increasing the amount of repayments. One of the reasons we have a problem with aspects of the redefinition of “income” is that for Working for Families the increase of repayment rate does not take into account the increase of rate from 10 percent to 12 percent of income so Working for Families people are being penalised. As we all know for those who get Working for Families it is hard enough to live without any more additional debt and complication. So the real solution to the incapacity confusion and inequity that affects the student loan scheme is not here. I believe this will be back before this House having to be modified again—there will be more student loan scheme amendments No. 2 and No. 3 as we continue to try to fix up the mess without dealing with what is in fact system failure. System failure is not addressed in this bill. 
The $12 billion albatross is around the neck of so many families—including my own for members of my family—and it gets heavier and heavier as the cost of living goes up. It gets harder and harder for people to say: “I can afford to have an education.” What was once something that everyone in this country thought they were entitled to is now something that they are entitled to only if they are prepared to live in debt. One of the really perverse incentives behind the student loan scheme is the normalising of debt. Call me old-fashioned but I grew up in a generation where you did not borrow and you did not live in debt. Now the Government says it is the right thing to do: “Indebt yourself at an early age. Get a credit card to pay for your food because we’re saying that you’re not worth investing in for a proper public education and that will be fine.” What that has done to a generation of younger people is to normalise debt. So living in debt having credit cards having to borrow a great deal and living in that false universe where you are never quite keeping up you do not really know what you have got maybe you cannot afford to take the next steps in your life and you are not really in control of your finances—that is now normal. 
When we were young we did not have credit cards but we usually knew what we had in our pockets. Now the Government says that being in debt is a good thing and you have got to pay it back otherwise you are reneging. There is no sense of a social contract between young people and the Government. That is why the Green Party is popular on campus. That is why people come and talk to us because they know that we appreciate that actually as a generation they have a right to exist without debt. Debt is actually something that you may take on in later life when you have got a job and may take on in later life when you are paying off a mortgage but when you are 18 to 22 you should not live in debt. So there are perverse incentives. On the one hand there is a philosophy that says there is no common good; on the other hand there is the perverse incentive of creating generational debt. So we cannot support this bill because it does nothing to fix that. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I have fantastic colleagues on this side of the House who have covered all the issues in this third reading of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) so I am proud to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Could I remind members just as a matter of interest—Asenati although you corrected yourself you cannot say “in support”. There have been occasions when the presiding officer has ruled out that vote so in the future just be mindful of that. 
Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The changes in the bill will improve services for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone and are entitled to receive the additional living alone payment. The changes before us fulfil this Government’s commitment to ensure superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone receive their full entitlement without unnecessary administration and compliance burdens. This bill also builds on New Zealand’s commitment to superannuitants. 
As the House is aware the Prime Minister has assured the public that New Zealand’s superannuation settings and the age of entitlement will not be changed by this Government. Since National took office in 2008 superannuation has increased five times giving a total increase of 25 percent. For a pensioner who is living alone the single living alone payment each fortnight has increased by $143. The living alone payment is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitant and single veterans pensioners who live alone face higher living costs as they are unable to share the expenses of maintaining a household. 
 Because the living alone payment is a separate benefit superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have become single usually after the death of a partner or spouse are required to make a special and specific application to receive it. The bill before the House today replaces two separate payments with one. Currently a superannuitant living alone has to apply for two separate payments both New Zealand superannuation and the living alone payment. The new living alone rate will ensure that single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make a separate application. It just makes sense really. 
We have done this to specifically address concerns from superannuitants and veterans pensioners. These groups are concerned because if people do not apply for the living alone payment within 28 days of the death of a spouse or partner they then find that their living alone payments cannot be backdated. This can be a real burden on older New Zealanders particularly if they have just lost a long-term partner or spouse. Also because many are not aware of the payment many do not apply for it and so miss out on their full entitlements. It is important that we amend this legislation so that older New Zealanders who suddenly find themselves alone do not struggle to pay their bills when they are entitled to get help. This bill will change that. 
There are two key benefits for older people. The first is about access. Single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners will not have to complete a separate application form to get their full entitlement. They can just let us know over the phone which I think is pretty exciting or by email or of course by visiting one of our super-centres. This is something we know seniors want and it can make life a bit easier. It just simplifies the process. The second change I have noticed is about recognising the stress and burden that they can experience with the death or a spouse. 
In summary this bill ensures a fairer more equitable and more compassionate experience for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are left living alone following the death of a spouse or partner. The changes are simple yet effective and they provide older New Zealanders with better access to the correct rate of entitlement with the least amount of burden. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the final stage of this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It has been a long time getting here. It is a sensible bill. There is no reason not to support it and every reason to support it. As Opposition members we have worked together very well with Government members throughout the process in the Social Services Committee consideration to get to this point. The history of the need for this piece of legislation is important. It arises out of a Social Security Appeal Authority decision some time ago—a 2008 decision and the repeal against it in 2009. The issue was in regards to as I understand it a superannuitant who was enabled to receive the living alone payment despite the fact that a 19-year-old university student was a dependent child living with the superannuitant at the time. The appeal authority decided that because that young 19-year-old fitted the notion of a dependant the person was entitled to a living alone payment. That is the case from which the bill emerged and from there the process was started which has got us this far. 
As the Minister for Social Development has just said the bill makes important changes. I think the most useful one the one that will have the most effect for superannuitants and those on a veterans pension is to have a new living alone rate that applies to them. Then the next issue with that is whether there are any issues to do with the definition of who is a dependant. One of the compromises I think the bill has reached is that in those probably small number of cases—but perhaps increasing now with people getting married late and re-partnering with families etc.—where there is likely to be even when you turn 65 an 18-year-old still dependent at what point if the person loses a spouse can that person be classified as living alone? So if there is an 18-year-old the bill now says that up to the end of the year in which that young person turns 18 it will still not affect the status of living alone which is a sensible way of doing that. So those two changes—one is the new rate for those living alone and the second one is in respect of how to manage dependants. 
We had a number of issues with this notion of who is dependent and at what age—indeed we debated this in the select committee and also during the Committee stage of this bill when we suggested through a couple of Supplementary Order Papers put up by my colleague Jacinda Ardern that we could be a little bit more flexible. There will be those special occasions when either through disability or some special circumstance a 65-year-old person on a veterans pension or a superannuitant will still have somebody dependent beyond the years of 18—maybe a 19 or 20-year-old. That should be factored in. We were not able to convince our colleagues in the select committee and in Parliament to go along with that and that is a shame because I think it could have been quite easily accommodated. The only explanation given by the Minister at the time was that that other person will have available to him or her a number of other benefits—it might be the unemployment benefit or what have you. Therefore that young person could then pay—I assume that was the understanding—and therefore the 65-year-old person could not be classified as living alone. Or indeed there are those situations where a dependent person of 18 or 19 years returns home and spends 3 or 4 months there—they might be a university student etc. We thought there was a case for linking those situations to the student allowance regulations as to when parents are responsible and up to what age. But again we were not able to do that. 
Sometimes we pass rules in this Parliament for good reason but they have some perverse consequences and there is every likelihood that with this particular one at the most vulnerable time for our superannuitants and those on veterans pensions there will be this other consideration in their minds—the consideration being that you have to be careful if somebody over 18 returns home and lives with you because you are likely to lose your living alone allowance. That problem still exists. Government members were convinced that we ought not to address that but this side of the House felt that that was quite important. 
The other issue—and I think that the select committee with advice from officials found a very useful way out of this—was how to handle this transition period between these provisions the current provisions and when a catastrophe occurs in a family and what to do. I think the provisions at the moment are quite useful and that indeed the transition is quite a simple one now. I think that is a very good provision again at a vulnerable time in the lives of our older folk. It ought to be a very simple provision—that they can go from being on a couple superannuitant rate to a living alone sole rate the new rate and do that rather seamlessly. I think that it is a good provision and a good amendment that the select committee made. I thought it was a good one. The other very useful thing the select committee has done is to make it very clear that even in this transition period the superannuitant and the veterans pensioner will actually qualify from the day the catastrophe occurs—the day they became sole. At the moment they have to wait. They have to apply within 28 days and if they have not applied within 28 days then it can be paid only after that day. The provision the select committee came up with was to say that it will actually apply from that particular date. So I think that was a useful provision here as well. 
I think we worked very well through the issues that were raised as a result of the Social Security Appeal Authority decision. There were not many submissions on this particular bill—I think there were only two as I recall. They raised the kinds of issues that I have been talking about. We were able to work through those provisions. We were able to work through sensible ways of making the transition. We were at least able to debate and discuss the issue that members on this side of the House had about this situation when somebody dependent is over the age limit but still living with somebody older but as I said we were not able to convince our colleagues. The issue remains that there may be some unintended consequences of this particular bill but here is a good provision. We have been happy to support it. It is a provision that applies at the most vulnerable time in the lives of elderly people and it is a transition that can now be made quite seamlessly and smoothly. For those reasons this side has supported the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure because this bill will ensure that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners as my colleague Paula Bennett has said who are living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. The bill really addresses two issues with regard to the current living alone payment to ensure that those superannuitants and those veterans pensioners do not have to make those applications. 
We on this side of the House are adamant that this group of New Zealanders should not face any more unnecessary difficulty in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. These changes will ensure a fairer more equitable experience for single superannuitants as well as those single veterans pensioners who live alone. It is important because it is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone face higher living costs as they are unable to share the expenses of maintaining a stable household. So a single superannuitant who has been granted this living alone payment receives $25.56 more per week after tax than a single superannuitant who is in a shared accommodation arrangement. Because the living alone payment is a separate benefit superannuitants and these veterans pensioners who become single usually after the death of a spouse or a partner are currently required to make this specific application in order to receive it. In addition they will need to apply for a living alone payment within a given time period—28 days—in order to get it backdated. 
These requirements can be a real burden on older New Zealanders particularly when they have lost that spouse. Also because many are not aware of the payment they do not apply for it so they miss out on their full entitlements which again can create unnecessary hardship. So it is important that we amend this legislation so that older New Zealanders who suddenly find themselves alone do not struggle to pay their bills. 
Very quickly the second main purpose of the bill is to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to update the definition of a dependent child. That definition is to be aligned with the provisions of the Social Security Act 1964 as well as our income tax legislation the Income Tax Act 2007. This amendment means that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners with dependent children will receive the new single living alone rate until the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 18 as long as the child is at school or in training. 
This is a necessary and an essential piece of legislation and will bring certainty and ease to some of our more vulnerable citizens as they look to live out their lives in peace and harmony. I commend this bill to the House. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Unlike the previous speaker Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga I will take a full 10-minute call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill as a responsible Opposition member. Labour will support this bill so I am happy to make a contribution on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Good on you. That’s responsible. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: We are a responsible Opposition. We will hold that Government to account. We will hold that Government to account but we will give credit where credit is due and on this particular bill we think that it is sensible. Of course it is sensible because you have an Opposition that has contributed to the making of the final draft of this particular bill. 
Melissa Lee 
: Ha ha! 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Melissa Lee might laugh but that is exactly why a Government is only as good as the Opposition here. All right? OK? So as a responsible Opposition we will—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that is right. Unfortunately the Opposition is a little bit better than the Government but hey. 
Labour will support this bill. We think that it is worthwhile because it ensures that superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone will not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlements. It improves the lives of older people—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely. It will be the older people who are struggling to see whether they can continue to support this Government particularly in light of what it continues to do with old people nowadays. We believe that these changes will reduce the burden of compliance on single superannuitants to receive their full entitlement. Of course the Social Services Committee has had a chance to look through and hear the submissions. Unfortunately—or fortunately—there have been only a couple of submitters one from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and the other from Grey Power. 
The bill will amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. There are some technical changes—two technical changes—in terms of redefining the definition of dependent child for determining eligibility for the new single living alone rate and the definition of boarding houses. 
I get tired of getting up on a Thursday evening when most people are preparing for Easter to debate these bills that are low level in many respects when there are still very serious issues out there that our community throughout New Zealand is encountering. One wonders that surely there is something better that the Government can address at this particular time. But never mind National is in Government and unfortunately some Governments do better than others. 
I want to talk just a little bit about the effect the new definition of dependent child will have. We were advised by the Ministry of Social Development that the change will have no impact on the New Zealand superannuitants or veterans pension clients currently receiving living alone assistance who live with their child over 18 years of age. The bill will make the definition of a child aged 18 years or older for the purposes of determining whether that child living with the living alone pensioner is eligible for that assistance consistent with the Social Security Act 1964 and section 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The Ministry of Social Development advised that a child who turns 18 is an adult and that living alone assistance is for people who do not live with another adult and it claims that other support is available for adult children. The exception to this is for children who are still at secondary school who do not have their own income or access to support in their own right. 
I want to point out for the House that this was an area that the two submitters the Dunedin Law Community Centre and Grey Power had concerns about. In recognition of those concerns my colleague Jacinda Ardern developed amendments to try to in our view improve the legislation. Unfortunately the Government as is typical did not listen. I want to point out that the Dunedin Community Law Centre said in its submission that it foresaw “problems with Section 4A for … pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education.” It argued that “Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age”. It also argued that a “standard bachelors degree” for most people takes either 3 or 4 years whatever the degree might be. So that child if they start tertiary education at 17 will still be dependent at 21 or 22 if they start at 18. The problem that we now find in this current economic environment is that you have graduates who are struggling to find jobs. It may take them 6 months or a year to find jobs. There are cases where some of the graduates from our tertiary facilities are waiting around looking for work for 2 or 3 years. So if you take all of that into consideration a parent might have a dependent adult child living with them up to the age of 24 or 25. 
 Furthermore the Dunedin Community Law Centre said that couples today are having children at a later stage in their lives and find that parents “are still supporting their dependent children in tertiary education as they move into or are in their retirement years.” They give examples. One example is a woman who has a child at 40 years or later. She could still be supporting that child at a tertiary level when she is 65 years old and that child will be in their early or mid-20s. Similarly if a man has a child when he is 50 years old then that child will be 15 years of age when the father becomes eligible for superannuation. So there is genuine concern around that aspect of the bill that this Government did not see fit to improve on. 
The Grey Power submission also raised concern on this very matter. It said: “Some single parents may without alternative income or savings wish to support the child through the time that the child is receiving Tertiary Education and there could well be some cases of undue hardship which may need special support.” We did not make that up. We did not make our requests for this Government to improve the bill by addressing that and so we put up the amendments that were needed for this Government to do that. Unfortunately it refused but is that not typical? It refused to improve the bill particularly when the Opposition was recommending it. As a responsible Opposition we will question and oppose what we believe is not right but we will support something that we think is appropriate. 
The Ministry of Social Development also said that at age 18 a young person has this range of opportunities to earn an income and it said there are wages from work a benefit student allowances and student loans. Well the issue I have with that is that at this very moment we have the highest unemployment rate for young people aged 18 to 24. Many of that age group are looking to go elsewhere. Not only have we got high unemployment but this very Government has cut wages for youth to 80 percent of the minimum wage. So how on earth then can it expect young people to be able to support themselves and become financially independent when this very Government is again shutting the door on them? You get a young person dependent on a benefit or dependent on a student allowance who might then jeopardise the ability of their older parent or older adult whom they are relying on to receive the living alone allowance. 
The last thing I want to say is that the Government recommended that 18-year-olds find financial independence by getting a student loan. That is unbelievable. That is bizarre that this Government would ask that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleague Jan Logie to take a call on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I begin as some others have done this afternoon by wishing Roland a happy birthday. Speaking of getting older I say that the Green Party will continue to support this bill and to vote for it at its third reading. We believe it is a sensible change or sensible couple of changes. 
In particular what it does I think is it adds to administrative efficiency which is something that we could all support in Government department services but also it adds to flexibility. It is sensible to collapse these two categories of assistance into a single one and to make payment of that automatic rather than requiring some process. As Sam Lotu-Iiga referred to the reality is that many of those who needed these payments and who were eligible for them were missing out because they did not know that they needed to apply and nobody told them about them. So it is a sensible measure as I say. 
It is a little frustrating that the Government did not agree to the changes that were proposed by Jacinda Ardern in the Committee stage. They would have increased the flexibility that this bill actually provides by addressing one of the other aspects of the situation of these older people living alone in relation to the dependants. So it is frustrating that the Government chose not to take up that opportunity to actually better realise the principle that was motivating this bill in the first place. 
The other point I would make is that the complexity of the process around living alone payments which this bill seeks to address and the situation of people who are eligible for and entitled to assistance and are not being made aware that such assistance is available is not isolated to this situation and it would be good to see the Government moving to address those problems more broadly. 
The next point I want to make is in relation to the timetable. This bill has been a long time coming to its third reading. The Social Services Committee reported back to the House on 15 April 2011. The select committee’s report actually had amended the bill to change the commencement date to 6 July 2011. Here we are 2 years later practically with a pretty straightforward bill and a pretty straightforward set of changes and I wonder whether the incredibly slow progress of this bill is indicative of a lack of urgency around addressing this kind of problem. I think it would be sad if indeed better addressing the income security needs of older people was a low priority for the Government. 
I want to just briefly reflect as we do sometimes at third readings on some of the context to our income support for older people and in particular to quote Michael Joseph Savage from the 1930s as New Zealand’s social support mechanisms were largely being created for the first time. He said: “The honourable gentlemen”—they were in those days—“on the Opposition benches want to turn back the clocks. I want to know why people should not have security in the evening of their days. What is there more important in Christianity than to be our brothers’ keepers in reality?”. I think Savage’s words have motivated a spirit in New Zealand in all of those intervening years of commitment to supporting our older people. This bill which we sign into law today is a good step towards enhancing and consolidating the support that we provide for older people. In general we have a good record of keeping older people out of poverty. 
But the last point I want to come to in this contribution to the third reading is that we do not in fact follow that principle through to other groups who are in need. While we pass this into law we have some 270000 children in this country living in poverty. As Jan Logie said when will this House when will this Government turn the same attention and the same principles—the good principles that sit behind this bill—to addressing the needs of children who live in poverty to addressing the greatest support to those who have the greatest need? That is what the Green Party stands for. We continue to support this bill. We will vote for it. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill is about making things simpler for our older folks—older New Zealanders—at a time when they suddenly find themselves alone after the death of a wife a husband or a partner. Those are difficult times. It replaces the living alone payment and the two current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension with a new single living alone rate and a new single sharing accommodation rate. The changes—and previous speakers have also talked about this—may seem very minor but they will be significant for the people affected by them. The system needs simplifying and the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill will do just that. 
At the moment the living alone payment is a separate benefit and it has to be applied for. It has to be applied for within 28 days in order to get the payment backdated. This places an unnecessary burden on older New Zealanders particularly at a time of great loss. Often when they are in grieving mode they may not be motivated to get up and go and apply for a supplement income that is available to them. They may not even be aware of it. Removing that 28-day time period will be very helpful for older folks in New Zealand. 
As I said some older people may not even know that they may be entitled to the payment creating unnecessary hardship and stress. We do not want single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone to have to make a separate application for the extra payment that they are entitled to. This bill also means that superannuitants will not need to visit a Work and Income office to make that application. This can be hard for some older New Zealanders and we need to make the process a lot simpler. 
The new single living alone rate will be paid from the day that the superannuitant or veterans pensioner becomes eligible. It recognises that living alone means that you—not you Mr Deputy Speaker—are not able to share the cost of maintaining a household and living costs are higher. A single superannuitant who has been granted a living alone payment receives $25.56 more each week after tax than a single superannuitant who is sharing accommodation. At the date of the enactment of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill all recipients of the living alone payment will be transferred to the new single living alone rate of superannuation or veterans pension and it will be paid from the day that people become eligible for it. 
The Opposition has talked a little bit about the definition of a “dependent child”. The purpose of the bill is to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to update the definition because different Acts have different definitions of what a “dependent child” really is. The amendment to the bill means that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners with dependent children will receive the new single living alone rate until the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 18 as long as the child is at school or in training. It will also ensure a consistent definition of an 18-year-old dependent child across the social system. If the child remains in the household after he or she turns 18 the superannuitant will receive the new single sharing accommodation rate. These changes will make it simpler and fairer for all single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone. 
This bill is another example of this National Government simplifying processes. The changes may seem small but for our older New Zealanders they will be very significant. We do not want them facing unnecessary difficulties in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. Finally I would like to echo the House’s congratulations to Roland—happy birthday. I would like to wish you all right across this House a very happy Easter. God bless you all. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. 
Mike Sabin 
: That’s right. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Not on behalf of Mike Sabin but on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First has always done what it stands for and that is putting New Zealanders first—something that Mike Sabin has failed to do since arriving in this House. This bill which is here before the House for its third reading to some extent does just that: it puts older New Zealanders first. 
I believe that it was Albert Einstein who said that knowledge is realising that the street is one-way while wisdom—are you listening Mike Sabin—is looking in both directions anyway. New Zealand First acknowledges that this bill recognises that we need to guarantee that future generations our future leaders are well prepared in order for them to take up leadership in the future especially for our nation. But at the same time there is also a need for us to ensure for those who have created the foundation for them to actually become leaders in the future that the foundation is maintained and sustained and that the people who created it are rewarded and acknowledged for their service to this country. 
This bill will empower superannuitants and veterans pensioners to be independent. I acknowledge that that has also been mirrored by both sides of the House. It enables them to get the benefits they deserve without having to deal with a process that creates confusion delays and a loss of opportunities. The way this country treats our widows veterans and superannuitants is a reflection of how developed we are as a nation. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners should not be perceived as a burden on our society but rather be recognised as those who have helped create the foundation of this nation the foundation from which we have been fortunate enough to expand and also develop further as a nation. We are talking about senior citizens who have worked hard and laid down infrastructure so that we could build a prosperous nation and establish and develop assets not for the Government to sell off without people’s permission. 
This bill will aim to offer superannuitants a “no muck around” approach and offer support to those living alone. The new single living alone rate of superannuation and the veterans pension is intended to eliminate the requirement to make separate applications to receive the full entitlement. Why should they have to be made to fill out extra forms and more applications? When I think of retirement I think of a less busy life with the freedom to enjoy it without bureaucracy and red tape. 
Colin King 
: What about grandchildren? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: New Zealand First—I can hear you Colin King—has raised concerns over the bill’s capacity to benefit different living arrangements because our elderly are not uniform nor do they all fit into one category. One of our main concerns though is the bill’s definition of dependent children as those who are 18 years of age and under. We still have those concerns. The Government has failed to take this into consideration. 
Although the bill defines living alone as a person who occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence—I am quoting that from the actual bill—there are expectations that are applicable to pensioners who live with a dependent child or person who is not financially independent and is attending an educational institution. However that exception will expire on 31 December in the same year when that dependent child turns the age of 18. It is a common trend nowadays that most tertiary students begin university life at the age of 18. No student is expected to complete any undergrad degree in 1 year. The minimum is normally 3 years. During the Committee stage of this bill I raised a serious concern around this area. The way this part of the bill was written failed to accurately reflect the fact that undergraduate degrees do take up to 3 years. This relates to the years that they will be considered dependent occupants. New Zealand First is very concerned with how these amendments may conflict with the dependent child’s ability to get a student allowance once he or she is assessed. Our concern is over the bill’s potential to overlap with other entitlements that dependent students may be confronted with due to his or her living arrangements which should be considerably important as well. This can become problematic if it is not carefully structured and may create more hassles for not only the dependants but also the elderly citizens who live with them at the same place. If the intentions of this bill are true in wanting to make it easier for our elderly citizens to attain their rights and entitlements then let us do it right first time every time. Let us do it right. 
Similarly there needs to be greater clarity and informative measures that allow pensioners to gain greater understanding about their rights and entitlements. This responsibility should be placed on staff who administer these applications. Transparency and clear communications regarding the well-being of pensioners should be fostered with respect. New Zealand First would like this bill to deliver a long-term scheme free from political tampering and based on principles of fairness. It must incorporate dignified living standards and represent our nation’s national interest. 
It is predicted that in the next 30 years 26 percent of the population will be over the age of 65—from 550000 to well over 1 million. Those New Zealanders will be receiving a form of retirement income. That is quite a high number of people. This bill should reflect the Government’s intention for the future well-being of our elderly citizens. All New Zealanders matter. We should not have to pull out statistics. We should not have to look at statistics to remind us of that. This bill must ensure that our pensioners and superannuitants receive what is owed to them. 
 The success of this bill will also rely on its ability to correspond to the success of the SuperGold Card scheme. It is no secret that the SuperGold Card scheme is now revolutionising the way our pensioners and superannuitants live. To recap on the success of the SuperGold Card its initiation into society has proven beneficial amongst the holders especially for travel on public transport. New Zealand First encourages greater entitlements in this area maybe for power food health and rates in general. I can see that Mike Sabin is looking a little bit confused. This would enable pensioners and superannuitants to enjoy a more dignified life something that the National Government has often overlooked. It will also signal to the rest of the world that this Government is actually doing something right. We owe it to our pensioners and superannuitants to make life easier. It is time. It is time for us to acknowledge our senior citizens. They need us at this time and what better way is there to respond and say thank you? Thank you. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. First of all Mr Deputy Speaker can I start by wishing you a happy Easter and also all of our colleagues and parliamentarians in the House and the rest of New Zealand. 
Yes Easter is a time of rest and relaxation but it is often a time of reflection. It is at these times that those who are vulnerable and deserving in our communities—our elderly those who have served who have saved and who have given their life to civil society to contributing—may reflect. And at these times when they do reflect I think the question that will be asked is how this bill has made a difference in their lives and whether it can make a difference. We would like to say that it does. 
In the words of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor the previous speaker to this bill let us do it right. Well we are. There may be minor changes in this bill but they are major in regard to the impact and effect on the very people we want to serve. As the previous speaker said let us take care of those who have cared for us. Over many years they have paid their taxes and they have contributed in voluntary ways to our society to our communities to our families and to our homes. That is what this bill does. It does two very simple things and it addresses two issues. 
The bill addresses the issues in regard to the current living alone payments to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make separate applications. I know that has been repeated over and over again. In other words in plain English it simply brings the two into one. It makes it easier and therefore they do not have to go and reapply. In fact on many occasions they do not know to apply for the living alone payment and to do so within the given time period of 28 days. So in fact they often do not claim it. They often do not access this. What this bill will simply do is give an easier sense of access to allow them to access the support that they need in this regard. 
I think this is a caring bill. I think this is a bill that actually shows that to the rest of New Zealand especially those who at this time of reflection over Easter will simply say that they may not understand all the complexities of this bill but what they do understand is it has made things easier and more accessible in a very small way so that the vulnerable who need support—in this case our elderly our superannuitants our veterans and our war pensioners—will receive the support that they absolutely need. I am proud to commend this bill to the House. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro I appreciate that we are debating a very important piece of legislation—very important for those who stand to benefit from it. As Mr Ngaro himself acknowledged they are the people who have in large part made a significant contribution whether as people who have retired—they are superannuitants—or as veterans. They have made a significant contribution. 
We are debating this measure on this the cusp of the break for Easter itself a significant period a significant time a time for reflection and a time to reflect on the Resurrection. It is of course an important occasion so we understand the magnitude of the time but also of the issue. 
In a spirit of reflection when we might otherwise pat ourselves on the back let us also reflect that the issue that underpins this legislation was first brought to the attention of the Government in 2009. It came back to the House for consideration by way of legislation in 2011. Much as each of us here in the House today may in our hearts value and cherish the contribution of those who will benefit from this legislation we might also be honest and ask ourselves why it has taken 4 years to act on a problem that we knew of in 2009 and indeed why it has taken 2 years to come back and deal with the report from the Social Services Committee. But notwithstanding that—this is not a time to be churlish and combative; we have had that earlier in the week—let us not brush under the carpet the fact that there has been some delay in bringing a resolution to this issue back to this House for passing. 
As the other members who have already spoken have indicated this bill does do a very important thing. For many superannuitants who find themselves living on their own because of bereavement—the loss of their partner their significant other or their spouse—they are faced with many things at that time sorting out the affairs of the estate of their spouse dealing with family members and dealing with issues that in many cases they are not used to dealing with. The last thing they want to do is have to trot off to the local Work and Income office and fill out more forms that entitle them to a higher payment. 
So this bill is a good measure in that respect—this is a good measure—and it saves superannuitants who are in that position and who might otherwise feel a sense of indignity at having to put their hand out to the State which has already offered to support them for a little more. Now that change will be automatic. Frankly in this day and age of information data storage and data gathering notwithstanding the issues that that has clearly caused in the last couple of years that ought to be a reasonably easy process. So it is good that this legislation will enable that to happen. It will be good for those who are in receipt of superannuation or a veterans pension to not have to go through the process of applying for a payment that under our social security scheme they are properly and fully entitled to. 
In relation to the part of the bill that deals with dependent children and particularly as it applies to superannuitants there are some issues about that and I think the plea from this side of the House is that flexibility is shown. We know that for young people who are still dependent after the age of 18 who may well be students and those who are still undergoing training perhaps into their early 20s it is possible that the bill as it presently is does not afford sufficient flexibility. We know that there are young people who have as parents superannuitants—and I was one of them. In the first couple of years when I was at university I would go home for the Christmas break for work. This present arrangement— 
Mike Sabin 
: Empty out the cupboards—raid the fridge. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Yes. I worked on the Think Big projects. I understand about the satisfactory use of our gas resources. I was not quite sure of the economics of the Think Big projects at the time but they have been transformed. They have been transformed at least the synthetic fuel plant—we are no longer producing synthetic gasoline at great net cost to the nation but with great returns to Mobil which provided the technology and had a win-win agreement with the Government. We now produce methanol which provides returns both to the owner and to the community. 
But putting that aside I was one of those people who would routinely return to my parents’ home—they were both superannuitants—but for a student returning to a superannuitant living on their own this causes some inflexibility if they are sort of moving in and out of different categories and have a different status for qualification for payment and actually the economics of the household do not change a great deal. If a student returns home for 10 or 15 weeks over the Christmas break the economics of that household do not change for the superannuitant who runs it and owns it. So there does need to be some flexibility in there which was the purport of the amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern. 
So addressing those two situations—the situation of the superannuitant who generally through bereavement and very rarely through decisions of their spouse finds that they are living alone and are therefore entitled to a higher payment this legislation will make it easy. On the changes in relation to the definition of a dependent child—of course we understand the need to do that in light of the decisions taken by the Social Security Appeal Authority but the solution that we have put up is needed to recognise the most common situations that will be faced without compromising entitlement to the living alone payment for superannuitants and veterans who would otherwise be entitled to it under this provision. 
So with that we have no qualms in supporting the legislation at this time understanding that it is going to be a constant process of ensuring that our social security system maintains its currency and that it meets contemporary needs. Ours is the party of social security. Ours was the party that was the architect of social security. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Tell us more. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Well I am happy to give you the history of it. Let me go back to the 1935 election when people gathered in the streets on election night in 1935 with a sense of hope and a sense of determination because they knew that life would change. There were people there pensioners and those who had suffered great hardship who knew that a newly elected Labour Government was going to do something good. It has done it and it did happen. Something new did evolve. In 1938 the Social Security Act was passed and social security has been a mainstay of New Zealand—the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand society—ever since. That is why it is important that every time this House comes to consider social security legislation we get on board we modernise it and we keep it contemporary but at the heart of it it is looking after our most vulnerable and looking after good hard-working New Zealanders in their time of need. This legislation does that yet again and for that reason we in the Labour Party are proud to support it. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on this particular bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. We have heard some consternation from the other side in particular about the fact that this bill has languished on the Order Paper since 2009 but that seems to run in conflict with the need for some members to take exceedingly long calls and find ways to run their speeches sort of on loop. The cynic in me says that possibly it is because they would like to stall and delay the path of legislation but I would not like to take a cynical view. 
The reality is that much of the delay in terms of this matter coming to the House is due to the global financial crisis the Canterbury earthquakes and a massive legislative programme that is about keeping the focus on managing the Government’s finances on ensuring that we are building a more competitive and productive economy in Better Public Services and significant reforms going on there and on rebuilding Christchurch. So for the members who may concern themselves as to why this has taken so long those are four very good reasons that we may reflect on. 
Coming back to the bill it is a pragmatic and sensible bill. Although there has been some comment made across the House I think we can all share in the pragmatism reflected in the amendments that effectively see the New Zealand Super—what are we talking about here; let me reflect on it— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Superannuation. 
MIKE SABIN 
: —superannuation that is the word I was looking for; I was getting tangled up with superannuitants—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act 1954 ensuring that single superannuitants and veterans on the pension who are living alone do not have to make dual applications. That seems infinitely pragmatic. 
Also the bill’s second main provision is that it is updating the definition of a dependent child. It has been well canvassed and I do not intend to traverse it too much more other than to say that what it will do is provide that single superannuitants and veterans on a pension with a dependent child will receive the new single living alone payment rate until the end of the calendar year in which that child turns 18 if they are in school or in training and if the child remains in the household the superannuitant will receive a new single sharing accommodation rate. 
I think I have pretty much traversed the extent of my notes. I am very happy to commend this bill. I must acknowledge the members on the other side for managing to fill up a full 10 minutes. They are an outstanding bunch on the other side in terms of their capacity to filibuster. I commend this bill to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call is a split call. Kris Faafoi for 5 minutes. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
:  
Five minutes—it is a shame I do not have 10 minutes to fulfil the needs of Mike Sabin around the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. During the Committee stage the member who has just resumed his seat Mike Sabin said that this bill basically succeeded in the Government’s pursuit of creating conditions for businesses to create jobs. 
When we look through the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill I do not see much that helps any businesses to create an environment that creates jobs. In fact this is the kind of bill that gets introduced to the House when the Government has done exactly the opposite and has not done anything to try to create conditions to create jobs. That has been borne out by the unemployment rate which has stayed high under the current Government. 
If you want to have a look at a subset of the unemployment rate the Pacific unemployment rate—and I think Asenati Lole-Taylor will probably want to concur with me on this—it is close to an all-time high at around 16 percent. This piece of legislation does nothing to address that issue especially dealing with unemployment for a vulnerable part of New Zealand’s communities the Pacific Island community. 
In respect of Mr Sabin’s comments in the Committee stage of this bill I would have to question the validity of that statement. I am glad he did take the opportunity just to take stock of what bill he was talking on because for the 3 minutes prior to that I did not know what he was talking about. I did not know at all what Mr Sabin was talking about. This is the bill that he said in previous readings created the conditions for businesses to create jobs which is certainly not what is done here. Labour is not supporting this bill as the three previous Labour speakers on this side of the House have said because we do not believe it does anything to address the issues that have been identified as barriers to work and they are the creation of jobs and the availability to work childcare costs and whether an individual has the necessary skills required. In those three respects the Government has failed quite miserably. 
I have already talked about the Government’s lack of action on creating an environment to have more jobs. But in the area of childcare costs we are seeing a stick approach from the Government. It will punish those beneficiaries who do not get their children into childcare. Early childhood education is something that is very much valued on this side of the House and that is why we want to make sure we get as many of our young people as possible into early childhood education centres with 100 percent qualified teachers. But what this Government has done has not created the number of places in early childhood education centres to meet the numbers required under this piece of legislation. In terms of that aspect of this bill it is a hollow attempt and a hollow promise to try to get the rates of early childhood education lifted. And where do we start with the Government struggling to get the people with the necessary skills in this country? 
I believe it was about 3 years ago when the Government cut a considerable amount of funding from trades training. What that has meant post-Christchurch is that we do not have enough properly qualified builders plumbers and sparkies there to help in the rebuild. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Gasfitters and drainlayers. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Gasfitters and drainlayers—a very interesting group at the moment. 
So the Government has not addressed the aspect of making sure we have got enough trained and qualified people out there with the right skills in the workforce. We have got Christchurch screaming out for skilled labour and we have not been able to deliver that because this Government in its first term in office considerably cut the budget for trades training. As I said this— 
Mike Sabin 
: That’s a long 5 minutes. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I can get hotter if you like. 
As I said this bill takes a stick approach to beneficiaries and brings in some social obligations. The introduction of obligations implies that parents who are getting Government support are poor parents. We believe that this is both wrong and unfair but I am sure you will hear the next speaker from the National Government saying that that is just. The use of sanctions— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s time has expired. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Thank you very much. I wish everyone a happy Easter. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Likewise I wish everybody a really good break and a good holiday. It is an opportunity to reflect on our own privilege that we enjoy in this House because we are on really good wages paid for by the taxpayer and I think we are all aware of their expectations of us. It is also good to acknowledge what privilege gives you and recognise that sometimes privilege puts you in a bubble and it is easy not to understand in a bubble what it is like for other people. We meet a lot of people but we do not walk in their shoes—we do not have to. Some of us have walked in those shoes but that is why this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill is important because it does address some aspects of the shoes that people have to walk in. 
It does not go far enough in terms of amending what is a fairly chaotic now ancient piece of legislation. I enjoyed hearing from the earlier speaker Andrew Little about the history because I think it is good to remember that the Social Security Act was once a vibrant transformative and liberating piece of legislation heralded around the world and greeted by my own ancestors with great enthusiasm—Irish poor who never ever could afford to build a house until the 1950s even though we have been here since 1864. So the Social Security Act has always been a very important part of the definition of a civilised society but unfortunately it has become an uncivilised piece of legislation. 
This bill however will improve it. We are supporting it. We believe that the two changes are going to be good. We believe that it is important to try even though it is pretty chaotic in there to simplify the way in which Work and Income deals with vulnerable people. Let me tell you—sorry Mr Deputy Speaker I keep dragging you into this; let me not tell the Deputy Speaker I am sure he does not need to hear this—that being dragged into Work and Income makes you vulnerable. It is a very vulnerable place. 
I worked for a number of years on the East Coast as an advocate for people on benefits. This included veterans it included elderly people who were in the categories described by this bill some of whom were on the living alone benefit and it included also people with sicknesses people on the invalids benefit sole parents disabled people and people with disabled children all of whom were vulnerable when they walked in that door. Unfortunately unlike this bill the ethos at Work and Income is not: “What can we do for you and how can we facilitate your life to be easier?”. It is a punitive experience. Watching people crying getting angry shutting down and panicking is a normal experience for any beneficiary advocate. I really believe this bill will help one group of beneficiaries. We are all in some ways a beneficiary whether it is a beneficiary of clean water whether it is a beneficiary of high wages or whether it is a beneficiary of decent laws. We are all beneficiaries and we are all entitled to the rights of citizens. This will help a certain group of people. 
The second part of the bill relating to dependent children will not affect a huge number of people but every bit of law that works is good law and it is good that superannuitants with dependent children will get an easier ride. I do want to go back to the point about the importance of collapsing the living alone benefit and making it simpler for people who are vulnerable. Obviously when you have lost a lifelong partner or family member you are vulnerable and the bureaucracy is absolutely impregnable. It is absolutely unintelligible not only for the elderly but for virtually anybody who does not work with it. Going into Work and Income is interesting because the staff do not look at the people; they look at the screen. The people do not know what the screen means because it is all written in jargon. The whole thing is set up to make it very clear to people who walk into that place that they are no longer empowered citizens; they are actually second-class. 
I support the legislation because it allows some people to get a better opportunity to have an easier ride through the Work and Income labyrinth but that labyrinth is not just for the so-called deserving poor. It is for everybody because there but for the grace of God goes every single person in this House. One day we may need the support of the social security system and we would want to be treated with the same respect the same clarity and the same facilitation as this bill does for the elderly in our community. 
I also commend Kevin Hague’s speech because if we cannot look after our children then the care for our elderly becomes a little bit contradictory. I am sure as a grandmother like many people here we believe that our children need exactly the same care as our vulnerable elders. If we cannot commit to that through legislation and through social security we need to have a good look at ourselves. We do support the bill. Thank you very much. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Although I acknowledge that those who seek assistance from the Government can find it difficult can I also I suppose counter that by saying that the people of Work and Income do a fantastic job. As someone who has worked within the Ministry of Social Development in its different branches I know from personal experience the enormously hard work that the people of say Work and Income or Child Youth and Family do to support the most vulnerable in New Zealand. 
Tim Macindoe 
: And they deserve our support. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: And they do deserve our support; I think that is quite correct. So I want to acknowledge them. 
This Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill has been well discussed in periods of 5 minutes and 10 minutes and other succinct contributions. I just want to say to those who do live alone those on war pensions or on superannuation who in age find themselves alone that from this House and certainly from me they are not alone; they stand with us in this community. As we approach this weekend of Easter and as we move to pass this legislation they are not alone. They live with us in our community and we support them. I want to wish them and the House a very happy Easter. 
Bill read a third time. 
Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill came about basically because two airports in New Zealand had been deemed to be international airports then lost the ability to be international airports and then found new contracts that potentially could start that up again. 
Of course any airport at any stage could apply to the Civil Aviation Authority the Customs Service and Biosecurity New Zealand to become an international airport. When that happens there is of course a cost. So in the interests of making sure that those services would be able to be provided and that the State was not going to be liable for costs that were short term it was decided that there needed to be a change in legislation to allow for the recovery of those costs. To that end this bill was promulgated and brought to the House. Effectively what the bill does is give the Government that ability. 
The main objectives of the bill are to ensure that international airports or requesters of non-routine services factor the border agency costs into the business decisions. For example—and this is an airport that I know is very close to you Mr Chairman; it is in my own electorate—the Hamilton Airport may apply to become an international airport if a carrier or a business venture is put forward in terms of setting that up as an international destination. There is a lot of merit in the notion that that might happen at times because it would be a very credible alternative to Mangere Airport in the event of some kind of accident there or some kind of inability for Mangere to operate. 
 Of course at that point customs officers Customs Service’s X-ray equipment biosecurity people and aviation authority personnel with their expertise etc. have to be recruited have to be trained and have to be stationed there and there is a cost for that. So the Crown in its desire to manage its fiscal responsibilities sensibly without having undue or large numbers of liabilities outstanding has come forward with this suggestion. I think it pretty much enjoys widespread support in the Chamber. 
The bill completes the funding arrangements agreed with the aviation industry back in 2004. It builds on the original policy to provide a simple clear and efficient cost-recovery system. The status quo exposes the Crown to fiscal risk as I said and a large cost when international airports are set up or re-established. 
Under the current funding model new international airports create a funding shortfall for the Government border agencies. Of course what we are always conscious of is the essential need to provide for much-needed biosecurity services as we are very vulnerable in that regard as we are also with of course the Customs Service. So what it effectively does is it removes that risk that liability from the Crown balance sheet but it also removes I guess a subsidy or an uncertainty that could be created in a business model if those costs were not included. 
The bill came to the Primary Production Committee and we listened to the submitters. There were a number of them and they raised a range of concerns and those concerns were taken on board. Some of those changes were made at that point and I think it is a very smart move on the part of the Government to move forward with the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill at this stage. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Get the last word. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: I think I will have the last word before the Easter break. 
Labour supports this bill. Indeed when Labour was in Government we were proposing to impose the recovery of costs for international airports. So it is a good positive piece of legislation. We are seeing a rise in the number of international airports around the country which is a good thing. It is good for our economy. We want to see more tourists coming into our country. So it is good to see that Invercargill and Rotorua and other places now have international airports. But with that extra international dimension that they have obviously there are extra costs in processing all of the visitors coming in and all of the travellers moving out of those airports. It is a big cost to the Customs Service the good folks at the front line who are there to protect our pa as I like to say here in New Zealand—the good folks in security the Customs Service and also Biosecurity New Zealand. 
This is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. I would just like to touch on a couple of things. There are a lot of processing responsibilities and tasks that do fall upon our front-line staff such as the Customs Service and Biosecurity New Zealand. We know—I know we are at the final sort of stage before we break—that our airport staff are having to work a lot these days. There is a lot of processing. A lot of people are emigrating—moving out of the country. There have been 1000-odd whanau saying their goodbyes every week. So there is a lot of processing that has to be carried out and there is a cost to that. It is indeed an unfortunate fact that we have to overwork those front-line staff in terms of having to process so many of our good people who are leaving our country particularly for Australia. 
 There are also other important tasks in terms of the processing of incoming and outgoing visitors and one of those tasks concerns money-laundering. I know that there are quite strict rules now in place in terms of the movement of cash in and out of New Zealand that the Customs Service has to undertake. Indeed if you come in with $10000 in cash or in some other form you have to declare that and the border cash reports get transmitted right to the special Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand I think they call it within the police. I think the agency does a bit of work with the Government Communications Security Bureau. Those reports have to go through to report any people who are receiving money or actually bringing money into the country. 
There are quite a lot of processing responsibilities that the Customs Service and Biosecurity New Zealand have to undertake so it is incumbent on the Government to recover the costs. I think it is commendable that in this legislation there is an opportunity to recover the costs particularly for these new international airports—those that have been newly established or re-established as international airports. 
We also see from the legislation that the time frame for the cost recovery is a very reasonable period. It is set at only 2 years and I understand that it will be prescribed in regulations for a 2-year period. I believe that we were initially proposing 1 year but I think 2 years is actually a very fair compromise for the Government to be able to recover its costs in terms of setting up the processing of all of these international travellers but also it does not place too much of an ongoing burden on the owners of those international airports. It does strike a fair balance. 
I think back to when I was looking at you know the—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Rino Tirikatene. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: I have been encouraged to continue. I hope you are enjoying it. 
Kris Faafoi 
: It’s a privilege to speak in this House. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: It is a great privilege to be speaking on this great bill. 
The other day I was at Christchurch International Airport and there was a front-line customs officer in the row just next to me. I had a chat to this good person and asked how they were going and how things were getting on with customs. It was interesting. I asked how many sniffer dogs they have at Christchurch International Airport which has undergone a substantial redevelopment recently and is looking really great down there. Well wait for it there is a grand total of one dog one customs dog which— 
Andrew Little 
: How much? 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: One dog. One good little dog which services— 
Simon O’Connor 
: It’s a very good dog. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: It is a great dog. That one sniffer dog looks after the whole of the Christchurch International Airport. So yes there have definitely been cuts to the front line. 
 I think we need to think of the extra burden that is going on not only the customs officers but also on the little beagles that are really working overtime. That is why it is important that we recover the costs and make sure that we do not overwork—that we look after—our little dogs that are protecting our pa and all those thousands of visitors who go through Christchurch International Airport. So we need to commend that little dog and those customs officers for doing their work. 
Of course we also know that there have been technological advances. We have got the SmartGate system now. That is a really good system whereby we can go through processing quite speedily with our new passports. Instead of having to fill out these forms such as border cash reports about whether you are bringing cash into the country or giving it to people on the other side it is all done electronically. Those things are processed more speedily but with that processing as we know there is a cost. That is why this bill is a very good bill. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.