Volume 702 Week 5 - Wednesday 3 December 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 702 Week 5 - Wednesday 3 December 2014[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 3 December 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersIslamic State Conflict—Potential Defence Force Deployment1.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the “100 years commemoration of Gallipoli” could be “one argument” for a joint ANZAC force to be deployed in the fight against ISIS?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I stand by my full statement on this issue which reflects that the Government has been talking to Australia about potentially partnering in a training role in Iraq. As I clearly stated when I gave a national security speech last month the Government will make a decision about whether to take that step on its merits and there is a lot of work yet to be done on it. What badge someone might wear is very much a secondary issue to that.Andrew Little: Is he seriously saying that sending our troops to Iraq would be a fitting tribute to our fallen in Gallipoli when the lesson of Gallipoli is not to sacrifice our troops in poorly justified military adventures?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No what I am saying is that the Government considers the Islamic State regime to be brutal to be one that presents a domestic regional and international risk to New Zealanders and that the New Zealand Government has considered a wide range of options available to stand up against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and one of those is providing a training force in Iraq.Andrew Little: Why did New Zealanders have to find out from the Australian media about the plans for our troops to be part of a joint combat force—why did he not just tell us?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well no decision has been made. What did happen was someone in one of the Australian newspapers ran a speculative piece. As I said at the time when I was asked about that in principle it is a possibility but it is a long way away from being a probability.Andrew Little: When was a joint Iraq deployment with Australia first discussed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that date to hand.Andrew Little: Given the Iraqi army’s serious issues with ineffectiveness corruption sectarianism and human rights violations—despite over $25 billion worth of American support over the past 10 years—why is a token effort worth risking Kiwi lives?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member may not take the build-up of ISIS seriously and he may be so shallow in his thinking that he does not recognise the risks that it presents to New Zealanders but I would strongly suggest that he needs to school up a little bit more and understand how brutal these people are and the risks that they present to New Zealanders.Andrew Little: In light of his shifting statements and his failure to reveal the plans for an Anzac unit until forced to why should New Zealanders trust him when he says our troops would not be involved in any combat?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If anyone is making it up it is Mr Little. There is no plan for an Anzac force at this stage. There has been a very high-level discussion and if ultimately it goes to that level then we will come back and talk to the New Zealand public about that. But I have been very clear in my speech I gave on national security that we were looking at a training unit in Iraq that we looked at potentially doing that with Australia and that we have deployed military people to scope that exercise out. If the member cannot keep up with my speeches he should just learn to—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Andrew Little: Why can he not simply front up and be straight with New Zealanders about his plans for a deployment of troops to Iraq?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to learn a new line; otherwise it will all get a bit boring—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the Prime Minister just address the question that has been asked.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When the member learns to read he will learn how to keep up. That was all in the speech from a few weeks ago.Economic Growth—Reports and Forecasts2.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic performance and particularly the outlook for growth over the next few years?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Last week the OECD issued its latest economic outlook for New Zealand. It noted that economic growth in New Zealand remained sound despite the sharp fall in dairy prices since February. It said that recent business opinion surveys point to near-term growth rates continuing in excess of 3 percent before moderating to a more sustainable rate of 2.75 percent by 2016. I think this forecast is probably a little bit optimistic. It said strong job creation is boosting household incomes and consumption and has reduced the unemployment rate from 7.2 percent following the financial crisis to 5.4 percent. The OECD I believe is absolutely right about that. And it says that wage and price pressures remain modest which is important because that points to a sustainable period of economic growth.Tim Macindoe: What other reports has the Minister received about New Zealand business confidence and how is that expected to translate into employment and investment growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The ANZ’s latest business outlook survey described the economy as being in “a sweet spot”. Demand indicators remain strong but inflation is benign at the moment. The survey confirmed good growth employment and investment indicators. Business confidence lifted again in November up 5 points on the previous month. However there are challenges including news overnight of a further fall in prices on the latest Global Dairy Trade auction. Although dairy prices are significantly below their record highs prices for other commodities including aluminium beef and sheep meat and kiwifruit are still rising. I also notice that the oil price continues to drop which points to lower prices at the petrol pump. So on balance although dairy prices are down New Zealand is sufficiently resilient to handle that kind of event.Tim Macindoe: Is the elevated level of business confidence and optimism shared by other surveys the Minister has received?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of recent surveys that point to continued optimism about the economy including for instance the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s survey where it observed that the recovery is largely funded out of current income rather than borrowing. I think that that is the point. It is the quality of economic growth as much as the optimism about it that matters and that it is broad-based and it looks sustainable over a period of several years which should deliver income increases to New Zealand households.Grant Robertson: In light of the $6 billion to $7 billion hole in the New Zealand economy created by the drop in dairy prices can he confirm the OECD’s view that New Zealand has one of the least diversified export profiles in the OECD and that it has got worse under his watch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot actually confirm that. That is a matter of opinion.Dr David Clark: Ha ha!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I will just give you an example. Australia is twice as dependent on iron ore as New Zealand is on dairy. That is quite an important point. Secondly we do have a broadening range of exports many of which find their prices are going up not down. Unlike the Opposition we have confidence that New Zealanders and the New Zealand economy are sufficiently resilient to handle a drop in dairy prices.Tim Macindoe: How will the Government continue to support ongoing economic growth new jobs and higher incomes into the future?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will set out again its priorities at the half-year update on 16 December and this will build on the Government’s programme over the past 6 years which has included first responsible management of the Government’s finances; second building a more productive and competitive economy through a continued process of microeconomic reform in the Business Growth Agenda; third delivering Better Public Services for the same or less money; and finally providing the resources to carry on with or complete the rebuild of Christchurch.Islamic State Conflict—Potential Defence Force Deployment3.RON MARK (NZ First)to the Minister of Defence: Has the Government given instructions to the Defence Force to begin preparations for deployment to the Middle East; if so when were those instructions first given?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):The New Zealand Defence Force has up to 50 personnel stationed in the Sinai on a peacekeeping mission. I understand those instructions were issued in 1972. We also have about 30 people stationed at Al Minhad Air Base in support of the P3 Orion activity there. Those instructions were reissued around 2 November of this year and were publicly notified on 3 November. I have no doubt that some preparation for rotation of those personnel and others who are stationed throughout the Middle East may well be happening. The member will note that on 5 November in a speech on national security the Prime Minister said that the possibility of the New Zealand Defence Force being involved in partnership building with Australians in Iraq would be investigated by defence personnel. A number are doing that at the present time but I would state very very firmly that there has been no decision to deploy into Iraq on any mission at this point.Ron Mark: Was the Prime Minister correct in stating on Monday in regard to military preparations for a potential deployment to the Middle East that “I’m told planning remains at a very early stage.”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes it is correct. We have had no formal reports back from the officers who are looking at the building partner capacity mission that could take place in Iraq. As for suggestions that there are other preparations taking place I would simply point out to the member that he would know from his own experience that all armies train for deployment should it be required.Ron Mark: Was it he who told the Prime Minister that preparations were at a “very early stage”; if not was he aware of the information that the Prime Minister was given that planning for a potential deployment of the army to Iraq was under way?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are always discussions between the Prime Minister and his Ministers about any range of matters that the Ministers may be dealing with and this would be no different. The deployment you are talking about concerns the up to 10 military personnel who have been involved in assessing what opportunity New Zealand may avail itself of in building partner capacity in Iraq but no report has been received formally in that regard.Ron Mark: Would he describe the preparations currently being undertaken by the army as pre-deployment contingency training; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said earlier all armies throughout the world by the very definition of their mission train to be deployed. As I also said we have up to 100 military personnel at any one time deployed across a number of bases in the Middle East so of course there will be some preparations for what will be required in those missions but there has been no decision to deploy into any new mission in the Middle East.Ron Mark: Which one of these statements is correct: the statement made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday that said: “No decisions have actually been made by the Government yet except for the ones in relation to humanitarian aid … [and] no decisions have been made by Cabinet.” or his statement on Wednesday that said: “Cabinet determined on Monday of this week a decision that we would engage in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria …”—which is correct?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first is certainly correct; the last one is completely incorrect. Most certainly I think the member would have a lot of trouble finding that particular quote. I did not say that. What I said was that Cabinet made a decision to allow some officers of the New Zealand Defence Force to engage in a discussion with coalition partners about the possibility of building partner capacity in Iraq. No formal report has been received from those people. No decision has been made about that possibility.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order in an attempt to assist the Minister for the next lot of questions that might come. I seek leave of the House to table the Hansard where that Minister made exactly that quote.Mr SPEAKER: Hansard is freely available to all members. I take this opportunity—[Interruption] Order! I take this opportunity of reminding members of the point of seeking leave to table a document. It is to provide information that is not readily available to members of this House. It is certainly not an opportunity to make a political point. Does the member have further supplementary questions?Ron Mark: Is he aware of the extent of the preparations being made by the army for deployment to Iraq; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No because we have made no decision to engage in such a deployment nor has any instruction been issued.Ron Mark: So is he telling New Zealand that he has not given any instructions for the New Zealand Defence Force to deploy to Iraq that he has not decided what role it should perform when it gets there that deployment dates have not been given to soldiers or their families and that pre-deployment contingency training being conducted in Waiōuru at this very minute was not authorised by him?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: To clear up a couple of points: firstly no instructions have been issued to the military to prepare for a deployment to Iraq. We have indicated that should it suitable should it be appropriate after the Gallipoli celebrations next year a frigate may deploy to the Indian Ocean. We have also extended the P3 Orion mission out of Al Minhad Air Base. Those have been publicly stated by us. They are not missions into Iraq. No instructions have been issued to the military relating to deployment in Iraq beyond the investigation of a partnership-building capacity possibility.Ron Mark: Which of the following is true: that he and his Government have given approval for a deployment of the army to Iraq or that there is a rogue army officer with a rogue unit conducting their own preparations and training right now in Waiōuru?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: None of the above. I suggest that the member who would claim I think to have some inside information from the army might recognise that perhaps some of his contacts are a bit too long in the tooth to be reliable.Oil and Gas Production—Maari Field and Benefits4.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What update can he give on energy resources development in the Taranaki region?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):Yesterday I welcomed the announcement by OMV that a new oil well has gone into production in the Maari field in Taranaki and is expected to produce around 4500 barrels a day. OMV and its partners are investing more than $400 million in the five-well redevelopment Maari growth campaign. This project is estimated to help lift field production overall and extend the life of the field out to past 2023. It is great news for the industry the Taranaki region and all New Zealanders who benefit from the taxes and the royalties that this company will deliver.Jonathan Young: What are some of the benefits from resources production in Taranaki and across New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If we take OMV as a good example since 2009 it has paid more than $850 million in royalties and taxes with half of that alone coming from the Maari field. In total the Government receives around $800 million in taxes and royalties from companies operating here each year which helps pay for the schools the hospitals the roads and other essential infrastructure. Also the resources sector is an important employer in New Zealand. Over the past 10 years employment has more than doubled with workers typically earning more than twice the average New Zealand salary. The Government’s hard work through the block offer process and robust regulatory reform have delivered significant levels of activity and we are committed to continuing to develop our resource potential in a safe and environmentally responsible way.Economy—Impact of Milk Price Forecast5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Finance: What impact would a Fonterra payout of below $4 per kilogram of milk solids have on the economy and the Government’s surplus target?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The precise impact would depend on how the rest of the economy was performing at the time given that the current payout forecast is considerably higher than $4 but likely to be revised just before Christmas. Currently the rest of the economy is growing solidly and other export commodities such as sheep meat beef and aluminium are all performing strongly. This is all supporting more jobs and higher incomes. New Zealand businesses and households have shown themselves to be resilient in the face of a number of global and domestic challenges and we expect this to continue. There is no doubt that a sharply lower dairy payout would have a dampening effect both on the economy and on Government revenue.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that a payout of $4.25 would take $6 billion out of the New Zealand economy and a payout of $3.65 as AgriHQ has forecast would wipe $7 billion from the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm the calculations but they are probably of something of that order. Of course this has to be seen in context.Grant Robertson: What’s that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the dairy industry is 25 percent of 30 percent of the economy so it is actually around 7 to 8 percent of the whole economy. The rest of the economy is actually going fairly well. Other commodity prices are up. Oil prices are down which is going to lead to lower fuel prices most likely. There is broad-based confidence among consumers and businesses. So in that context there is no doubt that a drop in the dairy prices will affect Government revenue somewhere in the range the member is talking about but the New Zealand economy can handle that.Grant Robertson: Is he seriously saying that other parts of the economy will fill a $6 billion or $7 billion hole created by the drop in dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Activity in other parts of the economy will offset some of the impact of a drop in dairy prices. I will just give the member an example. The terms of trade sum up our capacity to purchase imports with our exports. Actually while the dairy price has fallen 50 percent in the last 12 months or so the terms of trade have actually fallen around about 5 percent from a 40-year high. So dairy prices have fallen about 50 percent and the terms of trade—that is our ability to trade exports for imports—have dropped by only about 5 percent. So taken in the round the New Zealand economy can handle what is a pretty sharp drop in dairy prices.Grant Robertson: Is he aware that New Zealand commodity prices overall have declined for 9 consecutive months and for November were 12.4 percent below last year’s figures with 10 commodities dropping—not only dairy but also wool beef logs and timber?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I am aware of that. But as I have just pointed out to the member when you sum up the drop in the change in prices of our exports and the change in prices of our imports our terms of trade have dropped by only about 5 percent. I just cannot wait until the Labour Party declares a crisis because as soon as it declares a crisis everything starts coming right.Joanne Hayes: How do dairy exports as a proportion of New Zealand’s total exports of goods and services compare with the reliance by other countries on single export categories?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will just fill out the picture on this. The dairy exports—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the Opposition clearly do not understand how diversified our export sector is. Dairy exports are around 24 percent of the country’s total goods and services exports. Non-dairy agricultural exports are 22 percent non-agricultural exports are 29 percent and service exports are 24 percent. So the dairy sector is about a quarter of our exports. By comparison Australian exports of hard commodities mainly iron ore and coal make up 57 percent of their total exports of goods and services. We are considerably less reliant on dairy exports than Australia and the other three-quarters of our exports are not doing too badly. We have confidence in the resilience of the New Zealand economy to handle a drop in the price of one of our significant exports.Grant Robertson: With exports flat-lining dairy prices dropping non-primary manufacturing slumping housing costs ballooning and the absence of any new ideas to diversify the economy has he actually just given up trying to lead the economy and is content to try to ride the wave of commodity prices?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not very far away from Mr Robertson but down here we could not hear that question because over there are a whole lot of nervous backbenchers shouting at the top of their heads. They should be told to restrain themselves.Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I will accept the point made by the right honourable member. It was a long-winded question. If the member could shorten it as he repeats it I would be grateful. But I will ask the member to repeat the question and would be grateful if the back corner to my right would remain a little quieter so it can be heard and we do not have to listen to it for a third time.Grant Robertson: Excellent.Hon Paula Bennett: Come on Mr “Doom and Gloom”.Grant Robertson: Listen up Paula. With exports flat-lining dairy prices dropping non-primary manufacturing slumping housing costs ballooning and the absence of any new ideas to diversify the economy has he just given up trying to lead the economy and is prepared to try to ride the wave of commodity prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I notice the member just fell short of calling it a crisis—just fell short. As I think I have pointed out a number of times the signals are there now that New Zealand has the opportunity for sustained growth in the economy not the kind of bleak picture that the member is painting. As for diversification just last week I think the New Zealand Exchange had its next $1 billion listed company which is Orion a 95 percent export company that is there mainly because this Government floated some electricity assets which gave the market a bit of ballast and gave people the confidence of diversifying their investment and creating a newly listed $1 billion export company.Export Sector—Economic Cooperation and Free-trade Agreements6.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney)to the Minister of Trade: What progress has the Government made in opening up overseas markets for New Zealand exporters?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):Monday marked the first anniversary of the coming into force of the New Zealand - Chinese Taipei economic cooperation agreement and I am very pleased to say to the House that our exports in the 9 months—we do not have the 12 month figures; we do not have the last quarter—have increased by 20 percent. With reference to the completely misleading comments in the previous question that can be compared with a total increase in New Zealand exports to September 2014 of 8.6 percent—Grant Robertson: As a percentage of GDP Tim?Hon TIM GROSER: Not Mr Robertson flat-lining at all.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table figures compiled by the Parliamentary Library that show a flat-lining of exports as a percentage of GDP.Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that it may not be available and it may be informative I will put the leave and the House will determine. Leave is sought to table that particular research from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mark Mitchell: Who benefits the most from this agreement?Hon TIM GROSER: Well first of all there are only 9 months’ data but there have been a number of companies and a number of New Zealanders who have benefited. There have been some spectacular increases in our exports. Our apple export increases have been 210 percent and one particular Hawke’s Bay company which produces Rockit apples—little tiny apples in a very interesting box—has had a 700 percent increase in that period. Dairy exports have increased by nearly 40 percent. But it is not just one-way traffic. Bicycle imports from Taiwan have increased by 27 percent. You would have thought that that would please even the Green Party but before the Green Party will support any trade agreement it will be a cold day in hell.Mark Mitchell: What other trade agreements is the Government pursuing to help Kiwi exporters?Hon TIM GROSER: We are making very good progress. It has been a very difficult negotiation but as members will be aware we have finally crossed the line politically with Korea. We have now got a series of steps to get that ratified and put in place. This will be a big deal for New Zealand and we are making excellent progress with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Gulf States.Prime Minister—Staff Members’ Release of SIS Information7.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to the Prime Minister: Did Jason Ede provide “Mr Slater with draft blog posts” regarding NZSIS information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am aware that Jason Ede spoke to Cameron Slater just as he did with journalists and other bloggers. I have no knowledge other than what was written in the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security which was that he provided draft blog posts regarding NZSIS information.Dr Megan Woods: Does he then accept that his office has a proactive relationship with Cameron Slater?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and I would point out that Mr Ede has not actually worked for me in my capacity as Prime Minister for over 3 years.Dr Megan Woods: Has he discussed with either his current chief of staff or his former deputy chief of staff Mr de Joux that Mr de Joux was not happy that Mr Ede has chosen to work through Mr Slater rather than the mainstream media as per paragraph 214 of the Gwyn report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the question I have not had any discussions with Phil de Joux about that matter.Dr Megan Woods: Has he or his chiefs of staff asked Jason Ede for copies of the blog post that Cheryl Gwyn states Jason Ede drafted for Cameron Slater; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question no I do not believe they have.Dr Megan Woods: Why has he not asked for the draft of the blog posts?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I do not think it would achieve a hell of a lot any more than if Mr Little was to go and ask how many people write anonymously or under pseudonyms on The Standard and all of those things. He might find some really amazing answers but that again would be the pot calling the kettle black would it not?Child Poverty—School Food Programmes8.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that the principals of low-decile schools he has visited have told him “The number of children in those schools who actually require lunch is the odd one or two.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that only one or two kids in low-decile schools need lunch when the principal of Kelvin Road School in Papakura a decile 1 school says he feeds 50 to 60 kids lunch every day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will always be exceptions to the rule but I can only report to the member the anecdotal statements made by principals to me and I stand by that statement.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that only one or two kids in low-decile schools need lunch when the principal of Cosgrove Primary School in Papakura says he feeds on average 40 children lunch every day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an email received by the Green Party office from the principal of Cosgrove Primary School saying that of the current—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document received by the Green Party. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none; it can be.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that only one or two kids in low-decile schools need lunch when the principal of Windley School in Porirua says there are three or four kids in each of his 14 classes without lunch every day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. There are approximately 2550 schools in New Zealand. In the time that I have been the Prime Minister I have been a prolific visitor to schools and for the last at least 3 or 4 years from memory I have asked this particular question to pretty much every principal I have seen. The feedback that I constantly get from them is that the extension of breakfast in schools under a National-led Government has been a good project. The extension of fruit in schools has been a good project and while they offer breakfast in schools to—Hon Annette King: It wasn’t an extension; it was a continuation. You just continued it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No it was extended. Keep up; it was an extension. If you look—Hon Annette King: No it wasn’t. You were going to get rid of it. You were going to dump it. You’re on your high horse.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You go off and be Mayor of Wellington and Phil can be Mayor of Auckland.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] If the Hon Annette King wishes to remain in the Chamber please cease when I rise to my feet. Would both the Prime Minister and the Hon Annette King stop the interaction and exchange across the House. If the Prime Minister wishes to complete his answer would he do so.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In discussions with those principals what is clear is that because they do not want to stigmatise children who might go on a breakfast in schools programme they offer it generally speaking to every child in the school. On average the feedback that they give me is that about half the children go on the breakfast in schools programme as a starting point and over time that number reduces more often than not to a core group of about 10 or 15. They then make sure there is also food for them at lunch if they want it. The advice of the principals that I have spoken to—and I have been to a huge range of schools—is that very few do.Metiria Turei: Could it be that his lack of accurate information about the needs of children in low-decile schools is because according to his own diary he has visited three times as many decile 9 and 10 schools as he has decile 1 and 2—three times as many—since June of last year and therefore does not have accurate information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly that looks very much like National’s election results—going up. The second thing is that what the member asked me—Dr David Clark: No arrogance there.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No it is just a statement of fact actually. The second thing is that if the member wants to go and—she is more than welcome to of course—table the written question that she asked me the reason she did not bother to read that out in the House is that she would be reading it out for a very long time because it was a couple of pages of schools that I visited in that very short period of time. It may have missed—Hon Member: One page—Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well you might print in size 6 font but the way I signed it out it was much broader than that. And secondly I have been the Prime Minister since 2008—Hon Members: We know.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yeah I know. Do not worry—many more years to come too.Metiria Turei: I seek leave of the House to table what I understand is a currently unpublished answer to a written question showing the number of schools that the Prime Minister has visited since—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. [Interruption] Order! Would the member resume her seat? Would the member resume her seat. Thank you. On the basis that it is at this stage unpublished I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table an answer to a written question yet to be published. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: In light of the evidence from principals and organisations that feed kids lunch every day in their schools of the huge need for a school lunch programme will he support the “Feed the Kids Bill” to select committee so that we can have a conversation about how to feed hungry kids in schools?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and this Government does not need another conversation about this. This Government needs to continue to implement the very far-reaching policies it has been implementing in this area and in others to support those children. We are doing that but I do not believe that getting into a position where we provide lunch for everyone in decile 1 and decile 2 schools in New Zealand will be the best use of those resources. I think we should target those children but that is ultimately what happens at the moment.Tax Fraud—Funding for Investigation and Prevention9.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)to the Minister of Revenue: What information has he received about the Government’s action against tax fraud?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue):As part of the Government’s crackdown on tax compliance the Inland Revenue Department has identified fraud-related discrepancies totalling $10.4 million in 2014 which is more than double the $4.5 million identified in 2013. This is a return on an investment of $3.73 for every dollar spent. It is important to note that the vast majority of New Zealanders voluntarily and responsibly pay their fair share of tax. However this Government is determined to catch up with those who do not by going after debt outstanding returns hidden economy activities aggressive tax planning fraud and property compliance.Alastair Scott: What other initiatives has the Government implemented relating to tax compliance?Hon TODD McCLAY: As part of Budget 2014 the Government provided an extra $132 million to the Inland Revenue Department to bolster tax compliance activities. This is on top of nearly $200 million already allocated through Budgets 2010 and 2012 for tax compliance and debt collection work. The results of this investment can clearly be seen: $49.8 million additional revenue has been collected through hidden economy tax avoidance initiatives non-compliance through tax property speculation identified $52.4 million and in going after aggressive tax planning we identified $539 million of discrepancies—a whopping return of $62.40 for every $1 spent. Every dollar we recover means that there is more that we can invest in funding health education and other essentials for the good of society.Partnership Schools—Readiness Reviews and Whangaruru School10.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “If those partnership schools don’t succeed the Government will be just as quick to close them down as we have been to establish them”?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Yes.Chris Hipkins: Was a readiness assessment report completed on the Whangaruru partnership school before it opened at the beginning of this year; if so what did it conclude?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes a readiness review was conducted as we do that for all new schools and it found that Whangaruru had challenges which were not unexpected because of course Whangaruru caters to kids who have been out of school for a year 2 years 3 years. This is a very challenging group of students and the readiness review indicated that they were dealing with those challenges.Chris Hipkins: Was the time period for the readiness review to be completed for the Whangaruru partnership school extended until August this year 8 months after the school first started operating; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The school first started operating in February and yes it was extended and it was extended because the school was dealing with these challenges. This is not unlike what we do for schools all around the country where they need extra time where they need interventions where they need commissioners. Because they are facing these problems we do our very best to support them. Why? Because we want these kids to have a shot at a great education.Chris Hipkins: What is the point of completing a readiness report before a charter school is allowed to open if the readiness report highlights major problems as has clearly been the case with Whangaruru and yet the school is allowed to open anyway regardless?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member seems unable to understand the answers I have already given. We do readiness reviews—[Interruption] I will speak slowly. We do readiness reviews for all new schools and we do it on the basis that we are able to give them informed and targeted support to get past their establishment year. These are partnership schools but we do it for all new schools.Chris Hipkins: Why has the readiness report for Whangaruru school not been publicly released the way the readiness reports for the four other charter schools have been?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Whangaruru has been subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny. It is a new school. It is dealing with a very challenging roll of students. The readiness review has been provided to Ngā Parirau Mātauranga Charitable Trust the trust that is the school’s sponsor. It is preparing a response plan to that. At the point that it has that the Ministry of Education will release both reports.Chris Hipkins: Why was Whangaruru partnership school allowed to open despite major issues being raised in the readiness review process including management infighting; major health and safety issues including bullying and drug use; and ongoing concerns about the quality of teaching learning and student engagement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The sequence of events was actually that proposals were put by sponsors. Those proposals were rigorously reviewed. In that process Whangaruru was given approval to go ahead. It began its establishment and then a readiness review was developed to ensure that it had the targeted support it needed to be successful. That is the process that it has been through. Readiness reviews occur once the establishment has been approved.Chris Hipkins: When the Prime Minister said that the Government would be quick to close down failing schools just how quick did he mean given that Whangaruru has been operating for nearly a year continues to receive funding well in excess of the number of students that actually attend the school and continues to be plagued by serious problems including drug use bullying and concerns about the quality of teaching learning and student engagement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The school—a new school dealing with very difficult students who have been out of the other schools in the area—has been operating under the glare of public scrutiny for 10 months; not for a year but for 10 months. We have schools across New Zealand that had been established for many years and they have commissioners in them and we are working to help them be successful as well. We want every young New Zealander to have an opportunity to be successful educationally and this is another option.Captioning—Free-to-air Programmes11.MOJO MATHERS (Green)to the Minister of Broadcasting: Will she consider using regulation to increase New Zealand’s level of captioning for free-to-air television given that all of Europe has regulations in place for captioning; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting):Not at this time because I am satisfied that there has been a significant increase in New Zealand’s level of free-to-air TV captioning over the past decade including 100 percent of prime-time content on Television One and TV2 now being captioned.Mojo Mathers: Is she aware that New Zealand has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which affirms the right to access information and popular culture; if so will she commit to captioning all free-to-air television?Hon AMY ADAMS: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Mojo Mathers: Does she consider that without regulation New Zealand will not be able to receive the high levels of captioning comparable with Australia the UK and the US given that high rates of captioning have been achieved only in countries that have rules requiring broadcasters to provide captioning?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well what I do consider is that without regulation over the past decade New Zealand has moved from having around only 70 hours a week of captioning and absolutely no provision of audio description to now having more than 250 hours a week of free-to-air captioning plus having 17 Sky channels carrying some captioning and around 20 hours of audio description per week. All of that has been achieved without regulation. The trend is for that to continue to increase and we support that.Mojo Mathers: Does she consider it acceptable that New Zealand On Air - funded programmes can be either shown without captions or released as DVDs without captions and will she consider bringing in a requirement for all New Zealand On Air - funded programmes to be available in captions and audio description; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS: That is something I am considering.Fisheries Protection—Honorary Fisheries Officers12.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura)to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the number of Honorary Fishery Officers leading into the summer fishing period?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Honorary fisheries officers are volunteers who are warranted by the Ministry for Primary Industries. They have powers to monitor our amateur fishers including seizing illegally taken seafood and equipment. I have recently been advised that the number of warranted honorary fisheries officers will increase to 225 as the Ministry for Primary Industries undergoes a new recruitment before the busy summer period. These will help bolster our resources to protect our fisheries and help educate all New Zealanders who continue to enjoy them.Stuart Smith: What role do honorary fisheries officers play in the management of our fisheries?Hon NATHAN GUY: New Zealand’s coastline is very long and remote in places so the role these volunteers play by monitoring catch and educating fishers and the public is absolutely critical. Honorary fisheries officers account for around 75 percent—or over 17000—of interactions with recreational fishers a year. These are knowledgable professional volunteers who give up hours of their time and I want to take a moment to thank them for what they do.Questions to MembersRegister of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill—Purpose1.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to the Member in charge of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill: Is it necessary for New Zealand to legislate for the adoption of a Register of Pecuniary Interests for the judiciary; if so why?Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Member in charge of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill):Requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests through legislation is desirable as it provides for greater transparency within the judicial system and avoids any conflict of interest in the judicial role. The purpose of such a bill is to require judges to make such returns to provide that transparency and avoid any such conflict of interests in the judicial role. The bill emulates models in other jurisdictions such as the United States and has attracted interest elsewhere such as Scotland.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that question to a member what was procedural about that question that made the Office of the Clerk accept it?Mr SPEAKER: The Clerk has advised that it is not just a matter of procedure; it is about the nature of the business for which the member has charge. I will certainly be listening very carefully to any supplementary questions that apply to any of these members’ questions. But the question was accepted it is in order and now we will proceed with the supplementary question.Eugenie Sage: Will the bill affect judicial independence in any way?Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: No. The bill does not imply any right of the legislature to intervene in the affairs of the judiciary. Nothing in the bill would compromise the constitutional principle of judicial independence. The intention is simply to promote due administration of justice by requiring a similar financial return by judges to what is already required by both the legislature and the executive of this country.Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill—Referral to Select Committee2.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill: What select committee has she nominated for the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill?METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill):In his first reading speech Hone Harawira nominated the Māori Affairs Committee to receive this bill should it pass its first reading. Although the bill amends the Education Act the Māori Affairs Committee has dealt quite recently with issues of poverty and poverty mitigation through its inquiry into the well-being of tamariki Māori. I have great confidence that the Māori Affairs Committee can deal with this bill very well.Denise Roche: Why has she nominated the Māori Affairs Committee to hear submissions on the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill?METIRIA TUREI: I support the Māori Affairs Committee hearing the evidence on this bill given that Māori are the majority ethnic group at low-decile schools. The recent Child Poverty Monitor showed that one in three Māori children is suffering from poverty. I want Māori whānau and communities to have a high level of comfort in making submissions to the select committee. I understand that Māori whānau will have a much greater level of comfort if that is done at the Māori Affairs Committee.Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill—Purpose3.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill: What recent evidence if any has she received that supports her bill?METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill):Low-decile schools report feeding lunch to up to 40 to 50 children a day in their schools. Other evidence suggests that 15 percent of children in low-decile schools are there without lunch. There is clear evidence that a lunch programme is also required in low-decile schools alongside the breakfast programmes that exist so that children have more than just two meals a day.Denise Roche: What evidence is there that a lunch programme in addition to breakfast is needed in low-decile schools?METIRIA TUREI: Hungry children cannot learn. Although the breakfast programmes provide a meal for some children in some schools it is important that all children have access to a nutritious and healthy lunch so they are able to maximise the education they are receiving. We all agree that children having the best possible education is the highest priority. Making sure hungry kids have enough food so they can learn well is the responsibility of us all.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Amendment4.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East)to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: Does she intend to continue with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill; if so why?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):I will continue with the bill because extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks is affordable it is a wise investment in New Zealand’s future it will support bonding and attachment between parent and baby in those crucial early months and it was supported by 99.6 percent of the 3800 submitters to the bill.Poto Williams: Does she propose any amendments to the bill?SUE MORONEY: Because the Government proclaimed that its only opposition to my bill was the cost which the finance Minister claimed was $500 million I recently proposed an amendment that reduced the cost to just $6 million in the next financial year. My amendment proposed that 26 weeks’ paid parental leave be extended to the families of twins or triplets of babies born prematurely or of babies born with a disability.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Support5.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti)to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: What support has she seen for continuing with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):As well as the 3809 submissions received on the bill 99.6 percent of which supported it the coalition group 26 for Babies is also pushing for the proposed extension to continue. The 26 for Babies coalition includes organisations such as Plunket Barnados Every Child Counts and the Breastfeeding Authority amongst many others.Meka Whaitiri: Did she receive support for her recent proposed amendments to the bill?SUE MORONEY: Yes from several quarters but most notably from the New Zealand Multiple Birth Association whose president said: “It is without argument that two or more children are logistically more challenging not to mention the financial pressures … ”. She made a heartfelt appeal to the Government to change its current stance against such New Zealand families.General DebateHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. As we come into the last few weeks before Christmas it is timely to reflect on all the work that has occurred over the past year as a basis for all the work that still remains to be done. We need to be doing this because we need to be investing in this small smart and sassy country of Aotearoa New Zealand. This Government of course does it under the leadership of the most popular Prime Minister in a generation and possibly more than that. He has the support of his caucus of his party and of New Zealanders. The Opposition members might ask themselves why he has that support. It is because we are focused on the things that matter. We are focused on building a strong economy. We are focused on moving forward and on ensuring that there are opportunities for New Zealanders to get the employment that they need to build the quality of life they want for their families. It has got to the point where we are now running “Come home Kiwi” fairs over in Perth and Sydney because we do not have enough people here in New Zealand to contribute to the growth of this economy. So it is time to reflect on what it is we have done and what it is we still have ahead of us.On this side we have a Government that is focused on the issues that matter; on that side we have an Opposition focused on itself. On this side we know that we have to invest in our people to bring about sustainable change. I have the honour of being the Minister of Education and contributing to the long-term growth of our economy and of our culture and society. The way we are doing that is that parents can go into this Christmas knowing that their children can start in education earlier stay longer and leave better qualified. We have a 14-year low in expulsions and stand-downs and we have the greatest level of achievement we have ever had. The Opposition spends a lot of time focusing on reports and on what is wrong and very little on doing anything about it. What this Government has done is that it has seen not only the average increase of all young people at school but it has seen an increase in Māori achievement of 19 percent over the 6 years we have been in Government. The Opposition went out satisfied that it was OK for 44 percent of all Māori secondary school students to get a minimum qualification. Pasifika students fared slightly better at 51 percent. We are ambitious for this country and that means every child and every young person. We are now at the stage where Māori are at 63 percent and Pasifika are at 72 percent.But are we satisfied with that? The answer is no we are not. We want every young person to be successful so that they can be contributors and they can be powerful actors in their own lives. We are doing this across the country. We get criticism about partnership schools. Well we are prepared to go as far as we need to in order to give every kid the best opportunity. We are seeing them leaving school better qualified. In Christchurch we have invested $1.137 billion to grow the most modern education system. We have seen successful mergers of schools. We have seen three high schools—Hillmorton Hornby and Linwood—gain years 7 to 13 through their mergers. Do we get the Opposition members going down there and seeing the success? No because all they want to do is cry over problems but we get on and do the work that is necessary. We have got more young people starting in early childhood education because we know that kids who start behind too often stay behind. We are not prepared to have that happen so we are now at 96 percent of all 4-year-olds participating in early childhood education.Hon Trevor Mallard: Because more kids are being born that’s why.Hon HEKIA PARATA: We hear from a former Minister of Education whose claim to fame is shutting 259 schools. Ours here on this side is opening and investing into schools. We have the biggest property portfolio in schools that we have ever had. We have some of the most modern learning environments. We opened Pegasus Bay School. It is the first new school that will be a net contributor of energy back into the grid. So not only are we getting good education outcomes but we are contributing to a modern 21st century environment that contributes net energy back to the system and we will continue to do that. We have invested $700 million in ensuring that every school—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been timing that speech. She is over time now but I move an extension of time—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I keep the time on this debate. The member had 8 seconds if she wishes to complete her speech.Hon HEKIA PARATA: In those 8 seconds I just want to say that not only has this Government been able to demonstrate what it has achieved but it is strapped and ready for another 3 years of contributing to the growth and strength of this country. Thank you.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member the general debate is a robust debate but the level of noise coming from a particular quarter was completely unacceptable and it must cease for the balance of this debate.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):We always love it when the Minister of Education the Hon Hekia Parata gets to her feet because the longer she stays in office the longer she stays in that job we know that the rest of New Zealand is desperate for a change and desperate for Chris Hipkins to take up the role and give us a decent education policy. She stands there and says that we have the most popular Prime Minister in a decade. He is the most slippery Prime Minister in a decade because he has been immersed in whale oil for far too long. He is slippery and blubbery and he is on his way out. He knows he has got 2 years left. He will step down and Steven Joyce will step up. They will go out in their final year and then New Zealand will have the Government that it truly deserves.We have been talking this week about the issues that New Zealanders really care about—issues that the Government opposite dare not talk to New Zealanders about because it does not have any ideas and it does not care about working people. We have been talking about jobs because jobs are important and they are the means that people in this country have to earn their livelihood to get ahead and to fulfil their dreams. That is important to us. We have always been the party of working people making sure that they can get ahead and fulfil their dreams. That party opposite has totally forgotten working New Zealanders. They are not just those on a wage or a salary but those trying to set up their own business those who are contractors those who work for themselves—but those members do not care. They do not care. Their only contribution to working life in New Zealand is that every time they get their miserable hands on a piece of employment law they make it worse. They make it worse. They take things off people. They make it harder. They make it more and more difficult for people to get ahead.Well I can tell those members opposite—and they have gone very quiet now because they know the truth is being spoken—that New Zealanders have had enough. [Interruption] David Bennett knows. David Bennett knows because he has sat there. Jonathan Young will find out because he now chairs the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They know that New Zealanders have had enough of the miserable the money-grubbing the shockingly desperate Government that can offer nothing to working New Zealanders. They are looking for something new. They are looking for something new. They want a Government that is thinking not just about the next election not just about the next year not just about how to get through the next week with more deception and more misleading and more making things up on the spot. They want a Government that is thinking about the issues that New Zealanders care about. They want to know that they have got a party in Parliament now that is thinking years ahead and that is thinking about the current generation of working people their kids and the next generation. That is what we are doing.We are going to go out there with all of the expertise that we have got the business people we have got on board—[Interruption] Oh no—oh no you see. They are so out of touch and so arrogant. They are so out of touch they have lost touch with their base and their community. Business people are crying out for a party that takes the future of work seriously. They have got one now that is going to talk to business talk to the community talk to working people talk to their organisations and unions and start finding out from New Zealanders how we pave the way to make sure that they get a decent opportunity they can get ahead they can get a decent income and their kids can actually have a real chance and a real opportunity.Brett Hudson: That’s right—and Labour’s going to promise them five new taxes.ANDREW LITTLE: Hollering from the back blocks ain’t going to help brother. Hollering from the back blocks is not going to help because New Zealanders want a party that is going to listen and they have got that. Grant Robertson and the senior MPs in Labour and all the members of Labour will be getting around and talking to the communities because people now want to have a talk. People want to have their input into some answers about the longstanding questions they have about work. We are not going to be tied up in silly practices or trying to keep our mates outside Parliament sweet because they have locked up all our emails and all our text messages. We are not worried about that. That is that Government. It is on its way out. New Zealanders want a party with some answers. New Zealanders want a party that is going to listen. New Zealanders want a party that cares about their future prosperity and their future prospects and in Labour they have got it. We are on our way we are up and running and it is going to be good. New Zealanders will love it. It is all going to happen here.Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues):I am not going to comment on the speech that has just been made by Andrew Little which sounded like a speech you might make 2 years after an election not just a few months after.I want to talk about climate change. I want to talk about climate change because our interdepartmental team of officials and New Zealand stakeholders have arrived in Lima for the annual ministerial conference on climate change. I will be leaving this weekend for the political segment of it.I am not going to talk about the science because basically in my view we do not any longer need to debate the science. There are clearly some very important issues at the level of detail but the broad point to me is 100 percent clear. This is a serious long-term issue. We need a far more effective global response. What I want to talk about is New Zealand’s contributions both domestically and internationally.The core point on the domestic front is I think best summed up still by the report put together with a group of New Zealand climate change scientists led by Sir Peter Gluckman last year which said: “New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions represent but a minute fraction of global emissions … Any action from New Zealand to mitigate emissions would have negligible direct global impact … Therefore New Zealand’s contribution … to reduce greenhouse emissions is more of a geopolitical issue …”.The question is this—this is not a statement about a free pass. This is not a statement saying we do not need to do anything. It is a realistic assessment that without more comprehensive serious international attention what we are doing here is a complete waste of time. The real focus has got to be on the international dimension here. In the meantime in terms of us meeting our obligations we will easily meet our first obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. Although it takes an inordinately long time to come down to final definitive statistics we will easily meet that. We have got a very respectable offer on the table for the next commitment period which started in 2013—a minus 5 percent target. We are prepared to do more under certain conditions. But frankly with 100 countries representing 22 percent of global emissions which did nothing in the Kyoto period and have offered to do nothing in the next period the case still has to be made. In any event as the World Bank global carbon markets report of 2013 pointed out there is a carbon price—whether it is via a carbon tax an emissions trading scheme a cap in trade or any other scheme—on only 7 percent of global emissions. So I am absolutely certain that this Government can say we are absolutely doing our fair share.The more intriguing thing I think comes to the international dimension. Let me make this very clear: do I think we are just doing our fair share internationally? Oh no. I think actually we face for certain Opposition parties a very uncomfortable truth: we are vastly exceeding any rational definition of a fair share in terms of what we are doing internationally. I am going to look at this under three headings: what we are doing under climate change development assistance particularly focused on the Pacific countries and helping them both with mitigation and adaptation with quite important co-benefits on the development side; what we are doing in terms of international research and development; and lastly—and never talked about because it does not fit the political narrative—what we are doing in terms of the international negotiations.On the first issue I can be relatively brief. We are now hardwired into our development assistance programme in the Pacific—climate change adaptation and assistance with these countries in meeting the challenges. We have accumulated nearly $700 million of assistance with the help of the European Union to push that forward.But in the little time I have I want to focus on our international climate change negotiations contribution. We have just seen a landmark agreement between the Chinese and the Americans reached in Beijing. They account by themselves for over 40 percent of emissions. The New Zealand proposal for the long-term agreement was the only proposal the US has commented on and has been described in these terms by the US administration: “We think by far the most interesting proposal on the table is the New Zealand proposal.”Far from being marginalised our proposal is central to this negotiation. New Zealand is doing a great deal on the international stage. If we had time to talk about the global research allowance which you Mr Speaker of course helped to launch with me at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ministerial we are also doing a huge amount in terms of the international dimension there.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Right now I feel the trepidation that many Opposition members feel having to speak after the Hon Tim Groser one of the smartest men in New Zealand. What a great Minister of Trade he is. [Interruption] I knew you would love that. I knew you would love that. He is doing a great job for New Zealand.I am sure that Andrew Little got his idea about the future of work from Taranaki because there is great organisation there that I want to send a shout-out to called Taranaki Futures. That is an organisation that I helped kick off with a great number of very innovative hard-working collaborative people who want to see the people of Taranaki—the young people in particular—having a great future in employment. This organisation has been working hard for nearly 2 years now to understand what the economic needs in the future are going to be and how that is going to define the workforce.We work hard to ensure that our young people in high school are connecting with employers and industry to prepare for that future. This is nothing new; we have been doing it for 2 years. I can say that last Sunday about 17 young high school students who in this last year have built a bach sold that bach by auction. They had this bach built consented and planned. They went through all the work of learning how to build how to measure how to quantify and how to do all of these great trade skills. This bach went up for sale on Sunday afternoon. This one-bedroom bach about 60 square metres sold in New Plymouth.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?JONATHAN YOUNG: Where do you think? It sold for $80000. Congratulations to those young people. Congratulations to Taranaki Futures to those high school students to their teachers and to the polytech who all worked together. I heard from one of the principals who was there that day that every single one of their students has already secured an apprenticeship. Is that not great news? Is the future of work not something that this Government has been working on for a long time? We have seen it come to pass.Here we have two full pages in the Taranaki Daily News showing this great work. You will see on this page all the adverts of all the businesses that collaborated with this. What the Opposition is talking about what it thinks is a brand new idea is nothing such. It is something that the innovative hard-working collaborating people of Taranaki whom I have been involved with have been doing for a long long time already.I guess that is one of the things that Andrew Little learnt on the campaign trail. He learnt what was working because he saw our electorate. He saw the work of the local National MP his relationship with the workforce there what it was producing and every single one of those young people.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come along on Monday night.JONATHAN YOUNG: Guess what is going to happen next year Mr Peters? Next year there are going to be two baches. There is going to be one built in South Taranaki by a group of young women—Tracey Martin: Yay!JONATHAN YOUNG: —and another one built by a group of young men. It is going to be fascinating to see just exactly which one comes out looking the best. What do you think Ms Martin? What do you think?Whichever it is going to be what we are going to see is outstanding young people in Taranaki doing a brilliant job getting out of their high schools and into the workplace and being able to step into apprenticeships straight away. We did this because what we discovered was that around about 70 percent of students who leave high school actually do not go to university. So what do we do for them? What we do for them is we come and talk to them earlier on to discover what sorts of things they have a passion for. When we did that we discovered that these young people had a fantastic passion to build something to learn something to apply knowledge and to come out with skills that are going to build this economy and make this nation great. Thank you.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare Pāremata. It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing that the Prime Minister cannot remember anything and it is also embarrassing that the Prime Minister does not understand our history. Most high school students have a better grasp of the so-called settlement of Aotearoa New Zealand than the Prime Minister has displayed. It is really awkward too that this Government does not appear to understand that the latest Waitangi Tribunal ruling is super clear—crystal clear and uncomfortably clear—that tangata whenua never ceded sovereignty in 1840. But the Government has not taken that on board cannot understand it will not come to grips with it and is showing no leadership on the very crucial issue that rangatira who signed te Tiriti never signed away their sovereignty.So I have got a little quiz for the Prime Minister—a little history quiz—to help him along. It might be possible for some others to answer the quiz as well. I am sure there are people here who know the answers even though he does not seem to. For a start question No. 1 to the Prime Minister: New Zealand was settled peacefully or New Zealand was confiscated from tangata whenua through violence and dubious legal tricks? Discuss which is true without contradicting yourself. Would it not be great to have somebody capable of that in the leadership role in this country? We would love to see an essay as well by the Prime Minister quoting himself when he said that Māori are “grateful for the capital and skills brought by the others”—the rest of us the settlers the colonisation process. Presumably he means especially those skills that were used to strip Māori of their land to poison their resources and to suppress their culture.It is interesting that the Prime Minister when he made the statement about how grateful Māori are was speaking in the present tense. In the essay I would really like him to address the examples of Māori individuals and groups who have expressed their gratitude to the Prime Minister for these wonderful gifts. I have not met these people but no doubt in an essay he could explain this because I have never seen so many people confused by his grasp of history.The other fascinating question that he needs to address is: New Zealand was unusual in its peaceful settlement process. That is what he said. He said that this country was nicer than anywhere else. Colonisation is actually a form of rape—rape. Or rape nicely; there is not much difference to the victim. So here we go indeed. What are the specific differences between the nicer forms of violence used by the Crown in the 1800s such as gunboats in the Waikato and the Coromandel raupatu for Whakatōhea with Tainui scorched earth for Tūhoe and legalised theft for everybody else? How does that make us different from all the other settler countries? I think we have a right to an answer to that question. If the Prime Minister is going to say we were settled peacefully he needs to be able to explain how nice it was just how different it was how superior it was to be colonised by the English. Would that not be a great story to tell?The other question in the quiz that I think would be important would be: the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled that sovereignty was not ceded in 1840. Explain why this is inconvenient and how he plans to ignore it because that is in fact what he plans to do. Most of the time the Waitangi Tribunal is recognised in this House as the basis of the Treaty settlement process but not this one. This one is going to be marginalised and ignored because it is inconvenient.The other part of the quiz and the last question I would like to put to our ill-informed Prime Minister is: discuss how basic historical knowledge is important for a Prime Minister and what should happen if the Prime Minister demonstrates less knowledge than most high-school students. I think it would be useful if he could come to grips with this so that the rest of us need not feel so embarrassed and ashamed that the person who means to lead our country forward and out of historical problems has no grasp of history whatsoever.I think somebody needs to explain the word “settlement” to the Prime Minister. I do not expect him to be a historian. I am not a historian. But from very very fundamental reading it is obvious that the period between 1840 and 1900 was not a peaceful settlement process. In fact the period between 1840 and 1860 was not as violent as during the Land Wars but it was a very difficult time. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has ever heard of the Flagstaff War of the 1840s the Wairoa incident in the 1840s or any of those incidents that showed that the Treaty was under threat right from day one.It is very important that we do not minimise our own history so that we can have a visionary positive way forward together. We do not teach those 1950s myths any more. We do not tell children that we are the best country in the world in terms of our historical colonisation process. We do not lie to the people any more about what happened. We are honest and we try to face up to our history so that we can create a country where everybody has a place.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):It is a pleasure to speak in this general debate and equally a pleasure to have been able to listen to the MP for New Plymouth who spoke earlier before me. It is a pleasure to hear from the MP for New Plymouth because he is the one man in this House who knows what it is like to go up against Andrew Little. Guess what happened when Jonathan Young went up against Andrew Little? His majority has increased at every single election. His majority increased in 2011 and in 2014.As members of the National Party and sitting on this side of the House contemplating going up against Andrew Little in 2017 we are looking forward to seeing what happens to our majority in 2017. The MP who has become the leader of the Labour Party is the MP for the union party. He is there only because the unions put him in that leadership position. He does not have the support of his caucus. Only four members in his caucus support him.Think about this. When the Labour Party and the Green Party were talking before the election about cash for access and cash for policy we hit back saying that this is the Labour Party that believes in cash for leadership because we know the unions in this country are heavy funders of the Labour Party. They denied it at the time but that cash for leadership has absolutely resulted in a new leader of the Labour Party for the union movement in this country—not a Labour Party leader who is here to work for all New Zealanders. He is a Labour Party leader who is here for the unions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the general debate is about the most robust debate that you get in Parliament there are still rules about suggestions around cash for influence and so on which are clearly outside of the Standing Orders. I think that member well and truly overstepped that particular mark.Mr SPEAKER: I did not take that from the member’s contribution but if he is saying that members were taking cash for delivering any promises that is effectively an allegation of corruption and that is certainly unacceptable. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. As I said I did not interpret it that way but if members have that is unacceptable. I ask the member to continue his speech but certainly not in that vein.JAMI-LEE ROSS: I am happy to point out that the unions in this country are the ones that have helped to deliver Andrew Little the leadership. That is a fact. They may not like it but it is simply the case. I look at people like David Parker who is a very good intellectual on the Labour side of the House—failed to get there. I look at people like Grant Robertson who does have the support of the caucus—failed to get there. And if Andrew Little’s track record in New Plymouth is anything to look at then 2017 is going to be very interesting.The year 2017 is going to be interesting as well because the Labour Party the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party do not realise that many of the issues that we have spoken about in question time in the last 2 weeks have been decided already by New Zealanders. New Zealanders delivered a message to parliamentarians in this House in the 2014 election. They delivered the message that they care about whether jobs are being created in this economy. That is exactly what we are doing in the National Party. They care about growth taking place in this economy. And with growth rates at 3.9 percent we are delivering for New Zealanders what they want.The Minister of Conservation is sitting behind me. The voters of New Zealand told us that they care about a cleaner environment. They care about all the work we are doing to ensure that national parks are looked after properly to ensure that the wildlife in this country is looked after properly. That is exactly what we are delivering in the environment area. They told us that they wanted more housing to be created in Auckland and that is exactly what is happening in Auckland under policies being delivered by Dr Nick Smith. Minister Parata is delivering an education system that is going to see more children being educated more children getting the qualifications they need.Those are the issues that New Zealanders told us they care about. They do not care about Cameron Slater. They do not care about text messages. The Labour Party is focused on the dirt it is focused on the muck and it is focused on everything that New Zealanders care very little about. We are unashamedly focused on delivering better outcomes for New Zealand. We are unashamedly focused on a stronger economy more jobs less crime better health care and better education. That is what we are delivering for New Zealanders. John Key is one of the most open Prime Ministers that this country has seen. We are delivering on our plan we are getting results for New Zealanders and we are not focused on the muck. We have a leader who has the support of his caucus and that is the recipe for success.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):There remains much arising from the Nicky Hager book to be investigated. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security last week showed the politicisation of the SIS by the head of the SIS and the Prime Minister’s own staff in his office. What was written off by the Prime Minister as a left-wing conspiracy theory during the election was proven to be true: underhand tactics were being used by the Prime Minister and the SIS.National was cynical enough on the day of the release of that report to drop two others including the report by Justice Chisholm on Judith Collins. That report found that Judith Collins did not undermine the Serious Fraud Office. It found that there was no evidence in that regard. It did not inquire into whether Judith Collins had been improper in respect of Oravida—whether she had a personal conflict of interest there a financial one. It did not inquire into whether it was proper of her to pass information about public servants to Slater. It did not inquire as to whether the other allegations as to undermining the Serious Fraud Office were correct. Those matters were all outside the terms of reference. The report did not exonerate Judith Collins in respect of those other matters and the report does not exonerate anyone else in respect of what may have been happening in respect of the undermining of the Serious Fraud Office.What do we now know? We know that thousands of dollars were being paid every month via Carrick Graham to Mr Slater. Presumably thousands of dollars were also being paid to Carrick Graham himself. What were both of them doing? Well they were both undermining the Serious Fraud Office. Who were they doing it for? We do not yet know who they were doing it for. It looks like they may have been doing it for Mr Hotchin. Why would Mr Hotchin have been interested in doing that? Well he was being investigated as to whether he should be charged with criminal offences following the half a billion dollars of losses suffered through Hanover Finance’s failing. He was being investigated at the time by the Serious Fraud Office. I have had two people make worrying allegations to me. One allegation is from a former staff member of the Serious Fraud Office who told me that at the time the Serious Fraud Office commenced its investigation a former adviser to Hotchin contacted this person and said: “Hotchin plays a rough game. You watch out. He will use underhand tactics to undermine the Serious Fraud Office and their staff.” The second allegation I had made to me was that Mr Hotchin used underhand tactics to take out some of the potential witnesses against him in respect of his conduct by Hanover Finance.I cannot name either of those sources and I cannot prove those allegations to be true. They are both hearsay allegations to me but these allegations must be investigated. We have seen in respect of the SIS matters that there was fire behind the smoke and in respect of these allegations we know that thousands of dollars were presumably being paid by Hotchin to Carrick Graham Slater and Cathy Odgers in respect of their efforts to undermine the Serious Fraud Office. What we do not know is whether those actions were criminal and whether there was a criminal conspiracy. I made a complaint to the police over 2 months ago in respect of that. The only information I had come back other than to inquire whether I had more evidence was a line in the Chisholm report to say that the allegations in respect of Judith Collins were not being looked at any further. It looks like no further actions are being inquired into.These are serious allegations. They must be looked at seriously by the authorities. We have seen the politicisation of the SIS. We must make sure that the police have not been politicised. They were happy enough to inquire into the teapot tapes to cooperate with the Prime Minister to deem Mr Ambrose guilty despite the fact that he had two arguable defences and yet we do not have the police looking at these most serious allegations as to whether the other allegations in the Hager book are true. Indeed Mr Hager—and if it were not for his efforts none of the SIS stuff would have come out and none of this other stuff would have been investigated—is the one who is being raided. He is the one who has suffered search warrants. And yet Mr Slater Ms Odgers Mr Hotchin or the others like Carrick Graham do not seem to have been investigated by the police and I do not think that is good enough.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country):This Government under the leadership of John Key is working in the interests of every New Zealander which is represented by the track record we hold for delivering results for all New Zealanders through the straightforward decisions we make. This Government has got on with the job of locking in the gains of the last 6 years to create a long-term lift in New Zealand’s prosperity and the betterment of all Kiwis.Our regions are flourishing. Regional development and the dismissing of boundaries between the urban and rural divide are integral to the growth of our country. The regional workings of New Zealand and the urban have to work together to act collectively to further the growth of New Zealand businesses both domestically and internationally. This is what our Business Growth Agenda is set to do. No industry or area of policy is an island. This Government collaborates across many sectors to achieve the best results possible for Kiwis.The way that we move forward and strengthen the gains that this Government has made in the past 6 years is to keep tracking forward with the team on this side of the House which is full of talent experience and unlike the other side of the House fresh faces and enthusiasm for what our Government and leader are delivering. This National-led Government understands that a strong economy is the key to boosting the Kiwi families who elected this side of the House for a third term. They asked and we are delivering. This Government is providing world-leading public services that are lifting our long-term growth rate and ultimately diversifying and building productivity in this economy.Since being back after the election this Government has successfully completed negotiations for the free-trade agreement with Korea which creates more opportunities for businesses to grasp and cheaper products for consumers. This free-trade agreement extends across various sectors and is vital to the agriculture forestry and industrial sectors which are often seen as the backbone of New Zealand.This Government is wholeheartedly committed to delivering more skills to the relevant industries that need them and we are doing this by establishing three new information and communications technology graduate schools across New Zealand. Technology is a booming industry in New Zealand and it is vitally important that this Government is delivering where it can to enhance the sector for the future of Kiwis. In line with the information and communications technology industry that is sweeping the globe we are extending the Rural Broadband Initiative so that all parts of New Zealand have world-class broadband coverage that is appropriate for the 21st century. This means ultra-fast broadband coverage will be available to a further 200000 New Zealanders. This Government recognises the importance of ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband to Kiwis in our rural electorates.This side of the House recognises the need to advance and improve these various aspects of life for New Zealanders unlike the other side of the House which is currently fighting over policies that would take New Zealand back decades. It speaks for itself that Kiwis are choosing to stay here in New Zealand. As we have heard October was the first month in over 20 years when net migration to New Zealand was positive. It is clear from the work that this Government has done in bringing Kiwis back home to New Zealand that they see the opportunities for their children their families their businesses and their investments. New Zealanders are no longer having to leave New Zealand shores for these opportunities as they are right here right now in this country that we call home.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and the growing number of Kiwis who are disenfranchised by the direction this country is going under the leadership and the magic show of John Key and National. When I talk about the magic show of John Key I am not talking about the great shows we have seen like David Copperfield’s or Dynamo’s show but the sleight of hand the illusion that National has created under this Government. I feel so much more enlightened after Barbara Kuriger’s display today and the great picture she has painted of this Government! But today the best speech that I have heard in this House—the one I am going to take the most from—has come from the other side of the House from the ACT Party. Wait a minute—they did not show up to speak today.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is a new member but you cannot refer to the absence of any member. That is definitely a breach of the Standing Orders.CLAYTON MITCHELL: I will take 10 on the bench. Thank you Mr Speaker.Anyway as we move on in this fantastic debate we are having today my talk today is about the hypocrisy and the absolute contradictions that we see time and time again from this Government—something that we have not seen for many many years. Government members jeer and yell from the sides but in actual fact they know in their hearts that what is going on in this country is all downhill from here. We talked about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill where this Government took away the right for scheduled meal breaks which have now disappeared from the rights of all New Zealanders. It was something that we fought hard to gain for all New Zealanders and in the same breath the Government is now putting in through the select committee the deal to do with the Health and Safety Reform Bill. It is trying to ironically reduce health and safety provisions for the workers of New Zealand by 25 percent. Yet over the hundreds of submissions we have had one of the major concerns that is coming forward is the concern for the people’s rights to that meal break. We are not talking about people like ourselves who stand up and waffle on from time to time. I am not talking about the people who push pens around their desks and justify long lunches. I am talking about the hard-working New Zealanders the people involved in our forestry industry the people involved in our truck-driving industry the meat workers and the people whose lives if lost will change not only their own life—clearly because they will not have one—but the lives of their communities and their families. The hypocrisy—that this Government can stand there—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I apologise for interrupting the member but that is a word that will lead to disorder. It has been used twice now in the member’s contribution and I would be grateful if it is not used again.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you again Mr Speaker for this clarity. I am learning fast.Iain Lees-Galloway: You learn by doing in this place.CLAYTON MITCHELL: I feel like I am on a very high learning curve with elephant droppings there Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.We were talking about those issues in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but it brings me to some more issues and I will use the word “contradictions” because that is far more appropriate. You see this is the sort of speed at which New Zealand First members learn in the House. But I have to say we have some issues to raise now. We talk about the buzzword of the 21st century which is of course harm minimisation. This word gets thrown out like bread and butter at a fish and chip shop but in actual fact this word harm minimisation if it is put to its true effect in the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) really does ask this question: why is the Government trying to harm-minimise the Gambling Act on one hand while with sleight of hand trickery the David Copperfield - style illusion it comes in and gives 500 gaming machines to the likes of Skycity Casino? Skycity Casino of course is probably one of its mates that it has some sort of agreement with—oh I thought there might have been another “Order!”. I was going for a hat trick Mr Speaker.The sort of contradiction that goes on absolutely surprises me and this country has had enough. We are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with the sort of nonsense that is going on. Skycity Casino is now embroiled in the zero-hour contracts that are going on out there in the community. It is no surprise that with one hand the Government has given Skycity 500 extra machines whilst saying it is trying to minimise harm to do with gambling. And at the same time Skycity is introducing zero-hour work contracts for its employees which 66 percent of Skycity employees are employed under. Thank you for your time.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura):This—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Another Smith.STUART SMITH: Yes another Smith; you are very fortunate. This Government has set itself a challenge—Tim Macindoe: A wordsmith.STUART SMITH: —and it is a great challenge. A wordsmith that is right. It wants to double primary industry exports by 2025. But how are we going to do that? The regions are doing the heavy lifting and growing exports in this country and I happen to represent one of the regions that is one of the fastest-growing and one of most export-orientated regions in the country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?STUART SMITH: I am coming to that. On top of having a strong agricultural sector it represents 80 percent of both the aquaculture and wine industries as well as having strong forestry manufacturing and tourism sectors. All of those sectors and those industries coming from Kaikoura really have a great international reputation and are really helping New Zealand to build its place in the world. To meet our export target we need to grow value over volume in a sustainable way. Possibilities for regional development have often been wasted when those initiatives have been driven by councils. Councils unfortunately are not natural business thinkers. When they do their budget for example they fill out the expenditure side of the budget and then simply make the income fit it whereas businesses have to go completely the other way round. Though councils I should say have a valuable role to play in growing business and business initiatives by providing the infrastructure and supporting business initiatives.Cluster groups provide one of the great initiatives and possibilities to grow businesses in the regional sectors. One in point is Marlborough Food and Beverage Innovation Cluster—it is quite a mouthful. This was formed a little over a year ago under the umbrella of the Marlborough Research Centre Trust the Riddet Institute Massey University and the ANZ bank. Together these entities provide the necessary capabilities and skills to assist companies to grow innovate and reach further up the value chain. Members gain access to investment funds education opportunities and research resources. This enhances their potential to grow. The Marlborough Food and Beverage Innovation Cluster although a Marlborough cluster is open to New Zealand companies as it has a vision to support “New Zealand Inc.” as well as regional development and to that end it has companies from Christchurch Nelson and Wellington that are participating.An example of the success of the cluster model is Renaissance Brewing which has recently undertaken a capital-raising exercise through crowdsourcing and is the first New Zealand company to successfully do so. Crowdfunding is an exciting new way for small companies to grow and gain access to capital markets through the Financial Markets Conduct Act which allows capital raising for small companies without the need for the same level of detailed disclosure and expense that the more traditional avenues will require. Renaissance Brewing successfully raised $700000 through the crowdfunding platform called Snowball Effect. But the next step once you have got yourself some funding is to actually ensure that you have a market and one of the key things to that end in the Marlborough region is the fact that breweries are in an area where wine is a big part of the export sector and buyers come to New Zealand to buy wine and naturally they are often craft beer buyers. So to that end they are starting a New Zealand - wide beer cluster in Marlborough. This is a fantastic initiative and will really help things grow along in that way.Free-trade agreements are also essential to fully grow our potential and this Government is pursuing these very vigorously and ensuring that New Zealand has access to growth markets. Combining trade agreements with innovative business initiatives such as clusters is really helping to harness New Zealand’s economic potential. Regions are not just a part of the New Zealand story; they are actually driving it.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I think that was a very good decision that you have just made then—to call me. In the first 100 days of this Government many of the Ministers are looking at their programmes of what they will do what their priorities are for their first 100 days. Can I say that 51 percent of the population of New Zealand must be deeply deeply disappointed in the Minister for Women who has chosen as the priority in her first 100 days to remove eight letters and one apostrophe from the name of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? That has been her first action: she is going to change it from being called the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to—wait for it—the Ministry for Women. That is going to make a big difference to all the women in New Zealand! [Interruption] Mrs King asks how much that is going to cost. We simply do not know. There will be the cost of a new logo there will be the cost of new signage there will be the cost of all the new stationery there will be the cost of new business cards—and this apparently is the thing that women in New Zealand are crying out for in the first 100 days!Well this just goes to show how out of touch the Government has quite quickly become in its third term. Removing eight letters from the name of the ministry—and important an apostrophe—is not going to make a blind bit of difference to the women who are facing increasing violence against them in society. We know that the numbers are rising incredibly fast in that area. We see in the news reports pretty much every day this week a heinous crime of violence against women being committed—pretty much every day in the last week in this country. And what is the Minister for Women doing? She is changing the name of the ministry.And what do we also hear about? We hear about the pay gap the stubborn pay gap in this country. We find the pay gap where women who have worked hard to gain qualifications—and last year 61 percent of the people who graduated from universities were women—find that when they take their first job immediately after graduation they are not being paid the same as men. They are being paid less than men doing exactly the same job with the same qualifications. So what is the Minister for Women doing about that? She is changing the name of the ministry. And what about the women who are struggling to feed and clothe their children? The growing child poverty in this country and the role that women face in that many of them on these new zero-hour contracts that the Government seems OK with and quite happy to support—what is the Minister for Women doing about that? She is changing the name of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and that is totally irrelevant to the sorts of issues that women face today.But she has come up with another great idea in her first 100 days and it is this. All of these problems that women face today in New Zealand can be fixed if only they would enter a beauty pageant—yes a beauty pageant. It sounds bizarre but it is true. This in the first 100 days is what the Minister for Women has prescribed as being the big “fix-it” for women in New Zealand. Why is the Minister for Women Louise Upston starting to fight and relitigate the debates of yesterday? Why is she doing that? We have had the debate about beauty pageants. It has been and gone. And by the way who opens the door is not a political statement; it is a way of getting from one side of the door to the other. That is all it is. Who opens the door is not important. Do not relitigate the issues and the debates of yesterday.We had the Minister at the height of the Roger Sutton sexual harassment fiasco going to Christchurch. Did she go and say anything about the Roger Sutton situation? No she went and put on a bit of high-vis gear and went and had her photo taken launching some new high-vis gear for women. She was in Christchurch where the debacle was taking place but she said nothing. It was up to Labour leader Andrew Little to actually come out and say that it was a fiasco that the press release was utterly and completely wrong. Good on Andrew Little because he had the courage to call it when the Minister for Women did not. The Minister for Women took 10 days—10 days—to watch and see where public opinion would go first before she dared to say anything against what Roger Sutton had done. So that is the sort of Minister for Women that we have at the moment. The Minister will not use the “f” word—she will not use the feminist word—but even Lorde calls herself a feminist. I am a feminist because that is the idea—the radical notion—that women are people and my husband is a feminist too.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):It gives me great pleasure to finally be here not least of all because of the irritation that it causes to some members that I am indeed here. I just want to tell you—it may come as a surprise to you—that I actually have something in common with the Rt Hon Winston Peters: we both have a monopoly on intellect within our caucus. That is unfortunately a fact. Let us face it: what exactly is the job description for being “I am the deputy leader of New Zealand First.”? Well she is not here because she got bored designing rockets at NASA I can tell you that much.I am especially proud to be here standing for the ACT Party in the third-freest economy that this world has ever seen. It is no coincidence that—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party’s that? How many MPs?DAVID SEYMOUR: Where is your seat Winston? How exactly is Tauranga? How are the people of Tauranga treating you these days? Not so well not so well. There is not a seat in this country that you could win.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reluctant as I am the Standing Orders requires someone not to use a person’s first name or his second name in fact but to call him an honourable member—in my case a very honourable member. He cannot say that.Mr SPEAKER: The member did casually refer to the member by his Christian name and that is certainly out of order.DAVID SEYMOUR: I am terribly sorry. Thank you very much for that guidance on the etiquette of the House. For that I am extremely grateful to the member. I was saying that I am very very proud to stand for the ACT Party in New Zealand the freest economy that the world has ever seen apart from a couple of small city States that by no coincidence are also the most vibrant intelligent and interesting societies that the world has ever seen except perhaps with a few exceptions which I will not name for fear of breaching the Standing Orders.I also want to address myself to some of the traditional members opposite because I feel that perhaps at a slightly different time or age I could have been one of them. I am talking about maybe around the time of my birth. But actually it may surprise most that I am thinking about even earlier than that and in particular I am thinking of Mickey Savage—I assume you can call him that since he is no longer here—and Peter Fraser. Peter Fraser once famously said that it was the Government’s role to provide people—whether or not they were rich or poor from town or country male or female or from whatever race too—with an education that would best help them achieve their goals. That is something to which I am deeply committed. I am deeply committed to the partnership school kura hourua policy. Anybody who finds themselves to be a sceptic of that policy should actually go and visit the schools not go on Radio Live and lie about whether they have been to the schools. They should actually go and visit the schools not the private school that was previously operated by the sponsor but actually go and visit the school. I find that that is the best antidote.Tracey Martin: I have.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well we are very pleased that some members have. You should keep visiting them until you change your mind. I know it can take a long time. I am very proud of that policy because it is giving kids who have failed elsewhere an opportunity—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Been a teacher?DAVID SEYMOUR: —to learn to get qualifications to have skills to have a career. I have not been to Antarctica either but I know it is cold—just to borrow something from across the House. Those kids end up in a situation where they can ultimately feel good about themselves. That is the promise that Peter Fraser made. That is the promise that I am committed to helping fulfil for the children of New Zealand. It is a pity that so many people on the other side of the House are so much more worried about the means that were used to achieve the ends rather than the ends themselves. Has that not come out in the nastiness of recent press releases from the member sitting at the back there? In conclusion I am very proud to be here with ACT and a free society and with a policy that uses the principles of the market and a free society to actually achieve some of the ends that members opposite supposedly believe in or at least their predecessors believed in very strongly. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Speaker’s RulingsDebate—Reading of SpeechesMr SPEAKER: Before I call the next order of business I just want members particularly those more recently elected members to refer to Speaker’s ruling 47/1: “Where possible members should not read speeches… However no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion or the relative experience of the member concerned.” I send a message particularly to newer members. Have your notes at all times if they help you but you will make a substantially better contribution particularly to a debate like a general debate if you can refrain from actually reading your speeches.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 5 November.New clause 6 (continued)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I understand that we are debating new clause 6—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is exactly what I just said.CHRIS HIPKINS: —in the current debate. That is what he just said. I was busy reading the clause and so I did not want to get it wrong right from the beginning.I have a few questions for the member in the chair Sue Moroney regarding clarification around how she arrived at some of the provisions in this particular new clause. The new clause replaces 16 weeks with 22 weeks effectively for those who give birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—twins or triplets or even more than that; or for those who have a premature baby born before 36 weeks of gestation; or finally for those whose child has an impairment that would entitle them to a Government-funded disability support service.What I would really like to ask is particularly around Government-funded disability support services and I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill could clarify for me what some of those support services would be and in fact whether increasing the period of paid parental leave would likely have any impact on the Government-funded support services that they might get. Various support services might have a range of tests that one has to meet in order to get them so could extending paid parental leave in fact result in someone not being eligible because of the fact that they get paid parental leave and are thereby disqualified from getting paid parental leave if you like?I just want to get perhaps an explanation from the member in charge of the bill that we would not be doing that with this clause. I would hate for the situation where we created a circular problem that made it impossible for somebody to qualify under that particular provision. I do not know this area very well so an explanation of the sorts of disability support services that might be available would I think be very helpful to the Committee.I think that the provision extending paid parental leave for those who have premature babies and for those who have multiple births is a very sensible one. It will significantly reduce the cost of this bill of this legislation. Although I personally would like to see the Government spending more money on providing financial support to parents with new babies I want to congratulate the member on the steps that she has taken to try to get some compromise with the Government.I wonder whether in fact she could elaborate on the steps taken to try to achieve that so that we can actually have some surety that these particular amendments will be able to succeed. As I said although it would not be my first choice to reduce the number of weeks I personally support the original intention of the legislation which was 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all parents of newborn children. This does raise some wider issues. I think that one of the questions really should be whether in fact those parents who fall into this category—have multiple births have children with disabilities or have premature babies—once we get to that point of 26 weeks of paid parental leave whether in fact the overall concept of paid parental leave should be changed to reflect those additional needs and the additional costs that those families are likely to face.I think it has raised an interesting debate that might be picked up further down the track. I think those are quite interesting issues. I suspect that they probably did not get picked up—or maybe they did come up earlier on during the debate. The member in charge of the bill might be able to elaborate on those further for us. I will leave my questions at that. The first one certainly is a relatively technical question which I would quite like to hear from the member in charge of the bill on.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Around new clause 6 New Zealand First is particularly supportive of this. Personally my sister is the mother of twins who arrived early. They were delivered at National Women’s Hospital—I am not sure whether National Women’s Hospital is called National Women’s Hospital any more—and placed into the special baby care unit.I think you have to be in that environment to truly understand the extent of the stress on the parents when they have children in the special baby care unit. If you live in the main centre you have to travel back and forward several times a day to actually be with the babies because there is no accommodation provided or there was not at that time. So there are costs around that. Just the fact that you have got very little babies struggling for their lives inside the special baby care unit to provide support like this is not just critical. So we move away with a clause such as this from a conversation around bonding or all these other things but actually doing so is an absolute necessity for some of these families.Also for the babies and families in these circumstances there are often so many special requirements or needs—not necessarily just at that front end of delivery when the babies are so early and so small but afterwards when there are specialists required and so on and so forth. It is interesting.I would reiterate the point made by Chris Hipkins around just seeking wider clarification from the member who has put forward this amendment around how she sees that 26 weeks would pan out across the disability support services. I ask whether she has any concept of how many people this might affect downstream or any other technical details that I know she will have worked on because this bill was incredibly well worked on to start with. It was well processed it was well priced out and it was well traversed with the general public. It had a lot of support with the public in the last Parliament and it had a lot of support in this House in the last Parliament. We are yet to see whether it will gain the support that it needs in order to put something that is desperately needed with regard to support for babies and families at this very vulnerable end.New Zealand First will continue to support the bill for as long as we can. I do not think I need to elaborate any further in my contribution with regard to this particular clause but as I say I would support the member in the chair taking a call so that she could elaborate on the disability support services around that 26-week period and the work done behind it to advance the cause for these people who find themselves through no fault of their own in circumstances where their babies are in the special baby care unit. They need more support the babies need more support and there are ongoing costs for them in this period of time to support those newborns. Kia ora.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):I am really interested in new clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the extension that is put in here—from 16 weeks to 22 weeks and then on to 26 weeks—and I really would like to know from the member in the chair Sue Moroney what advice she has received about the financial implications of these changes. I know that the member had been discussing with the Government the fact that although her preference was to continue offering 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to all new parents this was almost a compromise given the Government felt that it was unaffordable despite the member’s own costings saying that that was not the case. So what I am interested in is the costings that the member has come up with and I would like to see whether in fact they would be affordable for any Government to be able to take on at this point.I was interested in the Families Commission submission on this bill as well. It stated that in 2009 when the effects of the financial crisis were most evident eight countries made changes to increase financial benefits for parental leave and actually the change in one of those countries was for multiple births. So eight countries actually increased the financial arrangements they had for paid parental leave and found that it was actually the fiscally responsible thing to do and actually it really helped during an economic crisis in terms of the benefits that came from it. So I would really like to know from the member whether she received any advice on that and whether actually she knows what those eight countries were that extended their paid parental leave provisions and how it actually helped them during difficult economic times. I think that would be something good for this Government to take on board despite the fact that I have heard from the member of the compromise that is being made here in terms of changing the availability from being for all new parents and new births to being multiple births children with disabilities and premature births. I would really like to know the financial implications.I would really also like to know from the member what the long-term savings will be. There is some research out there particularly in relation to premature births multiple births and children with disability about the increased importance of breastfeeding exclusively for those first 6 months. I think I have seen some pretty serious statistics that outline that those babies who are not exclusively breastfed in those first 6 months are 14 times more likely to die than those who are which is a pretty serious statistic. I think that one came from Unicef so I would be interested to know from the member whether she had further information along those lines because I think this Parliament should take that kind of information quite seriously. With regard to premature babies and to babies who are born as part of a multiple birth—and I know that multiple birth babies are more likely to be of a lower weight when born so there are risks there—I ask what the benefits are to having 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding that the member has come across.I am also really interested in a submission on this bill in relation to what we are discussing in this clause that was put forward by the Children’s Commissioner which pointed out that the current rate of paid parental leave is the same rate regardless of whether there is one or more children born—so regardless of whether it is a single birth or a multiple birth. The Children’s Commissioner actually put forward in its submission that it disadvantaged parents of multiple birth babies—I am not sure whether I am phrasing it quite right. I know that that point made in the submission by the Children’s Commissioner is slightly different to what is in the clause but it does touch on the issue of multiple births and how there needs to be some different arrangements made to take into consideration the additional pressures that are on the parents who give birth to more than one baby at one time. I am really interested in the long-term costings or savings that could be made in respect of the health of these children.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I just want to ask people to take their seats and then indicate that what we are discussing at the moment is a very narrow matter. It is quite marginal as to whether it should have been ruled in or out given the fact that the earlier substantive clauses have in fact been rejected by the Committee. So I ask the members who are going to speak to speak to the clauses on the two Supplementary Order Papers that we are currently referring to and not to submissions on other matters.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 15 which is specifically around the provisions in the case of multiple births in the case of children being born before 37 weeks’ gestation or in the case where a child is born with an impairment that would entitle a person to a Government-funded disability support service. This is the context of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is a reduction of the bill—on which sadly we have already lost the vote in this Committee. It is to reduce it down. Rather than having the 26 weeks apply to all children—because tragically that was not deemed by this Committee to be deliverable by this country despite the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it—the member Sue Moroney has brought to the Committee this Supplementary Order Paper that has a much reduced level of provision to meet the absolutely most important need that we have in our community which is in the instances of premature births multiple births and where there is a case of disability.I would like to spend a little bit of time just actually focusing in on those families and what their needs are. We did hear through the submission process of people who had multiple births. They talked about their babies waking up at different times during the night so that when they tried to go back to work with the provision of paid parental leave being at the 12-week point they were going back to work without having had any sleep whatsoever basically. Their babies were not waking at the same time every night so they were feeding basically the entire night. So there is a very real demonstrated need that we were informed about for the provision of paid parental leave in the cases of multiple births.I think that anyone in this Committee if they have not had twins or triplets should imagine themselves in the shoes of that family trying to actually be new parents of multiple children at once. I think that most of us here would have some empathy and want to give them the time of at least 6 months to get to grips with that job for the benefit of their family and for the benefit of their babies. We know that actually the health benefits of that to those babies are just unchallengeable; that they are lifetime benefits.I will just talk a little bit more about premature births too because approximately 10 percent of all babies born in this country are premature. That is over 5000 babies a year who are born premature. The consequences of that—we heard from somebody who presented to the select committee who I think brought all of us to tears. Before the time of parental leave she had had a premature birth. Her baby had been in an intensive care unit and she was having to leave her baby to go to work. I am not a parent but the thought of that to me is just completely gut-wrenching—giving birth to a child this most special time in your life and your baby is in an intensive care unit. What level of stress and anxiety you must have and fear that you would lose that baby and then you have to go to work. It is a horrific thought as are the consequences of it as well.What makes Supplementary Order Paper 15 so important is that when the baby comes out hopefully willingly and well and healthy then in effect the process starts. Whereas most women would have access to parental leave from a full-term point these women would have to take paid parental leave from a much earlier point which actually means that the time around breastfeeding is much reduced. That time for bonding in the flesh is much reduced if you are constrained to 14 or 16 weeks so 26 weeks is absolutely critical.If we think that that is applying in about 10 percent of cases in New Zealand then it is really hard to see—and I would like to hear a Government member argue against why you would not want to provide that bare minimum of 26 weeks to families in the case of a premature birth. And I would also say in the case of disability that that clearly is also a point of very real need.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):Thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I first want to give Sue Moroney the member who brought this bill to the House a concession. I would like to compliment her on her motives for bringing this bill to the House because at the end of the day this bill is about giving kids the best start in life.This Government cares about children and I care about children. I have two children myself and both of them were premature. My child Christabel was born in her 33rd week. We hung on with my son and he was born in his 36th week. So I acknowledge the hardship that people face when they have premature babies. But this Government believes that one size does not fit all and we are taking an all-round approach to the welfare of children. That is why unfortunately we do not support this bill at this time.To explain that further it is up to the Government to decide how to spend and how to be fiscally responsible and achieve results for kids to have the best start in life. As part of that we have already extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. That has been well received and we will continue to look at it as this country continues to grow and become more fiscally strong.The other thing we are doing is investing in other measures such as extending free GP visits for children from 6 to 13—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not sure whether the member was in the Chamber at the time but I did give quite a general warning about the narrowness of new clause 6. I think that having warned Opposition members about the narrowness it should apply to everyone. So can we address this clause not the second reading. Thank you.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you Mr Chair. Although we can acknowledge that it is certainly a hard time for parents who have premature babies and babies with disabilities there is provision for extending paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. As we move forward as a country we will again look at this issue but we cannot afford to increase funding to 6 months’ paid parental leave at this point. Again I acknowledge the hardships that families find themselves in but there is support. There is support throughout the medical profession. Unfortunately we cannot support this bill at this time.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to make another contribution to the debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As you have pointed out we are debating only new clause 6 which is very specific in that it is a clause that amends I guess the length of leave and also narrows the criteria for those who are eligible for parental leave. All of the reasons that that has been done have been well traversed in this Committee. It is obviously with some reluctance from the original drafter of the bill that we are now looking at the consideration of that extended eligibility being only for those families that have one of three criteria: multiple births—multiple births during one gestation; that is clear in Supplementary Order Paper 15—premature births or giving birth to a child who has a disability.I want to ask a couple of questions based on those criteria though of the member in the chair Sue Moroney. My colleague Chris Hipkins raised a few questions around this. I want to support those and add in a different one. New clause 6 states that this applies “to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment; or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service.” Would that be within Ministry of Education guidelines or for instance Work and Income guidelines? Obviously there are disability allowances that are within Work and Income that I think probably have broader criteria than you are likely to get within the very narrow scope the Ministry of Education applies to extra entitlements for children. So what are the criteria for that Government-funded disability support? I would hope they would be reasonably broad.The other additional interesting issue I guess is that there are some impairments or disabilities that are not yet recognised by the Government or do not receive Government-funded support directly but have a significant effect on a parent or caregiver. One of two particular types of support that are now becoming a bit more frequent is for children who are born with foetal alcohol syndrome for instance. The Ministry of Social Development is increasingly I think putting in additional support around caregivers who may be caring for children who are found to have foetal alcohol syndrome but it is not well developed. It seems to be ad hoc. I do not believe there is a firm Government policy yet; there should be. The Health Committee which did some excellent work under Paul Hutchison on the first 100 days of a child’s life did look at the need for us to do more work around foetal alcohol syndrome and to formulate a plan. I think the country that has probably done the most and that has gone the furthest is Canada. It has a way of recognising and diagnosing that is not yet well established in New Zealand. It is a bit ad hoc but I would like to think that it would be eligible under this clause so I ask for some clarification from the member in the chair as to whether or not she would anticipate that as well.Equally children who are perhaps born to parents who are on a methadone programme—it may not be that those parents have ongoing care of that child as these children are frequently removed. I note that the clause would of course allow caregivers to be eligible for this as well which I think is really important. Often these children are actually premature so they would probably be covered that way. But those who would not be covered often remain hospitalised because of essentially the addiction they are born with and therefore withdraw from. That has additional costs as well. It would probably not be considered a Government-funded disability but it certainly has significant consequences. So did the member consider for instance whether the length of stay in hospital would become a criterion? Premature birth obviously indicates that yes that would be the case but I know of families where children are born with heart conditions for instance that may not be considered a long-term disability but it is a health impairment that at times requires lengthy hospitalisation and I do think it is worthy of consideration.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I thank members for their contributions to the debate that we have had so far on new clause 6. I just wanted to put a little bit of context around why we have got clause 6 coming forward in the shape of a Supplementary Order Paper—in fact two Supplementary Order Papers which makes it quite difficult to debate—so that members could understand that because it forms part of the history of this debate and what we have done with this bill.Before I do that can I just take the opportunity to acknowledge that I have had the first acknowledgment from the Government benches for bringing this issue forward. Gosh it has taken almost 3 years to get that but today finally a Government member actually said that this is a good debate for our country to be having. That is certainly a slight change in attitude from the Government benches so I think that is worthwhile acknowledging.We are debating these new clauses—well this new clause I should say because this is the debate on clause 6—as two separate Supplementary Order Papers for the following reason. We had very good advice from officials at the Government Administration Committee. In fact the select committee process on this bill was very robust. We had official advice from a range of ministries. It was really a very good example of having a whole-of-Government response to an initiative because we had officials from the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department all in the room advising us for this select committee process. They were able to take my humble member’s bill which I think initially had just five clauses in it—I thought I could get away with you know a two-sided piece of paper that would deliver 26 weeks’ paid parental leave and found that as a private member it was not quite that simple; almost but not quite that simple.New clause 6 was something that was discussed substantially at the select committee because the officials advised us that in drafting this bill what would be best would be to describe each of the three phases of the coming in of this bill. I had designed it so that the 26 weeks would not come in all in one financial year and that it would be staggered over the course of 3 years. The advice from the officials was that that was best done by separate clauses rather than actually lumping it all together in one clause as I had done.In the normal path of things the select committee would have agreed that that was a very sensible thing to do we would have reported back the bill and it would already have had clause 6 in it as an amendment from the select committee. That could not happen because of the politics that was being played in the select committee at that time. What in fact happened was that the National Party members asked me for an extension of time to report the bill back to the House because they wanted to consider accepting my proposal. I agreed because although I sniffed the scent of a political game I did not want to do anything that would disadvantage New Zealand families from having this opportunity to actually get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.So I took the National Party members at their word. I took them at their word because they said to me that if they made any changes to paid parental leave—any improvements—it would be done in my bill in my name because it was already in front of Parliament. What transpired is that they spent the next 2 months twiddling their thumbs playing for time using delaying tactics not considering that option at all and then they voted down the bill at select committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think this is now either the third or fourth time that I have issued a warning to the Committee about the fact that this is a very narrow debate and a historical going over of what happened at the select committee—not on these clauses—cannot possibly be in order. So can I ask the member in charge of the bill to come back to the very very narrow debate that we are going to have if it is to continue.SUE MORONEY: Sure; thank you for the advice and the guidance. I probably did get a little distracted because I was talking about the reasons why clause 6 is actually in a Supplementary Order Paper. It was because we could not conclude as a select committee that what we had previously agreed on would be some sensible amendments to the bill. We could not agree on that as a select committee so I as a member had to bring them forward as a Supplementary Order Paper and one of those was in fact clause 6.Clause 6 of course had to be amended again by another Supplementary Order Paper once I had determined as a member that I wanted to try to reach a compromise. That compromise has been traversed in the course of this debate. Members have asked me what the cost differentiation is of the compromise that is embodied in clause 6. Effectively it brings the cost of this bill down from $50 million in the first financial year to just $6 million in the first financial year.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I am delighted to have an opportunity to talk about clause 6 in these Supplementary Order Papers 15 and 472. I do want to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney whose Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill these Supplementary Order Papers are for for showing in a way the incredible determination that is sometimes required to get things to happen remembering that if clause 6 helps one family—one household one baby—it is worth fighting for even though it is not what was set out at the beginning. I think it is a credit to Sue Moroney that she has agreed to develop clause 6 with that in mind. I think there was a huge longing from right across Parliament that we do something much bigger and better but this is what is happening.I would like to address specifically in clause 6 the issues around children with an impairment. We have heard a lot about premature birth and multiple births and some about disability but today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I want to talk about children born with an impairment and how important clause 6 is to them and their families and how a decent society—and we hear a lot about vulnerable this and vulnerable that in this Chamber—would look after these families first and would look after these families not only at a time of physical stress and cost but of huge psychic shock. I really do commend the member for recognising the importance of paid parental leave of 26 weeks for families whose child is born with or who develops an impairment often as a result of birth trauma. Having seen other people with whom I have connected go through this—and I feel fortunate not to have gone through it myself—I know there is tremendous shock and grief when a child is born with an impairment.The first thing that happens is the grief cycle and that takes a while to work through. It is a cycle of denial anger depression fear—all of those things we experience when our hopes for our newborn child are shattered. Part of that is because as a society we do not celebrate the importance of children no matter how different they are from each other no matter how different or so-called not normal they are. We do not have a society that is particularly tolerant. I do believe that this clause is actually upholding and celebrating and recognising difference. I would never want to romanticise the experience for parents. The best thing we can do is acknowledge that there is a grief cycle that it takes time to go through before—and this is what usually happens—that family comes to some kind of terms.But in order for that family to come to terms and start dealing with and living with the challenge that has been put out and recognising loving and celebrating their child as they are and what is needed for that child they need the support of the State. They do not need to be going to work; they need to be at home. They need to have that financial support so that that grief cycle can be worked through so that they can start looking for the social support counselling therapy education and understanding of exactly what it is that they are dealing with because they do not know—it is all new. I had a connection whose child was born with Down’s syndrome who is a beautiful child with much potential but that initial stage was very painful. It was very hard on the parents and the family because remember it is not just the baby and the parents during that first stage; it is also the other siblings. There is a huge shock that has to be worked through.Paid parental leave is not a luxury. It is not an expense we cannot afford. It is a total investment in making sure that those families can actually build a life. It is not very much to ask of the rest of us—those who have been fortunate enough at that stage to have healthy babies with no impairments—to provide that support. So I am fully in support of the idea of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for a child whose impairment would entitle the person to Government-funded disability support. I think that is the very least we can do. If we do not and if we assume that parents are going to just adapt there will be suffering and there will also be opportunities missed. The parents should not be back at work when they are going through this process of trying to acknowledge what has happened and what needs to happen. So I am very much respecting the member today for acknowledging that and saying how important that is. Children born with an impairment can have a great life. I know this because—IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I appreciate the opportunity to address new clause 6 in the two Supplementary Order Papers and I thank the member Sue Moroney for explaining that there are two Supplementary Order Papers. I have not been particularly part of this debate and I realised I was looking at the old one not the new one so we have got Supplementary Order Paper 15 which amends Supplementary Order Paper 472. New clause 6 replaces “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in the provisions that relate to a person who gives birth to either two or more children as a result of one pregnancy or where the child is born with an impairment that would entitle that person to a Government-funded disability support service. The first that I noticed is that the amendment is from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. I note that the legislation as it still is on Legislation.govt.nz still says 14 weeks. I appreciate that this is the transition that the Government has actually followed from 14 to 18 weeks but the 16 weeks do not kick in until July next year. I just want to check with the member that this is an appropriate amendment from 16 weeks to 22 weeks given that the current provision is for 14 weeks notwithstanding the fact that the Government has changed the law to 16 weeks. So that is just a matter of clarification. It would be useful to make sure that we are clear on that.I am also interested to know why the 22 weeks and the 26 weeks were chosen. I appreciate the rationale that the member has given given that the original intention was to shift to 26 weeks for all parents. But having a look around the world at overseas examples where there is extra provision given for multiple births there seems to be quite a range in different countries as to what additional amount of time is given to parents who do have multiple births. Actually I could not find a lot of evidence of extra time given to parents where the child is born with some form of impairment so I would be interested to know what the evidence was that the member used to land on 22 weeks in the case of new clause 6(1) and 26 weeks in the case of new clause 6(2). Obviously it is important if we are going to narrow the focus of this legislation down—which is what new clause 6 does; it is a narrowing of the bill down to a smaller number of parents—that that is being done with some kind of evidence base. I know that the member wanted to use a strong evidence base in the wider bill. I think it is important regardless of what the purpose of the narrowing is that clause 6 places upon the legislation that that is still done with an evidence base. From my very quick reading there seems to be quite a number of divergent views around the world about what an appropriate additional amount of time should be for people with multiple births.I also raise the question whether the provision for children who suffer an impairment that would entitle them to Government-funded disability support is broad enough. I think another member raised the question of foetal alcohol syndrome. There is a range of impairments that will require much more additional attention from parents for those children who are not necessarily covered by legislation. I appreciate this is probably a matter of definition. It is a matter of having a clause here that is easy to define and that has a narrow scope. I appreciate a lot of this has to do with the narrowing of the scope to reduce the cost of the legislation but I do wonder whether the member took that into consideration and whether there was any consideration for those impairments that fall outside of that very narrow scope.There is also the question of 37 weeks’ gestation. I have not heard yet an explanation as to why that number of 37 weeks was chosen. I am sure there are good reasons for it but that again is a specific number that has been chosen. There are examples of children who have been born viable after 37 weeks but still come with the challenges of being premature.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in her name to add new clause 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to add new clause 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.New clause 7The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to new clause 7 and Sue Moroney’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 472 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 and the substantive amendment inserting new clause 7. Can I warn the Committee again that this is a very very narrow debate the principle having already been decided and remembering that it is a clause and not a part.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Thank you for the opportunity to rise and attempt to explain why we have got a new clause 7 in the bill. I will try not to stray too much into the debate that was going on in the Government Administration Committee. It is quite hard to do when debating new clause 7 and others like it because these were debated in quite a lot of detail in the select committee. It was difficult to go through what we thought was a really robust debate and get good discussion across all parties in the select committee only to find that right at the eleventh hour it was the Government MPs who would not support the bill and therefore any of the work that we had all done together including new clause 7.New clause 7 does actually again describe I think the difference between a bill that has been drafted by a member and one that has been drafted by the Government. My double-sided two-page bill attempted to bring in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for everyone currently eligible for it but fell short in the way that it had been drafted so we were given advice at the select committee that there were in fact a broader number of regulations under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act that also needed to be amended to bring them into line with what I was substantively trying to do with the rest of that Act. That Act of course is the one that was brought in by a Labour Government actually in 2002. At the time there were big debates about whether we ought to have any paid parental leave at all.The regulations that are described in new clause 7 come from that period of time when we were bringing in a completely new system that we had not had in New Zealand at all so it was quite a complex exercise. It involved having the main body of the Act and regulations. Those regulations of course have been changed many times over that period of time because despite what the Government has tried to argue actually when Labour was in Government it actually not only introduced paid parental leave but amended it and improved it on three occasions during the course of its 9 years in Government. The current Government is inclined to say: “You know if you wanted to improve paid parental leave why didn’t you do it when Labour was in Government?”. Well we did on three occasions and many of these regulations are the ones that actually address that.New clause 7 on the advice from the officials would bring all of the other parts of the regulations in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations in line with having the 16 weeks that the Government—actually it is a small triumph and victory in the journey of this bill to get the Government to increase paid parental leave to 16 weeks. New clause 7 says that in a whole bunch of regulations where you have done that—and the 16 weeks will be coming in on 1 July 2015 next year—my amendment aims to increase that from the 16 weeks that the Government has agreed to up to 22 weeks in the first instance by 1 July 2015. That would be the first step.Of course as we know from the previous debate that would be for the particular three groups that I have identified in an attempt to get some improvement for a group that I think are particularly needy. In fact the Multiple Birth Association said it is not a want for the members of its association to have 26 weeks’ paid parental need; it is an absolute need. They were quite upset at the debate that happened in previous clauses when the Government said that it had a whole range of other payments already available to them. Actually most of those payments are not available to people with multiple births at all because they would get those payments if they had an older sibling for the twins or the triplets who have just been born and in many instances that just is not the case.New clause 7 is amending the various regulations. It is making sure that they would be consistent with the substantive part of the Act that I was aiming to improve. It does it in two tranches. It would bring the regulations in line with having 22 weeks’ paid parental leave for parents who have the joy of a multiple birth—can I say the joy of a multiple birth—for parents who have a baby who is born prematurely or parents who have a child with a disability.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):This is my first call in the Committee stage on this bill. I take the call actually largely because of the extreme narrowing of focus. It was interesting to hear in the previous speech Sarah Dowie speak about her experience as a parent of premature babies. I am sure I am not alone in this Committee in speaking as a parent of a child with disabilities. I want to pick up on some of the questions that I believe are unanswered about the scope of the provisions in this new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and in particular an issue that was raised by Jacinda Ardern in relation to babies with cardiac conditions.A cardiac condition in and of itself—I am not sure and I would be interested in the advice of the member in the chair Sue Moroney as to whether or not such a condition would qualify the parents of a child with such a condition for this extended parental leave in this new clause 7. Those children may well have other disabilities that are not yet apparent. At the point that a child is born the medical staff and all of those surrounding that child are focused on keeping the child alive and dealing with the cardiac condition that the child presents with. Many of the other disabilities that frequently accompany such a cardiac condition will not become apparent until later in life. So very clearly that is a child with disabilities but whether that child will qualify under the definition that is in new clause 7 I think is something that is very important for us to tease out.It is gone now but the paediatric cardiology ward at Green Lane Hospital was a very very sad place to be. It was filled with babies in incubators babies otherwise hooked up to monitors and other machines babies on very heavy medications and babies who in many cases had experienced or would experience in that first part of their lives open-heart surgery. It was a ward that was populated by parents who were living in a daze. They were completely disconnected from their ordinary lives from the world outside of that paediatric cardiology ward. Those were parents who were in desperate need—desperate need—of support of time out to be with their baby and of time out to adjust to those new circumstances. Those parents are usually sleep-deprived. I understand of course that that is a common experience for parents but for parents of babies who are at risk of dying from the impairment that they have sustained the particular shock is extraordinary.And it goes on. Even if those parents are lucky enough to have their baby come home with them I can assure the Committee that the anxiety continues—the anxiety of your child being asleep and not knowing whether they will wake; the anxiety of not knowing whether your child will survive the rigours of the heavy medication that they are taking. The particular need of this group of parents of babies who have sustained an impairment is extreme. That is why I think it is important the Committee hears from the member in the chair as to whether or not this group of parents who do have this particular need are going to receive some extra support that this new clause 7 would provide for. I will be looking forward to that answer.I have spoken so far about the needs that are associated with I guess the shock of diagnosis—the shock of having a baby with such a severe impairment. It does not stop there. I have spoken about the incubators about the machines and about the drugs. One of the consequences of that kind of intensive medical intervention that these babies sustain is that a parent’s time to bond with their child is very much obstructed. It is obstructed by the walls of the incubator by the machines that are keeping their child alive. One of the particular purposes that jurisdictions around the world have recognised for extending parental leave is the particular purpose of giving parents and their children the opportunity to bond. This particular group of parents and this particular group of babies and children whose opportunity to bond in those early days and weeks is so compromised by the intensity of medical intervention do have a particular need to be able to take advantage of that opportunity to bond that an extended period of parental leave would provide for. I come back to the question as to whether or not this group will be covered by that provision.I want to go on to mention some of those other disabilities that can accompany these cardiac conditions that I have been speaking of. They can include learning disabilities sensory disabilities and other disabilities that very clearly would be captured by the definition of impairment that applies to this new clause 7 that is proposed. But it is very likely that those conditions would not be diagnosed until such time as perhaps a child is engaging with the formal education system—perhaps in their before-school check. We have a situation where a child clearly does fit any definition of impairment that was adopted but the fact that they fit does not become clear until some later point. I would be very interested to hear the member in the chair’s account of what advice she has received about that kind of delayed diagnosis of impairment that clearly applies.I want to respond to a point made by Sarah Dowie earlier. She raised the point of cost in the Chamber and suggested that of course the extension that is proposed in this new clause 7 would be desirable and that everyone would support it. But unfortunately the Government could not afford to do that. I would be pleased to be corrected by the member in the chair if this is the case but my advice is that the cost of the particular extensions that are proposed in this new clause 7 is minimal in the scale of the total cost of paid parental leave. The figures I have in front of me and these are rounded estimates for the 2015-16 year are for an extra $6 million followed in subsequent years by $4 million $8 million and then $9 million in the next 3 years taking it through to 2021-22 at an extra cost of $10 million.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Having heard that thoughtful contribution from the member Kevin Hague it compelled me to take a call. I have not taken a call on this bill for the duration of its debate but I too am concerned about how the Government Administration Committee considered the most vulnerable children and why it would not extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks. But more important the definition that most compels me to stand is the one related to those whose pregnancy results in a live birth before 37 weeks of gestation. Having had some experience in this area I can say it is medically possible to keep a child alive from 23 weeks with medical intervention. The greatest prospect of risk at that point in time is actually the development of the lungs. If you count the fact that it is a reality that it can be possible for children to live at 23 weeks factoring in 16 weeks of paid parental leave may mean that parents are still in hospital with their child. I just want to get some sense from the member as to what extent the select committee heard submissions around this. There is obvious hardship when parents are in the neonatal intensive care unit with their young children because of medical intervention.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that as the previous presiding officer said it is a very narrow debate. The provisions have been voted down already. This is about the consequential amendments as identified in new clause 7. I say to the member that we cannot get into a wide debate on this. It is on the regulations that are amended in new clause 7. That is where we need to focus. I say to future speakers that it is a very narrow debate.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I will bring the debate back to new clause 7 and into alignment with the regulations. It would be I think in line with the previous speaker seeking some advice from the member in the chair regarding the issues of cost—whether some factual information and evidence were provided to the member around how many children would be affected by limiting the definition in the way that you have recommended—and how this might better aid and support the real numbers of families that are provided for because I suspect when you put that into context it is actually a very narrow number of families. It was important to ensure that there was a thorough and robust debate at the select committee level when you were considering the regulations on how very real support is required for families who are meeting the challenges especially as new parents of multiple births and of children who are severely affected and need medical intervention from an early age. They may not have the multiplicity of their disabilities recognised until much later in life. The regulations are somewhat technical and align to the greater proposition of the bill but they really go to the nub of the issue that is trying to be met.I want to acknowledge that the member has tried to make some practical changes to the bill in light of the political discussions that have preceded them and it still remains not evident certainly to me and members on this side of the Chamber why these practical changes would not have been adopted. The scope has been limited. The number of children affected—and therefore parents—would have been limited but the very real needs and challenges I think are so important to address. There have been a couple of questions put to Sue Moroney as the proposer of the bill. I think she has conceded quite a bit in so far as the regulations are concerned. It would be useful from a technical point of view to see whether there was actually a great deal of debate in this part or whether the substantial debate was preceding this part of the bill.One last comment I would like to make is that for families who are struggling with children who have required significant medical intervention and require staying in hospital for a long period of time extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks may have better benefited them.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Well they say that timing is everything. With the timing of the debate on new clause 7 which we are now debating being on disability awareness day who would have thought the last time we were debating these amendments that I have put forward was during Multiple Birth Awareness Week. So it seems that all the way through the debate on this bill the stars have been aligning and begging us to do the thing that new clause 7 asks us to do. But it is not the first time with this bill.I think it is pretty clear that I am not going to get a third reading speech on this bill. That I think is a great shame and it is the shame of the National Government that I will not ever get to talk about the journey of this bill. Indeed with new clause 7 that is part of the journey of this bill because we are talking about it only in Supplementary Order Papers 15 and 472—in fact two different parts of the Supplementary Order Papers—because of I guess the politics that have been played with the bill all the way along. So at the Government Administration Committee we sadly were not able to report back a bill that the select committee could report back with amendment. It could report it back only without amendment because we could not get agreement so new clause 7 is one of those.Bringing this as a member’s bill—we used to call them private members’ bills; I think we call them only members’ bills these days—what it effectively means is that you do not have access to the Government advice and the Government officials to be able to make sure that when you draft your bill it is going to be entirely in order for what is going to be needed to be making the law change. So new clause 7 is an example of exactly that.These are the regulations that I had not even thought about as a member—an ordinary old member looking at wanting to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. I thought that on two pages you could actually do this by saying: “Let’s have 26 weeks. We are going to amend the part that says what the duration is of paid parental leave and that will do it.” Well new clause 7 is the part that would actually make it if it had been accepted by this Parliament a complete piece of law that would make some sense when the people who administer the law were required to actually grant people their paid parental leave of 22 weeks on 1 July next year and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave in July 2017 because that is how those regulations would be changed.Some of those regulations in new clause 7 are the form that people would fill in—the actual form that people who have had a child born prematurely the people who have had a child born with a disability the people who have had the joy of a multiple birth would fill in. They would be filling in that form and new clause 7 is attempting to amend that form.People have asked questions around the disability part in particular and I think it is right and proper that I do traverse that on disability awareness day. It is simply a definition to use. One way of defining what a disability was going to be would be to refer to disabilities that were already accepted for Government support. We know that those are contentious. We know that does not cover everything that we would want it to do. But here is the other complication when talking about children born with disabilities and paid parental leave. As members quite rightly said many of these disabilities we do not know about until the child is older. We do not know that the child has got a hearing difficulty or a lack of hearing for example until much later on in their life.As a member I had to think about what that means. If you find out when your child is 2 that they actually have had a disability since birth can you go back and have your 6 months’ paid parental leave? I had to come to the crushing conclusion that no you could not. The point of paid parental leave was actually having it at that time at that critical time in those first 6 months when the bonding and attachment were going to aid and abet that child’s recovery or that child’s ability to get on in their life with their disability which of course as we know actually often makes people that very very special person that they are.So these were the things that were quite complex to think about in bringing forward this particular range of amendments in new clause 7. Paid parental leave is critically important at that time.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I just want to say thank you very much to the member in the chair Sue Moroney for her contribution. That was very helpful. I just want to go over the changes so that the people who are listening understand what is very likely to be voted down with regard to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 because this is what new clause 7 does: new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002. Nobody at this point in the debate has actually articulated this and said exactly what this does. It changes those regulations to say: “In the following provisions of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 16 weeks means 16 weeks or in respect of a person who gives birth either to 2 or more children as a result of 1 pregnancy and assumes or intends to assume the care of those children or to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service 22 weeks:”.So there are two numbers in there. There are 16 weeks and 22 weeks and this is how the regulations would be amended. Why are those two numbers really important when we amend the regulations?Well what is the difference between 16 weeks and 22 weeks? It is 6 weeks—6 weeks’ difference. When we are talking about these circumstances babies are born at about 35 or 36 weeks. Normal gestation would be 40 to 42 weeks. That is a 6-week difference. All that this change to the regulations is trying to do is bring these parents and these babies to a point of ground zero—to a point of ground zero—the same place that every full-term pregnancy ends up at. That is all it is trying to do. It is just trying to support those babies and those parents with that simple change to the 2002 regulations to allow these babies and these parents to be at ground zero like everybody else once those babies end up out of hospital. In my personal experience that is kind of where most people end up. We have much more tragic circumstances often we do but there are smaller numbers of those. Often it is a 35 or 36-week birth in the special care baby unit. Once you get to full term and everything is going tickety-boo then home you go and you can start at ground zero like everybody else. That is all new clause 7 is trying to do. That is actually all this whole piece of paper has been trying to do.So with all due respect to Ms Dowie who stood up and said the Government would love to it is nice but it cannot afford it—when you hear the numbers from Mr Hague and you think about the small numbers of New Zealanders who actually require it the argument does not stack up Ms Dowie. It becomes a philosophical argument and that is unfortunate because all these amendments to the 2002 regulations are trying to do is allow these parents and these babies to get to ground zero and then start off like everybody else.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in her name to add new clause 7 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to add new clause 7 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.New clause 8SUE MORONEY (Labour):I just wish to make probably a quite brief contribution on new clause 8 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the clause that comes about because since we have been debating 26 weeks’ paid parental leave guess what has happened? The Government decided to pass its own legislation in 2014.Phil Twyford: What a coincidence.SUE MORONEY: It is a coincidence a strange coincidence but actually the victory that this bill has had—this brave little bill as I call it—is that it forced the Government into extending paid parental leave to 16 weeks from 1 April I think next year and to 18 weeks from 1 April the following year 2016. So we have had a victory. It might not feel like it today because all those parents so desperately needing the ability to have 26 weeks in the set of circumstances we have talked about during the course of this debate will not be having that thanks to National voting against it. I think that is a great tragedy. But clause 8 was I guess acknowledging that there has been a movement in paid parental leave due to the success of this bill. That has happened in 2014 and as a result of that we needed to have some consequential amendments to that piece of legislation which passed earlier in the year.It is with regret that this call will be my last contribution on this bill in this House but please be warned that it will not be the last time we will hear about 26 weeks’ paid parental leave—universally actually because there is such a groundswell of support throughout the country for this now that the Government is not going to get away with burying its head in the sand and pretending it has done what is needed for the future of the country because it simply has not. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those parties who have had the foresight to support the bill in its various stages up until this point. We are going to keep this battle going. We are going to keep this argument going because this is the right thing for New Zealand families. This is the thing that really does deliver the brighter future for New Zealand. This is the investment that would make a difference and yet the very Government that campaigned on delivering a brighter future is the Government that is stopping it from happening.Thank you to the Green Party. Thank you to New Zealand First. Thank you to Mana when Mana was here voting for it. Thank you to United Future. Thank you to the Māori Party and particularly thank you to my Labour colleagues who had the courage to know that this was the right time even though we proposed it in the midst of a global recession. It was the right time to make sure that we invested in our families and it was the right time to get this debate going and New Zealanders joined with us. It is a great tragedy that the Government has not been able to see how important this is and has not had the foresight to understand what a wise investment it is in the future and how really to build a brighter future. But the good news is that the rest of us are here to keep reminding you and we will.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):As I stand to speak to the last Supplementary Order Paper that will be discussed in the Committee on the bill Supplementary Order Paper 472 I really just want to acknowledge Sue Moroney and the work she has done. What she has brought to the House is something that really resonates with New Zealanders. We know that this bill in its entirety has put pressure on the Government. It was forced to lift the number of weeks of paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18. It did not go as far as Sue Moroney and the Labour Party have attempted to push it. We know that it is affordable despite what the Government says particularly with the amendments that Sue Moroney has put up. There were allegations by the National Government that this would cost $5 million which was ridiculous.Sue Moroney: $500 million.CARMEL SEPULONI: $500 million which was a ridiculous amount of money that the Government assumed it would cost. It misled New Zealanders—I will say that. The real cost is significantly less than that and actually with the amendments that were made so that it would apply only to multiple births to children with disabilities and to parents who had premature births the cost was significantly reduced to around $6 million.So I want to say in my final speech on this bill thank you to Sue Moroney and shame on the National Government for not agreeing with this. It was for pure politics that it has not supported this bill. It knows it is good for New Zealand. It knows that in the long run there would have been savings made for this country but because it did not want the Labour Party to be seen to be popular or to be making a decision that was popular with New Zealanders it opposed it—purely based on those political purposes. So again thank you to Sue Moroney shame on the National Government and hopefully in the next 2½ years Labour will have the opportunity to make changes like this positive changes that New Zealand wants to see.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am grateful to take a final call on this very important bill and to speak to new clause 8 the consequential amendments after seeing this Committee vote down the bill as it got narrower and narrower to try to deliver the 26 weeks—which all the health evidence all the economic evidence and all the social evidence showed us was our benchmark for looking after families and workplaces and most important babies in this country.It has been a bit of a demoralising experience I think for many of us in this House to go through this process. There were the numbers in the House to get it through and the Government stalled and threatened to use its financial veto. And then we lost the numbers. Even for the families in absolute need—those with premature babies those with children with disabilities and those with multiple births—the Government does not believe that it can find $6 million to be able to take care of those families. It just boggles my mind that we hear so much rhetoric from that side of the Chamber about taking an investment approach and yet the Government cannot come up with $6 million. Or you know to give it credit about the full cost of it it would be $55 million over 7 years. The Government cannot come up with that to care for families in the most need in this country at the time in their lives when we can make the most difference for babies and for the lifetime development of those children as well as the stabilisation of those families.I just wonder what the Government means when it says “investment” because if that is not investment then what on earth is? I really do wonder. When we have seen that child poverty is such an issue in this country—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Narrow it down.JAN LOGIE: I know; I will narrow it down. It is to the point of investment which is around the narrowing of this bill. We have seen how just by small investments like this Australia has reduced child poverty by 30 percent while this country has reduced it by 3 percent.I just cannot understand what this Government’s concept of investment is when we know that we can make a real difference when 99.9 percent I think it was of submissions supported 26 weeks as a baseline. That is what all of the evidence tells us is the baseline—not 16 weeks; it is 26 weeks. It is a very disappointing day to stand in this Chamber where this Government is depriving our families and depriving babies of that base provision leaving us lagging behind the rest of the world in support for families when we think of ourselves as a developed country as a country founded on principles of decency. The Government is not demonstrating an understanding of investment it is not demonstrating a sense of decency as it votes this bill down.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to add new clause 8 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment BillSecond ReadingPITA PARAONE (NZ First):I move That the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is with mixed feelings that I lead off the second reading for this bill because it was originally introduced to this House by the late Hon Brian Donnelly who at the time had a very strong belief in this country’s responsibility for the care of its children.I do not know whether it is just a plain coincidence that this bill is now being read for a second time following the previous bill—again all around the care of children.Subsequent to the late Brian Donnelly’s introduction of this bill back in 2005 if my memory is correct it was subsequently taken over by a former colleague of ours Asenati Lole-Taylor and when she introduced the first reading of the bill to the House she also expressed her acknowledgment of the Hon Brian Donnelly who strongly advocated for a bill like this to be developed in order to tackle the issues that this bill intends to address.My colleague Asenati Lole-Taylor prefaced her introduction to the first reading by quoting from Jim Rohn who said that “Happiness is not something you postpone for the future; it is something you design for the present.” If you consider that this bill is about the protection of children then one can easily connect that quote to mean the future happiness of our children.The bill was subsequently referred to the select committee and I think it was—Carmel Sepuloni: Law and Order.PITA PARAONE: —the Law and Order Committee and 10 submissions were received. Ironically half of those submissions that were made actually came out in support of the bill. However the report from the Ministry of Justice suggests that there is no need for this bill. I want to take my time while I am on my feet to suggest otherwise. I am not intending to devalue the advice given by the ministry but I think that if you consider the number of young people who beyond their control are being confronted by acts that are totally against the law of this country then obviously those perpetrators are not receiving the message under the present legislation notwithstanding that the advice from the ministry stated that the present legislation is more than sufficient to cover the intent of this bill.I just want to make some reference to the report prepared by the ministry. It says that if the bill is to progress beyond this second reading there needs to be some amendments to clauses 4 and 5 that will clarify the meaning of aggravation and clarify the meaning of “minor”.Although the New Zealand Law Society was one of the submitters that felt that the bill was unnecessary one can only wonder that if in fact it is not necessary why are we witnessing children still being subject to recalcitrant adults committing crimes while these young people are present? It seems to me that the sentencing being used to sentence the perpetrators does not seem to be strong enough. I just wonder whether or not those who will be taking a call in this debate would consider allowing the bill to go to the Committee stage and so giving the opportunity of introducing appropriate Supplementary Order Papers to account for the concerns of those submitters who feel that this bill is not needed to make the bill more relevant. I just wonder whether in fact some consideration would be given to this.In the report received from the ministry it analysed each of the submissions and commented on them clause by clause. I want to take the opportunity of saying that I was really impressed at the time and obviously the research that it had to undertake in order to provide a report that is very clear for the committee. I notice that the report back from the committee suggests that this bill should not go any further. But there is always a first time and I actually stand in the hope that consideration may be given by the House today not only to say that this bill is going to progress to the Committee stage but also to give some due recognition to the member who originally introduced this bill to the House. Those of us who knew the Hon Brian Donnelly know that he would have given very serious consideration and thought to this bill before introducing it to the House.I just want to commend this bill to the House and plead to those who obviously have the power to decide on the future of this bill on whether or not they will give consideration to referring this bill to the Committee stage in order for there to be an opportunity to introduce Supplementary Order Papers that address those concerns that have been expressed by some submitters and the ministry. Tēnā koe.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I acknowledge my colleague from the north Pita Paraone for his contribution and also the member who brought this bill to the House Asenati Lole-Taylor. I also obviously acknowledge the Hon Brian Donnelly as being the bill’s original genesis. I guess the first point I would make is that I think the honourable member from New Zealand First Pita Paraone made some very very good points. National was certainly supportive of taking this bill forward to the Law and Order Committee to explore the relative pros and cons of this amendment. It is fair to say that since Brian Donnelly and since the genesis of this concept I would suggest that there have been some quite substantial changes to the Sentencing Act that really go to the heart of addressing some of those aggravating features that exist where children are subject to the criminal activity of parents caregivers or other adults within their vicinity. That is something that was obviously fleshed out during the select committee process and I think that that is really the nub and the essence of what we are talking about in terms of striking the right balance between overcomplicating or over-legislating a situation and giving judges the adequate discretion inside the parameters of the existing legal framework to apply sentences that would involve an aggravating factor such as offending in the presence of children. Whether that may in fact eventuate in harm or not I guess is neither here nor there. The reality is that there are many children who are subject to adult criminal behaviour because it happens in their presence.When we look at some of the issues that the select committee actually did tangle with one of the challenges was around the definition of “in the presence of a minor” and what that would actually look like. I have to say that I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee at the time although I did speak in the first reading of this bill and I do see significant relevance to it actually making its way to the select committee on a number of grounds. One of them from my previous life was the advent of methamphetamine clan-labs and the dangers of meth labs to children. There may be no intent whatsoever—the offending adults may go about drug manufacturing without any real recognition of the danger not only to themselves but actually to the children who live in those environments.In that circumstance when you are talking about highly volatile chemicals—some of them explosives some of them highly toxic; anything from strong drain cleaners to paint thinners insolvents acids hydrochloric acids and sulphuric acids to name but a few—the combination of these creates a toxic cocktail. For every kilogram of methamphetamine you are getting about 9 kilograms of toxic waste which actually goes somewhere. It falls from the atmosphere on to the ground. Children crawling around can ingest these volatiles and toxins and in fact methamphetamine. We see chemicals stored in fridges in drink bottles and so forth. We see chemicals that are discarded and dumped down the drains in the yard. Children will find themselves in contact with those substances notwithstanding the fact that someone who is manufacturing methamphetamine is often in a position where they are using this stuff as well. So they will spend long periods of time awake followed by long periods of sleep where they may be asleep for anything up to 2 to 3 days. And what are their young children doing during that time? Well I can tell the House that what they are doing is having to fend for themselves.This country was in an absolutely dire situation in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we saw this increase and prevalence of clandestine drug laboratories. It was something that was seen in more than 60 countries around the world. It is the only hard drug in the world that can be made from locally accessed retail chemicals and on your kitchen bench—an absolute toxic time bomb. The most vulnerable people in that equation were the children and often multiple numbers of children. It is fair to say that I think the police Child Youth and Family and a number of agencies were actually really challenged by that.Subsequently though—and coming back to the importance of this bill and avoiding the legislative overlap in terms of the judges’ discretion in the current legislative framework—there were provisions for the police. In fact it is now commonplace for the police to charge adults in a meth lab situation for a range of child neglect offences.Jacinda Ardern: Not successfully.MIKE SABIN: Well some certainly are. The member makes a very good point: is that enough? The reality is that when it comes to methamphetamine manufacturing the risk of harm is very high and often the scale of consequence or the penalty has little or no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the individual is going to partake in that activity.So actually removing the children entirely seems to be one of the only ways to do that or in fact removing the adult from the equation by way of them being imprisoned which for an offence involving a life imprisonment is more often than not the case.That one example gives some idea of the fact that there are other legislative mechanisms available to the judiciary to seek out relevant punishment for what would be an aggravating offence. This really is where the Law and Order Committee has landed in its concerns and the issues that were raised during the submission process. I think that Pita Paraone the member speaking prior to me alluded to the Law Commission’s submission saying essentially that it did not believe it was necessary. There is a danger I think that when we are well-intentioned—and I certainly believe that all members in this House are well-intentioned around the importance of keeping young children safe—arguably laws are made for law-abiding citizens but when adults are committing offences in the presence of their young ones you know it is fair to say that they are pretty much ignoring the consequences of those laws let alone the consequences to their children. So we are at the starting point where essentially the laws do not mean that much to them.What is important though if offences are detected is that a sentencing judge is able to apply the relevant aggravating factors and features into any sentencing regime. It seems quite clear from the submissions and the process to date that actually there is a very broad framework of tools if you like available to sentencing judges within the Sentencing Act the Crimes Act and a number of other pieces of legislation that actually do in large part resolve the vast majority of circumstances—I guess the point being that this House through this process if nothing else is able to send a very clear message to the judiciary about the importance of this. I am not suggesting that the judiciary does not take this into account in a very strong manner but if this House was to say that these tools are available to it then those tools should be used in the appropriate manner because not only are children who are subject to criminal offending by their parents in and around their environments in harm’s way but there is a high likelihood that they will go to perpetrate similar criminal offending in their own lives and so that cycle tends to continue.So from the National perspective we are satisfied that although it is a very worthy bill and certainly one that I think the select committee has done well to traverse within the current legislative framework there exist sufficient tools for the judiciary to exercise a sentence by way of an aggravating factor where children are involved and are present. It is fairly clear-cut. There is little confusion about how that is used and interpreted. It is fair to say that the important lesson from this is that if those tools are there then they should be used and that would be my message. Although I accept that the member Asenati Lole-Taylor who brought in this bill was certainly very well-intentioned—as I believe other members in the House are—it is about striking that balance and not overlegislating where it is unnecessary. For that reason the National Party will not be supporting the bill beyond this point but I do acknowledge that it is a very very worthy piece of work. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to make it absolutely clear that I would say that there is probably no member in this House who would argue against the principle of ensuring that children are kept from harm and I do mean harm in the broadest sense of the word when it comes to criminal offending: harm perpetrated against the child themselves; exposure to the negative environment that is criminal offending even if that harm is not directly to the child; or even the harm that comes from a child who has a parent who is engaged in criminal offending and who loses that parent to the justice system and to incarceration. The question therefore is not whether we should be trying to prevent harm against children; it is how we can best ensure that we prevent that harm—how do we do it—and unfortunately the bill that has been put forward by the previous member of New Zealand First Asenati Lole-Taylor just simply does not achieve that goal.We can see this if we go back to the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill itself which states: “Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm. A primary example of such offending is the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. … Minors are often innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk of harm. This Bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing.” That is probably the most crucial part of that statement—“at sentencing.” This bill relies on an adult to first be charged be successfully prosecuted and then be sentenced for the crime of producing methamphetamine. It does not make the act of producing methamphetamine in front of a child in the presence of a child—endangering a child—an offence in and of itself. That is probably one of the most significant issues with this bill and there are a couple of examples that I want to give as to why that means that this bill will not succeed in the way that the member perhaps intended.We actually already know first of all that the Sentencing Act does allow aggravating factors to be taken into account and we heard submissions that suggested that actually the intention that the member included in this bill was already achieved by the existing law. The Sentencing Act 2002 as introduced by Phil Goff allowed flexibility around aggravating factors. Instead I think that perhaps the original drafter of this bill intended for something quite different to be occurring. We do know for instance that children are currently being exposed to the manufacturing of methamphetamine and we know that because of the research of one woman. I want to pay tribute to Chloe Barker. She is an Auckland-based lawyer who a few years ago now analysed Institute of Environmental Science and Research data related to children and clandestine labs as part of her Master’s degree. She worked very closely with the police and the police were very cooperative on the work that she did.She found that from 2006 to 2010 there were 191 children living in the presence of methamphetamine labs. Those labs were the ones that the police successfully broke into and closed down and subsequently the police laid charges against the offending adults. We know that there has been a steadily increasing rate though. In fact in 2002 34 percent of all the labs discovered by the police had children present living in the confines of the lab itself. We know from a more detailed audit in 2008-09 that in 21 percent of labs there was evidence that the children were present during the manufacturing process that in 45 of the 53 labs reviewed there was evidence of chemicals within reach of children and that in 36 of 53 labs chemicals were stored in food or drink containers and in one case they were stored in a child’s school drink bottle complete with their name and their school room number on the bottle itself. We know that that also has an effect. There has not been quite enough research in this area but we know from the hair follicle samples of 23 of the 26 children tested methamphetamine was found to be present in those children’s hair follicles. We do not however know the long-term effects of that presence but I assume that anyone would agree that that clearly indicates harm in some form or another.But here is the kicker: despite all of that research and that evidence there is a low rate of successful prosecution connecting the child to that criminal offending. As Chloe herself was quoted as saying in the Police Association magazine: “Currently in New Zealand general child abuse laws are used to prosecute those who have exposed children to the dangers of the methamphetamine manufacture environment”—so they are being prosecuted under child abuse laws. She went on to say though: “The Crown … has needed to show that this exposure was wilful and likely to cause unnecessary suffering actual bodily harm injury to health a mental disability or disorder. Attentive evidential questioning and interviewing of the suspect and witnesses is required to establish intent.” As you can see if you are prosecuting under general child abuse laws with that threshold test—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JACINDA ARDERN: Before the break I was discussing the work of Chloe Barker an Auckland-based lawyer who has done a significant amount of research into children who are affected by parents or caregivers operating methamphetamine labs and the subsequent ability to take action against those caregivers. The point that she had made and which I quoted to the House was that currently in New Zealand more general child abuse laws are used to prosecute those who have exposed children to methamphetamine and that the tests in those laws are relatively high. The point that I was wanting to make was that the principle of what Asenati Lole-Taylor was trying to uphold in this bill is a good one but the mechanism was incorrect. The Sentencing Act requires someone of course to be charged and convicted before you can then apply an additional aggravating factor when in fact what we need to do is address the fact that the act itself of exposing a child to methamphetamine manufacturing should be easier to prosecute either as a stand-alone form of child abuse or as part of the Crimes Act. It should have its own charge in and of itself. That is the problem that actually has not been addressed with this bill and we implore New Zealand First to have a think about how that could be done instead.At the moment one of the issues is that the child abuse laws require you to demonstrate injury has occurred. There is not much longitudinal research around the long-term effects of exposure—not intake of but exposure—to methamphetamine. Of course to do that long-term research you would need the consent of caregivers. That in itself is going to be an issue. If you were a caregiver in the past who has exposed a child to methamphetamine and the transience of the families who may have children who have been exposed to methamphetamine are just basic issues around trying to track long term those effects. A secondary measure though if we are finding it difficult to prove injury is that we then need to lower the threshold test in the law but we should also be making sure that actually we do treat this as a child welfare issue.I want to pay tribute to the New Zealand Police and to Detective Senior Sergeant John Brunton in particular who is the manager of the national clan-lab response team. He stated that the exposure of the children to drugs and chemicals is often complemented with exposure to criminal lifestyles neglect and psychological emotional physical or sexual abuse. He said speaking of Chloe’s work that “The study corroborates my belief that Police and other response agencies could be more effective in bringing about better outcomes for these children if supported by legislation and information-sharing policies.” What he was referring to was the fact that since 2007 the police have had standard operating procedures that tell them how they best deal with children found in manufacturing labs. Child Youth and Family right up until 2013 had no such operating procedures. It had no agreement with the police on how to deal with these children. In some cases we had examples of children being removed and then rehoused—rehoused—with caregivers who were operating methamphetamine labs sometimes 2 days after they were removed. That is utterly unacceptable.My understanding is that Child Youth and Family has finally come to the party with the police but it was simply not good enough that the exposure of these children to these environments was not seen as sufficient to warrant emergency procedures to ensure that those children were safe and kept away from harm in the longer term. We must do better in this area. I want to congratulate Chloe Barker again on her work and police officers like Detective Senior Sergeant John Brunton on their ongoing work. We should be listening to their research and constructing legislation around that so that we make a real difference on behalf of children.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):First of all I would like to acknowledge Asenati Lole-Taylor the member who brought this bill to the House for the work she did in this House. The National Party does not support this bill because it appears to be a repetition of the excellent work that Ministers in our Government have already initiated. Further while we recognise the good intent of the bill the member proposing the legislation may be aware that the Government has already passed laws that deal with the offence against minors.My colleagues should also consider that under this National Government recorded crime is at the lowest it has been in 35 years. We are focused on staying tough on criminals. We will keep on increasing the number of front-line police officers and we want to ensure that the justice system focuses on victims who suffer from crime. Increasing the number of front-line police officers and building a safer New Zealand is part of our four main priorities towards all New Zealanders. We want to deliver better public services; that is our commitment. Wherever I go in the country I see and learn about by talking to constituents the excellent role that our police and law enforcement agencies are playing.The proposed legislation is about placing tougher penalties on people who forcefully ask young members of our society to be part of their crime. There is little doubt that in cases where people are involved in crime at a young age there is a fair chance that these young people are likely to be involved in crime for a lifetime. I understand that by virtue of this bill the member sponsoring the bill seeks to address this concern. As others have expressed the current legislation already holds tough penalties for people who are involved in crime.The legislation was considered by the Law and Order Committee. It is their recommendation that the bill not be passed because of the very broad parameters listed in that bill. The current wording of the clause regarding committing a crime in the presence of a minor is vague and thereby is likely to confuse the decision maker at the time of sentencing. The select committee found that the existing legislation the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Crimes Act 1961 already gives the options for considerations such as these at sentencing. The judge or the adjudicator already takes into account the entire situation of the crime and the people affected by it before making any decision.Last year we further strengthened legislation to ensure that any offence against an officer apart from a police officer such as emergency health or Fire Service people who may be at the scene of an emergency is included in the legislation. Sentencing should reflect the gravity of a person’s offending particularly when the offending endangers or exposes children to harm. Secondly any crime committed in the presence of minors or children such as the manufacturing of drugs is already covered under the current legislation as wilful neglect and they can be charged with neglect offences.National has also done a great deal of work around protecting vulnerable children and setting better public service targets to improve their lives. As I mentioned law and order and ensuring the safety of our citizens is critical to this Government. Based on this we introduced a law that makes it a criminal offence for anyone to stay silent in cases where they are aware of any person being at risk. We have removed parole for repeat offenders who do not want to obey the law and who are a risk to New Zealanders. Furthermore it will be much harder to gain parole as the Parole Board will now be able to screen applications beforehand. This will reduce unnecessary hearings giving the board power to make decisions on facts and evidence itself rather than any pleas from the offender. Further strengthening of the law has led to an increase in penalties for possessing a knife from 2 to 3 years. We have abolished the plea of provocation as a defence to murder.By sharing these specific examples what I am trying to share is the Government’s proactive role in ensuring the safety and security of our people and our communities. The current legislation has covered all the facts to ensure that any offender or person at risk is sentenced by the courts accordingly. Our focus I believe should not be on passing repetitive laws. Rather we should as the National Government is doing focus on better implementation of current laws and legislation. We should focus on delivering better public services to all New Zealanders. With these words I repeat that the National Party does not support this bill. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call on this bill in part to have an opportunity to explain why the Greens initially did support this bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee—and indeed I personally participated in that committee. But at this stage we are no longer able to support the bill for reasons that I will go into and indeed for reasons that are not very different from some that have been expressed by other members. We supported the bill initially in part due to the sheer enthusiasm of the member Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor who at that stage brought the bill into the House. I am grateful to Mr Paraone for pointing out that the bill has a somewhat longer history than I was aware of but Mrs Asenati Lole-Taylor brought this bill in with real passion and real concern—a genuine concern. The intention of the bill was very honest and appropriate and we certainly supported that.On the face of it it was a very straightforward bill—to make the presence of children in offending an aggravating factor at sentencing. It certainly seemed a good enough idea to merit our support through the House. It is well-known that children are often the unseen victims of crime. The bill itself notes that criminal offending often exposes minors to serious harm. That harm can be physical emotional or psychological and can cause lifelong problems for young children. As they grow it can seriously affect their development and it can effectively create the forms of post-traumatic stress sort of symptoms that children can exhibit. At the extreme end of course offending can inevitably lead to imprisonment. We know that it is extremely damaging for children to have a parent in prison. We know that children with a parent in prison are something like seven times more likely to end up in the justice system or in prison themselves. I think we have to be alert to the extreme necessity of keeping our children out of those situations.I will make a completely gratuitous and unsolicited plug for PILLARS the Christchurch-based organisation—and also with a facility in Manukau city—that engages with the children of prisoners and does extraordinarily good work to support those children and their families while they have a parent in jail.It was clear in the explanatory note to the bill that although the bill talked about offences committed in the presence of children or minors the specific focus was on children who were caught up in P labs and situations where methamphetamine was being used or even manufactured. It is an appalling neglect of responsibility be it parental or any other sort to allow any child to be in that very dangerous environment. Sadly we know that the number of homes and sites where P—where methamphetamine—is cooked or manufactured is quite frightening.Some work done by the Home Owners and Buyers Association about 2 years ago indicated that there could be something in excess of 30000 houses in New Zealand that have been or are being used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. We know that is extraordinarily dangerous because the chemicals used in the manufacture are in themselves very toxic. They get disposed of inappropriately—tipped down drains poured into gardens. Equally and even more insidiously some of the chemicals that gas out—the gases that are a result of the cooking of P—will be absorbed into just about any sort of porous material. Carpets soft furnishings and even plasterboards and unsealed concrete can absorb these gases and over time they gas out. So anybody living in those environments can be exposed to those gases and there are significant health risks associated with that. Asthma symptoms breathing difficulties skin rashes and eye irritation right through to much more serious diseases of the central nervous system—strokes and cancers—can all be directly linked to the presence of these chemicals in homes.Getting back to the bill its intention is to try to ensure that children are not exposed to these very very dangerous substances and of course one would always wish that children were not put into those dangerous situations. Most of us would go to extraordinary lengths and do to make our homes safe and hazard-free for children. I recently had the pleasure of having my toddler granddaughters at home for a few days. You discover very quickly that just a normal family home is abundant with hazards for children and very active kids of that age be it sharp edges electrical items heat sources fragile ornaments—you name it; kids will find it. Most of us do endeavour to make our homes and environments child-friendly and child-safe. It is very sad that there are people in our community who lack that empathy that common sense and that concern and who are reckless enough to expose children to these extraordinarily dangerous situations as in a P house or somewhere where these dreadful chemicals are being used carelessly and without thought for the well-being of those kids.Having said that we regret that we cannot support this bill because it was well-intentioned. It did reveal a very real risk and an important problem. Primarily the reason that we are not supporting this bill further is that we have been persuaded by the select committee process by the advice of officials and by evidence that the legislation simply is not necessary. We were shown quotes and extracts from judgments where it was clear that judges did consider the presence of children where offending was taking place as an aggravating factor and that it did influence their thinking when it came to sentencing. We were persuaded that the legislation for that reason was unnecessary.There were also issues about the wording of the bill and the definitions—particularly the phrase “in the presence of” which seems sensible and straightforward—and it was revealed to us by officials and others that it was not clear what the boundaries are in saying that an offence is in the presence of a minor. Common sense is that you would say that it means that children were in that house building or whatever it might be but legally it could mean that if there were children even in a nearby building or in a street or in a mall or anywhere in a public place it could still be captured by this legislation which is outside its intention clearly. It seemed that there was no clean or effective way to tighten up that definition sufficiently so that the intention of the bill would be made clearer. The notion of proximity is one that legally has issues.There was also concern about putting these provisions into the primary legislation—the amendments to endeavour to capture the notion that where offending was happening in the presence of children sentencing should acknowledge that. There were issues around judicial discretion and the fact that you actually might be locking judges into outcomes or into making judgments that are less than optimal. There could be situations where you would not necessarily want to have that level of direct influence and to impose those conditions or restrictions on judges.So although clearly we have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who would offend in the presence of children who would put children at risk or minors at risk we would particularly have no time for people who are engaging in cooking meth obviously driven only by a profit motive.I think just as an aside to that it is interesting that some gangs will not allow even their own members to use this drug because it is just such a volatile dangerous substance to absorb albeit unfortunately some of those same gangs might be involved in the business around it. We cannot and would not ever condone any form of endangerment of children by putting them into a situation where offending is taking place. But for all the bill’s good intentions and its apparent simplicity we have been persuaded through the select committee process that it is not necessary and that there is existing law in place. Jacinda Ardern made some very interesting points about the fact that there actually is not a criminal offence that captures the notion of people actually committing these acts particularly cooking drugs in the presence of children. Maybe that is an avenue that might be worth exploring at a later time.As I say although we do acknowledge and respect the intention of the legislation the Greens will not be supporting it further.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am very pleased to stand and speak on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. Can I just say in terms of my regard for Asenati Lole-Taylor who brought this bill to the House and who was a member in the last Parliament that I send my greetings to her. I felt she was a good contributor to this House and obviously as someone who was a former corrections officer she understood some of the issues that face our communities—just as you do Mr Deputy Speaker as a former detective sergeant and a solicitor of the court. You are very much aware of the issues that our communities face around lawbreaking particularly the issues around the vulnerability of people.Although we understand that this bill would not actually stop people doing those heinous deeds to young people—in fact I cannot think of anybody in our society as low as somebody who would manufacture P which is dangerous not only for the community but at the threat of the lives and obviously the influence on young people. We need to be people who see the future for our young people unlike those sorts of people. All they care about is money. All they care about is what they gain not the pain they cause.But this bill does not really address the issue by making the fact of doing something like this in the presence of a child an aggravating offence because those people do not respect the law. They will do it anyway. There are issues that we understand around aggravating offences particularly when people attack our first responders—our police our ambulance drivers and those who because of their commitment to the safety of others go into situations where they do not have the option or the opportunity to withdraw from a difficult threatening situation. They are by obligation of their job and their commitment to our community required to go into unsafe situations. So in those cases where somebody would attack a police officer or ambulance driver you can understand why we would make that an aggravating offence.But these lowlifes who do this other sort of work—I do not know whether anything can change them. What they need to do or what needs to happen to them is that they need to be apprehended by the police and they need to go through the courts of this land. They need to have the sentences put upon them that will stop them having that sort of activity behaviour lifestyle and certainly that negative influence—not only upon the health and well-being of young children but also the influence upon them. What happens is that kids look at the adults around them and they see that as the norm. They see that as acceptable behaviour. We need to put a stop to that. We need to have a vision for the future of our young people.I am very pleased to say that I come from a region that has exactly that. We have a great organisation called Taranaki Futures. This is made up of people in our community who actually care for the young people who actually see that they have a future. They want to nurture them help them enable them to become the very best that they can be in their life so that they can have some future to look forward to. These people whom we are talking about in this bill have none of that. They have none of that.One of the things that I believe we need to also have confidence in is our judiciary. I am sure and we know by case law about the approach taken by the men and women who sit in the courts of this land when they come across cases like this. When people do a crime in front of a child whether it is the manufacture of P or whatever it might be do those judges take that into consideration? Of course they do. Of course they do because they know that these kids these young children are vulnerable. As I said before they are vulnerable to influence and they are vulnerable to harm. They are defenceless in many situations. So what we need to understand is that our judges the men and women of our courts are understanding rational intelligent people who actually do not need this Parliament to tell them that a crime done in the presence of a child is a bad thing. It is a worse thing; they know that already. Case law shows that they are giving sentences accordingly.One of the things that I think is really important is that when it comes to law and order and crime and when it comes to safety in our community we need to ensure that the men and the women the young and the old who enter our corrections facilities actually have their behaviour changed. I am pleased to say that this Government has put into place educational programmes and individual learning plans for every person who goes into prison. That is a great step forward. The number of prisoners gaining qualifications has increased by 830 percent up from 197 in 2008-09 to 1833 in 2012-13. What I cannot understand when I read figures like that is how the previous Government with all of its 9 years of surplus—Kelvin Davis: Oh you were doing so well Jonathan.JONATHAN YOUNG: —Mr Davis—and 9 years of skiting that we have got money in the bank never did anything in this space. I cannot understand. We have almost 3000 prisoners starting literacy and numeracy programmes in the 2013-14 financial year up 155 percent compared with 2007-08. And this is the important thing coming back to the bill: we have had an almost 1500 percent increase of places on drug and alcohol treatment programmes for prisoners since 2008.Simon O’Connor: How much?JONATHAN YOUNG: A 1500 percent increase since 2008.I do not know what the previous Labour Government was doing. I do not know what it was doing for all those years—you know the party that cares! How come when we came into office we lifted all these programmes especially rehabilitation around drugs? The people who are out there creating drugs making drugs are people who live in a drug culture. So this bill is saying that that drug culture is destructive for those individuals those kids and the people they sell drugs to but what is Labour doing about it?What we are doing about it is that we have increased the number of places by 1500 percent so that people who end up in our corrections facilities have drug and alcohol rehabilitation to get off it to pull their lives together to have a fresh start and to be able to come out of a corrections facility with skills training so that they can go out and get a job get an apprenticeship and get something that is going to give them another source of income instead of making this destructive stuff.So you know we could bleat on about things as people do but we as a Government are doing something about it. We are being pragmatic and being proactive. We are changing the culture of this society by the things that we do. I believe it is not just a matter of creating a law that punishes but it is about creating an opportunity that changes. This is what we are doing. Thank you.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):I was so enjoying the speech of that member Jonathan Young until he got to those really hurtful things about the previous Labour Government. It is tragic. He was talking about the things that matter so much to New Zealanders such as the safety of our children and those terrible people that are making methamphetamine and doing all those hurtful things and then he himself goes and hurts our feelings by criticising the fantastic previous Labour Government.I just would like to start though with Pita Paraone who earlier this evening spoke about the genesis of this bill. He mentioned the name of the late great Hon Brian Donnelly who was not just a wonderful member of Parliament—I knew him before he was in politics as a fantastic principal up in Whangarei. He was also a fairly handy rugby league player for the Moerewa Tigers in his day. Then we move on to Asenati Lole-Taylor who actually brought this bill to the House. I would just like to acknowledge her.I do have to say though that the Labour Party is not going to support this bill. We do not disagree with the intent of the bill; in fact we agree entirely with the intent of the bill to protect our most vulnerable children. Labour is committed absolutely committed—as are all parties across the House—to protecting the most vulnerable and particularly our children. As Jonathan Young did say anybody who would think of doing something as heinous as baking P in the house in the presence of children deserves the law book to be absolutely thrown at them.The Labour Party is absolutely committed to the physical safety of children. It is committed to preserving the emotional safety of children and the cultural safety of children. It is committed to protecting the educational safety of children. That is why we have spent much of this evening this afternoon and many previous members’ days debating the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is why we always talk about the need for warm dry homes so that children and families are warm and safe. It is why we are always talking about poverty and how we need to expend all our energies in reducing poverty across New Zealand. It is why we talk about our concern about the cost of food and healthy food in particular and also about overcrowding in homes. We talk about these issues because we care about giving our children throughout New Zealand the best start in life.I just want to talk about an incident that happened when I was principal at Kaitāia Intermediate School when the local youth aid officer came into my office and said: “Kelvin we need to take a brother and sister a girl who is year 8 12 years of age and her younger brother year 7 11 years of age for drug testing.” I said: “Oh what—marijuana?”. He said: “No. This is P. We want to test them for P.” I said: “Well why would you suspect that these kids have been doing P?”. He said: “Well to be perfectly honest their parents are doing P. We have interviewed these children and they have a detailed knowledge of how to manufacture P. They can explain in graphic detail how to manufacture P. They can also explain in great detail the process you go through to actually consume it.” He mentioned something about taking light bulbs. Mr Deputy Speaker you were a policeman in your day. Somehow they used broken light bulbs to consume P. So these children had this intimate knowledge that they could explain in quite some detail. At 11 and 12 years of age they could explain how to manufacture and consume P.They actually took these kids away and they did test them and found that no the children had not actually consumed it themselves. But the youth aid officer said to me: “Kelvin they display all the symptoms of somebody who has been using P.” I said: “Well explain to me.” He said: “Well are these kids tired? Do they come to school and fall asleep?”. I said: “Yeah actually they do.” He said: “Well when your parents are having a P binge it makes them hyper. They will stay awake. They will party for 3 4 or 5 days at a time without any sleep. That means these children are also kept awake because their parents are partying with their mates. They can’t get to sleep so they’re also displaying the symptoms of sleep deprivation. Physiologically they just can’t cope with it so they come to school to have a rest.” He said: “Are these kids hungry?”. I said: “Yeah. They’re always hungry. We put on breakfast for them.” He said: “Well that’s another symptom—when the parents are on their P binges they don’t get hungry so they don’t think to go out and buy food for the kids. In fact their minds aren’t in that space where they would think to go and buy food. All the food is used up on day 1 and day 2 of the P binge. The kids go for 4 or 5 days without food in the house so they will turn up to school hungry as well.” He said this is what happens. This is how insidious it is that parents will have this happen to their children.We as parents want to have our children. We want to love them nurture them and make sure they grow up safely. David Clendon has spoken about how his grandkids have come around and you put everything up high so that they cannot have things fall on them and they will not play with the light sockets etc. There are some parents in this world who just absolutely do not give a toss about those little things; they are too busy on these P binges where their kids are sleep-deprived and where they are food-deprived and basically those children are not in a situation where they can actually go to school and learn. They are in danger of just repeating the cycle over and over and over again.The intent of this bill is laudable but we will not support it because the Sentencing Act and the Crimes Act already basically cover the intent of this bill. For example section 152 of the Crimes Act says it is the duty of the parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury. It says: “Everyone who is a parent or is a person in place of a parent who has actual care or charge of a child under the age of 18 years is under a legal duty—(a) to provide that child with necessaries; and (b) to take reasonable steps to protect that child from injury.”Those parents whom I have spoken about are not taking any steps to protect their children from injury. In fact it was just a wonder that those children had not actually consumed P themselves because if they had they would have been instantly addicted. P is one of the most addictive substances there is. Nicotine is probably the only thing that is more addictive strangely enough. It is just a wonder that those two children whom I described had not actually consumed P and at that stage of their lives had not become addicted to it although I would have concerns now some 7 or 8 years on and I hope that they have not fallen into that lifestyle as well. In fact I have to give them credit for getting themselves up every day getting out of bed getting themselves dressed and getting themselves to school. I was thinking about it and it was probably because school was the one safe place in their lives where they could get up where they could get some sleep in the middle of the day when they are meant to be learning where they could get a decent feed in the mornings and where they were relatively safe.Also the Sentencing Act—I just want to refer to section 9A “Cases involving violence against or neglect of child under 14 years”. Section 9A(2) says: “The court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”. Section 9A(2)(b) says: “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect on the victim:”. So that is an aggravating factor—taking into account the psychological effect on the victim. I just wonder about the psychological effect that those parents’ behaviour had on their two children. Labour will not be supporting this bill although we do support the intent. Kia ora.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I am pleased to take a call on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. I have listened to 80 minutes of fact on this bill and I think the only thing I can do is add a little fiction. I did learn a couple of things tonight. I learnt from Pita Paraone that this bill has been floating around this building for some 8 years so it is little surprise given the fact that it has been around for some 8 years that some of the things contained in it have been superseded by other pieces of legislation. It was picked up in the last Parliament by Asenati Lole-Taylor who was famous for some things in this Parliament but probably not this bill. But none the less she had an entertaining 3 years in this place but of course is no longer with us.Hon Simon Bridges: Then New Zealand First did the nasty on her.IAN McKELVIE: I have been put right off my stride. She did have this bill. I guess it is a little bit like backing a racehorse. She became lucky. She got a bill drawn out of the ballot. Of course some of us and some of you have had bills in the ballot for a number of years and never have been lucky enough to have one drawn out. Asenati had one drawn out of the ballot within a few minutes of arriving in this Parliament and this was the bill that was drawn out. The National Party for that reason is not inspecting it. Of course we have got a slight—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member in his entertaining contribution but the noise across the House and the discussions are getting a little bit out of hand. If we could keep it down please.IAN McKELVIE: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. That is much more peaceful. I was about to say that I listened to not only 80 minutes of speaking on this bill but also speeches on the previous bill and I seriously thought I was in a morgue. It was very disappointing to think that you could speak for hours and hours and hours on a bill and pretty much never change the tone of the speaker. I think that is the sad thing about this place that probably we need a little—Sue Moroney: How long did they speak about the name of that bill?IAN McKELVIE: Oh there is the proponent of that bill over there. She actually did quite a good job I have to say sitting in the chair. I did notice her making some quite good contributions to the bill and she was slightly more gregarious than some of her helpers.I want to go back to the bill for a moment. The reason it is not being supported—and it has been very well documented in here tonight—is that a lot of the legislation passed by this Government in the last 5 or 6 years has really superseded the intent of this bill. Judges already have the opportunity to consider the presence of children when sentencing. I think that that probably was the key for the Law and Order Committee which perused this bill. That select committee of course had a number of people sitting on it who are in the House tonight. I think Kris Faafoi might have been on that select committee in the early stages of it.Kris Faafoi: A very august select committee.IAN McKELVIE: And a very very good member of that select committee too Kris Faafoi. Of course David Clendon from the Greens has been on the Law and Order Committee in the time I have been on it and he makes a great contribution. But the select committee at that time was chaired by Jacqui Dean. She did give Asenati Lole-Taylor a number of opportunities to appear before that committee and explain the reasons for the bill and explain how she wanted to progress it. Asenati did not turn up. Of course that does not help your cause when you have got a member’s bill before a select committee.Jacinda Ardern: That’s a bit unfair.IAN McKELVIE: A bit harsh—yes I realise that. I did not say she was not here but perhaps there is a reason she is not here.I want to go on to what I think is the solution to this. It is a solution that the National Government has soundly supported in its time in Government and in the House. I think the real cure for the child abuse issues we have for the crimes issues we have is a better education process. I am sure this Government is advancing that at pace. I think initially the opportunity for our very youngest children to go through the education system even in remote towns like some in my community such as Raetihi—in fact the primary school had a team of its pupils in the gallery today and it is nice to see such a large turnout of children in the gallery tonight.Kris Faafoi: Just for you.IAN McKELVIE: Exactly Mr Faafoi. I think the education process will certainly make a difference. It will make a real dent in people’s perception of crime.I want to talk about another thing that is going on in my electorate right now as we speak. The Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob in Auckland is running a drug programme in conjunction with the Salvation Army at a place called Kākahi. For those of you who have not heard of Kākahi it was at one stage the home of Peter McIntyre.Kris Faafoi: Where is it?IAN McKELVIE: It is in the King Country. My grandmother taught at Kākahi School in 1927 as a matter of interest. But it was also the home of Peter McIntyre.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: When was that?IAN McKELVIE: It was in 1927. They are running what is turning out to be a very successful drug rehabilitation programme. Although I guess that is not education in its purest form it certainly will make a difference to the way that those Mongrel Mob members participate in crime. Once they are drug-free I am sure that will make a significant difference to their attitude and outlook on life. Drugs of course were the background to this bill being introduced to the House. They are also a significant cause of crime in this country. That is something that is going on in my electorate of Rangitīkei right now that I think is really interesting. It is a little intimidating for the community but none the less I think it works very well. It is a very small community as well. It works very well.The other thing that I think is really apparent has been this Government’s achievements in law and order. As I said earlier I have been fortunate enough to be on the Law and Order Committee in the time I have been in this House and in that time we have had very good Ministers of Corrections very good Ministers of Police and very good Ministers of Justice. That has followed through into programmes that are rehabilitating prisoners at a greater rate than we ever have before in this country with great success actually. As Jonathan Young said in his very good speech earlier on we are having great—Kris Faafoi: It wasn’t very good. It was OK.IAN McKELVIE: It was an outstanding speech. We are having great success with drug programmes and literacy and numeracy programmes in our prisons. We certainly are getting a whole lot more of those prisoners back into our communities in a form that makes them enjoy their lives and does not end up with them going straight back to prison. I think it is a very successful programme. Also we are keeping a lot more people in their communities as they serve their sentences. That makes a difference to their attitude to life. It gets them off drugs. It keeps them working in the community and keeps them busy.A lot of the success this Government has had in the 6 years it has been in office has certainly occurred in the law and order programmes that we have instigated—as Jonathan Young says in a very short time and likely to be extended. I think on the whole we are doing pretty well with our education and our law and order programmes.The other thing I want to talk about in respect of the education and law and order programmes is that a lot of people—and I guess it almost started in my day—were expected to go through the schooling programmes with an academic bent on life I guess. I think that challenges people significantly because a lot of us only ever want to work with our hands. When you go to school and you are made to—Jacinda Ardern: It’s a maximum speaking time not a goal.IAN McKELVIE: I have never had to waste as much time as this before in my life but I am very good at it. I am getting very good at it and I am starting to quite enjoy it. The great thing about working with your hands is that you can do anything. I think the real secret to our education programmes—I have to say that when I started this I said to my neighbour: “What am I going to say for 10 minutes?”. He said: “Just pick up all the facts and spread them further.” What I am actually doing is spreading those facts further. But I just want to get back to the education thing. If you think about using your hands it is a great opportunity for the young people of today who do not have that academic bent to get on and do something they like doing.So I think that aside from the fact that this bill did not fit the bill from a Government perspective—and I am pleased to see even the Greens supporting us on this and it is one of the few things I think they have supported us on—I do feel a little for Asenati Lole-Taylor who was lucky enough to have a bill drawn out of the ballot and get it into the House. So although the bill will never see the light of day I think it has none the less been given plenty of airing. With those few words I will hope that the bill comes to an end with this reading and I will sit down. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member Denise Roche. You have a 5-minute split call.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take a short call on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. This bill is an excellent example of the democratic process—how our Parliament should develop our legislation—and I just want to acknowledge the people who are in the gallery today the young people who have come along to witness democracy in action. This is where the laws are made. Thank you for coming.I also want to congratulate the member who brought this bill to the House in her name Asenati Lole-Taylor and acknowledge her work on the bill in bringing it through the first reading and into the select committee. I also acknowledge Mr Pita Paraone and congratulate him on shepherding it through this part of the process. It is without doubt a well-intentioned member’s bill.We supported this bill to the select committee as did most parties in this House because we wanted the people of New Zealand to have a say on a potential addition to the law around sentencing criminals who have committed crimes around children while they were present. I was not on the select committee but I have reviewed the advice from the officials the 10 written submissions and of course the report back to the House. It is obvious from reviewing that information that there has been a lot of care and attention and discussion that has gone into weighing up the pros and cons of this bill.That is how our legislative process should work because frequently it is not until a bill has got the full weight of parliamentary services to investigate it where the public and experts have an opportunity to examine the bill and where MPs can pick it to pieces during the select committee process that you actually get to scrutinise our legislation and what we are doing—and what we are proposing to do—in great detail. Just by the way that is one of the reasons why the Greens love democracy so much and also why we are frequently opposed to the use of urgency as a short cut in the legislative process.But back to this bill. We come back to the recommendation put to the House from the Law and Order Committee. Basically it has recommended that this bill not go any further and we will be supporting that recommendation. Essentially we acknowledge that this bill is and was well-intentioned and we agree of course that children should be protected from the harm of being present when crimes are committed. This was a unanimous response from all the submitters on the bill. But we do not think that this bill will do that. By the time the sentence is imposed on the offender the harm to the child is already done and we must find ways of preventing that harm—be the ambulance at the top of the cliff not at the bottom.I was heartened by the submission from the Salvation Army which did look at how we sentence offenders. I was struck by the wisdom of some of the comments and I would like to refer to some of its submission where it said: “If we seek to protect vulnerable children a concentrated preventative approach to reducing offending and reoffending is required. Therefore we submit that protecting vulnerable children from harm in these situations is not always achieved by an increase in punishment. Whilst we support the removal of risk … from a child’s environment longer sentences and the separation of children from their parents through prison has also itself been identified as a risk factor for intergenerational criminal activity.” I would add that there is really no evidence that longer sentences act as a deterrent to crime.There have been no gaps in the current sentencing practice and the current sentencing law identified by any of the Ministry of Justice officials so this bill basically does nothing to prevent the harm to children or to fill any kind of legislative gap. For that reason though we acknowledge the good intentions of it we will be opposing this bill. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sue Moroney—a 5-minute call.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is indeed a 5-minute call. This is a short contribution on the second reading of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill brought forward originally—not very originally but in most recent history—by Asenati Lole-Taylor. I want to acknowledge her for bringing the member’s bill into the House having the opportunity to have it drawn from the ballot and also Pita Paraone for continuing to ensure that this bill remains before the House and that it can in fact be debated at the second reading.Many members have spoken about this bill being related to the issue of children being in an environment where methamphetamine is being used or where in fact it is being created. Yes that has been well traversed. I do not really want to add to that debate and discussion at all. But I do want to bring to the House’s attention another area of criminal offending where children are quite frequently and far too frequently present and that is in the field of domestic violence. It is quite frequent that police officers are called out to domestic violence incidents. Also one of the next things they are doing is contacting Child Youth and Family because there is often a child who has witnessed that domestic violence. We know that the link between domestic violence and family violence is very strong. We know that children witnessing violence in that environment are very likely to have been subjected to violence themselves. Of course the act of witnessing a loved family member being attacked by another loved family member is in itself violence towards the children who are witnessing that. So that is another area where this bill would apply.As we have heard from the speakers beforehand the bill is not necessary because judges at sentencing do regard it as being an aggravating factor that children are present in these situations where the criminal offending takes place and so they should. If criminal offending was not bad enough in its own right to have children through no fault of their own involved simply by being in the environment is just unthinkable for many people in this House.I cannot address this issue without calling out the Government members on the sanctimony—the sanctimony—of their contributions to this bill and on their not understanding the link between getting right the bonding and attachment between children and family members in those early months.Chris Bishop: Ha ha!SUE MORONEY: Well Christopher Bishop laughs but all the research and evidence says that if we get the bonding and attachment right in those early months parents will never put their children in this situation because they will have developed that protection gene. They will have developed that through their bonding and attachment and that is why it is critically important that we get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave in place—so that bonding and attachment can occur.Simon O’Connor: Here we go.SUE MORONEY: “Here we go.” they say. Yes well you are going to continue to hear about it because of the hypocrisy of the Government members pretending that they care about this issue without understanding what leads to it. Quite simply when parents allow their children to be put in the situation where they are exposed to drugs that will cause health problems for the children where they are exposed to violence the simple fact is that those children would be immunised against being put in those situations if that parent was properly bonded and attached to that child.Simon O’Connor: Oh what a load of rubbish!SUE MORONEY: The Government members opposite are saying it is rubbish. They clearly do not care about the research and evidence that suggests otherwise—the volumes of research and evidence that tell us otherwise. To quote the Labour leader: “Just cut the crap and actually deal with the issues that matter.”Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!SUE MORONEY: Has my time concluded?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No it has not. Your time has not concluded but the member should stick to the bill that is under debate at the moment and carry on as if she is debating the current bill not a bill that has already been dealt with.SUE MORONEY: Thank you and I am indeed debating this bill. The point is that if we want to ensure that parents immunise their children against being in an environment where there is criminal offending taking place then we want to make sure that parents actually have empathy and attachment and are well bonded to their children. If they do they would not allow that situation to occur.I feel that my time probably is going to be up now. I challenge the members opposite to do the right thing.CHRIS BISHOP (National):Well that was an interesting contribution from Sue Moroney. You would not have thought that it was actually the National Party that took to the election a programme to expand paid parental leave and expand the parental tax credit. Actually that is the policy of the National Government and that is the policy we will be advancing. But anyway I want to mention two things in my contribution tonight. It is a great pleasure to be here actually. This is the first actual bill I have had the pleasure of speaking on as a new member of this Parliament. I have given a speech in the general debate and obviously I have had my maiden speech but this is the first bill I have spoken on. It is a shame I have to say that I was not privileged enough to be a member of the Law and Order Committee which considered this bill. But I have carefully read the information. I have carefully read the bill and I have carefully read the report back from the select committee and I have considered the submissions. I think it is pretty clear that there are really three reasons why the bill is not going to be passed tonight—unanimously I think—by the House.There was concern about the definition of “in the presence of”. It was felt that that would be difficult to apply and I think that is fair enough. There was also concern expressed by many that the proposition being put forward by the member’s bill was indeed actually already the law. So in some ways the bill was essentially redundant. Case law already took account of the presence of minors in criminal offending. There was also some concern I think that this would restrict judicial discretion. So for those three reasons I think the bill rightly is not going to be passed tonight. I do not think that anyone would dispute that the member who originally brought the bill forward who I understand was the long lamented Brian Donnelly and his successor Asenati Lole-Taylor were very well intentioned in bringing this issue to the attention of the House.I want to take a broader look at this bill and the issues. I want to talk about the achievements of the National-led Government in the law and order and crime and punishment fields. The interesting thing about what the Government has been up to over the last 6 years is that there has been a quiet revolution going on in crime and punishment. The National Government has been cracking down on crime—there is no doubt about that—but the other thing we have been doing as a Government is actually putting enormous effort and investment into tackling the causes of crime and tackling reoffending and that has been led firstly by Judith Collins and then latterly by Anne Tolley. I am sure that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will continue with it as the new Minister of Corrections. I would describe it as a quiet revolution in that field and I think that when people look back on the legacy of this National-led Government they will look very favourably on the very large increase in things like drug and alcohol treatment and addiction treatment. It is true—and these are the facts for the benefit of the House—that under the National-led Government we have the lowest crime rate in 35 years. It is indisputable.Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise with you the issue that you raised with the previous speaker Sue Moroney in saying that her speech was out of the scope of this bill. I just think looking at this particular member of the National Party that his speech has very little to do with this bill and I would like you to consider that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the member’s point of order. I ask members to stick to the bill under discussion tonight which is in respect of children’s presence at criminal offending—the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. Obviously I previously allowed some leeway and we learnt a lot about the outer reaches of the Rangitīkei electorate. I do not believe that the current speaker is going beyond the scope at the moment but he must bear in mind the need to stick to the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: Understood. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Look I think it is fair to say it has been a free-ranging debate and certainly I think that members opposite have taken some liberties as well with the subject matter of this bill. I do want to talk about the crime rate. We have put 600 more police on the front line and there has been a 155 percent increase in foot patrols by our police between 2011 and 2013. In my great area of the Hutt Valley I was very pleased to see crime down 23 percent between June 2011 and September 2013. Violent crime is down 21 percent youth crime is down 36 percent and reoffending is down 10 percent. The justice sector in Hutt Valley won an award from the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand for its efforts in working together as a justice system. That is a very impressive achievement and is great for the people of the Hutt Valley.Carmel Sepuloni: Well done Trevor.CHRIS BISHOP: Actually he had nothing to do with it. As the new list MP based in the region I am looking forward to working with the justice sector in the Hutt Valley to get those rates down further. Here are some more facts for the benefit of the House. In 2007 and 2008 when members opposite were in charge 234 prisoners had access to treatment for addictions. What was the figure in 2013-14? It was 3700. So this is a Government that has put a serious amount of effort energy and raw hard cash into making sure that our prisoners have access to treatment for addictions which of course so many of them do. What about qualifications? I know that the member Jacinda Ardern has a strong interest in making sure that our prisoners come out of prison equipped to go back into the workforce—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is pertinent to remind the member that it has been a long time since he has mentioned the protection of children in his speech. It would have been wise of him to take the steer earlier given. I welcome him back to the point under debate.CHRIS BISHOP: I think the relevance to children is pretty clear in that we want to make sure that prisoners who leave our prisons and often go back to looking after children do not reoffend. This is a Government that has put a serious investment into making sure that prisoners who have the ability to gain qualifications have the ability to educationally achieve. This is also a Government that has put a serious amount of effort through the Supporting Vulnerable Children Result Action Plan into making sure that children who are vulnerable in our society get the support they need and that we reduce the number of assaults on children. The trend is downward and it is very important that we continue on the path we have gone on through things like putting social workers in schools to deal with the root cause of some of the problems with crime in our society and the subjecting of children to the crimes that this bill very rightly aims to deal with.It is important that we continue with initiatives like social workers in hospitals which we introduced in 2009 to make sure that social workers are in every district health board around the country which I know my colleague the Hon Jonathan Coleman as the Minister of Health is very focused on. We are making sure that children in our schools have access to social workers and this Government has put more effort and energy into that. That is extremely important. We have expanded that programme to all decile 1 to 3 schools and I was privileged during the election campaign to meet some of those people in Wainuiōmata. They are indeed making a difference to the well-being of our young people.But to return to the core elements of this debate I think there is widespread unanimity across the House that for a variety of reasons this bill is not necessary and I think we can all agree that this is a Government that is taking serious action on some of the issues that are highlighted by this bill. So we will not be voting for it at its second reading.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):I would like to address some of the inaccuracies that have been brought up by the previous member Christopher Bishop but I think I might start by actually addressing the bill that we are here to discuss in the House tonight. I am not sure whether the previous speaker actually even mentioned what that bill is. In fact I do not even know whether he came to the House knowing what the bill was that he was speaking on. But I will speak just to the bill. The bill is the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. I am happy tonight to take a call on this bill. We will not be supporting the bill but we do support the intent of the bill and I do want to acknowledge Asenati Lole-Taylor for her work. We may not have always aligned exactly in our political views but I do respect her as a former parliamentarian and I respect the work that she did with this bill despite the fact that we may not agree with it or support it at this stage.This bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing. Where the offender endangers or exposes a minor to potential adverse effects from that offending the sentence must reflect this. Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm and we all agree in the House that that is the case. A primary example of such offending that has been spoken about by several members tonight is the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. Production of these substances is regularly conducted in residential buildings putting the lives and health of resident children at risk of poisoning and burns resulting from the highly dangerous and unstable chemicals used in such production. My colleague Jacinda Ardern talked earlier tonight about the large proportion of households buildings and places where methamphetamine is being produced where there are actually children who are living in that vicinity or where there are children who are exposed to the harm of that methamphetamine. So it is something that we here tonight all of us in this House share some concern for. We accept and we are concerned about the fact that minors are often the innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk of harm.We oppose this bill. However as the Law and Order Committee report states: “we support the intent of the bill and consider the safety of children to be paramount.” We cannot support this bill though because there are several problems with it. Some of those problems have been cited by my own colleagues and some of those problems have been cited by members of other parties. The application of the bill as introduced would be too difficult to enforce. Under clause 4 the definition of “in the presence of a minor” is far too broad and would encompass everything. The definition of “in the presence of” could potentially encompass public areas such as shopping malls or roads; as such it would be difficult to apply in practice. The select committee stated that it is “confident that judges already consider the presence of and potential harm to children when sentencing and requiring them to comply with a rigid framework might hinder the use of judicial discretion” in those situations. The report also states: “Case law demonstrates that the Police and the courts already take the presence of a minor into account when prosecuting and sentencing offenders in the situations the bill is intended to address.”I have not been on the select committee so unfortunately was not there for the public submissions but I have gone through some of the submissions. One of the submissions that I was particularly interested in which really aligns with the views of many people in the House tonight is the submission that was put forward by the New Zealand Law Society. I think the submission that has come from it is credible. It has analysed what the legislation would entail and whether or not it would be effective and the answers it has come up with really are the answers that align with what we have heard here tonight. The New Zealand Law Society like many of the parties in the House welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bill. In its submission it states that the bill amends the Sentencing Act and what that entails. It points out that “The objective of protecting children in these circumstances is laudable but the Law Society considers the bill is unnecessary. The courts already routinely take the presence of minors into account as an aggravating feature for example in prosecutions for domestic violence drink driving and drug offending.” The Law Society points out: “This was illustrated in a recent methamphetamine prosecution where the Court of Appeal endorsed prosecutions for neglecting a child in circumstances where the child was exposed to methamphetamine: ‘It is appropriate to observe however that we are satisfied the charge under s 195 was properly brought in this case and that it is an appropriate charge for a situation such as this where a parent with control of a child allows that child’s health to be habitually compromised by exposure to an unsafe environment made so by her own criminal offending.’ This is relevant to the general policy of the Bill: the Explanatory Note notes that ‘[a] primary example of such [criminal] offending is the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. Production of these substances is regularly conducted in residential buildings putting the lives and health of resident children at risk of poisoning and burns resulting from the highly dangerous and unstable chemicals used in such production’ ”—which is what was stated earlier from the Labour Party point of view and which is shared across the House—“In the Law Society’s view whether minors have been put at risk of harm by offending is a factor that should be left to the courts’ discretion to assess in each case.” This is rather than through this bill because actually the Law Society and many of the other experts who came to submit on the bill pointed out that this bill could actually put at jeopardy the discretion of the court to assess each case in the way in which it currently is able to.It is good when we are in a situation where the majority of the House agrees on legislation. I did hear earlier one of the other members pointing out that this particular bill that we are considering tonight has been floating around Parliament for 7 or 8 years. I accept what the other member said in that things have changed over the last 8 years so the intention although good may be overridden by the fact that other legislation has come into play that actually discounts the need for this particular bill.I said I would initially start by actually addressing the bill which the previous speaker did not do but I would like to address some of the issues that the previous speaker did bring up. When we are talking about sentencing and protection of children—a serious matter that we all take seriously in this House and share concerns for—I thought it was a bit of a cheap opportunity to take which that member did to try to push the National agenda and to try to imply that National has been successful on the law and order front when actually what we are getting out in the general public is the exact opposite. The feedback that we are getting from the general public is that the National Government has failed abysmally when it comes to law and order. Just addressing some of the things that were raised by the previous speaker Mr Bishop when he raised that we have had reoffending rates drop well my learned colleague Jacinda Ardern did bring up actually that that was because reoffending has gone down because of community-based sentences.I also wanted to say in addressing the statements made by the previous speaker that unfortunately what we have seen under a National Government is the dissuading of the reporting of crimes. In fact we have police who are not even attending crimes such as burglaries to the same extent anymore so people are not even taking them to the police. That does mean there has been a reduction in crime; it means there has been a reduction in reporting because of the fact that we do not have the police numbers or police on hand to attend to those cases. We also had some statement made by members on the other side that they have done wonders in the area of rehabilitation. Can I just point out that it was really just a continuation of the Labour work that had been done during the 9 years that we had in Government.Finally when the National Government talks about the decrease in crime I have to point out actually that we are not seeing that in west Auckland. What we are seeing in west Auckland is that we have become the murder capital of New Zealand and we are certainly not feeling any great service by the National Government in the area of law and order. So in fact I want to point out before I go back to the bill that the National Government has failed New Zealand on so many fronts when it comes to law and order. The one good thing that I can say the Government is doing is that alongside us it is opposing this bill because it actually does not do what it was intended to do. Thank you.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):Every time I rise it seems to be you in the Chair Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard so I am very very lucky. But thank you very much for allowing me to take this call on this Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. Although I was not present for the select committee process in respect of this bill I have read the papers. The implications of it are important and of course they should be debated.This Government supported the bill in its first reading to explore the proposal and the ramifications but unfortunately it has fallen short. No one can deny—and we have heard from many members in this House—that the intent of this bill is admirable in that it specifically seeks to make sentencing the consideration if an offence has occurred in front of a child. So that means it is viewed that the safety of children is paramount.But the devil is in the detail in that the definition of “in the presence of a minor” is too broad. If we look at that it says in section 4(1) inserted by clause 4: “(a) in a place or building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present; or (b) in close proximity to a place or building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present”. As I said before it is extremely broad and as the member previously alluded to it would apply to roads shopping malls and many public places. So the challenge would be to apply it in practice. It baffles me how this would be done objectively.From our perspective it is about striking a balance between being tough on crime and not over-legislating. Section 9 of the Sentencing Act allows judges to use their discretion as to the gravity of an offence. They are already doing this. Case law suggests that and it is being done.But if we go back to the general policy statement it states that “Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm.” an example of that offending is “the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. Production of these substances is regularly conducted in residential buildings putting the lives and health of resident children at risk of poisoning and burns resulting from the highly dangerous and unstable chemicals used in such production. Minors are often innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk of harm.” Well absolutely.It is commonly reported by researchers and experts that children who witness this or who are raised in households where offending is prevalent are more likely to offend themselves. Exposing children to the manufacturing of P to the toxic substances and solvents used to make it—well I mean you do not need to have a PhD to understand the ramifications of that.This bill however is about sentencing and it does not actually go towards reducing crime or the effects of it on children. Despite what the member opposite has just said this Government is looking at reducing crime and it is a fact that crime is at a 35-year low.As the member Mr Bishop said this Government is revolutionary in its thinking. One of the things that I particularly like is that we are breaking down the silos of Government and unashamedly enabling agencies such as Child Youth and Family Services education providers and district health boards to talk to one another to identify those children at risk.I also want to talk about one more initiative in respect of assisting children and bringing them out of the jaws of crime and that is the Social Workers in Schools programme. That has expanded obviously to decile 1 to decile 3 schools—to put front-line experts face to face with those children at risk to deal with very complex issues.The other thing—and this is not directly involved with sentencing—is enabling the police to reduce crime by giving them practical measures. This bill does not go to enabling that to reduce crime. Realistically it goes to only one example which is the manufacturing of methamphetamine. I really do not think you can legislate for this type of thing and then legislate for every other circumstance that could appear. So you need to allow judges to use their discretion and—my apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. So judges need to use their discretion. We need to allow that to happen.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I always use my discretion.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate your discretion. For that reason even though the intent of the bill is admirable this Government simply cannot support it. Thank you.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes13New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes108New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges BillSecond ReadingDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I move That the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill be now read a second time. The bill has experienced a meaningful life even if it may prove to be short. It was conceived with good intent. The idea is to provide some protection to members of the judiciary through a register of pecuniary interests. It is to ensure the avoidance of misunderstandings that could result in the resignation of capable judges. It would relieve a judge of the continuous obligation to make a call on the need to recuse themselves from a case if there may be a conflict of interest involved. It would enable the judiciary to avail itself of the same mechanism that members of the legislature and the executive utilise as an instrument of public confidence in Government. The judiciary as the third branch of Government might perhaps be seen as no exception to the political imperative of public trust.The bill has attracted considerable comment in New Zealand and indeed beyond attracting interest from as far afield as the Parliament of Scotland. The bill was given unanimous if contingent support by the House and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It prompted the first report ever on a member’s bill by the Law Commission. To cite the commission: “The judiciary does not exist in isolation. It is an institution in a particular society. Judges must have the respect and faith of the communities they serve to be effective. This is because in a democracy the enforcement of judicial decrees and orders depends ultimately on public co-operation.”The bill received a number of thoughtful submissions including from the Chief Justice and the president of the Law Society. It occasioned considerable discussion in the select committee itself. The select committee recognised that the bill had the constructive aim of assisting the judiciary in the execution of its duties. For its part the Government adopted a view that it should not proceed with the bill and its reasons are threefold: it would risk the privacy of judges it lacks the focus on important non-pecuniary interests and the administrative burden of operating such a register would outweigh any potential benefit. These arguments are all with respect contestable.Regarding the first argument more ways can be found to ensure the privacy of judges than to ensure the privacy of members of Parliament. The second and third reasons are not in themselves germane to the central thrust of the bill but rather arguments for amending it. An underlying issue is whether in making a judgment of this kind New Zealand should confine its considerations of relevance to common law countries alone; for this is what the Government and the select committee have done. The Law Commission argued that the present substantive law is satisfactory and in line with other common law jurisdictions and so no new legislative correction is warranted but the present law of recusal is unsatisfactory and needs attention.Down here we assure ourselves that common law countries are different in our jurisprudential foundations and so different principles and best practice apply. That self-assurance should be taken only so far. There is a commonality of underlying precepts on which all legal foundations rest. The United States for example maintains a register for judges. The fact that common law countries do not is not in itself a compelling argument for us not to do so in the future. Were it so we would never have adopted from Scandinavian countries the institution of the Ombudsman and as I say the Scottish Parliament has shown some interest as well.Since receiving the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill the Justice and Electoral Committee has also received the omnibus Judicature Modernisation Bill running to 1182 pages. That bill is to be divided into six parts of which Part 1 is to be the Senior Courts Bill. In that bill clause 168 addresses the issue of recusal of judges. The Government had always made it clear that refining the law of recusal was preferable to introducing a register of interests. The question therefore is whether the Judicature Modernisation Bill contains provisions that adequately address the stated objectives of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.The referral of the bill to the select committee reflected a spirit of cooperation between the National Party and the Green Party and I wish to acknowledge the Attorney-General for his constructive approach to this issue. It remains my intent to maintain that spirit of cooperation and so I wish to address the question of whether the principal objective of the bill is adequately taken into account in clause 168 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill as currently drafted. That clause requires the Chief Justice to develop and publish guidelines to assist Supreme Court judges when deciding whether or not they should recuse themselves from a proceeding. Separately the Chief High Court Judge and the President of the Court of Appeal will in consultation with the Chief Justice develop guidelines for all other judges. This would certainly be a step forward but is it sufficient to ensure on a professional basis that a judge is adequately protected from a conflict of interest and is it sufficient on a political basis to assure the public that this is the case?There may be some merit in an amendment to clause 168 concerning recusal guidelines. The shortcoming as I see it is twofold. First the action is one of self-recusal which accepts a degree of personal subjectivity and reduces objective and public engagement in the decision. Second the precise guidelines are left for the judiciary itself to determine. Judges are highly trained and are acknowledged to have integrity but they are human. It is often simply too difficult for an individual to make that call for themselves. As the International Foundation for Election Systems the well-respected US expert body observed: “Although judges often [baulk] at the invasion of privacy that disclosure of their private finances entails it is almost uniformly considered to be an effective means of discouraging corruption conflicts of interest and misuse of public funds.”What is it about the New Zealand judiciary that makes it so different? It has been argued by the Law Commission that members of Parliament have the opportunity to defend themselves through the media. Some defence! It is suggested that judges might be more vulnerable to aggrieved litigants or convicted persons. I suggest that we are all equally exposed in our various ways or should be.I am grateful to the House for allowing this bill to be considered and to the Law Commission for giving it such serious consideration. I know that the bill will not in its specific form be passed into law. It is a fate I can accept with near total equanimity. But I do genuinely believe that the aims of the bill are not adequately covered in clause 168 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill as currently drafted.If the route that is clause 168 is to be followed then I suggest that the bill be more specific as to what these guidelines might be. I plan to move an amendment when the time comes in the Committee stage in respect of the Judicature Modernisation Bill to ensure that this is the case. I hope members will view that amendment in the constructive spirit in which it will be advanced and was shown by the Attorney-General and the Government to this bill.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):National does not support this bill. The member Dr Kennedy Graham has given a pretty full account of his rationale for promoting the bill. The information I was given was that the member had intended to withdraw the bill when it was at the Law and Order Committee so why he has chosen to continue with it I do not know. But as the member was talking it occurred to me that the recusal provisions actually prove the point that the current provisions are working.If we go back to I think around 2004—I am not quite sure of the time but it was around that time—there was a Court of Appeal case from which Justice Bill Wilson failed to recuse himself. It was Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd as some members will remember. It was found that Justice Wilson had a business relationship with one of the counsel and should have recused himself because he clearly had a conflict of interest but he did not recuse himself. So in terms of the law—and the member probably thinks I am agreeing with him—it was determined by the justice that yes in fact he should have recused himself. He then went on to resign his position and I think the accountability is there in the existing legislation. So maybe the issue here is not so much around having a register of pecuniary interests but around the provisions that deal with recusal and whether or not they are effective and I would contend that they are.So I will just move on to the Law Commission report of 2011 where the Law Commission released an issues paper that indeed examined the potential for having a register of pecuniary interests for judges. That report set out the current law as it relates to New Zealand England and Wales and it described the key features of financial registers in the United States of America India and South Africa. The Law Commission determined and recommended in its report that a register of judges’ pecuniary interests not be established in New Zealand and the member did not address that point in his speech. But we do have a Committee stage to come so I would expect and hope that the sponsoring member would address the recommendation of the Law Commission that a register of judges’ pecuniary interests not be established in New Zealand. I mean the member may care to disagree with the Law Commission over this point but I think the House would be interested to hear the reasons why.There are also concerns—I absolutely understand those concerns—that a public register of assets and of financial information could and I would say “would” compromise judges’ privacy and in some cases their safety and would expose them to pressures that they otherwise do not face. When I think of a District Court judge who does a circuit around provincial New Zealand they are in small towns. With regard to the nature of small towns let us talk about Whanganui for example. The District Court judge comes and does a circuit and appears in the town and sits in the court weekly fortnightly or however often the round is. The same defendants tend to come up against the District Court time after time after time. They are known to that judge. They develop a history. They are known clearly to the local police. So it is a pretty small environment and it is a pretty small pond.Imagine that some character gets his hands on the register of pecuniary interests of the District Court judge who is doing the circuit and reads that the District Court judge has a residence here has a residence here has a residence here holds a mortgage with some bank and other items. As members of Parliament we are very familiar with those but that information in the hands of an offender who is clearly holding a grudge against a judge has the potential to place that judge under some unwelcome pressure. I am not talking about an offender in the dock being less than respectful—there are remedies for that—but I do worry and I genuinely worry because judges tend to be quite isolated folk anyway due to the very nature of their job. I would not like to think that they were needlessly being placed under threat by some members of society who did not bear them the best of good wishes.It is believed that the current ethical codes and the common law around recusal are satisfactory in New Zealand. Our codes and our law are substantially the same as Australia England Wales and Canada. So New Zealand is far from being an outlier as the member sponsoring the bill would have us believe; that is not true. It is believed that we are very much in line with some pretty solid practices.I want to talk about the separation of the judiciary from Government. It was an issue that came very much to our attention at the Law and Order Committee in the previous Parliament when we were considering the Bail Amendment Bill. That was a bill affecting families of members of the public who had had an experience with the judiciary. It was around the circumstances of bail being granted to offenders who then went on to offend grievously in some cases against young people family members etc. Those family members who were badly badly hurt and grieving and will be for the rest of their lives were turning around looking for someone to blame. Of course they were. The decision maker in that instance—that is the person who was to grant bail—was the judge. Those families often laid blame for the decision to grant bail—and I am keeping within scope of this present bill I hope—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I hope you are going to get back there soon.JACQUI DEAN: I am. I surely am.Jacinda Ardern: He’s very strict this Assistant Speaker.JACQUI DEAN: No it is good. That member was not on the select committee at the time and perhaps if she had been she might have been as affected by the circumstances as we were. The point—Ian McKelvie: Faafoi was though.JACQUI DEAN: Yes Kris Faafoi was. So I am rather hoping that he will pick up the theme. The point I am making is that there needs to be a separation of the judiciary so that they can make some sound decisions. That is the point—that we need our judiciary to remain absolutely separate so that judges make the best decisions they can.Just turning to the select committee process there were a number of submissions on this bill very few of whom supported the bill itself for the reasons that I have canvassed in this speech. So although I am sure this is a bill that is absolutely well meaning I do not think it achieves the purpose that it was intended to achieve because there are other provisions that provide protection for the public against the perception of bias in judges. I also think we need to protect judges because they need to be free as I was alluding to in our discussion on the Bail Amendment Bill to make good independent determinations. Clearly those determinations are not going to be popular but it is not a game about being popular. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call—my first call—on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. I think it is important that we have the opportunity to debate this proposal by Dr Kennedy Graham because I think the principle behind it is extremely sound. It is a timely debate to be having given that today for instance Transparency International has released its international rankings of countries and the work that they do to prevent corruption in their domestic field whether it be the way that public servants hold themselves whether it be their laws around official information and so on. All of those things contribute to a well-functioning democracy and perception is incredibly important in that regard. New Zealand unfortunately today slipped in its ranking. We were ranked No. 1—we were ranked No. 1.Hon Todd McClay: Did our points go down?JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge we may have maintained our points ranking but we have slipped into second position. I think when you look at where we have tracked—[Interruption] Apparently second does not matter to National members. Apparently they do not seem to mind that we are no longer top of the field. A little bit defensive they sound over there.I just want to track back through a little bit of history. In 1999 when Labour took office from National we were ranked No. 3. We had been No. 4 under National actually—that is where they had let it get to. We were ranked No. 3 at the time though that Labour took over. In 2004 we got us to No. 2. By 2006 we got us to No. 1. That is the work that we did to ensure that we had a better placing. We are disappointed. Obviously the bar to which National holds itself means that No. 2 does not matter. They have always been happy to be fast followers. But my point is and Dr Kennedy Graham is right to make this point that we can never afford to be complacent—we can never afford to be complacent. I do not think it is good enough to simply say: “Well the intent is in the legislation and therefore we should be satisfied by that.” It is what happens in practice that we should be concerned about. I think that that point is well made in this bill.We should encourage transparency at all levels. We already have a pecuniary interests register which was applied to Cabinet in 1990. It was extended to members of Parliament in 2006 and I think all of us would agree that there is benefit in having that regime. It gives us protections. It tries to enhance the faith that members of the public should have in us. That faith is not always present but it tries to enhance that faith. So I think the principle of extending the register to the judiciary was one that was worth exploring.The origin of the bill itself is also a good indication of the issue that the member was trying to resolve. It was briefly talked about by the previous speaker Jacqui Dean. That case was Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd. In that case Justice Bill Wilson was part of a bench of three Court of Appeal judges—I believe he was a fresh Court of Appeal judge at that time—that overturned a High Court decision. It was found though that counsel for Saxmere was Alan Galbraith QC. He was found to have a business relationship with Justice Bill Wilson—a relationship that you get the sense was casually referred to but not fully disclosed in the way that it should have been. That is the point. It should never have happened. It seems to be the view on that side of the House that because it should never have happened and actually there were some rules in place that suggest that it should not have happened actually we should just be satisfied with that. I think it is fair that we look at taking things one step further and why?Well actually I read an article written by an Australian journalist who was looking at the Saxmere case here in New Zealand who said: “The solemn edifice of justice depends on the public having some sort of respect for and confidence in judges. … When judges misjudge there is hell to pay. In a single bound the thin silk can easily be torn from the alabaster bosom of that blind statue holding aloft the wobbly … scales. It’s delicate and it’s a lot to do with appearances … ”. That was a direct reference from an overseas journalist to the Saxmere case and was pointing out what we were going through as a country in terms of ensuring that we did not chip away at the perception of our judiciary as being beyond reproach.In this case however the conflict should never have happened as I have already stated. The commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee is quite clear on that. In fact it states: “In terms of the law on when a judge should not sit on a case due to apparent bias the Supreme Court confirmed”—in the Saxmere case—“that a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not be able to bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.” I am sure that anyone from the brief description I have just given of theSaxmere case would agree that that would seem to be the case. It goes on to say: “Because of the state of the financial arrangements in the business venture between the judge and the counsel the Supreme Court found that the case on apparent bias was made.”The previous speaker Jacqui Dean suggested that the recusal processes should be sufficient. Again as the select committee reported: “We heard that if a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case he or she is automatically disqualified from hearing it. Where there is doubt the judge has a duty to disclose this to counsel and the parties to the proceedings to invite comments and then to make a judicial decision. Failure to disclose a conflict may amount to misconduct and complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The Court of Appeal has an internal protocol for managing potential conflicts.” If you listen to that side of the House you almost get the sense that that should be the end of it. I do not think that is fair not least because actually the Law Commission has already said that in its view the procedures around judicial recusals remain unsatisfactory and “less transparent than they should be”.Reference has already been made to the fact that as part of the Judicature Modernisation Bill the Law Commission did a piece of work before the bill will come to this House. The Law Commission explicitly recommended—and I have taken this straight from its recommendations—that “ … there be a statutory requirement [in new courts legislation] for the Heads of Bench in consultation with the Chief Justice to develop clear rules and processes for recusal in their courts based on a common set of principles developed by the judges.” So clearly the view from the Law Commission is that yes there are guidelines around recusal and yes in the Saxmere case it was clear that the justice did not apply the standard that was anticipated but that actually there is clearly some murkiness in this area and guidelines are required.The Judicature Modernisation Bill provides an opportunity to address this. But if the Law Commission is so clear that these guidelines need to exist in primary legislation surely Parliament should take some interest in the nature of the guidelines themselves. I think that was the point that Kennedy Graham I think fairly made. My understanding from listening to the member was that his expectation was that perhaps there may have been some discussion as to what those guidelines may look like. Should Parliament not take an interest—if we are to take the Law Commission’s view and the firmness that it has applied in saying that we have not got the transparency we need and that guidelines are definitely required—in what those guidelines look like as other jurisdictions have? Is it sufficient to simply say that we require them to be set in primary legislation but that we leave our responsibility at the door at that point?I think that the member has made a fair point. It seems to be his intention to perhaps make amendments as part of the Judicature Modernisation Bill to embed in primary legislation perhaps some expectations around what those guidelines should look like. I think those would be worthy of consideration and I look forward to seeing what he intends to draft in the future as the House comes to consider that significant bill further down the track. Thank you.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):Actually I thought that Ms Ardern’s speech when she got away from the vituperative comments and concentrated on the bill was actually a very good contribution. She raised a number of questions and I will come back to her last point in the course of my speech. I think she is right—this is a very important issue and I have more than a passing interest in it because I as Attorney-General am the link between the judiciary and the executive.We have to accept as a starting point that the judiciary is a separate branch of government; it is not an extension of the Ministry of Justice and from time to time there will be tensions that arise between the various branches of government. This legislation if it is passed will I believe cross that very important boundary. As between the various branches of government there will always be tensions. In the last session of Parliament the Privileges Committee of which I was a member looked at tensions that arose actually between the legislature and the executive. One would not expect those tensions to arise but they did. So there need to be some bright lines there as well.The member Jacinda Ardern raises a very important point about the importance of transparency. When someone is sworn in as a judge one expects that they will do justice and that they will be seen to do justice. If there are allegations about conflict of interest or lack of transparency people will walk away from the court feeling that they have not had a fair go. So that is a very important consideration. But I do believe with the greatest of respect to Dr Kennedy Graham who introduced this bill with the best of intentions that it is faulty. It would if enacted breach that important bright line between the judiciary and the executive or the judiciary and the legislature and should not be passed.A little bit of the legislative history is perhaps instructive for the House tonight. When the bill was introduced I suggested to the former Minister of Justice that it raised very important questions about transparency and the need to address issues of conflict of interest and I thought it would be appropriate for there to be a reference to the Law Commission to look at the issue. The Law Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Grant Hammond a former judge of the Court of Appeal produced a document that gave rise to a lot of discussion not only in the profession but in the general community. The consensus was that the better approach was to have guidelines on recusal. So when the former Minister of Justice again asked the Law Commission to look at reforming the Judicature Act 1908 and at the same time to have a look at the Supreme Court Act 2003 and the District Courts Act of 1947 with a view to a rewrite of those pieces of legislation the Law Commission produced a very good report and that has formed the basis of what now sits on the Order Paper awaiting its second reading as the Judicature Modernisation Bill.One of the recommendations of the Law Commission was that it be incumbent on the heads of bench to provide guidelines on the issue of recusal. That applies to the Supreme Court—i.e. the Chief Justice the President of the Court of Appeal the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge. Very clear guidelines are required because according to Sir Grant Hammond—and I know he will not mind my saying this; he has actually done a lot of work over the years on if you like the law of recusal—during his time as a judge he would always be getting questions from judges about whether or not they should recuse themselves because it is one thing to set down the principles but it is the application of those principles that can sometimes be very difficult.So that legislation which I hope we will be able to debate in the reasonably near future deals with precisely that issue. It is not lightly touched over nor is it done in a slapdash way but it is responding very carefully to what the Law Commission recommended and to what submissions made to the select committee have suggested. Although I did not sit on the select committee I do not think I am wrong when I say that the submissions that were made to the committee were almost overwhelmingly opposed to the concept of a register of pecuniary interests for judges. I refer in particular to the very helpful submissions by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association. I understand that the judges also made a submission but they did not wish to be heard on it.The important submission that was made by the Law Society traversed a number of areas but it particularly mentioned as indeed did the Bar Association’s submission the difficulties that there could be with the recruitment of judges. I believe that is a very important matter. As the Attorney-General I am responsible for recommending to the Governor-General the appointment of judges and there are protocols that are set out and published on the Ministry of Justice website as to the way in which I do it. I have to consult with the Hon David Parker the shadow Attorney-General on senior court appointments and often have discussions with him on these issues as he did with me when I was the shadow Attorney-General. These things are very important. We have to make sure that all sides of the House accept that an appointment is an appropriate one. We cannot possibly have what happened in Queensland a couple of months ago when someone was appointed who did not meet the favour of the judges. When he came to be sworn in none of the judges turned up so it was a pretty lonely swearing-in.The appointment of judges is incredibly important and we need to go out and get the very best people who are available to enter public life and serve their country in the judiciary and it is no easy task. On Friday I am going to speak at the swearing-in of a person who has been appointed to the High Court after 20 years at the Bar and before that a number of years in a commercial law firm. Getting high-quality people on the bench as Mr Parker would agree were he here is an incredibly important issue. So what we do not want is anything that could act as a chilling effect on the appointment of judges. I strongly believe that if there were to be a register of pecuniary interests it would act as a very very chilling effect on the appointment of judges. I know how judges come under attack all the time. There are cases in the system at the moment where a person appears before a judge they are dissatisfied with the result they complain to the Judicial Conduct Authority and they make the most dreadful allegations against the judges. When they do not get what they want from the Judicial Conduct Authority they go back to court and seek a judicial review of that person.Judges are under attack more than ever and it is incumbent on us to recognise the separate branch of government that is the judiciary and protect it from unwanted criticism. That is not to say that judges do not have obligations—obligations to uphold our great traditions of justice and uphold the principle that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. That is why I am so in favour of guidelines dealing with recusal.So I frankly congratulate the honourable member on bringing this bill to the House. I think it does raise as Ms Ardern said very important constitutional questions. That is the great benefit of members’ days—that sometimes we get an opportunity to discuss these matters. But I say to him with respect I think he has got the wrong end of the stick. I think that this is the wrong approach. Rather than dealing with a register of pecuniary interests we should be making sure that the judicature modernisation legislation puts that obligation on the heads of bench to introduce guidelines on recusal.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First originally supported the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill because some cases in recent years appeared to indicate that legislation would be necessary to ensure transparency in respect of judges’ interests and to provide a solid means to ensure avoidance of conflicts of interest.I think it is important that we note the principle that people involved in decision making—whether that be in the judiciary or in politics or in business—and who make decisions in the public interest need to be prepared to give up a degree of personal privacy so that the public can have confidence in conflict of interest situations that might arise.In my first reading speech I said that we needed to show an effective means of avoiding conflicts of interest for judges and that I could not see how that really could be achieved without legislation. However having participated in the select committee process and having heard the submissions including written submissions from the judges themselves and submissions from several others especially the Law Society and the Bar Association I now think differently and New Zealand First will now not support the bill. Nevertheless I do wish to commend Kennedy Graham for promoting the bill because his concerns about the situation were certainly justified.The process of considering the bill has led to greater understanding amongst not just MPs but many others in the community as well. Most particularly the judiciary has moved to beef up its procedures in respect of the recusal of judges since Justice Wilson failed to recuse himself in the Saxmere case. In those ways the bill has already been a considerable success. The fact that it is now unlikely to pass does not detract from that.The current law on whether a judge should sit or not on a case due to apparent bias has now been clearly stated in the Court of Appeal in respect of the Saxmere case and I quote as follows: “ … a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not be able to bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.” The law at least now is clear but Parliament still needs to be satisfied that the processes for recusal are robust and that in fact a register of judges’ interests is not now needed. As other speakers have said the Law Commission issued a paper back in 2011 on this. It recommended that such a register not be legislated for because it felt that it was not the best solution to deal with conflict of interest issues.The central issue is that the public must be satisfied that the judges are deciding cases in a way that is fair and impartial. If a judge does in fact have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case he or she must be automatically disqualified from hearing it. Where there is doubt there is a duty on the judge to disclose that to the parties present to invite their comments and then to make a reasoned judicial decision. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest will of course amount to misconduct and no doubt a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The Court of Appeal has itself adopted an internal protocol for managing potential conflicts.I think that when you look at all of that we can conclude that there are indeed very robust requirements which the public can have full confidence in. The existing law the appeal processes the guidelines for judicial conduct the bench protocols as well as the judicial complaints process in my view are clearly sufficient to address any conflicts that may arise. Therefore a register of pecuniary interests of judges is now not necessary to achieve the object of fair and impartial judges not tainted by personal conflicts of interest.But there are several other good reasons as well for not having such a register and the submitters listed several of those. Some of them are these: first of all that there would be a serious risk to judges’ privacy; that there would be scope for abuse of information disclosed by judges; and that a register could result in intrusion into the personal affairs not just of the judge but of the judge’s families and could create opportunities for harassment for disgruntled litigants. I agree with the Attorney-General on that issue that there are many who are disgruntled and will find ways of expressing that. I am sure that if there was a register they would use it for that purpose without any hesitation. In addition to that there would be a significant administrative burden that would accompany a register and its maintenance and it might also cause delays in hearings that would otherwise be avoidable.Most particularly I think there was a real risk that the ability to recruit and retain judges of a high calibre could be compromised if they saw that they had to enter into a register of pecuniary interests in the way suggested.In the end although the idea of a register of pecuniary interests for judges was well worth investigating that having been done it is clear that such a register is now not necessary and that it in fact does have some significant downsides. On balance New Zealand First will not be supporting the bill because we do not think it should be passed. We feel that those provisions that are already in place for recusal which have been upgraded and improved in recent times since the Saxmere case are actually sufficient and nothing further is needed.JONO NAYLOR (National):It is a great pleasure to rise to speak to this bill and to speak against it as many of my colleagues on this side of the House—and in fact on the other side of the House—already have. Members’ bills are a really important part of the legislative process because they do give the opportunity to bring fresh ideas forward and to I guess look at some issues that perhaps otherwise would not have been looked at. When bringing forward a member’s bill I think it is really important that it does serve some sort of purpose. We had a New Zealand First member today who brought a little bit of multi-choice to question time. I thought to myself that there was a little bit of multi-choice when relating to member’s bills. I think they need to (a) fix a problem (b) prevent some sort of problem (c) take New Zealand forward (d) all of the above or (e) as is the case I think perhaps with this one achieve none of the above.We are not going to be fixing a particular problem because the case that keeps being referred to around this issue involving Justice Wilson would not have been fixed by a register of pecuniary interests and the issues surrounded by that. It is not going to prevent any particular problems because I believe we have got the right kind of judicial system within our country to prevent them already. As has been highlighted by the Attorney-General already there is legislation in the pipeline to add some strength to that. It is not going to take New Zealand forward. This I guess has been reinforced by the various submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee including some of those referred to a moment ago by the Attorney-General who have some real expertise in this area. It has been deemed not to be necessary to pass such a bill at this time.I say this because it is quite clear that we have a judiciary that has been appointed because of its expertise because of its ability to carry out the tasks that we have assigned to it to do. It is already clear that if a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case they are automatically disqualified from hearing it and should in fact recuse themselves. If there is any doubt the judge has a duty to disclose this and failure to disclose a conflict can amount to misconduct and a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.It was really interesting to hear the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke. He talked in one breath—for some reason I could not understand—about the importance of protecting the judiciary’s privacy and that it is why we would not have this register of pecuniary interests but then just prior to talking about the importance of privacy he talked about how he thought the appropriate response for a judge would be to have looked at the case and identified that perhaps they had a conflict and then discuss it with parties. I could not understand that. Why if you are trying to protect privacy issues would you then discuss it with parties? There has clearly been some misunderstanding around some of those things.But I think if we are going to trust our judiciary with an ability to be able to disclose a conflict where necessary it is perhaps beholden on us to have a look at what sorts of people we have occupying our judicial benches around New Zealand. I took the liberty of looking through the process—as the Attorney-General said it is available on the Ministry of Justice website—to find out exactly what somebody needs to do to find themselves in a position whereby they are sitting on a judge’s bench. I can tell you that it is not something that just happens lightly. It is something that takes a bit of process and some expertise to ensure that we have the right people there. The appointment process goes something like this with one exception which is community magistrates. Appointments to judicial positions are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. It is not just down to those two people either. In fact there are other things that come into it. The constitutional importance of the judicial role and the fact that judges have to make decisions that significantly affect the liberties and rights of our citizens make it vital that those who become judges are suitable to hold the office. We need to make sure that they are in fact suitable. There are some criteria that they need to exhibit. They need to have legal ability which means that they need to have sound knowledge of the law and experience of its application.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just ask the member now to come back to the bill which relates to the pecuniary interests of judges rather than their appointment. I think a passing reference is OK but reading the list of requirements is not.JONO NAYLOR: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I guess my reason for using those initial things and I will not necessarily read through the whole list is that it is very clear to me that actually we are appointing people because they have personal honesty and integrity because they have got all the traits that they need to have in order to—Kris Faafoi: Carry out.JONO NAYLOR: —carry out the job. Thank you very much. I am not sure who said that but that was very helpful. Thank you very much. At this time of the night I am happy to get any help I can to find the right words particularly when half of one’s speech has just been disqualified by the Assistant Speaker.Stuart Nash: Sit down then.JONO NAYLOR: I could do that but where would the fun in that be? Anyway I promised to bore my colleagues to tears so that they can have a good night’s sleep tonight and I intend to carry out what I said I would do for them.Hon Member: The member has done that already.JONO NAYLOR: Ha ha! There is possibly that case.Anyway we do go actually through a process. As I said I am not going to highlight the entire process but what I will say is this: if we have the right judges if they are of good character and if they have been vetted appropriately why saddle them with another pecuniary interest register in this case? Pecuniary interest registers do make sense for people like us who are publicly elected—those of us who have to be accountable to the public in a very open way for everything that we do. It makes sense for politicians to have pecuniary interest registers. It actually makes sense as the promoter of this bill has said that in the US judges do have pecuniary interests because in the US judges like us are elected by the people at large and so therefore it does make a whole lot more sense in those situations.I think ultimately the important thing though in this case as we move forward is that we have had some clear steering from the Attorney-General—although there is not necessarily a specific problem—to give people more surety about the times and places where judges will recuse themselves. That is going to be incorporated into the legislation that he is bringing forward.So I would like to say again that we will not be supporting this bill. Although I understand the sentiment behind it we think that the mechanism is flawed and we believe that there are other ways that this can this dealt with.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Helpful as ever you are Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard I like the previous speaker Jono Naylor have just gone through my notes and disqualified a few of them. So rather than being the last speaker tonight there may be one or two people who follow me. But thank you very much for assisting me in learning how to take a call in the House.We are speaking on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill and I do acknowledge the work that you have done Dr Kennedy Graham on this bill. It is important when members’ bills come before the House because they come with the hard work and all the emotional attachment that goes along with wanting to have a specific piece of legislation in your name passed by the House. For reasons that I will go into shortly we are not supporting the bill. There are many reasons that we did support it through to the first reading but through the submissions made to the select committee it has become apparent that there are many things that are problematic with the bill that require us not to be in a position to support it.The purpose of the bill is to establish for the judiciary a register of pecuniary interests requiring them to make returns just as Cabinet Ministers and members of Parliament currently do. There are some key principles that underpin this bill and they are principles that I want to speak to. One of the principles is the confidence that is required in the judiciary through the transparency under which they operate. My colleague Jacinda Ardern talked about transparency when she spoke a little earlier. It is interesting to note that we have slipped in the world ratings around transparency. It is something that we had first place in and now we are second.It is an important issue I think because it speaks to the heart of what has been a lot of the discussion in this House in recent months around how we conduct ourselves around the ability of the public of New Zealand to have confidence in its executive and its members of Parliament and through this particular bill its judiciary.One of the other principles that I want to talk about is the reduction of the possible conflicts of interest or the perception of those conflicts of interest. Thirdly one of the key principles I think that supports the development of this bill is about the accountability to the New Zealand public.Just getting back to the principle of transparency in this respect it pertains in particular to the issues of financial or pecuniary interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than the suspicion—and especially proof—that a public servant has suffered a conflict of interest arising from the pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she has been professionally involved. So it is where the public loses confidence in a member of the Public Service or where there is a perception that this has occurred. It is a principle of conflict of interest or the perception of such—and I just have to go through my notes here where I have had to put the marker pen through.Kris Faafoi: Can I have a go?POTO WILLIAMS: You should try to have a go.The other principle I allude to is about accountability to the New Zealand public. When someone who is employed and paid from the public purse uses resources paid for by taxpayers the New Zealand public have a right to know how their taxes are being spent and if it is to the benefit of New Zealanders.I just want to refer to some of the issues that the submitters raised during the select committee process. They were concerned that this bill may limit the ability to recruit and retain judges and we have heard a little bit of discussion about that in the House tonight. They were also concerned about the impact on the privacy of the judiciary and their families. I believe that the member from the other side of the House Jacqui Dean made a really valid point that often people come to court and appear in front of the same judge on several occasions and that familiarity—when people have a judgment against them that they are not entirely happy with some people do tend to take matters into their own hands. When people have the knowledge of where someone lives and of their assets it does put them at some risk and it does put their families at some risk.The submitters talked about there being a potential for the misuse of that information and the harassment of the judiciary by disgruntled litigants. They also made the point that the automatic disclosure of conflicts of interest could lead to delays in the court process. Delays and the workload of judges in the court system are things I have some experience of. I am aware of District Court judges for example who were concerned over the volume of cases that were presenting before them in a specific family violence court in west Auckland and the amount of work they were having to deal with in the case that I know of—up to 65 cases in a day which is an extraordinary workload.Those Family Court judges and those District Court judges had applied pressure to the ministry and to the court process to allow for changes to the prosecution guidelines that the Solicitor-General put in place to raise the level of evidence that was required to get a prosecution in the first place so that—I will get to the point Mr Assistant Speaker—the level of evidence that was required meant that a prosecution had to be fairly certain of being secured before an arrest could be made. What that did was it reduced the number of arrests thereby reducing the number of people going through the courts. I am drawing a fairly long bow here but what I am saying is that District Court judges—Brett Hudson: It’s a very interesting bow. It could be expanded upon this bow.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. There are only a couple of minutes left to go so I will see us through to the end here. What I am suggesting is that we have already got District Court judges who are under some pressure in terms of workload. The possibility is that this process of requiring judges to state potential conflicts of interest could add potential delays to the court process.Considering that we are getting close to the end of the evening I shall take the opportunity to just summarise some of the key matters concerned with this bill. The Law Commission did not recommend changes to this particular process. The potential impact on the privacy of judges and their families has got to be taken into consideration. There is the potential to add time and delay and therefore costs to the court. It is not a process that is known throughout similar jurisdictions around the world and really there is not a widespread concern that this process should be adopted. So with very few cases where this has been an issue—Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd seems to be the one that is cited—there is little evidence that this is a widespread or even a minor concern and it does appear to be inconsequential. In that regard I just reaffirm that we are not supporting this bill. Thank you very much.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.