Volume 702 Week 5 - Thursday 4 December 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 702 Week 5 - Thursday 4 December 2014[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 4 December 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 December the Government will take urgency to progress the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill. On Wednesday 10 December the House will hold an extended sitting for the third readings of two Treaty settlement bills with the adjournment debate taking place later that afternoon.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):Can I take the opportunity to wish the Leader of the House and the Government members a very merry Christmas. I am sure we will enjoy the adjournment debate next week. We have no other matters to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the House of the House wish to respond?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Well I knew they were tired but I did not know they wanted to go a week early.Questions to MinistersIslamic State Conflict—Potential Defence Force Deployment1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—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 against ISIS?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):No there has been no decision on any deployment to the Middle East beyond existing missions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware as Minister that soldiers from Second First Battalion and 1 Battalion are in Waiōuru right now and that the Defence Force has using its words “made its own determination to prepare troops for a possible deployment to the Middle East”; if so why would they do that?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Post the discussions that took place in the House yesterday I did ask that question of the Defence Force. They explained to me that in line with what they had previously stated and published I think by the New Zealand Herald on Tuesday morning they were looking at matters that could not be done in a hurry if they were asked to answer the question. But no instruction has been issued; no decision has been made. No soldier should anticipate any deployment at all.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he concerned that the army would begin such large-scale preparations for war engagement bringing together soldiers from across New Zealand to conduct annual weapons qualifications and laws of armed conflict training feeding and housing those troops away from their home camps and sizing them up for expensive new body armour at great expense to the taxpayer all without instructions from him to do so and without the army informing him of what it is up to?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would be more worried if the army was not engaging in training and simply lolling about the place resting up hoping nothing happens.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it likely that the Government will deploy a company-sized force of infantry to Iraq to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); if not why is a company-sized infantry force being trained in Waiōuru right now?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Despite the assertions of the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Government has ruled out engaging in combat in Iraq. Further we have made it very clear that if we were to be engaged in the fight against ISIS it would be on the basis of intelligence humanitarian aid and capacity building for the Iraqi forces. All of those points were made in the Prime Minister’s speech on 5 November which I am sure the member has read.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not true that the Commander Joint Forces—the commander when our forces are deployed overseas—is now threatening soldiers training for Iraq that they will be charged if they talk to media or members of Parliament about the pre-deployment training they are currently conducting?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Given that there is no decision to deploy troops to Iraq I really cannot comment on that. It is simply speculation much like the ferry touched the bottom. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that he as Minister cancelled his planned visit with the Commander Joint Forces to the troops currently undergoing training for Iraq so that he could deny any knowledge of the true preparations for war that are going on?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No that is absolutely incorrect. I was actually recently in Halifax and Washington with the Commander Joint Forces. Tomorrow I will be at the Devonport naval base for a passing-out parade for young naval ratings and officers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask about Halifax. I did not ask about Devonport. I talked about the troops currently—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The question started: “Is it not a fact …”. The Minister immediately answered to say no it was not a fact.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My fact was to do with a specific locale or site.Mr SPEAKER: The member has had plenty of time—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The member has had plenty of time to frame his questions. He started his questions with “Is it not a fact …” and then went on about cancelling a visit. The Minister when he rose to his feet said no. Effectively he was saying it is not a fact.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order it is of course a very well-known fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has a lot of trouble understanding what—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that is not a valid point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: No Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Then before the member starts I just want to clarify whether the member is in anyway contesting a ruling I have just given or is he raising a fresh point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am raising a fresh point of order because the question that I sought to ask had to do with only one specific location and I got two locations that were never referred to.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled that the Minister addressed the question. If the member has further supplementary questions he should use them. But to continue to relitigate once I have given a ruling will lead to disorder.District Health Boards—Health Benefits Ltd2.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Health: How many days passed between his 6 November press release stating that Health Benefits Limited was making “good progress” and his announcement that HBL would be wound down?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):My release on 6 November stated that Health Benefits Ltd has made good progress in developing savings plans for district health boards but that those cases have to be implemented and it is important to get this process right. My press release of 20 November announced the next steps in that process. That was 14 days ago.Hon Annette King: If Health Benefits Ltd was making such good progress to quote the Minister why did he decide to can the project before it made the $700 million in savings promised by the Government when it was established?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said in that press release it had made good progress in describing the business cases but things have now moved to a new phase and we have got to work out the best way to implement those business cases hence the decisions made in the press release of 20 November.Hon Annette King: If Health Benefits Ltd has finished its work as he claimed on Radio New Zealand National recently why did it issue its statement of intent for 2014-15 through to 2017-18 which was presented to this House in August just over 3 months go?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: A lot has happened since that time. It has become apparent to me that as we move into this implementation phase we have to consider the best possible options for implementation and that is why those decisions have been made.Hon Annette King: Will the Minister please itemise to the House today exactly what projects apart from latex gloves and a banking contract worth together about $8 million has Health Benefits Ltd made to reach the $400 million in savings that he keeps quoting?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We have got a number of projects there. We have got banking insurance telecommunications vehicle fuel office equipment dialysis orthopaedics and prosthetics. I could go on and on but that is a good starter for you.Hon Annette King: Was the $100 million of health funding taken directly out of district health boards’ budgets which should have gone to services for New Zealanders but was instead used to prop up a bloated bureaucratic secretive Government-created agency a good use of scarce resources; if so why?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is actually a good use because that $100 million has produced $300 million of savings and that is going into more doctors and nurses more operations and more cancer care unlike when Mrs King was Minister. She had an extra $2 billion but produced 2000 fewer elective operations a year. So I think actually she could have learnt from this experience.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but this question was not about me being Minister 8 or 9 years ago—Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I considered the tone of the question which talked about “bloated bureaucratic secretive” agendas etc. I considered the Minister had every right to respond the way he did.Hon Annette King: Does he think in light of his decision to close down Health Benefits Ltd that there ought to be a review into its operations to see whether there are any lessons that could be learnt to avoid wasting precious health dollars in the future?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Health Benefits Ltd document called Stronger Together and table it as a souvenir of Government incompetence.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a document that has been made freely available to members?Hon Annette King: A long time ago.Mr SPEAKER: It has still been made freely available to members. I do not intend to put the leave.Economic Programme—Progress and Support for Families3.CHRIS BISHOP (National)to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic plan helping New Zealand families?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: The Government’s economic programme is helping New Zealand families in a number of ways. This includes in particular ensuring the economy is growing and supporting more jobs and higher incomes. Members will recall that Budget 2014 in May invested almost half a billion dollars more in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families. This comprehensive package included extending paid parental leave to 18 weeks increasing the parental tax credit from $150 a week to $220 a week extending free doctors visits and prescriptions to children under 13 providing another $155 million for early childhood centres and setting aside more than $33 million extra to help vulnerable children.Chris Bishop: How is the Government’s focus on supporting a growing economy translating into more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealand families?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The latest gross domestic product data shows our economy grew by 3.9 percent over the four quarters to June 2014. That puts New Zealand amongst the faster-growing developed economies in the world. By comparison figures out just yesterday in Australia for example showed its economy grew by a respectable 2.7 percent in the four quarters to September. New Zealand’s growing economy is supporting more jobs and higher incomes. In the year to September an extra 72000 new jobs have been created across New Zealand and average hourly wages rose 2.3 percent over the last year compared with the cost of living rising by just 1 percent over the same period.Chris Bishop: What other indicators confirm that the growing economy is helping New Zealanders to get ahead under their own steam?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can point to a number of additional indicators that are helping New Zealanders get ahead under their own steam. Firstly unemployment is continuing to fall. At 5.4 percent the unemployment rate is now the lowest since March 2009 and well ahead of Australia where unemployment is sitting at 6.2 percent. Secondly mortgage interest rates are expected to remain lower for longer. The average floating mortgage rate is around 6.7 percent yet it is considerably lower than the level of almost 11 percent back in 2008. Finally New Zealand’s household savings rate has now been positive for 5 consecutive years—something that has not happened since the early 1990s. In fact before 2010 household savings had been negative in all but one year since 1995.Chris Bishop: How do some of the key economic indicators affecting New Zealand families compare with the situation the National-led Government inherited 6 years ago?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have certainly made good progress. On just about every score economic indicators affecting household budgets are better now than they were 6 years ago. I mentioned that the cost of living for example increased by just 1 percent in the last year. In late 2008 consumer price inflation was running at more than 5 percent.Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s when National was in Government.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would count that one back if I were you. As I have also mentioned New Zealand’s economy is now growing quite strongly and the outlook is for further solid growth into the future. Back in 2008 the economy was mired in recession nearly a year before the global financial crisis struck. It is little wonder then that Kiwis are voting with their feet—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of noise coming from my left is simply unacceptable. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He can complete his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is little wonder then that Kiwis are voting with their feet and either staying home or coming home. Net migration from Australia to New Zealand was positive in the month of October for the first time in 21 years.Grant Robertson: How are New Zealand families being helped by the lowest rate of homeownership in 60 years housing costs increasing far faster than incomes and the fact that the average house price in Auckland earned more in a year than the average worker did?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will pick out the second part of that member’s question to answer. He is wrong because in actual fact the survey he refers to talks about how people are spending more on their houses but they are paying down their mortgages.Grant Robertson: Is he still committed to his promise to increase average annual full-time wages by $10500 a year; if so how is that helped by the annual growth in average weekly earnings slumping to their lowest level in 4 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is referring to a Treasury projection for the period 2017-18 but nevertheless it is very important that real wages increase—Grant Robertson: Are you committed to that?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just listen Mr Robertson. You might pick something up. It is important that real wages increase and under this Government that is exactly what is happening whereas under the previous Government—Grant Robertson: So that’s a no then.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just give it a minute Grant. You have had your turn. Under the previous Government prices were rising faster than wages. Under this Government wages are rising faster than prices.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the next question I just want to remind all Ministers particularly that it is not acceptable to use simply a Christian name. I acknowledge that the Minister was responding to an interjection and the interjection was probably not helpful to the order of the House but it is absolutely expected at all times that members will be addressed properly in this House.Housing—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Property4.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement “I am open to having more information on overseas ownership but I do not favour a register”; if so why?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government)on behalf of theMinister for Building and Housing: Yes and he stands by the full statement which I think answers the second part of the question. The Minister is open to having more information on overseas ownership but he does not favour a register. For it to be accurate it would need to trace not only the 80000 houses per year that are sold but the 1000000 - plus people who come and go from New Zealand. That is because a significant number of overseas homeowners are people who are in the process of gaining residency and for the register to be accurate it would need to raise people’s immigration and residency status.Phil Twyford: Does he still think that a register of foreign buyers is crude and xenophobic now that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance think it is an idea that is worth looking at?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What the Minister of Finance said yesterday was perfectly in line with what I said which is that we are open-minded about whatever gives us more information. That is certainly what the Minister of Finance said as well. I noticed that the Minister of Finance also stated the point that the problem particularly with the Auckland market is that there is not enough supply and to free up supply we need to look at the land that is available we need to look at local government’s rules and regulations as to how we are issuing consents and freeing up land and that without a doubt would have the biggest influence on house prices.Phil Twyford: Will he advise the Minister of Finance what he told the House that a foreign buyers’ register would be a waste of money and would cost many millions of dollars now that the Minister of Finance thinks it is an idea worth considering?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Obviously the member is having trouble understanding so what I would say is that the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again it is an example of the disorder that can be created with an answer from the Minister. Would the Minister address the question as asked.Hon PAULA BENNETT: So what happened was that actually the member—[Interruption] Oh that is rather—Hon Member: I hope that was on tape.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes I hope that is because that is not really nice towards—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answer the question please.Hon PAULA BENNETT: So—[Interruption] Yes I am sure you would do that to a man would you not. So what I would like to say is that actually the Minister of Finance as I have already stated was quite clear that he is not calling for a register. He is saying more information is good. I think we all agree on that. But what we do not think is that it is the main reason we have house prices where they are.Phil Twyford: Supplementary question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Comments coming from both sides have not been helpful I accept that. I am now calling Phil Twyford to ask a supplementary question.Phil Twyford: Now that his Government is open to the idea of a register of offshore speculators will he also listen to what New Zealanders are saying and adopt the policy of the Australian Parliament and the New Zealand Labour Party restricting residential property ownership to residents and citizens?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well as we have seen it does not work in Australia. What we are more interested in is increasing supply of both affordable houses and others so that we can see those New Zealanders who want access to the market have access to it and that is actually working alongside local government making sure we have got the Resource Management Act in the right place and that is this Government’s focus.Phil Twyford: Why did it take an Australian parliamentary committee and a press release from Andrew Little to change the Government’s mind when the Reserve Bank had already called for the collection of more data all the Opposition parties in this House called for controls on offshore speculators and 83 percent of New Zealanders asked for a register; or is this just a poll-driven recognition that that Government’s housing policy has failed and has become an electoral liability?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member can try to rewrite the words of the Minister of Finance yesterday but they are not factual what the member has said. We stand by what we have said. We stand by where we are and we are interested in seeing New Zealanders have better access to affordable housing in Auckland.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the light of that Minister’s answer I move—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a point of order or a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it is. In the light of the Minister’s answer I move for the register for foreign ownership bill that is in my name be pulled from the ballot and debated right now.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here a long time. He needs to seek leave to do that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to do things properly.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry Mr Speaker. My apologies. I seek leave in light of the epiphany that the Minister has just expressed on behalf of the Government for the bill standing in my name to be pulled from the ballot and debated by Parliament right now.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.Investing in Educational Success Programme—Support and Teacher-led Innovation Fund5.Dr JIAN YANG (National)to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received about support for Investing in Educational Success from the secondary sector?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I was delighted to hear yesterday that secondary school principals returned a vote of 88.2 percent to include the new roles of our Investing in Educational Success initiative in the secondary principals’ collective agreement. This follows the similarly strong vote from secondary teachers. We look forward to these new roles being filled in the first communities of schools to get under way in term 1 next year which will contribute to our goal of every young New Zealander getting the best education possible.Dr Jian Yang: How will Investing in Educational Success lift achievement for all kids?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Investing in Educational Success helps ensure that we keep and share the very best teaching expertise in our classrooms as well as develop and grow the leadership of our schools. The clear endorsement from the secondary sector shows it understands the real potential of Investing in Educational Success to lift kids’ achievements through sharing the very best of what happens in classrooms across all schools.Dr Jian Yang: How will Investing in Educational Success encourage innovation in the teaching profession?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Applications have opened for the new $10 million Teacher-led Innovation Fund and there has been significant interest already. The fund will allow great ideas to be put into practice and shared across schools by providing the time and resources for teachers to undertake practical research with other teachers. This Government is supporting innovative ideas in the classroom and backing teachers to win.Health Promotion Agency Board—Potential Conflict of Interest6.KEVIN HAGUE (Green)to the Minister of Health: Why did he ask the Ministry of Health to review the minutes of the Health Promotion Agency regarding Katherine Rich’s conduct when the Ministry of Health is not the agency responsible for determining whether board members have acted appropriately at meetings?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):Because to date the member has asked 59 written and oral questions about Katherine Rich. My office initially advised me that if current trends continue I will have to answer a further 8732 questions from the member about Katherine Rich before the next election. But on checking that figure is actually 1255. It is the role of the ministry to assist me in dealing with this large and pointless workload.Kevin Hague: Can he confirm that Katherine Rich acting in her role on the board of the Health Promotion Agency has never declared a conflict of interest with any specific agenda item or withdrawn from discussion or participation on any agenda item?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is going to get very tedious. We have covered this in the previous 59 questions but the answer is still no.Kevin Hague: What actions will he take given that the Health Promotion Agency minutes and Katherine Rich’s own statements show that she has never recused herself from a meeting or a discussion of the Health Promotion Agency board in which she has an interest which she is obliged to do under section 66(a) of the Crown Entities Act 2004?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will take exactly the same actions I have outlined in the previous 59 answers.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On a regular basis Ministers are asked questions in the House that relate to material they have provided in written question answers. It cannot be acceptable for them to simply say: “I have already answered that in a written question.” Ministers are answerable at question time in the House and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion it would be helpful if the Minister had actually said he was going to take no action. That would have been more helpful to the House. But the Minister was absolutely responsible for his answer and his answer certainly addressed the question. It is for members of this House and the public to be satisfied as to the quality of the answer but the question has been addressed.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To get further clarification from you are you suggesting that if a Minister has made a statement in another forum—whether it be a media stand-up or a written parliamentary question or an Official Information Act request—they can simply say: “I have already answered that in some other forum.” and get off the hook from answering oral questions in the House?Mr SPEAKER: No I am saying that in this particular case in response to the question that was asked the Minister has addressed the question. I have acknowledged—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the senior whip is going to continue to interject when I am on my feet giving a ruling to him I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. I have said that the answer given whilst it may not be the most helpful to the House has addressed the question. That is the end of the matter.Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile the answer he has just given the House and his continued acceptance of Ms Rich taking part in Health Promotion Agency board discussions on board agenda items about tobacco and alcohol with section 66(a) of the Crown Entities Act which says: “A member who is interested in a matter relating to a statutory entity—(a) must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision of the board or … otherwise participate in any activity of the entity that relates to the matter;”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because under section 67(1) of the Crown Entities Act it states: “The board must notify the responsible Minister of a failure to comply with section 63 or section 66 and of the acts affected as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the failure.” and I have had no such notification.Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that the only way Ms Rich is allowed to participate in any way in issues that she has an interest in under the Crown Entities Act is if her chairperson Lee Mathias grants in writing prior to the meeting an exception to the requirements of section 66(a) and records that in the annual report and can he also confirm that no such exceptions are recorded in the annual reports?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Section 66(a) says: “A member who is interested in a matter relating to a statutory entity … must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision of the board or any committee relating to the matter or otherwise participate in any activity of the entity that relates to the matter;”. Frankly I am very confident that Lee Mathias has managed all this absolutely appropriately. If the member has concerns about her integrity he should air them outside the House which I do not think he will.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree that the reason there are strict rules around the management of conflicts of interest on Crown entities is to avoid exactly the situation currently playing out in the Health Promotion Agency where a tobacco and alcohol lobbyist participates in decisions that could impact directly on the bottom line of the businesses they represent?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No I totally disagree with the premise of his question.Kevin Hague: Given the Minister’s comments that he is confident that all matters related to conflicts of interest have been well managed will he now ask the State Services Commission to check whether Katherine Rich acted appropriately in the management of her interests as a member of the agency’s board given the commission has the statutory authority to do so whereas the Ministry of Health does not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No because there is no need to.Local Government Commission—Proposed Wellington Amalgamation Consultation Processes and Māori Representation7.RON MARK (NZ First)to the Minister of Local Government: Does she have confidence in the Local Government Commission?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government):Yes.Ron Mark: Will she continue to have confidence in the Local Government Commission if councils that believe that their consultation process was biased and predetermined call for a judicial review and will she apply the three strikes rule to the Local Government Commission if this third attempt to force an unwelcome amalgamation fails like the previous two have?Hon PAULA BENNETT: In response to the last part I understand that the member has a stance where he disagrees. That is his right. Actually all of the Wellington region do not necessarily agree with him. I welcome the debate. I have confidence in the Local Government Commission. We will see what the process is. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Ron Mark: The assertion that was just thrown at me across the House by the Minister of Defence was that I am a double-dipper. Can I assure the House that I resigned my appointment as the mayor. I am not double-dipping—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has taken an opportunity—[Interruption] Order! The member has taken the opportunity but it is not strictly a point of order. We will now move to the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that Minister is allowed to get away with that comment there is going to be disorder in this House. It is a serious—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I hope the member will take some time to study the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings over the Christmas break. If the member Ron Mark was offended by the remark he could have risen to his feet and said that he was offended and on that basis I would have asked for the remark to be withdrawn. The member took his point of order used it incorrectly and managed to state what he wanted to state to the House. I think that clarified the matter. But in future if members are taken aback by a remark then there is an appropriate process to go through.Ron Mark: Will she retain her confidence in the Local Government Commission when it makes assertions that the Wairarapa cannot afford to govern itself because many of its people work in Wellington some people in Wellington own houses in the Wairarapa and because they will not be able to afford the irrigation project when she knows that the Greater Wellington Regional Council is not funding that project without assistance from her Government’s wonderful and insightful irrigation acceleration fund?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a close.Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think the answer to that is yes. What the Local Government Commission has done is put out a draft plan. It is a draft plan so now it seeks the voices of the people. I say let them be heard. Submit. Have differences of agreement on points as you like to. This should not be done through this House. It is independent. It has put its draft plan forward. Let the voices of the Wellington region be heard through the proper process.Marama Fox: Does the Minister agree with the Human Rights Commission that unless positive steps are taken Māori representation in local government will continue to languish well below the proportion of Māori in the population; if so what advice has she received from the Local Government Commission about increasing Māori representation?Mr SPEAKER: That is a question that is relatively wide of the mark of the original. I will allow it if the Minister is—Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will answer it. Yes I certainly agree with the sentiment that unless positive steps are taken then Māori representation in local government will continue to languish. I just do not necessarily think it is the role of central government to actually facilitate that.Marama Fox: Does the Minister believe that Basil Morrison was being jocular when he suggested that “Local boards ensure the local is preserved in local government.” in light of the proposed reorganisation; if not in what way does this proposed reorganisation preserve local authority?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions can be answered by the Minister.Hon PAULA BENNETT: The local government commissioner is independent. I certainly have read his statements about the local being in local and I think that you can just see it in local boards that they are certainly locally represented.Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did her Government remove the right of the citizens of each of the territorial local authorities in the Hutt to decide whether their cities amalgamate?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because we think it is important that the region decides as a whole.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question to Trevor Mallard. [Interruption] Order! Would the member to my left show some respect to his colleague who is asking a supplementary question.Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s expressed preference for a coordinated approach will she support the local government approach where they have divided the economic development responsibilities that used to sit in one city—Wellington City—into four local boards?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Where we are different—and where we differ—is that I think it is up to the local people to decide how that structure is. I do not see it as being a central government position. The Local Government Commission has put forward its proposal. I understand that the local councils are talking about the four combining. Let the people be heard and let there be a debate on where it currently is.Budget 2014—Geological Data Projects8.BRETT HUDSON (National)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What update can he give on new data acquisition projects to support geological prospectivity signalled in Budget 2014?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):Today I was delighted to announce that aeromagnetic surveys will be the main focus of the $8 million investment to provide more comprehensive data on our mineral resources in New Zealand. Following surveys of Northland and the West Coast in recent years the focus will now shift to a $6.4 million programme of aeromagnetic surveys and geotechnical studies in Nelson-Marlborough Southland and parts of Otago. Once completed survey coverage will increase to around 30 percent of New Zealand’s total land area and $1.6 million will also be spent on petroleum data projects including a national project to audit well outcomes and gather additional frontier basin data.Brett Hudson: What are some of the benefits of data acquisition?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It has multiple benefits. It provides comprehensive information to potential investors and it helps New Zealand compete in the international market for petroleum and mineral exploration. As we continue to see in our competitive tender processes good data can tip the balance of investment decisions in our favour. It also has of course many public-good applications in fields such as geological mapping geological hazard assessment forestry agriculture and horticulture as well as mineral exploration.Islamic State Conflict—Potential Defence Force Deployment9.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill)to the Minister of Defence: How many New Zealand Defence Force personnel have begun training and preparation for deployment to Iraq and when was he first advised that training had begun?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):There has been no decision to deploy troops to Iraq. I have not been advised that New Zealand Defence Force personnel are training to deploy to Iraq.Hon Phil Goff: How does he match the answer that he has just given to the House with a statement from a spokesperson for the Minister of Defence on Tuesday—and I want to read it because it is in quote marks; the first part is not but the second is—that Gerry Brownlee had confirmed that Defence Force personnel had begun training and the spokesperson said that “some training and preparation on a contingency basis” had begun? That was his spokesperson on—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is right and that training is about language and culture and various other things and as I explained yesterday we have 100 personnel in the Middle East. We have not made a decision to deploy to Iraq and we are not training people to deploy to Iraq.Hon Phil Goff: If he keeps saying that no decision has been taken why did John Key tell Tony Abbott when he was in Australia that 40 to 100 New Zealand Defence Force personnel would be deployed to Iraq?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well now we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I was with the Prime Minister in Australia and what I can tell the member over there is that a discussion was had on the basis that if New Zealand was to contribute to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria then it would be on humanitarian grounds in intelligence capacity and in capacity building for Iraqi forces and if requested by the Iraqi Government then we may partner with the Australians with numbers in and around those limits.Hon Phil Goff: Oh come on. Weasel words—weasel words.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Not weasel words—very direct.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon Phil Goff: What did he as Minister of Defence tell the American Secretary of Defense on his recent visit to the United States about what the likely military contribution of New Zealand to Iraq would be? And there is a record of—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Phil Goff: There’s a record of that and I’ll be asking for it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes OK. We know that when Phil gets records he often alters them to his own story—a long record at that. We discussed a number of things not the least of which was the current circumstances surrounding the Secretary’s own position and I made it very clear to him that we appreciated the friendship that he has extended to New Zealand over a period of years.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question which was what did he tell the Secretary of Defense about what the likely contribution of New Zealand to Iraq would be. The Minister did not even address that.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee before I rule.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I did say to him was that we had people in the Middle East at the present time looking at the prospects around capacity building. I explained to him that we would be most likely to join with the Australians if a decision was made but made it very clear to him that no decision was made at this point.Hon Phil Goff: Why would he deploy Kiwi soldiers to Iraq and put their lives at risk when that can do nothing to resolve the fundamental problems underlying the ineffectiveness and incompetence of the Iraqi army which has been disclosed as having a level of entrenched incompetence to the extent that military leaders are politically appointed military officers buy their commission—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to an end. [Interruption] Order!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I will point out to the member once again that we have not made a decision to deploy. I am most interested that the member has that information. They are the sorts of things that concern me also.Primary Sector Development—Initiatives Targeting Young People10.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East)to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on initiatives to help attract young people into the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Last week I visited St Paul’s Collegiate School in Hamilton to turn the first sod on its new centre of excellence for agriculture science and business projects. St Paul’s is working closely with industry and the Ministry of Education to develop a template for a new agribusiness programme. Students who choose the agribusiness programme will be able to use this fantastic new facility in 2015. This is a great initiative which shows what can be achieved when schools industry and the Government work closely together.David Bennett: What initiatives does the Government have under way that will help attract new talent into the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: We know that we will need around 50000 extra workers by 2025 and a big part of that is attracting them into the primary sector because of the importance of the New Zealand economy. Also we need to make sure that we are doing our utmost—working in our schools—to ensure that we are attracting the youngest and brightest into the primary sector. We have a lot of work happening across Government already. One of the examples that I can share with the House is the Enterprising Primary Industries Career Challenge for year 10 students to get involved in to try to attract their peers into the primary sector. The Government cannot do it on its own and nor should we. We can do more achieving this together and I congratulate St Paul’s on its investment and decision.Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill—Māori Language Advisory Group11.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato)to the Minister for Māori Development: What concerns regarding the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill have led to the announcement that a Māori Language Advisory Group is required to provide independent advice to him while the bill is being considered by the Māori Affairs Committee?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker kia ora tātau katoa tēnā koe i tēnā pātai kai te tuahine. Tēnā ēhara i te mea he nui ngā āwangawanga. Ko tāku he whakakao mai i tētahi rōpū whai pūkenga whai mōhiotanga ki te ruku mai i te hōhonutanga o tērā pire me tōna whakatinanatanga. Ko tāna mahi he whakahoki kōrero mai ki a au kia taea e au te whakatikatika ētahi o ngā hapa i kōrerohia i te tau kua hipa. Ko te mahi o Te Komiti Whāiti Māori nei he whai i tērā huarahi o Te Whare Pāremata. Ko tāku rōpūi ka hāngai tana kōrero ki a au.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all and thank you for that question sister colleague.Now there really is not much to be concerned about. My part is to gather together a group of knowledgable experts to delve into the depth and implementation of that bill. It will report directly to me so that I can rectify some of the errors that were raised last year. The role of this Māori Affairs Committee is to follow that Parliamentary procedure. My group reports to me directly.]Hon Nanaia Mahuta: In light of that response what scope will the advisory group have to change the policy intent for the bill and if this is the intention why does the Minister not just pull the bill?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko ngā mātāpono o te pire nei kua kōhatu. Kua noho tonu tērā huarahi kua mārō tana haere. Arā anō ētahi mea ka whai mai ētahi o ngā mea i kōrerohia e ētahi i te wā o te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire. Ko te mahi o tēnei rōpū he āta ruku he whakatuwhera i te kuaha āta ruku i te hōhonutanga o ērā nawe o ērā āwangawanga me te whakatikatika i mua i te hokinga ki Te Whare i te mea kai te mōhio tonu ahau ko tēnei pire ēhara mō tēnei wā tonu nei ēngari mō ngā tau tekau rua tekau kai mua i te aroaro.[The principles of this bill are firmly in place. That procedure will remain and is firmly on its way. There are other aspects to follow some of which were referred to at times by some members during the first reading of the bill. The job of this group is to delve carefully andopen the door to the depths of those imperfections and concerns and to amend them before it comes back before the House as I am fully aware that this bill is not just for now but for the 10 or 20 years ahead.]Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Therefore does he believe that the proposed representation of Te Mātāwai between iwi Māori language experts and educators is fairly balanced to achieve effective outcomes in language revitalisation; if not why not?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tērā pea koinā tētahi o ngā pātai ka whakatakotohia ki mua i te aro o tēnei rōpū. Mā rātau anō rā tērā e whakautu e whakahoki kōrero mai ki a au kia āta tirohia ā tērā wā.[Perhaps that is exactly one of the questions that will be placed before this group to address. They will respond to that one and report back to me and I will examine it carefully at that point in time.]Peeni Henare: Tēnā koe e te Minita. How does he expect submitters through the select committee process to give their views on the bill when his separate advisory group could substantially change policy settings without any public input into his separate process?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tēnā koe i tērā pātai. Me kī kua tae kē mai te pire ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tana pānuitanga tuatahi. Kua mārō tana titiro kua mārō tana haere. Ko te wāhi ki a rātau te hunga e hiahia ana ki te tuku kōrero mai kai te pai te mea ka riro mā koutou ērā e wetewete. Ko te āhuatanga o tēnei rōpū pakupaku nei ko te āta tīhaehae i ērā kōrero. Ko te tūmanako ia kia hoki mai ki te pānuitanga tuarua ka āta whakapanonihia kia tika rā anō te pire mō ake nei.[Thank you in regard to that query. Let us assume that the bill has arrived in the House for its first reading. It has been examined intently and is firmly on its way. For those wanting to make submissions that is fine because it then becomes your task to unravel those ones. The situation as far as this small group is concerned is that they then carefully take the submissions apart. The real desire is that when it comes back for the second reading it is amended carefully until the bill is right forever.]Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That last supplementary question was quite specific. There was a lack of clarity with regard to how public input will be made into the separate process that has been commenced by the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is making a reasonable point. I am going to ask Mr Henare to ask the question again for answering by the Minister.Peeni Henare: Ki a koe anō e te Minita how does he expect submitters through the select committee process to give their views on the bill when his separate advisory group could substantially change policy settings without any public input into his separate process?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tuatahi ko ngā kōrero ka puta i tēnā ki tēnā ka tae mai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata nā runga i ngā kōrero ki Te Komiti Whāiti. I tōna mutunga mai ko ngā kōrero katoa ka whai mai ka tae mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata kia taea ai e ia e koutou e tātau te whakatikatika ki te tirohanga o Te Whare Pāremata hei taua wā.[First of all the contributions made by this one and that one come into the House through the submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee. All subsequent submissions that follow will eventually arrive in this House of Parliament so that we collectively and the House can amend them according to the view of the House at that point in time.]Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept the Minister’s clarity around the role of the select committee in this process. However the supplementary question was very specific with regard to the separate process that the Minister has engaged in.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that but we have now had two goes at it. The member may not be satisfied with the answer. The Minister in my opinion has addressed it I accept not to the satisfaction of the member on this occasion but after two goes I can do no more.Gambling—Harm Minimisation and Host Responsibility12.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is he doing enough to prevent problem gambling and ensure gambling venues comply with their host responsibility requirements given an Internal Affairs mystery shopper campaign found that 101 out of 102 venues failed a test regarding host responsibility?Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs):Yes. Although the mystery shopper exercise has shown that improvement is needed to ensure gambling venues and casinos are fulfilling their host responsibilities regarding problem gamblers I am generally satisfied with the work being done. There are a range of measures in place to improve practice to prevent problem gambling and improve host responsibility. For example Department of Internal Affairs officials are reviewing the training that venue staff receive from the gaming machine societies to ensure that that training is effective. I should say in respect of the exercise that both the class 4 sector and casino operators have broadly accepted their need to improve on their host responsibility obligations and will be working closely with the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure this happens.Denise Roche: Will he strengthen our gambling laws on host responsibility given that compliance is so poor that the undercover operators used by the Department of Internal Affairs were able to go up to bar staff and beg for more money and then go back to gamble with no intervention?Hon PETER DUNNE: The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) which is currently on the Order Paper and making remarkably slow progress makes some steps in this regard. There is a Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) recently introduced to Parliament. I have also signalled that in the context of this rather fast-moving area of change a wider review of class 4 gaming societies may be in order.Denise Roche: If the Minister is really serious will he support our Green Party changes to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) to introduce real-time player tracking and pre-commitment cards given that these have been proven to reduce problem gambling overseas; if not why not?Hon PETER DUNNE: No because there are a number of unfounded assumptions in the member’s question.Denise Roche: Why given the terrible record of compliance by gambling venues is he making this situation worse with his bill which will give venue operators a financial incentive to ignore problem gambling?Hon PETER DUNNE: The legislation does no such thing. All the member does by making that sort of a comment in a question is demonstrate her lack of understanding of it.Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister for Sport and Recreation):I move That the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill makes it clear that match fixing is a criminal offence in New Zealand. It is important because it protects the integrity of sport and in particular it protects sport from those who seek to exploit it for improper gain. It is an unfortunate fact that the risk of match fixing is growing internationally. That risk is growing at a time when New Zealand is about to host the Cricket World Cup.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Members are leaving the House. There is a lot of background noise. I ask that they show respect to the Minister speaking.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Cricket World Cup of course is going to be a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand. There will be 49 matches in 44 days across New Zealand and Australia. Seven cities in this country have the privilege to host some of those games. It is a great opportunity for New Zealand on a wide variety of fronts. We certainly do not want it marred by the spectre of match fixing. The bill responds to this threat by making it clear that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act the offence of “obtaining by deception or causing a loss by deception”.I would also like to highlight the cross-party support that this bill has enjoyed so far as it has moved through the House. I think that illustrates the important place that sport holds in the hearts of all New Zealanders. Corruption is the complete antithesis to the way in which New Zealanders view sport. We love sport because of its honest content with both teams doing their very best to win. Match fixing denies us this honest contest by pre-determining aspects of the match so that betting returns can be made. If corruption were to take hold in New Zealand sport then we would risk losing a significant part of our sporting culture—indeed our national culture—and we just cannot allow that to happen. Match fixing also allows significant sums of money to be obtained by deception. The cross-party support this bill has enjoyed also highlights the measured approach taken in the bill.The bill is quite clear in what it does. It makes it an offence for any person to obtain a benefit or cause a loss by manipulating a match with intent to influence a betting outcome. The link to betting outcomes is deliberate and has been included to avoid possible over-criminalisation. It is important that this bill does not seek to criminalise the kind of rule-breaking that sometimes occurs in sport such as ball tampering in cricket or deliberately collapsing scrums in rugby. Whatever you might think of that type of activity it can be dealt with on the field of play or by governing sports bodies.The bill is part of a package of initiatives designed to address match-fixing risks. The Government is not progressing this bill in isolation in the hope that a criminal offence alone can safeguard the integrity of sport. The governing sports bodies have an important part to play in the fight against match fixing. Sport New Zealand has been working closely with national sports organisations since early 2013 to address the risk of match fixing and to develop a national match-fixing policy.I now wish to talk about these non-legislative measures because they are crucial to protecting the integrity of New Zealand sport. The New Zealand policy on sports match-fixing and related corruption was launched by Sport New Zealand in May 2014. It provides a framework for Government agencies national sports organisations and the betting industry to collaborate to prevent and address match fixing. Each of these sectors has particular responsibilities within the New Zealand match-fixing policy. For national sports organisations the match-fixing policy includes a set of fundamental rules that sports organisations must have in place. These rules set out how they will prevent and respond to match fixing and will be linked to sanctions such as bans from participation in a sport for breaching the rules. National sports organisations will also be required to have education programmes in place so that everyone linked with the organisation understands their part in preventing match fixing. The New Zealand Rugby Union and New Zealand Cricket are examples of sports organisations that already have comprehensive anti-corruption regulations in place which include match-fixing related rules. A number of other sports organisations such as football are well on their way to developing these regulations.The rules required by the match-fixing policy restrict players support staff and other relevant people as appropriate from betting on any match under the jurisdiction of or connected to the national sports organisation; from failing for any money benefit or reward including activity associated with a betting arrangement to perform as reasonably expected to their abilities in or withdrawing completely from any match; and also from taking action to ensure the occurrence of a particular incident in a match including activity associated with a betting arrangement other than for legitimate tactical sporting reasons within the rules of the sport and for which any benefit is expected. The role of the criminal law and the role of national sports organisations overlap in this particular area. The match-fixing policy allows national sports organisations flexibility in precisely how they adopt the match-fixing rules. The rules may be customised according to the particular needs of the sport.Sport New Zealand is supporting sports organisations to put match-fixing rules in place by providing detailed model rules. These model rules include disciplinary processes recommended sanctions and educational requirements. Sanctions such as lifetime bans imposed by sports organisations represent a very significant punishment and deterrent. Sport New Zealand is supporting efforts to educate players and other relevant people by providing a generic match-fixing education programme online for national sports organisations and others to use. From 2016 all national sports organisations will need to comply with the match-fixing policy to be eligible for Sport New Zealand funding. As you can see this is a very comprehensive approach to safeguarding New Zealand sports. It is why an international Interpol expert has labelled New Zealand’s approach as world leading.This bill is timely because it sends a clear message to anyone thinking about trying to corrupt New Zealand sport that they will be facing a serious criminal charge—a charge that under this bill carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. The bill also ensures that the police have the powers they need to investigate instances of match fixing. Match fixing can be a lucrative endeavour for organised crime. It is an unfortunate fact that there is no shortage of criminals looking for an easy way to make money. Those criminals are now targeting sports matches. The International Centre for Sport Security has estimated that over $140 billion is laundered worldwide every year through sports betting. This illustrates the extent to which organised crime is seeking to exploit the sport sector. With two major sporting events on our shores from early next year the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup this bill sends a clear message that manipulating a match for betting returns will not be tolerated. Such behaviour will not be tolerated because it denies the public an honest sporting contest. It denies us the very thing we love about sport. Kiwis should be able to watch their sportspeople safe in the knowledge that they are performing to the best of their ability and that the element of chance has not been removed from the spectacle.Major sporting events also bring a raft of economic cultural and social benefits to the country. The economic social health and personal benefits of sport and recreation to New Zealand have been estimated at $12.2 million per annum. These benefits are put at risk by the activities of match-fixers. Although there are some existing offences that may cover match fixing this bill will put it beyond doubt that match fixing falls within the scope of deceptive conduct covered by the Crimes Act. It is therefore a very important piece of legislation. Again I would like to stress that this bill is part of a package of initiatives. The bill is not being passed in isolation in the hope that it alone will safeguard New Zealand sport. The work that Sport New Zealand and our national sports organisations have been doing will help to create a framework that protects sports from match fixing. This framework imposes obligations on players and other relevant people but it also provides them with education and support. It is this framework coupled with the bill before us today that will help to protect New Zealand sport which is a very vital part of our culture from match fixing. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This is a very very short bill. The Labour Party will be supporting the bill because we are hosting in February-March next year the Cricket World Cup and we are hosting in May-June the FIFA U-20 World Cup.We know that there is a growing problem with match fixing. Match fixing is utterly unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it breaches the fundamental sporting code that sporting contests should be fair and the result should genuinely reflect which side is the superior side in terms of its sporting skills. We know that we have to deal with it because this is much more than just sport. Match fixing is a critical form of fraud and crime that is growing in the world.We have known of course for about 6 years that we are hosting the international Cricket World Cup. What worries me about this bill is despite its shortness—just four clauses—it appears to have been drafted in some haste to the extent that the Legislation Advisory Committee took one look at it and it is only just over a page and said: “There is a major problem with this bill. This bill creates a defence that would defeat its own purpose.”Really the question that we asked at the Committee stage which was never answered was: how could a fundamental mistake of that nature be made? The Legislation Advisory Committee also raised concerns that this legislation might not capture the masterminds of match fixing because the actual manipulation of the overall result is an essential element of the offence. So there were some concerns with the apparent rush in drafting but there were also concerns of this nature and these were spelt out in the regulatory impact statement. It said that because the Cricket World Cup is being held in February next year “This objective imposes constraints on the range of legislative options that can be considered. Requiring a Bill to be passed by the end of 2014”—and we are right at the tail-end of it now—“means creating comprehensive stand-alone and potentially complex match-fixing legislation is impractical.” We cannot have that the regulatory impact statement says because of “significant time constraints”.The other question we asked at the select committee was: when we have known for 9 years that we are hosting this competition how could there possibly have been significant time constraints? Are we dealing with a bill that is a second-rate bill that does not do the whole job as the Government’s own regulatory impact statement suggests because the Government left its run too late? If the Government left it too late why? This Government has had 6 years to address the problem and has not done so.The concerns that we have are that there is clear evidence that global criminal activity concerning corrupt sports betting is increasing. It is increasing particularly because of the growth of online betting. Interpol suggests that fraudulent sports betting actually generates about—and this figure will surprise you—US$140 billion in turnover in a year. Let me repeat that. It is US$140 billion generated by fraudulent sports betting.Unfortunately one of the codes where match fixing is quite common is of course cricket. We have had our own experience of that with our own cricket players being allegedly involved in it and we have seen it across the Tasman in Australia. When you look at the risk assessments it shows that Australasia because the cricket matches are being held on both sides of the Tasman is at risk from international crime syndicates looking at expanding their current operations in Asia India and Europe. The Australian Crime Commission’s February 2013 report on organised crime and drugs in sport highlighted the links between Australian sport and organised crime including match-fixing risks.Again I have this problem with the bill and the Government’s comments on it. The Government said that having a really short bill is proportionate to the risk. On the one hand the Government tells us that this is a crime that generates US$140 billion a year and then it says it cannot do it comprehensively; it can just do a short bill. And then the Government says this short bill which is not comprehensive is proportionate to the risk. Something does not add up in that explanation. It really does not add up.The other concern I have is that passing legislation to stop match fixing and creating a criminal penalty for it—yes I agree that needs to be done. But it is not the whole picture. Clearly what we need is a sporting code of conduct and we need a sporting code of conduct in each of the major sporting areas that is mutually consistent and that is consistent with this legislation. But regrettably at the select committee we never heard from the sporting organisations. We did not get a clear picture of whether these codes of conduct are adequate and will be in place and will do the job.I remember that one of the comments that was made at the select committee was that more effective than a criminal code would be a lifetime ban by sporting bodies in terms of disincentivising match fixing. I would like to be certain and I would like assurance that these codes of conduct will be in place will be consistent with this legislation and will be sufficiently effective.Having said that we do need a piece of legislation that makes a specific offence called match fixing under the Crimes Act. We need everybody in New Zealand to know that it is a crime to rig a match for the purpose of making money. That is why Labour has been cooperative in helping pass this bill. But I reiterate that it is not good enough if you have had years and years to prepare for that and the Government’s own agency said it could not look at doing something comprehensively because of time constraints. That is not a justifiable reason for a bill that probably in a perfect world might have been more comprehensive and gone further.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I have a great deal of respect for the Hon Phil Goff but he is a great political operator at the same time and in this place we exchange a degree of banter. But I have to say that in a perfect world Mr Goff we would not be debating whether things should have happened sooner with an Opposition that filibustered and wasted time on meaningless calls and so on and so forth year in and year out so that the Government’s programme—Hon Phil Goff: We never did that on this bill at all.MIKE SABIN: No no the point is—Hon Phil Goff: The Labour Party helped—and the member knows—facilitate this bill through the select committee.MIKE SABIN: That is right. I am not talking about the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I am talking about why the passage of bills can take so long to get in front of the House. In a perfect world what I say Mr Goff in response to what you have said is that the Opposition would understand that legislation needs to pass in a timely manner and it would not filibuster along the way and then somehow point out that the legislation has taken so long to get to the House at some other stage.This bill is a very simple bill. It deals with a very simple element of what has crept into sport over some time around manipulating the outcome of a game so that someone can gain a pecuniary advantage through betting. That is what it is. It does not set out to criminalise all manner of cheating that goes on in sport. It deals specifically with the idea that someone is trying to manipulate a game or an outcome so that they can make money from that through a bet. There are many things that have been discussed across the course of what has been a shortened select committee process but there was certainly a 3½-month period for submissions to come in and there were very few submissions. The reason for that is partly because the bill is quite simple and it does set out to take care of and set some very clear guidelines and parameters around this specific area.But just as important it is because Sport New Zealand has been working with governing sports bodies right across New Zealand for almost 12 months now developing codes of conduct and working with them to ensure that there is a—no pun intended but it will probably sound like one—level playing field in terms of how sporting codes go about governing their bodies their sportspeople to play in a fair and robust manner which is outside the scope of this bill but sits alongside it essentially. There are many reasons why people may manipulate the outcome of a game but they may have nothing to do with a betting outcome and a pecuniary advantage but there is a nexus between those two things.So just coming to Mr Goff’s concerns around that at the one Law and Order Committee meeting that Mr Goff was not at we received some detailed information about the length and breadth of that consultation process and how much is actually going on. A benefit of this bill has actually been the process for these sporting codes to develop a far better practice and the guidelines around which they want their sports to operate. So I think that has been a positive thing.Interpol has said that this legislation is world leading possibly because it is quite simple and it is quite clear in what it sets out to achieve. What is clear is that there are so many challenges in this area that it is clear that different jurisdictions are developing different ways to address it and tackle it. It is quite clear that as we see evolutions that may enhance this legislative platform which is a baseline I guess we can certainly entertain the idea of altering or amending legislation to accommodate that. What is clear is that there is a long way to go but New Zealand is playing its part and so I have no trouble in commending the bill and I appreciate the support of all parties across the House in getting this through. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I like my colleague Phil Goff will take a reasonably short call on this—Hon Annette King: Dream on!JACINDA ARDERN: Well according to Phil’s scale it was quite a short call on this bill not least because there is some urgency around the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill and my colleague the Hon Phil Goff made a very good point. It is a bill that we obviously have some urgency around because we have the hosting of both the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup coming our way and we have known that for quite some time and yet we now suddenly have this urgency around this bill. It is a shame that it did not come perhaps somewhat earlier so that we could have put a little more thought into some elements of the bill.The point was well made I think by Mr Goff in respect of these provisions which are reasonably narrow and confined in terms of targeting significant match-fixing rather than a wider set of match-fixing provisions. To what extent was that done out of convenience because of lack of time rather than because it was the best way to construct the piece of legislation? I note therefore that in the bill the Government has suggested that it believes that other forms of match fixing—I guess what you could call lower-level forms although all forms of match fixing have a detrimental effect on the perception of sports and sporting fixtures in New Zealand and that is harmful regardless of scale—can be dealt with by codes of conduct and through governance from relevant governing bodies in sport for each of the sporting codes.I just want to point out though that I think it is important that whenever we delegate responsibility in that manner the oversight is important and there has been some discussion as to whether that oversight could be carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs Sport New Zealand the Ministry of Justice the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. All of those bodies have some role in this bill in terms of collaborating. I think collaboration is fantastic but at the end of the day you still need a lead agency you still need accountability.I guess my concern is that if we are discharging some responsibility for lower-level monitoring of match fixing there does need to be some direction as to who is going to keep that oversight. Given that Sport New Zealand—as has been said by members on the opposite side of the House—will have a role in coordinating some of the rules that sporting bodies may adopt perhaps its having a role reporting to the Minister as to how those codes are being implemented and whether or not it thinks there might generally be a need for further primary legislation would be a useful thing. Again it is a shame that we did not have the ability to explore that in more detail and as has been pointed out in this House numerous times it is disappointing that representatives from various sporting codes were not even able to submit. It was not considered useful. I think that is disappointing and it may yet lead to us being back in this House debating this once again.My final point that I want to make is that vigilance in these areas is so important. We pride ourselves on being corruption-free on being transparent on being an open democracy. Little elements of legislation like this contribute to upholding the previously glowing perception of New Zealand in this area. But we cannot be complacent about that. We have seen what has happened in recent times specifically relating to sports and how that can make a code unravel. We have also seen what damage can be done in political fields in the judiciary if people do not have faith in those who hold high office in the way that they conduct themselves. So even in this area I would say that vigilance is important and we cannot afford to be complacent. I think this is a good step. It may not be the only step but for now Labour supports this bill and we commend it to the House.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):I think along with all the other parties in Parliament the Green Party will be continuing to support the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill here at the third reading today. I want to make just a few remarks moving on from the bill. First I will pick up on some of the remarks made by the Minister for Sport and Recreation in his opening comments around some of what he hoped for in the Cricket World Cup that we are looking forward to early next year. He said that he was looking forward to a fair contest and looking forward to a contest in which the element of chance was not removed. I think that is a good way of expressing one of the objectives of the bill. And I guess perhaps more generally another is to be watching players in this case in cricket but actually in any sport who—we are confident and trust—are playing to the extent of their abilities and striving to their utmost to achieve success. I think those are good ambitions for the Cricket World Cup series and for sport going forward.I have spoken in previous debates about some of the objectives that we have for sport. It is an entertainment for us. It is a means of fostering national or community pride or identity. It also serves the function of inspiration: inspiration to further physical activity—and goodness only knows our country needs some of that—but also inspiration for striving in other endeavours. So sport is not just a game; it actually has much greater importance for us.That is why match fixing is such a blight because it causes two kinds of harm. First of all it results in people who have placed bets in sports betting being defrauded of their money and more broadly it defrauds the observers of that sport—the rest of us—from achieving those other objectives that I have described. More broadly it compromises the very integrity of the sport and cuts to the very heart of why we celebrate sport.However it seems to us in the Green Party that the Government’s motivation in proceeding with this bill is not so much any of those particular harms but rather the commercial risk faced by the betting and gambling industry. That appears to be the motivation behind this bill. In my significant experience of interaction in trying to plan services to deal with people with gambling problems that is an industry that shows an extraordinary lack of ethical standards or indeed care for its customers. Indeed just today research was released from the Department of Internal Affairs using mystery shoppers saying that in almost none of a range of casinos and providers of pokie machine venues were the statutory obligations the mandatory statutory measures that are supposed to protect consumers of those gambling services from harm actually met. What that is talking about is an industry that places very little regard on its statutory obligations and even less regard on the welfare of its customers. I wonder therefore whether this is actually an industry that deserves the protection that Government intends to provide with this bill.In previous debates I have raised I guess my personal view that sports betting has been an utter blight on sport in New Zealand and around the world. I think it is evident that if sports betting is permitted it will create powerful incentives for matches to be fixed for the integrity of sport to be compromised and for sports betters to be defrauded of their money. I think that if we were to take a helicopter view what actually is the big problem here? What is the problem that as a Parliament we ought to be trying to address? I think it is at least arguable that the problem is not so much match fixing as sports betting. It is interesting to hear the comments of other participants in this debate who have noted that this is a very brief bill that the process has been relatively and unnecessarily rushed and who are wondering whether the bill will achieve all of the aims that it has. It is my view that the bill will not stop match fixing. I think it will make some small contribution towards reducing the extent of match fixing. But the existence of sports betting and the powerful commercial incentives that that creates will drive other forms of corrupting sport that evade the provisions of this bill or evade detection. Although this bill is a useful step forward it does not get to the heart of the problem and the Green Party will certainly be looking for other measures that may be necessary in the future to deal with the root cause of the problem.I have also referred in previous debates to match fixing being one of the twin scourges in modern sport. The other one is doping. That is another way in which the integrity of the contest in sport is corrupted and compromised because effectively what we are seeing is not a fair contest between the different competitors or participants in the sporting contest. I think it is at least arguable that sports betting actually lies at the heart of the motivation for some of the doping behaviour that we see in modern sport as well.Mr Deputy Speaker this depending on what progress we make this afternoon on other matters may well be my last contribution in the House this year. If it is I wish you and your team and all other members of the House the very best for a very well-deserved Christmas and New Year break. I hope that some of you may join me on some grassy embankment around the country with the voice—[Interruption] Actually that did not quite come out as I intended—of Bryan Waddle in my ear and some test cricket in front of our eyes. Thank you.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill in its third reading. For me being quite new to the Chamber here—it may not be the last time; I certainly hope it is not—to see a bipartisan approach by all parties and to see the common sense at the highest level of supporting this bill gives me a great feeling. Although we probably do not share the same sentiments—I certainly do not with some of the aspects that have been shared by the Greens with regards to sports betting in its entirety—I think that the intent is there none the less to try to tidy up the dirty side of sports.I am pleased to rise. This is an overdue amendment to the legislation. It clarifies that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act and it ensures that criminal sanctions are available. The bill is not designed to address every kind of match fixing; it focuses on the most serious kind where the intent is to influence a betting outcome and that relates specifically to a monetary gain. A strong connection with betting activity is necessary to reduce the risk that any unintended activity that may occur in the course of a sporting match be criminalised. For example collapsing a scrum in a rugby game or purposely kicking a ball out on the full from kick-off are the sorts of things that need to be addressed in having an approach with the betting agencies to make sure that those sorts of things do not go on by taking those betting activities outside of their scope. That may of course like every action have a reaction and it may introduce some new aspects that we had not thought of with regard to illegal betting. It is not going to be a very easy problem to fix and it has been around for a very long time.Those who manipulate a match for any other reason including tactical or strategic sporting reasons will not commit an offence under this bill. Where a player is blackmailed they will not have committed an offence under new section 240A of the Crimes Act. The player will be the victim of the blackmail and should not be liable for this offence but will in all likelihood be liable for punishment by the governing sports body. A person who blackmails a player to match fix is likely to have committed the offence of blackmail and can be held liable for that offence.Manipulation of sports matches for reasons other than to influence a betting outcome must be dealt with by non-legislative tools such as codes of conduct developed by governing sports bodies. Under this bill anyone who obtains a benefit or caused a loss by engaging in match fixing would commit an offence and be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. I would however like to say that it would be a good addition to also give them a ban from their sports code which is not currently in the legislation but would certainly be a good point to raise in the future.As for any offences committed overseas the Crimes Act already covers the issue arising from match fixing by New Zealanders who live overseas. Section 7 of that Act ensures that where the event occurs in New Zealand or any act or omission that forms part of the event occurs in New Zealand then a person who is not residing in New Zealand at the time of the act may also be liable.The select committee recommended amending clause 4 of the bill by removing the words “otherwise than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons” from the definition of “deception”. This phrase could be confusing and might open up an unintended defence.As introduced the bill would provide a defence where a match was manipulated at least in part for tactical or strategic sporting reasons. This defence might apply even if the manipulator also acted with the intention of influencing a betting outcome. For example a person who deliberately lost a match to gain an advantage in the next round but also bet on the result would escape liability. This would clearly be contrary to the intent of the bill. Removing these words would make it clear that an offence would be committed whenever a match was manipulated with the intention of influencing a betting outcome.There are four parts to this bill. Very simply we have got the title; the commencement which is of course the Monday following this one 15 December 2014; and the principle of the Act. This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961. There are four new sections. New section 240A is inserted which I would just like to go through now. Section 240A “Application of section 240 to match-fixing” states: (1) “For the purposes of section 240 deception includes any act or omission that is done or omitted with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind to which subsection (2) applies by manipulating …(a)the overall result of the activity; or(b)any event within the activity. (2) This subsection applies to activities of the following kinds:(a)sporting competitions games matches races and rallies involving human participants (whether or not they also involve equipment horses vehicles or vessels):”.The bill aims to protect the integrity of the sports stage in that match fixers will be found guilty in the eyes of New Zealand law and states what will happen in regard to New Zealand participating in international sports. On behalf of New Zealand First I commend this bill to the House and am pleased to be part of the decision that all parties have taken in agreeing on it. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just draw attention to the Green Party. I understand there have been some discussions. I am expecting a member of the Green Party to call for a 5-minute call. No? Anyone else seeking the call? No.Bill read a third time.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) BillParole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment BillThird ReadingsHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):I move That the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills will enhance public safety in New Zealand. The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill will do this by managing a small number of serious sexual or violent offenders who are at extremely high risk of reoffending. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill will manage high-risk offenders in the community with conditions proportionate to their risk.I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Amy Adams in progressing the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and I also want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Law and Order Committee in considering the bills. I also want to acknowledge the work that the officials have done both corrections and justice officials in bringing about these bills in the House.I will first discuss the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. This bill deals with serious sexual and violent offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent reoffending if they are released from prison and are too dangerous to be managed in the community. In these cases the High Court may make a public protection order for civil detention of that offender. The High Court can impose a public protection order only if the offender meets a clear threshold and then a stringent test.In order to be eligible for the imposition of a public protection order a person must be aged over 18 years and come under one of the threshold categories. The categories include being recently released from prison being on the most intensive form of an extended supervision order or being recently arrived in New Zealand after an overseas sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence. If the offending falls under one of the categories the offender then needs to meet a stringent test. First the court needs to be satisfied that they impose an imminent risk of serious reoffending. Second they must display a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning. Officials estimate that five to 12 offenders over 10 years will be placed on a public protection order.The purpose of this bill is to keep the community safe from near-certain harm by a small number of offenders. The purpose is not to punish offenders and this is made clear in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill. Additionally clause 5 states: “persons who are detained in a residence under a public protection order should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible while ensuring the orderly functioning and safety within the residence.” There are a number of other safeguards to protect the rights of individuals subject to a public protection order. For example residents will be re-evaluated regularly by both a review panel and a court. If a resident no longer meets the test for a public protection order they will be released and placed on a protection supervision order in the community with the appropriate measures to ensure public safety.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill complements existing measures such as preventive detention and extended supervision orders and these current sentencing or supervision options deal adequately with the majority of high-risk offenders. However public protection orders are able to address gaps and deal more appropriately with certain very high-risk offenders. These gaps include very high-risk offenders who did not receive a life sentence or preventive detention or whose risk was appreciated only once they were imprisoned. Additionally the bill covers offenders who have returned to New Zealand after serving a sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence overseas.Sexual or violent offenders should not be released from detention if they pose a very high risk of imminent and serious reoffending and this bill sets up a balanced regime that is a proportionate response to the serious and imminent risk posed by a very small number of offenders.I now turn to the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill the bill that I am actually responsible for. This will ensure that the public are protected from high-risk offenders who finish a finite prison sentence but do not meet the criteria for detention under a public protection order. This bill enhances the current extended supervision order regime in two ways. First the amendments enable extended supervision orders to be renewed as long as they are needed. Second the scope of extended supervision orders which currently can be used only for child sex offenders is expanded to include adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders.I want to commend the Law and Order Committee which received four written submissions on this bill and heard from one submitter. Most of the submitters supported the objective of protecting the public from serious sexual and violent offending from a small number of dangerous offenders. Some of the submitters as I stated in my Committee stage speech commented on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of the bill. The Law and Order Committee carefully considered the issue and considered that there were appropriate safeguards. These include the extended supervision orders being subject to mandatory reviews by the courts and also the Parole Board being required to review the most stringent conditions every 2 years. This will mean that extended supervision orders are in place only for as long as the offenders’ risk of serious harm to the public warrants it.The Government made some additional enhancements to the extended supervision orders via a Supplementary Order Paper which I tabled in the House earlier this week. Any contact between offenders on extended supervision orders and children will now be strictly controlled. This bill will also encourage consistent decisions about the most appropriate order for high-risk offenders when applications are made to the court. Finally interim extended supervision orders can be granted when special circumstances delay a full extended supervision order application.Together these two bills fill the gaps we have identified in managing high-risk offenders once there are no other custodial options. I commend the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):If I was a gentleman I would have sat down and let Jacinda Ardern take the call. The Labour Party is supporting the third readings of both of these bills. It does so after careful consideration and reflection on the need for them and indeed the impact that they have on the rights of not just potential victims but people who are very likely to become victims and those who are the offenders but who nevertheless may have completed a prison term. We call these cognate bills because they are parallel in their objectives although they are different in the manner in which they achieve them and the consequences for those who are so affected. What they have in common is that they are—in both cases—dealing with individuals who have committed and been convicted for serious sexual or violent offending. What they have in common is that they are dealing with people at the time they have completed a sentence that is a finite sentence and in the normal course of the events they would have been regarded as having done the crime and served the time and would be released into the community. The bills are different however in the way in which they operate.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill deals first of all with probably the most serious group of people due for release but who are highly likely to offend. We are not talking about a large number of people; we are talking about maybe five to 12 people over a 10-year period so we are talking about one to two people a year. These are people who have committed a serious sexual or violent offence. They are individuals who are regarded by the health professionals who have been working with them in prison as being of extremely high risk and not only is that risk very high but they are regarded as being in danger of imminent offending. “Imminent” offending in the bill is defined as “the person is expected to commit such an offence as soon as he or she has a suitable opportunity to do so” and unfortunately there are people who come within that category. In the normal course of events if the judge has enough information in front of him or her at the trials of those individuals they would have committed those individuals to preventive detention. That is an indeterminate sentence—that is they can be locked up for ever and if they are released at any point they can be recalled at any time. But in these cases the judge did not have that information. I am not blaming the judge; sometimes that information becomes available only after the behaviour of the individual has been observed by professionals in a prison environment over a long time.The fact is that we can avoid the consequences of these people re-offending and that is what this bill is designed to do. There is a conflict of rights: offenders do have rights and that should be recognised but so too does the rest of society. In particular I draw your attention to the fact that the most likely victims in the circumstances covered by both of these bills are our most vulnerable citizens our kids and we owe it to them to protect them. If the prospect is imminent and very high and the consequences are appalling we owe it them to extend the protection to them against that happening.The individuals concerned in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill will be in secure detention but they will not suffer the same loss of rights as other convicted criminals. They are still free to vote they are free to have access to the media and they are free to receive communications and visitors. They are free to work and retain their earnings or they are free to get a benefit and they would be eligible for a benefit. What that actually highlights is that this is not designed as a punishment; this is designed for the protection of the safety of the community. In that sense what we are trying to do in these bills is very similar to what we do under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. These are cases where people are detained. They are not regarded as criminal but they are detained because they are regarded as being of danger to themselves and to others.The second bill is the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and that works slightly differently. It deals with a much wider group of people. It is amending an Act that has already been in existence and it is being extended. Indeed 10 years ago I passed the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Act and that was focused on one category of people: those who were serious sexual offenders against children. What it did was that when a finite prison sentence came to an end it allowed extended supervision orders to be exercised that placed those individuals under close supervision thereafter. I know exactly why that bill was enacted and if I had the same opportunity I would have enacted that bill again. On the information that I then had as Minister of Justice it was critical that we provided protection against individuals who had no ability to control their behaviour and had no empathy for their victim or understanding of the impact of their actions on the victim and that makes the situation very dangerous indeed.Many of these individuals were of a low IQ. All of them were people who could not be given rehabilitation within prison that actually worked. Programmes like Kia Mārama and Te Piriti are excellent at dealing with people who are child sexual offenders and in most cases they can deal with people and they can substantially reduce the risk. This is a category of people who will not be affected positively by engagements in those sorts of programmes. These people are not detained in prison. They are in the community but they are under heavy supervision. Because these people are being dealt with under the criminal law this law—again as it did in 2004—breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act according to the opinion of the Attorney-General. I never lightly support legislation that breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in this case again I believe that the rights of the people who will almost certainly become victims come first.The bill allows us to extend indefinitely supervision orders if they are required. It also extends the category of people covered by it from sexual offenders against children to sexual offenders against adults and very serious violent offenders. The largest numbers will still be those who commit acts against children and regrettably we need it. Again these people could have been sentenced to preventive detention. They were not but if the judge knew what the prison authorities and the health professionals know at the end of the sentence when he or she made the order the judge most certainly would have done that.I think that both of these bills are necessary. We could have actually manipulated the system to try to bring in civil orders in this case. It would have had no impact in material terms on the situation that offenders find themselves in and in the end we neither had the time to do that nor did we want to run the risk of changing a system that seemed to be working very well. There are safeguards. Judges have to make the orders. Health professionals make the assessment. The Parole Board reviews whether the orders should be continued. I think we have got the balance of rights correct. I think that both pieces of legislation are necessary and are important to protect the rights of New Zealanders and particularly our children.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):It is regrettable that we do have to protect the most vulnerable members of our community from some people. It is regrettable but it is also very necessary that we do that. It is not good enough at the end of a period of supervision or a finite sentence to simply allow some offenders in New Zealand whom we know are at imminent risk of serious sexual offending against particularly young children to go out in society so I support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Orders Supervision) Amendment Bill which we are dealing with here and it is logical to deal with them as cognate bills.As these bills both deal with managing offenders on their release from prison it does make sense to deal with them together although one of them is a civil order and the other is not. One bill manages orders for community supervision that are already in place but that will begin expiring next year so clearly in order to protect children in particular these will need to be extended. The other bill introduces new orders that will keep offenders who pose a very high risk—and throughout the Committee stage and in other speeches in this House we have examined what “very high risk” means. It means of very high risk of imminent serious sexual assault or violent offending. We wish to have those people detained at the end of their sentence. So the extended supervision orders are currently used to manage a very small number of child sex offenders who pose a very high risk of serious harm to particularly young people after being released from prison. The public protection orders bill will empower the High Court to issue a public protection order that will allow for the detention of a subject and that detention will be in a secure facility.These orders are aimed at people who reach the end of a finite prison sentence and as I said in my opening remarks we simply cannot accept the idea that these people at the end of their finite sentence or at the end of their supervision orders can then go out into society when we know that there is a very high chance of their imminent reoffending. Less restrictive forms of supervision would almost certainly not prevent their reoffending and therein is the nub of this argument.These bills work as a package and need to be passed by this House—and I am pleased to be speaking in their third readings—to ensure there is a maximum management option and that is the residential option available for very high-risk offenders who reach the end of their finite 1 year of intensive monitoring under an extended supervision order. But also and in the context of some other bills and other matters that the Law and Order Committee has considered they require the same judge to consider applications for public protection orders and extended supervision orders made for the same offenders so that there is consistency of decision making.I am pleased that the House is supporting this legislation so strongly. I think there is a very good understanding of the need for these bills and I commend these bills to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):My call on this bill will be reasonably brief. As the previous speaker Jacqui Dean mentioned there is good support for these bills from Labour at least. That is not to say that we did not apply significant scrutiny to both bills because we are essentially debating two quite separate orders this afternoon.I want to begin with the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. This bill was first promised by Judith Collins and John Key back in 2011. It would have been useful I think and would have aided the passage of this significant piece of legislation had Opposition parties been engaged at that time in the passage of that bill. That did not happen and that was disappointing. I would like to thank though both the former Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley and the Minister of Corrections Sam Lotu-Iiga who took a different approach for the second bill that we will be debating. But with the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill that did not happen. That was disappointing because these are significant changes that we are debating.As has been outlined by Phil Goff we have a spectrum of orders which allows flexibility in terms of dealing with prisoners who are at significant risk of reoffending and who have already demonstrated that the areas in which they offend are of a particularly grievous nature—child sex offenders sex offenders serious violent offenders and the like. If you look at the spectrum of options available at sentencing of course you have the ability to apply an indeterminate sentence via preventive detention. What that intends to do is very much in the name. It gives the flexibility to the Parole Board in the future to make an assessment that a particular offender is simply still at too high a risk to release back into the community basing that judgment on the Parole Act which deems that you must always make an assessment as to the risk to the community. That assumes that at the time of sentencing the judge has enough information to determine that risk.It became apparent to Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Justice that there were offenders who were about to be released back into the community who perhaps had the judge had the appropriate information at the time of sentencing may have been considered as appropriate candidates for preventive detention but were not. What do you do in that scenario? That was a significant and very real concern that Phil Goff faced. There was a particular prisoner at that time I believe who was about to be released and he had to consider how the justice system would deal with that known risk. Out of that came extended supervision orders. It was a 10-year order it was very narrowly framed it was for child sex offenders and it expired after 10 years. That was the spectrum of orders available to enable us to assess risk and to act accordingly.But what if someone who was coming up for an extended supervision order actually needed more than just monitoring in the community? There was a need for there to be the ability to not even allow them back into the community. There was no real option there and so I can see why the Government looked at public protection orders. They cannot be used as punishment though. It is a step too far outside the realms of our justice system to try to relitigate a finite sentence that has been ordered by a judge and the judiciary.We also need to ensure that when these orders are used there are appropriate checks and balances. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee made some good recommendations to put those annual checks in to ensure that the orders are still being applied appropriately. Given it is a civil not a criminal regime and given it is not an extended punishment but a form of protection that is incredibly important. I want to implore Parliament to continue to take a role in oversight over these orders. They are significant they extend well beyond where our justice system has gone before and although we support them we are very very committed to making sure that they are only ever used in the appropriate circumstances and that the magnitude of risk justifies the use of the orders.We then come to the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. The orders under this bill are not residential orders; they are orders for supervision within the community. These in one sense even though they were considered a greater breach against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act than the public protection orders are actually at a lower level because they allow monitoring within the community. This is an extension of what Labour had already brought in—an extension in terms of who was eligible for those orders and removing the 10-year time lapse on them.Again I would implore this Parliament to maintain oversight over these orders to ensure they are appropriately used because they are taking us well beyond where our previous conventions have taken us. Internationally they are not used widely either. We do accept the need for these orders. We do accept the need for flexibility to manage serious offenders who continue to pose a risk to the community but we also ask that we take our role very seriously in ensuring their appropriate use and their frugal use.David Clendon: Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Jacinda Ardern: David Clendon.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): David Clendon. I apologise profusely. The one person in the House whose name I was not worried about.DAVID CLENDON (Green):Apology accepted thank you. Shall I begin? No just kidding. I am pleased to take a call in this third and final reading of these cognate bills. As there is the opportunity at the third reading to do so I would like to not only reflect on the content of the bills but also say a bit about the social and indeed the political context from which they have emerged.Just to reiterate the Greens will be supporting the extended supervision orders legislation. It is a strong response and a strong intervention to extend the period over which people can be subject to supervision orders but we see it as an appropriate and measured response—responding to the existence of a small number of very challenging people who for their own benefit as much as for the broader social and community protection need to be continually monitored in order to overcome their predilection for particular forms of offending in particular sex offending violent offending and the like. So although we acknowledge that it is a very strong intervention it is an appropriate one.We believe that the public protection orders bill goes too far. We think it is excessive. We think it unwarranted. We think it ignores other options that could achieve the same ends of enhancing community safety without compromising our commitment to human rights both domestically and indeed in the context of international law and international convention. So we have in a sense a dollar each way on these cognate bills. We will vote for one and against the other.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and some other legislation we have seen passed in recent decades reflect I believe the fact that lawmakers have been more of a mind to inflict a punitive regime than society the general community has been. All the evidence is that although people might spontaneously react to particular crimes to particular high-profile offences if one scratches an inch below that surface you find that the general population can be persuaded by evidence by dialogue that actually these knee-jerk punitive responses are unlikely to deliver public safety are unlikely to positively affect the long-term behaviour of offenders and are unlikely to reduce recidivism or achieve any of the other goals and objectives of our justice system.Part of the difficulty facing political decision-makers I would argue is that the media are complicit in sensationalising crime and offending. There is a distinct over-reporting of crime. All the evidence is that we do have an over-reporting of crime. It is easy news. It is something that always grabs attention. The old phrase “If it bleeds it leads.” is nowhere more real than in terms of the reporting of crime.This is significant because it creates a perception in the communities that crime is increasing when in fact for at least two decades the trend both in New Zealand and internationally has been a reduction in offending. Our communities are not more dangerous than they were 20 30 or 40 years ago—the opposite in fact. But much of the response or the success I would say of a very vocal minority—indeed as a consequence of the over-reporting and inappropriate reporting of crime—has led to a public perception of there being a much more dangerous society. That creates an environment where these extreme measures are more likely to be accepted and acceptable than they need to be.What we want are responses that do not have recourse to excessive imprisonment that look for non-custodial sentences. We want therapeutic approaches. Let us heal these people who are damaged in ways that cause them to offend. Tougher sentences are not a solution. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that tougher sentences longer terms of imprisonment actually reduce crime. It is quite the opposite. They simply impose costs both social and economic.There is some useful work being done. I would have to put in a wee plug for an organisation called JustSpeak. It is a youth justice organisation that has recently published a couple of very relevant and very helpful documents one of which is entitled—if I can find it—What Do I Have to Do to Change Your Mind? It is a document that highlights that we do have an issue in terms of bringing public understanding and hopefully political decision-making to a position that is based on much better evidence. It is important that we look at the quality and level of information available to us when we are making decisions about appropriate penalties for offenders.We need to consider the genuine fears and frustrations and uncertainties in the broader society in our communities. We can achieve that by debunking some of the myths that surround crime and punishment issues. Ultimately we need to engage and encourage ourselves as political decision-makers to rely more heavily on evidence to consider more cross-party agreements and multi-party approaches and to take some of the political risk out of looking at positive alternatives rather than the old and failed knee-jerk punitive strategies. So I would hope that some of the alternative methods are actually considered and applied much more in our legislation and our decision making over time.To speak more specifically to these bills the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which as I have said we do support is a measured response. It does acknowledge the need to enable ongoing monitoring and supervision of a small number of very difficult individuals who would almost inevitably reoffend if left to their own devices which would not do the community any good. Clearly it would victimise individuals and ultimately would not be a good thing for those offenders. It is better to enable them to live as near as possible a normal life outside of prison outside of detention but at the same time ensure that they no longer offend.As I said our opposition to the public protection orders is that they go too far. We have heard this constant litany that the public protection orders do not impose punishment. I reject that. It just does not stand up. My Concise Oxford Dictionary gives me a definition of the verb “to punish” which is “to cause an offender to suffer; to chastise; to inflict penalty for offence”. I will not reiterate them but in an earlier reading this week the previous reading I worked through some of the provisions of the bill and the extent to which people who are subject to them will be denied their liberty denied freedom of association denied everyday access to communications telephones internet and so on and will have very limited access to news media. Any of their correspondence be it personal or otherwise will be censored with a few exceptions. These are seriously punitive elements. This is undoubtedly a regime of punishment. We punish people for offending. In this instance we will be punishing people for the possibility that they may offend and that is simply a step too far for the Greens.We believe there are alternative means we can try and that we can in fact rely on to be effective in a way that these public protection orders are unlikely to be. That is as much as I think we need to say at this point. I do believe that the public protection orders are a reflection of a set of understandings—a belief system if you like—that are no longer valid or relevant either socially or politically. I think we need to constantly rely on evidence both internationally and locally derived. We need to invest a great deal more in finding out what does work and to acknowledge what fails and has been proven to fail over time. We believe the extended supervision orders regime will succeed and will achieve its goals and its objectives with significant but acceptable levels of intrusion into people’s rights. The public protection orders regime we believe is doomed to fail and for that reason we will not be supporting it.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill makes two main changes both of which are common sense. It allows extended supervision orders to be renewed as often as is needed and it will mean that the Parole Act will now cover high-risk sex offenders against adults and also very high-risk violent offenders. It clarifies the criteria to ensure that only the highest-risk offenders are eligible for these orders which would allow them to then live in the community but under strict supervision but also with the protection of mandatory court reviews.Clause 12 of the bill lists behavioural characteristics of an eligible violent offender indicative of what is called severe disturbance in behavioural functioning. New Zealand First supports this so that the courts will have the guidance needed in making an order noting of course the specific context for an extended supervision order as distinct from a public protection order. Overall these are very good amendments to the Parole Act and New Zealand First supports that bill.New Zealand First will also continue to support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. It achieves a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm by people who are likely to reoffend following release from prison and of course the rights of those affected by the order to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that might be practicable. It also ensures adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel in the High Court independent inspector and ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament.These orders observe the four important principles that are set out in the legislation. Firstly public protection orders are not about further punishing offenders and the offence is to be only one of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent offending. In this respect I would have to disagree with Mr Clendon who says that if a person is released from prison and might be found to be capable of reoffending for the same sort of offence then they would be being punished again under this legislation. That actually is not true. The reason they are being detained is to protect them and the public from that likely reoffending. I would draw a comparison for example with a prisoner of war. These people are detained but they are not being punished; they are simply being detained because they are to be prevented from rejoining the fight. So they are not being punished. There are reasons for detention other than punishment and this is one of them. That reason is to prevent reoffending which is actually for the benefit of the offender as much as of the public. So I think Mr Clendon and the Greens have got that wrong and they need to perhaps give that some more thought.The second principle is that a protection order should be imposed only if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies that. Thirdly an order will not be imposed on a person who should be detained under the mental health legislation. Most people who are in this sort of position will probably be detained under that legislation and not under a public protection order. There are likely to be very few who will need to be detained in that way.The fourth principle is that persons who are detained in a residence should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible and that is of course consistent with the proposition that they are not being punished; they are simply being detained for their own good and for the good of the public.There must be a thorough assessment as to whether a person is likely to offend again in terms of sexual or violent reoffending. It has to be found that the application is supported by at least two psychologist or psychiatrist reports and the court may call for an additional report. The respondent also can call for another report. Those I think are very good safeguards. It means that the court will have very good information upon which to base its decision. The crux is that there must be proof as to whether an order is necessary. The court must not find that there is a very high risk of further offending unless it is satisfied that the respondent exhibits a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of specified characteristics to a high level. So this is a very high bar to reach in evidential terms.Concerning the review provisions—a court reviewing a public protection order must consider whether the subject still poses a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent reoffending taking into account the reports that would be provided to it. If the court finds that the person no longer poses a very high risk it must make a finding to that effect. The court must then cancel the public protection order and if justified impose a protective supervision order on the person instead. Clause 80(1B) would require the person to be released from detention as soon as practicable after a protective supervision order is imposed.I am also gratified to see clause 124B which inserts paragraph (ca) into section 4(1) of the Legal Services Act 2011. That would make any proceedings under the Act a specified application which makes it easier for the person concerned to access legal aid than it is for standard civil proceedings. At the select committee I was very keen that that be put in the legislation because I felt that if a person was to be subject to an order of this kind then it was essential that they could easily get legal aid with which to defend themselves and that therefore the balance between personal rights and those seeking to detain that person would be well preserved.Another welcome addition to clause 31 would allow visits from permitted persons subject of course to appropriate restrictions. New subclause (1A) would permit a visit to be unsupervised if the residence manager considered that that would assist in rehabilitation. But new clause 56(1A) requires a residence manager not to allow a person under the age of 18 years to visit unless again it can be shown that that would assist the person’s rehabilitative needs. Rehabilitation is also an important part of this.One of the most important new sections is new clause 124A which adds new paragraph (bb) to section 120(1) of the Crimes Act making it an offence to escape from the residence when subject to a public protection order. The bill also provides for inspections of residences and an inspector can arrive unannounced at any time for that purpose. But the bill also confers jurisdiction on the court to order that a person be detained in a prison instead of a residence if it is satisfied that the residence detention would pose an unacceptably high risk to the person or to others. Again there is a good balance there.Overall New Zealand First welcomes the legislation which we think fairly and effectively fills the gap in the law to prevent very dangerous people—and there would be very few such people—from being free to reoffend upon release from prison. I want to emphasise once again that this form of detention cannot fairly or properly be regarded as a form of punishment. It is only if it is really necessary for people who are so dangerous that they would be a threat not only to themselves but more particularly to the public at large. There have been cases of that in recent years. This is a gap that needed to be filled and this legislation does it.JAMES SHAW (Green):I rise to speak on the third reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. I am going to restrict my comments to that bill which we will not be supporting rather than speak on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which we will be supporting. I just wanted to start by responding to some of the comments from the New Zealand First member Mr O’Rourke in comparing people who are under public protection orders with prisoners of war as a justification that this is not punishment but is detention. I suspect that the prisoners of war who built the bridge over the River Kwai would argue with the point that while they were being detained they were not being punished. I suspect the same would be true of those who are still in detention in Guantánamo Bay. But l know that this legislation does contain a number of safeguards that are designed to ensure that these detainees these people who are subject to these orders do not suffer the kinds of punishments that those prisoners of war did. It is good to know that people who are subject to these orders will not be waterboarded.I do accept that these individuals do exist. I accept that they pose an extremely serious risk. I also want to respond to some of the things that Phil Goff said in his comments both in his speech this time and also in the second reading where he talked about the conflict of rights. I just want to acknowledge that I appreciate that that has been seriously considered and that they considered their position made that choice having seriously considered the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But as my colleague David Clendon said we do believe that the public protection orders bill is a step too far.I mentioned the bridge over the River Kwai. Another movie that I will refer to is called Minority Report—a Tom Cruise film set in the science fiction world in which psychics were able to tell of crimes before they occurred and lived in this fantastic kind of crime-free society where the cops would raid people who were about to commit crimes because this particular group of psychics were able to detect that they were heading in a crime-erring direction and so were able to make an early intervention and take them to prison before the crime was committed. This of course was an ideal scenario except that it raised the argument that if a crime has not been committed should people be locked up? This is obviously not that kind of extreme but the principle stands. In our system of justice as we have it when you do the crime you do the time and when you have done the time you are released. You are a free person—at least in theory.The reason I am curious about the public protection orders bill is because I wonder how necessary it is that we introduce an additional piece of legislation in addition to all of the pieces of legislation that we already have when the Law Society itself has said that it is unnecessary; when you consider that we are designing a piece of legislation to deal with perhaps one person a year; and when we have the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and we are about to pass the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. By definition these people who pose this kind of risk have severe dysfunction. That is written into this bill. Surely if they are that mentally impaired they are already covered by one of the other three or four pieces of legislation that we have.I just wanted to echo a theme that Mr Clendon made in his comments which is that there is pressure on lawmakers to be seen to be doing something in a media-driven society. My sense is that this bill is one of those pieces of legislation. Because the Law Society has said it is unnecessary because these people are covered by existing legislation and because it transgresses the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the international convention on human rights it is a step too far. It is erring in the direction of populist law and order rather than a proper justice system. With that thank you very much.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East):I rise to take a brief call in support of the third readings of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill.Firstly I will speak on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. This bill has been through the Law and Order Committee for due process and the select committee introduced a number of amendments to ensure that the bill is more appropriate. I would like to commend the select committee members for their work and I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Minister of Corrections Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill aims to ensure that a small number of very serious offenders can be given public protection orders which allow them to be detained in a secure facility. Public protection orders are targeted solely at convicted offenders rather than being more widely applicable to individuals in the community who display similar characteristics. Phillip John Smith is a case in point on exactly why legislation like this is necessary and it is unfortunate that the Government did not get around to making these changes before he escaped earlier on. Mr Smith a convicted murderer a paedophile and convicted of other offences including aggravated robbery and extortion was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996 for murdering the father of a young child whom he had molested. His history of criminal activity is long and violent and he should not have been allowed to apply for and subsequently receive a passport while he was an inmate in a prison facility.Mr Smith was born Phillip John Traynor. He did not even legally change his name to Phillip John Smith. It is just unacceptable that he was able to leave New Zealand fly to Chile and then on to Brazil carrying over $10000 in cash—taxpayers’ funds as it turns out as he was able to dupe our tax system out of over $50000. Given his high-risk profile Smith should not have been put on a temporary release. His eventual capture was only by fortunate identification by a staff member at a hostel overseas. It was an unacceptable lapse in our justice system that allowed Smith to escape putting at risk his former victims and the public in general. There is a need for better monitoring of high-risk violent offenders and sexual offenders like him.This bill seeks to protect the public from almost certain harm by a very small number of serious sexual and violent offenders. The proposed bill would do this by creating a new legislative regime allowing the High Court to make public protection orders which would allow detention of a subject in a secure facility.I turn now to the second bill the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which amends the Parole Act of 2002 as it relates to extended supervision orders. Under the current law extended supervision orders can last only for a period of up to 10 years and this cannot be renewed. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is needed because the 10-year period for some of the people who were the first recipients of extended supervision orders will expire soon. Extended supervision orders were established to protect children under the age of 16 from a small number of convicted child sex offenders who are considered to be a high risk of seriously reoffending at the end of their sentence. The sexual and violent offenders to whom the extended supervision orders would apply are likely to be those with behavioural and intellectual challenges who cannot remain in the community unsupervised. The current estimate is that this will apply only to a small number of offenders. Approximately about 29 to 41 such offenders will be placed on these orders.Labour supports and commends both the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. Thank you.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Bill read a third time.Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill read a third time.Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3)Second ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)on behalf of theLeader of the House: I move That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. As foreshadowed in the discussions at the Business Committee and under the changes to the Standing Orders adopted in July this year the bill’s second reading will—because no amendments were raised for consideration at the Regulations Review Committee—be followed by its third reading without debate. The bill confirms and validates 13 orders or regulations made under eight different Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2014 to avoid subordinate legislation lapsing—and we would not want that would we?Because of the timing of the general election this year’s bill had to be introduced in May which was earlier than usual and I want to thank the Regulations Review Committee for its assistance in ensuring that the bill has been amended to include the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Alcoholic Beverages Indexation) Amendment Order 2014 which also requires confirmation and could not be included in the bill at the time it was introduced. In its report the committee commented that the streamlined procedure adopted in the 2014 revision of the Standing Orders will greatly assist in providing more time for the parliamentary scrutiny of confirmation and validation bills.I look forward to testing the new arrangements with the 2015 confirmation and validation bill and I commend the bill to the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I rise as chair of the Regulations Review Committee and in so doing would like to acknowledge the work of the previous committee and especially the outgoing chair the Hon Maryan Street. Can I acknowledge the Minister and endorse his comments. The Regulations Review Committee—as you well know Mr Assistant Speaker but for the benefit of the public—is a largely bipartisan committee of Parliament typically chaired by the Opposition which reaches decisions by consensus. Its role is to act as Parliament’s watchdog on the role of the executive in promulgating subordinate legislation—that is regulations and disallowable instruments which are executive orders and instruments promulgated under legislation or laws but do not have the force of law in themselves.There are a number of times when regulations or the like are made and they have time limits or they have certain clauses that would cause them to cease their effect which is not bad practice because it is a sunset type of provision. The role of the committee and of this bill brought before the House today is to go through the list of those regulations and see which ones if any should not be rolled over—should not be continued. That is Parliament’s opportunity through the work of the committee and its staff to ensure that the executive is not inappropriately using its powers.The need for the committee and the need for this exercise grew out of would you believe—and as recalled by the outgoing chair last year in this debate—the Rt Hon Rob Muldoon who imposed a wage and price freeze by regulation not even by legislation and then rammed through justifying legislation within a month. And—Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha ha ha!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can hear his laughter over the other side of the—Grant Robertson: He appears to be in the Chamber.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He appears to be in the Chamber but we cannot refer to that as—Chris Hipkins: His spirit lives on.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: His spirit lives on. So out of that the public has a new safeguard. It is the work of the Regulations Review Committee.Now to the content of this bill. There are no regulations that the committee felt should not be rolled over and so there is a clean bill of health contained in this bill and all of the regulations that would have “sunsetted” have been renewed. As the Minister has noted there has been a new process—a more streamlined process—introduced this year truncating the House debate but also seeing the bill introduced a month earlier as per the previous year. The committee would like to emphasise the importance of that early start and to ask the Attorney-General to ensure that the same thing occurs next year. It was difficult given the election for the committee to complete its task on time and our advice is that it would have been better in terms of the depth of scrutiny if longer had been allowed. But it has been sufficient time to reach a determination on the issues that have been raised in the bill.In closing can I just say that the committee is reviewing the way it does its work. Rather than giving consideration to every single deemed instrument or deemed regulation or disallowable instrument it is likely to focus more on a 80:20 approach where those that are likely to be non-controversial and not to offend any of the key principles of good legislative practice will not be routinely reviewed but increased scrutiny will be given to those that are more likely to provide issues that need to be considered. So we are expecting the committee to take a more detailed and focused approach to its work in the coming year. I would like to commend the work of the staff and again the outgoing chair the Hon Maryan Street in setting up that process. Thank you very much.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the motion is agreed to.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I was going to speak to that. I did not realise it was going to be truncated to that degree. I have myself down as the No. 6 speaker on this bill.The Greens support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3)—on a Thursday night it feels like a Friday—but one of the things that stand out for us of course is the commodity levies. It is always good to see commodity levies from the productive sectors going into research and industry-good situations. A recent one of course is the forest growers levy a levy funding the work programme that has been set up that is going to do a lot of stuff to help around biosecurity for the industry and also with some of the marketing.I will just bring up one shortcoming with the system—and it does happen unfortunately with a number of levies. The power behind the spend of the levy is consolidated generally with producers with the biggest volume. In the forestry industry it is dominated by overseas interests and yet the benefit in theory out of this should be for all forest owners and we cannot be quite sure that that will follow. I will be very interested to see how they work it and to make sure that the benefits from the research and the work under the Government industry agreements around biosecurity and the like do follow down that track.With regard to the different orders in the Commodity Levies Act—there is the blackcurrant the harvested wood material the citrus fruit and some other orders—we are supportive of that going through. I just wanted to put it on the record that some of the issues around that we will need to watch to make sure that the small woodlot owners in New Zealand and others will get the benefit of that levy as much as those big overseas owners that dominant the New Zealand forest industry. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First wishes to thank the Regulations Review Committee for the good work it has done on this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). New Zealand First has examined the bill and is satisfied that the various pieces of legislation or regulations being confirmed or validated should be agreed to and we will therefore be voting in favour of the bill.Bill read a second time.Third ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)on behalf of theLeader of the House: I move That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) BillFirst ReadingHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections)on behalf of theMinister of Revenue: I move That the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported by 28 April 2015.The purpose of this bill is twofold. First it supports the Government’s $218 million HomeStart package of proposals to provide greater assistance to New Zealanders saving to buy their first home. Second it continues the Government’s focus on ensuring that the tax rules apply consistently and fairly—in this instance by ensuring that recently enacted rules relating to the entitlement scheme for veterans function smoothly from a taxation perspective. The main feature of the bill deals with one of the biggest hurdles for first-home buyers: acquiring the necessary deposit to purchase a home. For this reason as part of the HomeStart package announced by the Government in August this bill proposes to extend the current KiwiSaver withdrawal rules for first-home buyers from 1 April 2015.Under the current rules KiwiSaver members who are purchasing their first home are able to withdraw the contributions that they and their employer have made to supplement a deposit on a first home. The proposals in this bill will allow them to also withdraw their member tax credit. This will give these KiwiSaver members access to an extra $521 for each year the member has contributed to the scheme. They will not however be able to withdraw the Government’s $1000 kick-start contribution. This is a pragmatic decision so that a member’s KiwiSaver account remains open and active after the withdrawal of eligible funds.The second part of the bill introduces several small amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006 to ensure that income replacement payments made to New Zealand veterans are taxed correctly. These amendments are necessary to clarify the tax rules following recent changes introduced by the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 which replaces the now outdated War Pensions Act 1954. The rules proposed in this bill make it clear that income replacement payments for veterans will be treated in the same way as ACC compensation payments for taxation social policy and KiwiSaver purposes. In other words these payments to veterans will be treated as taxable income and will be taken into account for social policy calculations such as when applying for Working for Families tax credits.The amendments also clarify that these payments will not be subject to the KiwiSaver automatic enrolment rules or compulsory employer contributions. Proposed changes will take effect from the date of enactment and are important in order to give veterans who are receiving income replacement payments clarity on the correct tax treatment of these payments. These are the principal changes proposed in this bill.For aspiring homeowners the proposed changes to KiwiSaver will provide a welcome boost towards acquiring the deposit for their first home. For veterans receiving certain payments in recognition of their service to New Zealand the proposed changes clarify the tax rules and provide a consistent approach to such payments across the tax and social policy systems. I now commend the bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):The general theme of the Labour contributions to this debate is going to be the utterly bankrupt and failed housing policy that this National Government has presided over for the last 6 years. And this bill is probably the single best and most successful part of that bankrupt and failed housing policy.Grant Robertson: Low bar.PHIL TWYFORD: It is a very low bar Mr Robertson. What this bill does is allow people to break open their KiwiSaver accounts and extract the member tax credits. You know that is arguably something a lot of people might want to do. It is arguably something that gives people—first-home buyers—more flexibility so they can use the Government contribution in their KiwiSaver accounts to get a deposit together.Hon David Parker: Spend it not save it.PHIL TWYFORD: But that is the downside as Mr Parker said—that they are spending that money instead of saving it and are therefore undermining the bigger policy objectives of KiwiSaver. But what I want to focus on is just how useless the HomeStart policy is which this bill is designed to enable.Let us talk about the HomeStart policy. It was announced in the heat of the last general election campaign. National was desperate for something that would counter Labour’s popular KiwiBuild policy and so it came up with the idea of throwing taxpayer subsidies at an overheated property market where demand already exceeds supply—it reached into its store of bankrupt and failed policy ideas. This idea of subsidising first-home buyers was tried and discredited in Australia. Treasury opposed it. I understand actually that Bill English opposed it in Cabinet. He did not like it but he was overruled by Nick Smith Steven Joyce and others in the National Cabinet who were desperate—who were desperate—to throw some money at first-home buyers in the final weeks of the election campaign.So there are two things that the HomeStart policy does. The first is that it lifts the price cap for houses that first-home buyers can build using these subsidies—for example in Auckland it lifts it from I think $485000 to $550000. That will significantly increase the number of people who can avail themselves of this subsidy and as Treasury has said: “The impact on the proportion of owner-occupiers is expected to be small as most recipients of a HomeStart grant would have purchased a house eventually anyway. While the grant will make a material contribution to first-home buyers’ ability to raise a deposit it makes no difference to the cost of servicing a mortgage and with mortgage rates expected to rise higher than 7.5 percent over the next 2 years higher finance costs are likely to reduce the number of first-home buyers able to purchase their first home.”It is a self-defeating policy. It will actually increase the total costs of homeownership for first-home buyers. It stokes demand in a market where demand already exceeds supply. That is why Treasury advised against it. That is why all of the critics panned the policy when it was announced and that is why the policy has been discredited in Australia.The second key aspect of this policy is that it doubles the subsidy available per first-home buyer from $5000 to $10000 if they take on a new build. The idea is that somehow an extra $5000 per first-home buyer or double that for a couple—an extra $10000—will be enough to convince an aspiring first-home buyer to take on the massive cost time and logistical burden of doing a new build. And the question we have to ask ourselves is: will it actually make a difference?Nick Smith is going to stand up and say that this legislation will stimulate supply because he is so desperate having gazetted 80 special housing areas and having issued I do not know how many press releases projecting thousands of consented subdivisions sections and houses out into the long-run future. I think only 18 houses will have actually been built by Christmas in the special housing areas. He is so desperate to get the private sector to try to actually build some houses that he is hoping this measly little subsidy is somehow actually going to get the Auckland land bankers to stop sitting back on their porches watching the land values of their land in the special housing areas go through the roof and start actually building houses.Well Nick Smith is on a fool’s errand because he must know that all of those developments are planned 2 or 3 years in advance. So all of the developments that are currently on the drawing board in Auckland in his special housing areas—they are all houses. They are 200-square-metre houses on 600-square-metre sections. They are going to sell for $800000 or $900000. No one is building the kinds of houses that first-home buyers can afford or that will come within the $550000 price cap in Auckland. So this is doomed to failure at least for the next few years. It will not solve the acute political embarrassment that Nick Smith faces wherever he goes in New Zealand where he gets constantly asked how many houses have been built in the special housing areas. And this is the problem that National members have got: their only response to the Auckland housing crisis is the housing accords where they have drawn a whole lot of lines on a map called them special housing areas and fast tracked the consenting with Auckland Council somehow hoping that that broken market will fix itself.Well it has not and no amount of press releases photo opportunities and extra special housing areas is going to intimidate the Auckland land bankers into actually getting off their chuffs and building houses and this will not do it either. But the policy overall will stoke demand generally and that is what Treasury has said. That is what all the commentators have said—that it will actually make matters worse.So what have we got in terms of the National Government’s response to the Auckland housing crisis? What have we got? We have got the special housing areas that have delivered I think up to this day five completed houses in 12 months. What we know from the Government’s own figures from the National Construction Pipeline report that Nick Smith put out a few weeks ago and from the briefing to the incoming Minister is that even if Nick Smith’s heroic projections of the number of houses that would be built over the next 5 years are met—and it looks like they will not be—there will still be a deficit according to his figures of 18000 houses.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just ask the member to sit for a second. He has 2 minutes to go but I would like to ask him in the 2 minutes that he has left to focus on the bill before the House rather than a general Auckland housing debate.PHIL TWYFORD: You are right Mr Assistant Speaker. I should not have called Nick Smith’s projections heroic and I withdraw that comment and I will focus more tightly—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): What the member will do is he will get on with debating the bill and not discuss the rulings that I have made.PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for that advice. What we know is that this bill enables first-home buyers to break open their KiwiSaver accounts and access the Government contribution—the member tax credits—in order to put together a deposit. That is the key thing about this bill. There are also some changes to veterans’ income replacement payments that we can go into in more detail later on.But the crucial thing is that this bill is part of a policy that is designed to help first-home buyers deal with the extreme hardship and disadvantage that has been imposed on them by this Government’s utter failure to get a grip on the Auckland housing crisis. It is the disadvantage that has been imposed on them by this Government’s backing the Reserve Bank into corner and forcing it to impose loan-to-value ratio lending restrictions that have driven 25 percent of first-home buyers out of market. They have disappeared. They have gone because they cannot possibly hope to compete in a market like Auckland’s where house prices in the last 12 months have gone up by more than $62000. They cannot compete in a market that is as overheated as that with speculators both foreign and domestic basically cleaning up under National’s policy settings.All of the papers that have been released by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Treasury have condemned this policy and I think we will hear a lot more about that as the debate goes on.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I have never been so delighted to get to my feet and support a bill that is going to help tens of thousands of young Kiwi families to pull together a deposit for their homes. I am absolutely delighted that the Labour members have stated that they are going to oppose this help for people wanting to own their own homes.I firstly want to deal with the record because the first point that the Labour spokesperson on housing said was: “Where’s the progress in the Government building more houses?”. Let me give the member the numbers. When we came into Government New Zealand was building just 1000 houses a month—a thousand houses a month; the lowest level for 10 years—in November 2008. Do you know what we know from last month’s figures? We are now building 2000 houses a month—exactly double the number from when we came into Government. How can any member opposite say that that is anything other than a positive supply response from our Government?Then we come to the issue of house price inflation. Let me give the members opposite the numbers. During their 9 years in Government house price increases averaged 16 percent per year. House prices grew by 29 percent in a single year and the Labour Party said: “Oh that’s a crisis.” I would like it to explain this: why is it not a crisis when under a Labour Government house prices go up by 28 percent in 1 year but when this year the average increase over the last 12 months was 8 percent it is a crisis? I do not understand; I think it is just straight politics.The third point is this. There are three independent measures of housing affordability—three independent measures. There is the Massey University one there is the Demographia index and there is also the index put out by Roost. Every one of them shows that housing affordability today is 30 percent better than it was when Labour was in Government—30 percent better. So what is this about a housing affordability crisis from Mr Twyford? I will tell you why. One of the most important factors that affects housing affordability is interest rates and because of the dopey economic policies of the previous Government New Zealanders were paying 11 percent interest when we came to Government—Tim Macindoe: 11?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —11 percent—and today they are paying 6 percent and New Zealand interest rates will be lower for longer because of the responsible economic policies of this Government.I also want to highlight a couple of features where Mr Twyford was wrong. He said that the Australian policy has failed and that we are doing the same. No we are not. I will tell you very importantly why. This policy is targeted at doubling the support for new homes. What the Reserve Bank said what Treasury said and what the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment said was that the Government should put its support into building new homes. The second thing they said was that we need to get the market to work better and to build more homes that are affordable. That is why the HomeStart grants are specifically targeted at getting the building industry to produce more product that is affordable.Phil Twyford: Why did Bill English oppose it at Cabinet?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Bill English never opposed it. He has been very supportive of this. I could go through Mr Twyford’s speech and go through eight untruths that he said each of which I noted down as he went through his speech—Hon Member: Only eight?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —eight points where he just simply said things that are documented and known to be untrue.The further point I would make to the member is that this policy is going to allow 90000 Kiwi families on modest or lower incomes—that is under $120000 if you are couple or under $80000 if you are a single person—to be able to access their KiwiSaver funds and receive a Homestart grant to get into their homes. What is it that Labour Party members hate about helping New Zealanders on modest incomes to pull together a deposit for a home? Why is it that they are opposed to it?I have another question for those members: when Labour brought in the KiwiSaver policy and when it brought in the grants that it did during its period in Government why is it that it was a good policy when Labour did it but a bad policy when National does it? Why did Mr Twyford give a speech about grants for first-home buyers being a bad thing when they did it themselves when those members were in Government? It is just that we are being more generous. That to me is a totally double standard and shows a lack of integrity in terms of their policy position.It is just the same old story from Mr Twyford. He is concerned about and keen to cry crocodile tears at every opportunity over the issue of homeownership yet every time the Government comes into this Parliament to do constructive things to address it he is opposed. So when we come and bring in the housing accords and special housing areas legislation he is opposed. When we come in to reduce the duties and tariffs on building products he is opposed. When we come—Phil Twyford: We voted for that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No you voted against the Budget. You voted against the Budget and that was the measure that actually enabled that provision to come into effect. Then the third time when we come to this Parliament to help Kiwi families to pull together a deposit to get into a home Labour members are opposed again. I just simply say that Mr Twyford is the “member for problems around housing affordability” but we are the party for solutions and the House should support the bill.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):I think he is the “member for problems” I will certainly give him that—Nick Smith the Minister who has just sat down.In a Government that is increasingly in disarray we have reached peak chaos when it comes to housing because that is what has happened on that side of the House. No matter how much Nick Smith can get up and bluster away about what he thinks he has done every other commentator in New Zealand recognises that this Government’s housing policy is a failure. Every other commentator recognises that except for Nick Smith. It is all very well to come to the House with this bill which is a meek and pathetic and pitiful attempt to do something about housing but to actually address housing the Government needs to think about actually addressing both sides of the housing equation.There are some members on the other side of the House who perhaps have been a little surprised at my becoming the finance spokesperson but here is a message for those members. It is a pretty basic one: if a market is going to work you have supply and demand. And unfortunately when it comes to the National Government it thinks it can put up demand measures and not address supply. As Phil Twyford said at the start of this—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’re building record numbers of houses.GRANT ROBERTSON: Nick Smith says National is building record numbers of houses. Dr Smith you are not. You are not building record numbers of houses; you are building half the number of houses that Labour was building at the peak of its time in office. The fact is that if Dr Smith wants to compare the building of houses during the global financial crisis with the building of houses today well he can come up with his mythical statistic of doubling the number of builds but in reality there has been a complete failure by the Government to build houses. Dr Smith himself has admitted it. We have got an 18000-home gap that has been built up in terms of what is needed in Auckland. You need to be building 13000 homes a year just to stand still and we have an 18000-home gap built up. There is a crisis Dr Smith and it does not matter how often you want to walk away from it.Housing is now completely unaffordable for a large number of New Zealanders and the kind of tinkering measure that is present in this bill does very very little to address those issues. You know New Zealanders for many generations have thought that owning a house was the kind of thing that was part of life that when you got a good job and you were well-paid you would be able to own a home. Well unfortunately at the moment it costs 63.1 percent of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median-priced house. That is up from 55 percent just 5 years ago. If you are in Auckland it costs 88 percent—Hon David Parker: 88?GRANT ROBERTSON: —88 percent—of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median-priced house up from 70.4 percent 5 years ago. It is up 18 percent in just those 5 years. So coming up with a scheme that might give somebody an extra couple of thousand dollars or that gives a couple maybe an extra $5000—Hon Dr Nick Smith: $10000.GRANT ROBERTSON: —does not bridge the gap Dr Smith. It does not do it. This is a pitiful response.When you take the average price of a house in Auckland it is $748955. That is up by 3.1 percent in just the last 3 months. As Andrew Little said the other day the average house price in Auckland earned more in the last year than the average worker did. It is out of control and all the Government can do is come along and tinker and add on to the KiwiSaver policy in a way that is in fact greatly exaggerated.I do want to pick up something that Nick Smith has just said. He has claimed that the additional number of people benefiting from this proposal is 90000 people. An impressive-sounding number Dr Smith except for the fact that 50000 of them were going to get that benefit anyway. No change—50000—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No only when that changed last year.GRANT ROBERTSON: No that is what Treasury has said: 50000 of those people were already going to get it. So actually the number that is claimed is around 41000 except the chaos of this policy continues because when National tries to work out its costings it says that it is going to cost $218 million but that is for the 41000. So if it is 90000 Dr Smith then the cost would actually be $435 million. So the Government cannot even get its numbers straight on this policy let alone know whether or not it will actually have any great impact.It is quite clear as Phil Twyford has already said that if demand is going to increase in a supply-constrained environment this policy is not going to work.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Grow supply.GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh “Grow supply.” Dr Smith says. That is exactly the point. How many houses has the Government built? The great housing accord has built five houses.Hon Dr Nick Smith: 24000.GRANT ROBERTSON: He is now claiming it is 24000—plucking a number completely out of the air. It is interesting that the UK Conservative Government has actually come out in just the last few days and said—and this is the exact quote from Danny Alexander—to the private sector: “If you don’t build houses we will.” That is what the UK Government is now saying because as a Conservative-led Government it recognises that actually—Hon David Parker: A Labour policy from New Zealand.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. It has had a look at KiwiBuild. It will be called “Corgi-Build” or something of that nature that goes on in the UK. It has recognised the need to make sure that the State is actually there when the market is failing. That is Dr Smith’s problem. He is not prepared to use the fact that the Government can build these houses.KiwiBuild was a popular policy and some of the backbench members over there were shouting out about 25 percent. The reality is that you can look at any survey of that policy. New Zealanders understand that if we are going to ensure that people have the ability to buy an affordable home there needs to be direct intervention from the Government to do so but this Government is not prepared to do that. It only wants to sit back and try to let a market that has already failed fail even more and that is the situation we find ourselves in today when we look at this bill that is in front of us here.We have a situation in New Zealand where homeownership rates are the worst that they have been in 60 years. We have a situation where housing costs are outstripping and growing faster by far than income and it is getting worse under the watch of this Government. Everything that this Government touches with housing is too little and too late and that is what we see in this bill.Nick Smith raised the question of why something is wrong when Labour brought it in as a subsidy scheme and he asked why it is now wrong to extend it. The problem is the situation of supply. If Dr Smith cannot come forward to this House with realistic initiatives that will create more than just a handful of houses around Auckland—Hon Dr Nick Smith: 24000.GRANT ROBERTSON: He keeps claiming it is 24000. That is not what the Government created. That was happening anyway. The big new initiative has resulted in five houses with the massive number of 18 predicted by the end of the year. There is going to be a spurt in the last couple of months and he will get himself to 18 houses. It is pathetic.So in terms of this particular bill the Labour Party looks at it like this: if the Government really wanted to ensure that it was supporting first-home buyers it would focus on the building of affordable homes. By saying in this particular proposal that they want to focus on new builds there somehow is a belief in the Government that new builds will be in the affordable housing area. Well the evidence out there is that that simply is not true and is not credible because for developers the money is not made in the affordable housing sector. We know that—that is the history of what has happened over the last few years. That is why we do not have affordable homes. So simply saying in a blanket way that because there are new builds it will somehow translate to affordable homes is not accurate. If the Government wants affordable homes built take the lesson from what is happening in the UK and get in there and muck in and help out in the sector instead of standing back and trying to use instruments that are actually not going to work. This may well benefit one or two people. Well that is good to a small extent.Hon Dr Nick Smith: 90000.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not 90000 Dr Smith—we have established that. If it is 41000 you will be lucky. The problem is that whichever number it is it is a drop in the bucket. What is needed is housing policy that addresses supply and demand and supply in terms of affordable housing. That will happen only if the Government plays a more active role. If it carries on the way it is going the crisis will deepen and more and more young New Zealanders will miss out on the opportunity of buying their own home.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):It is great to be able to support this bill. First of all it is a little bit hard to look at a gift horse in the mouth and not take it up. Grant Robertson said he was a little surprised at becoming the finance spokesperson for Labour and that last speech of his tells you why. There was no economics in it there was no understanding of what supply and demand means and there was nothing in it that would show that there is an intellectual or smart economic mind on that side of the House. Housing is dear to the Labour Party because “Chippy” is still yet to buy his first house and Labour will be looking at a way for him to do that. In the end Grant Robertson had to resort to using his leader Andrew Little as his economic guru.KiwiBuild is a dog of a policy; it would never work. It was something where they were going to build houses for the price of the land. That was how good KiwiBuild was and New Zealanders understood that and knew it would not work. This policy does work. This policy gives New Zealanders who are working and saving the ability to get that deposit to get into their first home. It effectively doubles the amount of money that they can withdraw to get into that home and get that HomeStart package. It enables New Zealanders who are working hard and who have contributed to the scheme to actually have that deposit to get into the property market and that is a great thing.People have seen the numbers and they have worked it out and they have seen that they can get a home now whereas they could not have got a home in the past and they like that idea. We have changed the thresholds for the price of properties in different cities we have enabled buyers to withdraw their KiwiSaver funds and we have effectively doubled the amount that that contribution will be for a deposit. This is good for New Zealanders getting into their first property.The other thing that we have done is make sure that we have an economy that is strong where interest rates are at 6 percent not the 10.9 percent that the Labour Government left us with. We have an economy where people are getting jobs and where there is economic growth unlike what the Labour Government did when they left the country in recession. We have a country where we are not seeing the house price inflation that we saw under the Labour Government. Under the Labour Government there was a 96 percent increase in house prices over 9 years. It has been 28 percent in 5 years under the National Government and that shows that New Zealanders have the ability to get into houses. This bill helps them do that and it is great for New Zealanders. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):I am a little surprised to be speaking on this bill this afternoon having already given my season’s greetings to the House and to the Speaker’s team. Can I maybe begin by reiterating my earlier good cheer. I guess it reflects the fact that this is a bill that is moving rapidly through its process. That is a surprise in some ways because National did announce its HomeStart policy prior to the election so one would have thought that such a rushed process would not be necessary.Unfortunately that kind of poor process has become a bit of a hallmark of some of the Government’s legislation. I notice in particular the lack of consultation that has occurred to date on what is referred to euphemistically in the bill’s title as remedial matters which effectively of course amount to a cut to veterans pensions. At this point the external consultation on that part of the bill is non-existent. As a result we are very cautious about our approach to this bill. We are prepared to support it to the select committee and we are very interested to hear what submitters—I am thinking particularly of the RSA for example—are going to have to say about the bill and some of the social housing providers tenants organisations and so forth as well as other stakeholders in the housing sector.I am going to primarily in this contribution talk about some of the housing aspects. We think that although the net effect is extremely small the $1000 contribution will be a helpful contribution to at least some people. I was very interested to hear Grant Robertson’s analysis of Dr Smith’s statistics in relation to the number of people who are expected to be assisted. I tend to think Mr Robertson is probably closer to the mark.To begin with the critical thing to say is that the measure in relation to KiwiSaver in this bill essentially facilitates part of the Government’s HomeStart package. Like a number of other measures that the National Party announced in the weeks immediately prior to the general election this was a package that appeared to have been developed without a lot of consultation not only with external stakeholders but also with Government agencies. Indeed the response of commentators in the housing sector to the HomeStart package was at best underwhelming. It has all the appearance of policy that was made up pretty much on the hoof. It was a package that was essentially a political measure aimed at solving a political problem rather than dealing in any real way with the housing crisis. So we actually believe that on balance the HomeStart package will make the crisis worse rather than making it better.It was designed to—and arguably did—give National some cover-up in the run-up to the election but actually it does not deal with the fundamental issues of affordability and housing supply. The consensus of commentators I think it is fair to say was that HomeStart will actually fuel demand pushing up prices across the board and driving housing inflation in an already overheated market. So that is kind of the reverse of what we actually need to be occurring in the housing sector. As other speakers have mentioned it is a demand-side response to what is very largely a supply-side problem so actually fuelling demand is never going to deal with insufficient supply. I guess Dr Smith argues that down the line it is going to stimulate the private sector to build more houses. I think that is a very long bow indeed to draw.The advice from Treasury itself—and we have heard a little bit from Labour speakers already about some of Treasury’s analysis—in its own words was that “experience with home ownership grants in Australia”—a very similar kind of policy—“suggests that such programmes tend to push prices up in a supply constrained environment by supporting greater demand rather than improving affordability.” So we should not be holding out any hope that this policy is going to result in any kind of solution to the problem although the specific measure in this bill might be of some assistance to a small number of Kiwis. But I stress that it will be a small amount of assistance.In the years since National came to Government in 2008 the average house price in Auckland has increased by $200000—increased by $200000. So a nudge in the direction of some assistance of $1000 might be conceivably just that little bit extra that marginal improvement that a very small number might need to make the necessary difference but for the vast bulk of people it will actually go nowhere towards meeting that affordability gulf.So what we propose instead is that policy should instead focus on the real drivers of the problems that we are facing so it should focus on the untaxed income from capital gains that is fuelling speculation and fuelling land prices and indeed the cost of housing particularly in Auckland. How about dealing with the essentially unfettered offshore speculation in the residential property market—again particularly in Auckland? Again that is one of the fundamental drivers that is essentially untouched although we did hear today that actually after thinking about it for a bit the Government might finally be interested in looking at some solutions in that area too.The other critical area that is really untouched by Government policy is the fact that land values and the cost of building are driving up house prices both to buy and to rent and that prices fall well outside the budgets of an increasing number of people. What that suggests is that the problem of growing income inequality that we have in New Zealand sits actually at the heart of some of our issues along with those other drivers that I have mentioned. If we are seriously interested in dealing with the housing crisis that we face well those are the issues that we have got to address.So we have some solutions that would make some genuine progress. We advance our solution—and stick by it—of a capital gains tax excluding the family home. We will increase the supply of affordable houses by undertaking a programme of State house building along with assisting local government and other social housing providers to increase supply. We suggest that National would be smarter in fact to be building hundreds of houses rather than selling them off. We also support rent-to-own schemes both in the State part of the housing sector and also facilitated in other parts of the housing sector. We need stakeholders to get together to develop solutions rather than have this sort of sticking plaster approach that we see from National time and again. So we support this bill going to a select committee but we make no commitment after that.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):I have to start off by agreeing with some of the members on this side of the House. It just seems like National is introducing remedial matters—just little things that do not go far enough. Actually it is a little bit too late now. Why do we have concern with what it is proposing at the moment? Well the reality is that freeing up that little bit of extra cash actually as stated before feeds into the supply concerns that New Zealand First has particularly with the housing bubble in the Auckland market. So you are adding to the ability for first-home buyers to buy into a market. You are fuelling supply and you are stoking the fire even further.Andrew Bayly: That’s right—adding to supply.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you for the correction. I am nervous. You are fuelling the demand from your first-home buyers and it is adding to the problem in fact. It is counter-productive and at the moment it seems to serve no purpose.The levels set out for the purchase of new homes in Auckland are as acknowledged before just too low. They do not actually help anyone get into the Auckland market in the first place. You are talking about purchasing homes around the half-million-dollar mark when we have got quotes for new homes in the $600000 to $800000 range. We know actually that builders and the property market developers are more interested in building those premium homes where they get a much better return. So who are we actually helping?The house price inflation which was talked about earlier is in reality still much higher than the rise in people’s incomes or household incomes. It was argued that price inflation for our houses is not as high as it has been before. It might be acknowledged except I think the Minister conveniently mis-aggregated the data and forgot to mention the specifics around Auckland but really and truly the issue is around growing incomes. They are not growing as compared with the rising prices of our homes in New Zealand.I suggest that actually the affordability in the regions might have helped bring that aggregate value down because this Government does not seem to be doing anything to help our regions grow. The prices of properties in Rotorua for example have not changed for the longest time. They have been static. Where is the support for growth? What are we doing beyond giving new homebuyers $1000 extra and allowing them to purchase a slightly more expensive home? It does not seem to address the real issue.This bill is testament to that disregard. Instead of compromising people’s savings and eating into their retirement funds—because I was trying to do the numbers earlier today. I thought I had some time. I can speak only in averages but even taking that $1000 extra out of the savings equation at that stage in their retirement plan compromises the total value of their savings when they become entitled to it. We are talking of a difference of tens of thousands of dollars in terms of the sum of retirement that they would have had but now will not because it has gone into their houses.The other side might say that owning a house is a great way to save but as I said before in the House actually the Auckland market is a bubble. It is growing exponentially almost. There is talk of the immigration numbers just fuelling it further and further. Beyond immigration there is speculative foreign investment in the local market. It is just fuelling the fire and at some time the bubble has to pop.So where does that leave the people whose retirement money could have been growing exponentially over time adding to actually what should be liquid—money that they can actually use when they retire as opposed to bricks and mortar where the money is tied up? Although as I was writing my notes coming down to the House I noted that actually what we could do is continue to grow the property bubble in Auckland and then when they need to free up some money for their retirement they could sell their houses in Auckland and come and move to Murupara. That way if they keep doing that and Aucklanders keep moving out of Auckland we might alleviate the pressure somewhat and the community of Murupara might grow with some wonderful senior citizens who could enjoy the local forests lakes and other wonderful sites.We talked about supply and demand. The issue is around immigration management. We have this huge bubble. It is not being acknowledged. It is not being managed. We talk about measuring something. I do not know what they hope or intend to achieve with that. The reality is that we are an open market. People are coming in they can see the returns and it is undermining the very people whom the Government is presuming to help by allowing and making these changes with this bill.It is a conundrum. I do not think this bill serves any purpose whatsoever. New Zealand First in relation to this bill acknowledges that the Government is trying to do something. What it hopes to achieve out of this we are not quite sure so we have to therefore say yes OK let us support it through so that it can go to the select committee so that we can hear from the experts hear what they have to say on this legislation and see whether it will actually make a difference. We do not think it will. We think it will fuel fires. We think it will actually be counter-productive.Just to finish off I would make a note to those who write the explanatory note and the legislation—I am trying to understand and I have tried to get as much advice as I can on the part where we are seen to be fixing remedial matters especially with regard to our veterans. New Zealand First is concerned that they are not remedial matters. In fact our interpretation of the amendment is that this will actually compromise the potential incomes of our veterans. I hope to be proven wrong. As I said I have taken advice as best as I can and as quickly as I can on the matter but at the moment our interpretation is that the bill actually contravenes our Veterans’ Affairs Act where we talk about that benevolent margin. We wonder in New Zealand First whether in fact this tax fix-up compromises our veterans’ entitlements. We would absolutely—and we must—ask that this be discussed and fleshed out in full at the select committee because the last thing that New Zealand First wants to see is that our veterans are losing out that in fact it is not just a tidy-up and that our veterans are being compromised in terms of their entitlements and being able to enjoy retirement and their livelihoods which they absolutely deserve.We commend the bill through this first stage. We would like to hear what is said further. Thank you.CHRIS BISHOP (National):It is a pleasure to take a short call on this very important piece of legislation which is a part of the Government’s multifaceted and comprehensive programme for dealing with the housing problem in New Zealand.It was interesting to hear my colleague Mr Hague from the Greens talking about capital gains taxes. The real question for this House is I think: what is the policy of the Labour Party these days when it comes to capital gains taxes? It took a policy to the last election and it was widely ridiculed. In fact the leader of the Labour Party at the time—the third in the last 3 years—was ridiculed after his television appearance about the policy. Is the Labour Party still in favour of it? The reality is actually that the capital gains tax as proposed by the Labour Party and the Green Party—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! This bill is not about a capital gains tax.CHRIS BISHOP: I commend the bill to the House because of the very important measure it will take to improve housing affordability for young New Zealanders.JAN LOGIE (Green):It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party in this short call I will be taking on the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill.The bill has come to us kind of out of the blue and there has not been a huge amount of opportunity to absorb the detail of it. The bill covers two key things. One concerns KiwiSaver entitlement which is supposedly what the Government is doing to help young families buy their first home as we have just heard from the previous speaker Chris Bishop. But the bill is also dealing with a change for veterans. From what I can make out of what is in the bill it is putting their payments on a parity with ACC.I am slightly bewildered as to why we have this in a piece of legislation coming to the House at this time when the previous Parliament dealt very comprehensively with a very large piece of legislation called the Veterans’ Affairs Act. It was the result of years of work by the Law Commission and Parliament spent many many hours on that piece of legislation. I am at a loss to understand why the Government is now bringing us another piece of legislation and is calling it a remedial matter to change an aspect of what was in that legislation. It is very confusing. If there is a reason that is not the Government’s incompetence then I will look forward to hearing about that within the select committee process.The Greens are supporting this legislation’s referral to the select committee partly to examine that issue. We spent many hours in this House traversing those issues and they are important. It feels very present at the moment when the Government has made the decision to send people for training to serve in a conflict environment where we know lives are at risk. People’s lives are lost and damaged by the decisions of this House and it is critical that we give respect to those people for the decisions that are made and that they have to live with.I would like to spend a little bit more time just talking about some of the discussions on housing that have come up in the debate so far. We heard from Nick Smith how the situation of housing affordability is so improved under this Government. It is extraordinary is it not? The conversations we hear in the media and the statistics I read which came out in the household economic survey just last week show that although household incomes have increased by 9.1 percent since 2012 the cost of living has increased by 11.1 percent. That has largely been driven by the disproportionate increase in the cost of housing yet that is not part of this Government’s reality. Apparently all those people who are struggling to pay their mortgage who are struggling to pay the rent and who are struggling to even get into a house in Auckland—they are just deluded. There is really nothing to see here. Everything is fine according to this Government.Again this is one of those moments when I am wondering what reality the Government is living in. Who is it talking to who is finding housing affordability improved? It is no one I am talking to I must say. Maybe I am not talking to enough bankers. Maybe I need to get out of my bubble and go and talk to more bankers and have a more balanced perspective because the people I am talking to are struggling and they are finding it difficult. When we have an affordability crisis—and I will use that word based on the experiences I am hearing—when we have a supply crisis when we have a quality crisis and when we have a security of tenure crisis is this piece of legislation going to help? The answer is no. It is not going to help the level of crisis. It may help some people. That $1000 may help some people when their income is at a certain level. That may just push them over. On that basis we are not going to be curmudgeonly and say that we will not support that in principle because even a pinch of salt is sometimes helpful to the cooking but really we need a whole lot more flavour and a whole lot more work going on in this area when it is in crisis.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I just want to acknowledge the last speaker from the Treasury benches Mr Bishop for his multifaceted contribution in defending the bill. The only problem was that I was listening with interest for the “multi” part and the “faceted” part but alas that was not to be.Labour supports any initiatives that assist first-home buyers into affordable homes but there is a roaring fire across the country—the fire is called a serious housing crisis—and I liken this bill to a water pistol attempting to put out that roaring housing-crisis fire. I have been listening to the National members and they are defending a bill that is going to address housing affordability in New Zealand but I struggle to hear the rationale as to how this bill is going to address that.But let us turn to the purpose of this bill. The bill implements part of the Government’s HomeStart package to enable people to withdraw Government contributions to their KiwiSaver accounts in order to buy a home. The other part of this bill makes amendments to ensure that income replacement payments under the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 are treated in the same way as ACC payments making them subject to tax and allowing the partner of a deceased veteran to claim their Working for Families tax credit.I listened to the contributions particularly from our side of the House and I say from my experience going up and down my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti the housing crisis goes beyond what this bill is attempting to do. It is like what previous speakers on this side have said: the supply issue is real. The supply issue is real and yet what we have in front of us does not even address the supply issue unlike Labour’s policy of KiwiBuild. That is a complete policy initiative aimed at building 10000 homes to address the supply issue we have in this country. But no here we have in front of us today the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill. There is a housing shortage and there have been contributions around the reality of that but I as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti can guarantee that we have housing shortages right throughout my electorate.When I go through this bill and I ask myself the questions that this bill is attempting to address one of the questions that comes to mind is whether the bill will improve homeownership. That is the question I ask. Will it improve homeownership? The answer is no. How do I come to that conclusion? The Cabinet paper. What did the Cabinet paper say on HomeStart? It noted the impact on homeownership will be small and cancelled out by rising interest rates. This is in the Cabinet paper: “The impact on the proportion of owner-occupiers is expected to be small as most recipients of a HomeStart grant would have purchased a house eventually anyway. While the grant will make a material contribution to first-home buyers’ ability to raise a deposit the grant makes no difference to the cost of servicing a mortgage. With mortgage rates expected to rise to 7.5 percent over the next 2 years”—Chris Bishop: Not to 11 percent like under you guys.MEKA WHAITIRI: —no you had your turn—“higher financial costs are likely to reduce the number of first-home buyers able to purchase their first home.”Generally when we bring legislation into this House we take advice from officials. Treasury officials themselves have said in their advice to Cabinet: “Treasury does not support the expansion of first-home buyer assistance subsidies at this time given that they stimulate demand for housing when demand is already outstripping supply.” Like I said in my opening contribution this is a water pistol trying to put out a roaring fire called the housing crisis. Kia ora tātou.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua):I am very happy to be supporting this bill. As we are aware the bill has two key components the first of which is to look after our veterans who have been in harm’s way. But secondly and probably more importantly in terms of the housing conversation it is about opening up the access to KiwiSaver. Both are worthy causes but this is all about the Government delivering on its promise. We want to see more homeownership by first-time buyers and this is what this package is about. I am very happy to support it.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):I am pleased to rise to take a call on the first reading of this bill because I am angry. I am angry at this Government for continually sitting on its hands around the issue of affordability for people who want to buy homes. I am angry that this Government refuses time and time and time again to do something appropriate around affordability accessibility and homeownership particularly for our young people.I have a 23-year-old daughter. Will she ever be able to own a home? She saves she is part of KiwiSaver she works hard. I want to know that my daughter and my grandchildren will actually be able to own their own homes because—do you know what? Do you know what? Homeownership leads to a whole lot of benefits later in life. If you have an asset in a home then you have set yourself up for life. We all know that. So why is this Government wanting to restrict our young people from homeownership? [Interruption] You tell me. Mr Bishop you can get up and answer that question. That would be really great.Will this small multifaceted measure do anything to improve homeownership? Well my dear colleague over here has said no. And do you know what? The Cabinet paper said no as well.Meka Whaitiri: Everyone says no.POTO WILLIAMS: Everyone says no except for the National Government.Meka Whaitiri: Election sweetener.POTO WILLIAMS: That is right. Will this small multifaceted bill do anything about affordability?Meka Whaitiri: No.POTO WILLIAMS: No. Let us have a look at the facts shall we? Here is what the experts tell us: these schemes are intended to assist people to buy moderate homes that they can afford. Although the price caps should adjust for inflation increasing them excessively encourages people to buy homes they cannot afford the mortgage on and it pushes up house prices making first-home buyers worse off. Oh my goodness—it makes first-home buyers worse off.Do you know what I heard the other day? I think it was actually said in the House. I heard that the average house in Auckland earned more than the average wage. If you have a home in Auckland the equity built up on it is more than the average wage of a worker. I think that is extraordinary do you not? So you can own a home and have that passive income but if you go out to work every single day—Meka Whaitiri: At no tax.POTO WILLIAMS: —at no tax—as a hard worker a decent worker in this country and you get taxed like billy-o—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are bringing me into the debate.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker I will—Chris Hipkins: But you do work.POTO WILLIAMS: But you do.So how can we achieve affordability? That is the question and we have the answer of course with KiwiBuild. Affordability is around supply. If you increase supply you increase affordability. And you can build decent homes. The Government has the ability to use its capital its extensive contacts across the country its connections with building supply companies and construction companies and its ability to legislate around development costs and around land accessibility—Chris Bishop: We’re doing that.POTO WILLIAMS: Well we would like to. We think you should do it because it is a great bill. It is a great bill. I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; I am really passionate about this. I believe in home affordability for all people.What are the changes that this Government has made? Let us look at them. Loan-to-value ratios—have loan-to-value ratios made a difference to affordability? Has it made a difference to the ability for young people to get into a home? I see that side of the House has gone quiet now when we bring up loan-to-value ratios. What has been the impact of loan-to-value ratios on first-home buyers? I would like to hear that from you. Do you know what has happened? The loan-to-value ratios have restricted the market so much that they have provided a haven for overseas investors and they have provided a haven for people who want to land bank—people who buy tracts of land and wait for the price of land to go up because they know that the developers are standing by the gates waiting for that land to be freed up. These Government members have the cheek to say that it is local government’s fault for not releasing land. They have the nerve to say that when it is really the developers holding on to the land knowing that the price is going up—that is the issue here.With regard to the overseas investors we hear today that the Australian Government is looking at registering overseas investors who want to purchase property in Australia. What is the Government doing about that?Meka Whaitiri: Soft touch—we’re a soft touch.POTO WILLIAMS: Absolutely. We have pooh-poohed that idea for long enough. Why does this Government not want to look at registering overseas investors? Why not? What would that do? It would give us information with which to base policy on certainly. We would know exactly how many overseas investors were looking to purchase homes in this country. Why can we not preserve homeownership for New Zealand residents and people who actually want to live here—New Zealand citizens? Why is that such a bad deal?I am concerned for people like my daughter who eventually will want to buy a home and who will be priced out of the market. Most of you know that I come from Christchurch. We have a real issue with affordability in Christchurch. We also have an issue with the land that is available to be used for the building of homes. When Government members responded to the housing issue or the housing challenge as it is known by this Government they said at the time that they supported the opening up of land developments on the edge of the city and that homes in the region of $500000 were going to be what affordability is for the people of Christchurch.Factor into that the fact that most people have to travel significant distances now to get to their places of work and you have cut any gains out. You have increased the ability to—sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very passionate about this topic and I sometimes lose my direction so I thank you very much for bringing me back to this. I want to explain that in Christchurch we have a huge issue with supply because let us face it when you take out 11000 homes in one fell swoop over several massive earthquakes we look to the Government to provide leadership in terms of supporting us to open up land that is cheap and supporting us to build a significant number of houses to restore people into homes. You know there are still people who are living in damaged homes 4 years on.We look to the Government to provide some leadership around supporting our construction industry. I know that the Government feels it has done a lot but it has not done enough. One of the issues that the Government has not really looked at is providing support for those people who have to travel significant distances to get to work—people who are very much doing what they can do to get by.I want to get back to the point around affordability and the fact that this bill will allow people to take the Government contributions out of their KiwiSaver accounts. What happens with my 23-year-old daughter if she takes advantage of that? That $1000 in 40 or 45 years’ time will have built quite a nice little nest egg. I take the view that superannuation should be about saving for our retirement because let us face it this Government is wanting to make the future of our young people very difficult. I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is the end of the sitting day and I thank you very much for allowing me to take the call.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa):I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections)on behalf of theMinister of Revenue: I move That the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill be reported back to the House by 28 April 2015.Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.