Volume 699 Week 75 - Thursday 19 June 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 699 Week 75 - Thursday 19 June 2014[Sitting date: 19 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18713. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 19 June 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Next week when the House resumes on Tuesday 24 June the Government will look to progress the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill and a number of other items on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Can I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any intent to progress the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill before the House rises?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Yes.Questions to MinistersEconomic Growth—Progress and Reports1.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in building a growing economy that can support more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Statistics New Zealand this morning issued GDP figures for March. It confirms that the economy is continuing to perform well growing by 1 percent in the 3 months to 31 March and by 3.8 percent in the 12 months up to the end of March which is good news for New Zealanders looking for higher incomes and more jobs. Economic growth was reasonably broad-based with positive contributions from construction mining agriculture retail trade and accommodation. It is the latest in a run of encouraging economic indicators including higher levels of business and consumer confidence. I want to pay tribute to the strong and stable leadership of the Prime Minister who has the unanimous support of a united caucus. This has been instrumental in the Government’s successful economic policy.Claudette Hauiti: How is the growing economy translating into real benefits for New Zealanders and their families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most people do not measure their economic prospects in terms of GDP; they measure it in terms of more jobs and higher incomes. In the past year alone 84000 more jobs were created and the Budget last month forecast an additional 170000 new jobs by mid-2018. If we stick with the Government’s programme the average full-time wage is expected to rise by $7600 to $62300 over the next 4 years. This follows a $3000 increase in the average wage over the past 3 years.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that answer was so compellingly valid how come the Māngere section of the National Party rejected it when it was put to it by the questioner when she sought the nomination there?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be some ministerial responsibility the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I am going to be going and talking not just to the Māngere branch of the National Party but to all those former Labour and New Zealand First voters in Māngere who are starting to think about voting National.Claudette Hauiti: Kia ora. How does New Zealand’s latest economy growth compare with growth in other developed economies around the world?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand continues to be one of the better-performing developed economies. Our 3.8 percent growth rate was the third-highest in the OECD club of developed economies. By comparison Australia grew about the same at 3.5 percent the UK grew 3.1 percent the United States grew 2 percent Canada grew 2 percent Japan grew 2.8 percent and the euro area grew 0.9 percent. So New Zealand is doing reasonably well but we need to continue to work on sustaining these growth rates beyond the normal cycle so that more households can benefit from consistently rising incomes.Claudette Hauiti: How does New Zealand’s current economic performance compare with the indicators this Government inherited in late 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The indicators have improved in part because of the improved economic cycle and in part because of good Government policy. The balance of payments deficit for instance in 2008 was minus 7 percent of GDP and it is currently 2.8 percent. The Government is on track to Budget surplus next year. In 2008 we faced never-ending deficits and soaring Government debt. The cost of living has risen by just 1.5 percent a year. In 2008 it was rising by more than 5 percent per year when the cost of living was out of control. Floating mortgage interest rates are a bit over 6 percent today. In 2008 they reached almost 11 percent.Hon David Cunliffe—Immigration Inquiry on Constituent’s Behalf2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Is he concerned about rising inequality in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister):As the member well knows the most recent research shows that income inequality is not rising in New Zealand. I know that members are worried about other forms of inequality and so am I particularly the inequality between the support for David Cunliffe in the Labour caucus—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That may not help the order of the House.Hon David Cunliffe: Given those comments does the Prime Minister stand by his statement in the United States that National has known for 2 weeks about the existence of a letter from me to Mr Donghua Liu and how does he reconcile that with Mr English’s comments that senior National Party MPs did not know about it? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It may be Thursday afternoon and some members may be keen to return to their electorates early and if the noise keeps up to this level somebody will. I will hear the point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee and I remind members it is a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is simply this. Although the Acting Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister is happy to answer the question it is very wide of the wickets and perhaps is an indicator of the capacity inside our opponents to deliver—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I reminded members to my left before the point of order was started that it is a point of order. So would the member please finish his point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I think I made the point.Grant Robertson: It was quite clear at the end of the Acting Prime Minister’s answers that he introduced this material. It is perfectly within the Standing Orders to ask questions in response to that.Mr SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister in answering certainly extended the scope. I invite him now to answer the question that was asked by the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the letter was in the public arena because it was requested under the Official Information Act by a number of media outlets and that prior to that I am advised today it came to the notice of a Minister who was answering oral questions in the House when the Leader of the Opposition was on his high horse about cronyism between Maurice Williamson and why he should be sacked because of it.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the New Zealand Herald journalist concerned requested the letter that we have been referring to regarding Mr Donghua Liu only on Monday of this week how is it that he knew about it for the last 2 weeks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is apparent that the New Zealand Herald journalist was more concerned about understanding the background to these events than the Leader of the Opposition was who had been vigorously prosecuting the campaign against Mr Liu and Maurice Williamson for about 3 weeks. He should have done the same thing—that is find out the information himself in the same way that the New Zealand Herald journalist did.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question and it was not addressed in the answer by the Acting Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: In my opinion and to the best of my ability to hear the answer the answer was adequately addressed by—[Interruption] Order! The member will remain in his seat while I am on my feet. It would be helpful if I could more clearly listen to the answer. That would certainly require less interjection from the left.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify are you asking me to repeat the question because you were unable to hear the answer?Mr SPEAKER: No I am not. I am saying that the question has been addressed but I am inviting the member to continue with further supplementary questions if he so wishes.Hon David Cunliffe: I will. Thank you. Given that the New Zealand Herald journalist concerned requested the letter in only the last 48 hours how did the Prime Minister know about it for the last 2 weeks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member would need to ask the Prime Minister that question—[Interruption]—and I understand that he is being asked that question and no doubt he will answer it. But that member seems to be riding flat out on his high horse towards the pet-food factory.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he think his Minister of Finance misled listeners on Radio New Zealand this morning when he said that senior National Party MPs did not know about the letter?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I was speaking for myself. I was aware of the letter yesterday and as John Campbell said like many other New Zealanders I was shocked I was stunned I could not believe it and I am surprised that the member wants to keep talking about it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Was it reasonable for the Prime Minister to assume that at some point as the arguments were evolving the Leader of the Opposition might have outed himself before the Official Information Act process did it for him?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister probably assumed that the Leader of the Opposition when he was vigorously prosecuting the resignation of a Government Minister knew what he was doing and was familiar with the background to the issue. But it appears that like Labour Party policies it was unresearched critical details were missing and the Leader of the Opposition now has to take responsibility for yet another mess which his caucus is pretty upset about.Hon David Cunliffe: On which occasion has the Hon Bill English been misleading the public—when he said on Radio New Zealand National this morning that senior National Party MPs did not know about the letter or when he has just acknowledged in the House on behalf of the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister did?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I was asked my view about that issue on Radio New Zealand National and I answered to the best of my knowledge which is that I did not know about that letter and I did not know whether other Ministers knew about it. The critical thing is that I knew more than David Cunliffe when I knew almost nothing.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would he advise the Leader of the Opposition to make a thorough check of his party files and other matters to ensure that all declarations around donations are as well recorded as this particular letter?Mr SPEAKER: It is a good try but on this occasion there is certainly no responsibility there.Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the Acting Prime Minister’s last answer can the House take it that he now thinks “to the best of somebody’s knowledge based on the information available to them at the time” is an absolutely right and proper answer?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually I think the answer to that is yes. But of course when I said to the media that I did not know about the letter I was not testing the trust of New Zealanders in the way that David Cunliffe is now. He said he would not tell us where he lived. He said it was a doer-upper and it was a mansion. He announced policies without—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The member has a right to ask a supplementary question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Members may not like the questions but people are listening to them. Can he tell the House whether who knew what or when changes the fact that the Leader of the Opposition tried to hide the material facts?Mr SPEAKER: Again I do not believe there is any ministerial responsibility. [Interruption] Could the House please settle down.Banking Sector—Anti-competitive Behaviour3.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister of Commerce: Has he received any reports on anti-competitive behaviour in the banking sector?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I am not aware of receiving any specific reports but if the member has examples of anti-competitive behaviour in the banking sector these should be directed to and taken to the Commerce Commission.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he think it appropriate for a bank to simply terminate a company’s accounts with that bank without giving any reason whatsoever for doing so; if not why not as the Minister?Hon CRAIG FOSS: In those circumstances the organisation concerned has a number of remedies. It could go to the bank. It could go to the Banking Ombudsman or to some other disputes resolution service. If something uncompetitive was happening then the organisation should take its complaint to the Commerce Commission.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Should a company called IMEX Ltd which provides remittance services in New Zealand Australia and the Pacific Islands have cause for concern about anti-competitive behaviour when one of its direct competitors namely Westpac with whom IMEX banks writes to it terminating its accounts without providing any reason for doing so?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I just repeat my previous answer. Those issues are between that organisation and its bank whoever that was and regardless of who that bank is that bank has courses to remedy or make complaint about those issues that the member raises.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it became apparent that Westpac had been engaging in anti-competitive banking behaviour would he as the responsible Minister and on behalf of his Government support making another bank such as Kiwibank the Government’s bank rather than allow this to go on with the Government’s support?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The member is confused. He does not understand the Commerce Act. The question was primarily about anti-competitive behaviour. The Commerce Act looks after that. The Commerce Commission looks after those particular issues. So if the member has issues around that—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon CRAIG FOSS: —he should go to the Commerce Commission.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rather than take that insult I asked in particular given that he is the Minister responsible in terms of giving advice to the Government whether the Government would keep its account with Westpac. That is the question I want answered. Surely that is what I referred to.Mr SPEAKER: I have a little bit of sympathy for the member. The question has been answered. I think it has been addressed but I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing that where the Government’s account is could become an issue for the Government—it is currently with Westpac—and if it was found that Westpac was engaging in anti-competitive behaviour would he then recommend that the Government move its account to a bank such as Kiwibank?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have no responsibility for whomever the Government uses for its banking arrangements.Christchurch Hospitals—Redevelopment4.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua)to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made on the Christchurch Hospitals’ redevelopment?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Design plans are now entering the final stage of development and construction is expected to begin in September as part of a $650 million—plus investment in Canterbury. Once complete the new Christchurch Hospital will boast new operating theatres with around 400 beds an expanded intensive care unit a new emergency department and a rooftop helipad. Canterbury District Health Board is holding a public meeting tonight to update Cantabrians on progress and the district health board is very keen for the public to attend.Dr Paul Hutchison: What progress has been made at the Burwood health campus?Hon TONY RYALL: At Burwood construction is now under way. When completed that hospital will have 23 extra beds an extended radiology department and a new outpatient department able to manage 80000 outpatients a year. The Government is committed to providing Cantabrians with top-quality health facilities.Economy—Income Gap Regional Economies Growth and Child Poverty5.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Which of the statements if any by NZIER chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub does he agree with most: that interest rate rises will punish the provinces that “one of the biggest issues of this generation is the widening gap between the haves and have-nots” or that “The gaps opening up in New Zealand are really big across geographical race and education lines”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I do not agree with those statements. I do agree with other statements made by the same commentator when he said: “It reeks of xenophobia … poor policy making … a populist knee-jerk reaction” and “sloppy.” That was Shamubeel Eaqub talking about Labour’s housing policies.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that over the past 5 years there are 7800 fewer people employed in the Waikato there has been a loss of 7300 people employed in Manawatū-Wanganui and 2100 people employed in Wellington and there are 6200 fewer people employed in Southland or is he so out of touch that he does not know what is going on outside Auckland and Christchurch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I disagree with that and the member is so out of touch he cannot remember there was a thing called the global financial crisis. So when he compares numbers prior to the biggest recession in 30 years with the recovery afterwards then of course he is going to find that in some respects some numbers have still yet to improve. But in an economy that produced 84000 new jobs over the last year that has closed up those gaps very considerably and probably faster than people expected.Hon David Parker: Given that two-thirds of GDP growth is coming from construction activity which makes GDP growth other than construction closer to 1 percent than 3 percent what is his plan to boost economic growth aside from another earthquake?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I am aware of the numbers around housing and it is slightly ironic that the member’s party has spent all year castigating the Government for not building enough houses and now that they are being built apparently it is bad for the economy. Saying that we should not count the benefits of construction is a bit like saying that if you take out the tries the All Blacks scored they did not actually win the game.Hon David Parker: Is he really so out of touch with New Zealanders that he denies inequality is rising when homeownership rates are at the lowest in 50 years and dropping and child poverty is rising?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well as I think the House has discussed before most measures of income inequality in New Zealand show that it is not getting worse. It is simply not the case that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. When the member talks about inequality of ownership of assets then I would hope that his party will see its way to supporting the Government’s programme to free up the supply of housing because a fast-rising housing market is likely to drive inequality in the ownership of assets because it favours those in the market as against those who are out of it. In that respect we agree on the objective—that is a slower-rising housing market. It is a shame we have not been able to agree on the tools because the Government has got good tools for addressing that driver of asset ownership.Hon David Parker: Does the income inequality figure that he just referred to exclude capital gains?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The income inequality measure that I referred to is not one measure actually it is a number of them. They are all set out in the document originally commissioned by the previous Labour Government which thought it was going to use it as a political tool in Opposition to demonstrate that inequality was getting worse. But actually it does not demonstrate that. Any measure of income inequality shows that it is flat and vaguely falling. In respect of capital gains—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. It has already—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree with that but the member rose to his feet just as the Minister was about to address the portion about capital gains and I would like to hear that answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that measure is aimed at income measures not capital measures and I cannot actually tell him whether it excludes capital gains but it probably does.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he agree with Professor Jonathan Boston co-author of Child Poverty in New Zealand who suggested that the poorest Kiwi children are now no better off than some children in the slums of India and what steps can be taken towards introducing a living wage to address the immediate impacts of income deprivation in too many New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I certainly disagree with Dr Jonathan Boston’s comments and I think it discredits the campaign that he has been part of. If his advice to New Zealand politicians is to copy conditions in Indian slums because children are better off then we certainly feel free to reject that advice. Secondly can I acknowledge the Māori Party’s efforts over recent years. It has lobbied hard to increase the minimum wage to the kinds of levels that the living wage has been set at. We just do not agree with it going that high; we think it would destroy too many jobs. But we do acknowledge the intent of the Māori Party to help those who are on the lowest incomes.Child Poverty—Government Initiatives to Address and Impact on Child Health6.KEVIN HAGUE (Green)to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with Professor Jonathan Boston that there are New Zealand children living in “houses that don’t have heating in caravans that don’t have running water and in families that simply don’t have enough food of the right kind every day”; if so will she guarantee these children have immediate access to the State support they need?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):I agree that some children in New Zealand are living in conditions that are unacceptable but I do not agree with Professor Jonathan Boston when he likens the living standards of our children to the slums of India. If he thinks that this Government is going to follow the policies of India and think that that is in any way acceptable then I would completely disagree particularly when one looks at the mortality rates. The mortality rates for under-fives in India is 56:1000 and in New Zealand—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice and the Minister is speaking about Professor Boston’s comments about India which was not the topic of the primary question at all. I have asked the Minister to address specifically some specific comments of Jonathan Boston which she has not done.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has certainly specifically addressed the first part of the question. There is a second part to the question that I am still waiting for the Minister to address but it is unhelpful when members are not getting an answer they like to then interject on the Minister before the Minister completes the answer. If the Minister then completes the answer and it requires further addressing by all means raise the question. I call on the Hon Paula Bennett to complete the answer.Hon PAULA BENNETT: These children do get access to State support. There is access through a very generous benefit and welfare system. There is access to hardship grants on which we spend over $260 million a year. There is access to Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes. There is access to numerous types of support for these children including breakfast in schools.Kevin Hague: Given that the Minister does not appear to agree with Professor Boston does she now agree with Otago University experts Dr Jean Simpson and Dr Liz Craig whose research shows that one New Zealand baby dies each week from conditions associated with low income?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I agree that there are some children in New Zealand who are not living in the types of conditions that we would want them to. That is why in this Budget when we first had money available to be giving out we gave it to families. That is why we have prioritised those children. That is why we see a commitment to those children through the Children’s Action Plan through breakfast in schools and through more money for rheumatic fever for warming up homes for the many many—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to do this but once again the Minister is not responding to the question at all which—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then I will help the member. If the member simply asks the question rather than the original paraphrase about whether the Minister does not appear to agree with something and simply asks the question whether the Minister agrees with two Otago University experts about the death rate of young babies in New Zealand—if the member blatantly asks that question without any peripheral information then I can perhaps try to assist the member to get an answer to his question. I will invite the member to ask his question again.Kevin Hague: Thank you. Does she now agree with Otago University experts Dr Jean Simpson and Dr Liz Craig whose research shows that one New Zealand baby each week dies from conditions associated with low income?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I do agree with is that there are children living in this country who are not living at the sorts of standards we think they should be. However we have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. We have availability of State housing. We are warming up those houses. We have breakfast in schools for all schools that want that and that is new under this Government in partnership with those outside. We also have help for rheumatic fever. We have more assistance for free doctors visits than ever before and that is why in this Budget we were able to give more than $500 million for further access for families and children.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Mr Hague took your advice and rephrased the question in the manner in which you agreed—Mr SPEAKER: And I invite Mr Hague to ask the question again.Hon Member: That’s pathetic.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of comment from the Government benches will result in somebody leaving the Chamber.Kevin Hague: Does she now agree with Otago University experts Dr Jean Simpson and Dr Liz Craig whose research shows one New Zealand baby each week dies from conditions associated with low income?Hon PAULA BENNETT: For me to make a judgment call on that I would have to look at the evidence behind the research. What I do agree with is that there are children in New Zealand who are living in conditions that we do not think are acceptable. However we have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. They have access to more health facilities for children under 13 now than ever before and our investment is very much on those children but we cannot make judgments on everyone’s choices all of the time either.Kevin Hague: Does she deny Dr Simpson’s and Dr Craig’s findings that babies born into the most economically deprived families are five times as likely to die a sudden unexpected death in infancy and several times more likely to die from pneumonia than babies in the least economically deprived families?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No I would not deny that at all but what I would say is that the Greens’ solution is to throw more money at those families and think that that will be the solution. I would say that it is far more complex than that. It is intergenerational. It is about violence it is about drugs and alcohol and it is about intergenerational welfare dependence and those things matter also.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister believe the experts when they tell us that poverty is the cause of New Zealand’s high rates of Third World conditions compared with other developed nations?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is all relative.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree with the Public Health Association the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine and Parliament’s own Health Committee that her Government invests less than half the OECD average on young children; if not why not?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not seen that to make a comment on it. What I will say is that we have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. What it comes down to is that if you are on $50000 a year with a family in this country you are paying pretty much zero tax. In fact what you get back exceeds what you pay out in income tax. I think that those are the sorts of policies that make a difference.Kevin Hague: If the Minister does not agree with the expert analysis of Professor Boston epidemiologists Jean Simpson and Liz Craig the Health Committee the Public Health Association the College of Public Health Medicine not to mention the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group and many others can she name one expert who agrees with her and is prepared to say that the Government is doing enough to eradicate child poverty?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I agree with the fact that having a full-time work test for parents receiving benefits starting when the youngest child turns 5 as Professor Jonathan Boston suggested is perhaps something worth looking at.Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table the document “Hospital Admissions and Mortality with a Social Gradient” from 2014.Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document please.Kevin Hague: It is a publication of the Social Health Monitor. In theory it would be available to members but it is an academic journal.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way to resolve this is for the House to decide. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Business Innovation and Employment Ministry—Pay Negotiations7.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister for Economic Development: On how many occasions has he discussed the current pay negotiations for Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and on what dates did those discussions take place?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I thank the member for his question. I have taken the precaution of checking my records before answering the question today. I have looked back through my diary—I did not go back all the way to 2003 but I did look back—to make sure that we had the answer because I think it is always a good idea to check your records before you respond. I can inform the member—Hon David Cunliffe: He doesn’t do humour very well—he doesn’t do humour any better than charisma.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would keep my voice down if I were you David. I can inform the member of three occasions: 17 October 2013 5 May 2014 and 4 June 2014.Grant Robertson: Did the chief executive tell him at the meeting on 4 June that the State Services Commission had not approved the offer that his negotiating team intended to make to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot recall that particular statement. I do not think he did say it but I am not going to rush out and categorically lead with my chin without checking the diary like other people would. But I do not recall him saying anything along those lines.Grant Robertson: Can I ask the Minister to search his memory from 2 weeks ago and tell the House how he responded to the chief executive telling him that the State Services Commission had not approved the offer he was intending to make to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again for the member I cannot confirm that but I can confirm what I told him yesterday which is that the only advice I gave Mr Smol that day was to say to check with the State Services Commission and make sure it was informed of the progress he was making.Grant Robertson: Will he guarantee that all of his discussions with the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment about the pay offer were consistent with his obligations as a Minister under the State Sector Act and Cabinet Manual?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is the third day that this question has come up because it is the biggest issue that Mr Robertson can identify. I can tell the member just like I told him 2 days ago that I am well aware of the State Sector Act and the Cabinet Manual in relation to these matters and I can confirm that I have followed them.Biosecurity Management—Wallaceville Biocontainment Laboratory8.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcement has he made regarding the biocontainment facility at Wallaceville?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):On Monday I announced a $65 million high-security biocontainment facility will be built in Wallaceville in Upper Hutt. This is another demonstration of the Government’s commitment to biosecurity. This new fit-for-purpose laboratory facility will be equipped to current international standards and have better capacity to deal with large-scale emergency situations in the unlikely event that one should occur. It will replace the existing high-security laboratory at the site and continue more than 100 years of animal disease diagnostics at this site. Work is expected to begin on the site next month with construction planned to begin early next year.Ian McKelvie: Why is this announcement important for New Zealand’s primary industry exports?Hon NATHAN GUY: Primary industries are the backbone of the New Zealand economy with over $20 billion worth of exports coming from animals and animal products. A major disease outbreak could halt trade which could be resumed only through extensive laboratory testing. The laboratories and skilled personnel at Wallaceville have an essential role in responding to disease outbreaks protecting public health and providing international trade assurances about New Zealand’s animal disease status. I have made biosecurity my No. 1 priority. A world-standard diagnostic laboratory is not a luxury; indeed it is a necessity.Health Services—Health Benefits Ltd and Reducing Sugar Consumption9.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 7 yesterday?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):In relation to her question about a 4-month-old letter yes in context.Hon Annette King: Well in light of that answer had he read the letter written by the chief financial officers of district health boards copied to the Ministry of Health expressing their grave and collective concerns about his flagship finance procurement supply chain programme stating that their confidence in the programme had been severely diminished and that there were mounting risks to the delivery of health services before answering question No. 7 yesterday?Hon TONY RYALL: No but I had been aware of the concerns that have been expressed and I think the member needs to be focused on the big gains that are to be made from this programme. District health boards spend about $1.4 billion a year on medical supplies and if we can make a 10 percent saving in that over time that is a very significant amount of money. It is a very important project.Hon Annette King: Will the finance procurement supply chain programme be rolled out to the 20 district health boards from 1 July 2014; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: Parts of the programme are already being rolled out and are in place in the Hutt Valley and a lot of work is being done to put the platform in place. I have asked or encouraged Health Benefits Ltd to slow down some of its programmes in order to ensure district health board buy in and to have confidence for the whole sector about the implementation process.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether it will be rolled out to the 20 district health boards on 1 July 2014.Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the Minister to add to that answer.Hon TONY RYALL: Yes it will be rolled out across the 20 district health boards but it has always been the plan that it would be rolled out over a number of years. I think the member is behind the eight ball here and we have to focus on generating the savings that we need that can be reinvested back into health. One example is non-sterile gloves where the 20 district health boards had 18 suppliers but there are only two manufacturers in the whole world. By using smart procurement we are now saving $6 million in that area.Hon Annette King: How can he claim there is not any risk to continuing services of front-line services and district health boards as he said yesterday despite the warnings from the chief financial officers and the Public Service Association who estimate up to 1000 people will have to move or risk losing their jobs because of his flagship programme?Hon TONY RYALL: Well there are a lot of questions in that one. I would have to say that I do not think services are at risk; I think services are improving year on year. Despite a doubling of the health budget during the 2000s to 2008 elective surgery flat-lined. Under our Government services have improved dramatically so that 40000 extra patients a year are now getting hips knees and other elective procedures.Hon Annette King: Why did he allow Health Benefits Ltd to establish its own Oracle R12 computer system at the cost of millions of dollars when the four northern district health boards already run the Oracle R12 as a shared service which could have been used across the district health boards across all of New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure the member will find that Oracle R12 is being rolled out across the country and is incorporated in the work of those northern district health boards because that is part of this programme. It is not all of it; it is part of this programme. It is important to be able to capture the purchasing information so you can get the big discounts. Some of those discounts that we have been able to negotiate are pretty significant. With one of the providers of catheters we have been able to negotiate a 14 percent national discount and with another provider of infusion pumps we have been able to negotiate a 22 percent discount for some of the supplies that it provides. So this is all about releasing cash which can go into improving front-line services like the faster emergency departments the faster cancer treatment and the better preventive health care.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from a member of the public who has advised me about Oracle R12 and the waste of millions of dollars by Health Benefits Ltd.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table this particular email. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] Just a minute I need to put the leave. There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he consider that a wise use of the additional $500 million invested in the health sector which he reported on in yesterday’s question time would be to identify a broad goal of eliminating the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages as promoted in today’s policy brief of the New Zealand Beverage Guidance Panel; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: Despite the commitment of the Labour Party to introduce a broad-ranging sugar tax made at a meeting at lunchtime today—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I require that member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and I will hear it—Hon Annette King: I require that member to authenticate the answer that he has just given.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is a debating issue.Hon Member: It’s their secret policy.Hon TONY RYALL: That is their secret policy. The Government is opposed to a sugar tax. We do not think it will work. It is a tax that everyone will pay even though it is designed to influence the behaviour of some and it will be very costly as proposed by the Opposition because it will mean people will pay more for tomato sauce more for honey more for jam and more for the cost of living whereas on this side of the House we think we should be keeping taxes under control and providing more opportunities for families to spend their own money. We do not think the nannies opposite should get their hands on the tax levers.Transport Funding Auckland—City Rail Link and Government Policy Statement10.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green)to the Minister of Transport: Does the draft Government Policy Statement on transport funding identify any funding for the Auckland City Rail Link in the transport budget over the next decade?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport is produced in accordance with the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It covers a period of 10 years is released every 3 years and is released a year before it comes into effect. The first Government Policy Statement on Land Transport was produced in 2008 and was amended in 2009. The current Government Policy Statement on Land Transport was released in 2011 and the 2015 Government policy statement is now out for consultation. The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport has never mentioned funding for the Auckland electrification the Wellington electrification extension or the new electric trains for those networks. That funding was provided outside the National Land Transport Fund. The Government’s public statements and commitment to the City Rail Link can be relied on outside of the Government policy statement.Julie Anne Genter: If the Government is actually committed to funding the City Rail Link why is it not included in the transport budget over the next 10 years given the widespread benefits to Auckland commuters especially road users as it will free up the roads for those who need to drive?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport is a document that guides local authorities the New Zealand Transport Agency and regional councils throughout the country in their decisions about roading both in State highways and local roads and also public transport provision. It does not provide funding for the sort of infrastructure that the member is now saying she would like to see in it. If that is the case get out there win the election become part of the Government and change the 2003 Act.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand what the Minister has said. I am not sure whether he understood my question because my question was why it is not included.Mr SPEAKER: I heard the question. I am sure the Minister—Julie Anne Genter: It is a transport project.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question and I am sure the Minister did. It was why it is not included and the Minister has given a very full answer as to why not.Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with his transport policy statement when it says “Liveable well connected cities are critical to our economic and social prosperity.”; if so why is his Government delaying the City Rail Link when this is essential to enable hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders to get around the city and to get the full economic benefits of a livable city?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It will come as no surprise that I do agree with my own comments in the Government policy statement. I realise that for some members of the House agreeing with their own comments can be a very dangerous thing but all I can say to you Mr Speaker is that you know me. This is a project that is bigger than both of us. I have got my team here. Get on board.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question did ask why the Government was delaying the City Rail Link—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here now for a substantial length of time. She asked a supplementary question that included two questions. The Minister chose to address the first part of that question and did so.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a chart. It is a table from the business case for the City Rail Link that shows that the majority of the transport benefits—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document.Julie Anne Genter: It is the APB&B. It is the central business district rail link study business case and it shows the majority—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that it may not be freely available to members and may be of some benefit to them I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister aware of the statistics compiled by his ministry that show that road use has been declining in Auckland for 7 consecutive years now while public transport use walking and cycling have grown exponentially; if so why is he still prioritising the bulk of the funding on motorways which will make congestion worse?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a very interesting graph—no doubt produced by someone in the Green Party—but it does have to be on a scale that is fairly representative. The reality is that over 80 percent of all land transport journeys taken in Auckland are taken on the road. We are delighted that public transport is starting to be more of a part of Aucklanders’ transport choice. That is why the Government has co-invested in the electrification and the new trains for that area and is committed to the rail link from 2020.Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister realise that the reason so many Aucklanders are stuck in their cars and will continue to be stuck in their cars is precisely that his Government’s unbalanced transport spend is not investing enough in modern public transport and in safe walking and cycling and that if he did that it would not only take pressure off the roads but it would help get the economic benefits of a liveable city?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well it is an interesting question because it sort of flies in the face of the previously introduced material. If road use has been falling for 7 years then that would mean there has been less inconvenience for people for 7 years but we all know that that is not the fact. There has to be a better roading network and the member can talk all she likes about walking and cycling. I have to go to China to find cycles that carry the sort of freight loads that we put on trucks. I do not want to see that in New Zealand.Julie Anne Genter: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from Julie Anne Genter.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this graph showing how unbalanced the Government’s transport spend is for the next 10 years. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can sense from that that there is not even any point in my putting the leave.Schools Attendance Costs—Donations11.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand Curriculum; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Yes; because the Government is investing more than $5 billion to support curriculum delivery in primary and secondary education. Despite tight fiscal constraints this Government has made year-on-year increases through the last six Budgets and is now investing $10.1 billion in Vote Education—the highest ever.Chris Hipkins: Why is she satisfied that school funding is sufficient to deliver the curriculum when parental donations to schools have increased by over 30 percent during National’s watch meaning parents are now forking out almost $100 million a year in supposed donations to pay for their kids’ education?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am satisfied because we are investing just over $5 billion. What we do know though is that there has to be better discussions between boards and their parent communities about what they expect over and above the delivery of the curriculum. I do not have the specific figure to hand that indicates what the proportion of those donations is but it is a very small percentage.Chris Hipkins: Why does she believe that schools are sufficiently funded given the latest New Zealand Council for Educational Research national survey revealed that some schools are asking parents for donations of as much as $600 per year?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can but repeat my answer: it is because we are investing the most into education that has ever been invested under any Government because we are getting the achievement lifts across the system and because we are investing in the quality of teaching and learning including the initiative the Prime Minister announced in January of an additional net new $359 million into the profession whose members are the key contributors to raising achievement.Chris Hipkins: What action has the Government taken to ease pressure on parents to contribute to school donations given previous comments that “It’s about time Government admitted education is not free.” and “Without fund-raising schools are screwed.” both of which came from Bill English when he was in Opposition.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Schooling has never been free; it has been a cost to the taxpayer. Now the cost that the taxpayer is bearing is $10.1 billion into schools. Parents have always paid extra for things they particularly want but the Government is fully funding the delivery of the school curriculum. We are seeing more achievement and we know that because we have data and information that tells us factually rather than the kinds of myths that that member is keen on perpetuating.Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with Bill English’s comment in 2004 that school education in New Zealand is not free for parents; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I agree with almost everything that Mr English says including that.Hon Members: Almost!Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well the great thing about this party is that we can have robust debates about what will make the difference and that is what we do including the fact that the nice problem we have is a rising GDP notwithstanding that within that we have increased the amount of funding for education. We put our money where our mouths are.Chris Hipkins: Why is she satisfied that schools are adequately funded when there are increasing reports that schools are putting pressure on parents to make donations?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the Minister could not actually hear anything because of her colleagues’ noise so perhaps you might—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite Mr Hipkins to start his question again.Chris Hipkins: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Why is she satisfied that schools are adequately funded when there are increasing reports that schools are putting pressure on parents to make donations including by removing students from classes and leaving them in the school hall and giving bag labels to children whose parents have paid donations in an attempt to shame the parents who have not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of the 2538 schools in New Zealand one school did that and we dealt with that matter—we dealt with that matter. But in the meantime—you know I have difficulty keeping track of where the member is because education is such a priority that it is on the second bench. But never mind. We have been focusing on how we raise achievement and that is what we are doing. We have got National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 at an average of 77 percent we have got more Māori and more Pacific Island kids passing NCEA we have got national standards telling us that we have increased reading writing and mathematics and we are getting that for the investment that we are making.Powers of Attorney Enduring—Report12.ALFRED NGARO (National)on behalf of Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What recent reports has she released relating to enduring powers of attorney?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for Senior Citizens):I have recently released a comprehensive review of the 2007 amendments to the enduring power of attorney provisions in the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998. The review found that the 2007 amendments have for the most part been effective in providing better protection for people setting up enduring powers of attorney but it also identified areas that need improving.Alfred Ngaro: What is she doing to address the recommendations in the report?Hon JO GOODHEW: After finding that there was generally low understanding as to what an enduring power of attorney is an information campaign will commence in the coming weeks. This targets those appointing attorneys people taking on the role of enduring power of attorney health practitioners and legal professionals to understand what is required of them. Work has already begun on simplifying the forms and processes for applying for an enduring power of attorney and I am also looking at whether enduring powers of attorney could be made more affordable encouraging law firms to offer enduring power of attorney discounts through the SuperGold card programme.Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 18 June.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):This House is actually contemplating something that is extraordinary in a First World democracy. What the Government is seeking to do is to introduce a bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill arising from an agreement that it has not got. You would go a long way around the First World and not far in the Third World or parts of the world to find where that happens—where you bring legislation into Parliament and an agreement is required to give the legislation effect yet you have not got an agreement.There are all sorts of members over there who claim to have experience in life in law in business—in all sorts of areas. They are sitting there condoning this appalling public policy. They have not got a murmur or a syllable to defend themselves. I ask Mr Bennett over there who is nodding his head as he is wont to do and as some do when they grow old before their time—there he is nodding his head—whether the Government has an agreement on this. No. So what is the basis for the law that we are being asked to pass? He does not know because it has not got an agreement. I find that hard to believe and so will everybody watching Parliament today. Everyone watching Parliament today will say “Mr Peters and New Zealand First can’t possibly be right. Surely a sound Government would not do that.” But I am afraid to say that it is true.The Minister for Senior Citizens’ only great glory is pursuing the SuperGold Card that New Zealand First started—and the only time she ever gets a cheer is when she says she is adding to that. I praise her for it. It is not enough of course because it is under threat as everyone knows. Everyone knows that it is under threat. The Minister for Senior Citizens should sit back and tell us when we ever pass bills requiring an agreement without first having the agreement.Can I ask you this. If I am somebody who was born in New York 55 years ago and I am living for example down in Queenstown or on Waiheke Island in the country that I adopted that I gave sovereignty over me that I promised I would be a good citizen of—New Zealand—why could I not expect that country named New Zealand to protect me like it would any other person living here legally?Hon Amy Adams: What about if you’re Chinese Winston?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is not with China Ms Adams. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is with the United States. I know that party over there. Every time its members see Uncle Sam and Uncle Sam asks for something or says jump they ask “How high?”. I was around dealing with the United States before she ever got to Parliament so let us not have any arrogant argument. That is a lawyer over there. She has got a law background. Maybe she should tell us more about her own family’s investment interests in parts of the South Island that are affected by the Resource Management Act. Maybe we should hear more about that and probably we will in this campaign.Hon Amy Adams: Oh come off it!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no—come on! That is what we will do. Come on is what we will do in this campaign and real strong. I know that the Government members are going through their polling. They know that this rubbish in the papers yesterday and today is meaningless. I know how nervous they are. I know how many people in the National Party talk to me on the quiet trying to get some sort of understanding. But our party is beyond being bought unlike so many around here. Everyone knows that.One last thing—I again ask these people for whom democracy is of such little moment where in the First World of democracies like Australia the United States Canada or Britain you would ever be contemplating what we are doing here. The Congress of the United States in 2010 passed a law. It is now June 2014. We have not got an agreement but the Government is ramming this bill through Parliament which is why one party New Zealand First will not sell itself out. We will not buy it. We will not back it.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. New Zealand First is not the only party opposing this bill. You have also got the Green Party because although it is called the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill what this bill should be called is the “National Party (Oil Drilling Subsidies) Bill”. I want to get on to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act provisions that the honourable member Winston Peters just touched on. But at this bill’s heart is an extension of $5 million in subsidies for one of the world’s wealthiest industries the oil industry. This Government wants to fork out $5 million of taxpayers’ money for the oil industry to see more oil drilling risking more oil spills and seeing more greenhouse gas emissions. That is not a good idea for New Zealand. This is not the way to build a richer New Zealand and lift our kids out of poverty.When we are looking at the tax code—and we in the Green Party support tax reform—we should be looking at how we reduce the burden on Kiwi families. We should be looking at how we send the right economic signals through our tax system. How do we actually address tax avoidance which the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act tries to address? But when you look at it there are massive privacy concerns. The fact is that the treaty has not even concluded its negotiations yet here is the little old New Zealand Parliament signing up to a treaty that has not even been concluded. This treaty deals with 70000 foreign-born residents in New Zealand. If they are American citizens and they have more than $10000 in their bank account they have to register in the US. It raises significant privacy concerns surveillance concerns and is an exercise in extra-territoriality. It is a big risk and the fact that the treaty has not been concluded should I think raise alarm bells.When we are looking at the tax code let us look at the avoidance issue. Let us look at the economic signals we are sending through our tax system. But let us also look at how we can make it better and that is why the Greens are proposing a capital gains tax on the family home. We want to see investment go to the productive sector not into the skyrocketing Auckland housing market driven on by speculators. At this election the Kiwi public has a clear choice. On the one hand is a party for the speculators a party that wants to see more money being invested into housing—not to improve it but to speculate. On the other hand this side of the House wants to see investment in a productive economy and investment in an innovative economy. This is how we are going to see a richer New Zealand—a smart Green and innovative economy and a carbon tax cut along with a capital gains tax on the family home are critical parts of that.It is quite a surprising situation. When we are talking about tax reform as we are with this legislation it is not the National Party and it is not the ACT Party talking about tax reduction; it is the Green Party. It is the Green Party that wants to take $2000 off the bottom tax threshold. It is the Green Party that wants to see a 1 percent business tax reduction rate. It is the Green Party that wants to ease the burden on New Zealanders. And who do we want to see paying? We want to send a message to the polluters through the tax system to invest in smart Green innovation. At the moment National members and the member sitting there barracking out are quite happy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidise polluters. National wants to subsidise polluters. It is subsidising polluters and it is doing that right now through our emissions trading scheme. It is time for a carbon tax cut and a capital gains tax really focused on avoidance.But let us get to the issue at hand which is fossil fuel subsidies. This bill extends the non-resident offshore oil rig tax exemption—$5 million of taxpayers’ money is going to foreign oil companies. This Government is pouring tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars down these failed oil wells. It is National that gave a $25 million seismic survey subsidy handed out on a platter to the fossil fuel industry. It is National that presides over $46 million per annum in tax breaks for the most wealthy sector in the world—a sector responsible for the spike in carbon emissions a sector responsible for a great deal of harm around the world. And it is National that wants to extend the $5 million non—resident oil drilling ship extension.This is not the way New Zealand should be going. We should be embracing a smart Green innovative economy and building a richer New Zealand. This is what the experts say. This is what the evidence suggests when you look around the world. This is what the brute economics is. While National stands up for the oil drillers and wants to see more fracking drilling and mining and they want to see Denniston expanded we are offering a real choice. It is a choice that is going to see more workers employed more profits staying in New Zealand and a more sustainable economy.This bill is part of a long list of fossil fuel subsidies that you see under National. Globally the International Energy Agency estimates we could have $610 billion every year subsidising fossil fuel globally. The international experts from the United Nations environment programmes and the International Energy Agency are all calling for reform because that $610 billion of which New Zealand is a component could be better spent on lifting people out of poverty giving people real energy choices and building a resilient energy system powered by clean energy. Although Treasury is opposed to extending this the OECD is opposed to it and the International Energy Agency is calling for fossil fuel subsidies National wants the taxpayer to face the risk.I challenge any National member to go out to the election go out to the constituents and go out to the voters and say “Do you want us to keep propping up and subsidising with your money the fossil fuel sector—the oil drillers risking our beaches and our treasured wild places?”. Go on. Ask your voters and constituents whether that is what they want to see hard-working taxpayers’ dollars being spent on. I bet your bottom dollar that taxpayers do not want to be forking out for this. We want to see kids lifted out of poverty. We want to see our wild places and our animals protected. It is a clear choice we are seeing and this bill is symptomatic of the clear choice we have this election. On one hand that choice is a Government that is quite happy to risk the last 55Māui’s dolphins by offering oil permits over their sanctuary a sanctuary that is hardly providing sanctuary if the Government is quite happy for seismic surveying to subsidise the oil drilling industry to drill more wells. This is a Government that is quite happy to prop up the likes ofTīwai and get it to stay in New Zealand for only a couple years.This is a Government that this week embarrassingly had the first Environmental Protection Authority case declined. Remember that it was National’s Simon Bridges who went on television and said “I support the Trans-Tasman Resources proposal. I support more ironsands mining on New Zealand shores.” It was Simon Bridges who said that. He said he wanted to see this project go ahead. And it was Steven Joyce who was quite happy to front up again with taxpayers’ dollars playing fast and loose with taxpayers’ dollars. It was Steven Joyce who offered up to $25 million to this foreign offshore oil company with Dame Jenny Shipley on the board. He offered it $25 million. But you know what? The project was so bad. The company had not done its homework. The risks were so great that even National’s Environmental Protection Authority had to decline it. That was the first one ever.What you see is on the one hand the marine environment being the winner—the humpback whales and the Māui’s dolphins which live nearby are the winners—and National being the loser because it is National that supported the proposal. It is National that said that this company had done its homework yet the Environmental Protection Authority said the company had not done its homework. And it was National that was quite happy to throw taxpayers’ dollars at it yet the Environmental Protection Authority said it was not going to happen.So let us focus on a smart Green innovative economy. Let us build a clean-energy economy for New Zealand. This is a $22 billion annual economic opportunity. Investment New Zealand says that there is a $150 billion export opportunity in cleantech and green energy by 2030. That is what we want to embrace. That is why we are going to the election saying we will get to 100 percent renewables. That is why we are saying we are going to help Kiwis with more insulation under their roofs and with solar panels on the tops of their roofs through our low-interest loans. We are going to give Kiwis a fair deal a fair and reasonable price when they export surplus electricity to the grid. It is the Greens who are going to help those Kiwi start-ups and investments through the Green Investment Bank. It is the Greens who are going to send a proper economic signal through the tax system through the carbon tax cut to save Kiwi businesses and families’ money and to see a clean-energy economy.This is why I am very happy to be standing here opposing this bill because there is a better pathway to a richer New Zealand which the Green Party is championing. This is what I think New Zealanders want to see. When we go and ask the public whether they want to keep subsidising the polluters the oil drillers the seabed miners—no. They want a fair go a proper economic system that has leadership and vision and looks to the future. A smart Green innovative economy is a richer economy leading a richer New Zealand and that is what we are going to continue to champion. Kia ora.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):Mr Assistant Speaker thank you for the chance to take this call. Particularly after that Green speaker Gareth Hughes there are a few things that need to be put on the record to get them straight. The first is actually around the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The intergovernmental agreement has been signed so when the Opposition the Greens included say that it has not been that is just patently untrue. The intergovernmental agreement for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has been signed.We heard too just a bit earlier about the iron sands decision by the Environmental Protection Authority and how this is a defeat for the Government. This is a win for the Government in so far as we are the ones—in fact it was my ministerial colleague sitting here in front Amy Adams—who put in the system unique for New Zealand and for the first time these very decisions have to go through the Environmental Protection Authority.We are thrilled that this decision is going through and that there has actually been a process to review this. Again let us not shy away from realising that before the National Government there were no protections of this sort. So when people think about the environment they can rightly think about the National Party and its incredibly proud record here.We are also hearing this discussion around clean green energy. Well there is good news for the Greens here as well. Since 2008 when only about 65 percent of New Zealand’s energy was clean and green under a National Government that has risen to 75 percent. It has increased under a National Government because we too believe in smart green technology and have been happy to embrace that.We heard about the dolphins of course—the Māui’s dolphins. For those who read the scientific journals the debate continues about the different subspecies of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins but we heard yesterday from Nick Smith that it has been something like 30 years since there has been a specified sighting in the area that has been discussed so we need to get to the facts.Finally particularly in relation to the Greens there is this constant belief that you can drive the economy on the fuel of slogans—that if we just keep walking around saying “clean green technology” somehow everything will be fine. The trouble we have is that when we turn to the Greens and ask them what an example of this smart green economy is there are not really any answers. Again it seems that the Greens believe that you drive the economy on the fuel of slogans and that is unfortunate because ultimately—Julie Anne Genter: Ha!SIMON O’CONNOR: We just heard again a scoff but of course no answer to what that is though I did see there was a plan the other day to have 3D printing. I suppose it has something to do with Russel Norman’s desire to print cash—if you do it in three dimensions you can triplicate the process. Of course the oddity of the release of the plan is that the plan was to create a plan to create a plan to look at 3D printing—very very odd.The Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill is about taxation and annual rates. The National Government is continuing its tax approach. I think it is useful to point out for the House because there has been a lot of debate over recent days that 50 percent of the tax in this country is paid by the top 12 percent of earners so I think it is important to put it into context. The corollary to that of course is that more often than not families—say mum and dad and two kids earning the average wage—are almost tax neutral. In other words they pay ultimately no tax because of the array of support that is in place and I think it is important to note that to fill out the picture. This is a good bill. It is a necessary bill. It makes some minor changes around some things like employee allowances and as the title notes also around remedial matters. I will not go into those details but I commend the bill to the House.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I came into this Parliament motivated by a concern about the growing gap between rich and poor. This bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill confirms the 2010 tax changes made by the National Government. It confirms measures that have grown the gap between rich and poor in New Zealand. The 2010 tax package saw the top 10 percent of earners get over 40 percent of the value of the tax cuts. The bottom 20 percent got less than 2 percent of the value of those tax cuts and any benefit they got was swallowed up in a GST increase to 15 percent which went through at the very same time.This is the sobering reality. We have a Government opposite that is content to protect the interests of the wealthiest few New Zealanders—the top 1 percent of earners—while the rest of New Zealand is going backwards. Today in this bill we are being asked to support these changes that will drive the gap between the very wealthiest and the rest of New Zealand. Here we are in this Parliament passing those changes through again. This is the most uncomfortable bit about this bill.The bill will proceed anyway. The bill has the support of the National Government and its allies—those who have kowtowed the whole way through content to see that gap between the very wealthiest and the rest of New Zealand grow and grow and grow. We have to pass tax bills because they make sure that the laws line up that the taxes can be collected and that New Zealand can continue to support schools and hospitals. But we must note that that support is dwindling. In real terms support to health and education is dropping.If we look at the health sector we see year upon year upon year the real value of support to that sector dropping and we know it. All of us in our heart of hearts know it. We see people come into our constituency offices with children they cannot feed properly. This is an outrage. This is an absolute outrage.John Hayes: A good concession speech.Dr DAVID CLARK: Members opposite might find that amusing. They might find that a reason to make jokes—cheap shots. The people who are starving are not people who can defend themselves easily. But we on this side of the House have a view that New Zealand should have a much more positive future. We would like to see a New Zealand where everyone can get ahead; a tax system that is fair that rewards everyone for the effort that they put into our society; a New Zealand that makes sure that everyone pays their fair share and that everyone gets the benefits of that to get ahead.That is the New Zealand we would like to see on this side of the House. It will be a more positive New Zealand. It will be a New Zealand for everyone not just for the very wealthy few. These people on the opposite side of the House do not even interest themselves in tax avoidance. We do not see any real measures here that are going to crack into that. We know that the Government does not even have a measure for tax avoidance. It could be a billion dollars a year—quite likely. That would mean that in 5 years’ time if it caught all the tax avoidance that was going on it would not have needed to do its asset sales programme. But it is just not an issue for Government members. They are content to preserve the interests of that wealthiest few. That is why they do not want a capital gains tax.Labour will introduce research and development tax credits so those innovative firms that are making change that are innovating and that are creating export businesses can get ahead because we know that is real money coming into the economy which can support those public services that we all want. Nobody wants to see their neighbour’s kids not able to afford shoes to go to school. Nobody wants to see that. People care and Labour will support that kind of innovation that leads to that wealthier society.We want pro-growth tax reform. We want a capital gains tax that pushes money out of the speculative housing sector and toward the productive economy. We want to introduce monetary policy that actually puts more money into Kiwis’ pockets not into the banking sector. We want to introduce a universal KiwiSaver that facilitates that. We want to introduce a power policy that sees businesses paying more than $500 a year less on their power bills.We want to make sure that our housing sector is properly looked after that we actually have the houses necessary to house New Zealanders so they are not living in garages or in overcrowded housing conditions. We want a Government that puts people first. This Government is refusing to do that. It is putting through year after year after year the same taxes that confirm the growing gap between rich and poor and it does not care. Members opposite are gesturing; they do not care. For them it is not an issue as long as the wealthiest few continue to get ahead.In this legislation there are a couple of other anomalies I want to address. We have community housing entities that are in this legislation given a new framework. We have the Minister deciding who has charitable status and who does not. The Minister will have a wide-ranging discretionary power to approve or not approve charitable exemptions. The delegation to the Minister of the effective right to confer lower taxes on some and not others is bad law plain and simple. Some taxpayers get a tax cut and some do not and it is up to the Minister to decide. That is bad law. Geographic location will be taken into account and household composition and income.There is a bunch of criteria but it was too hard and part of the reason it was too hard was that this Government pushed the submission period for this bill through over the summer. New Zealanders were enjoying their well-deserved break at the end of the year when the bill was put through its consultation period. The Government did not want to hear the feedback. It did not want to hear why its bill was inadequate. The accountants and the tax firms told the Government “We’ll be back here sorting this law out later.”—and we will. We know that parts of this law will have to be amended and that is because of the process this Government has run. All it was concerned about was pushing through these changes to give the Minister extra powers and that is not good enough.On this side of the House we do not want this kind of New Zealand. We want a New Zealand that does give everyone the chance to get ahead and to get a job and we want tax policies that actually encourage employment growth. We want a monetary policy that gives the independent Reserve Bank the right to have other targets—not just interest rate targeting but actually employment targets. We want a Reserve Bank that has on its board representation from a variety of sectors. We want a Reserve Bank that makes sure that economic growth is in its sights not just interest rates. Plenty of other countries do that; why not New Zealand?We want tax policy that makes it easier for people to put money into productive investments rather than speculation in the housing sector. We want all of these other things looked at. We want to be a bit more hands-on not just take our hands off and say “The growing gap between rich and poor is inevitable. It’s something that will just happen. Let’s just pass another set of these tax settings. Let’s just wash them through for another year. Let’s just watch that gap between the very richest few and the rest of us grow bigger and bigger. Let’s watch the capital accumulate for that top 1 percent.” That is what this Government is doing.We used to be in the top third of the OECD in terms of equality. Now we are in the bottom 40 percent. It is very hard to get back from there but a capital gains tax will start to set us on that track. It will not only help us grow the economy which of course we want in order to afford those public services but actually help to reduce inequality. It will help to cut down on tax avoidance which we know is crippling New Zealand.Last year the Inland Revenue Department found that 107 out of 161 high-wealth individuals who control more than $50 million worth of assets in New Zealand declared that their personal income in the last financial year was less than $70000—Carol Beaumont: Unbelievable.Dr DAVID CLARK: —unbelievable—the starting point for the top tax bracket. So these people were saying they had net worth over $50 million but they did not have earnings that put them in the top tax bracket. That is completely implausible but for this Government that is no concern—it is no concern at all. It passes the rates on to another year—another year they go on. A Labour Government will bring about positive change. We will have tax policy that grows the economy that puts people first that grows employment that actually makes a difference for Kiwi families that makes housing affordable and that will be positive for New Zealand.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri):This is the third and final reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill. Having heard that previous speaker Dr David Clark though listeners could be forgiven for thinking that that might have been a leadership campaign speech. He spotted a gap he spotted an opening he took the opportunity—goodness knows why.But actually we are talking about this taxation bill an omnibus tax bill that is about fine-tuning the tax system. Prior to that we had two other Opposition speakers who were mistakenly lamenting the lack of a signing of an “IGA”—an inter-governmental agreement—which had in fact been signed. There was a press release put out last week that said it has definitely been signed. The “FATCA”—which is actually the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act which is US legislation—led to the inter-governmental agreement. It actually makes it easier for New Zealand financial institutions to comply and thereby it actually reduces the additional costs being passed on to New Zealand customers. That is a good thing. We have fewer costs and less compliance for New Zealand taxpayers. Surely that is a good thing. I commend this third and final reading of the bill.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I participated in the debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill at the Committee stage and caught up with what it is about. I think that my colleagues David Parker and David Clark have outlined very clearly Labour’s view of this bill. Although we are supporting it we have legitimate concerns and questions that have been asked throughout the process and also concerns about what is essentially a missed opportunity and a bill that entrenches inequality and unfairness.I want to comment on a couple of things that have not been mentioned in the speeches. The first is the late amendment which was included during the Committee stage about the tax treatment of non-resident foreign fishing crew. I do not have any big problem with that but surely there are more pressing issues around foreign fishing crew than putting something like this in a tax bill not least of which is the damage to our international reputation. I would be really keen to know from the Government whether it intends to pass the legislation called the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which is on the Order Paper and is supposed to address this appalling abuse that we have seen in our waters.There is report that has just been published in the last couple of weeks by Stringer and Simmons around the Shin Ji scandal one of the fishing vessels in New Zealand where the crew walked off the boat after alleging a range of abuse: sexual and violent assault restriction of movement physical and sexual violence intimidation and threats retention of their identity documents—hanging on to their passports—withholding of wages debt bondage and abusive working and living conditions. That article was originally written as a confidential report for the Department of Labour for the Shin Ji investigation but the Government did nothing other than admit it had dropped the ball. I understand that the writers offered to take the investigators to Indonesia to facilitate the interviews and gather evidence from the crew but that was declined.I think that in this Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill there is a tiny little change in respect of the tax treatment of foreign crews but what we are not dealing with is the unacceptable situation where we have impoverished and destitute workers who have now returned to Indonesia and who have still not been paid their wages. I hope that the Government can muster the numbers to get that bill through. Mind you we are running out of time but I would have thought it was a priority to get those people their pay.Dr David Clark: Let’s hear from the next speaker.DARIEN FENTON: Yes it would be interesting to hear from the next speaker whether that bill is going to be passed before the House rises. I have also expressed the Labour view during the Committee stage that the National Government is applying inconsistent rules in this legislation. This bill deals with the tax treatment of employee accommodation for workers who are required to work away from home. We support the clarification of these rules—we do not want to see workers disadvantaged—and of course we want to see that happen but there is inconsistency in that we have another bill which luckily will not be passed before the election where workers would lose their meals and rest breaks. It was John Banks who saved the cup of tea. Thank goodness for John Banks; he saved—Carol Beaumont: I bet he’s happy about that legacy.DARIEN FENTON: Yes. So that bill will not be passed but I am talking about the inconsistency between this bill and the other legislation. During the Committee stage of the bill the Minister of Revenue agreed that migrant workers who come to New Zealand and are provided with temporary accommodation in the Christchurch rebuild would be covered as well. That is good but the irony is that many of these workers cannot get paid what they are entitled to. They have been brought here by immigration advisers who charge them obscene amounts of money and have had their pay cut when they got here. There is case after case after case now of migrant workers who have come to Christchurch and cannot get paid properly. I think that getting tax relief on their accommodation might be a little bit low down on their list; they are struggling to feed themselves at the moment.The Minister also justified the Government’s changes to accommodation payments under the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme where we bring in thousands of workers from the Pacific—mostly from poor villages—who come to New Zealand to harvest our fruit and vegetables. Jonathan Coleman the immigration Minister a few years ago actually cut the entitlement for those workers by making accommodation part of the calculation of the minimum wage instead of being additional to it as it was under Labour’s scheme. He cut—Carol Beaumont: They keep mucking around with the minimum wage.DARIEN FENTON: Yeah. He cut their pay. How mean can we be? We have an industry—an entire industry—in primary production that is reliant on poor workers from the Pacific to come and pick our fruit vegetables and grapes yet National thinks it is OK to cut their pay so they do not even receive the minimum wage. They receive minimum wage including accommodation.John Hayes: That’s not true.DARIEN FENTON: It is true. It is true absolutely. You go and ask Minister Coleman. Then as I have mentioned there is the Government’s determination to cut meals and rest breaks. John Key has said that he will go out there and campaign on those changes. Bring it on I say. Just how lucky can you be? I know that Labour will campaign on them as well and I know what working Kiwis are going to say about those changes.So we are still paying the price in this bill for this Government’s approach where it is one rule for the top earners and another one for everyone else. It entrenches the tax changes brought in in 2010. They were unfair then they are still unfair now and they have added to the growing inequality. The gap in take-home pay between someone on $30000 a year back in 2010 and someone on $150000 a year grew by $102 a week as a result of those income tax cuts compared with $16.15 for someone on a lower income if they were lucky.The cut for the higher incomes was not just greater but proportionately greater so we have actually broadened and strengthened the income inequality there. The after-tax income available to someone on $150000 a year increased by 5.9 percent—for people on $150000 a year—yet those who were on lower incomes got nothing like that of course.There were a whole lot of other things like the top 1 percent of incomes got 9 percent of all taxable income and 14 percent of the tax cuts. The top 10 percent got 34 percent of all taxable income and 42 percent of the tax cuts. Of course then we had the GST bomb. John Key went to the last election and promised people that he would not increase taxes. He increased GST and of course who were hit by that? Who were hit by that? The lowest-income earners who have to spend every penny they earn and do not have the luxury of shopping around and choosing. They spend every penny they earn and they are paying more tax than he promised they would have to pay.The bill does nothing to deal with tax fraud and we have canvassed that. I think it is very disappointing that we are not seeing action in this bill to really do something about inequality in this country—income inequality and tax inequality. As you have heard my colleague David Clark spell out Labour has a very positive programme for tax change—a fair tax system that includes a capital gains tax. We will stop the tax subsidies to speculators who are just making it impossible for young Kiwis to buy a house. We are going to reform taxation around trusts. We will ensure more fairness between those at the top middle and bottom of the income scale through tax reform. What is more we will substantially reform tax and simplify it for small business. I do not hear the National Party talking about that. This Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill is a missed opportunity. We could have done so much more.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):As the sun comes up it also sets and it is certainly setting on the last speaker Darien Fenton and her party. I would simply like to point out to that member who was not at any of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meetings that discussed the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill that in fact a person and their partner with two children collecting an income of about $50000 or below pays no tax at all.Hon Amy Adams: Zero.JOHN HAYES: None zero zip. This bill clarifies the tax treatment of employer-provided accommodation accommodation allowances and other payments provided by employers to employees to reimburse them for expenditure incurred. It will bring clarity for many taxpayers and minimise compliance and administration costs for many businesses and organisations. That is really good.Can I please also challenge the comments made by the last speaker about the regional employment scheme by saying that people there are not paid the minimum wage. If that is the situation those employers are operating beyond the law. They certainly do not do that in my electorate because I keep a very close eye on them. When an employee is expected to work away from home or from their workplace for up to 2 years employer-provided accommodation will be tax exempt. This exemption will be provided for 3 years for employees working on capital projects and there is a separate transitional rule operating down in Christchurch.This is jolly good legislation completely misrepresented by the last speaker. I commend it to the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I rise to take a short call. I am speaking on the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill which is an omnibus bill that deals with the Income Tax Act the Tax Administration Act the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Child Support Act. I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee so I am not going to go into the detail of some of the more technical matters—things like the tax treatment of black hole expenditure the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or even things to do with deregistered charities. But what I will talk about is around employee allowances.First of all can I say that many of the changes in this bill are about tidying up some of the petty rules that had been implemented under the former Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne including things like the tax on plain-clothes police officers and accommodation tax on earthquake rebuild workers. Some of these changes are actually to tidy things up that the Government itself with one of its shonky support partners got wrong. I think it is fair to say that in dealing with tax others—my colleagues Darien Fenton and Dr David Clark—have talked about some of the elements of tax policy.I want to keep some of this simple. One of the groups of people who pay tax in this country who do not ever get to not comply who do not ever get to not pay what they are due to pay is of course wage and salary earners. Wage and salary earners low and middle income New Zealanders pay their tax. It is taken out before they receive their pay. They pay their tax. They pay their share. In fact as my colleague Darien Fenton said under this Government they ended up paying more GST which again they cannot avoid. When they buy their food and when they buy the basic things that they need day to day they pay their tax. They cannot avoid it unlike the multimillionaires who avoid tax; those whom Dr Clark talked about who in fact have massive assets and yet supposedly have incomes of less than $70000 a year. This is just ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that you know people who control more than $50 million worth of assets have personal income of less than $70000 so they do not pay tax. And then of course there are all of the other devices that those at the top use to avoid paying tax—things like company structures trusts and overseas bank accounts.Why is that not something that the Government deals with in its tax reform? Why is it that there is plenty of scrutiny on beneficiaries and beneficiary fraud—and none of us would support people ripping off the system—but the same scrutiny is not put on those at the top? Those who have benefited significantly from the actions of this Government those who got massive tax cuts while low and middle income New Zealanders actually had to pay more tax—why is it that there is not a focus on those people at the top who got the big tax cuts and many of whom are ripping off the system unlike ordinary New Zealanders being paid wages and salaries buying items with GST and using all of their income in fact to survive?I regularly visit budget services. I just want to say to people like Bill English who say that inequality is not getting worse in this country—Bill English says it is not getting worse—well you tell that to the budget services. They can tell you how many more people they are seeing whom they would call the working poor. Forty percent of the people they see are actually in work and cannot make ends meet. They are the people who have been harmed by the tax policies of this Government. They are the people who have been harmed by the fact that this Government has no plans for our economy to strengthen our economy and to provide decent jobs that pay wages that people can actually live on. These are some of the structural challenges that we should be dealing with but the Government just sits on its hands—business as usual looking after its mates—and has no ideas. David Clark did a very good job of outlining the comprehensive and positive plans that Labour has to change those structural problems in our economy and have a brighter and more positive future.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):The Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill has gone through the whole process of Parliament and is well canvassed by all political parties. We had the Committee stage this week so what it stands for and everything is pretty well known. It is turning into a bit of a tax debate here today—Hon Maryan Street: It is a tax bill.DAVID BENNETT:—a wider tax debate but I would just like to remind New Zealanders of two things. The Labour Party will go for a capital gains tax and that will hurt the productive sector of New Zealand. The Green Party is looking for a carbon tax which will hurt the productive sector of New Zealand. It is not a tax break for New Zealanders. Remember it is just shifting the tax burden. That is all it is doing. New Zealanders are smarter than that. They know that we have to earn our way in the future going forward and they will support neither of those two policies. Thank you.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 97New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Noes 22Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Vulnerable Children BillChildren Young Persons and Their Families (Vulnerable Children) Amendment BillKiwiSaver (Vulnerable Children) Amendment BillThird ReadingsHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):I move That the Vulnerable Children Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Bill and the KiwiSaver (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. In this country from the moment a child is born or even conceived the Government is there to provide support for them their parents and their wider family. We have free education and our schools are the envy of many countries. Good health care is available and affordable. Currently our under-sixes can go to the doctor for free and from next year that will include every child under 13. On a broader level our kids can pretty much play any sport or musical instrument that they choose. They can aspire to the highest levels of Government or business or anything they want no matter their gender sexuality ethnicity or their background. We seem to have all the right settings for our children to grow into happy healthy adults who aspire to achieve great things.However we have problems in this country that despite decades of attention and funding have not changed for the better for too many of our children. In our country child abuse is a shameful problem that every New Zealander has a stake in. On average around eight children each year die as a result of abuse neglect or assault. Many more are found by Child Youth and Family to have been abused or neglected with nearly 23000 substantiated cases of abuse or neglect just in the last financial year. There are also a significant number of children in circumstances that put them at really serious risk of harm. The costs to the country are significant; the costs to children are simply unacceptable.I have been the Minister for Social Development since 2008 and every single day the needs of these very children have been at the forefront of the work that we have done. The faces of the children and adults I have met who have shared their shocking sickening and horrific stories are with me and many New Zealanders every day. I remember the 6-year-old who was proudly showing me around one of our facilities and who paused at the door of the bedroom took a deep breath and reminded herself that actually bed can be a safe place. I remember the wonderfully eccentric man at the Wellington City Mission who took me through his life story and after half an hour of talking I could trace his lifetime of pain and suffering back to his horrendous abuse as a child.So where were we? Where was the Government? Where were other New Zealanders then for people like him? In 2012 we launched the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Children’s Action Plan which set out an extensive package of reforms to address child abuse and neglect in New Zealand. The reforms would be nothing without the close to 10000 submissions from New Zealanders. These bills are a critical step in giving effect to the changes in the Children’s Action Plan. These include ensuring joint accountability across justice health education police and social development for the well-being of our vulnerable children. They also include the new requirements for the screening and vetting of Government workers and contractors who work with children. All up these new requirements will cover around 182000 New Zealanders. There are also new workforce restrictions to prevent those with serious convictions who pose a danger to children from coming into contact with them. The legislation will also switch the onus on parents who have killed or severely abused or neglected a child and they will now have to prove they are safe to parent subsequent children.But let me be very clear: this legislation contained in these bills is a small part of the work that is already under way and that has to be done under the Children’s Action Plan. We can pass laws to improve screening and vetting. We can pass laws that place restrictions on dangerous people where there are currently none but we cannot pass laws that stop children being beaten neglected or sexually and emotionally abused. I believe that anyone in this House would have passed those laws plenty of times over if they could have. We cannot pass laws that stop children being killed by those who should love and protect them. We cannot expect that throwing more money at this problem without changing how we work will actually fix anything. Accepting that this is as good as it gets for those children is simply not good enough.So that is where the Children’s Action Plan of which these bills arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill is just one part will make a difference. It is multi-dimensional cross-agency and community driven. It is more than 30 interwoven initiatives and it will bring the right people together in communities around our vulnerable kids. It will give us a whole lot more options to respond to the different needs of these most vulnerable children. Firstly we want to support vulnerable children and work alongside their families to keep them safe so that they never reach the point where they need the involvement of Child Youth and Family. This is very much trying to get in early to prevent that really serious abuse and neglect.That is where our new Children’s Teams come in along with the new hub that takes notifications from the public the police and other organisations and then plugs it into the vulnerable kids’ information system to make sure that there is then that follow-through on who is intervening at what level and where. They work with children and young people who are vulnerable but who are best helped outside of Child Youth and Family’s statutory service. As well as doctors teachers and social workers there is Plunket Family Start Whānau Ora parenting services iwi services and budgeting services to name but a few. Too often vulnerable children are still at the back of the queue when trying to access these services. It makes absolutely no sense that they are the children who need it most but because their parents are either unable to advocate for them or do not have the skills to do it they are always it seems at the back of the queue and we fight to get them at the front.I have had enough. New Zealanders have had enough. This legislation will mean that that joint accountability across chief executives will change the whole dynamic throughout our agencies. That is for me a big start in what really needs to be done. We have to back up the work that is happening on the ground. Too often it is the Government following the lead of communities. Actually that is fine but more often we are a barrier to the work that could be done in accessing services for these very children.The Children’s Teams understand the unique needs of each child they deal with. They then have direct access to services whether it is health justice social work or housing and they can fast-track these most vulnerable children through that system. The support also goes to their parents where it needs to. So if we have mothers and fathers with mental health or drug and alcohol issues or with problems finding work we can make sure that they get access to those sorts of services as well. Our two pilot teams in Rotorua and Whangarei have worked with over 110 children so far. We are hearing about better attendance at health appointments better parenting re-enrolments at early childhood education and school better access to welfare support happier children better behaviour and reduced offending. There has been a lot of learning and some hurdles along the way and I think there is going to be a whole lot more but it is clear that the mix of services and that early support is what will make some of the biggest differences.I want to thank the Social Services Committee. I really want to thank all those officials who have put so much into this not just of their professional time but I know of their personal time because they saw it as that important and who stayed late worked over Christmas and did all those sorts of those things. I am really cognisant of that and extremely grateful. But I think that most of all I want to thank New Zealanders for giving attention to these children not just when there is a horrific case. Too often we turn our attention to them when there is a name and a face that we can put to it and I understand that—I do it myself—but I think we have to care about them every day. I thank the House and those members who are supporting the bill. I will treat that with the respect that I know it deserves. With that I commend these bills to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a pleasure to rise to speak at the third reading of the legislation formerly part of the Vulnerable Children Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Social Development on bringing the legislation forward and bringing it all the way through to its third reading in a timely fashion. I also want to commend the work that was done at the Social Services Committee on the Vulnerable Children Bill because I think that it did improve the bill and we were able to ensure I guess that some of the more problematic parts of that bill were taken out actually. That was what happened; quite a significant part of that bill was taken out. I also want to acknowledge Anthea Simcock from the Child Matters organisation in Hamilton because I understand that quite a lot of what has ended up in this legislation has been as a result of her advocacy around the issues for children who are vulnerable and vulnerable to child abuse. I think we should just call it what it is quite frankly. So I congratulate Anthea on her involvement in this.It is of course with great sadness that I reflect on another Hamilton occasion which I am not so pleased to acknowledge. Very recently our community in Hamilton has witnessed the death of an 8-month-old child an infant from our community. That is a very very sad occasion and it makes us all reflect on our community and what it is about our community that allows children to be put in the sort of danger where they lose their lives in terrible terrible circumstances. I just want to say at the outset that this legislation although a good start is sadly a little bit of a wasted opportunity because there are so many other areas that could have been addressed in this legislation and that would have actually allowed it to deserve the title of legislation that really will protect all vulnerable children.Although there are some very useful measures that will regulate and make it safer for children who are being cared for in the services that are provided by the paid workforce we do know that in New Zealand very sadly the majority of child abuse cases and child deaths due to abuse happen not because of actions done by people in the paid workforce but by those who have relationships with those children that ought to be loving relationships and protective relationships but have instead turned out to be abusive relationships. So although this legislation deals with a proportion of this ugly problem that we do have here in New Zealand sadly the vast majority of cases will be untouched by this legislation and I think that is a great shame. We have still got an awful lot more work to do—an awful lot more work to do.I want to reflect on some of the areas that the legislation does cover. As I have made reference to it does deal with people working in the children’s workforce and ensures that there are some more robust screening and vetting processes in place than there are currently and that is useful. There is also a very controversial part of the legislation around the removal of subsequent children. This is the situation where if a parent has already had children removed from them because of their neglect or abuse of those children at the birth of a subsequent child that child can be removed. I guess it is not terribly controversial in one way because that already happens in a New Zealand setting. That is already the situation. But what this legislation does is allow that to happen with I guess less evidence from Child Youth and Family that the subsequent child is at risk and I think that that is a big step to take.I watched with great interest 3rd Degree earlier this week I think or it may have been last week where we saw the story of the mother of Delcelia Witikā who was one of those children whose name just brings the horror of the situation straight in front of us. I watched that with great interest because she was a mother who had been convicted of the manslaughter of her children—I believe it was the manslaughter of her child. She was a woman who was herself subjected to extreme domestic violence and she failed to protect her child from that level of violence as well. What was interesting was looking at her and her life more than a decade on I think from that terrible event that occurred. It was interesting to note that she has had a subsequent child another daughter who is not directly in her care but whom she has contact with. She has a completely different relationship a completely different life and a completely different environment in which she is engaging with that child so it actually gave me great hope. It gave me great hope that from terrible circumstances parents can actually get to a stage where they feel that they can have a loving relationship with another child so I think that is something that we need to discover more about and we need to understand more about.It was with great sadness that I heard Delcelia Witikā’s mother whose name I cannot remember—Tānia I think; Tānia Witikā—describe the chaos that she was living in the poverty that she was living in and the environment where drugs and alcohol were a very normal part of daily life. I do believe that until we get to those root causes until we address those issues and in particular until we get really serious in this country about domestic violence—because that was very much a part of this story—then we will not be able to protect children like Delcelia Witikā in the future. I think that is the challenge that we still have in front of us and the provisions in this legislation to remove subsequent children are not really the answer that we need to get to in this country. The answer that we need to get to is to have those children born into a loving environment where they have the resources necessary where they are not living in poverty and where they have I guess the ability to sustain a loving family environment. That is going to take more than this legislation. I think the Minister for Social Development has already acknowledged that and I applaud that.Let us not kid ourselves for one minute. Unless we deal with the issues of poverty we actually confront those and we acknowledge those we will not be able to deal with them. I would say exactly the same about domestic violence. I am very concerned that we have in this country an increasing number of incidents of domestic violence happening but a lower number of arrests and a lower number of convictions. That to me is the story of a country that is turning a blind eye and that is trying to suppress how serious the problem with domestic violence is rather than a country that is prepared to own up acknowledge the problem and know the size of it before it can even begin to address it and that does concern me because I am not in favour—I am not in favour—of sweeping things under the carpet. I think that as a country we have done that for too long. I am absolutely dismayed to learn that the police stopped reporting the levels of domestic violence in their annual report 2 years ago because that is a symptom of a country that is wanting to sweep matters under the carpet rather than expose them understand them and deal with them. We will not protect our children if we cannot protect women in their own homes quite frankly.Violence against women and children is a big cost to our country. It is a huge cost to our country and not only to those individuals but to each one of us because we are all affected when we as a country cannot say that we can protect the most vulnerable. The children talked about in this legislation are amongst the most vulnerable and I do not believe that we are doing enough. It is a start with this legislation but I do not believe it is enough to actually make sure that we can stand up and be proud of what our country is doing with regard to protecting these children. Thank you.MELISSA LEE (National):It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this third reading of the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. I begin by congratulating the Minister for Social Development the Hon Paula Bennett who is very passionate about her portfolio and you can see it in the work that she has actually produced in the welfare reforms.As I stand to take this call on the third reading of the legislation I am reminded of a 3-year-old who died in hospital back in 2007. She had suffered horrific neglect and abuse and torture while neighbours whānau and the wider community stood watching. Staff at her kōhanga reo smelt cannabis and urine on the little child but did not notify Child Youth and Family. Justice came too late for that child. Her abusers and killers were eventually convicted but they were the very people who should have protected her and cared for her and loved her but failed to do so. Her name is Nia Glassie. Today as we conclude this legislation I am reminded of that bright-eyed little girl in her yellow sunhat with a bow full of hope and promise who died tragically back in 2007. I am also reminded of the Kāhui twins and thousands of other children who have been abused neglected and killed in New Zealand over the years. No doubt somewhere in New Zealand as we debate this legislation sadly there will be children being abused beaten neglected and unloved.My heart actually aches when I think about that because for me unlike Ms Sue Moroney who says that poverty is the reason poverty cannot be the reason why parents and loved ones abuse their children. Poverty cannot be the reason that they beat up little children who cannot do anything to protect themselves. As parliamentarians we have the responsibility to give every child a better start to life. Yes we are all agreed on that. New Zealanders are sick and tired of the abuse statistics we have had and they have said enough is enough. This National Government is doing something about it and delivering on our promise. But poverty is not the reason why people abuse children. As a parent who struggled for many years to conceive a child I know just how precious a child is. For me my son is a miracle and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could abuse a child—how anyone could possibly abuse a child. All I can say to those abusers is: may God have mercy on their terrible terrible souls because I certainly cannot find any mercy in my heart for them.I get quite emotional just thinking about the abuse some of these children have suffered. But it has been an absolute privilege working on this legislation as a member of the Social Services Committee and now as the chair of the Social Services Committee that has examined this legislation. I would just like to take this opportunity to say thank you to the officials who have given us expert advice—and they are sitting up in the gallery now; they have been nothing but professional—committee clerks who have assisted us and my fellow members right across the House. There have been times when we disagreed on points but I have to say that all members agree that we want to provide the best outcome for our children in this country. We might differ in the way that we want to do the job and I respect that but we agree that we want to provide the best possible outcome for the children of New Zealand.The coroner at Nia Glassie’s inquest actually said: “Decent members of a community should not stand by and whanau and other family members should not turn a ‘blind’ eye”. I am in total agreement with him that it is a shared responsibility. It has to be coordinated collaborated on and acted on right across the Government social services sector. Even the local sparkie or the plumber—everyone who visits a house—who sees abuse has a responsibility. They cannot turn a blind eye. The future of New Zealand rests on what we do now. How we protect our most vulnerable children will show what sort of society we become and what kind of a nation we are.The National Government’s reforms are major and far reaching and represent the most significant legislative reforms to address child abuse and neglect since the passage of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act. This will bring better Government accountability better vetting and screening of people who actually work with children and better guardianship and protection laws. We are making five heads of Government departments accountable. For the first time the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police are all responsible and accountable. They will have new responsibilities and child protection policies which will have a direct impact on every front-line worker. Children are the most valuable asset a nation has and we must protect them and I believe this legislation does. I commend it to the House.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this third reading of the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues Rajen Prasad and Jacinda Ardern who are not here and who have worked diligently prior to my becoming a member of the Social Services Committee on the passage of this legislation.I want to commend the Minister for Social Development for taking responsibility for a cohort of New Zealand children who are within her area of responsibility. I can see the rationale for highlighting and ensuring that our most vulnerable children—our children who are encapsulated for whatever reason particularly within our Child Youth and Family system—are being targeted and highlighted and the rationale for us supporting and protecting their positive health and well-being.I want to start with a few comments based on the Minister’s introduction about what a society should do and guarantee for all our young children. I believe a society should ensure that all young people who are born in New Zealand have access to the clinical services that are going to ensure that when they arrive in the world here that they have access to doctors to midwives and to all the services that will ensure their positive health and development.I believe that our children should expect a free education system here in New Zealand which starts with early childhood education. I think that the prioritisation however from our perspective needs to occur before our children are born. From this side’s perspective we think that issues related to housing provision the quality of that housing provision and making sure that families have an adequate income to make sure that they can have a wage relative to the cost of living in this country is a context that cannot be denied and it cannot be underestimated in terms of that framework around which this whole focus on vulnerable children comes from.Unless we address the symptoms of society unless we address why we are having over 150000 Child Youth and Family notifications every year when nearly 30000 of those notifications are actually substantiated this will continue just to be either window dressing or putting band-aids on problems. My contribution is going to focus on I guess another prioritisation and another set of things that we could be doing as a Government as a society to make sure that we do not produce children who are going to end up in our care system.The reality of this piece of legislation and what we are talking about is that it is a bill that essentially is about children who will be encapsulated within the State. These are the children who are vulnerable to neglect and to abuse because they live in circumstances where their parents have got problems. They have got alcohol problems. They have got drug problems. They have got housing problems. We are going to assist these children who are in State care but I would prefer and our side would prefer that we focus on ensuring our kids do not end up in the State system.We would prioritise for example some of the solutions that the group led by Professor Jonathan Boston and put together by our Office of the Children’s Commissioner focused on. Their whole mandate was about Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand: Evidence for Action. Some of our prioritisation would be about how we prevent kids from getting in. We prevent kids from getting in—and they have given us the solutions. There are six things that we could do immediately that would make sure that our kids get the best start in life and that we support those who are the most vulnerable.Recommendation No. 1 is that child support payments should be made to sole parents. That was the primary recommendation. We know that children growing up in sole parent households are vulnerable. That would be their No. 1 priority. The second priority is to ensure a warrant of fitness for all rental properties. Unless our families are within a quality warm dry home it means they are living in unstable circumstances; they are living in circumstances where their needs cannot be met.The third priority was a public-private partnership around microfinancing. Too many of our vulnerable families are living in debt so they need help in terms of budgeting and they need help in terms of financial literacy but at the end of the day if the money that they are receiving even if it is a benefit is not enough to pay for the rent to pay for the power to pay for food on the table there is nothing that that family can do to get out of that circumstance.They also recommended food in schools because the reality is that a lot of our children are hungry. In terms of the Minister’s responsibility yes she is responsible for nearly 30000 kids in Child Youth and Family care but she is also responsible for 180000 children who are the children of parents who are on a benefit. That is the greater context that we should be talking about. In addition to the Fonterra and the Sanitarium KickStart Breakfast programme in schools we should be having hot meals. That is the sad reality in New Zealand today: our children are hungry and we need to feed them.The fifth priority was about young people—young parents. They should be supported because we know that education is a resilience that they need so we need a continuation of our teen parent units. Whilst I was in Invercargill last week I visited a teen parent unit. The wonderful thing about these teen parent units is that young parents can come together. They can learn to be good parents but they can also learn together and actually have some dreams and aspirations about getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and then transitioning on to higher education. That is what those teen parent units provide for these young kids. It is actually a stable support system which means they learn to be good parents their children go to the local early childhood education centre and they are also on a pathway to a better life for themselves and their children.The final one was about community hubs. The whole focus on community hubs was about ensuring we have access to those services that the Minister talked about earlier—health services education services and social services. In terms of a couple of big deliberations and debates we had within the select committee there was one about the requirement of safety checking of people who are paid to work with children. Essentially this bill is going to check people who are paid by the Government to work with children. What it does not do is check people who are working with children and who are either voluntary or who are working with Scout groups or sports groups or other groups because of the compliance costs.There was a huge debate within the select committee about whether or not all people who work with children should be required to go through some sort of police checking. This legislation in addition to identifying the children at risk supporting them and protecting them was also about identifying abusers. That was what this legislation was about. We identify the abusers and then we make sure that we know where they are so we can monitor any form of engagement they have with our kids.I have not got much longer to contribute to this debate. What I want to finish on is a story from my own electorate and it is relevant to Melissa Lee’s contribution about poverty not being the primary reason for child abuse. I would agree with that but people who live in poverty live in stress. My local police commander told me a story about what they did over the Christmas period. They identified the 50 families with whom they have had the greatest family violence interactions. What they did was visit those families before Christmas and they gave them a food parcel. They visited those families after Christmas and they gave them a food parcel. They said to those families: “If you need help call us. Don’t call us after the family violence incident; call us beforehand and we will come and we will support you.” Of those 50 families they had only one incident over the Christmas - New Year period.So what that means is that poverty actually does contribute to how stressful families are. It does contribute to how adults interact with each other. It does contribute to the consumption in some instances of alcohol. So for people to dismiss poverty as one of the underlying reasons why our children are vulnerable actually means that they are not in the reality of the children whom we are here to protect. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):It is with genuine sadness that the Green Party is opposing these bills arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. The Green Party and its MPs are absolutely passionate about making New Zealand a great place to grow up in for all of our children. We believe that the State has a key role in keeping children happy healthy and safe. But in order to do that the Government must be prepared to do what our children need them to do to keep them happy healthy and safe. Human rights are a Government’s obligation and not just a good idea. The National Government had that opportunity. Its White Paper for Vulnerable Children generated a huge volume of submissions from experts and workers on the ground who told Ministers what children needed them to do in order for them to be able to grow up healthy happy and safe. But faced with all of that evidence the Government closed its eyes and then closed its heart.Today we saw the Minister for Social Development admit to Parliament for the second time this week that she was unaware of research showing that children in the most economically deprived families were five times as likely as children in the least deprived families to die from sudden unexplained death in infancy. One baby dies each week in New Zealand from conditions associated with low income. You might think that the Minister responsible for child welfare would make it her business to be aware of the health impacts of poverty. Instead she remains wilfully ignorant and that is outrageous. The thing is we know and this is backed up by history as well as current research that if we guarantee the essentials then we will guarantee the opportunities. Our institutions have been teaching for years this concept of the Maslow hierarchy of needs. At the base of basic needs are our physical needs for warmth rest water shelter and safety. They are universally—I thought except for the jeering from the other side—understood to be our basic needs.The Green Party wants to ensure all of our children have their basic needs met. We want to address the causes of vulnerability so that all of our children can thrive. That is why we put child poverty on the political agenda last term and we have been continuing that through this term. That is also why we have been working so hard to put domestic and sexual violence back on the political agenda. Poverty is created by and can be eliminated by Government policy. Child poverty and deprivation escalated in the 1990s due to Government policy. It is not out of our control. We continue to unashamedly call for action at every single chance we get on this issue because it is at the heart of the welfare of our children. Although violence is not quite so easily amenable to Government intervention and no one thing is going to solve it we can still significantly reduce it. This bill is not going to do that.Over 17 percent of children in New Zealand regularly go without essential items like fresh fruit and veges shoes that fit their own bed and warm dry houses. Think about that for a moment in this land of plenty. More than one child dies every single week in this country of plenty from illnesses related to poverty. When I was working at the University of Otago Medical School the Scandinavian head of paediatrics who had recently arrived left her position early because she had thought she was coming to a developed country. She could not match that expectation with the prevalence of what she considered Third World diseases all around her. The level of disease in our children because of Government policy is shocking. It is a national shame and I use the word “national” in both meanings.Violence is a major issue of ours in this country as well. It is estimated that more than a quarter of New Zealand children are affected by domestic violence. Between one in three and one in five girls are victims of sexual violence and between one in six and one in 10 boys are sexually abused and there are much higher levels of risk for children with disabilities and within other minority groups. This week we heard again from the Owen Glenn report about how our system is failing on the most basic level to provide protection and safety for our children and to provide pathways out of violence. They do not exist for many people in this country and the State is complicit in blocking people’s pathways out of safety in actual fact. The Government’s response to those experiences those experiences from agencies on the ground is to say “Oh look! We’re on to it. We’ve reformed the Family Court. We are doing this.” when in actual fact those reforms are undermining the protections of those very people they purport to care about.You put those two realities of poverty and violence together and it is no surprise that the Government got around 10000 submissions in response to the call for submissions. How amazing! So many people in this country care about these issues. There was so much hope and time put into these submissions and I want to thank New Zealand for that.But when we now look at the legislation that has come to us in this House out of that process I feel genuinely angry. This Government had the chance to respond appropriately to those submissions. The Government could have created a child poverty Act that would set targets and measures for eliminating child poverty at the base of the welfare of our children. It could have established a Minister for children to advocate within Cabinet for children. The Government could have reformed our Family Court the Child Youth and Family service and justice systems and ensured that there was funding for the support agencies that are so crucial in the response and the safety of children to address the myriad issues that are compromising their safety at the moment.And what did it do? You know this legislation is not any of those things. I acknowledge that both of those actions those bills that could have come to us would have been big calls but I think that the tenor of the submissions and all the reports we have had over the years into these issues would have justified a big call. What this Government has given us instead is this legislation and I am now going to reference the Parliamentary Library’s analysis of this legislation. It says that there are two main things that this legislation is going to do. One is that it is going to create child harm protection orders. Well that turned out to be a bad idea and has been taken out of the bill. Two it is going to institute safety checking for children’s workers. So there were two big ideas in response to the appalling rate of death and poverty of our children. It boils down to safety checking for children’s workers which we had no evidence is needed and is going to make any difference and is going to be coming out of the pockets of our community organisations which are struggling to provide the absolutely essential social services to protect the lives of our children.Excuse my emotion—it is because New Zealand deserves more than that. We are a country of plenty. We have the evidence from the experts from our community and from our children telling us what we need to do to make a difference for them and yet this is all we are given. It is an absolute travesty and I am disappointed in this House that we could not deliver what our children need.ALFRED NGARO (National):I am honoured to rise and take a call in the third reading of the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill but also too to take the opportunity to balance the conversations and the debate in this House. There has been lots of talk about the intent of the legislation but I want to bring it back to the intent and the purpose of the legislation. The legislation is part of a series of measures that National is introducing to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children. Last night I was speaking to a number of young leaders and one of the questions that came from the floor was this: how do you know when you are in politics that you are making a difference? I would like to answer that question that was asked last night this afternoon. I believe that I can say that about this legislation and I know that we can say that here both in this Government in the National Party which is supporting it but also too those in the Labour caucus who are supporting this legislation. Why? Because we know it is making a difference.We know it is making a difference because from the submissions that we are hearing we are really clear that it is putting children at the heart of our legislation and at the heart of our concern and our intent as a Government—children. That is simply what this is about. It is about children—vulnerable children children who through no fault of their own are in circumstances where they cannot protect themselves or cannot provide for themselves hence the reason why the State must intervene. However at the same time what this legislation also says is that the answers do not lie with the Government alone. The answers lie with shared responsibilities with those who are the carers those who provide services schools parents and the State as well and other surrounding services that wrap around to support that.I want to make some comments because there has been lots of talk about other things that impact children which are not the intent of this legislation. This legislation is about protecting and providing that which is needed. There has been talk about poverty. We know that there are a number of children and families who are in hardship. We do not disagree with that. But can I remind members of this. Hēnare O’Keefe who was one of the candidates for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti following the death of the late Hon Parekura Horomia told the story at a Whānau Ora conference that when he was growing up in Ruatōria there were dirt floors. They had very little. They had to boil their water they had to go outside and they had to hunt for things. They had very little and a large family. But here is the powerful thing that he said at that Whānau Ora conference: poverty is no excuse for abuse; poverty is no excuse for failure. What he was saying is this: you may have hard times you may have difficulty but you do have an opportunity to be able to do the best for your family and for the people who are around you.Andrew Little: But it is an explanation. Bury your head in the sand.ALFRED NGARO: Mr Andrew Little may barrack along but to his own supporters who are out there I say that poverty is no excuse for abuse.Andrew Little: But it is an explanation.ALFRED NGARO: What this legislation does Mr Little is protect children who are vulnerable.Andrew Little: Disgraceful!ALFRED NGARO: There is nothing disgraceful about this. Just this week I was at Tick4Kids. It was run by Unicef and this is what it said. It asked this question: can we ensure that children are at the heart of our legislation and policy-making? So this is what I can say we are doing as a Government. Part of this legislation is ensuring that we have a Children’s Action Plan and more social workers in schools and hospitals. We have increased funding and services for children in care. We have Children’s Teams in Rotorua and Whangarei that have been operating. We have a national children’s director who coordinates those Children’s Teams. We have Child Protect line the Vulnerable Kids Information System and the Vulnerable Children’s Board of chief executives who share accountability and responsibility. We are putting children at the heart of policy and of legislation because that is what this legislation is about.I want to clearly say this: this legislation has got action to it; it is not just about talk. For all the rhetoric that it talks about things that we can do this legislation is staying true to its intent—that it is protecting children who are vulnerable and children who need our support to protect and provide for them. This is not the perfect legislation. This is not the answer to all the challenges but it is the answer to one thing. When the State needs to intervene when it needs to ensure that children are protected and provided for then that is what this legislation does. I absolutely support this legislation and its third reading but most important I support this legislation as it goes out to the communities to the homes and to the places in which this legislation will ensure there is shared accountability and responsibility to protect our children who are vulnerable in New Zealand. Thank you.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Talofa lava kia ora and thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about this legislation in its third and final reading. The legislation sets out to achieve some goals. It proposes solutions that are much needed for problems given the epidemic that has been in existence for quite a while in New Zealand. We are all aware that problems associated with vulnerable children are complex and so the solutions identified in this legislation may go only so far. The member who has just spoken is absolutely right: it is not perfect legislation—not yet. Obviously we need to look at this legislation carefully because there are underlying issues that must be clarified. After all we do not want the same situation as with legal highs and the Psychoactive Substances Bill to be repeated in this House and we certainly need to avoid causing harm to our tamaiti and fanau.Although the legislation rightly focuses on reinforcing the need for shared responsibility better accountability harm minimisation and increased support for the protection of vulnerable children let us be clear here: there are loopholes. Vulnerable children are defined as children who are at significant risk of harm to their well-being now and into the future as a consequence of the environment in which they are being raised and in some cases due to their own complex needs. It is a very good definition with a telling measure of how effective the legislation can be. It gives the harsh reality of why we have so many vulnerable children in our country. The journey for better outcomes still finds only a band-aid solution. That is not to say that answers are easy or plentiful. In fact the legislation poses some good answers to past problems and we acknowledge that. However a responsible Government should always look at the fundamental issues that lead to our societal woes.More and more within our communities we can see that families are broken. They are wrecked frustrated and of course unhappy. Children are hungry. They are insecure. We have far too many children right now at risk and families are struggling. Parents are jobless and desperate for help. There are not enough jobs out there. There is not enough work for them with reasonable wages or salaries. Finances are crumbling because wages are too low. The increasing costs of education health and basic needs are too high. Although the recent Budget actually dished out the New Zealand First policy of free general practitioner visits for children up to intermediate school level sadly they still have to wait for a number of months before they can get it. Morals principles and values are weakening and these important fundamental pillars of our society are clearly being ignored and considered unimportant. And the list goes on. All the while addiction to substances that make anxiety go away is increasing. Our unhealthy culture of drug and alcohol use is rife.Although the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill offers worthwhile measures to mitigate the societal ills currently threatening the safety of our children I say we must remember the fundamental issues beneath this problem. Let us not forget the fundamental issues that cause the problem highlighted in this legislation. Research on the issue of child abuse has shown that it is closely linked to economic and social deprivation. These are the types of core issues that the Government needs to pay attention to. I must say that today is the day that I agree with a phrase that the chair of our Social Services Committee mentioned about poverty—that poverty is not an excuse for child abuse—and I have said it quite a number of times even when I came into Parliament at the beginning. It is not an excuse but it does not help—it does not help. These issues are inextricably linked to vulnerable children.This Government has allowed integral core community issues to spiral out of control. It has been too focused on delivering the best outcomes for the select few while neglecting others in need. Just look at its hasty U-turn on legal highs. It let the problem fester while the community suffered and now the fix is going to come at a huge cost to everyone involved. New Zealand is no longer the healthy egalitarian society it once was. The obvious imbalances amongst our communities have only worsened under this Government. Doing something to seriously address these kinds of fundamental issues will be more effective at healing the wound inflicted on our society and that is vulnerable children. If the Government does nothing to remedy the fundamental problems of our country then wounds like this will grow too large for band-aid fixes.Many vulnerable children come from families who are struggling to support themselves under the weight of the high cost of living and unemployment. Whenever the Government wants to score political points the words “Māori” and “Pasifika” will come up and it is always in relation to social issues or law and order situations. But it is not only Māori and Pacific families who are feeling the pressure; it is a national issue felt by families throughout the country. Many are on the brink of collapse just waiting to fall into a world of child abuse domestic and family violence and of course criminal offending. That is why it is important here to reinforce the need to tackle prevention rather than constantly trying to respond once harm is done.Many abuses that have occurred involved volunteers. A lot of the cases being identified and highlighted involved those who have offered to do voluntary tasks for children. The bills fail to recognise the reality of the severe risk associated with children which defies all logic when writing legislation that intends to protect vulnerable children. The Government should not discount this connection. Anyone with good sense would not fail to acknowledge that a significant number of vulnerable children are those already living in hardship and I think that is a word we need to focus on more than “poverty”. A holistic approach is needed to truly protect the well-being of at-risk children from unsafe environments. The Minister tried to justify the omission of the word “volunteers” from this legislation right now. Can we afford to say that about a child’s life or child safety? Can we afford to say that? Can we afford to ignore the pleas from parents and schools about the lack of resources for them to protect their children? This includes unaffordable housing extremely low incomes a long list of unemployed and of course poor health.In spite of all this it was clear before this legislation came into the House that better legislative frameworks polices and practices were needed to improve the lives and experiences of children and young people in New Zealand. New Zealand First supports the provisions in the legislation that specifically address New Zealand’s high rates of child abuse and neglect because the overwhelming evidence shows that it is an urgent issue that should be addressed. Minister Bennett said at the Committee stage that screening volunteers is needed just not this time round. Well when? When more children are abused or more families have the opportunity to assault or abuse a child? Brené Brown said that “The truth is: Belonging starts with self-acceptance. Your level of belonging in fact can never be greater than your level of self-acceptance because believing that you’re enough is what gives you the courage to be authentic vulnerable and imperfect.”Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):I want to use my brief speech to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of amazing parents in this country who raise incredible children who will be huge contributors to our communities and our country as we go forward as a nation. There is no doubt that these parents are the majority of parents in our country. They are incredible. They go across the spectrum of New Zealanders of races of wealth. I particularly want to acknowledge those parents who have difficult circumstances and raise incredible children. In fact I think it is those parents who this country our Government and our State services should be focusing on because we need to take a leaf out of those parents’ books and celebrate the outstanding job that they do to raise outstanding kids in difficult circumstances.In saying that I think we do make too many excuses for poor parenting and that is something we need to continue to focus on. We do unfortunately have a group where there are vulnerable children—there is no doubt about that—and we do need to do everything we can as a nation to help those children in those very difficult circumstances. I want to acknowledge Minister Bennett the Social Services Committee—the select committee that dealt with this legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill—and all those parties across the House that are supporting this legislation this evening. It is another step as we go forward as a country to give every child in this nation the very best opportunity to be all that they can be. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Good afternoon Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very proud to take a call on the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. It is one of the reasons that I got into the professional work that I was doing—because I acknowledge that in many aspects of our work the voice of children fails to be heard and in this regard having legislation for vulnerable children means that the voice of children should well and truly be heard today.I acknowledge the thousands of submissions that were made during this process over the course of the years that this legislation has traversed which started with the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children and went on to the White Paper for Vulnerable Children. Various pieces of work fell out of that including the Children’s Action Plan and the development of the Children’s Teams. And here we are today in the third readings of this legislation.I acknowledge the significant work that communities social workers legislators and everyone has done to bring these bills to this day. But I want to add my note of disappointment that despite those thousands of submissions and despite all the thousands of hours that went into the crafting of much of the work that the community submitted on some of that has not made it into the bills. There are some aspects that have and I acknowledge that but there are many things that we have not found in these bills that will not go far enough to protect the children of New Zealand.I will go back to what I believe was the genesis of this legislation because I really appreciate that the Minister for Social Development was trying to curb what has become a national disgrace in terms of our child abuse statistics and that is the case of child “M” in west Auckland. Some of you may recall that case where that poor child was the subject of torture at the hands of her parents and one of the significant aspects in the reporting of that particular case was the failure of those services that were engaged to work with that family to actually communicate with each other. I wonder about the lessons of that case that have not been learnt and have not found their way into this legislation.When I was working for a family violence service we had a picture of Minister Bennett on the wall. She had been interviewed by the New Zealand Herald some years ago talking about what she wanted to do to protect our children. That picture sat alongside some of the other pictures of children who had been abused such as the one the member Melissa Lee talked about Nia Glassie; pictures of James Whakaruru whom I use as my personal touchstone in my work; and the Kāhui twins. What I would like to ask today is whether this legislation would have protected those children—whether it would have prevented what happened to those children. In the case of child “M” where one of the most overriding issues was the lack of communication between those social services and Government agencies would this legislation go far enough to protect that child? I doubt that it does. Will this legislation go far enough to have prevented what happened to the Kāhui twins? It is possible under the provisions relating to subsequent children. Will it go far enough to prevent what happened to James Whakaruru? I am not so sure—I am not so sure.What this legislation does not contain are things like the positive aspects of parenting—supporting parents to be good parents simple things like promoting attachment and bonding. When you have young parents this is a process that needs extra support and help. Does this legislation include positive parenting programmes for struggling parents? I do not think it does. Does it address what the chief social worker terms the “unholy trinity” when it comes to vulnerable children: parents with mental health issues problematic substance abuse and family violence. I am afraid it does not address these. The chief social worker talks about what he terms the determinants of the most vulnerable children and this legislation fails to acknowledge them.I was listening to some of the other speakers. The Minister herself talked about the collaboration between the chief executive officers and the accountability that they will have in addressing this issue over a range of ministries. That is great and I applaud that but it is not the first time it has happened. We had a national task force on sexual violence prevention which was put together by the last Labour Government that this Government disbanded. I just want to remind the Minister that that was a good process. That was a good process. The Minister in recent days has been talking about how much has been put into sexual violence abuse prevention—$10.4 million I think over the next 4 years. What I want to say is that those programmes were in place but they were not well supported. The result is that we have to put in place legislation like this to support our most vulnerable children.There is another issue that I want to raise and that is in terms of legislation that has unintended consequences. I refer to a comment that I think my colleague Louisa Wall made about the numbers of arrests declining in terms of family violence. There were changes in 2011 to the Solicitor-General’s guidelines on arrests. What that meant was that there was a higher threshold required before an arrest could be made. The threshold was around whether it was likely that a charge could then result in a conviction. So police had to then make a determination on whether it was likely the situation they were seeing before them could result in a conviction in a court of law. That had a huge impact on family violence statistics. It was an unintended consequence but it meant that fewer men were arrested in domestic violence call outs. The unintended consequence of fewer arrests is that fewer men are being compelled to attend family violence and anger management programmes so fewer men are supported to deal with their anger. That is one of the key indicators as determined by the chief social worker to prevent harm to children and by a matter of unintended consequence we have fewer men being supported to deal with their anger.What I think we should have done is looked at having a much more positive approach to our children. Why are we targeting such a small group of vulnerable children when there are at least 285000 children living in poverty? Yes I understand the rhetoric that poverty is not an excuse but as my colleague behind me Andrew Little says it is an explanation. When one of the determinants of safety in a child’s life is the level of income and resource that goes into that child’s household then we must recognise that poverty is a key driver of safety for children. Why are we not looking at making positive changes to these families’ lives? Warm dry affordable homes where kids are not getting sick children who are well fed and well supported so they are not going to school hungry and unable to learn programmes that actually support all kids—real measures in place to address the 285000 children living in poverty so that they can reach their potential.I want to say I commend the Minister on starting this journey. This journey has not gone far enough. I would recommend that this journey continues so that we can do more to keep our children safe. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):That was a very good speech—shame it was bereft of fact. It was interesting that the member Poto Williams was talking about—well in fact it actually makes sense. It is ironic that the member was talking about what we are going to do about the 285000 children she claims are living in poverty. That is from a party that sits there and opposes every effort that the Government makes to grow the economy. So how can members on that side of the House sit there with any justification with any credibility whatsoever and say that it is about lifting people out of so-called poverty and vote against everything that this Government does? Notwithstanding that we are one of the top-performing economies in the OECD. We on this side of the House know that a performing economy an education system that provides jobs and a business environment that allows people to invest and employ people are what lift children out of vulnerability. It is completely disingenuous for members on that side of the House to sit there and say “Oh tsk tsk you’re not doing this and not doing that.” when they will vote against it. The reality is the Labour Party wants the Government to fail so that it can get over this side. If the Labour Party actually did care about those children it would be supporting things that actually helped the economy grow. It is as simple as that.This is not the only measure. This legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill is not the panacea. The Minister for Social Development has never said it is and no one on this side of the House has ever said that. There is a range of activities strategies and approaches that are going on to address the issue of vulnerability with children but one thing is for sure: what this legislation brings is the opportunity to bring some direct accountability and bring some administrative lines—bottom up top down—in terms of ensuring that the children do not fall through the cracks. One thing is for sure: Government departments are good at resolving issues but not so good at talking to one another about what is going on.These bills provide a very very good mechanism. As someone who has worked in this field I think that that in itself is something that deserves support. The members over that side know it does because they will actually vote to support it despite the fact that they have chastised us and said we are not doing anything. Well I challenge the Labour Party. If you want to get on and do something then join us and actually do what is going to get children out of vulnerability and grow the economy. Oh that is right—it cannot do that. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Split call 5 minutes—Andrew Little.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to speak on the legislation arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. I just say how disappointing it is after the members opposite claim to want to forge a collaborative approach and claim to want to cooperate that Mr Sabin stands up and performs one of the more belittling speeches you could imagine on this very important topic. You know this nation started this week with our heads hung collectively in shame at the stories that were released in the Glenn Inquiry report. Five hundred voices told some of the most excruciatingly painful shocking stories about abuse and violence in this nation’s homes. It behoves us on this occasion passing this legislation to at least demonstrate that we are capable of not only taking the issue seriously but also speaking sensibly and hopefully cooperatively and collaboratively about it.That does not mean to say we do not have criticisms of this bill. As I have said repeatedly in relation to other legislation as is so often the case something is usually better than nothing. This bill does take steps that will help not only to pick up the pieces but also most important to prevent harm to children—those who so often cannot speak for themselves and those who so often are dependent on the actions the care and the support of the adults around them who are not necessarily their parents but those who are in responsible roles and those who are in caring roles.It is sad that in this day and age we have to have legislation like this to spell out steps that must be taken by organisations that charge themselves with taking care of children. Well we do have to do that because the record that has developed in this country in terms of the care of children and in terms of harm to children is just an absolutely shocking record. It is the nation’s shame that we do that that we mistreat children and that we expose them to needless harm and danger. That is the danger and harm of other people not of the activities that we would want them to do—running around in a playground in a bush or in a field. It is the exposure to violent nasty people who would beat them up and be the most predatory people you can imagine. So we do have to do something about it.I am not sure that this bill in some respects goes far enough but it is a step. I think in other respects it goes too far. If this bill is about prevention let it be about prevention. It is disappointing that for example in clause 28 when it deals with people who are discovered to be a risk to children it does not allow organisations—whether State State-funded or any other organisation—to simply remove them under the terms of the employment agreement. It denies them and deprives them of some of their contractual entitlements like notice. It comes over the top and says “All right they’re going to yank you out of there and you can go and you’re not even going to be entitled to the very basic notice requirements of your employment agreement.” These are people who will have convictions and who will be a demonstrated danger to children but who have been in employment—in some cases for a lengthy period of time—and who as a result of this bill being enacted will be discovered to be a risk that no organisation should afford to take. Well I accept that. But why go to the punitive step and then say “Right you get 5 days’ pay and that’s it.” That is nasty stuff and it is unnecessary but it is in the bill. I know there will be some employers who will say “Listen we have to do this and that’s accepted but we’ll pay you out your full notice.” But this bill actually sanctions an alternative course of action.If it is about prevention let it be about prevention. Let it apply not just to State organisations not just to private organisations funded by the State but to any private organisations which as I read it are not covered by this bill.This is a serious issue. It requires serious steps. It does not require the sort of politicising shenanigans of a Mike Sabin; it requires a Government that can work with the Opposition to actually achieve real change over time so that we can put to bed the shocking and embarrassing track record we have developed of looking after children and looking after our most vulnerable. We need to do more and we need to do better. This bill is a start but it cannot possibly be the end of addressing this serious issue. For those who say poverty is no excuse I just say that it may not be an excuse but it is so often an explanation. A Government that fails to deal with poverty is failing to deal with the true dimensions of this problem. A future Labour-led Government will deal with the fullness of this problem—not pretend that parts of it just do not exist.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):I guess I agree with a lot of what my colleague Andrew Little has just said but we disagree on one point. He said that something is better than nothing and I do not think that is always true. In this case we do not agree and we are opposing the bills arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill. My colleague Jan Logie has explained our reasoning behind that.I want to talk a little bit about what the Green Party would do about this situation. If the country gives us a chance later this year we will be looking to address the basic needs of children in New Zealand—those unmet needs that are currently causing the environments that are driving this vulnerability and the problem that we are seeking to address. We would create a children’s Act with targets and measures around child poverty and by measuring the problem we would be able to manage it. That is a basic maxim is not it? Measuring the problem would enable us to make some progress.Our Home for Life policy will provide a genuine pathway to homeownership and would address the declining rates of homeownership especially amongst lower and middle-income New Zealanders while also providing secure rental tenure for those New Zealanders who are renting—and many vulnerable families are—and also a warrant of fitness for rental housing which again addresses some of the conditions that drive poor outcomes.Our Schools at the Heart programme will help with removing the barrier of inequality in the place where kids are 5 days a week—their school. Our hubs will offer disadvantaged kids health care social services at school and school lunches and will connect families to their children’s learning. Our NZ Power scheme which we share with the Labour Party will stem the flow of power price rises that we have experienced under this Government and will also cut $300 from household power bills. Our solar homes package will liberate Kiwis from rising power prices and deliver real sustainable energy freedom. We will actually resource Child Youth and Family Services so that it is up to the job of actually protecting children. Under-resourcing has been one of the causes of failure here.Ultimately what we are talking about is meeting those children’s basic needs and Jan Logie has spoken about the hierarchy of needs that was developed by the psychologist Maslow. Basically what that says is that if you are actually interested in children or any individual being able to maximise their potential you first of all have to address basic physiological and safety needs—food water warmth rest security safety. Until you actually address those factors we are unable to deal with the more advanced psychological and self-fulfilment goals that we have for every New Zealand citizen.It was a cause of great distress for me today to hear Paula Bennett saying that she had not actually read the basic research that links children’s health outcomes. In this country we have health outcomes including child abuse outcomes that are amongst the worst in the OECD and that are strongly linked in fact to our extremely high rates of child poverty. Those are the factors that we have to address. We have to address empowerment of the communities that children live in and we have to create supportive environments around those communities and that means addressing those factors that I have just talked about.It means addressing poverty. It means doing the things that the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group told us we had to do—provide health services antenatal and throughout childhood; affordable safe healthy homes; stable nurturing families; supportive communities; adequate incomes to meet basic needs; and engagement and learning from early childhood education onwards. Those are the things that will actually make a difference. It was most distressing I think to hear Paula Bennett faced with a mountain of evidence from experts about the link between child poverty and those poor outcomes saying that she could not in fact name a single expert who would endorse her view that the Government is doing enough. It is not; this legislation is inadequate.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):One of the names that has been mentioned quite a lot in the House today is the Children’s Commissioner who had this to say about the legislation divided from the Vulnerable Children Bill: “Minister Bennett’s announcement reflects an elevation of the rights and needs of children and signals a very welcome change in social norms in New Zealand by clearly focusing on the behaviour of adults to help keep children safe.” There has been quite a wide range of comments in the House today but I want to emphasise that the very point in this is that it is adults who have responsibility for their children each and every day. It is adults’ behaviour that this legislation will absolutely alter in terms of protecting the most vulnerable children in our society.I am very very proud of the Minister sitting beside me in the House the Minister for Social Development because this is one of the toughest issues this country has faced this century and it is a National Government that has led the charge and put those children at the very heart of this legislation and the Children’s Action Plan with thousands and thousands of New Zealanders having their say about what has to happen and what needs to change. It is this Government that is changing it.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Vulnerable Children Bill Children Young Persons and Their Families (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Bill and KiwiSaver (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes10Green Party 9; Mana 1.Bills read a third time.Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders BillThird ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill be now read a third time. This bill delivers this Government’s commitment to supporting victims of serious violent and sexual offences. The bill recognises the ongoing effects of serious violent offending on victims. It creates a new civil order called a non-contact order to reduce the likelihood of offenders who commit serious violent and sexual offences coming into contact with their victims. Serious violent and sexual offences can continue to have an impact on victims for a significant period of time. If a victim is concerned that they might come into contact with their attacker this can interfere with the victim’s recovery. Victims deserve to feel safe and supported during their recovery. This Government is committed to ensuring that their needs are met.Currently offenders are managed by a variety of mechanisms once they are released from prison. These include release conditions imposed by the court or the Parole Board and protection orders or restraining orders. However these mechanisms may not protect victims in all situations. Release conditions apply for only a certain amount of time and a protection order or restraining order may not be available to the victims. The non-contact order created by this bill will fill this gap in legal protection for the victim. This Government is determined to ensure that victims of serious violent offences feel safe in their homes and are protected by the law.The new order can be tailored to the circumstances of each case to ensure that the conditions are practical and workable. This flexibility should ensure that the order can be effective for victims regardless of their situation. For example it should be able to prevent the offender from making contact with the victim regardless of whether the offender has moved next door two blocks away or 5 kilometres away.The aim of the bill is to protect victims of serious violent offenders. As a result the order can be applied to a person who has been sentenced to more than 2 years in prison for a specified violent or sexual offence. Victims will be able to apply for an order at any time after the offender’s sentencing. This will ensure that there is no gap in protection for victims after the offender is released from prison. The bill gives victims the ability to apply for a non-contact order without notice if the court is satisfied that delay would or might cause undue hardship for the victim. An order made without notice will be a temporary order. The temporary order will become final after 3 months unless the court orders otherwise.The offender can request a hearing on whether the temporary order should become final. Orders can also apply to associates of an offender. This will ensure that offenders cannot encourage others to do things that cause distress to the victim that they themselves are prohibited from doing. It is important that offenders properly comply with non-contact orders and that breaches of orders are taken seriously. Therefore it will be an offence to breach a non-contact order with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $5000. This gives the court the ability to impose an appropriate penalty depending on the seriousness of the breach.The new order created by the bill will help to protect victims by filling a gap in the law where existing measures are not sufficient to limit contact with the offender. This bill reinforces the Government’s ongoing support for victims of serious crime and complements the recent passing of our Victims of Crime Reform Bill which allows for the development of a Victims Code. This bill will help to empower victims and it delivers this Government’s unrelenting commitment to putting victims at the heart of our criminal justice system. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and just note that as we have said throughout this debate this bill will do some good things. It responds to a pretty obvious and clear-cut case where a device like a non-contact order was needed in Invercargill. It was a case in which on the completion of the offender’s sentence a rape victim was then harassed and presumably intimidated by the offender in the period following it and she had no recourse and no ability to do anything about it. So this bill will certainly fill that gap and it is for that reason that of course we support it.But it is deficient in a number of respects. I think that a Government that was genuinely focused on victims’ rights and on protecting victims would have ensured that the victim did not have to meet the cost of seeking and applying for and obtaining one of these orders. It would be a very simple thing for a Government to ensure that the legislation covered that. It could have ensured that an order such as this could have been provided for either at the time of sentencing if the sentence on the offender was a non-custodial sentence or during the parole process if the offender was sentenced to prison and certainly for a prison sentence of longer than 2 years. But this Government did not want to do that because it has developed a strong track record of talking large but doing the bare minimum and this is just yet another example of that. This Government is developing a track record as it goes into this election of not wanting to defend its poor track record and of not wanting to defend its poor performance not only in this area in relation to victims and criminal justice but in a whole host of other areas.That is why we now have a party in Government that has stooped to the lowest levels of the gutter sliming and slipping its way through to divert attention from its own appalling track record. It just does not want to have to defend itself on what it has done because what it has done has been so appalling and in this case when it comes to victims and victims’ rights it has a pretty poor record. There is a lot it could have done. It has had 6 years to step up to the plate and do some real things when it comes to victims. But oh no the Prime Minister swans around New York and swans around Washington pulling the strings of his party organisation and his office back here to dish up 11-year-old letters and make allegations against others in this House because those members know that they do not want to defend their track record come this election. The Government will do everything that it can to divert the public’s attention from any real serious issue because it has now reached the grubby lower levels of the gutter slipping and sliming its way through because it cannot stomach the fact that in the next few weeks in the next couple of months it is actually going to have to defend its appalling track record.This is at a time when victims are suffering at a time when the Government has cut $40 million out of the police budget and many millions more out of the justice budget and at a time when courthouses cannot even protect courtroom exhibits in their courthouses as in the case of police pistols that were the exhibit in a criminal matter and were nicked from the New Plymouth courthouse. The Government cannot defend that. Police stations around the country are either closing down or cannot do their job police cannot get training on their Glock pistols because this Government has cut their budget and police cars are having to be rolled over way beyond the 100000 kilometre rate—and Steven Joyce comes into the Chamber here smiling away because they love it.Government members do not care about the fact that the people who are the worst victims of a run-down police force and a run-down justice system are the poor and the indigent the people who cannot fend for themselves. That is what this Government has come to and that is why it will engage in the politics of diversion of dissembling—Simon O’Connor: Lowest crime rate in 32 years.ANDREW LITTLE: The lowest crime rate? It is the lowest reported crime rate. You have only got to talk to front-line police—not something that Steven Joyce will have done for a long time. If you talk to front-line police if you talk to the defence counsel and if you talk to the Crown solicitors in this country they will tell you what an absolute shambles the criminal justice system is. People have given up. They have given up reporting it now because they get told: “Well the police cannot be there.” Victims of crime now are being told: “You take the photos you make up the report and bring it down to the station when you’ve got a spare moment.”Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!ANDREW LITTLE: That is what people are being told Mr Deputy Speaker. Victims of serious crime are no better off and the Government knows that this bill will be a baby step compared with the significant steps that are required to afford them better protection. Well that is disappointing but that is the Government we have got. It is the Government that we have got at the moment but it is the Government that the people of New Zealand know is about to go.It is on its way out because the people of New Zealand want a Government that identifies serious issues and takes serious steps on serious issues—not half-hearted steps not steps that give the appearance of doing something—that actually put the burden and put the risk back on victims. That is what this bill does. This bill says that if you are the victim of a serious crime and you want to be protected from the perpetrator of that crime you have got to stump up. You write out the cheque you find a lawyer prepared to make the application you find a lawyer that you have to pay the costs for to make the application and you know that the offender if they have received a copy of an interim order or at least the application controls whether or not there is a hearing. And if the offender demands a hearing then the victim once again has to stump up for the costs of representation. That is what this bill does. That is how much this Government cares about victims about doing something serious about victims.This Government is saying with this bill: “Here is some protection we’ll give you but you’re going to write out the cheque because we have taken $40 million out of the police we have taken many millions more out of the courts and now the burden is on the victim.” That is how this Government views criminal justice and victims’ rights in this country. It is appalling and that is why people want an end to it. People want a Government in office that takes victims’ rights seriously—Hon Steven Joyce: Ha ha!ANDREW LITTLE: —and one that provides real protection for victims not a giggling Minister for Economic Development who laughs at the thought of poor people having to meet the cost of their own protection against offenders in this country and not backbenchers like Simon O’Connor who laugh scoffingly at the prospect of poor people who are the victims of serious crime having now to meet the cost of their own protection because he is happy to be a backbencher and support Ministers and cheer them on when they gut the police budget when they gut the Ministry of Justice budget and when they gut the courts budget and they tell victims of crime that they must meet the expense of it.Government members do not care that in one of the provisions in this bill they provide for it—and I know that Mark Mitchell will be most concerned about this because he has dealt with it before—but even when an order is issued from the court according to this bill an offender can apply for a discharge of it at any time. Those are the words: “at any time”. So no sooner has an order been issued than an offender can rock on up to the court and apply for a discharge. Who will meet the costs of the victims’ representation? The victim themselves once again because this Government does not understand that when 46 percent of people in this country cannot get a pay rise in any one year people are poor people cannot afford expensive legal services. If they are the hapless victim of a serious crime to which this bill might apply they have to stump up and pay for their own protection. That is what this bill does.Then the only other remaining question of course because it creates an offence if one of these orders is breached—a bit like protection orders at the moment—is whether the police really have the resources to enforce these orders when they are most needed. Can the police summon up the resources with a $40 million cut to their budget to provide protection to victims under one of these orders when it is really needed? Can the police work with victims to prevent a breach of these orders? Well you would have to say on the current track record and with what is happening with police these days that there is a real risk that once these orders are issued there will be orders that will go unenforced. That would be a real pity. It is all very well putting this stuff on paper but you have got to back it up with action. And this Government has proved time and time again that it will do the window dressing it will play the charade but it is not prepared to back it up with decent resources to protect innocent people.So we will look very carefully at the way this rolls out. We will look very carefully and let us hope that victims in this country get a better deal. They will get a better deal that is for sure but it will be under a different Government.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):That sounded like a leadership speech to me. I will tell you what—Grant Robertson: This certainly won’t be.MARK MITCHELL: I know that Mr Robertson has bottled it. He has not got the bottle to stand up. He has not got the bottle to take the reins. He has not got the bottle to get out there and try to rebuild what is a languishing and suffering labour movement at the moment. But do you know what? Mr Little has. He has got the bottle. We came in together. We are both in our first term. I have got a lot of respect for Mr Little. He has got the bottle to stand up and say: “Don’t worry; I’ll take over. I’m going to take the reins. I’m going to fix this.” I am waiting with bated breath to watch for it in the next couple of days. He talked about Glocks. He is arming himself. He is getting himself ready. There might be a Mexican stand-off happening in that caucus room at the moment but he is equipped. He is ready. He has got the skills. He has got the bottle. He will have a go at it.The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is a very important bill. I just want to discuss some of the things that we talked about and some of the submissions that we heard during the select committee process. Of course I want to acknowledge our select committee chair Jacqui Dean who is a very very good chair of the Law and Order Committee. We work well together. I want to acknowledge Mr Goff who is another very good member of our select committee. We do work well together. We do drive towards consensus. We had some very good discussion in relation to this bill and I think we made some very good changes to it. I would just like to go over a couple of those.Clause 5 of the bill as introduced defined a violent offender as being a person convicted of a violent offence for which they have been sentenced to 5 years or more in prison. The committee decided to make a recommendation that in actual fact some offenders who are convicted and sentenced to maybe 2 years in prison are still serious offenders and they could still be a genuine threat to a victim. We felt we would like to lower the threshold and get it more in line with the Parole Act of 2002. The committee made that recommendation. It was a good one and it is going to be a good change.The committee also made a recommendation around clause 11(b) to provide for final non-contact orders to extend to associates of offenders under certain circumstances. To meet the criteria the offender would have to have encouraged the associate to behave in forbidden ways as set out in clause 11(a). The associate would have had to have engaged in that behaviour so there would have to have been an act. It is not enough just to say that there is a possibility. The associate would have to have performed or done something to fall within clause 11(a). The definition of “associate” was also inserted in clause 4.The bill also allows—and this was very important—for a victim to apply to a District Court for a non-contact order at any time after the offender has been released from prison. The committee recommended that this be amended so that applications can be made any time after sentencing. The significant thing about this change was that what it meant in practice was that a victim had to wait for the offender to be released before they could go to a District Court and make an application for a non-contact order.What it means now is that on the offender’s sentencing—when they have been sentenced and they are on their way to prison—the victim can make an application then. What this means is that the order is then in place for when the offender is paroled or comes out of prison. The order is active immediately. It is already in place. But what it also means is that it gives the victim cover to make sure that the offender whilst in custody cannot contact her at all. This was a very very good change. There was a lot of debate and talk around this and it was a good solid recommendation that came out of the committee.The committee also recommended amending clause 7 to allow an application for a non-contact order to be made without notice if the court is satisfied that the delay could lead to undue hardship for the victim. We had a young lady who had the courage to appear before the committee and make a submission. Her circumstances related directly to this clause.Finally I would just like to say that I am very proud. This is a very good piece of legislation. It does go a long way to ensuring that victims do feel safe. I want to support the Minister’s comment in the opening remarks. This Government is very focused on making sure that victims feel safe and victims’ rights are adhered to.Just very finally before I finish I want to acknowledge that we are seeing the problems in Iraq. The Middle East is a part of the world I was lucky enough to spend some time in. I have a real love for it. It is a place that has got massive potential a rich history and I just want to acknowledge the people there. It is often the non-combatants the people who are caught in the middle of this type of conflict who get hurt the most. I just wanted to acknowledge them. Thank you very much.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):The Labour Party supported the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill on its introduction and of course the Labour Party will always support legislation that is designed to protect and enhance the rights of victims. For too long in our system the victims have been the forgotten people. The way our British system of justice is set up is that we have the Crown against Smith where Smith is the offender the Crown is the State the State prosecutes the offender but people forgot about the victim. Under Labour Governments in the past we have had the Victims of Offences Act and the Victims’ Rights Act. Labour has consistently supported bringing forward the rights of victims putting them at the centre of the system and providing them with the protection that they need.We supported this bill but as I said on its introduction it was a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker you are from Invercargill. The case that led to the introduction of the bill was in your electorate. You will be very familiar with it. It was a case of a young woman who had been the victim of sexual violation. The offender was charged. He was convicted. He was imprisoned. The woman felt probably that justice might have been done. But one day she came home from work to find that the person who had sexually violated her had moved into the house next door. She had absolutely no power to do anything about that fact. It is hard for any of us who fortunately might not have ever had the experience to imagine what it would be like to be the victim of a sexual violator and to find that that person was now living on your doorstep and every day you would be reminded of their presence and the act that they had committed against you.So the Minister said she had solved this problem and she brought in a piece of legislation. Well the tragedy of that piece of legislation is that it would do absolutely nothing for the woman whose case apparently led to the legislation being introduced. For reasons that none of us on this side of the House understood the Minister of Justice said: “This will apply only if the offender has been sentenced to at least 5 years’ imprisonment.” In this case the offender had been sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. I for the life of me could not understand why you would not provide protection across the board for any victim of a serious violent or sexual offence. I said in the debate on the introduction of this bill that this will not do. I said that there is in the Parole Act a definition that separates serious offending from less serious offending and that was 2 years.Well the select committee members looked at this and heard the submissions and they said: “Yes we’ll change it. We’ll change it to three.” Why three? That is just another figure plucked out of the air. I pushed for it and I approached the Minister personally and finally we have got a threshold that makes sense—finally we have a threshold that makes sense—and I welcome that.We got other changes that made this legislation more useful. The bill as introduced by the Minister meant that you had to wait until the offender was released from prison before you could get a non-contact order. For many people they would find out that they needed that order only after the person had been released from prison and by then it was too late. They were in contact with the person and they had that sense of fear and dread that the victim will often feel when they are confronted with the person who offended against them. So we got another change made to the bill that said that the non-contact order could be applied for at any time after sentencing.We heard from submissions before the select committee that often the offender will not be responsible for creating fear on the part of the victim but the offender will delegate that to an associate who will turn up at the workplace turn up at the educational institution turn up at the residence of the victim and the bill would not have been able to do anything about that. Well we changed the bill again so that where there had been an instruction from the offender to an associate to act in that way where the person had acted and where there was a fear on the part of the victim we could deal with the associate.So in the end we made this weak and insipid piece of legislation a little bit more effective. But I want to say this to the Government members of the House. In my hand here I have got the regulatory impact statement. With this piece of legislation which was introduced with such flourish do you know how many orders they anticipated they would make a year?Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: 10.Hon PHIL GOFF: Ten. Do you know how many inmates are released each year who have been convicted and imprisoned for serious sexual and violent offending? It is 1000. It is 1000 a year and we were dealing with 1 percent of them. Maybe with the changes in the bill we will deal with a few more. But the fact of the matter is that this sort of legislation is only sticking-plaster legislation. It does not go to the cause of what we need to do to prevent having victims. Having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff does not stop the pain. It does not stop the hurt.I mentioned in the debate on the last stage of this bill that earlier this week I had been to see the family of Arun Kumar the Henderson dairy owner who was murdered in his dairy by a 13-year-old child. What struck me about that experience was that nothing I could say nothing that Rajen Prasad or Phil Twyford could say could in any way ease the pain and the tragedy that that family was suffering. When we see an elderly man who has lost a son when we see a woman whose husband died in her arms as Arun Kumar did when we see the children who will never have a grandfather for their own children you know that you have got to do something more than provide an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. You cannot bring back a life.These are all of the facts that we have seen that have come out of this. There are young kids in the streets of Henderson who are not at school when they should be there is a truancy service that is not apparently working and there are kids who were demanding money and had been around the shopping centre for months years and nothing was done. There was no community police station and not enough police seen on the street. I noticed that it was the Minister of Police who led the third reading of this bill. Well that Minister appeared before the Law and Order Committee last week and had excuses only excuses for the fact that six Budgets have been brought down by this Government and in every Budget the policing money that is expended on protecting our community has been cut in real terms—cut in real terms every year. Since 2009 $114 million has been cut out of the police budget. It is no wonder the president of the Police Association Greg O’Connor says policing will get harder this year.So the sticking-plaster legislation is OK but what about the fence at the top of the cliff? What about decent policing? What about the fact that 16 community police stations have been closed by this National Government? And what do the people of Henderson say they most wanted? It was a community police station in the shopping centre so there was a presence there. Labour introduced 1000 extra police officers in its last term in Parliament—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: New Zealand First.Hon PHIL GOFF: —in conjunction with New Zealand First. In the last couple of years our police staffing has been cut. I do not want to keep going to the funerals of people who have been murdered when that was a preventable situation.I want to say something finally on the other side of this legislation about sexual offending. I was talking to Kim McGregor who runs and has done for many years a group that works with the victims of sexual offending. Do you know what she told me? She said that for every 100 women in this country who are sexually violated one—just one—will see her offender convicted and imprisoned for that offence. She said: “I deal with women every day of the week who will not go through our adversarial court system because they do not believe that they will see justice done. They believe that they will be revictimised.” I say to the Minister and I plead with the Minister: no more sticking-plaster legislation; let us do something real. Let us change the system. Let us have an inquisitorial system where the victim is not the person on trial. Let us have a system that prevents people falling through the cracks. Let us do something more than simply address 1 percent of the victims of those offences which is what the sum achievement of this bill actually is.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):I rise to take probably a shortened call on behalf of my colleague Dave Clendon who has followed the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill through from the start and has I know appreciated the opportunity to be part of progressing and improving the bill. I am mindful of colleagues’ comments about some inadequacies that still remain—costs that will still fall on victims who want to avail themselves of this right for example.The Green Party has had a long interest in victims’ rights. Indeed it was Nandor Tanczos who led the call for a select committee inquiry on victims’ rights some years ago. There are a number of aspects of our policing and criminal justice systems that are fundamentally broken and I listened with interest to Phil Goff’s comments towards the end of his contribution to the effect that we need real and fundamental change to the system. Well we agree with that. There are an awful lot of places where we could start. We could start for example by addressing the drivers of crime. We have actually done pretty poorly on that and it is interesting that in the House today we have been talking about vulnerable children. We have been talking about child abuse and here we are now talking about crime and punishment. Actually the same things that drive poor outcomes for our kids the same things that drive poor health outcomes and the same things that drive poor educational outcomes are the things that drive crime.Successions of Governments—I am not saying it is this Government particularly—have been poor at addressing those drivers of crime. Weirdly the solutions to improving our crime rates are the same things we need to do to improve our child abuse statistics to improve our health data and to achieve better educational outcomes. We need to empower communities that are vulnerable and empower communities that are marginalised. We need to give them a sense of and actual control over their life circumstances and we need to address the environments that surround them: the physical environments the social environments and the political and economic environments.There have been any number of reports on how to address the drivers of crime and yet we are still not making those fundamental changes. We need to address access of prisoners to the educational services and to the health services they need. We have any amount of data that says that people who are in prisons have high rates of intellectual disability of learning disability and of physical disability—extremely high deafness and hearing loss rates—and yet we do nothing about that or effectively nothing. We have extremely high rates of alcohol and drug dependence amongst our prisoners and yet we are still not at the point of ensuring that all of those people who need those services have access to basic health services including the alcohol and drug dependency treatment services they need.Well what do we expect is going to happen? Of course we are going to see high rates of recidivism and people leaving prison unable to rehabilitate. And rehabilitation services are the next part of the puzzle. Actually we have not learnt anything it seems from the Scandinavian countries which understand that the fundamental point of someone being in prison is to repair the relationship they have with society to ensure that when they come out of prison—because almost without exception they are going to—their relationship with society will be different and they will not offend again. That is another one of the fundamental changes we need to make.But this bill addresses one of the other areas and that is the area of victims’ rights. Mr Goff commented that it is a puzzling aspect of perhaps the Westminster system particularly—and Simon Bridges will know the answer to this—that at the point that a crime is prosecuted the offence is seen to be against the Crown rather than against the victim. For far too long we had a system where victims were almost entirely shut out of the picture. We have made some progress towards recognising and respecting the rights of victims. Again there is still a big way for us to go. The particular aspect that this bill addresses is the aspect that enables the rent in a victim’s life caused by the offending against them to be continued by further victimisation and revictimisation by offenders. It is obvious that this facility should exist and the Green Party will vote for it as we have done at all previous stages. Thank you.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):It is somewhat ironic that we listened to a Labour speaker Andrew Little who was not part of the Law and Order Committee process and we have now listened to a Green speaker Kevin Hague who was not part of the select committee process. Both of them had very different takes on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which upholds the great role that this Government is playing in protecting communities preventing crime and putting victims first. At the select committee we heard some very good submissions on this bill.To be fair life is full of incremental gains and this bill in my view is all about an incremental gain. It is the incremental gain that victims of these crimes—and a lot of them are pretty unpleasant crimes too—are able to pick up. This bill enables that to happen and by putting these non-contact orders in place it tends to protect those people. It gives those victims a little more protection than they had otherwise. Certainly whilst the offender is in prison that is not an issue. It is once those offenders are let out of prison that it becomes a serious issue.Of course I think this bill has done a really good job in that respect and has added a whole lot to the contribution that this Government has made to law and order in New Zealand. I think that on law and order and justice matters Ministers Collins Tolley and Borrows have done an outstanding job for us. I think we should be very pleased with the way this has gone. I think we should be very proud of the little piece of incremental gain that this bill gives to the whole of the law and order sector.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.