Volume 686 Week 31 - Tuesday 11 December 2012(continued on Wednesday 12 December 2012) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 686 Week 31 - Tuesday 11 December 2012(continued on Wednesday 12 December 2012) 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7405. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 11 December 2012 
( 
continued on Wednesday 12 December 2012 
) 
Appointments 
Ombudsman 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to sections 3 and 5 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend to the Governor-General that Ron Paterson be appointed as an Ombudsman for a five-year term commencing on 4 June 2013.  
Back in September my colleague Anne Tolley moved a motion congratulating the Office of the Ombudsmen on its 50-year anniversary in New Zealand and I would like to add my congratulations to those expressed by the House in September to mark this important milestone for this equally important office. 
Today I rise to move a motion that recommends the appointment of Ron Paterson to replace David McGee as an Ombudsman. Mr McGee has decided after 5 years of further service to this country not to seek reappointment and I would like to place on record our thanks for his service in this important role. I think it is worth noting that this will be the second time that Mr McGee has been singled out for particular praise inside this House for his service to the country having previously been the very longstanding Clerk of the House and in that role having international recognition for his understanding of the parliamentary process. 
Professor Paterson is well qualified to become an Ombudsman. He holds a first-class Bachelor of Civil Laws from the University of Oxford and an LLB (Hons) from the University of Auckland. In 2011 he was awarded an ONZM for services to health. He is currently Professor of Law at Auckland University where he teaches legal ethics legal method and health law. He has previously served as Health and Disability Commissioner where he served the community that deals with health and disability issues extremely well. Since 2010 he has chaired the New Zealand Banking Ombudsman Scheme. 
The position was advertised widely throughout New Zealand and the Offices of Parliament Committee as a select committee has acknowledged the high calibre of applicants. Mr Paterson though was unanimously supported by the committee for the position. I want to thank the committee for the work that it did on behalf of Parliament in choosing such an important officer position and I wish Professor Paterson all the best for the undertaking of Ombudsman. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As the Leader of the House observed we recently commemorated on the motion of his deputy the 50th anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsmen I think Mr Brownlee not Office of the Auditor-General but an equally important office of Parliament. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry—I’ll correct the  
Hansard 
. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes and no doubt the  
Hansard 
 will be corrected in due course. 
It is important that we recognise that the Office of the Ombudsmen is an important one and I think everybody in the House in joining in this motion to advise the Governor-General as to this appointment would agree that Mr Paterson follows in the fine tradition of the many distinguished office holders who have served in the office. 
The Leader of the House mentioned David McGee QC. Many of us in the House have had personal experience of his assistance in his former role as Clerk of this House prior to his assumption of the office of Ombudsman. He has in turn performed in a distinguished fashion in that office. It will be a shame to see him leave but it is reassuring to see that he is to be replaced with somebody of the calibre of Ron Paterson. 
Ron Paterson was a long-serving academic at Auckland University. He currently holds the position of Professor of Health Law and Policy there. He was the New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner for 10 years from 2000 and I think it is fair to say that he restored the credibility of that office after his predecessor rather failed to live up to the early promise that the office held out to consumers of health and disability services. It is therefore particularly pleasing that somebody who has that track record will be moving into a broadly similar position requiring similar skills and attributes as Mr Paterson has. 
 Ron Paterson taught me commercial law at the University of Auckland in 1987 but I do not hold him responsible for any of my subsequent errors in that field. His subsequent move to specialise in health law typified by the position that he held in the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner and also as Deputy Director-General of Safety and Regulation in the Ministry of Health prior to that and his many publications in this field indicate that he brings to the Office of the Ombudsmen not only the skills and the intelligence that are required but also a good deal of knowledge of the way in which the public sector works. That of course will be vital to the good performance of his role. 
A final word about the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen. We are all aware that the office has recently had to make it clear that it needs to have adequate resourcing and funds to do its job. My colleague Shane Jones earlier this year via a member’s bill suggested a model analogous to that applying to the Crown Law Office where essentially the department or entity that the Office of the Ombudsmen is examining ought to bear the costs of that examination in order to try to find some sort of sustainable funding model for the office going forward. The House rejected that idea but I think we do have to always bear in mind the need to ensure that this one of Parliament’s most important watchdogs is always appropriately resourced and where it is not we need to take action to ensure that it is. 
I think the other important thing that we must bear in mind when we are considering any matter touching upon this Office of Parliament is whether or not its powers are adequate. We are in an age where information privacy and security are very much at the forefront of everybody’s minds. It is timely I think to consider particularly in light of the recent work of the Law Commission whether the office does have adequate powers to ensure compliance with the principles of the Official Information Act and the freedom of information statutes. Certainly for the Labour Opposition that will be a policy priority in terms of the pledges we make in the election in 2014 whenever it occurs. 
With those concluding words we certainly join with the Leader of the House and I anticipate other members in wishing Mr Paterson and Greg all the best for the next 5 years. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the motion that Parliament advise the Governor-General of the appointment of Professor Ron Paterson to the Office of the Ombudsmen. 
When New Zealand’s first Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles was sworn in in front of the Speaker—your office—in 1962 he said these pretty important words: “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s person—put there for the protection of the individual”. The Ombudsman holds a very respected very important role in our country’s democracy and we have had a succession of very esteemed New Zealanders in this very important role. In September we celebrated the 50th anniversary of this office in New Zealand the fourth only in the world. It has been a good idea and has spread now I understand to 150 countries with Ombudsman-like institutions. 
Before we talk about the appointment of Professor Ron Paterson I would like to acknowledge the work of the current Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem Dr David McGee—who obviously after his term in this office is moving on—and also the staff who play a crucial role doing the important work of the Ombudsmen. 
We have heard of the funding issue. We know that there is an increased workload with increased financial pressures on the office. I think we should consider this in the next year. 
Likewise with the changing of the guard in the Office of the Ombudsmen I think it is appropriate to reflect on the role of the office. Obviously the title of Ombudsman comes from Scandinavian origins and one wonders how many New Zealanders even know what the office is or does. The office is a people’s champion as Sir Guy Powles said put there for the protection of the individual. 
I think with new technologies increasing privacy concerns and increasing Government engagement online it is a good time to reflect on how we can modernise this office. I think Professor Ron Paterson brings an impressive academic CV and an impressive history and will I am sure relish the opportunities and the challenges of adapting this office for the modern age along with Dame Beverley Wakem. He was a professor of law at the University of Auckland and a Health and Disability Commissioner. 
Finally it was a privilege to sit on the Officers of Parliament Committee. I would like to acknowledge all those members and recommend to this House that the Governor-General appoint Professor Ron Paterson. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the recommendation to the Governor-General that Professor Ron Paterson be appointed as an Ombudsman for a 5-year term commencing on 4 June 2013. 
The Ombudsmen provide a vital service for our parliamentary democracy. Their checks and their scrutiny ensure that the Government and its agencies do not subvert or mislead the general public. This year we have had a number of examples that demonstrated the importance of ensuring open transparent and accountable government. We have been reminded that the greatest threat to our democracy lies in secrecy and the abuse of power that occurs when the public is denied its right to know. It appears however to New Zealand First that the Ombudsmen are regrettably under-resourced and we would like to see that addressed as soon as possible. 
We believe in both accountability and transparency. Therefore we support this recommendation for appointment and of course we wish Mr Paterson well in the office of Ombudsman over the next 5 years. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Mr Speaker thank you for at last heeding my request for a call. The reason I was seeking a call in this debate was because I was part of the panel of people who interviewed Dr Paterson. I was also part of the panel that interviewed his predecessor and I think that one of the outstanding features of this appointment is that Dr Paterson comes to it with a very clear vision of the role he seeks to perform. He is aware of some of the challenges that the Office of the Ombudsmen faces particularly in terms of the timeliness of responses to those seeking the Ombudsman’s intervention and he had indicated to the panel a clear strategy for seeking to address those problems which I think is a good positive step forward. He does have an impressive background. His work as a Health and Disability Commissioner I think was not only seminal in terms of the development of that role but also influential and it continues to influence the way in which the current incumbent of that office operates. I am confident that he will be an outstanding appointment and I know that he will approach the job with relish vigour enthusiasm and a real sense of justice for the individual who is seeking the intervention of that office. 
I want also to make a comment about David McGee because the appointment of Ron Paterson as an Ombudsman brings to a conclusion at some point during the transition a long distinguished career of service to this Parliament by David McGee. He became our Deputy Clerk I think back in 1974. He was our Clerk for many many years from around 1986 or 1987 and has now spent the last 5 years as an Ombudsman. That is an unparalleled record of public service. One of the things that has always distinguished David McGee in my view both when he was a parliamentary officer and now as a wider Officer of Parliament has been a sense of fairness a sense of justice huge integrity and a massive sense of discretion. They are qualities I think that we should recognise and remember and we should thank him and wish him well for his future. So congratulations to Ron Paterson on his appointment and thanks to David McGee for jobs well done over the years. 
BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) 
: 
 I support the appointment of Ron Paterson as an Ombudsman for a 5-year term commencing in June. His role will be to handle complaints against Government agencies undertake investigations and inspections and encourage good administration by giving feedback and training through agencies. He will also initiate his own investigations where there is a need—independent and impartial with a focus on fairness for all. 
I would also like to thank David McGee not only for his service as Ombudsman but also for his exemplary service as Clerk of the House for Parliament. My thanks go to him. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Offices of Parliament 
Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint CST Nexia as the independent auditor to audit the financial statements of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for the financial years ending on 30 June 2013 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015 commencing with effect on 21 December 2012.  
This appointment as the motion clearly states is for an auditor to look at the financial probity of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. But it does raise the very interesting question in my head at least as to who it is apart from the cursory time that we get at a select committee who actually takes a look at the work of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
There is a very very considerable capacity for that office to look at almost anything in New Zealand that deals with issues of public finance whether that be at a local government or a national government level. I think there is a question though about where the investigative powers of the Auditor-General should be appropriately used and where they interconnect with what are the perfectly legitimate rights of elected Governments or elected councils to engage in activities that will deliver on promises that they have made to the wider voter community. 
I think that we are rapidly seeing a number of reports coming out of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General that will mean that Parliament has to look at how that intersection is more transparent so that we do not end up with reports that are somewhat self-generated that are often naive in their content and that are occasionally nothing more than self-congratulating for ever having been undertaken in the first place and ultimately with conclusions that simply justify the reason for starting an investigation in the first place. That ends up being a waste of time it ends up being a brake on activities that are legitimate for elected bodies to undertake and I think it also starts to weaken the formal and accepted role of ensuring that the financial probity of activity and therefore the appropriate expenditure of funding provided by ratepayers and taxpayers is handled in a proper way. I do hope that CST Nexia is able to engage with the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in a positive way to give us confidence about the probity of that office. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The issue here is that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General supervises the auditing of the entire public sector in its widest sense and it does so with the assistance of a number of private sector firms that have audit expertise. In the nature of things those firms tend to be the larger and better-resourced ones. They tend to be in large part the international accounting firms with audit practices. 
When the Officers of Parliament Committee comes to consider who in fact ought to audit the auditors obviously the committee has to consider firms that have the expertise but also lack the conflicts. It cannot very well look at the larger firms that perform work customarily for the Audit Office itself and that is why it must look at other firms to ensure that it finds one that has the reputation and the ability to have a look at the very work of the auditors themselves. 
The committee has settled upon the well-respected firm of CST Nexia. It is a small firm. It has I think five partners maybe six and the work that it will perform will be very valuable in terms of ensuring the continuing confidence of this House in the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and its functions. 
I do not think the comments of the Leader of the House about the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General can go unanswered as we join in the motion because I would not want it thought that although we support the motion we also agree with his comments about the scope and role of the Audit Office. 
 There is a real danger I think when the Government of the day becomes annoyed and gets tetchy with individual aspects of work of the Officers of Parliament who exist not to serve the Government of the day in any way but to ensure that Parliament can in the widest sense do its job of holding the executive to account. 
There is no doubt in New Zealand that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for many years has performed that role in an exemplary fashion. There is no justification whatsoever to call for the curtailing of its “own motion” powers of investigation. To say that those powers should not exist and that it should be able to investigate only matters that are referred to it would be an absolute travesty and I am sure that that is not what the Leader of the House was suggesting in his contribution. 
I want to put on record my own gratitude for the way in which the Auditor-General performs her work. I want to put on record the Labour Opposition’s appreciation of the way in which her predecessors have performed their role. And I want to say that we have utter confidence in the office to perform the important role that it currently does. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have started putting the vote. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It’s all right. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: To the contrary No. The Ayes have it. I did wait. I looked around. The member needs to be a little more alert. 
Motion agreed to. 
Consumer Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Consumer Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of this complex and significant reform. The committee has considered changes to 10 Acts and reflected on more than 90 submissions covering a wide range of views. Its changes reflect a fair and robust process and I am very pleased that the committee was unanimous in its support of this significant update of consumer law in New Zealand. Ideally law reform such as this should receive cross-party support. 
The Government is committed to building a more productive and competitive economy. Strong consumer laws are the cornerstone of a buoyant market. When consumers transact with confidence and honest business practices are supported we all reap the rewards. Our laws are basically sound but they are over 25 years old and need updating to deal with modern transactions such as internet trading as well as other technological advances. The main aims of this bill are to offer better protection to both consumers and businesses; to bring consumer laws in line with the business practices of our times; to make complying with the laws much more straightforward; and not least to make enforcing the laws more efficient and more effective. On this Government’s agenda is progressing a single economic market with Australia; changes in the bill make our law consistent with the Australian consumer law where it is the right thing to do so. 
Three main consumer laws are being updated: the Consumer Guarantees Act the Fair Trading Act and the Weights and Measures Act. The Door to Door Sales Act the Layby Sales Act and the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act will be repealed and incorporated into the Fair Trading Act. A new Auctioneers Act with a modern approach to registration is being put in place. I believe that this bill will be welcomed by consumers businesses and regulators alike. My thanks go to the Hon Heather Roy the Hon John Boscawen the Hon Simon Power and the Hon Chris Tremain the former Ministers of Consumer Affairs who have previously guided this work. I believe I have also added to the final flavour of this legislation. 
I would like to comment on some of the most significant changes in the Commerce Committee’s report. The Consumer Law Reform Bill provides for a principle-based approach. Binding the legislation is a purpose clause that will precede the Fair Trading Act the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Weights and Measures Act. This clause has been amended to better reflect the Act’s driving principles: consumer protection and a trading environment that encourages healthy competition amongst traders. The revised purpose is crystal clear. It is to ensure that the interests of consumers are protected businesses compete effectively and consumers and businesses participate confidently in the market place. 
It is through delivering positive outcomes to both consumers and businesses that we will see markets flourish and the economy thrive. The bill will significantly amend the Consumer Guarantees Act so that it covers all transactions between traders and consumers. This includes goods sold at auction or by competitive tender—online or off-line—that are currently excluded from coverage by the Act. All goods sold by traders to consumers will now be covered by the basic guarantees that the goods have clear title comply with description and are of acceptable quality. This makes modern transactions between consumers and traders mode-of-sale neutral. 
I acknowledge that some traders particularly traders of motor vehicles have raised concerns about the guarantee of acceptable quality. The bill will now amend the acceptable quality guarantee to make it clear that the context of a sale must be considered when the definition of “acceptable quality” is judged. If for example a consumer buys a used car from a trader for say $1000 with 300000 kilometres on the clock it probably will not be reasonable to expect the trader to repair it if it breaks down several weeks later. A complementary change has been made to the Fair Trading Act so that traders will be required to identify themselves as such when selling goods on internet sales sites. This is to prevent traders avoiding obligations by posing as consumers. The Commerce Committee has recommended that a new delivery guarantee be added to the Consumer Guarantees Act as a more precise way of increasing protection to consumers. Traders will now be held responsible for goods up to the point of delivery. When goods are damaged and do not turn up consumers can expect traders to address issues. Traders will have to contact carriers for compensation. 
The Fair Trading Act is also an important part of our consumer law framework. A major new provision in the bill is to ban unsubstantiated representations. These are representations made without the manufacturer or trader having any reasonable basis for making them. This type of claim disadvantages responsible businesses that do their research and evidence their representations. People may pay a premium for goods that “prevent asthma” or are “environmentally friendly” and it is only fair that we can trust that these claims are made on reasonable grounds. At the select committee many submitters raised concerns about the application of the new provision to creative advertising. Regulation at the cost of creativity is not the intention. As a result a new subsection has been added. The rules will not apply to claims that a reasonable person would not expect to see backed up by research and evidence. 
The Fair Trading Act will now include the rules for consumer transactions—lay-by sales uninvited direct sales extended warranties and auctions conduct. We all either have experienced or have heard of cases of the extra buying pressure exerted by people who come to the doorstep or of the experience of being sold an extended warranty when it is not quite clear why a person may need it. These areas of the law are vital to get right. Several enhancements have been proposed by the select committee. The main areas of change are in uninvited direct selling and extended warranties. With regard to uninvited direct selling a concern was that the new provisions were too broad. The select committee has made changes to ensure trade events like Fieldays are not captured by the provisions while still ensuring protection from unexpected selling in the home. The disclosure requirements in extended warranties have been changed. Traders must now list what extra provisions the extended warranty gives over and above the Consumer Guarantees Act so that any extra benefits of an extended warranty are completely transparent. 
The Commerce Committee was asked to specifically examine whether to add to the bill unfair contract terms and unconscionable conduct provisions along the lines of such provisions in the Australian consumer law. Weighing up the views from both businesses and consumer representatives the committee has recommended adding provisions dealing with unfair terms in standard form contracts into the Fair Trading Act. In respect of unconscionable conduct the committee has advised it is desirable in principle to address this issue but believes it is prudent to wait until Australia has developed a body of authoritative case law on the matter before considering following suit. Only the Commerce Commission will be allowed to take action to have a term in a contract declared unfair. The bill also includes a list of examples as are also listed in the Australian consumer law which will give the courts additional guidance. 
Finally the committee has taken steps to strengthen enforcement powers and penalties. These include giving the Commerce Commission compulsory interview powers when investigating the most serious breaches of the fair trading law. Penalties for more significant breaches of the Fair Trading Act like giving false or misleading representation have been raised to $200000 for individuals and $600000 for corporate bodies and these bring us closer to comparable Australian consumer laws. Penalties in the Weights and Measures Act have been brought into line with those in the Fair Trading Act. Fines for offences in consumer transactions like lay-by sales remove the need to take matters to court. Product safety officials have been given more authority to enforce consumer information and product safety standards including the right to inspect business premises. Strong and relevant consumer laws are essential for both consumers and businesses. I am confident this reform will help promote confident well-informed consumers. In turn we can drive competition innovation and sustained growth. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As the Minister of Consumer Affairs has said Labour supports this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill and has supported it since its introduction on 20 April 2011. I do want to comment just briefly on the length of time it has taken to get this law to this point in the House just concluding its second reading on the last sitting day of this year 2012. It was referred to the Commerce Committee on 9 February this year which does show that it sat on the Order Paper prior to the general election and was not dealt with until then. The closing date for submissions was 29 March 2012 and as the Minister has said they have received 90 submissions hearing 60 of them. 
Unfortunately I am not on the Commerce Committee so I am not able to traverse all of the detail of the legislation in terms of the response of the select committee but I do have one of the departmental reports which I do want to refer to in relation to the last matter that the Minister concluded on which is the question of unconscionability. I have been on the record as the spokesperson in support of unconscionability going into our law. I understand why the Government has adopted this particular point of view but I think that it is probably a little bit unfair just simply to mention that some submitters commented on it. I want to put on the record who supported the introduction of unconscionability provisions and who was opposed. 
Let us start with the list of those who were opposed to the unconscionability provisions and I am reading from the departmental report: “Various submitters opposed including the concept of unconscionability in the FTA”—not the free-trade agreement but the Fair Trading Act—“including Fonterra Business New Zealand Telecom New Zealand Retailers Association and the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce.” So those were the ones who were opposed to writing unconscionability into our Fair Trading Act as the Australians have done. “Submitters in favour of introducing unconscionability provisions include the Salvation Army Consumer New Zealand the Citizens Advice Bureau the Whitireia Community Law Centre the Commerce Commission and the Motor Trade Association.” What is the difference between those who support the introduction of the unconscionability provisions and those who oppose them? I would suspect that the ones who are in support of the unconscionability provisions being written into the Act are actually those who are dealing with people day in day out who are the subject of unconscionable behaviour. 
I want to talk about unconscionable behaviour because unconscionable behaviour is occurring daily in Christchurch. Every single day my colleagues and I are approached by people who are dealing with insurance companies that are trying to evade the obligations that they signed up to when they were perfectly happy to take the premia off our constituents—off the people of Christchurch—year in year out. What is happening now? We have elderly people being told by their insurance companies that they have no option other than to accept an unconscionable offer because they do not think that they are going to be around long enough to see their property rebuilt. So if the Government really wanted to address one of the major problems that is being confronted in Christchurch at the moment it would be looking seriously at this unconscionability provision and it would be looking at who supports it and who does not. On a daily basis as I say there are all sorts of concerns being raised. 
Let me just read into the record the purpose clause from the new fair trading legislation as it was introduced and then how the Commerce Committee has addressed it. It was: “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to a trading environment in which—(a) trading is fair; and (b) there is effective competition; and (c) consumers and businesses participate confidently.” This was changed in the select committee to read: “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to a trading environment in which—(a) the interests of consumers are protected; and (b) businesses compete effectively; and (c) consumers and businesses participate confidently.” I think that the select committee has actually got that right. I think it shifted the balance when it reasserted the purpose clause in the way that it has because I think there is an assumption—there certainly is in the case of Christchurch—that people feel that the market place is actually what they have been abandoned to on their own. 
There are instances where the Government actually does have to put its hands on and there are instances where the market does not actually supply the answer particularly when there is an inequality of knowledge so that there is a discrepancy between what the company knows and what the consumer knows and also when people do not think that they have got any real choices in the matter. That is where this question of the interests of consumers being protected comes in because it is not equal in the market place in all instances. If somebody walks into a shop and they see an item that they want to buy if the price is right then they will buy it. Their interests are protected in the market in that regard. But their interests may not be protected if the owner of the particular product or the service that they are buying knows more than that person about what they are buying and the owner knows that there is not fair value or that they are buying something that is not safe or up to a particular standard. 
That is an issue that is dealt with a little bit in this legislation but there is actually a little bit more work that needs to be done. What we have not managed to get to in this country—and I notice that the standards legislation has fallen off the Order Paper—and what we need to get to in this country is an ability to have the public-good standards written on behalf of the public good with public-good funding that is not dependent on the private sector or an individual Government department referring a matter to Standards New Zealand in order for a standard to be written. We actually do have to do better than that because there are instances where people could not possibly have the same amount of information as the owner of the product or the supplier of the service—could not possibly be in the same position as them—and we do need a law that protects them better than even this law will do. We agree with the original concept—and I think the Minister left it out of his list—of the Hon Heather Roy because in fact she was the one who was the enthusiastic individual who promoted the One Law—One Door mantra and we have not got there yet. That is something that we do need to think about—whether we can in fact get to that point. 
But I want to place on record that the Prime Minister of New Zealand told Christchurch that he would be there for them that he would walk alongside them. There are instances— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Nobody would be worse off. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Nobody would be worse off—that has long gone that one. I think the word that I hear more often in Christchurch in relation to that matter Mr Cosgrove is the word “disappointed”. Every single day I hear people saying that they are disappointed. There are others who are angry and feel betrayed. But in terms of the consumer rights the protection that he promised would be there has not been there. People have been abandoned to deal with their insurance companies alone and nobody is standing alongside them. We have people coming to us on a daily basis who are not coping and I am deeply concerned at the psychological damage that is being done. There are people in our areas who are suicidal because of the pressure that they are being placed under by the rapacious insurance companies. 
If we are seriously going to address consumer law reform then this bill does not quite go far enough. We will be supporting this bill. Of course it is an improvement on what the current law is but it does not by any means let anyone off the hook for the real reform that is yet to come. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak at this second reading of the Consumer Law Reform Bill. A review of consumer laws commenced in November 2009 with the then Minister of Consumer Affairs presenting to consumer and industry representatives proposals for a modernisation of and a reduction in a number of consumer laws. All except one of the laws covered by the Consumer Law Reform Bill are more than 20 years old and have not been reviewed in that time so this is a timely and very important review and update of our consumer laws. Consumer laws are such that they should be seen as fundamental laws that should stand the test of time and not need regular amendment. 
One of the areas in the bill that the Commerce Committee has worked on is this area of unfair contract terms. Major work was undertaken by the Australian Productivity Commission in its jurisdiction to determine the extent to which unfair contract terms were problematic in Australia. This was outlined in the commission’s report in 2008 on the Australian consumer policy framework. Its investigation uncovered largely anecdotal evidence of an existing problem. The Productivity Commission’s report cited studies that indicated between 5 to 15 percent of all consumers may be detrimentally affected by unfair contract terms each year. We note also that internationally modern consumer law provides protections against unfair terms in standard form contracts. In Australia provisions for unfair contract terms are included in the Australian consumer law alongside protections against misleading and deceptive conduct. 
A term is an unfair contract term only if it is declared as such by the High Court or a District Court on application of the Commerce Commission. This process would ensure that the Commerce Commission was given control of the enforcement of unfair contract terms and it is most likely that the Commerce Commission would be talking to firms that are using unfair contract terms and would see them comply prior to declaration by a court. 
The Commerce Commission’s submission noted that in its fair trading enforcement work it had identified some issues that may have been more effectively dealt with if there were or had been unfair contract terms provisions. Here are some examples. 
A telecommunications company increased the customer’s monthly plan price for their broadband service from $35 to $40 a month 6 months into a 2-year contract. In doing so the company relied on a term permitting unilateral price increases in its standard form contract of service. The company told the customer that the price increase was due to an increase in the wholesale that it was paying to a third party for the service. The company insisted that a significant termination fee would be charged if the customer cancelled their contract due to the increased price of the plan. 
Another example is a rent-to-own scheme that included terms and conditions in its contracts to the effect that the consumer did not purchase the property but was granted a right to occupy the property under a 30-year instalment agreement. There were a number of contractual terms that were likely to have been regarded as unfair. For example the occupiers had to pay for any repairs that the investor companies said needed doing. Also if the occupiers failed to meet a payment at any time in the 30-year period the agreement could be terminated. So here are some examples where we would say that consumers were definitely getting the rough end of the stick. 
In another example a company leased water filters to the lessee for a period of 2 years for a minimum price of $15 a week. The contract included a clause requiring the lessee to exercise a right of purchase or cancel within 7 days of the end of the lease. If the lessee failed to purchase or cancel then the contract automatically rolled over for a further period of 2 years on the same terms. These requirements were not clearly disclosed to the lessee when the contract was entered into. 
We can see that there are some obvious changes in this Consumer Law Reform Bill. Unfair contract terms is just one significant area. Other areas were acceptable quality guarantee. That is to do with the expectation that a consumer might have that their product has an acceptable quality and also the implications and obligations of the trader in that regard. We looked at online auctions. Of course that was a very important area. One of the areas I think that we have come through to an agreement on is that there should be no mode of sale that is exempt from the Consumer Guarantees Act. 
I am very happy to commend the good work of our committee the Commerce Committee and this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Lianne Dalziel left off saying that of course we will support this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill. We agree with its objectives. Who would not? However it does not abrogate a Government’s responsibility to be an active player in supporting maintaining and enhancing consumer rights. My colleague talked about the earthquake and I saw there was one member over there who was spitting bile over at this side as she was speaking about the difficult situation that many of our consumers are dealing with in Canterbury in my area and others. The situation they find themselves in is they are dealing with the monster insurance company—legalled up with all the experts—and the granny or grandad at 83 years old with a munted house is on their own not knowing what to do and receiving very very little support if any from the Crown apart from the good offices of say the community law centres the citizens advice bureaux and their legal expertise and others. The odds of them getting a good deal are stacked against them. 
Most of us in this House are not lawyers so we do not have that precision of legal expertise to interpret contracts and documents that are put in front of us. But I suspect most of us in this House have the wherewithal to go and hire the experts we need to assure ourselves of the fact that the deal that might be put in front of us by an insurance company in that situation in Canterbury or others either is a good deal or is not a good deal. I know from dealing with local folks in Canterbury—for instance a very straight example is even when it comes to pathways and driveways where individual folks have been asked by project managers to sign a contract and in one case I think it was 14 pages before the job was done that had blank dollar figures in it. Blank dollar figures—that is not on. The point my colleague was making is that there is a role even despite this law for a Government that felt that it was appropriate to surgically intervene on these matters. 
In respect of say insurance companies and some of the examples I have cited there is a role for the Government to surgically intervene despite the passage of this legislation and its overarching objectives and remedies in respect of consumer rights. We know of course that this—what is the term? The behavioural term? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Unconscionable. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: This unconscionable behaviour is catered for to be dealt with in this legislation. You would have to argue— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh leave David Cunliffe out of it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh we will get to you in a minute. We will get to you in a minute. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Don’t be so mean. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We will get to you in a minute— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Mr Nasty’s back. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh well I was not the one who interjected on the colleague as the old acid drop in the corner there has a crack. Unconscionable behaviour is dealt with in this bill. When we talk about—if we are going to talk about individuals—unconscionable behaviour I am mindful of some examples a bit close to home. One could look at and one would hope that this legislation would deal with what I call the “Brown Bag” factor—the “Brown Bag” factor—where “Brown Bag Banks” of course got himself into some difficulty— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Look the member can use the illustration but we are not going to put tags on people’s names. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: OK. Far be it from me to refer to the Hon John Archibald Banks in that way but we could look at Mr Banks’ situation and ask whether his situation would be dealt with in some way shape or form under this legislation. I am mindful of the fact that it deals with false and misleading representations. I would have thought that would be very germane to the Hon John Archibald Banks in his situation in respect of Mr Dotcom. I am mindful here of a passage in the bill commentary that is very interesting which talks about “Unsolicited goods and services”. We know that the Hon John Archibald Banks alleges that he received some unsolicited—or were they solicited? We are not quite sure of the nature of the bodyguard or what was in the brown bag—and I am not referring to the Hon John Archibald Banks—or whether those services or goods or dollars or rocks and stones or gold bars or whatever they could have been were unsolicited or not. Mr Banks maintains they were not solicited. Mr Banks maintains that when he received the bag the sack the envelope the whatever he did not know what was in it. 
I am mindful of the passage in the bill commentary under that heading of “Unsolicited goods and services” that says: “To ensure that museums could”—I do not know whether they are referring to that old political relic John Archibald Banks—“still treat anonymous goods left with them as gifts rather than as goods left under their care which they are obliged to try to return.” I do not know whether—that old political relic Mr Banks—when the officials drafted this they were mindful of Mr Bank’s situation. I do not know. I do note with interest and I would ask whether this was an unsolicited good or service in the media that Mr Banks has purchased an elephant. I do not know whether that was an unsolicited purchase or— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The elephant in the room. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The elephant in the room. I do not know the name of that elephant or whether that elephant has been given a name—maybe “Brain Fade” or something like that. But I do note from fifth form science that I am told elephants have a damn good memory and I am wondering whether Mr Banks has looked at this legislation and thought that maybe a remedy for his lack of memory was to purchase an elephant. That elephant may be able to provide some instruction. He may remember what his name is. He may remember where he comes from what he did yesterday whether he took a helicopter ride whether he met Kim Dotcom what was in the brown bag and what was in the envelope. This could be very very instructive. It could be a remedy in medical science that we have simply not seen to date and Mr Banks may have made— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: High technology. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: This could be as my colleague said a high-tech breakthrough given that elephants never forget—elephants never forget. So I look forward to the scientific or DNA evidence or research that will probably be published in Harvard medical journals and other learned institutions around the world as they compare the size of Mr Banks’ fading memory and cranium with that of his elephant “Brain Fade” and it will be interesting to see where we go with that. I know that the learned judiciary in coming days next year may call the elephant actually as a witness on medical advice— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The only credible witness. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —the only credible witness—to provide some sort of benchmark for amnesia or other medical conditions. 
 On a more serious note this is important legislation. None of us in this House would disagree with protecting and enhancing consumer rights. We have seen cases over recent years where consumers have been led down the garden path have not had their rights preserved and have been abused commercially and otherwise. I suppose I should come back to my original point which was that there is still a role for the Government because even this legislation once put through—and I do not mean any disrespect to our communities—is reliant on those in the communities who have the experience the skill or in many cases the financial resources to act in a way that despite the legislation can protect their own interests. What I get concerned about are those vulnerable souls out there who do not have the experience perhaps of us in the House and other places and who do not have the—I will not say “guts”; that would be inappropriate. But those who would not be brave enough if you like in the face of say insurance companies to say no to resist or have the confidence—that is the word I was looking for “confidence”—to resist some of the pressure that is put on consumers they are out there on their own. They do not have the facility to seek advice and they do not have the resources to seek advice. 
All they are seeking actually—they are very smart—is to know whether this is a good deal or not but they do not have the resources that we do in our areas of interest to gain that backup to have that confidence or to gain that support. Despite this legislation there will always be a role to protect those people—and in some cases not to be unfair often from themselves—from a position of a lack of knowledge where they get themselves into difficulty where they put themselves under pressure or where they are subject to the pressure of commercial interests. Acting in good faith as those individuals are—and we have all dealt with them in our various communities—they get themselves tied up in legal and consumer knots. So there is a place here I think for consumer education to be enhanced and there is always a place despite any legislation put through where Governments must be prepared as I said at the start of my speech to surgically intervene where there are gaps and where commercial entities try to pull the wool. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Consumer Law Reform Bill. We are supporting this bill because it proposes the most significant changes to consumer law in the last 20 years because it includes protection for consumers and because it provides for more effective enforcement of these laws. We all know someone who has been ripped off or exploited in some way to buy a product they did not need or a service under pressure who was quoted a misleading price or who was sold a product that did not perform as expected. This bill will help address and close some of the more significant gaps and loopholes. 
I would like to mention here—the previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove notwithstanding—that I was impressed with the level of engagement by the Commerce Committee members who seemed to put political differences aside and work for the best possible outcome. I also want to acknowledge the very high-quality advice that we received from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which seemed to be able to produce a swathe of experts on a whole range of issues from consumer goods to auctions and from unfair contracts to third-party payment. The submission process was very interesting as there were very few submissions from individuals. The bulk of submissions were from businesses energy companies retailers and the like as well as from community and consumer groups and I feel that this reflects in part the very complex and detailed nature of this bill. 
We are very pleased that the bill makes it explicit that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to internet sale sites and requires all traders selling goods and services to consumers on internet sites to identify themselves as such. The Green Party is also particularly pleased that the bill significantly expands the powers of the Commerce Commission which will enable it to be more effective in carrying out its work. 
The committee has recommended compulsory interview powers for the Commerce Commission. We strongly support this move as these powers are needed to assist the commission in obtaining documents and information that will allow it to properly investigate a company in a timely and cost-effective way. Some people had raised concerns that these powers may be too heavy-handed. We are satisfied that the safeguards proposed in the bill are adequate in that the powers will apply to investigations of serious offences only and the person being interviewed is protected from having their statement be admissible except for serious charges if the case were to proceed to court. 
In addition to the increased powers for the Commerce Commission there are a number of other areas in the bill that the Green Party is particularly pleased to see including provisions preventing unfair contract terms in standard form contracts. One of the things I particularly questioned about this was whether that would mean it could rule out some very standard contract terms in banking contracts and insurance contracts and rule them to be unfair. The reply was that yes it could do that and that is a move that we hope will eventuate. 
However the change that the Green Party is most pleased to see in this bill is the proposed prohibition on making unsubstantiated representations. This provision will address an area that the Green Party has been concerned about for a long time. Many consumers base their purchasing decisions around claims such as having a reduced impact on the environment using 100 percent renewable energy being biodegradable using resources sourced from sustainably managed forests and so on and such conscious consumers will often be prepared to pay a premium on the price that they pay for the assurance of such claims. One of the really frustrating things for us is that so many claims are actually not true are misleading or are based on “greenwash” that we effectively have to become detectives or rely on pressure groups to do that detective work for us in order to be assured that the claim is in fact true or we have to cross our fingers and hope. We consider it to be a fundamental right of consumers to be confident that claims made for a product are based on truth. 
An unsubstantiated claim also disadvantages businesses that make the effort and do the research to ensure that their claims are based on fact. Currently the difficulty with the law as it stands now is that it can be very hard or costly to prove a claim is false and this has proved very onerous on the Commerce Commission. The crucial aspect about the proposed change is that the onus of proof about a claim will shift from the Commerce Commission to the business making that claim. Just imagine businesses will have to prove that the claims that they make about their products are true. It is disappointing that a significant number of businesses such as Meridian Energy argued that it would impose significant compliance costs and be too expensive for them to provide the evidence required. The solution to this is simple. If you do not have good evidence that your claim is true do not make that claim. 
 However the committee did take on board concerns about the possible impact on advertising creativity by recommending new clauses that make it clear that the provision does not cover representations that a reasonable person would not expect to be substantiated. I am sure that the makers of a very high-profile product will be relieved that they do not have to provide evidence of wing growth. 
The Green Party did have a concern that the Commerce Commission would not have sufficient powers to effectively enforce the prohibition on unsubstantiated representations—a point that was made by Consumer New Zealand. We considered moving an amendment to the bill to give the Commerce Commission the ability to issue power of substantiation notices as is the case in Australia. We sought advice from the Commerce Commission on this issue and have been reassured by the Commerce Commission’s view that the substantiation provision in this bill is superior to the substantiation in the Australian consumer law because it is simpler more easily enforceable and a better education tool. It has also informed us that it does not feel it needs specific substantiation notice powers because it expects to be able to use the existing information-gathering powers under section 47G of the Fair Trading Act along with if necessary the new compulsory interview powers to support the new prohibition on unsubstantiated claims. 
For this reason we are happy with this reassurance from the Commerce Commission. I am confident that it will be able to enforce the prohibition and therefore we are pleased to be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I suppose as a hard-out user of TradeMe—I have had I think from memory 266 wins on TradeMe—you are always wondering whether the goods you receive which can range from a sliding door that we purchased from an unfortunate leaky building and it was only $150 so we thought that was quite a good deal— 
Chris Hipkins 
: You can return the Speakers’ gown. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: We will get to the comedy later. You always wonder whether you have any comeback on the goods you have purchased whether they were from a shop or whether you were lucky enough to win an auction on TradeMe. My hat goes off to TradeMe by the way. 
This bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill allows those who buy off TradeMe who win auctions on TradeMe and other auctions like TradeMe the guarantee or the protection I suppose of legislation. What that does is it makes the consumer feel a little bit more protected. It makes the consumer a little bit more pleased with himself or herself when they are out buying. But I suppose probably the most important aspect of this legislation is the unsubstantiated representations. We see them on a day-to-day basis if you look at the TV—you know on the TV shop and the shopping channel. The consumer today is inundated with products. That is due to new technology. You are watching it on TV or you turn on your screen on your laptop and advertising is over the top. So there must be some protection for the consumer. I think that the Commerce Committee in doing its job has actually done an absolutely wonderful job. 
There are suburbs—Otara Porirua and Manurewa—that are actually going through this I suppose blitzkrieg of people in little vans and trucks who stop outside people’s homes and berate people to sign— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: National Party candidates. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is actually not the National Party. In fact I know a lot of people out in New Lynn who are Cunliffe supporters— 
Jacqui Dean 
: What? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yeah well there are only one or two. I digress. These people prey on the less fortunate they prey on people who do not know the law and they prey on people who cannot read or write and somehow they sign people up to a contract with huge interest rates. It is predatory. It is the most horrible thing to observe and I think that what we have achieved here and what the select committee has achieved here is some true protection for those who are on the end of those predatory traders. So I want to say thank you to the select committee. 
It is time that the consumer laws in New Zealand were modernised. I think it is a thorough reform. They are clear laws. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not thorough—that’s the point. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I think it is and it will be shown to be thorough because everybody in this House will vote for this legislation. OK? That is the point. 
Then we hear from the other side of the House. Half of Clayton Cosgrove’s speech was about the Hon John Banks. Well my words to Mr Clayton Cosgrove are these: you know you can talk about the allegations about John Banks but what about some of the allegations of large donations from the fishing companies to certain MPs? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Ooh that’s a good question. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And that is not an allegation. That actually is on an MP’s return. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yeah declared. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh yeah he declared it—that is right—but he also tried to bring in a member’s bill to actually support that fishing company. For goodness’ sake! That is the sort of area that members opposite do not like. It is easy to make unsubstantiated allegations it is easy to stand up in this House and say what you want to but they do not like it when you start to push back on some of those allegations because they are as guilty as those whom they allege are up to no good. If you can throw it then please accept that it is going to come back on you—most probably tenfold. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Say it outside the House. Don’t be a scumbag. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The screeching from that member from down in the South Island—that is all they can say: “Say it outside the House.” 
This is a good bill. It is the Hon Simon Bridges’ first attempt at legislation and I think it is a damned good piece of legislation that protects our consumers and makes it easier for the consumer to trade with a bit of protection from a bill that is I think a long time coming. I do commend this bill and the work of the Hon Simon Bridges. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Consumer Law Reform Bill. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I thought Brendan was the spokesman in this area. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: No I am the spokesman on consumer affairs Mr Bridges. As the spokesman for consumer affairs I can advise the Hon Simon Bridges that we will be supporting this bill because after 25 years it is overdue that there is a review of consumer legislation. This is long overdue and we feel that it is good legislation to be bringing to this House. 
It was very interesting hearing the dissertation from Tau Henare all about his antics with TradeMe and the selling from vehicles outside his house and all that sort of thing. It certainly would have qualified him greatly to become the next Speaker of this House with such significant consumer knowledge of TradeMe and all the wins that he has made on TradeMe. What a shame he did not continue through with his position as Speaker because I am sure that with that sort of background and that sort of ability he would have won support hands down from everybody in this House. But as he did not we will have to look forward to another day when Tau Henare will put his name forward as Speaker and we all look forward to that occurring. 
But in terms of the Consumer Law Reform Bill and the purpose of this bill certainly it covers all transactions between traders and consumers. That is a very important part of this bill. It will tidy up this whole business of the grey areas—what happens between traders and consumers particularly online particularly on the internet and all that sort of thing where there is a certain element of risk and where people are a little bit dubious about how to conduct business online. This does tidy a lot of that up in terms of competitive tenders in terms of ensuring that the goods are received properly and in good order and that the person sending the goods is responsible for those goods until they are signed for and received by the recipient. Again that is a good thing because there have been a lot of areas of doubt particularly with retailers sending things out these days more and more by courier and by various means and we need to ensure that the goods are received by the person in proper order as they expect them to be. 
Also in terms of the Fair Trading Act part of this bill is reviewing the Act to prevent unfair contract terms in standard form contracts. It is tidying up a lot of those standard form contracts—and again that is a good thing—and modelling a lot of that on the basis of Australian consumer law. Likewise it is good that we are bringing our standards into line with many Australian consumer law standards. Again that is very useful because so much does move trans-Tasman between Australia and New Zealand—so much so these days in fact that often the goods are not housed in New Zealand; they are often housed in Sydney or Melbourne or somewhere else and they come directly from other places. So it is good that we are lining up with Australian consumer law so that again we are better protected. 
In terms of breaches of the Fair Trading Act the penalties are also increased which is a good thing going from $60000 for breaches of the Fair Trading Act to $200000 for individuals who breach the Fair Trading Act—that is a maximum; to a maximum of $200000—and for bodies corporate penalties are going from $200000 to $600000. An amount of $600000 is starting to get into some serious serious money in terms of possible breaches of the Fair Trading Act so again that is a good thing. 
New Zealand First has said in this House that we will support good policy and we will oppose bad policy. In this case we believe that this is good policy. This is a good move. This does greatly improve the rights of consumers in this country but it also probably sets a better standard for providers for suppliers for merchants and for all those sorts of people so that they very much will know where they stand and what their requirements are in terms of service. Also the consumer will have a far safer position in terms of doing business particularly on the internet. Nowadays with so much being sold via the internet or via email or via texts and Twitter and all sorts of things it is vitally important if you cannot physically touch the product but you see it online or whatever that you have more guarantees and more safeguards to protect you. So we support this and New Zealand First will be voting for the bill. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I also support the Consumer Law Reform Bill and I commend the Commerce Committee for the work it has done on it. It is good to note that there is widespread support for updating this area of law to reflect technological advances and modern consumer conditions. 
My Christmas wish is that I will be able to contribute further to improvements in our consumer law next year by winning the parliamentary lotto competition better known as having a bill drawn out of the members’ ballot. I have been working with representatives of the Scrap Metal Recycling Association of New Zealand for nearly a year now and they and I hope that my bill the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Scrap Metal Dealers) Amendment Bill will be drawn early in 2013. 
We have got a serious problem in this country arising from the increasing incidence of scrap metal thefts and that does come under the umbrella of consumer law. We need to drive the cowboys who harm the honest operators—and that is the vast majority—out of that industry and make it harder for thieves to dispose of stolen scrap metal which has become an attractive currency for those who choose a life of crime. 
But that is yet to come. For now this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill serves a worthy purpose and deserves our support. It has mine. I close Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch by wishing you all honourable members and all who are listening at this moment a very merry Christmas and a happy summer holiday. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I reciprocate the good wishes of the member opposite Tim Macindoe and wish him and his colleagues a merry Christmas too because we are in fact here in the dead of morning. It is the dead of morning which may not be as dead as tomorrow morning because of course we have got the press gallery party tonight but we are in the dead of morning. That is spelt m-o-r-n-i-n-g but of course in the National Party they put a “u” in the word because I have been looking at the latest opinion polls that show the National Party heading downhill with an inexorable slide to the Opposition benches. 
But you know we are a fair-minded Labour Party. We are here to help the Government tidy up what it has obviously put in the bottom drawer to just scrape through at the end of the year. This Consumer Law Reform Bill is important to consumers. This is one of those bills that stand up for the little guy for the ordinary Kiwis who are often vulnerable in the face of unfair trade practices commercial bullying monopolies etc. You would think it would be a priority for these guys. 
Let us ask ourselves when the bill was introduced—20 April 2011. It was one of those feel-good things National members talked about before the last election to tell New Zealanders that they were on their side and then suddenly it was just not a priority any more. How long did it take for the bill to get its first reading? It was not until 9 February 2012 that it went to the Commerce Committee and it has languished all the way through the process until the very last day of the parliamentary school term. The Opposition is playing pooper scooper here helping it get all the loose ends the rats and mice tidied up and we were not going to let this one by. 
We were not going to let this one by because this one is really important to ordinary New Zealanders. Why is that? Well you know the goals of the bill could not be better really could they? They want consumer protection law and consumer practices which are No. 1 fair. Who can argue with fairness? In fact I think it is part of Labour’s constitution. No. 2 is that it brings in effective competition—effective competition. “Effective” means that it may not be perfect but it will get the job done. And that does not mean monopolies rule the roost as they have so often under the National Party. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And they’ve changed the wording. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: And we have changed the wording. We have improved it to ensure—and this was the work of the Commerce Committee; we are quite proud of this—it is the interests of consumers that are protected. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They forgot that in the original bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: You would think that that would be implicit in the title of the bill but in the Government and the Minister’s first draft they forget to put “consumers” in the purpose clause. Well it could have been that they were there to protect the monopolies. But we were not going to have it. We ensured that the Consumer Law Reform Bill was here to protect consumers—what a good idea— 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s novel. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —exactly right—and to ensure that businesses compete effectively. Well in the history of National Governments that has not always been the case has it? We remember the way that for 10 years at least Maurice Williamson was—remember—the “Minister for Telecom”. What Telecom wanted Maurice Williamson would agree to. There was no effective competition there until the last Labour Government came in and sorted it out. 
The electricity industry under Max Bradford was a kind of pseudo competition. New Zealand had an electricity system that worked he split it up into a group of local monopolies that added cost and complexity and the consumers’ costs went up and up and up. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s because they privatised a lot of them. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That was a typical National Party combination of deregulation and privatisation. New Zealand consumers know it has been toxic. It has hit them right in the wallet and this bill is a small way of making it up to Kiwi mums and dads and saying: “Actually have a merry Christmas because we caught this egg before it hit the floor. We’re here to support it through the House on the last day of school.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not even going through the House on the last day. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well this is at least getting a second reading. We are trying to help here—my colleague is quite right. It is not going all the way through; this is the second reading. God knows at the current rate of knots when the third reading is going to be. On this Government’s timetable it might just go into the next election promising to pass this bill. Well that would be a help. 
So what does the bill deal with? Well the first thing is that consumers are very seldom on a level playing field. It is really important that we as politicians just recall to the public that we understand why that is. If you go to the doctor the doctor knows more about your illness than you do. The doctor has got more information. When you go to a specialist provider of goods and services whether it is for a vacuum cleaner or a TV they will know more about what they are selling than you probably do about what you are buying although the internet helps even that up a bit. 
Monopolies oligopolies and cartels are another sort of problem. I want to acknowledge the Government actually for one thing. I am being nice to it this morning. I want to acknowledge it for the efforts to have a look at the shipping industry in the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that is currently before the Commerce Committee. That may help limit some of those cartels but often it is consumers who are the ones who suffer. 
How do they suffer? Well here is the content of the bill. We deal with things like “unsubstantiated representations”. What a wonderful phrase that is—“unsubstantiated representations”. That means telling porkies. That means when someone is trying to sell something to someone they say things that are just not true like oh I do not know: “We will not raise GST.” That would be an unsubstantiated representation would it not? Especially if you then turned round and said: “Hey I think we’re going to raise it after all.” And then you said: “Well we never promised we wouldn’t.” That would be an unsubstantiated representation. 
What about: “Climate change is a hoax.”—climate change is a hoax—followed by: “Oh we’re going to have a world’s best practice emissions trading scheme.” followed by: “Well we’re going to withdraw from the follow-on negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol.” What a national shame that is and another unsubstantiated representation. 
Unsolicited goods—well we certainly could not top our good colleague Mr Cosgrove’s contribution earlier who talked about the brown bag that turned up on Jonathan Archibald Banks’ desk. You know helicopter rides free iPads the whole palaver but he could not remember a thing about it. It certainly is a mystery to us why those unsolicited goods and services were not recalled. Unsafe products product recalls and safety officers are also all in here. One of the advantages of this worthy little bill is that it draws together regulatory standards from a bunch of different Acts and puts them in one place. 
Thirdly it harmonises our law with that of our Aussie mates. We on this side of the House are not one-eyed about that proposition. We do not believe in a knee-jerk response to harmonise with Australia just because it is Australia. But where Australia has sensible law that provides better protections for consumers as it does in this case and a better labour law would be another example we are happy to see the benefits of harmonisation. 
There are a number of specific and substantial changes that were made by the select committee to this bill on the way through. If I just perhaps mention a few in passing: firstly the introduction of a new prohibition on the use of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts. That is when you go to a shop and you are given a form or you might get it on the internet when you buy something online a bit like getting a standard rental agreement on premises. The terms that are in there because they are standard form agreements ought to be terms that ordinary New Zealanders can rely on without having to sweat and worry. This bill thanks to the work of the select committee provides that. 
In relation to those unsubstantiated representations there is a new test that it should be representations that a reasonable person would expect to be substantiated. We might call that the “no crap” clause. There is a new provision in the Consumer Guarantees Act that business transactions must be fair and reasonable. We have increased the maximum penalties from $60000 to $200000 for individuals and from $200000 to $600000 for bodies corporate. We have enhanced the enforcement powers of the Commerce Commission and we have removed changes related to the Carriage of Goods Act which were too complicated to bring into force in relation to when a limited carrier’s risks end and the purchaser’s take place. There is a new guarantee as to delivery on the other hand in the Carriage of Goods Act. So that is the kind of perhaps unspectacular perhaps worthy but none the less really important stuff that is in this bill. 
May I in closing offer Christmas good wishes to you Mr Speaker and all your colleagues in the Chair to members opposite and all around the House and to our wonderful staff who keep us safe fed clothed and watered around this building. I wish you all and the public well for a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 Before I talk about the bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill I echo the greetings to the House from the member opposite David Cunliffe who has just sat down. I echo that: merry Christmas to everybody. What irony from David Cunliffe. How the mighty have fallen! He talks about unsubstantiated claims and he talks about fair trading. The irony is in the unsubstantiated claim he made to the Labour caucus saying he had the numbers. The Labour caucus saw through that. The fair trading that happened in that caucus was that he got demoted he is on the back benches and he is speaking not from the front row but from the back row. He calls that fair. That is fair trading indeed. He is lucky that this bill is actually coming to fruition now and perhaps if it had happened at that time there might have been a claim. 
This bill is a good bill and everybody agrees with that. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that consumers are protected. I want to give two very quick examples of some of the unsubstantiated claims that have bothered a lot of people in the ethnic communities. As a mother I look at some of the ads and I really have to think whether the claims are in fact true or not. I do worry that there are people out there buying them. There have been advertisements for health products that promise to give your child an extra foot in height. Often Asian parents worry that their children are not going to grow as high as tall as they should because of differences in diets and whatever. These health products claim that they will guarantee an extra foot. This bill will make sure that those people cannot make those kinds of claims. I think that is a good thing to happen. 
The second example is the thing about the Consumer Guarantees Act which will be amended to better protect consumers who receive goods via a courier. I know of an incident where a local service centre had sent a repaired good a telephone back to the owner. The owner could not get to the service centre and had organised her own courier to get it delivered. But when the phone actually got delivered to that person the phone was broken. It was shattered. By the time it went through that whole insurance process it was a nightmare. It took for ever and it took months to repair but a good service centre actually took responsibility and paid for the product using its own insurance company. But there are other companies that are not as responsible and this bill will make sure that when goods are sent by courier it is actually the sender who is responsible for the good. This bill is a good bill. I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next call is a split call. Clare Curran. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call on this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill. This piece of legislation this piece of law is a good piece of law. I want to make a couple of comments about the good work the Commerce Committee has done on it. I want to particularly mention the officials because they have worked very hard to make this bill work for consumers and they have put an awful lot of effort into it. They do deserve a special mention for that. The Commerce Committee works very hard on the legislation that comes before it and it works cooperatively and collaboratively around most bills that sit before it. I do want to make that point. 
The point about this piece of legislation is that it is about looking at how in tough economic times you can make sure that consumers are protected. That is very important. It is unfortunate though that at this very moment consumers are not being protected in another environment. Pointing to the importance of this bill this bill is a good strong piece of legislation in the making. It may be that we can have a good debate around it and the arguments that went backwards and forwards on it. But what we are seeing at the moment is a massive piece of hypocrisy with that Government intervening in a regulatory process that is going to force up phone and internet bills for New Zealanders and the Prime Minister intervening and saying that he will not rule out legislation. Ultimately that will end up being a situation where the consumers of New Zealand lose out—lose out—at a time when they should not. 
The laws that were made by this Government 2 years ago through the Telecommunications Act were hotly debated in this House. Warnings were given around what might or might not occur. Well sure enough it has come to bear that the Government has now got itself in a pickle and there is article after article appearing on this particular issue including by the former Telecommunications Commissioner who came out yesterday and said that it was an unprecedented move for the Government to intervene in this process in a way that is going to affect consumers. It is going to affect consumers adversely if the Government intervenes in the way it says it is likely to do. I want to make that point because it is an extremely important point. 
Although on the one hand here we are debating a piece of legislation that is about putting in place a more fair regime for consumers particularly in terms of bringing legislation up to date in the online environment—and an extraordinary amount of good work has been done on a piece of consumer legislation—on the other hand we have a situation where consumers are going to be sold down the river. That will all be in favour of propping up the profits of a privately owned company Chorus in order to suit the will of the Government and its intentions around ultra-fast broadband. Twelve dollars a month is quite a lot of money for the poorest families and people on low incomes. Twelve dollars a month is at least what consumers are going to be stuck with in their phone and internet prices at a time when those prices should be going down. 
This issue has created widespread horror and uncertainty for the whole of the telecommunications industry which is seeking stability. This bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill is meant to be providing a more secure environment where everybody knows where they stand but instead in an unprecedented move the Prime Minister has intervened and said he will not rule out legislation. The industry has been sent into turmoil. 
There is the prospect of judicial review of any final decisions that the Commerce Commission does make. This is at a time when there should be certainty and stability in the industry so that the telecommunications companies can get on with investing innovation can occur and more services get developed which will create more competition and ultimately consumers will be better off. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a few brief comments on this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill. I was on the Commerce Committee in fact when it was first introduced and so it is good to see it make one more step. It was interesting at the time to recognise that a lot of the Acts that this bill amends are actually quite dated—dating back to the 1970s and 1980s—and one Act the Sale of Goods Act actually first saw the light of day in 1908. It has been amended since of course but it is something like a quarter of a century since we had a serious look at consumer law and on this bill I think the select committee has done a good job. 
Clearly a great deal of work has been done and there are some quite major revisions but I do think it is a good piece of legislation which we are pleased to support. It seems to me that one of the guiding themes perhaps of the committee’s work has been in a sense to follow the money. By that I mean that I think it has sort of hunted out situations where a seller a less than scrupulous trader might be looking for opportunities to extract more money from a consumer without offering value in exchange. I think that is a pretty good theme to pursue in this sort of context. 
I am particularly pleased about what have been referred to as “unsubstantiated representations” which is a wonderfully florid phrase basically describing people who are seeking to rip off or mislead. The particular concern obviously or one of them form our point of view is the whole issue around “greenwash”—people making unsubstantiated claims about some environmental or social quality or characteristic of a product or service that simply is not there and simply is not able to be backed up or supported. Not only is it unreasonable and unfair on consumers but also it undermines the very good work done by companies that work very hard to offer genuine brand value. They actually work very hard to invest in the sustainability or the ethical in terms of a product or a service. 
Of course there is an ongoing battle in the banana market in New Zealand which is not a trivial market. Collectively it seems we spend about $150 million a year on our favourite fruit. Of course when you get a company like All Good which invested a considerable amount of money to get third-party fair trade certification for its bananas being undermined by a company Dole coming in and putting on its product a sticker that says “Ethical choice”—a claim that has absolutely no substance and no third-party verification—it is essentially “greenwash”. We ought to be driving that out of the market to the extent that we possibly can and I think this bill makes a useful contribution towards that. 
I recall when this bill first came up that I was quite surprised to learn the extent to which a recipient of unsolicited goods actually has some degree of responsibility for those goods despite not having asked for them. I am pleased that there are some provisions in this bill that just push that responsibility back to whomever might be giving or distributing unsolicited goods. It is reasonable that yes if something comes to you you ought not to seek to destroy it but equally I think that if I do not ask for a product to be sent to me if I have not indicated a wish to receive it I ought not to have too much in the way of responsibility for those goods. That should remain with the individual who saw fit to send them to me. 
This bill certainly brings up to date the relatively new phenomenon of internet trading which is quite commonplace. We all do it. Most people now resort at some point to purchasing on the internet. The provision for people who are in trade is good—professional sellers of goods as opposed to somebody just clearing out the garage and getting rid of something they do not want. It is important that we understand who we are dealing with whether it is another private individual or a company as our expectations are reasonably different in terms of support. So I think that is a good improvement. 
The final comment I would make is to say I really applaud the effort that has been put into the whole issue of extended warranties. Consumers are not just being offered so-called extended warranties; often they are pressured. Often consumers purchasing electronic goods for example are put under considerable pressure to purchase these extended warranties that in fact offer very little protection and often less protection than is already available in the consumer protection law. So it is good to see—I think it is an excellent idea—that a summary must be offered highlighting what if any value is included. So this is good legislation. Compliments to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the select committee. We are happy to support it. Kia ora. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am happy to welcome the further advancement through the parliamentary process that this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill is taking. Consumer laws are important for New Zealand citizens and it is good to see that after roughly 25 years they are getting an update they are getting an overhaul and that some new provisions will be enacted for New Zealanders. Like my colleague Melissa Lee I too was listening very carefully to the speech by the Hon David Cunliffe. I just simply say to him “Welcome to the backbench Mr Cunliffe.” Welcome to the backbench. I could never be quite as cutting as my colleague Melissa Lee but she did make an observation of oh how the mighty have fallen. Welcome to the backbench. 
I would just briefly like to comment on one aspect of this legislation that I thought was particularly worth commenting on and that is the extension of the disputes tribunal’s jurisdiction to cover section 9 of the Fair Trading Act. Having an appropriate level of access to justice for consumers through the disputes tribunal and extending that power to section 9 of the Fair Trading Act I think is particularly welcome. It is something that has been raised with me before by a constituent in my electorate and I am pleased to see that it is being changed through this legislation. It is a good bill. It enjoys wide support amongst the House and I look forward to it passing its second reading. 
Bill read a second time. 
Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move  
That the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I wish to thank the Social Services Committee for its thorough consideration of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The proposed amendments improve service for recipients of New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension who live alone. 
The bill includes several changes. The first and most significant change simplifies the process by which older New Zealanders access the extra assistance that recognises the additional costs of maintaining a household on their own. We are making the process simpler and more streamlined. We want to make sure that older New Zealanders are not burdened by unnecessary bureaucratic processes having to fill out additional application forms. It sees the current extra amount of $26.84 per week after tax the living alone payment replaced with a new single living alone rate of superannuation and veterans pension. This will in effect combine the single rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension and the extra living alone benefit into a single rate. 
Currently this extra assistance known as the living alone payment is a separate payment. This means that the surviving superannuitant or veterans pensioner needs to make an additional application to receive it. The payment can be paid from the date of death of the spouse only if the application is received within 28 days of death. Otherwise it is from the date of application. For some surviving spouses the stressful time of bereavement can mean they overlook completing the application. This sometimes means missing out on receiving the living alone payment from the date their circumstances changed. This bill means that no older New Zealander living alone is worse off. 
This change will have two key benefits. Firstly older people living alone will not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. Instead if their living circumstances change they can let us know over the phone by email or by visiting a Work and Income office. Secondly this bill will remove the 28-day time restriction and with it the unnecessary financial hardship that might arise from overlooked applications. The bill provides for a new single living alone rate that can be paid from the day the superannuitant or veterans pensioner becomes entitled to receive it and that is at it should be. 
This change aligns with other operational changes led by the Ministry of Social Development to simplify processes and to improve services. In March 2010 the Minister oversaw the establishment of the dedicated senior service line separate from Work and Income to identify ways to deliver high-quality services to older New Zealanders. Since its launch in May 2010 online applications for New Zealand superannuation have become commonplace. Currently around 31 percent of applications are made online. We have reviewed how we process disability allowances and funeral grants and have continued to grow the number of business partners offering commercial discounts to SuperGold card holders. It is an ongoing priority of the Minister that older New Zealanders can easily access their full entitlements to support and services. 
The next change addresses the definition of a dependent child. The bill proposes to make the reference to a “dependent child” in the living alone provisions of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and in Part 6 of the War Pensions Act 1954 more consistent with the definition in the Social Security Act 1964 and the Income Tax Act 2007. Superannuitant parents will continue to receive the living alone rate of superannuation or a veterans pension until the end of the year in which the young person attains the age of 18 years provided that the young person remains financially dependent and is attending school or in tertiary education. This is consistent with the original policy intent. This change relates to the situation where a child aged 18 years or older who lives with their superannuitant parent is financially dependent and is attending school or in tertiary education. This amendment will ensure a consistent definition of a dependent child across the social assistance system reflecting that a young person who has attained the age of 18 years is considered an adult for most purposes. 
I can assure you that this change will not mean any young person living with a superannuitant parent is left without adequate financial support. A fundamental tenet of the social assistance system is that the correct social support where required is applied to meet a person’s needs. Living alone assistance recognises the extra costs of maintaining a home on your own and is for a single superannuitant or veterans pensioner including those who have a dependent child living with them. A person aged 18 or over irrespective of their own or their parents’ living circumstances can earn income from paid work. Others might receive a social security benefit such as the unemployment benefit or for people with a temporary or permanent disability a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. Other financial support is also available—for example assistance with accommodation costs or disability-related costs. The Government ensures this range of financial assistance is there for young people in times of need. 
For those in tertiary study a student allowance or a student loan is available. A student in full-time tertiary study aged 18 to 24 who is living at home is eligible for a student allowance provided their parents’ combined annual income is under $83449.01 before tax. Students in receipt of a student allowance either the full amount or a reduced amount because of parental income are able to earn up to $206.73 before tax per week before their rate of allowance is reduced. A student in tertiary study who is not eligible for a student allowance because their own or their parents’ income is over the threshold can apply for a student loan for living costs course fees and course-related costs. This is consistent with Government policy for all tertiary students. 
The bill also contains an amendment of a technical nature. This sees the term “licensed boarding house” replaced with the term “boarding house” so that it is consistent with a recent amendment to section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In its consideration the select committee agreed to two minor technical changes to the bill as recommended by the Ministry of Social Development. The first change extended the date of enactment for the bill to 6 July 2011 in order to account for delays in completing the first reading of the bill. As that date has now passed the Minister will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House to further extend the enactment date. 
The second change agreed by the select committee expanded the transitional provisions for the bill. This change will enable a client who has been bereaved within 28 days prior to the enactment date to have their application for the living alone payment backdated to the date of death of their spouse or partner. This would allow people in this situation to receive the living alone payment from the date of death to the bill’s date of commencement and the new single living alone rate thereafter. 
 The amendments contained in the bill will address issues with the current living alone payment. The Minister is confident that the amendments will ensure a fairer and more equitable experience for older New Zealanders who live alone. In summary this bill is further evidence of the commitment by this Government to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners receive their full entitlement without an unnecessary burden placed on them to apply for it. The Prime Minister has repeatedly assured the public that New Zealand’s superannuation settings and the age of entitlement will not be changed by this Government. The simple common-sense changes in this bill streamline the payment. Finally I thank on behalf of the Minister the Social Services Committee for its consideration of the bill and agreement to these arrangements. I commend the bill to the House. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 We on this side of the House accept the Minister for Social Development’s explanation with regard to the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and so Labour supports this bill. The bill ensures that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. Labour supports this bill as it improves the lives of older New Zealanders by reducing the requirement to make an additional application to receive their full entitlement and we agree with the mainly technical changes it proposes. 
The Social Services Committee had a chance to receive submissions and has recommended some changes in relation to people who become entitled under the existing law to the living alone allowance before this bill’s date of commencement. There were only two submissions on this bill from the public. They were from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and Grey Power. There was no request to be heard by the committee but these two submissions were considered. Both submitters gave general support to the bill but both also expressed concerns with various clauses. 
The Dunedin Community Law Centre expressed that “this change will provide some peace of mind for those who suddenly become single after the death of their partner.” It however expressed concerns that new section 4A “provides that a person is living alone only if he or she occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence subject to 2 exceptions with any person who is 18 years old or older. The first exception relates to the person’s dependent child who is 18 years old is not financially independent and is attending a school or tertiary educational establishment. However the first exception applies only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old. The second exception relates to a temporary visitor …”. 
The Dunedin Community Law Centre “foresee problems with Section 4A for superannuitants and veterans pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education.” It argues that “Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age a standard bachelors degree takes three years which means at the very least a child enrolled to do a nursing degree a BCom LLB BA or BSc et cetera may not be financially independent until they are at least 21 years of age.” For other children it would probably be older. 
Furthermore it argues that today couples are having children at a later stage in their lives and we now find parents are still supporting their dependent children in tertiary education as they move into or are in their retirement years. For example a woman who has a child at 40 years old or in later years may be supporting that child when she turns 65 years old and her child is in their 20s. Similarly if a man has a child when he is 50 years old then that child will be 15 years of age when the father becomes eligible for superannuation. 
The Dunedin Community Law Centre proposed that “it may be more prudent to have a 12 month clause rather than making this an exception ‘only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old.’ This clause means that a parent with a child born January is able to access the living alone payment for longer than a person who has a child who turns 18 in September.” 
The Grey Power submission also shared concerns with the same clause. It submitted that “Some single parents may without alternative income or savings wish to support the child through the time that the child is receiving Tertiary Education and there could well be some cases of undue hardship which may need special support.” 
Sadly the Government did not accept the arguments by Grey Power and the Dunedin Community Law Centre and did not support these arguments put forward. The Government— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Do they have a Samoan wing of Grey Power? 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: Almost. The Government is adamant that other support is available for adult children and it says besides a child who turns 18 years old is an adult. 
Here is where I have a problem. The Government says that an 18-year-old will have access to their own source of income either wages from a job a benefit a student allowance or a student loan. I would have to say that every single source of income that the Government has identified for 18-year-olds is drying up and they are drying up under this Government’s watch. So I find the Government’s argument incredulous and out of touch with the reality New Zealanders are facing today especially when we take in John Key’s promise to create 170000 jobs. It failed. It failed and instead we have 175000 people without work. 
The household labour force survey figures show that youth unemployment ages 15 to 19 years has gone up to 25.5 percent. For ages 15 to 24 years unemployment has gone to 17.3 percent. Overall since National has been in office unemployment amongst 15 to 24-year-olds has increased by 16500 since December 2008. The number of youth not in education employment or training overall since National took office—15 to 24-year-olds—has increased by 18000. So when the Government says that 18-year-olds have their own source of income by earning an income through a job benefit student allowance or student loan I have to say that that is incredulous and most parents would say that is not good enough. Why would any parent want their child to work at 18 years unless it is towards gaining a qualification? Why would we want our young people to work for 80 percent of the minimum wage? Why would we want as a country not to invest in our young people and ensure they have the best opportunities and are supported to gain a tertiary qualification? 
Labour also has concerns about the bill and we will be putting up amendments at the Committee stage. Our concern is that the provisions in the bill relating to dependent children may not take into account the diverse range of situations that superannuitants and pensioners may find themselves in when it comes to cohabiting with their children. 
Currently a single superannuitant or veterans pensioner is eligible to receive the living alone payment only if he or she does not share that residence the exception being where the other occupant is a dependent child. The bill will amend this exception to provide that a person who has a child living with them can receive the new single living alone rate only until the end of the calendar year in which that child reaches the age of 18. We are concerned that there will be cases where this distinction will have unintended and unfair consequences—for example where a child is over the age of 18 but may have an intellectual disability and could still be classified as dependent or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. Also this policy is inconsistent with the student allowance policy where a young person is still means-tested against their parents’ income until they are 24 years of age thereby classifying them as dependent. New Zealand Labour does not believe that these issues were adequately addressed in this bill so for that reason we will be looking to provide amendments in the Committee stage. 
I want to take this opportunity to wish everybody a very merry Christmas. I know that in the communities in Mangere throughout Manukau this has been a really difficult year—and I sincerely mean difficult—because people have struggled to make ends meet with high unemployment and with the cost of living. They have just struggled. I hate standing up in this House and supporting bills that this Government puts through but as a responsible Opposition we do support this particular bill. But in terms of the range of other bills that this Government has put up throughout this year I want to say to those members that they are hurting our communities—they are hurting our communities. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for hard-working communities such as Mangere especially when you have a National Government in power. Merry Christmas. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a time of Christmas cheer so I will not respond to that particular criticism of the Government but it is a real shame—a real shame—that the Opposition actually feels that way because it has opposed every single economic growth agenda that this Government has actually put up. If it wants growth and if it wants jobs the economy has to perform better and the Opposition has opposed every single way right throughout. 
This bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payment) Amendment Bill is a great bill. It may seem that the bill is making minor changes but they will be significant for the people who are affected by them. The system needs simplifying and I support this bill. 
It is pleasing to note that even though the previous speaker Su’a William Sio sort of talked as if he was opposing the bill the Labour Opposition is in support of this bill and so is the Green Party and I think the rest of the House. It is actually very pleasing to note that we are making things easier for the veterans and superannuitants. 
The living alone payment is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitants and veteran pensioners who live alone are not able to share the costs of maintaining the household. This payment needs to be applied for separately and this bill makes sure that it is all together. They will not have to apply for it separately. When veteran pensioners and superannuitants are faced with the loss of a partner or a spouse they are going through the pain of their loss and often they are not thinking how they are actually going to apply for a particular benefit. They may not even know that they could have applied for this benefit to help them through the difficult times. So this bill makes it simpler. This makes it easier. 
As someone who has great friends who are in fact veterans—the K-force the Korea Veterans Association are very close to my heart—I do know that when they are grieving sometimes they do not even know whether it is morning or night. For them I am thankful for this bill and I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I was intending to take just a short call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill but the derogatory comments by the last member Melissa Lee really open the field for a slightly wider response to what that member was saying. Melissa Lee was saying that this side of the House has not supported the Government’s growth agenda. Well where is that growth agenda? What growth has been achieved? What that member refuses to acknowledge is that the country is suffering. There are people going into Christmas poorer and with little on the table. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table but that member chose to respond in that nasty kind of way. Really what that member was not acknowledging is that the country is disappointed—is disappointed—in this Prime Minister and is disappointed in this Government because things have not improved. Things have been poorer— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Concentrate on the bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member should go back and have another sleep—because he was having one earlier Mr Finlayson—rather than interjecting with his inane comments. Go back and have a sleep. That might be better Mr Finlayson because that is what the member was doing just a few minutes ago. For many in this country these last 4 years have been years of crisis I say to Melissa Lee with 4 years of broken promises 4 years of no growth 4 years of more people leaving the country 4 years of greater unemployment and 4 years of our youth being just totally disenfranchised. So let that member think about that while she tucks into her Christmas dinner this year because there will be many who will not be doing that. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table. This bill is a good bill. We support it. It is largely uncontroversial so there is no need for the member to invoke all of those nasty things about this side of the House. 
The need for the bill arises from a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority in relation to a decision of the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Really although the amendments to the bill are relatively minor and technical their effects will be significant on the lives of our most vulnerable—the elderly and those on other kinds of pensions such as veterans for example. Change for our elderly is trying at the best of times. Whatever can be done as this bill does to make that transition easier is to be supported which is why this side of the House has cooperated in the select committee process and supports this bill. To take that risk of trauma away from our elderly at this time is important. 
 The bill makes it clear that pensioners and veterans whose situation changes and who begin living alone will not be disadvantaged and that the transition to their new status will be a smooth one and really can be effected immediately. That is a good thing. So the new single living alone allowance rate will apply to these two groups of people: pensioners and those on veterans pensions. Under the amendments contained in this bill there will now also be a simplified procedure—and that is quite important—for their status as living alone to be effected immediately and automatically. This is a sensible change. Clearly there was a difficulty with the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority that had to be fixed up. It has taken a while for it to go to the Social Services Committee and come back but it is here now. 
Another change has to do with the situations of those with a dependent child. My colleague Su’a William Sio talked about this at great length and explained that the definition of a dependent child is brought into line with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. The change now enables a person going on to superannuation to still be living alone until the end of the 18th year of their dependent child. So until the end of the year that the child turns 18 the person can still up to that point be declared to be living alone. That is a sensible thing to do. 
However it does really raise problems. This is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was talking about. At the select committee we tried to have this matter addressed. In addition to what my colleague Su’a William Sio was saying there are other situations that really are quite common now in New Zealand. We have talked about people having children later in life and therefore reaching the stage of retirement when they still have dependent children. With the increase in the number of grandparents now having to care for grandchildren the chances of that group of people having children dependent on them still living at home even beyond 18 have not been taken into account. This is why we will introduce some amendments during the Committee stage of this bill. 
In addition to what has already been talked about there will be those who will have particular and additional needs especially those with disabilities so the cut-off at year 18 seems a little bit arbitrary for that particular group of people. There could have been some simple amendments made through this particular amendment bill that would have addressed that but that opportunity was not taken. As I said knowing that there is a growing need for grandparents who are on superannuation to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren here we have an opportunity missed that we did not take that into account. We will be talking about that in some detail during the Committee stage so that those kinds of changes can be made. This is what the Dunedin Community Law Centre people and Grey Power were saying—that this was an opportunity to do that. But we could not convince the select committee to go along with that. 
The other changes again are technical. The bill does bring some definitions of licensed boarding houses into line with the Residential Tenancies Act. Although these changes are technical they have real impact on the lives of our most vulnerable at a vulnerable time. I am pleased that the bill does make those changes for our elderly and those who are veterans and makes that transition easier simpler and seamless. But it leaves a major issue unaddressed. I would like to hear what other members of the select committee who follow will say about that now as to what were those ideas and how they could be addressed because it still sits on the table particularly at a time when it is much more difficult for many young people especially those who are dependent because of disabilities to get work and to become independent. 
We all believe in families. We believe that families ought to offer that kind of support. We have prevailed now upon our elderly mainly grandparents to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren and when that is made more complicated because of the disabilities that exist in families then I thought this Parliament would take the opportunity to address that through this particular bill but it did not do that. There is an opportunity during the Committee stage. I hope members will consider the Supplementary Order Papers that are to come on that particular issue. If addressed they would resolve a difficulty. This side is quite happy to support this bill with that proviso. 
Returning to what I started with this is not the time through this bill to talk about this side’s response to what the Government is trying to do because the Government needs to live on its own record over the last 4 years. That record has not resolved the misery of many families and as they go to Christmas we ought to contemplate that. In the spirit of Christmas may I finally also wish the House and members’ families a very merry Christmas. Please keep safe. Thank you. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill as has been stated by others already seeks to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. Currently single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone are eligible to receive through the Work and Income process a supplementary benefit which has to be applied for separately. This is in recognition of the extra costs of maintaining a household. This bill streamlines the system so that people will not now have to go through a separate application to be able to receive their full entitlement. It was great to hear the Minister of Defence in introducing this bill on behalf of the Minister for Social Development talking about the importance of people being able to access their full entitlements and to have that support of the State in their time of need because that is a core principle of the Social Security Act. I would love to hear that kind of discourse more often in this House. 
 I would also like to reference the member Melissa Lee’s comments about grief and the importance of having a process that enables people to survive when they are not necessarily able to function in times of grief how completely overwhelming and destabilising that grief is how we want more for our old people or anyone in grief than to have to deal with bureaucracy to be able to feed themselves and care for their dependants in that time and the importance of us as a country being able to support people through that grieving process as well as we can. They are I think very important values for us to be able to focus on. A very positive wonderful thing for us to be able to end the year on is to think about how we can support others in our community in their times of need. So I am thankful to the Government for reintroducing this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill on the last day of the House for this year and to be able to focus on those values at this time. 
I recognise that care for our elderly has been an important I think aspect of our society and that we have managed to avoid high levels of poverty within our older population in New Zealand because we have looked at having universal entitlements and streamlining access to income support. It is a very stark contrast sadly to the news we have had this week around the levels of child poverty because in this area we do not have those systems of universal entitlements or ease of access to the existing entitlements. I would love to see some of the thinking behind this bill extended to more of our population to ensure that we can actually address the levels of poverty where they are greatest in our country at the moment. 
I also note that some of the changes that happened with this bill within the Social Services Committee seem to be very sensible in terms of the transition periods recognising that in relation to the dates of this coming in people should not be unduly affected because of the commencement dates and also the change of the commencement dates. It has been 2 years. We had hoped to have as the select committee had suggested a commencement date of 6 July 2011 when it reported back. I like that we can talk about this on the last day before the holidays but really I think it would have been better to be able to get this through the House when we have so much support for it a bit earlier so we could have made these changes as they needed to happen. 
I would also like to acknowledge the Labour Party’s concerns that were referenced in the minority report and I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Papers that it brings forward because this bill provides that support for people when they have dependants up to the age of 18 but there does not seem to be a protection or provision for people who are caring particularly for dependants over the age of 18. There is a significant chance that people may be caring for children with intellectual disabilities who may be older than that. I would not like to see them miss out on the opportunity of the streamlining support that this bill offers so I look forward to that. 
 I do need to just say that although we really support this bill yesterday I was in Auckland at the Auckland Action Against Poverty rally and I saw the impact it is having at the Work and Income offices in Onehunga. It has advocates from all around the North Island who are on the streets outside the Work and Income office there at the moment where people going into Work and Income can sit down with them and talk to them about their case and find out what their entitlements are. I think 12 Work and Income officers have been designated to work on their cases. What they are finding is that most people have entitlements that they were not aware of—that they had not been informed of—until the intervention of these advocates and that is as a result of our law at the moment. 
Nothing that we have seen in terms of the welfare reforms this year has done anything to make our social security system more accessible. They have done nothing to help people get the entitlements that they need to be able to live and support themselves and their children and I think that is a tragedy. When I was in Onehunga there were queues of people waiting to see these advocates and we know that that could happen in any—any—Work and Income office around this country. People could turn up and queue to get advice about their entitlements and they would find out they were entitled to things they had never been told about previously and that is a shame on us at this time of year—at any time of year. 
I would also just like to mention in relation to this bill that on the Order Paper there are many bills relating to social security amendments. Indeed at the Social Services Committee at the moment we are considering another bill relating to social security and I would just like to reference the submission made in that process by the Legislation Advisory Committee—the committee of the Attorney-General. It noted that the base legislation of social security is not in very good shape because there have been just so many amendments to the Social Security Act without anyone taking it in hand and making it fit for purpose. We keep on picking up these small aspects of it and trying to fix them or going in with a piece of ideology and thinking and trying to reshape it to meet that. It has resulted in a huge amount of inconsistency and has made the Act really inaccessible. 
Since the Act was introduced it has been amended 131 times. This actually matters because it means it is really hard for people to know what they are entitled to and this is when it is about people surviving—people who are struggling to feed themselves—and it is important that they know what they are entitled to. So I am advocating for a complete overhaul of this Act. It would be lovely to see it more consistent with the thoughts behind this particular bill today about making sure everyone can get the entitlements they need and that they are supported in times of stress and able to look after themselves and their children as well as they possibly can. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It makes some small but important changes to a couple of pieces of legislation to allow single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone to not have to make a separate application for their entitlement to be fully seen in their pockets and it also makes some changes to the definitions around dependent children. It is good to see that the House is supporting those changes. 
I simply cannot sit down without acknowledging and answering the comments from Rajen Prasad. I know he is still living in the good old days of when he was a Families Commissioner. He may never reach those lofty heights ever again but if he wants to talk about records let us talk about records. This Government is happy to stand on its record on jobs which he and Su’a William Sio were referring to where 13000 jobs have been created through our 90-day trial— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: How many are going to Australia? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: —and where Mr Prasad we saw 6000 people who would leave the unemployment market if Labour’s policies were implemented. We are happy to see the 3000 people who gained some jobs through  
The Hobbit  
legislation we passed. We know that 9000 young people under Labour’s record ended up leaving the employment market because of the youth minimum wage changes that it made. So we are happy with our record. If Rajen Prasad wants to talk about records and lost jobs he should look at Labour’s own records because we have got a record we are proud of. We are happy to say that we have had economic growth policies that have always been opposed by the Opposition but have always been good for the country and the country knows that Mr Prasad. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Talofa lava malo le soifualau afioga i le fofogafetalai. Thank you and good health to you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. First of all I say to Melissa Lee that it is wise not to make assumptions on how the political parties on this side of the House are going to vote before we have even had the chance to contribute. This bill was introduced to the House in the previous term and therefore New Zealand First did not have the opportunity to contribute to its first reading debate. If we did there would have been some improvement to the bill in order to address a few loopholes it currently has. So although the National Government continues to perform like a pessimist who sees difficulty in every opportunity New Zealand First is more optimistic in seeing opportunity in every difficulty. 
The current bill aligns itself with modern norms and values that capture the actuality that pensioners are confronted with when making two separate but similar applications for living alone payments. The bill recognises that the stakeholders concerned deserve one simple application which is indicative of ensuring that pensioners have easier access to what they are entitled to. The current bill now has some teeth behind its lip-service. I want to acknowledge the minority view report by the Labour Party which raises some very valid points. 
The main benefit of the bill is that it simplifies accessibility to and increases the utilisation of entitlements through the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act for the sole purpose of making one application. The interrelatedness of the two bills recognises the cross-cuts of eligibility in order to receive a supplementary benefit for individuals who live alone. It also recognises the need for greater emphasis on simplifying social assistance procedures for entitlements so that pensioners may go about their daily lives without fussing over making another separate application. Well why did it take the National Government over 4 years to do something right? Perhaps the National Government was too busy cutting funding to the 24/7 victims’ helpline. Or perhaps the National Government took too long to realise that it just cannot justify punishing these respected citizens who have sweated blood and tears for us to be where we are now. After all these are the same citizens who suffered in the gruesome labour force of the past and made sacrifices for our generation and yet they have not asked for more than a helping hand. 
The proposed changes in this bill are in tune with what pensioners need and indicate a shift away from bureaucratic red tape—a change that New Zealand First firmly supports. It is not every day that we agree with the National Government or see eye to eye with it but New Zealand First recognises the importance of this Government’s duty to properly determine the genuine needs of those who are deserving of welfare especially when it comes to superannuitants and veterans. Emphasis should also focus on a sustainable increase regarding the payment rate to make a more effective and positive impact on the lives of many pensioners. Concerns over its capacity to benefit different living arrangements and its traditional cloudy perception of dependent children have been remedied and we are very pleased about that. 
“Living alone” is now defined as a person who occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence with anyone aged 18 and over. We acknowledge that exceptions are applicable to pensioners who live with a dependent child or a person who is not financially independent and is attending an educational institution. However we are mindful that the bill still has conflicting consequences for the dependent child upon assessment for the student allowance and that ought to be addressed further. The definition of a dependent child reflects its modern interpretation and understanding through the Social Security Act and also that of place of residence by including boarding houses as a form of residence through the Residential Tenancies Act. The main concern is over its potential overlap with the other entitlements that a dependent student may be confronted with due to his or her living arrangements which should be considerably important also. 
Similarly there need to be greater clarity and informative measures that allow pensioners to gain greater shall we say understanding about their rights and entitlements. This responsibility should be placed on the staff who process these applications so that there is transparency and communication regarding the well-being of pensioners. Making this a priority will foster more effectiveness and promote better respectability being shown to pensioners. 
New Zealand is becoming increasingly more diverse with different and often conflicting hegemonic ideals that directly affect pensioners. This should not be viewed in a negative way. Instead this should encourage greater emphasis on providing possible alternatives to meet the pace of a changing society. With this bill I suppose you could say that it is a step in the right direction because we believe in supporting good legislation and opposing bad legislation. It might not be excellent legislation but it provides a slightly better opportunity for our citizens. The positive aspect of the proposed changes is that they afford pensioners the same definitive classification of a dependent child as working-age beneficiaries have. The bill also accepts that there is no unitary residence and avoids using a one-size-fits-all definition regarding pensioners’ place of residence. This bill can also potentially become futile if it is not dealt with in an appropriate fashion. Egalitarian values need to be open to different circumstances and policies should also reflect and respond to these differences with urgency and respect. 
Although we are cautious about the potential cracks and shortfalls New Zealand First supports the bill. We support it because it contributes toward securing the needs of retired New Zealanders regarding easier accessibility. It also minimises rules and provisions around defining a dependent child and place of residence. If my interpretation is the same as that of the Minister for Social Development and her National Government the proposed changes allow superannuitants and veterans pensioners to receive the living alone allowance. This is beneficial because it excludes the restrictive and insensitive nature of the 28-day rules that govern entitlement when a person experiences the grieving process of losing a loved one. All New Zealanders should be afforded the same degree of respect and dignity which are principles that underpin our egalitarian values. Equality measures and sustainable schemes should be open to how we live our daily lives and not be misinformed by how we ought to live our lives. This requires tuning in on how New Zealanders go about their lives and is symbolic of better governance practices. The intended outcomes of things should have a positive impact on the lives of pensioners in reality. 
In the next 30 years 26 percent of the population will be over 65 years old—going from 550000 to well over 1 million New Zealanders receiving a form of retirement income. The challenge now is to maintain immediate certainty whilst planning for long-term security with additional measures in place. I ask the National Government not to be afraid to take one large step with the bill because you cannot cross the chasm in two small leaps. The enhancements in this bill reiterate the importance of minimising bureaucracy and maximising the full enjoyment of entitlements. Pensioners are afforded less time worrying about living alone payments and more time spent in enjoying their retirement. 
New Zealand First supports this bill in its second reading with the view of making some minor amendments in order to address some of the loopholes. Allow me to wish all the residents of Manukau East every member in the House and of course all the SuperGold card holders a very merry Christmas and a safe and pleasant New Year. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Currently under the regime the living alone payment is a separate benefit so superannuitants and the recipients of veterans pensions who have become single normally after a death in the family then have to make a specific application to receive the additional supplement. The amendment in this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill corrects that so now at the worst time in a person’s life when they have just lost probably their lifelong partner they no longer have to think of having to go down to the Work and Income office and make an application. That is done automatically. That is just such a good measure on behalf of this National Government. I totally support it. 
It is a bit like the measure that this Government brought in with the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill where this Government also gave permanent excusal to those people over 65 who consider that for whatever reason—normally infirmity or distance from the court service—they do not wish to be part of the jury service. It is ironic is it not that the members across the House are falling over themselves to support this bill and yet they opposed what they called an ageist measure in the jury service bill? Well just get a bit consistent you guys. I mean this Government is very clear on the fact that we support older New Zealanders and will bring good legislation to this House to support older New Zealanders. You cannot cherry-pick this stuff like they do across the House. 
Hon Member 
: Clear about what? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well Labour does New Zealand First does and the Greens do—they are absolutely falling over themselves to support this bill. But let us bring just a little bit of consistency. I think New Zealanders are looking for that and they get it from this National Government. Thank you. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. As a couple of members of the Labour Party who have already spoken in this debate have said Labour is supporting this bill. We recognise that the living alone payment allows people who do not or cannot share costs to apply for this special allowance if they are over 65. At the moment as the previous speaker said one has to apply for it when one becomes single usually on the death of the partner and this bill simply allows that to happen automatically so someone who has been through a bereavement will not necessarily have to go through the bureaucracy. Obviously that will be a difficult time for someone who has spent many many years with their partner and at a time when there has been a bereavement the last thing you necessarily want to do is to go through the paperwork in order to get a little bit more assistance. 
I cannot let some of the comments that have come from the other side of the House go without comment. Melissa Lee in her contribution to this debate had a crack at this side of the House because we did not support the Government’s growth agenda. Well if there was one we might support it because the only growth that we have seen to date of any note is the growth in unemployment—the growth in unemployment. So Melissa Lee did not mention that. It is up to 7.3 percent. That is the worst unemployment rate since 1999 which I believe was the tenure of the last National Government. So when Bill English was last finance Minister that is when unemployment was at its worst and again we are back up to the high highs of 7.3 percent. 
Then Jami-Lee Ross got up and said: “We are happy with our record.” So this National Party is happy with 52000 Kiwis leaving every year—1000 a week—for Australia because that is where the brighter future is. Maybe that is what National should have said back in 2008: “We’ll give you a brighter future by giving you better opportunities and more motivation to go to Australia.” If you on that side of the House are happy with that record Mr Jami-Lee Ross well you know the people of New Zealand might have something to say about that. 
Is he happy about the record that it has got of having the worst economic record in 50 years? Is that Government happy about that record? Also is that Government happy about the record where 50000 more people have become unemployed in the last 4 years under its watch? Is it happy with that record? 
Then the very good chair of the Law and Order Committee Jacqui Dean said: “Well you guys over on the other side should be consistent.” Well yes that Government would know about consistency because this year it has been consistently awful—consistently awful. Whether it be privacy leaks at the Inland Revenue Department whether it be Novopay or whether it be larger class sizes that Government would know a thing or two about consistency in 2012 because this is a Government that has been consistently awful over the last 12 months. 
I will just go back to the bill now if that is all right just to give a bit of context—just blowing the system out before we go on holiday. Just looking at the context of these payments I understand from the regulatory impact statement—and I am very glad that they have given us a table—that about 555000 people are getting some form of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension 73000 are single and not getting the living alone payment and 151000 are single and receiving the living alone payment. So we are not talking about an insignificant number of people here who come under the changes that are within this bill. 
As of 1 April 2010 someone who is married in a civil union or in a de facto relationship receives $244 I think after tax per week; those single and not receiving a living alone payment get $293 a week; and those single and receiving the living alone payment are getting $318 per week. This is as of 1 April 2010 but there may have been changes since then. It is making a difference this little bit of extra money. I think my calculations say that it is roughly about $25 more per week for these people after tax. So just for those at home who might be listening to this with great interest there is quite a bit of money involved here for those people who come under this bill. 
This bill obviously ensures that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make that separate application that I spoke about before. This bill will make sure that it is much more streamlined for them when they become single. There are also a number of technical changes within the bill that Labour is not opposed to. But there are some things that we will want to look at changing during the Committee stage by putting forward some Supplementary Order Papers. 
We do have concerns that there are provisions in the bill relating to dependent children that may not take into account the diverse range of situations that superannuitants and pensioners may find themselves in when it comes to living with their children. The bill will amend this exception to provide that a person who has a child living with them can receive the new single living alone rate only until the end of the calendar year in which that child reaches the age of 18. I think there will be a Supplementary Order Paper and I am looking at Dr Rajen Prasad and he is nodding to that effect to make sure that is fairer—for example where a child is over the age of 18 but may have an intellectual disability and still could be classified as a dependent or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. But on the whole we think this is a relatively sensible bill and that is why we will be supporting it with some changes to be looked at. 
Hon Member 
: What a wise old member. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Someone has got a bit of Christmas cheer over there I see. Su’a William Sio mentioned that there were only two submissions to the Social Services Committee. One was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre where it did “foresee some problems with Section 4A”—as I have mentioned before—“for superannuitants and veterans pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education. Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age a standard bachelors degree takes three years which means at the very least a child enrolled to do a nursing degree a BCom LLB BA or BSc et cetera may not be financially independent until they are at least 21 years of age.” It proposed that “it may be more prudent to have a 12 month clause rather than making this exception ‘only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old’.” This clause meant that a parent with a child born in January is able to access the living alone payment for longer than a person who has a child who turns 18 later in the year. 
Grey Power’s Roy Reid a very good man who has helped us with our asset sales petition also highlighted this point in the submission from Grey Power. Grey Power said: “It must be recognized that many Parents do have Children born much later in life than used to be the norm. Some single parents may without alternative income or savings wish to support the child through the time that the child is receiving Tertiary Education and there could well be some cases of undue hardship which may need special support.” 
So I just highlight those two submissions from the select committee deliberations. We hope that there will be a few Supplementary Order Papers that may be able to address some of those concerns. With that I will just say that Labour will be supporting the bill but with some concerns and I wish everyone in the House a very merry Christmas. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I think 2.6 percent growth in the economy is actually a pretty good result when you look at what is happening in economies globally. It has been a good debate. I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with Dr Prasad’s comments with the unfair and unjust attack that he made on the Attorney-General. I think that is really throwing stones when you live in a glass house because I am sure that if Dr Prasad was to prescribe his speeches they would be a very good cure for insomnia. 
 I have to say that this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill addresses this issue at a festive time of the year and it is very very appropriate that we recognise our seniors. This bill addresses two issues with regard to the current living alone payment to ensure superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. This is important because it cuts down compliance demands on seniors. 
My colleague Jacqui Dean made the very good point that when a senior does lose their husband wife or spouse there are a lot of other things on their mind in the days that follow other than having another thing to deal with and new forms to fill out and submit and all the compliance issues around that. 
We are adamant that this group of New Zealanders should not face any unnecessary difficulty in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. These changes will ensure a fairer and more equitable experience for single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone. This is a very good bill and I recommend it to the House. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I do not think there is anyone in this House—and the speeches that we have heard this morning have indicated this—who does not think that it is a very sensible idea for us to enact this legislation. It will make life much easier for many people. I think there is no one in this House who thinks that elderly people who find themselves in circumstances where they need to receive the single person’s allowance need to go through any bureaucratic hassle in terms of accessing that payment. 
Labour is happy to support this bill and it is happy to congratulate the Government on what is sensible legislation and to make sure that this is no longer an issue for our elderly people. It is really good to see that we have taken this sensible approach and that our elderly are protected and that we have policies in place that have ensured that we have seen the hardship rate for older New Zealanders in fact remain relatively low and relatively flat. So it is not only the relatively low bit but also the relatively flat bit that means we have not seen hardship increasing for our elderly people. The hardship rate has remained relatively low and flat at around 4 to 5 percent. 
Unfortunately this has not been the case for children in our country. Their hardship rate has risen from 15 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2011. So we would actually like to see sensible approaches that would address issues that would mean that our children were not living in hardship. It is a matter of working together like we are seeing with this legislation. 
We have heard some chipping across the House—I guess it is the last sitting day for the year—and we have been accused of cherry-picking legislation and told that we must have some consistency on what we support. Well there are a couple of responses to that. One is that we are the Opposition. We are not going to agree with everything you do. Secondly we are happy to support sensible legislation when you put it up. In fact we would welcome you putting up more sensible legislation—Mr Speaker we are sure you would put up only sensible legislation. We would welcome the Government putting up more sensible legislation that did address many of the hardships we are seeing in this country. We would welcome the Government putting up legislation that did something to address the ever-climbing unemployment rate we see in this country. Unfortunately too many New Zealanders are heading into this Christmas period with no job and they are not seeing a merry time for themselves and their families. And they have a Government that has done nothing over the last 12 months to address those issues. 
But like my colleague did after talking about some of the broader issues of our economy I will return to the legislation and the reasons why we are happy to support it. We are happy to support it because what we have seen is a good approach to it and we have also seen that some of the concerns that have been heard at the Social Services Committee need to be taken into account. We have heard that there are real practical things we can do to improve this legislation. 
One of the issues we have heard about is around student allowances and the way in which we need to clear up whether there are distinctions that will have unintended and unfair consequences. We need to take a very practical approach to that where for example a child is over the age of 18 but may have an intellectual disability and could be classified as dependent or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. Also this policy is inconsistent with the student allowance policy which I mentioned earlier where a young person is still means-tested on their parents’ incomes until they are 24 years of age thereby classifying them as dependent. We do not believe that these issues are adequately addressed in this bill. We would like to see some of these other issues addressed. We also have some other concerns about this bill and we are putting forward amendments at the Committee stage. The issue of student allowances is one of them but we are also concerned that a provision in the bill relating to dependent children may not take into account the diverse range of situations. But on the whole Labour is happy to support this sensible piece of legislation. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I am going to take a very brief call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill which originally came before the House more than 2 years ago. We are supporting it because this anomaly amongst the many anomalies in the Social Security Act needed to be amended for the benefit of the people being affected as described by other speakers very clearly. We support all beneficiaries including seniors being treated with respect and dignity with full disclosure of their rights and with a recognition of their particular circumstances no matter what their age or circumstances. We believe that social assistance should be fair and transparent to all citizens. Consequently this bill addresses some of those citizens in a fair and transparent way during times of difficulty and complexity for them. For that reason we are very pleased to support it. 
However we would like to see a recognition that not just our seniors but particularly our children are entitled to the best possible life and the least possible stress in their access to the basic material needs. Unfortunately as other speakers have said we are struggling in this country to meet our fundamental obligations to our children and they will one day be seniors and their lives will be affected by what we are prepared to provide them with now in terms of their well-being as they go into older age. So it is very important that social security is for everybody. That was what it was designed for. However under the Victorian ideology that has affected a lot of the Social Security Act there is a concept called the deserving poor: the goodies—the good people—who deserve to get social assistance and the bad people who do not. It is interesting when Parliament sets up a moral framework based on Victorian values and we are having to fight that framework with monotonous regularity in 2013—a long time since Queen Victoria was on the throne—arbitrating between the good people and the bad people. 
Of course people’s lives are very complex: widows veterans grandparents caring for children people with disabilities people caring for people with disabilities. As someone who has worked as a beneficiary advocate I have seen that complexity and I have seen how easy it is for the system with its confused and complex legislation to judge and to judge wrongly and to make mistakes and to refuse to give clear information about entitlements. So we are very pleased that this bill clears up for some of those people the matter around entitlement which needed to be cleared up. It will not put them under additional stress. We would wish that all bills related to the amending of the Social Security Act were this coherent. Indeed I support my colleague Jan Logie in her call for a review of the Social Security Act. However it is very important that at the end of the year we note that welfare has had a terrible year. Welfare has been made more complicated more punitive and more difficult. While we see 15000 children going to school without food and while we see people suffering degrees of poverty and inequality we have not seen before it cannot be a happy moment. 
However I want to end on a positive note and say that particularly for people caring for young adults over 18 with learning disabilities this bill will be useful. I have been perhaps the sole champion of families caring for people with disabilities in this Parliament who is prepared to say that those carers should receive a proper living wage for their work. We had to go to the court system and we had to fight the Ministry of Health for 10 years to get that decision and this bill does not cover that decision. Well I am ashamed that it has taken so long and I am ashamed that when I held a forum on caring for families with disabilities no one except the Green Party would support that. I am proud of those families and those carers who stood up in the High Court and managed to get that decision after 10 years and they are still waiting for the payment. 
However alongside that cause for which I have been a champion I would also like to acknowledge that the welfare system and this bill will be useful and wherever it is useful we need to stand up and be positive. That is what MMP is. MMP is about everybody recognising that no matter who puts up an idea if it is a good idea we should support it and if it is not we should challenge it. That is what an MMP Parliament does and it is great to see that the New Zealand public have supported MMP and affirmed it so that we can do that. 
I would like to end by saying well done on getting this bill through at this time. We needed it done. It has been a long time coming. It will benefit some people. I would like to see next year that welfare legislation reflects the right of all people who need social assistance to get it. My best wishes to everyone in this House for their hard work. No matter whether we agree with the outcomes or not we all work hard here and we need to have a good break. Kia ora Mr Speaker. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 There is plenty I would like to talk to with regard to the last member who has resumed her seat Catherine Delahunty but suffice it to say that some brilliant work has been going on in the welfare space from this Government. Rights are very much a part of the equation; we are just factoring in a bit of responsibility and obligation in there as well which is a nice thing. 
The core purpose of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill is amending the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 so that single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make separate applications. It is pragmatic. It is quite a simple bill. 
The member from New Zealand First Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor asked why the National Government had not done this earlier. Well one reason is that the National Government has been adopting 132 recommendations of the Law Commission report on the War Pensions Act 1954 costing some $60 million over 5 years increasing entitlements across the board extending services to some 3000 more veterans—actually looking after the people who have served this country to ensure that we have the democracy that we enjoy today. So that is one example of what this Government has been doing and I thank the member for New Zealand First for giving me the opportunity to talk about that. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is an annual legislative vehicle that makes minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in the Parliament. 
The bill as introduced amends 30 Acts administered by nine different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and oversights and incorrect references such as the amendment to section 110 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 which clarifies that payments of fines imposed by the disciplinary tribunal should be made to the Real Estate Agents Authority. Previously the Act did not say who the fines were payable to and the Real Estate Agents Authority was reluctant to accept payment of the fines without specific statutory authorisation. 
The Summary Proceedings Act 1957 currently refers to a section of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 that has been repealed and replaced. The amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act corrects this error by substituting a reference to the replacement section. The amendment to section 134(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 corrects a cross-referencing error by replacing a reference to section 131(b) with a reference to section 131(d). 
The amendments make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions including two amendments to the Electoral Act 1993 which allow certain payments by a party secretary to be paid by direct credit instead of just by bank draft or bank cheque. A new section inserted into the Passports Act 1992 allows for travel documents such as passports to be cancelled on the death of the holder. Currently travel documents cannot be cancelled on the death of the holder which increases the risk that such documents could be used fraudulently after the death of the rightful holder. An amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 confirms that a registrar can consider objections to licence applications on the papers unless either party requests a hearing. 
The examples of amendments I have mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I look forward to the passage of this bill working constructively with parties as such bills are put together in the near future. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This is the second time in the past fortnight I think that the House has dealt with a Statutes Amendment Bill but for anybody who is confused about that the two bills are distinct pieces of legislation at different stages. The Statutes Amendment Bill that was dealt with by this House last week was the Statutes Amendment Bill from this year. This Statutes Amendment Bill which is being read a first time is the series of miscellaneous and technical amendments that have been agreed across the House ought to be made to a series of statutes—30 in total—and that are to be progressed in the coming year. 
As I have said before on Statutes Amendment bills they are dealt with by a particular procedure in this House. The Standing Orders provide that if any member of the House objects to the inclusion by the Government of any clause in the bill then that clause must come out and not be debated. That is how we safeguard the convention that these sorts of bills will deal with only minor technical corrections to legislation and do not have a deep policy content but none the less they need legislative amendment in order to better guarantee the administration of the law in New Zealand. 
The Labour Opposition on that basis is happy to support the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill which is now having its first reading. Statutes Amendment bills are always annual bills that provide a legislative vehicle for minor technical and also non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. They seem to be a bit of a pre-Christmas feature of this House. These bills allow us to keep our statutes and our laws up to date allow us to keep them accurate and also user-friendly. The previous bill that has just gone through the House is probably a good example of this Government’s drive to be user-friendly for the people of New Zealand. 
Statutes Amendment bills have been a feature of the New Zealand system for many years through the 1950s and the 1960s and though for a while they were put into abeyance here they are back again. This current bill before us which is having its first reading today amends 30 Acts that are administered by nine different Government agencies so as you can imagine it is quite a good job to get all those amendments put together into one bill. I congratulate the Minister Chester Borrows on bringing this bill to the House in pretty good shape. 
Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and oversights. We do try in the select committee in our deliberations on bills not to let drafting errors and unintended oversights get through but none the less they do happen and so those amendments are brought forward for correction in this bill. Just perhaps for an example of that an amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act of 2008 clarifies that payments of fines imposed by the disciplinary tribunal should be made to the Real Estate Agents Authority. Previously the Act did not say who the fines were payable to—a bit of a mistake—and the Real Estate Agents Authority was reluctant to accept payments of the fines without specific statutory authorisation. That is absolutely fair enough. That is what the Parliament is about—to give clarity to those organisations that are carrying out the will of Parliament. In this first reading I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 By definition a Statutes Amendment Bill deals with issues that are uncontroversial non-contentious and generally minor and technical and those facts justify the use of an omnibus bill. The bills generally go through without major debate but I have read through this Statutes Amendment Bill and it seems to me that although the measures it contains are by and large innocuous they also are interestingly a catalogue of Government botch-ups since the last election. I want to give the House some examples of that by going through the bill part by part. 
Phil Twyford 
: We haven’t got all day. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It might need an extension of time as Mr Twyford has explained. 
Part 1 deals with the Accident Compensation Act and the section that it deals with section 331 gives the Minister for ACC power to direct the Accident Compensation Corporation to give effect to Government policy. But I have to say that this has caused enormous problems over the last couple of years. We had the absolute debacle of Nick Smith creating an artificial crisis in claiming that the corporation was insolvent and going down the gurgler. That was as a respected commentator Brian Fallow described at the time a whole lot of shrill scaremongering and gratuitous scapegoating. So are we really confident that we want to give the Minister this power to direct policy to the corporation? Nick Smith’s policy was about privatisation. It was about cutting back protection for people. I remember most particularly the concern I had that they were cutting back the counselling for women who had been sexually abused. That was an absolute disgrace. They combined that with cutting back counselling for families of suicide victims. So what sort of a Government is it that directs that sort of policy to the corporation when it has such negative and damaging effects on individuals? 
Then of course there was the move to lift the levies on motorbikes. As you are aware Mr Assistant Speaker I am a motorbike rider. I got my bill the other day. The accident compensation component for registration was about $531. What annoys me having never made a claim in 45 years of motorbike riding is that I am paying for the accidents caused by cars that do not see motorbikes and by a Government that keeps roads in a state where actually a lot of accidents are caused by the state of the roads. I am wondering whether something that should have been in this bill was addressing those sorts of problems with accident compensation. 
But of course we had a further debacle with ACC and that was that the Minister for ACC resigned. The Minister resigned because he had written inappropriately on behalf of somebody who had been making a claim to the corporation and not recognised and not disclosed a conflict of interest in that way. That was not very good. I think that on this side of the House we applauded the fact that the Minister for ACC had resigned but then we got a new Minister who started off with the whole of her executive of the ACC resigning over breaches of privacy—massive breaches of privacy—but the Minister taking no responsibility. That was not good enough either. Mrs Collins does not seem to understand the doctrine of ministerial accountability. We are still waiting to find out actually who did leak those documents relating to Bronwyn Pullar because we have never had a satisfactory explanation from the Government. 
I want to come to Part 4 of the bill which is about the Armed Forces Discipline Act. What worries me about this is that given the reports we received recently at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee at the rate of attrition in the armed forces there will not be an armed force to discipline. I am wondering why we have got this part of the bill before the House. I say that with a real concern about what is happening—a real concern for the Government side to listen to. Is the National Party aware that there has been a drop in the regular force personnel in the last year of more than 1000 personnel? A thousand of our regular soldiers sailors and air personnel have disappeared from the armed forces taking them down to about 8500. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Why is a very good question as my colleague has asked. Some of it seems to have been deliberate—people are being sacked—and some of it seems to be inadvertent. People are so demoralised that they are leaving in droves. What did we find in the select committee? We found that the attrition rate was 21 percent in the last year—21 percent. If you looked at the navy it was 23 percent. What the Defence Force itself acknowledged was that this is absolutely unsustainable. At this rate we will not have a defence force in a few years so I am not quite sure why we are amending the Armed Forces Discipline Act. 
A particular concern for me is what is happening to women in the navy and the air force because the attrition by women was such that in the last 4 years the numbers have dropped by more than a third. Here we are in modern New Zealand saying that there should be equity between the genders and that we want to see women participating and what is the record of the National Government? It has been a drop of a third in the number of women in the navy and in the air force. That is pretty serious. Why are we losing these people? We are losing them because the morale which the Defence Force regularly monitors is the worst ever on record. Only just over a third of the people in the Defence Force actually want to be there. Two-thirds are either ambivalent about being there or are negative about being there. There is only one ministry that does worse than that and that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade where the Government has ripped the guts out of it and most of the employees do not want to be there. So much for that part of the bill. 
Then we come to Part 10 of the Statutes Amendment Bill and that is amending the Electoral Act. This relates largely to the lodging of list nominees and the payment of deposits but I wonder whether the National Government in fact has much more significant changes in mind that it is not revealing here. I know the National Party has been looking very closely at what the Republicans at the state level did in the United States. What the Republicans did before the last election was try to devise every mechanism they could to stop people enrolling and stop people being able to vote. That is the negation of democracy. But I hear a whisper that the National Party is intending to close off the date at which people can enrol before an election at the issuing of the writ so a month before the election. That would disenfranchise tens of thousands of people. I want to ask the Minister who introduced this bill the Associate Minister of Justice in putting in a fairly innocuous provision in this bill is that disguising what the Government is intending to do further down the track in relation to the Electoral Act? We would be utterly opposed to that. 
Then we come to the next part which is Part 11 on the Extradition Act. Well that is the daddy of them all because that relates to certain crimes with transnational aspects that are deemed to be included in extradition treaties. That brings to mind one of the most colossal stuff-ups that this Government has made this year and that is in the Kim Dotcom case. I want to know from the Associate Minister—the police got it wrong the Crown Law Office got it wrong and the Government Communications Security Bureau under John Key’s leadership got it wrong so what is going on in this area and is this provision in the Extradition Act actually able to address that? Does it address the problem that we found from John Key and John Banks of amnesia—political amnesia? They could not remember what had happened. They could not tell us who was accountable. Mr Key said he did not even know what it was about. The truth was that National was overeager to please United States authorities and in so dramatically stuffing it up it has actually undermined the American position. So it has really hosed off the Americans. At the same time it has made the New Zealand public liable to enormous costs in the court action that might be taken by Kim Dotcom against it. John Key said he knew nothing—the Sergeant Schultz defence—but that does not wash. 
I want to come to the next part Part 13 on the Gambling Act. We know that there is another case of amnesia in relation to the Gambling Act because Mr Banks went down to Skycity he picked up a cheque for $15000 in a plain brown envelope but then he declared it as anonymous. I want to know from the Associate Minister whether there is anything in this change that addresses that form of amnesia and dishonesty where you pick up the cheque personally and then you declare it as anonymous. I want to know whether there is anything in this part of the bill that also deals with the situation where Skycity can go to John Key and say: “You give us the licence to print money”—actually it is called more licences for pokie machines—“and we will build a convention centre for you.” I want to know how appropriate that is and whether that is consistent with the changes that are being made here to the Gambling Act. 
I want to finally end up on something rather more positive. Well I hoped it was more positive. It is Part 18. It deals with parental leave and employment protection. But I do not see anything here that deals with the parental leave proposals in Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I cannot see any commitment by the Government to allow mums at a very special time— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member his time has expired. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on yet another Statutes Amendment Bill. We in the Green Party have no objection to the minor technical amendments in this bill. Therefore I do not believe I can add much to the debate though I was interested in the many issues raised by the Hon Phil Goff just then. I just commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I support this Statutes Amendment Bill. Despite the protestations of the Hon Phil Goff this is simply a housekeeping bill. It is simply a makeover bill. It is an omnibus bill that is usually done every year to allow us to update to correct and to deal with non-controversial amendments to legislation. It is really important that we do our best to keep our legislation accurate fresh relevant and user-friendly. This bill amends 30 different Acts. Those Acts are administrated by nine Government agencies. So these corrections are important in the streamlining of our legislation. Most amendments are very minor: changes to cross-references and to drafting errors or clarification. 
Mr Goff seems to think that these amendments are all about errors but actually that is not so. I was very pleased to see that some of these updates streamline simplify and improve bureaucratic processes particularly those that embrace new technologies and I would like to give you two examples. The first example is the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationship Registration Act 1995. This is amended under this bill to allow information to be provided by electronic means. That means that it is cheaper and easier to pass that information on. There is also an amendment to the Electoral Act 1993 and there is nothing sinister about it. All it does is allow party secretaries to pay their deposits when submitting candidates’ names for election by direct credit—the modern way. You have a record and it goes through the process—simple cheap easy. 
There is an old saying that a stitch in time saves nine. The updating of legislation through regular statutes bills that improve and streamline is an incredibly important process to keep our legislation relevant and to keep it efficient and it is done is a cost-effective way—simple no-brainer common sense. I support this bill. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is happy to support the Statutes Amendment Bill. We are satisfied that all the amendments in it are appropriate for an omnibus bill. They are minor or machinery amendments and they are non-controversial in nature. I have no issues to raise for debate on any of the many minor matters in the bill. New Zealand First will vote for it. 
I wish to close by wishing a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year firstly to you Mr Speaker; to all members of Parliament; to all New Zealand First staff in Parliament and in my parliamentary offices in Christchurch Dunedin and Invercargill; and to all New Zealand First supporters throughout New Zealand. Especially I want to wish a merry Christmas and happy New Year to all of the many people in Christchurch who are still struggling with earthquake effects accommodation and home repair problems unconscionable rental increases munted roads and services loss of business and loss of jobs. Keep up your spirits and keep trying to get through it all. A merry Christmas and a happier New Year to them in particular and to all. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I had expected someone from the Government benches to take the call but I am happy to do so. This bill the Statutes Amendment Bill has been described by one of the National members as a housekeeping bill a makeover bill a simple no-brainer and common sense. Well apart from the use of the last two words I thought it might have been a looking-in-the-mirror description but obviously it was not intended in that way. 
Phil Twyford 
: No brain. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Obviously a no-brainer in that respect—in many respects. 
I want to perhaps start where my colleague Denis O’Rourke ended and that is that we are ending the debate on legislation—so this is the end of the legislative timetable for 2012—and I have to say that as a Christchurch representative it is difficult to see the last item on the agenda as something that will make any appreciable difference to anyone in Christchurch. As Nicky Wagner said it is a housekeeping bill a makeover bill and a simple no-brainer and it is common sense but it is tidying-up. It is tidying up things that we have got wrong in legislation over the time. There are amendments to the Passports Act to the Insolvency Act to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act and to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act—but as my colleague Phil Goff said these are not the real amendments that the public are looking for in terms of expanding parental leave in a meaningful way—and a slight amendment to the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. 
There are some more substantial amendments and—I have made this point before—Statutes Amendment bills can be used for the purpose of making substantial amendments. If they are non-controversial and have the support of the whole House then it is entirely appropriate to use a Statutes Amendment Bill. I did notice that under the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 the unauthorised use of words and emblems relating to the 28thMaori Battalion has been included in this legislation. I really do not know the history as to why that has been included within the legislation but I just wanted to note it because I thought that it was an important gesture and symbolic actually given that it is the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act that such a measure could be introduced as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that shows that there is considerable support right across the House for protecting the integrity of the 28thMaori Battalion and I did want to place that on the record. 
Going back to the comments that Denis O’Rourke was making there are people in Christchurch at the moment who will not look back on 2012 with great pleasure. In fact they will look back on it with great sadness and the sadness is derived from the fact that there seems to be a lack of understanding across the rest of the country of what Christchurch is still experiencing. It is as if the earthquake was so last year and that we are now over it and on our way to full recovery. 
 Christchurch’s recovery is a long way off and a lot of the things that have been happening in Christchurch have actually caused people great distress. I see that level of distress in my electorate office on a daily basis. The way I described it recently when I was giving a talk is that I can see people in my office whose mood I would describe as ranging from abject despair to incandescent rage and that can be describing the same person in the context of a half-hour appointment. 
The reason that people are feeling that way is that they are feeling abandoned and they are feeling that the Government is not hearing many of their concerns. That is why a Statutes Amendment Bill being the last bill to be brought to the House at this time of the year really is not sending the message that people would like to hear and it certainly is not repeating the message that the Prime Minister gave them straight after the earthquake which was that “We will stand alongside you. We will stand alongside Christchurch as they recover.” 
Actually there are people in Christchurch who feel utterly and completely abandoned by the Government. They have had a zoning decision made on their land that they do not understand. They have had to deal with the challenges of insurance companies and with the Earthquake Commission which God bless its soul was designed to provide protection for people but it has been dealing with this scale of incidents that really it was not set up to resolve and as a result it has not been doing a great service for the people who ought to be able to rely on it. So with the challenges that people are facing they are feeling that there has not been a Government that has been willing to listen to them. 
The lack of community engagement—I mean we have got amendments here that are dealing with electoral law. Well that just reminds everyone in Christchurch that we are not going to be allowed to vote for Environment Canterbury representatives next year. We were promised—promised—that we would get our vote back. We did not agree with the Government taking away our right to vote but we were promised it would come back. So when we see an electoral amendment coming up in this legislation—the last item for the year—it just reminds us that this Government is denying democratic representation in Christchurch. Of course you can have democracy in terms of your 3-yearly election under the Electoral Act but that is not what democracy means in its total. What democracy means is having a voice and having that voice heard. People in Christchurch have not got a voice that is able to be heard at the moment because the Government has taken control. 
Every time—every time—somebody opens their mouth they are accused of being a carper and a moaner. If they dare—if they dare—to participate in an online survey that is organised not by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but by their own residents association because their residents association thinks it is important to know how people are feeling and what they are being faced with in terms of their insurance company oh no they are carpers and moaners and they have got all this time—I will not repeat the word that Gerry Brownlee used in terms of them working on Facebook. 
The other thing is that when the Christchurch 
 Press 
 dares to— 
Andrew Little 
: The enemy of the State! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —actually challenge the Government on some of the things that it is doing it is the enemy of the recovery. 
The Speaker is asking me to relate this back to any one of the amendments that are here at the moment. So the amendment that I would like to specifically refer to is to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act because children have been completely left out of the picture in Christchurch as well if you think about the schools decision. I mean announcing that shocking decision and leaving schools—last Friday was the last day that schools had to put in their submission. 
Hon Annette King 
: They wanted to shut Salisbury—why Salisbury? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yeah well the Salisbury School decision has been turned over by the court and I think that every school in Christchurch—every single school in Christchurch—is going to be poring over that High Court decision with a fine-tooth comb. I suspect that there is going to be more action in Christchurch next year—action taken against the Minister of Education. 
The Minister for Building and Construction might indeed smile because he may be the Minister of Education in the very near future but that is only if he misses out on the Speaker’s job. We think he would make an excellent Speaker. The reason is that he has good humour. I actually think that Maurice Williamson is the archetypal Speaker in the sense that you have got to be able to take the mood of the House for what it is. Sometimes people might not be strictly within the Standing Orders but if it has got the mood of the House— 
Hon Annette King 
: Let the game flow. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —if you judge the mood of the House you let the game flow as my colleague quite rightly points out. That means that he would be a fair referee in this House. 
This bill does not represent what our city has been looking for from this Government. It is a shame in that regard that the final bill of the year is one that has not been able to address so many of the issues that Christchurch residents are experiencing. But I too join with other colleagues and wish everyone a merry Christmas and I hope that 2013 brings to New Zealand and certainly to the city of Christchurch much more joy than 2012 has done. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Statutes Amendment Bill. I would like to congratulate Minister Borrows on bringing such a good bill to the House. It is important that our legislation is kept up to date accurate and user-friendly. 
I would like to mention some comments made by my colleague Nicky Wagner who actually is the one person who has her shoulder to the mill in terms of trying to help and assist with what is happening in Christchurch. I think it is a disgrace actually that the last speaker Lianne Dalziel got up and spent the whole time trying to manufacture another crisis when there are a lot of people—the private sector the community sector and the Government—who are doing a lot of work down there to try to make things better in Christchurch. 
Like I said this is a very good bill. There are some very good gems in this bill. There are actually some good cost savings to businesses which are important and that has been a big part of the Government’s agenda this year. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I also take a short call. There is no need to have it any longer than that because this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill is nothing more than a procedural matter. It is something that has been happening for many years in this House. I am not sure that it was about pot-shots galore but it seems to have come to that today and a few soapboxes have been pranced upon. 
However Statutes Amendment bills have been a feature for some time. They are about ensuring that the oversights are tidied up and that the technical deficiencies are remedied. I am happy to commend this bill to the House. It is hardly something that needs to take much time. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. I understand as a new member—like the last two speakers in fact on this bill—that Statutes Amendment bills such as these are to make small non-controversial corrections to existing legislation. It is interesting that in the debates on the Legislation Bill that we had—admittedly not this one—there is provision there not only for a review of legislation but for technical corrections to legislation. 
The important thing about this bill is that we are in the last dying moments of the lawmaking part of this Parliament at this time of the year dealing with a bill that very much sums up where this Government is at. These might be small technical amendments to existing legislation but let us look at them. Given all the issues in front of New Zealand today—issues about joblessness people searching and craving for work at this very difficult time as the season of goodwill and joy is upon us—we have legislation that does not deal with the issues that New Zealanders want. That is why this bill sums up really the year that this Government has had and where this Government is at. People desperate for work people desperate to get an increase in their pay—of those who are in work 60 percent of them cannot even get a pay rise this year and they want that. What do we see here? We see nothing in the Statutes Amendment Bill which will perform small technical amendments that will allow that to happen. 
We have people who are suffering the inequities of inequality and my colleague Lianne Dalziel talked about the ongoing unfairness and desperation of people in Christchurch. What did we find in the Statutes Amendment Bill for that? Absolutely nothing. We see small technical amendments to the Accident Compensation Act. Do we see anything that is going to improve the privacy management and privacy protection of claimants to ACC? None at all—none at all. And those issues are going begging. We have had a grand high report from Australians come in once again—to ride to the rescue—to tell us how to improve our privacy management in ACC. But is there anything in this bill that will help the long-suffering ACC claimants whose privacy has been breached? Nothing at all. What about protecting ACC claimants against bad decision-making? Is there a small technical amendment that would help? There is nothing at all in this bill about that. 
What about in the Companies Act? Where do we see a need for amendment in the Companies Act? What about making directors liable for poor management decisions—just extend directors’ duties slightly just a little bit in the Companies Act? Do we see anything in this legislation that does that? Absolutely nothing at all. When we look at the District Courts Act what is the crying need in the District Courts? It is for more resources so that the decisions can get made. It is good that the High Court can make decisions reasonably swiftly—for example in the Salisbury School decision. It is good that the High Court can make those decisions because it has got good smart judges who can make good swift decisions on these very important issues and the parents of those very needy very important kids at Salisbury School can now enter the Christmas break relieved and with a sense of justice having been done. But is there anything in this legislation that helps the District Court rise to its proper level of functioning and do that? There is nothing here at all. 
What about the amendment to the Electoral Act? Is it going to close off the difficulty that our parliamentary colleague the Hon John Banks has been having in his disclosures? There is nothing at all about that. But these are the issues that New Zealanders will go into the Christmas break talking about. They will go into the Christmas break with the last piece of legislation considered by this House doing nothing at all for them. I call this the “Gangnam Style” Government. The “Gangnam Style” Government goes with the spirit of the times. This is a Government that is riding the invisible horse of lawmaking and policy making. 
Mike Sabin 
: Why don’t you put a bit of a dance down? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Oh I will give you a demonstration. This is the Government that is riding the invisible horse and it is nothing that is going to help New Zealanders. I would do the other one but I do not know what that dance style is. This is a Government that is all hat and no horse. It is the “Gangnam Style” of Government and it is riding the invisible horse. It talks big. It talks about making a big difference and we will see this afternoon all the wonderful messages that it will give to New Zealand as we enter the Christmas break. But will it make a tinker’s cuss of difference to New Zealanders as they gather round the barbecues? They cannot afford steak on the barbecues this year. It will be cheap snarlers from the supermarket on this summer’s barbecues because people cannot afford much. But they will be saying that this is a Government that is riding the invisible horse of decision making and of policy making. It does not have a policy and it does not have a plan. It does not have a plan that is going to fix things. 
It has come to the House in the dying days of lawmaking—the dying hours and minutes of lawmaking—this side of Christmas and it will make small technical amendments but are we going to do anything that is actually going to do anything that will actually make a difference to New Zealanders? No no no. We will go into the Christmas season making changes to the Insolvency Act but are we going to protect small creditors? No we are not going to do anything like that. Look at the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act. What was the big injustice a couple of weeks ago? Poor old Sir Peter Jackson the hero of a nation. He has just made  
The Hobbit 
 and the security guard detailed to protect him was a convicted criminal. Is there anything in this legislation that is going to fix that? Not at all. The hero of the nation—the hero of the nation—was subject to the whims of a convicted criminal because our legislation does not provide enough protection to him from that. 
The only justice the only thing that is just and right and that is fitting in the zeitgeist of the times apart from the Government of the invisible horse apart from the Government that is all hat and no horse and apart from the Government that has a “Gangnam Style” of governance is the very last piece of legislation amended by this Statutes Amendment Bill and that is the Wine Act. It will be right for Christmas. What a pity there is not a technical amendment that allows provision of enough wine for all New Zealanders who are celebrating this season and wondering what it is that has hit them and wondering what sort of Government they have got. It is not interested in dealing with the big decisions and making the big calls that are going to really make a difference. This will be a bill that people will look to and say “It is time to drown our sorrows.” so the amendment to the Wine Act 2003 is in every bit fitting in that regard. But we leave our lawmaking duties this side of Christmas again disappointed and feeling flat that the big issues that confront this country and the people in it have gone unaddressed and unattended. That is the disappointing thing about this. 
That is why as I rise to make this call on this piece of legislation I look forward—hopefully like the rest of us and certainly like those on this side of the House—to a year next year in which we can get to grips with the real issues not just the technical amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act that is in this bill but real changes that are going to make a real difference that are going to give people a helping hand that are going to give people a hand-up and that are going to give people a chance to make a difference to improve their incomes to improve their lot and to provide for their families and their loved ones in a true spirit of giving and Christmas joy. That is what we needed at this time—to leave our lawmaking duties this side of Christmas in a spirit of hope and with a sense that we could do something meaningful and real. 
But this bill is not that bill. It absolutely sums up this Government. It is the Government that speaks big that says that it is riding on a white steed of prosperity and a brighter future but actually it is an invisible horse. This Government while its hands are on the reins is going to lead us nowhere and that is why we need a change. We are 2 years out from it and this bill absolutely encapsulates the spirit of the nation today. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to take the final call in the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. Anyone watching would think that this is a controversial piece of legislation that covers all sorts of things. It actually does. It covers 30 Acts administered by nine different Government departments but the very nature of the Statutes Amendment Bill is that it is non-controversial and that is why it is universally supported in this House. But we have heard about Christchurch and we have heard the member who just spoke before me Andrew Little riding invisible horses and singing in the House which was rather disturbing I must say. But what we have heard from that Opposition is that actually it is the party of nothing to say nothing to do and nobody is listening so you are desperate to take any opportunity that there is. 
This is a very technical bill. It is a housekeeping bill that is universally supported. This side of the House focuses on what really matters. It is another example of a significant amount of legislative change that the Government has put in place this year—I think almost a record amount of legislation that has been passed. On that note I shall wish you all a very merry Christmas and say thank you for the contribution to this year’s Parliament. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
The House adjourned at 12:41 p.m. (Wednesday)