Volume 688 Week 37 - Thursday 21 March 2013 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 688 Week 37 - Thursday 21 March 2013 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 21 March 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 March the Government will look to progress the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day. As Thursday is the day before the Easter break I would expect the Business Committee to consider an earlier lifting time. 
Motions 
Human Rights—International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate concerning the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so moved. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I move  
That this House note that today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and that it supports the United Nations Secretary-General’s call that we should recommit to ending racial discrimination and realising our vision of justice equality and freedom from fear for all. 
Motion agreed to. 
World Down Syndrome Day—Eighth Anniversary 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the eighth anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that motion to be put. Is there any objection? There is none. The motion can be put. 
MOJO MATHERS 
: I move  
That this House note that today is the eighth anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day that it is the second time that the day has been acknowledged under the auspices of the United Nations and that the House recognise the contribution of New Zealanders with Down syndrome to our country and communities. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economic Growth—GDP Growth for December 2012 Quarter and Unemployment 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today Statistics New Zealand has released the gross domestic product data for the December 2012 quarter. It shows that the New Zealand economy grew 1.5 percent in the quarter—the highest quarterly growth since December 2009 and above market expectations. Annual growth was 3 percent year on year. The last time this was higher was before the global financial crisis and before the domestic recession that preceded that crisis. This is a reasonably encouraging result particularly when New Zealand’s 3 percent growth in 2012 is compared with other countries: 1.6 percent in the US 1.1 percent in Canada 0.4 percent in Japan 0.3 percent in the UK and negative 0.9 percent in the euro area. 
David Bennett 
: What are the main drivers of GDP growth in the December quarter? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Statistics New Zealand reports broad growth with 15 of the 16 measured industries growing in the December quarter. The main drivers of growth in the December quarter were forestry which grew 9 percent the largest increase since 1999; retail accommodation and restaurants up 2.3 percent driven by retail activity; wholesale trade up 2.1 percent driven by equipment and machinery sales; and construction activity up 1.8 percent which was the fifth consecutive quarterly increase. Manufacturing activity in the December quarter was up 2.7 percent year on year but down 0.5 percent in the quarter and that was mainly due to a fall in oil production. Household consumption increased 1.6 percent and exports increased 2.1 percent. 
David Bennett 
: What is the outlook for New Zealand’s economic growth and how does that compare with other developed countries? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Treasury and the Reserve Bank forecast that New Zealand’s economy can expect growth of 2 to 3 percent per year over the next 4 years. This is in spite of the headwinds of ongoing uncertainty in the world economy an elevated exchange rate deleveraging in the household and Government sectors and of course this year’s drought. New Zealand’s forecast growth is higher than consensus forecasts for the eurozone Japan the United Kingdom and Canada. It is in line with forecast growth in the United States of America and slightly below that of Australia. There remains work to do but this shows that New Zealand is broadly heading in the right economic direction. 
David Bennett 
: What are the risks to growth in the next few years and what steps is the Government taking to manage these risks? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Although the world economy is showing some positive signs recent events in Europe and questions about the process of unwinding central bank balance sheets shows that some uncertainty does remain. That is why the Government has focused on developing its Business Growth Agenda a comprehensive plan for building a productive and competitive economy and encouraging business investment and growth and also raising national savings by getting back into surplus and developing new financial stability tools which include the macro-prudential framework. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the Minister claiming the economy is performing well given that 23000 people lost their jobs and 33000 people left the workforce in the very same December quarter that he has been referring to? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is worth pointing out to the member that actually in the 2 years to December job growth in the quarterly employment survey was 54000 jobs. I appreciate that you know we still have not got a perfect economy but if the member wants to criticise the Government for achieving 1.5 percent growth in one quarter I say make him keep doing it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Before he begins crowing about the temporary state of the economy will he tell the hundreds who queued outside a South Auckland factory 2 weeks ago at Carter Holt Harvey’s Pakuranga factory when they will get a job? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not think anybody has been crowing in this House recently except the right honourable member but the reality of it is that the New Zealand economy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What on earth could that opening sentence have to do with an answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a very political question. I want to hear the— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is a political place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely right. Could the Minister please complete the answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were listening to your response. We were having trouble hearing it because of the assistance you were getting from the Associate Minister of Finance and the Leader of the House. I do not know whether there is something wrong with the sound system but Mr Speaker while you were ruling you were being overcalled by those two Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear a huge amount of interjection but I fully accept there was some interjection. It goes to prove that interjection from either side of the House when I am making a comment to any member will lead to disorder. Would the Minister please now answer the question that was raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was pointing out to the member that the only one describing anything as crowing was the member himself. In terms of the job market we certainly accept that the job market remains challenging. Although there has been job growth it is not enough to actually meet the needs of all New Zealanders. That is why the Business Growth Agenda is very very important in terms of encouraging opportunities for investment in the New Zealand economy. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s not working. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually there are very strong signs that it is working relative to the rest of the world. If the member would like me to run through again GDP growth relative to the rest of the world for his benefit I would be happy to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister explain to the country why foreigners are coming here in their thousands on work permits when a record number of young people who are New Zealanders cannot get a job in their own country? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I find both of the legs of the question from the member actually factually incorrect. The first leg of the question says that record numbers are coming to New Zealand. Well that is obviously not correct when you look at the migration statistics— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister was asked a straightforward question. The record numbers claim was to do with the record numbers of youth out of work and that is a fact. So would you ask him now to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister rose and straight away said he did not accept the question that was put by the member and that is a perfectly satisfactory answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no—he claimed that I said that there were record numbers of foreigners coming in on work permits. I did not say that. The  
Hansard 
 will prove that. Now make him answer the question as you are required to do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member said that there were foreigners coming in in their thousands. The Minister satisfactorily addressed that question by disputing that. He is quite entitled to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will he answer the question then? Because he has not answered it yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did answer the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. I raised a point of order on him he stopped— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I ruled that the question had been answered. The Minister said he just did not accept the supposition in the member’s question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect if he gets up and he claims I made a statement that I did not make and the  
Hansard 
 will show it how then can you avoid making him answer the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I have told the member that I am satisfied that the member answered the question by saying he did not accept the suppositions that were raised by the member in asking the question. 
Government Financial Position—Current Account Deficit 
2. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with Westpac economist Nathan Penny that the increase in the annual current account deficit to $10.5 billion 5 percent of GDP is a “worrying symptom of New Zealand’s two-speed economy and re-emerging imbalances”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A range of views have been expressed on yesterday’s results and not all the Minister would agree with. The Minister would agree with Mr Penny who also said that the economy is clearly improving and “household spending and business confidence are on the up.” But if Mr Penny is concerned about the current account deficit now then he must have been apoplectic about it when the current account deficit averaged over 8 percent under the previous Government. 
Hon David Parker 
: If 30 percent of Mighty River Power shares being sold go offshore will this have a further negative effect on New Zealand’s current account deficit? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In terms of the first part of his question there is no indication that that is the case at all beyond Mr Cosgrove actually asserting it yesterday and we generally do not take advice from Mr Cosgrove in these matters. But in terms of the member’s question with regard to investment and investment income it all depends on the quality of that investment income. I would point out to the member that in the balance of payments yesterday if you look at the investment flows there were two main influences: New Zealanders were earning record amounts from their investments offshore which I think the member would argue was a good thing; also those that are foreign investors investing in New Zealand invested something like 60 percent of their earnings back in the country which is also a good thing. The third thing is to point it out to the member the actual investment balances—yes they were affected by Government borrowing and that is why the Government is very very focused on getting back into surplus which is something that his colleagues on the Opposition side do not seem to understand. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can he credibly claim that his Government has rebalanced the economy which was its stated objective when there is double-digit housing inflation in Auckland persistently high unemployment and a large current account deficit? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I would have a look at the GDP statistics today if I was the member which showed broad-based growth across the New Zealand economy in 15 of the 16 categories measured. The 16th was manufacturing. If you take oil and gas out of that manufacturing was also positive over the quarter and over the year. In fact the oil and gas one is the one of course that there is only one party in this House or perhaps also the parties that work alongside— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a necessary part of the answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does he downplay the importance of his failure to rebalance the economy when it is not just the Westpac economists but also the BNZ economist Doug Steel who said that yesterday’s current account numbers are “part of the slippery slope that we think the external accounts are on”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is just you know incredulous being lectured by that member because from 2005 to 2008 the balance of payments deficit was 8 percent of GDP on average for the entire 3 years so this Government is rebalancing the economy. But the mess we were left with— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That surely cannot be within the Standing Orders—to get up make no attempt to address the question and then start hammering on about some other party’s record which he is not responsible for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And it is certainly not desirable for the Minister to start with such a personal attack. It is a political contest but it would be helpful if Ministers would frankly just answer the question. 
Youth Employment—Youth Minimum Wage 
3. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What action is the Government taking to improve work opportunities for young people? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The passage of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill today will from 1 May create a wage for 16 to 19-year-olds entering the workforce coming off a benefit or undertaking training. Young people who do not successfully move into work or who are unemployed for long periods face a real risk of long-term unemployment. The starting-out wage will provide an incentive for employers to help give young people a foot in the door and start building their skills and experience. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How have young people been affected by the recession and current wage settings? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Young people have been more negatively affected—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Young people have been more negatively affected in employment terms by the recession than older workers. The minimum wage settings of the Labour Government did not help. The new entrants wage it established is estimated to have cost up to 9000 jobs and is currently being used by only 2 percent of employers. This Government wants New Zealanders who are able to work to do so. The starting-out wage will help set young people up for a lifetime of meaningful employment. 
Solid Energy—Financial Position and Accountability 
4. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he stand by all statements he and his Ministerial colleagues have made regarding State-owned enterprises? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Within the context they were made the Minister stands by all his statements. In regard to the likely hundreds of statements made by 20-plus ministerial colleagues in relation to all State-owned enterprises over 5 years that is just a little bit difficult to check out in 3 hours’ prep time. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that an inquiry into Solid Energy will not achieve anything even though $389 million of taxpayers’ money is in jeopardy and over 400 miners and associated staff have lost their jobs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister. The issues that Solid Energy has had in regard to its business over the last couple of years are very well traversed and there are some excellent articles in the media the member might like to read to assist with that. The focus of the Government is on working through the situation with the Solid Energy board and management to maximise the outcome for the company. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In the absence of an inquiry into the near collapse of Solid Energy where hundreds of miners and associated staff have lost their livelihoods where $389 million worth of taxpayers’ money is in jeopardy and where he did nothing to stop this from happening how does he expect the public to have confidence in him as Minister for State Owned Enterprises when under his watch an export award - winning company has been driven into the ground? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate that that was a very politically loaded question from the member but the answer— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It was a factual question; just answer it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No it is not a factual question actually but the answer in terms of the position of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises as the member knows is that the responsibility for the investment decisions made by the company fall to the board and management and the responsibility for coal prices actually falls to the world market. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In the absence of any inquiry into the near collapse of Solid Energy where hundreds of miners and associated staff have lost their livelihoods and $389 million worth of taxpayers’ money is in jeopardy and where again he did nothing to stop this happening how does he expect the public to have confidence in his ability to restore Solid Energy to the export award - winning company it once was under the previous Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I suspect Mr Cosgrove is claiming responsibility for world coal prices. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Minister support the National Party members who blocked an inquiry into Solid Energy; and how can employees have any confidence in their future if the Government refuses to investigate what has gone wrong inside the company in the last few years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am reasonably new here but I understand select committees are in charge of their own destiny. The member and his colleague are on that select committee. I take it they were unable to persuade their colleagues of the merits of an inquiry. 
Immigration Parent Category—Allocation of Visas 
5. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statements made in Question Time on 12 March 2013? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How can the Minister assert “This Government is colour-blind and not designed to favour any nationality over another.” when in the year ending June 2012 parents admitted from China were more than 120 percent of skilled immigrants from China while parent immigration from other countries did not exceed 24 percent of skilled immigrants? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I stand by the answer to that question which is that every single one of the residents who qualified under the parent category did so because they met the criteria. But in respect of the comparison between the proportion of those accepted in a year under the parent category relative to the same countries’ skilled migrants I should point out that the parent category applicants generally come at least 5 years after their children are accepted under the skilled migrant category and the comparison is completely flawed. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: In view of the Government’s 2012 policy change designed to rebalance the parent category will the Minister now give an assurance that parent category numbers from China will not exceed the number of skilled immigrants from China in the current year? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well I reiterate the assurance that I gave last week which is that everybody who comes in under that category will do so because they meet the criteria. But I note that in the 8 months since those new criteria have taken effect the proportion of Chinese parent category visas that have been approved has nearly halved and that the proportion of approvals from other countries has gone up. That is as a consequence of the changed criteria. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: If as the Minister says “last year we made changes to give priority to migrants who can make a real contribution” will he adopt the New Zealand First policy to cap parent category migrants from each country to 20 percent of the skilled migrants from that country? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No I will not give that assurance. I note for the benefit of the colleague sitting beside the member Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor who tweeted during last week’s question time “Why is National giving priority to Chinese over Pacific Islanders?” that the country with the highest proportion of parent category visas related to skilled migrant visas is Samoa. 
Public Transport Auckland—City Rail Link 
6. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has he read the City Centre Future Access Study which found that of the options for Auckland CBD’s transport infrastructure the City Rail Link “has the highest road network speeds within the City Centre”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes I have but I am not sure that the member has correctly interpreted this research. The city rail loop would not be part of the road network. From a road safety perspective I would ask that she please not drive her car along railway lines. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Given his focus on reducing travel time for New Zealand motorists why is his Government blocking progress on the city rail link which will reduce rail journey times by as much as 60 percent and result in faster travel times for hundreds of thousands of Auckland motorists? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We are not blocking progress on the rail loop. We are in discussions with Auckland Transport and Auckland Council on what are the best options for them moving forward. What we do know is that even if the rail loop were to be built by 2030 the congestion situation in Auckland would be no better than it is now. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Is he denying that building the city rail link would give much better transport options to tens of thousands of Aucklanders in 2030? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: How will the Government provide adequate transport options for the 100000 people who will be commuting to Auckland’s central business district every weekday by 2021 if he continues to say no to the city rail link which will move the most people the fastest with the least congestion? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Even if the city rail loop were in place right now it would have minimal effect on the total number of journeys into the city by cars by 2021. The reality is that either way you are looking at an increased number of cars coming into the central city so simply saying “Let’s build this $2.4 billion rail loop to overcome a problem.” is not recognising what the problem is. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table this graph from Auckland Transport showing that the number of people travelling by car entering Auckland central business district from 2001 to 2012 reduced significantly by 20 percent while the number coming by public transport increased by 50 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Julie Anne Genter 
: This is data provided by Auckland Transport to myself. I do not believe it is publicly available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Does he disagree with the recommendation of the Government-commissioned Enright report on New Zealand’s competitiveness which stated that the Auckland rail link must be the priority to improve productivity; if so why? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I neither agree nor disagree. What we are doing at the moment is trying to work out whether or not that rail loop should progress and secondly if it were to what would be the optimal time for it to progress. I would point that counter to what the member has just said about the reduced number of journeys into the city in 2021 should that rail loop go ahead my information suggests it would be around about a 1600 reduction—not the numbers the member is claiming. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: How many more reports does he need to conclude that the city rail link is necessary given that we have had the Enright report the City Centre Future Access Study and the 2010 Auckland city rail link business case before he will get on board with this project that the people of Auckland and the businesses of Auckland want? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is the problem you see. Here is the report that the member speaks to—a very large volume. It is accompanied by many other large volumes and they do not either individually or collectively reach the conclusions she claims. This is a $2.4 billion project in today’s terms for a relatively short piece of rail for very modest gains. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table this page from the Enright report which states that the Auckland city rail link should be a priority for lifting productivity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Enright report available to members? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is. Then it will not be tabled. 
Information and Communications Technology Sector—Jobs 
7. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What contribution if any will the ICT sector make to the Government’s stated 2011 Budget commitment to 170000 net new jobs being created by 2015? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 According to projections released by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—and it is important to point out that these are never exact numbers because you are asking for individual occupational groups—the computing professionals’ sector is expected to grow by 8000 in the 2010-15 period an annual growth rate of 4.4 percent the highest of any profession. My hope is that that growth will be larger based on the anecdotal experience of a lot of people looking for information and communications technology professionals at the moment. Orion Health which recently created 100 new jobs has said it is a very tight market and that if it could find more people it would mean more development. It said that if it cannot find the people “we will have no choice but to hire people elsewhere.” The Government recognises the potential the information and communications technology sector has to grow the New Zealand economy which is why we are investing significant additional sums in tertiary courses in science and engineering over the next 4 years. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that Telecom has said it will soon announce job cuts “well into the hundreds” with industry indications as high as 1500 making it the largest loss of jobs from a single New Zealand company in recent decades at the very least and what has he or his ministry done to mitigate the impact on the information and communications technology workforce of these extraordinary job losses? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am aware in general terms of Telecom’s plan in terms of its job changes. 
Grant Robertson 
: What are you doing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I am actually very confident for the sector because the information and communications technology sector is probably the sector with the highest demand that is unmet for skilled information and communications technology workers from around the country. For example there was an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as recently as last Friday talking about the fact that there was one website showing 1300 information and communications technology vacancies in Auckland alone with pay rates of up to $1500 a day. So I am confident that if the numbers the member talks about—and I have no awareness of those numbers—are true those people will be very quickly snapped up in the information and communications technology sector. 
Clare Curran 
: Given that it was he who drove through the legislation to separate Telecom in 2011 to build his ultra-fast broadband network and that it has been signalled that Telecom would need to shed staff to be competitive where is his industry plan for job growth in this sector and just how many jobs will it create? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well it may come as a surprise to the member that generally Government strategies are not very good at creating jobs. But if it helps the member can I say to the member in terms of the information and communications technology sector there was a very helpful release just 2 days ago from Statistics New Zealand which points out how rapidly and quickly the information and communications technology sector in this country is growing—now up to $23 billion worth of economic activity. Again the member may wring her hands but I am confident for the information and communications technology sector in this country. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he regard Telecom’s impending massive job losses as a matter for Government intervention; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is an interesting question. I am not quite sure what the member would seek the Government do—ring Telecom up and stop it changing its work programme? Obviously there is concern in an economy when people have to lose their jobs but the reality is that that happens every year. Roughly 250000 jobs are created and lost every year in the New Zealand economy. The interesting thing is that the left wing thinks you can stop the world all the time and halt everything in place; the centre-right understands it is about encouraging investment opportunities. Truly the information and communications technology sector is one of those sectors that is growing very well and will quickly absorb whatever available people there are as a result of the Telecom changes. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that his own ministry embarrassed by the lack of a credible economic agenda by the Government is attempting to stage a late intervention in the Telecom situation in order to dampen the effects of his Government’s failed economic policies? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I am not explicitly aware of that. What I can tell the member though is that my office has spoken to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment asking whether there is a way of facilitating the opportunities. The reality is that I go around the country all the time talking to information and communications technology companies that cannot get enough staff. So I actually said to the ministry that there was an opportunity for it to get together with Telecom and those companies and see whether it can arrange those people to have the opportunity to look into new jobs. I think that is a good thing and that is actually something this Government should be encouraged to do. 
Clare Curran 
: Is it true that staff from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have approached Telecom offering help with recruitment agencies; is that not the job of Work and Income and should not he as the Minister be instructing his own ministry to develop an industry plan for the information and communications technology sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A very straightforward point is that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has quite possibly approached Telecom because I made an inquiry from my office to see whether there was any way it could assist to match some of the people who may not be staying at Telecom to any jobs around the country that the organisation is aware of. I think that is an excellent thing if it is possible but again the member is barking up the wrong tree here. The information and communications technology sector has massive vacancies and a massive demand for jobs. If the ministry can facilitate the information between those people working for Telecom and those with other companies I think that that is a wonderful thing. I thank the member for the question. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a document from the Parliamentary Library which says that—it is a report on job losses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is it a publication? 
Clare Curran 
: It is a publication of job— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then it is available to the members. 
Clare Curran 
: No no no—it is not a publication. It is an analysis— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And it was done for the member? 
Clare Curran 
: —done for the member—which has been unable to find any job losses over 1000 in any New Zealand company. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that Parliamentary Library document. Is there any objection? There is none. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Clare Curran 
: The second document is the transcript from the financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development in December 2012 in which the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is definitely something that is available to all members. 
Clare Curran 
: It may be available to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then it is available to all members. They do not need it to fulfil their information. It is on the website I am advised. 
Tourism Promotion— 
Hobbit  
Campaign 
8. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What is Tourism New Zealand doing to promote New Zealand as the first Hobbit movie is released on DVD? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Associate Minister of Tourism) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: The first  
Hobbit  
DVD was released yesterday in North America and is soon to be released worldwide. The DVD includes a 6-minute promotional video with endorsements of New Zealand by  
The Hobbit 
’s stars and sweeping shots of New Zealand landscapes and film locations. Tourism New Zealand is promoting the feature through its website Facebook and YouTube channels to reach as many potential travellers as possible and to back its “100% Middle-earth 100% Pure New Zealand” campaign. This is great news. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What will be the benefits to New Zealand of the promotional video? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The video will give New Zealand immense exposure going into millions of homes around the world. This will build on the impact of the movies which we are already seeing. In January preference for a New Zealand holiday was up from 43 percent to 52 percent in the USA. Visitors from the US were up 16 percent on January last year and visits from Japan were up 10 percent. This is why during negotiations with Warner Bros the Government sought for the promotional video to be included in the DVD so that we could maximise the ongoing opportunity to attract more visitors to New Zealand. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What other ongoing activities is Tourism New Zealand doing to leverage  
The Hobbit 
 movies? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Tourism New Zealand has launched the “100% Middle-earth 100% Pure New Zealand” campaign in Australia Japan Korea Germany the United Kingdom the United States and China. Eight out of 10 people who were actively considering New Zealand as a destination say they are more interested in travelling here after seeing these advertisements. It was voted the world’s leading destination marketing campaign at the 2012 World Travel Awards highlighting the great success of the campaign and the importance of  
The 
Hobbit 
 movies to our tourism industry. 
Families Commission—Expenditure 
9. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Is she satisfied with the spending decisions made by the Families Commission in the last three financial years? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development) 
on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I am reserving judgment at this stage because Audit New Zealand is currently undertaking a review. There are some concerns and I share them. That is why they have written to the Minister and asked for the auditors to report. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Does she believe it is acceptable that the Families Commission spent almost the equivalent amount on one contractor in the last financial year to that which was spent on the entire White Ribbon campaign against family violence? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am reserving my judgment in respect of that particular matter. The report will be due hopefully shortly. It will be made publicly available. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What is the connection between the departure of the chief executive and the chief commissioner and the excessive expenditure unearthed at the select committee yesterday? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: As I am answering on behalf of the Minister I do not have that information. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: In the light of the Auditor-General being asked to review the commission’s sensitive expenditures policy what action will she be taking to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funding within the Families Commission? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Appropriate use of taxpayers’ money is always a concern for any Minister and particularly for the Minister for Social Development. We look forward to the publication of that report we are happy to release it publicly and I am sure that decisions will be made as a result of that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If she is so willing to express dissatisfaction with the Families Commission’s use of contractors will she likewise investigate her own department which spent for instance more than $350000 on consultants for the core Government business of managing the green paper process? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Dissatisfaction has not been expressed. Judgment has been reserved. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Customer Service Training 
10. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is ACC doing to ensure that frontline staff are adequately trained to provide excellent customer service? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 In addition to current staff training to improve the customer experience ACC is developing an ACC Academy with independent tertiary providers to strengthen the focus on managing client relationships in the best possible way. ACC also has privacy awareness training that is now compulsory for all staff. 
Mike Sabin 
: Does ACC have any other programmes in place to ensure a positive client experience? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes ACC is piloting an extended 12-month induction programme for case managers. An induction programme for new managers is expected to roll out later this year. ACC also has modular training on core competency areas such as understanding the legislation and the rights of clients. 
New Zealand Defence Force—Health and Safety and Non-combat Deaths 
11. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Will he rule out “systemic health and safety issues throughout the Defence Force” being a cause of Defence Force fatalities in light of revelations surrounding the non-combat deaths of Defence personnel over the last three years; if not why not? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am not ruling such issues in and I am not ruling them out. What I can say is that there is an extensive programme of health and safety work that has been under way for some time. I also note that the final court of inquiry report and recommendations relating to the Private Ross tragedy are yet to be released. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do the interim findings of the court of inquiry into the tragic death of Private Michael Ross which the Minister has been briefed on suggest that there was not just one error but a whole catalogue of errors and mistakes that contributed to Michael Ross’ death and that the loss of life of Michael Ross was entirely avoidable? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I want to acknowledge first that this was a very real tragedy and there will be very hard lessons to be learnt from this. The gist of the report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
is indeed correct and it looks like there were multiple safety failings in what is a very tragic case. My condolences go to the family. I think we will find that there have been major errors that need to be corrected so that this can never happen again. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does he explain the catalogue of errors that he has been advised on that led to Private Michael Ross’ death which included first of all the boat he was travelling in not being inflated so that he was thrown out of it; secondly its engine breaking down so they could not turn round to pick him up; thirdly the fact that the gas canister that would have inflated his life jacket was empty and had not been checked; fourthly the fact that the life jacket was in fact a navy jacket and not suitable for the equipment that army personnel hold; fifthly the fact that the safety boat was not accompanying the boat that Private Ross was travelling in; and sixthly when it finally turned up it did not have the complement of crew necessary to actually provide any assistance? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am not going to deny any of those facts but what I am going to say is that I am awaiting the final court of inquiry recommendations which will be acted on. I also want to say that the police have investigated this. There is a separate Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment investigation which has the power to lay charges and a military police investigation. This is a very serious matter which has to be taken seriously. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister recall the findings of the court of inquiry into the Iroquois crash on Anzac Day which pointed out that the crew was neither adequately prepared nor trained; that there were deficiencies in the orders management and operational environment within which the air force was operating in at the time; and that these were key contributing factors in that tragedy? And what lessons have been learnt and what changes have been made in the 3 years that have elapsed since then? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: All I can say about the Iroquois crash is that there were six key causes—basically relating to culture to oversight of orders and to adherence to orders. One of the key things that was said in the report findings was that the genesis of that accident goes back 10 years to 2001 when changes were made in an attempt to make our operations more efficient and cost-effective. At the time two layers of flying command and supervision along with staff support were removed from the organisation. That was in 2001. You wanted to know what has been done in the period since. This will take some time but I am quite happy to relay the answer for the House if the member so wishes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Supplementary question. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am asking— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No. You are required only to answer one part of a supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has it occurred to him that a culture where operational orders were not being followed and basic mistakes were being made might have been in part at least an outcome of the fact that at the time of Private Michael Ross’ death the morale in the Defence Force was the lowest ever on record according to the Minister’s own surveys; that there had been a massive loss of skilled and experienced people of over 1000 Defence Force personnel that year; and that there was a situation where a very high level of attrition—in fact the highest in recent history—meant that people were in a mind-set and lacked the training that then allowed that catalogue of errors to occur? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I completely reject those assertions and think it is pretty low that an absolute tragedy would be utilised by that member to try to make a political point. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a comment that is bound to cause disorder in the House. Michael Ross happened to have been a family friend and I despise the Minister for making that sort of accusation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It would be helpful if the Minister could address the question. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well I have made my point that this tragedy has nothing to do with attrition and morale and I will reassert my point that this member should not be attempting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is a sufficient answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it satisfactory that Crib 19 on which Corporal Doug Hughes took his own life was deployed when the warrant officer responsible for pre-deployment training said that they had not been adequately trained that they had received 60 percent of the training that they had needed and that actually one of the components that were missing from the training was identification of stress and management of stress? Why did the Minister allow that to happen and what inquiry has he done into that fact? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The member knows that what he is asserting there is actually incorrect. The warrant officer’s report that he refers to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to replay a point of order from yesterday. You know that there is only one way of suggesting that members have breached privilege. To suggest that a member has said something in the House that they know is incorrect is a breach of privilege. It has long been ruled by Speakers that you cannot make an accusation that a member is doing that as that member just did and actually as members did yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just say that we are dealing with what is a very sensitive issue. I am going to invite the member to ask his question again because it has now passed by quite some time. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it satisfactory that Crib 19 on which Corporal Doug Hughes lost his life was deployed when the warrant officer responsible for the pre-deployment training of that crib is on record as saying that the group was not adequately trained—they had done 60 percent of the training—but he had no option but to deploy them? Is it true that one of the components on which they had not received training in pre-deployment was the identification of stress and management of stress which were obviously relevant to Corporal Hughes taking his own life? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 12 Dr Kennedy Graham. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called Dr Kennedy Graham for question No. 12. 
Ministers—Confidence in Climate Change Issues and Justice Ministers 
12. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Climate Change Issues Tim Groser to do his climate change job when he is spending so much time and public funds travelling the world promoting his candidacy for a new job as head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. The achievements of Mr Groser in that regard speak for themselves. 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh no he’ll speak about them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It would be helpful if the Minister— 
Hon David Parker 
: He’s never lost for words. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some interjections are very good. It would be helpful now— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I am not lost for words; I am stunned by one of the best contributions he has ever made to a debate. Can I say that the record of the Hon Tim Groser as Minister speaks for itself. During the years 2000 to 2008 emissions from this country rose by 23 percent. In the last few years they have fallen. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just checking whether it is appropriate for you as Speaker to say “hear hear” to Grant Robertson’s interjection like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I did not do so. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table a document listing the 16 capitals Mr Groser has visited in the past 8 weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document that lists where Minister Groser has been. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Was there any objection? There appears to be no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will he direct Mr Groser to find time before the end of his natural term in office to sit down and work out the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020 and a pathway to it given that his almost continuous absence is holding up the process? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am quite sure that Mr Groser who is well-known for his capacity to engage in conversation will be raising climate change issues with people in each of those 16 countries he visits. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: When Mr Groser recently urged trade colleagues in Geneva to “never underestimate the power of ideas” as part of his WTO candidacy did he have in mind a vision of a world with a stable climate or a world where he gets the job he wants? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If the House had the time I would spend it conveying Mr Groser’s visions on many matters. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Is there a new visionary ministerial portfolio for job hunting given Mr Groser has taken to adding “candidate for the position of World Trade Organization Director-General” as part of his title on his press releases? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The question line today simply confirms that the Greens do not want this country to progress in an economic sense and see no value in trade liberalisation throughout the world. A party that preaches about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of my questioning was not an opportunity for the Minister to extol trade virtues and our trade interests. It is a question of focusing on climate change issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I ask the member to at some stage over the next 24 hours have a look at his question which talked about Mr Groser talking to trade Ministers. It was a pretty political question. It certainly was not a tight question. It gave every opportunity for the Minister to respond as he did. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does he have confidence in the Minister of Justice in appointing Dame Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner who has already courted controversy with her views that burkas are “disconcerting” and that Waitangi Day should be replaced with a new national holiday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. I have confidence in the Minister who was responsible for appointing a strong independent person to this important office. I think it is appropriate that whoever has that office does engage in a dialogue with New Zealanders about matters they are concerned about. 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to sections 15(1)(d) and 17(2)(b) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Louise Upston be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Hon Michael Woodhouse. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 20 March. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I support the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Bill read a second time. 
Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair Jonathan Young and members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering this complex piece of legislation. I also acknowledge the time submitters took to provide their views to the select committee. It is positive that the select committee had the opportunity to hear views about mining from so many perspectives. 
This bill refreshes the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to support the Government’s objective of growing the mineral sector whilst ensuring even greater levels of health and safety and environmental oversight. New Zealanders rightly demand high standards from the mining sector. This legislation is a key element in providing that assurance. This bill does not seek to replace existing legislation in relation to health and safety and environmental management; rather it better integrates the functions of various regulatory processes to ensure health and safety and environmental considerations are embedded throughout the process. The majority of submitters agreed with the proposal to consider the health and safety and environmental capacity of permit applicants before permits are awarded. Processes to ensure these matters remain on the agenda for the life cycle of a permit such as annual review meetings with permit holders and information-sharing provisions between regulators were also endorsed. I am confident that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will implement these changes in a way that does not result in undue delay in permit decisions or duplication of effort. 
The report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was released while the bill was being considered by the select committee. The royal commission explicitly endorsed the proposals put forward in the review of the Crown Minerals Act but it was clear that these needed to be strengthened. The bill as reported back incorporates further amendments that take account of the royal commission’s report and submissions that were heard on this. These changes will ensure that health and safety becomes an integral part of the permitting process without introducing undue costs or uncertainty. This bill represents the Government’s response to two of the royal commission’s recommendations. A comprehensive work programme on the other 14 recommendations is under way. 
As expected the purpose statement generated a significant amount of interest throughout the committee’s proceedings. The purpose statement neatly encapsulated the Government’s desires for the sector. It intentionally promotes “prospecting for exploration for and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand” but recognises that any activity must be undertaken in accordance with “good industry practice”. Embedding such a balance into the purpose statement makes it clear that permitting decisions will consider health and safety matters as well as the potential economic return to the Crown. 
This bill ensures the ongoing protection of schedule 4 land. This protection is enhanced by automatically including any land that meets the criteria for inclusion in schedule 4. Some concerns were raised that having Cabinet as the decision maker for the designation of high-value conservation land would erode the Minister of Conservation’s role as steward of the conservation estate. This is not the case. It has always been a matter for Cabinet to add land into schedule 4. The reforms ensure that this will happen as a matter of course. There was some objection to the Minister of Energy and Resources having a role in determining whether to grant access to Crown conservation land for mining and the inclusion of economic criteria in the decision into whether to grant a land access agreement. The bill retains these proposals but ensures that the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources is limited to the small number of mining operations that have the potential to generate a significant economic return. Economic considerations will also take account of any direct impacts on other businesses that might be affected by the mining project. 
This bill is part of a package of reforms that responds to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the management of the petroleum resource. It introduces a requirement for permit holders to report annually on their engagement with iwi and hapu. Some submissions suggested that this requirement does not go far enough and that it should spell out detailed expectations on how permit holders should engage and the consequences of doing so. I am of the view that it is a matter for permit holders and iwi to determine how to engage at a local level. Embedding such expectations into the legislation would be too limiting given the diversity of iwi views on mining and their willingness to engage with permit holders. This requirement must be seen in the context of a broader range of reforms aimed at enhancing the relationships between permit holders the Crown and iwi. Of note is the intent that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals will provide operational support to assist creating relationships at a local level in the interests of all parties. 
I am grateful to the submitters and the select committee whose thorough consideration has served to improve this legislation. The bill as reported back reflects the Commerce Committee’s agreement on the majority of amendments proposed and its response to issues raised by a wide range of submitters. It also includes a large number of technical amendments to improve the workability of the Act and bring it into line with modern drafting conventions. This bill is a key element in helping New Zealand realise its huge petroleum and mineral potential while giving us the confidence that the regulatory system we have is robust. I am very pleased to commend the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am very pleased to make a contribution on the second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. When this bill was originally introduced Labour said that it would support its referral to the Commerce Committee but we made some very strong views known at the time about the issues that we disagreed with and that we would need to have changed in order for us to support the further progress of this legislation. One of those issues was the new regime of joint responsibility that is being brought in. In our view the joint decision-making regime is a direct undermining of the responsibility and the role of the Minister of Conservation. I am amazed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has put up with it frankly. I thought that he would have had a bit more pride in the position as Minister of Conservation but it still remains. It is a mistake. It shows a really massive deficit in the understanding that the National Party has about the role of the Minister of Conservation and that is obvious actually in the priorities that it has set particularly in the budgeting area. So that joint ministerial responsibility is a mistake. I hope that as the bill progresses through the House it is removed. 
The second area is the economic benefit test which is again a huge indication of the lack of understanding that the National Party has of the value of the conservation estate—the value of not mining in areas that should be protected. Its framework of thinking is about the balance between conservation and so-called economic benefits that may be gained from exploration without any acknowledgment that there are some parts of our country that are just too precious to mine. That is not part of the Government’s consideration or its thinking. So the area of joint ministerial responsibility should go as should the way the economic benefit test overrides the intrinsic worth and value of the conservation estate. 
I also want to make it very clear that Labour does not oppose mining. Our party started on the West Coast an area that has at its heart mining—coalmining—so we have a strong history and have retained that link with the mining community. But there must be a regime around mining that recognises the environmental damage that can be done as well as the inherently unsafe nature of coalmining and I want to come back to that point later. 
In the purpose statement there is an indication of the flawed thinking that I referred to earlier. The purpose statement says that the purpose should be to promote mining activities. In our view that language is wrong. It reduces the responsibility in other areas of mining and it does not truly reflect the best way for mining to be managed by the Government. So instead of “promotion” there should be phrases like “managed” “facilitate” or “regulate”. There are no references to health and safety there are no references to sustainability and there are no references to environmental principles. This is a big gap in the frame of the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges who has just resumed his seat. It is not surprising that he has got a bit of a gap in his knowledge at the moment because he is new to the job but his predecessor the Hon Phil Heatley had it for a while and did not seem to get a grip on it either. So the two issues that we raised right at the start—that of joint ministerial decision-making and then that of the economic benefit test—have not been addressed and the purpose statement itself indicates the deficit that the National Party has in valuing our conservation estate. 
 The submissions that we heard—and I managed to sit on this committee quite a number of times as it went through the process—expressed some very strongly held concerns about the issues that I have raised about the fact that this bill totally undermines the mandate that the Minister of Conservation has as the guardian of the conservation estate. It is totally undermined by this legislation by that joint ministerial decision-making role. The submissions in that regard I think have been largely ignored by the Government and that is a big shame. Labour sees the environment and the economy as two sides of the same coin and when we are developing policy that might affect them we have to view them as a whole. This is not a balancing game; this is two sides of the same coin and they need to be viewed as a whole. 
I just want to refer to the second part of the select committee activity which was instigated by the committee who called for further submissions as a result of the report from Pike River. I think that the committee responded to the recommendations of the Pike River report in a very responsible way and I want to pay credit to all the members of the select committee. This is a very difficult issue for us. We were being asked as members of Parliament to look at one of the biggest tragedies we have ever had in New Zealand and make some legislative amendments. I think that the way the select committee went through that part of the process was not just to its credit—not just to the credit of the select committee and it was—but to the credit of our whole Parliament and frankly I think sometimes we could do with a bit more of that sort of work. Those health and safety issues the mining regime issues were taken very seriously and as a result a number of amendments have been made to the legislation. 
Our minority report which we have put in with the select committee report itemises the areas that we oppose but actually there were some areas of the legislation that we support and I just want to take a minute of the House’s time to outline those because even though we are going to be voting against this bill in the end because of the problems that I identified at the start of my contribution there are some parts of this legislation that are very good. The move to enshrine schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and automatic inclusion of certain areas into schedule 4 is a good move and Labour supports that. The introduction of the two-tier system for permanent management with all the complex higher-return petroleum and minerals operations being classified as tier 1 and therefore because of their nature subject to a more stringent permitting process and a high-level pre-vetting of applicants—that is a good move and Labour supports that. 
We also support the improved coordination between the Crown minerals permitting regime and health and safety and environmental regulatory functions for tier 1 activities. That is what it is in the bill. We support that but we are committed to saying that it should not necessarily be limited just to tier 1 applications. Integrating health and safety into the permitting process to ensure consistency and collaboration amongst the regulators to ensure that health and safety is considered right throughout the permitting process as a general condition of permits—that is a very good move. The process of revocation of permits has been simplified and Labour supports that as well as we support increasing the penalties for offences under the Act. So there are some good things in this bill and we welcome them and as I say we support them. 
However we will oppose the bill and that is with some regret. Had the Government had any understanding of the importance of our conservation estate we would not be debating this legislation. It completely undermines and demonstrates the lack of understanding of the intrinsic value of the conservation estate in and of itself. We should not have the joint ministerial responsibility in these matters. The Minister of Conservation has the legislative mandate under the Conservation Act and it is being weakened by this legislation and the economic benefit test totally ignores the value that the conservation estate has and gives to our country. So I look forward to the rest of the debate. I am glad that I have been able to put on the record the parts of the legislation that Labour supports because too often that gets overlooked in the debate. I regret that we were not able to get those fundamental changes so that we could support the progress of this bill even further. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
Malo le soifua. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. May I first acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Simon Bridges for bringing this bill to the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He didn’t. Phil Heatley did. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Well he is sponsoring it. He is sponsoring it; we know he did not bring it. It is an important bill because this is part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to grow the economy to provide jobs and opportunities for our families and to provide for our families and our communities out there and it is something that this country our fellow countrymen and women are in agreement with and support. 
This bill is about streamlining and simplifying the Crown minerals regulatory regime and it is really about providing better coordination of the regulatory agencies. It is based on amending the Crown Minerals Act obviously and it has three objectives. One is to encourage development of Crown-owned minerals so that they contribute to more growth in our economy which is important again because of job opportunities. It is also to streamline and to simplify the regime so that it is in line with our regulatory reform agenda of bringing down red tape removing bureaucracy and improving efficiencies in our economy. Finally it is about the coordination of those regulatory agencies. 
It introduces a two-tiered system for permit management and it distinguishes between those relatively small complex high-return high-risk petroleum and mineral activities as opposed to the larger low-return industrial small-business and hobby mineral opportunities. Because of the high-risk nature of tier 1 opportunities they will be subject to a more hands-on more coordinated management and regulatory regime as opposed to the sort of simpler tier 2 regime. 
I want to—and I do not do it often—commend Ruth Dyson the last speaker for her contribution. I do not always agree—oh she is about to fall over as she leaves the House. I do want to commend her because as she said she opposes the bill but she did point out parts of the bill that certainly Opposition members agree with and that they would support. But they are not supporting the whole bill. Therefore they are not supporting economic growth and they are not supporting our communities and our families out there. 
I just want to make a quick point about the sad tragedy of course of Pike River the coalmine tragedy. It led to the royal commission and some of the recommendations that were made by that commission. Cabinet took those on board and obviously Supplementary Order Paper 152 will be tabled. It will require the Minister of Energy and Resources to take into account the view of appropriate health and safety authorities. I am sure that the Hon Simon Bridges will do that in his decision making before issuing tier 1 exploration or mining permits. Secondly it will ensure that tier 1 mining activities do not start until the health and safety regulator is satisfied that those safety and health requirements are first met. 
So it is a good bill. It will deliver for New Zealanders. It will deliver some of the economic growth that we see across the Ditch in Australia in terms of its mining and exploration activities. Those are some of the activities and economic operations that we would like to see in this country and this bill will deliver some of those benefits. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker can I just remind members that it is not in order to refer to someone leaving the House. It is actually covered under Speaker’s ruling 24/4 which refers to the absence of members and was given by Speaker Algie. The reality is that many members have to leave the House because they have other commitments. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The member who resumed his seat Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga currently has probably just about run out of crocodile tears for the families of New Zealand after issuing that view that this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill would be the silver bullet to save the economy as he was depicting it. Look we know that the mining industry in Australia to which he referred adds something to its economy. The truth is that it is a fraction of the wealth generated over there. Economic settings play a far bigger part in that story and this Government has an absolutely shameful record—a shameful record—on the economy. It is the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years. That is what is hurting our families. That is why people do not have jobs. [ 
Interruption 
] That is why 30000 jobs have gone from the economy in the last year Mr Bridges. David Shearer the leader of the Labour Party has asked from the beginning for a clean green—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I just say that the member is making a forceful speech and that obviously there is a lot of noise. The Speaker will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: I thank you for that intervention Mr Speaker. I appreciate that my voice is a little quiet so I will try to speak over the member if he gets too noisy again. David Shearer said from the start of his time that he wants a clean green diversified economy that produces sustainable jobs. That vision is very different from what this Government is delivering. It is delivering a weaker economy with 30000 fewer jobs than the year before. It is delivering an economy focused only on the primary sector. We need a strong primary sector in this country but we do not need a monoculture. We need other industries to prosper also. I note that only recently I looked up the statistics again and saw that non - primary sector production in this country is down 10 percent under this Government. That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful and jobs are going with that. Inequality is growing because there are not sustainable jobs in this economy. 
The next point I wish to cover is around the fact that we did support this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee because we wanted it to be explored further but we supported it to the select committee with some clear concerns. This Government has refused to address those concerns and those of submitters and so we are now forced to oppose this bill. This bill could have been a better thing. This bill could have actually delivered jobs in a sustainable way that cared for families looked out for New Zealanders looked out for the environment cared for health and safety concerns and benefited the local economy. But this Government is not interested in those things it seems. It is interested only in its mates and those who are behind the scenes trying to push through legislation that benefits one little segment and leaves the rest for dead. 
Labour does not oppose mining. Our history is linked with the West Coast mines but we believe that mining should be responsibly managed with good environmental stewardship and a long-term view of the industry and the country. Labour supports mining where it is done in a responsible safe and environmentally friendly way. We accept that we are going to need windmills. Windmills are made out of material that is mined. We need thermos flasks which are made out of material that is mined. We need those things that are produced through steel and steel is produced out of things that are mined. 
Those things can all be done in a sensible and responsible way but this Government’s mismanagement in the mining sector is another factor. Look at Solid Energy—the poster organisation for this Government. We have photos of Bill English turning over the first sod on the lignite project with Don Elder. Solid Energy is not doing that project now and that is because it took on debt. Solid Energy was encouraged to take on debt by this Government. It was a billion-dollar company an award-winning company under the previous Government— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this member is exuberant in the delivery of his speeches but the substance of his speech is totally off topic from the bill that is being considered this afternoon. Can we ask the member to please come back to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was listening and the member could perhaps just narrow it a little bit. I know it is a big debate because you are talking about Crown minerals but let us just try to keep things within Standing Orders. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: As I was saying this Government has run Solid Energy into the ground and that is because of a lack of oversight and a lack of concern for how this sector is run. That is my point. This sector is being run in a shoddy fashion. It is not looking out for the interests of New Zealanders. Labour’s bottom lines on mining are—since that member asks—that there must be capacity to respond to accidents quickly and we have seen failures in that regard; there must be clear liability so taxpayers do not foot the bill for mistakes and we have seen this Government time and time again hand over responsibility for mistakes to the taxpayer; there must be robust protection of the natural environment and we do not see that here either; and there must be a benefit for the local economy. Solid Energy if we needed any illustration shows with all of those people put on to the dole queue that that is not happening under this Government. The local economy is suffering because of the mismanagement by this Government of the sector. 
Labour is opposed particularly to there being joint ministerial responsibility for mining on Crown land. This Government is determined to take the teeth out of the Minister of Conservation’s mouth. It is undermining—if you will excuse the pun—the Minister of Conservation at every step and the powers and role of the Minister are drawn into question. We agree with the concerns of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who stated that the Minister of Conservation will remain accountable for the conservation estate but is no longer in control. Labour is concerned about the economic benefit test to mining of the Department of Conservation estate. You have only to look back to those tens of thousands of people marching down Queen Street to get a really clear picture that the public is opposed to mining on sensitive land. This bill with its test there says “even if an activity is not compatible with the objectives and purpose of the Conservation Act the activity could still go ahead.” That shows you where this Government is sitting on this issue. It is not making that balance. It talks about balance but it is presenting an unbalanced piece of legislation. It is failing to deliver on jobs in the economy. [ 
Interruption 
] We have a little sideshow over there—it is a bit like the cycleway which was the big jobs project that never delivered. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Don’t want jobs? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: There may be a job here or there digging on conservation land probably for the lawyers I would suggest Mr Lotu-Iiga but actually the real thing that needs to be addressed is the fundamental settings in the economy. 
A proper plan would address the fundamental problems in the economy Mr Lotu-Iiga and that would get jobs back on track. A sector plan is needed. This Government has produced none of that. This reliance on the extractive sector and on primary produce—you know New Zealand is reliant on those things. Our agricultural sector for example is about the same size as Denmark’s and has been for a long time but its export per capita now is three times that of New Zealand. Denmark has had a Government that is prepared to be hands-on with the economy that is prepared to actually take the issue of jobs in hand and that is prepared to grow the economy and not see wages fall year after year after year like they have under this Government. This Government does not care about the workers. It needs to adopt better legislation that actually addresses environmental concerns that addresses health and safety concerns and that really looks at the issues that are presented to select committees and considers what submitters say so that legislation can be improved for the benefit of every person in this country. 
Labour did support this bill going to select committee to give the select committee the opportunity to hear from those submitters and to make this into better legislation. Unfortunately this Government—this arrogant Government—like it always does ignored those submitters stepped away from the advice that was given and is determined to press on with its own vision which is not delivering jobs for this country which is not delivering jobs for New Zealanders and which is seeing our economy stutter. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare iteneira. Many happy returns to the mining industry. However this second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is not an occasion for celebration unless you happen to be a mining company—it will really work for them. This is because this bill is designed for mining companies. It reflects their values and the tunnel vision that sees conservation land communities and tangata whenua as barriers to be removed or manipulated so that they can reap the coal or gold or oil and gas which they sell to a population living beyond its means and needing to focus on more innovative alternatives. This bill is the miners’ bill. It is also the Government’s response to the 30000 people who marched down Queen Street and the more than 30000 the 39000 who made submissions against the mining of schedule 4 land. So the Government lost the media war. It was seen to have to back down on the issue but like any strategist it had another plan. That plan was amendments to the Crown Minerals Act and here we see them. 
This bill is a betrayal of many conservation values. We heard that at the Commerce Committee. There was a range of submitters from a lot of different groups who talked about the real betrayal of the 2010 uprising of popular support for the conservation estate and how this bill legislates that betrayal. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as mentioned by the previous speaker Dr David Clark summarised the most disastrous issue in this bill. She summarised it by saying that the joint ministerial powers will undermine and weaken the Minister of Conservation. To quote the parliamentary commissioner “It cuts across the fundamental separation of functions and powers whereby the Minister of Energy and Resources grants permits for minerals and the Minister of Conservation grants access to the conservation [land]. The Minister of Conservation will remain accountable for the conservation estate but not in control. His or her core role as guardian of the conservation estate will be undermined.” That is what this bill entrenches. That is not the only issue but it is probably the most disastrous and the most seriously identified issue that went through our select committee process. 
However there are many clauses we have concerns about and I want to start with the Treaty issues. This bill claims to improve the relationship between the Crown miners and tangata whenua but what it does is in fact one of the worst forms of tokenism. There is a Treaty clause a standard Treaty clause in the Act—which is generally ignored by the miners and we have got experience of that in my home area of Hauraki—but there is also a new invention called iwi engagement reporting. This is a tokenistic annual report that a mining company must do to show that it has had a conversation with somebody from tangata whenua. It was opposed by NgaiTahu and a number of Taranaki iwi that submitted on the grounds that it is a breach of the Treaty that it is tokenistic and that it has no robust Treaty framework. The Green Party supports those claims. It is outrageous that it is called an improvement when all it is is tick-the-box tokenism. The mining industry at the select committee said “Oh no we’re going to have a better relationship. We assure you. We promise.” but there is nothing to make sure that that happens there is nothing in regulation and there is nothing in this that represents a robust Treaty framework.  
I move on now to some of the other aspects of the bill including the issue of the purpose. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate and attract miners. It has abandoned all pretence of regulation and balance in favour of promotion and facilitation of one industry at the expense of others. The purpose lacks balance and leadership and although a lot of the bill seems to be full of minor innocuous detail you have got to look at the embedded drivers. You have got to look at what the bill is set up to achieve. What it is set up to achieve is to convince the public. Although it is appearing to protect schedule 4 in fact it changes how the levers of power are delivered through a range of mechanisms. The stated focus is for a more efficient allocation and a fair return to the Crown but overall it is a fast tracking of the minerals and petroleum development within a weak context of the other values and rights that New Zealanders feel so strongly about. New Zealanders have expressed passionate opposition to petroleum and mining development on vulnerable land and this is being ignored. It is being ignored and was ignored at the select committee.  
The role of the Minister is equally unacceptable. The role of the Minister is to help the mining industry as much as possible and that role definition continues to be problematic when you look at the joint decision-making clause. Ministerial joint decision-making is a major political shift away from the idea that the Minister of Conservation should be able to talk about who should have access to the conservation estate based on an assessment of values enshrined in the Conservation Act. Those things are being literally undermined. So it cuts across as the parliamentary commissioner says. The compromise suggested at the select committee which was that joint decision-making would apply only to “significant” applications with “the potential to generate a significant economic return or that are high risk.” completely fails to address the core issues of concern which are mining in significant areas and mines that have potential to maybe make money for some foreign mining company but will do nothing for the values of the conservation estate. So the Minister of Conservation will be weakened considerably on these core issues that the public identified. In terms of the provision for public notification where the conservation Minister deems a proposal is significant it is inadequate because all mining activity on conservation land should be publicly notified. There are people who want to know; they should have a right to have a say.  
One of the most Machiavellian aspects of the bill is the provisions on Orders in Council. If you look at the supposed protection of schedule 4 as it exists that sounds all very well. But if you want to add to schedule 4 instead of going through the process via the Minister of Conservation Cabinet will now have the power to remove land from national parks reserves wildlife sanctuaries and scientific reserves that are not in schedule 4. So this gives unprecedented control to the higher ranks of Cabinet over and above the powers of the Minister of Conservation. You can guess that the status of the Minister of Conservation is not as strong as that of the Minister for Economic Development. It is not as strong as a number of other powerful Ministers so we will see what happens to the conservation values. So although we have ostensibly protected schedule 4 additions will be via this process and it will be interesting to see whether in fact we can get any.  
Net economic benefit—clause 31(6) proposes to add economic benefit to matters requiring consideration. Again we sought a definition from officials; they worked hard to provide it. We sought clarity because we are concerned that without full cost-benefit accounting the idea of net economic benefit will be narrowly defined in terms of particular immediate economic benefit. The quantification of cultural community and environmental values at the moment is badly understood whereas net economic benefit can be used to privilege the mining industry.  
The one part of the bill that we did support along with everyone else was this Supplementary Order Paper 152 on making sure that the Pike River recommendations were included. If the only good thing in this bill is that the workers get more safety that is a good thing. We support it. We believe that workers—both tier 2 and tier 1 miners all of them—should have the best possible protections under law. If we have learnt nothing from Pike River we should have learnt that and we fully support that Supplementary Order Paper. It needs to be there. We are a little concerned that the tier 2 miners get less protection because supposedly they are doing a smaller job. They are underground and they need protection; they should have the same level of protection.  
We are also very concerned about the length of permits. We oppose any increase in the length of the excavation permits as these are often granted with nil public input and nil accountability to local communities. We do not see any justification for the bill lengthening these permits except for the convenience of the mining companies but then that is what this bill is about. It is about how to make the Crown Minerals Act more convenient for the mining industry. It is about how to facilitate the industry’s access to a whole range of land including the conservation estate.  
Our speakers in the House have talked about the wonderful economic benefits. I live in the Coromandel; our economic benefits come from our visitors. They come from the aquaculture industry. They come from annual returns which are $350 million a year from our visitors. They come for beaches. They come for beauty. They come for the uniqueness of our area. They do not come to see holes in the ground on a regular basis. They are actually attracted to our area for its absolute contribution in terms of the environment. We stand for the environment and the people who came to the select committee stand for it. What was disturbing to see was both the tangata whenua concerns about consultation and the submitters who passionately believe in protecting those values for future generations being completely ignored and the setting up of this bizarre and unprecedented control by joint ministerial powers. We will rue the day that we created this kind of double jeopardy. It is not where this country wants to go. We saw the people marching the streets saying “Protect the land.” and it is now being ignored under the bill. This bill is a disgrace. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sriakaal Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.  
This bill is another step in the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. The natural resources industry is now one of the major export earners for the New Zealand economy. This industry contributes taxes and royalties to the New Zealand economy. There is huge potential in this sector and an opportunity for the creation of highly paid jobs. 
During the select committee process we received more than 500 submissions and 44 submissions were heard in person. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young and the members for their work and I would also like to acknowledge the officials who helped during the select committee process. Some amendments have been suggested by the select committee which are being considered. I hope this bill will help to grow this industry in the future. I support this bill. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. As we advised at the first reading New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going through to the committee stage. We have some reservations about some aspects of the bill but we do fully support the intention of it. This bill is all about the natural resources and the Crown-owned minerals of our nation which are a very very important part of our economy. New Zealand First recognises that economic development and economic growth are required for our country to succeed and prosper and for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. Therefore it is most important that we get this right and it is most important that this Parliament passes legislation to ensure that we do get it right. 
In terms of Crown minerals something in the order of $2 billion has been received by the Crown since 2008 from royalties on minerals so it is a very significant amount of money coming to this nation. It is virtually the equivalent of what the National Government gave back to the wealthy 10 percent of New Zealanders in taxes—$2 billion—a few years ago. We certainly need these royalties to offset the $2 billion that National so swiftly gave away when it came to office in 2009. 
In terms of the royalties however New Zealand First does have some concerns that the royalties disappear into a big black hole in the Crown coffers and do not necessarily benefit the location from where the resources are taken. As a result New Zealand First put out a policy a few weeks ago called the regional royalties policy whereby under New Zealand First we would return 25 percent of all royalties back to the region that the resources were taken from. This has had huge support from around the country and many many organisations have advised us that they think it is a very sensible move that we have put forward in that it would help a great deal of economic development around the regions. It would also help many of the regions that are financially strapped to provide the necessary infrastructure. For instance you can imagine that many of the rural roads have been cut off now from a significant amount of funding because of the roads of national significance taking priority particularly some of the motorways and various things that the Hon Steven Joyce would love to roll out everywhere. As a result of that many of the rural communities are suffering on their roading. If in that situation 25 percent of the royalties were returned to some of those local authorities and to those regions in order to help support their infrastructure it could offset some of the costs for instance of roading in some areas that is deteriorating as a result of heavy vehicles and trucks and those sorts of things for the extraction of the minerals and resources forestry and even getting into all sorts of other areas of taking resources from New Zealand. So we believe that it is a very important policy. 
It would also benefit the likes of the Chatham Islands. Our Commerce Committee heard that the Chatham Rock Phosphate company wishes to extract phosphate from the Chatham Rise. About 1 percent of the area of the rise is to be extracted—a very small part of the rise—but it would be something in the order of 25 million tonnes of phosphate over the next several decades to make New Zealand 100 percent self-sufficient in rock phosphate or superphosphate. It currently comes from Morocco and Algeria and various other dodgy places when New Zealand could become self-sufficient in it which would therefore reduce our importation requirements. It would be very significant for the Chathams if for instance 25 percent of the royalties taken from the rock phosphate were returned to the Chatham Islands to help pay for their infrastructure for the relatively small population there. That would give them ongoing guaranteed income from Chatham Rise. Therefore it is a very sensible policy that we certainly hope the Government will take up and implement in due course. 
We are supportive of the fact there is a two-tiered system for permit management so that the higher-risk higher-value minerals that perhaps have more significant effects will have a higher level of permit management requirement rather than those that have a lower risk and lower value that do not present the same effects. Swift and decisive action is also possible under this bill for non-compliance and it is a good thing that non-compliance will be acted on and that there is swift decision-making to address that. 
The bill will also have a process to sift out applicants who do not meet the standards. It will basically vet applicants in a sensible manner in the early stages so that people do not waste time—do not waste Resource Management Act time and do not waste a lot of Crown time ministry time or the time of the courts in terms of applications. They will be sifted out early in the piece to certainly improve the process. 
It is interesting that the bill includes a requirement to report the engagement with iwi and hapu called the iwi engagement report. That is required each year. We were wondering whether the iwi engagement report was another name for the engagement between the National Party and the Maori Party because they seem to very much have an iwi engagement between these two parties all the time. We do wonder how that report will necessarily be effected and we will watch that with interest. We certainly feel that in terms of the minerals of this country and in terms of the extraction this must benefit all New Zealanders and it must be for the benefit of our nation so that our nation can go forward most certainly. 
The bill streamlines a system for industry and community. Community consultation and the aspects of that in this bill are good as it provides for and ensures community consultation in relation to Crown interests. It also complements the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which was put into place last year. So in terms of that this is a good move to line this bill up with that Act which was put through in 2012. 
However New Zealand First’s position is always that we support economic development but it must be in terms of the environment and in a sustainable manner. The environment must always be given the benefit of the doubt if there is something at risk of impacting on that environment. We must ensure that the “100% Pure New Zealand” image is not tarnished in any way and so it is important that aspects of this bill are closely scrutinised to ensure that that “100% Pure New Zealand” image is maintained. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going through to the select committee. We are doing that so that this bill gets full and robust consideration and so that the people of New Zealand have an opportunity— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s been to the select committee. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Oh it has been to the select committee. Oh sorry. This is the second reading. Sorry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is the second reading. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes sorry—to have full input into it. We believe that that is important. Every New Zealander stands to benefit from this bill and New Zealand First will be supporting it. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 Ni hao. Xiexie. I rise to support the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. The bill will encourage the development of Crown-owned minerals which is crucial to New Zealand’s economic growth and standard of living. I believe that New Zealand is rich in mineral resources. However we have not done what we should have done many years ago and that is to have a good understanding of our mineral resources or mineral wealth. This bill is a move in the right direction. 
As we can see in Taranaki mineral exploration boosts the economy and creates jobs. Mineral exploration contributes $2 billion to the economy in Taranaki second only to agriculture at $4.6 billion. Exploration sustains 5090 jobs in Taranaki compared with 3720 jobs in agriculture. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Gidday Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Oh that’s what the Aussies say—gidday mate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They say it in Wainui too on occasions. 
I am surprised at the lack of enthusiasm shown by the Government benches for this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I would have thought that those members would want to debate it seriously. I thought my colleagues in New Zealand First would want to debate it seriously too. Just a bit of naughty advice for them: it never pays to use the first reading speech notes for the second reading because that sometimes tends to indicate things are going to happen that are not. 
This bill has been to a select committee. The Labour Party supported it going to the Commerce Committee so that people could have their say on it at the select committee. We have listened to what the people have said and we are voting against it now because there were a number of questions that were open and they were not properly answered by the Government or by the amendments. 
There is a series of bottom lines around mining. Some of the bottom lines are the capacity to respond to accidents quickly. That has not been addressed in this legislation. There has got to be clear liability so that the taxpayers do not keep on fronting up for mistakes either directly or indirectly as we have seen Solid Energy has as far as Pike River is concerned. It should never have bought that. It should not have taken off the private sector the obligations around Pike River. We know it did it in an attempt to grease up to the Government which we now know it is in so much trouble with. There have got to be robust protections for the natural environment—and it is clear that that is not in this legislation—and there has got to be a benefit for the local economy. 
With all due respect to Dr Yang the previous speaker saying that in our most mineral-intensive province Taranaki mining is half the value of agriculture just has to emphasise the risk and the relative rewards. We have got to make sure when mining does proceed that there is not risk—that the rest of the economy is not being placed at risk. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: It’s oil—it’s not even minerals. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Having said that—and I see my old friend Catherine Delahunty not Eugenie Sage is interjecting—I have been a person who has been quite supportive of the mining industry and very unsupportive of the mining industry on the Coromandel. I have got a history of doing this case by case and looking at the value of different propositions. What I have found is that there are some things that are just absolutely pointless. Trying to get gold out of the Coromandel has over the years caused enormous environmental damage. People who want to do it more are I think nuts as are though people who say there will never be a use for the lignite that is in the South Island at the moment. 
I know it is somewhat controversial but as Minister for State-owned Enterprises I certainly did not object to Solid Energy buying farms and effectively the mineral rights to lignite in Southland because what is sitting under there is 400 years’ worth of transport energy for New Zealand. I am just going to say that again slowly: there is 400 years’ worth of transport energy for New Zealand. But I am the first to accept that we are a long way away from the science that is necessary to get that released. 
The sequestration—I have witnessed a number of interesting arguments between Don Elder and David Parker some public and some not on sequestration. There is no doubt that it will happen one day but whether it is 10 years away 15 years away or 30 years away the technology has got to be done before we can use that lignite unless we are going to follow the silly approach that Bill English wanted which was to burn lignite. I mean burning lignite in pellets is just nuts. It is a total waste of energy it is polluting and it causes all sorts of gas problems. The other thing that has to happen before the lignite can be used properly is that we have got to get the technology for hydrogen fuel cell batteries which are powered off the lignite moved along as well in order to use the power the energy that is sitting underneath the ground. So what you are hearing from me is that I think there are occasions—and a lot of occasions—when the energy that we have in New Zealand can be used and used carefully used properly and used responsibly. 
What we were hoping for—and the reason that we supported sending this bill off to the select committee—was that the Government had its head around this legislation. I might say that although I disagreed with him I thought that Phil Heatley actually had quite a good understanding of it. I mean he was wrong in a number of areas but he had worked hard he cared about it and he was a responsible Minister of Energy and Resources. He was on Steven Joyce’s “rah rah rah let’s dig it up” team but in the end we have had him replaced by someone who appears to have no interest in the area at all and who to date has shown no real understanding of it. 
The point I am making is that we gave the Government the opportunity and the encouragement to try to build—well I think it is fair to say that we will never get a consensus in this Parliament on this issue you know. While you have in this Parliament John Banks and Catherine Delahunty we will never get a consensus on mining in New Zealand. Throw in Damien O’Connor and it gets more complicated still. But what I was hoping for was that at least across the major parties in New Zealand we could get a level of consensus that would bring us to some legislation that could be enduring and that people could have some certainty about and that that certainty would mean that where it was appropriate and where proper care had been taken then investment would be made and it would be made in the sense that it could be ongoing and enduring. 
But what we have had from the National Government is that it is not interested in that sort of approach. What it is doing despite blowing the trumpet of being pro-mining is taking decisions in its legislation because it knows that the Labour Party will signal changes to it policy differences and the fact that the legislation will not be enduring. What that means is that the very investment that it wants is actually less likely to happen because people who are making investments especially in the current economic climate are going to say: “Hang about. Hang about. We’re going to wait and see whether our investments will be worthwhile or not.” 
In a funny way we are getting the policy objective of the Greens through the legislation of the National Government because instead of building a major party approach to it what it is doing is going off with a radical mining agenda that has no certainty and that in fact everyone knows will not continue. The result of that will actually be that mining will not occur because the businesses will not be prepared to put in the hundreds of millions of dollars that is necessary to start the mines. I think that as a policy outcome the Greens could well be happy with that but what I am concerned about is that proper planning proper safety measures and a proper approach to the environment will not happen in the longer term because of the radical approach taken by the Government especially by Steven Joyce who we all know just does not care about either real jobs—jobs that pay well for New Zealand workers—or the environment. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a second call on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I was very disappointed to hear the comments made by Mr Mallard. This is an important bill for New Zealand’s future. 
Dr Clark alluded to the fact that this is not a silver bullet. I agree with you. This is not a silver bullet but this is an important initiative in the overall growth and development of our economy. The sad thing is that if it were up to Labour it would have its foot on the throat of the economy and it would put a bullet straight through the heart of it. That is the reality of it. 
This is an important bill and it is important for New Zealand to make sure that we start developing our mining sector in a responsible manner. We cannot rely on one separate sector or one individual sector. It is important that our economy is developed overall. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Can I just acknowledge and applaud my colleague Trevor Mallard who summarised the situation very very well. The truth is that the National Government’s management of mining issues has been inept—completely. It charged off with a policy that said it would mine national parks. Everyone in New Zealand other than the radicals on the fringes objected to that. As Mr Mallard said it actually swung things back into the Greens’ camp. 
The Labour Party and I support mining. We support responsible mining and we support safe mining. We have not always had that. That is why we supported the bill going to the Commerce Committee where there was some good consideration. I got an email from someone who said: “We won’t have any mining under a Labour-Greens Government.” Well the truth is that there were more mines opened and more mining development under the Labour-Greens Government than we are seeing under National but we did it in a responsible way. The fear is that with these changes we may step backwards into a position that is not sustainable and as Mr Mallard said we would end up with further change. 
 Certainty is what the National Government offered mining in 1997 when it said schedule 4 and national park areas were out of bounds. That was supported by the Labour Government because it offered the industry certainty. That is what is needed as Mr Mallard said to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars. We have always supported mining that is responsible. When it comes to conservation land we have said that schedule 4 land is out of bounds and we have allowed and negotiated with mining companies to mine on conservation land very very cautiously. 
The issue of whether two Ministers should be involved is a bit like saying to the farmer who owns the land with mineral rights on it: “You are going to have to compromise as to whether mining is going to occur there.” The National Government would not dare say to the miner or any other landowner: “You have got to compromise the decision.” It would say that there are some property rights involved. 
On conservation land the Minister of Conservation is responsible. The issue my colleagues have raised is that the Minister of Conservation should ultimately be responsible. I do not have a problem with that because I know of numerous examples where the Minister has negotiated and the Department of Conservation has negotiated. Yes it has taken some time; yes there has had to be flexibility; and yes there had to be some environmental guarantees and that is what we expect. 
I do not want some Auckland-based mining company with the support of Steven Joyce coming down and raping and pillaging the West Coast and leaving it with environmental degradation. I want responsible mining and I want the Minister of Conservation to be able to put in place protections that ensure we have proper environmental protection in place be it on conservation land or be it on private land. 
I also support the submission that was brought to the Commerce Committee—I believe it was judged to be out of the scope of the bill—from the Buller District Council that said: “We must have some royalty—some income directly from mining back into local communities.” We have said that we in the Labour Party want mining if there is benefit to the local economy. Well we do have jobs as we know. The issue is the sustainable benefits that are enduring beyond the life of the mine. It is a fair question that submitters should put to the committee—and I see that it has been rejected by the committee—that a portion of the royalties and levies from mining go back to the local community. I think it is a very reasonable proposition. It is one I still want to discuss with my colleagues. As the bill goes through the Committee stage we will wait and see what happens. 
Labour is not supporting this bill on the basis of that joint decision-making. I understand what can happen when the Minister of Conservation has sole responsibility. It can allow mining—responsible mining. Why this Government like it did with the national parks mining proposal wants to stir up a hornets’ nest add uncertainty to the mining industry and then stir up every anti-mining person to campaign against it as happened in the past is beyond belief. It should have responsible legislation that Labour would have supported all the way through. Not content with that it wanted to put a stick into the hornets’ nest and say that the Minister of Conservation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. One of my proudest moments as a New Zealander was when I was marching with 30000 other Kiwis. It was great. I was at the front holding the banner marching down Queen Street. What we and tens of thousands of New Zealanders were marching for was a value—that we love and want to protect our environment. It is not something that we balance off as the National members say it is. It is a core Kiwi value. 
We love the environment. We love that we can go tramping or hunting or even just for a bush walk and we do not want to put it at risk. We are not going to trade it off. In fact it is the heart of our economy. It has been since time immemorial and it always will be. So Kiwis stood up. They told the Government that its plan to mine our most treasured places was not on. They were not going to stand for it. The Government backed down—rightfully so—and we congratulate the Government on backing down. 
But now the Government has adopted a different strategy which my colleague Catherine Delahunty touched on—a slow methodical grinding bulldozer approach using the powers of finance legislation regulation and the signals Government Ministers can put into their speeches and directions to Government departments. The Government is slowly grinding down our treasured places and for what? A strategy that is in tatters—a strategy that was never going to deliver the type of prosperity Kiwis deserve or want. It is a strategy that is a lazy risky gamble. 
It is lazy because it hopes that someone else will do the work or someone else will find some oil or gas. There is no vision. There is no plan. There is no method to get there. There is no innovation. It is a gamble because we know that risking our environment risks the rest of our economy. It puts at risk our valuable “clean green” brand which has been valued at over $20 billion. It puts at risk our tourism and our aquaculture. 
It is risky for our environment. We do not want to put our environment at risk of deep-sea drilling and a massive oil spill or the types of tragedies we have seen. It is a risky lazy gamble and the benefits are overstated. We have got the fourth-lowest royalty and tax rate in the world. We know that there will be hardly any jobs for New Zealanders. This sector has got the lowest job-creating potential of any sector of the Taranaki economy. Of course we know that when it comes to the likes of deep-sea oil drilling—your TAG Oil—all of the profit is going to go overseas. So we think there are better ways and we wish the Government would get off picking the one horse—this sector—that is going to deliver the least of any other potential sectors and do something about it. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What do you say we should do? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: What would we do? We would prioritise the clean green economy. This is something that PricewaterhouseCoopers has said is worth $22 billion to our economy. The Greenpeace report said we could be saving $600 million a year in electricity. The Pure Advantage report said we could see 50000 jobs in clean energy. What is the Government focusing on? A handful of jobs mostly for foreigners with all the profits going offshore. The Government is picking the wrong horse. 
You can see in this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill what the Government is doing. The whole purpose is about picking winners in the oil gas and fracking sectors. It is about disempowering communities. It is about the function of the Minister and this is one of the key clauses in the legislation. The function of the Minister is not to be independent oversight with the best interests of the country at heart; the function of the Minister under this legislation is to attract permit applications. 
 I do not know whether any other members felt a bit embarrassed that our Prime Minister was off in Brazil grovelling to the Brazilians and hoping that Petrobras would come back. This is what we are doing—an embarrassing strategy. You can see it with the schedule 4 decisions in which we are seeing a weakening of these protected— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think a number of us were just tolerating the abusive comments from the Hon Simon Bridges when we thought they were directed to the member but the last three of the comments he has directed to you. Calling you a loser or an empty vessel Mr Assistant Speaker is not appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well at this hour of the day that is correct. I just ask members to calm it down. I did have to indicate earlier that this dialogue and interjections across the benches mean I sometimes cannot hear what the member is saying so please cut it down. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I think the honourable Minister is embarrassed. The plan is in tatters. You have got Petrobras walking out you have got Apache Corporation walking out and amongst other things mining prices have collapsed so much that Solid Energy is in strife. Coal companies are leaving the country. The whole plan is in tatters. That is why it is ridiculous that we are passing this legislation just to facilitate more mining and gas. We are seeing the weakening of the power of the conservation Minister which was slightly improved in the select committee but not enough and not in actuality. We have got tokenism in iwi consultations. There are a couple of improvements—the ability to put a moratorium into effect or ban specific mining types—and we have Supplementary Order Paper 152 which effects the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy but the fact is that there are better options for this country. 
I was at a wind energy conference last night and I asked them to imagine what they could do and how we could get some of those 50000 jobs Pure Advantage talked about or the $22 billion PricewaterhouseCoopers talked about if we had a level playing field. If the Government was giving the clean energy sector the type of support—not subsidies just support—it is giving to the oil and gas industry we could do wonderful things with our clean energy sector. That is the hope and the vision the Green Party brings. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Bill read a second time. 
Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. It gives me great satisfaction to support this bill at its third reading. This bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to establish a starting-out wage to assist young people to gain a foothold in the labour market. I would like to thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee officials and submitters for their work on and contribution to this bill. 
The Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill is part of the Government’s focus to create job opportunities for young people who are finding it difficult to get work in the current economic climate and who have not been helped by the minimum wage settings broadened by the previous Government. The youth minimum wage was abolished in 2008 by the Labour Government and replaced by a new entrants wage that was rarely used. Research commissioned by the then Department of Labour suggests the abolition of the youth minimum wage has resulted in the loss of up to 9000 jobs for young New Zealanders. The new entrants wage applies for the first 3 months or 200 cumulative hours. Businesses complain it is too complicated impractical and fleeting to bother with. Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment research indicates it is used by only 2 percent of employers. 
The starting-out wage will encourage employers to take on young people who will then have the satisfaction of earning money gaining skills and getting the work experience they need. The bill achieves this by providing the ability to set different minimum wage rates known as starting-out wage rates by Order in Council for specified groups of young people aged 16 to 19 years. These rates must be set at no less than 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. This bill encourages continuity with the same employer by providing that a young person on a starting-out wage must complete 6 months of continuous work with an employer before they are entitled to be paid the adult rate by the employer. With a steady work history behind them young people like other employees with a steady work history will be seen as less risky for new employers to take on. 
The bill also addresses the problem of young people who have been on a benefit for a length of time of 6 months or more and may face difficulty re-entering or gaining a foothold in the workforce. The bill will provide for a starting-out wage rate to be set for these young people and in so doing encourage employers to take on young people who have been out of the workforce for a while or may lack skills or experience. The bill also provides for young people aged between 16 and 19 years who are required to undergo training as a condition of the work to be paid the starting-out wage rather than the minimum training wage. 
This Government is committed to creating an environment that encourages economic growth. Part of this environment is providing a better balance to our labour market rules which focuses on helping businesses grow while ensuring workers’ rights and opportunities are maintained. Initiatives such as the starting-out wage will give young people the opportunity to get a foot in the door. This bill will provide a strong incentive for employers to take on young people. Once in work young people will gain the essential and necessary skills and work experience that will assist them throughout their working lives. This is a positive step for young people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to put on record Labour’s very strong opposition to the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. The passing of this bill today will create an underclass of young workers and consign them to economic marginalisation. Not content with making it impossible for young workers to challenge their unfair treatment and dismissal in the first 90 days of employment and not content with its abject failure in addressing youth unemployment this Government has now come up with a failed and tired old approach of cutting the wages of young workers aged 16 to 19 years. 
This bill assumes that there are thousands of employers out there just waiting to offer jobs to younger people and to give them a foot in the workforce as National says and as the Minister of Labour says. We know that that is a false assumption. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has openly admitted that it has very little idea of whether this bill will meet its stated outcomes. The ministry tried a best guess that this bill could create 400 to 1100 jobs but we in Labour have learnt to become very wary of Government predictions of job creation. Who has forgotten the 2011 Budget projection of 170000 new jobs by 2015-16? What has happened since then? Unemployment has continued to rise more good jobs have been lost and our youth unemployment is a national disgrace. Then today we learnt that there could be as many as 1500 more jobs going from Telecom which are high-skilled jobs. 
What worries me most of all about this bill is that it is just the beginning under this young new Minister. Treasury has suggested that paying other workers sub-minimum wages is something that could be extended in the future—other workers who have a high unemployment rate. So what we could see in the future are the vulnerable workers such as Maori and Pasifika or those who live in areas where jobs are hard to find on a so-called starting-out wage. 
Unfortunately what this bill does is remind us that the Government has no ideas and that we are going back to the past where low-wage jobs were the norm where productivity was increased by having more people paid less and working longer where good jobs were offshored because of lack of investment and hands-on economic policy and where our young people were sacrificed to a future of economic marginality. 
This bill needs to be read in context with the Government’s planned changes to other employment laws which will help slash the wages for hundreds of thousands of other New Zealand workers. From what I hear the Government’s ideas for those employment law changes are so irrational that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is struggling to draft the appropriate legislation. I think that that may be why the former Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson failed to progress the National Government’s policy and the new young much-admired but very inexperienced and naive Minister Simon Bridges will find the same thing. 
Cuts to workers’ rights and pay are classic National Party. In the face of its economic failures and its marginalisation of thousands of unemployed and underemployed it has resorted to its tried and failed policies of last century. In 2010 National strongly opposed Roger Douglas’ member’s bill to reintroduce youth rates and the then Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson confirmed that her Government would not support a return to discriminatory and unfair youth rates. We heard a range of florid speeches—and I can see that we are going to get another one from members like David Bennett and Jackie Blue—opposing youth rates and saying that young people deserved better. Well what has changed? What has changed is that the Government is returning to its neo-liberal roots of making cuts to workers’ rights and pay as a substitute for real economic policy and plans and it is our young people who are going to pay the price. 
You know the most offensive thing about this bill is its framing as a starting-out wage. We know that that title is simply not true. Under this bill 16 and 17-year-olds will be returned to youth rates every time they start a new job regardless of previous job experience and under this bill 18 and 19-year-olds who may have already had jobs on adult minimum wages or adult wages will be forced on to sub-minimum rates if they have been unfortunate enough to be on a social security benefit including the invalids benefit and sickness benefit. This bill combined with the social welfare reforms from the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett that we heard about and debated here yesterday feeds the notion that our young people are lazy they are addicted to drugs and they are unreliable. It is based on the false assumption that the only way we can get young people into work is to pay them less. 
The National Government has tried to run the argument that this bill is about the dignity of work. Labour certainly agrees that work is the best antidote to poverty but it should be decent work. Decent work is not where people are paid less than they are worth where they can be sacked without reason where they can be forced to take jobs that could be unsafe and where they are punished by a nasty regime within the social security system if they do not gratefully sign up for any job on a sub-minimum wage. A job should not only be about the work performed. It is a lot more than that. It is about getting experience but also it is about relationships with other people in the workplace. It is about being fulfilled as a human being. People must feel recognised for their efforts and know that they are valued for those efforts and the contribution they make and that applies to 16 and 17-year-olds and to 18 and 19-year-olds as much as it does to anyone else. 
What this bill will do is unleash thousands of young people available as cheaper workers on to our labour market and that affects every single worker in New Zealand. There is absolutely no doubt that having cheaper young workers leads to the displacement of older workers—older workers who in this dire economic climate are desperate to hang on to their jobs who are not only in the queues of unemployment but also underemployment who are crying out for better wages and who are crying out for a Government that will do something to help them. And it takes no account of the expenses of young people—the expenses they incur while actually working—and whether the job will pay for the expenses of going to work. 
When we have a Minister for Social Development who is so desperate to claim success in job creation that she trumpets the employment of 16 workers for 2 weeks in the census collection we are in real trouble. When we now apparently have a culture within our Government agencies where job gains are celebrated by the ringing of a bell no matter what the job is no matter what the pay level is no matter what the conditions are and no matter what the safety risks are and where all that matters is numbers we are in serious trouble. 
As we have gone through this bill I have had on my mind one person I want to mention and that is a teenager called Peniata Junior Endermann. He is a student at Edgewater College in Auckland who works from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. Monday to Friday as a cleaner earning the minimum wage. He is studying full-time. He is still at school. He is 16 going on 17. This job along with his homework means that Peniata puts in 16-hour days to help his mother who also works as a cleaner on the minimum wage and to help provide for his family and three siblings aged 15 13 and 9. So Peniata is not lazy or unmotivated or unwilling. He has got himself a job. He should not have had to but the state of our economy and low wages mean that in families like his everyone has to help out. But if Peniata changes his employment or if he is employed by a different cleaning firm under this bill and the Government’s intentions around protections for cleaners and other vulnerable workers his pay will go down to $11 an hour. So it is young people like Peniata whom the young Minister Simon Bridges needs to talk to. 
This Government did not listen to the more than 500 submissions opposed to this bill. It ignored the business community who said that this is not a silver bullet and will not do the job and that the Government needs to do a lot better on youth unemployment. The simple arrogance of this bill is gobsmacking. I cannot express strongly enough Labour’s disappointment and dismay at the direction this Government is taking today. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I just want to pay tribute to our fine young Minister of Labour who has done a very good job in putting forward this Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. Today is an important day for the Labour Party. The Labor Party in Australia is coming back to its roots. It is understanding the problems of having leadership that does not apply. The Labour Party of New Zealand has not gone through what the Labor Party of Australia is going through today: the blood-letting the letting out of that pain and facing the reality of the world. That member who just got up and spoke Darien Fenton did a personal attack on the Minister as her way of attacking this bill and that is shameful. That is the kind of approach that the Labor Party in Australia has been playing and look what is happening to it today. It is falling apart in front of your eyes. In 2 hours’ time there will be a vote on the Labor Party and the leadership in Australia— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What a shambles! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is a shambles. That is right. It is a shambles and members opposite are following in their footsteps. It is going to happen to you soon—I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. It will happen— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I certainly do not want you to be bringing me into the debate and that is for all speakers this afternoon. Keep the word “you” out of it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That speaker spoke about being worried about the legacy under this new young Minister. That is what she said and I think that was shameful. 
We need to move on to what the Labour members actually propose when they debate bills. The Labour Party says that workers should get more money the more time that they are in work. The Labour Party is based on the union movement and the whole part of that union movement is that the longer you are in work the more pay and conditions you get. That is what the Labour Party always says. The Labour Party is based upon a union movement that believes that there is a hierarchy of employment and payment does it not? That is what it stands for and yet in this bill it will not stand for this. It will not stand for giving people a chance when it is its mantra—that is what it is. The Labour Party is about hierarchy of payment it is about hierarchy of conditions and when it comes to giving a young person a chance it will not have a part of it. 
In reality our young people should be in education. There will be no future for our young people if they do not get that education going forward. But some of our people make a choice at that time of their life that they want to go straight into the workforce and the Labour Party members are denying them that choice and the reason they are denying them that choice— 
Hon Member 
: They hate the young. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: They do not hate the young. They do not hate the young; they want to control the young. They want to control people and they want to play workers off against each other. They want to play older workers against younger workers and say that this is unfair and that the Labour Party looks after all their interests when that is not true. 
The people out there need to understand. They need to not believe that party because in the end that party does not stand for equality of wages between all workers; that party is all about having a hierarchy of wages and entitlements. It is a bit rich for those members to come into this House today and say to young people who want to get on the start of employment that they should not have that chance. It is very disappointing and really is a reflection of how far the Labour Party has got to go in New Zealand like it has in Australia on this dark day for the Labor Party in Australia. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 What a bizarre and shambolic contribution that was from David Bennett. He started off talking about the Australian Labor Party. He is so embarrassed by this piece of legislation the Minimum Wage (Starting-out) Wage Amendment Bill he could not even bring himself to talk about the New Zealand Parliament let alone the bill that the New Zealand Parliament is addressing at the moment. Then he went on to talk about the hierarchy of wages and actually probably got to the heart of what this legislation is about because he said he wants to ensure that people start on the lowest rate possible. He wants to make sure that the entry rates are lower so that the whole hierarchy comes down. That party believes in dropping wages. Its own leader said: “I would love to see wages drop.” That is because the National Party believes in driving wages down keeping workers down. That is all that the National Party lives for. 
But I have got to be honest I like quoting David Bennett. My favourite one from a few years ago is: “The Government is not here to make your life better.” That was my particular favourite from David Bennett: “The Government is not here to make your life better.” My goodness we could not ask for a better representation of David Bennett’s mantra of “The Government is not here to make your life better.” than this piece of legislation. 
But that is not all. David Bennett has had a range of views on this issue. A mere 2 years ago David Bennett said: “I encourage those people who are listening and members in the House to look at this issue in the wider perspective of what we want to achieve in setting some incentives and some direction and not try to scaremonger or create perceptions that if we have a lower rate of pay at the first level of employment those opportunities will necessarily be provided.” David Bennett take a bow. I could not agree more with what David Bennett said 2 years ago in this House. 
It was not just David Bennett; it was Jackie Blue as well I think at the time. Paula Bennett did not like the idea of youth rates and the Minister of Labour at the time Kate Wilkinson—whatever has happened to her? She did not agree with youth rates either. This National Party flip-flops all over the place. It was in favour of it when it was in Opposition then it was opposed to it when it was in Government. Now a couple of years later in Government it is in favour of it again. It is all at sea. What an absolute shambles this Government is. 
Let us be real about what this bill truly represents. It represents the failure of this Government. It represents the failure of the National Government to grow the economy. It represents the failure of the National Government to create more jobs. It represents the failure of the National Government to keep people in education to make sure there are places available at universities and at polytechnics and in apprenticeships. It is an absolute demonstration of what happens when a Government comes to power with absolutely no economic plan at all. 
So what we have got is people losing jobs at Telecom in the productive sector people losing engineering jobs and people losing high-skill high-wage jobs so now more and more of those people are competing with youngsters for those entry-level jobs at McDonald’s at Burger King at Wendy’s at Pak ’N Save at Countdown. That is the real problem here. Those jobs which should be the entry-level jobs and often are the minimum wage jobs are the jobs where basically youngsters were the only people applying for them. Now young people face massive competition from people who have been turfed out of their jobs because this economy is so weak. 
And look we accept that there is a certain nature of evolution in the job market. Some jobs will come and some will go. Some industries will rise some businesses will rise; others will fall. But as businesses fall if the economy is in good health there will be other jobs for people to go to. There will be other high-skill high-wage jobs for people to go to. But no the only places where there are new jobs are the fast-food and supermarket industries which is why this bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill is being passed by this Government—because young people are having to compete so hard against the older workforce for those low-skill low-wage jobs. 
 What happened to the aspiration? What happened to the brighter future? 
David Bennett 
: What happened to Julia Gillard? 
Jami 
-Lee Ross 
: Oh she’s gone. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Where did it all go? It has all gone to Australia. That is right—they have all flown to Australia. Members opposite can say what they like about what is happening with the Australian Government at the moment they can say whatever they like but the Australians are taking our talented young people. People are seeing more opportunity in Australia than they are seeing in New Zealand so if I were those members I would not be crowing about what is happening in Australia because the Australians are still doing a better job than any of those members could do in Government. That is the real situation. 
Look there is no justice in telling young people that their work is worth less than that of somebody else who is doing the same job as them and is just a couple of years older. That is unjustifiable discrimination. This House has been doing a very good job of dealing with other forms of unjustifiable discrimination in the past few weeks and yet here the National Government is reintroducing another form of absolutely unjustifiable discrimination. 
The fact is that the thing the Government says this bill is supposed to achieve which is to give young people a supposed leg-up by allowing them to get into a job at a lower wage rate already exists. It already exists and yet we still have massive youth unemployment we still have no growth in jobs and we still have no growth in the economy. So doing more of what we have already got is not going to change things. That is the real situation. This bill is simply a representation of this Government’s failure. 
Under National’s watch 72000 young New Zealanders aged between 18 and 30 have disappeared to Australia because that is where the job opportunities are that is where the wages are that is where the good working conditions are and that is where the unions are strong. Paying lower wages eroding workers’ rights and beating up the unions will only send more of our talented valuable young people away overseas and it is more and more likely that they will be lost to us for ever. 
John Key has lost his ambition. He has lost the vision for a brighter future. He is content with New Zealand being mediocre and second-best. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s ambiguous for New Zealand. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He is ambiguous for New Zealand. He is content with our country being a place of low wages and low opportunity and people are leaving in droves for better opportunities overseas. 
You do not improve the lot of our future generations by paying them less for doing exactly the same job as someone who is older. There is no justification for doing it. We would like to see the evidence actually. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the National Government but we would actually like to see the evidence. I think that the National Government should listen to its own members a little bit more closely. There was Paula Bennett: “we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment plus it would be a distraction from the really important work of improving productivity and growing the economy in order to create long-term jobs which will keep young people in New Zealand.” Well that was 2 years ago. Where is Paula Bennett now? Why is she not focused on improving productivity? Why is she not focused on growing the economy? Why is she not focused on keeping young people here in New Zealand working for this country’s future? This Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill demonstrates how this shambolic National Government has failed New Zealanders failed our young people and failed to grow the economy. The sooner its term comes to an end and New Zealand can be put on the path towards success the better. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I think we can probably agree in the House today that there is no doubt that we should be very worried about the rate of youth unemployment in New Zealand. We know that there are at least 90000 young people nationwide who are not in any kind of employment education or training. We know that in every region of the country more young people are claiming the unemployment benefit than 5 years ago. We know that youth unemployment for those aged 15 to 19 is at around 30 percent. That is a rate that rivals those of Spain of Greece and of all those countries in economic chaos at the moment. We do not want to be in that list of countries. As well as hurting our young people right now such high rates of youth unemployment will be disastrous for our country in the long term—for our long-term health education employment and justice spending and for the skills and sustainability of our future workforce. So this issue does deserve the highest priority of this House. 
However the Government claims that reintroducing youth rates is its answer to these high rates of youth unemployment—that reintroducing youth rates as it does in this bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill will improve job opportunities for young people and will encourage employers to take on more young workers. So how did it arrive at this particular solution to the problem of youth unemployment? Did it conduct a detailed evaluation of all the different ways that you might address youth unemployment of all the different options to help young people into employment and training and have a look at those against some kind of robust criterion about which was the most likely to succeed? No it did not. It made an ideological commitment before the election to reintroduce youth rates—largely at the behest of that single-member irrelevant and unpopular support party that it has the ACT Party—and pursued it without even looking at any other options to reduce youth unemployment. 
How do we know it did not look at any other options? Because it says so in the regulatory impact statement for this bill. I quote: “The starting out wage proposal is a pre-election policy commitment. The Ministry’s analysis has therefore not considered other options for achieving the objectives of the proposed starting out wage package.” That is right: it did not even look at any other options to achieve the objective of reducing youth unemployment. This is not evidence-based policy. It is—to borrow a phrase that I learnt last week from my colleague who has just spoken Iain Lees-Galloway—policy-based evidence. Having come up with the policy it then got its officials to come up with some evidence to support it. That is no way to make policy and what is in this bill is no way to reduce youth unemployment. 
Before I go on to talk a bit about the provisions of the bill and how harmful and discriminatory they are I want to spend a little bit of time talking about some of the other things that the Government could do to assist more young people into employment education and training instead of what is in this bill. The reason I want to do that is that I am aware that there are probably quite a few young people following the debate today and they will have heard a lot if they are listening— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Really? Really? 
HOLLY WALKER 
: Yes because they are directly affected by it Mr Bridges. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I doubt it. 
HOLLY WALKER 
: They will have heard—and if they are not listening there is a reason for that. They will have heard how hopeless the youth unemployment situation is and how they should be satisfied with any paid job they can get—even if it is paid at less than subsistence wages. They will have heard a lot about how bad the bill is and it is very bad. But I do not want any young people listening to this debate to lose hope or lose faith in the ability of this Parliament and us as MPs to advocate for them and for policies that actually work for them. I would not blame them if having heard all that doom and gloom they switch off. And if indeed as the Minister of Labour says they are not watching—and he as the Minister responsible for this bill should be very concerned if they are not—it is because politics has become irrelevant and hostile to them. Indeed the voting statistics from the last election show that more and more young people are doing exactly that—turning away from Parliament and politics and disengaging from our political system. It is because of bills like this that they are doing that. 
I want to assure young people that some of us at least have ideas and solutions to put on the Table and a genuine commitment to engage with young people about what works best for them. Had the Government done that for this bill I think it would look very different. The Green Party for example is committed to better pathways to employment education and training for young people including more equitable access to student support for higher education; greater investment in apprenticeships—even more than the Government has recently made which is nowhere near enough—greater investment in job placements and partnerships with businesses and employers; and better financial support for young job seekers. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard many practical ideas about how to achieve these things from the young people who submitted on this bill who were full of good ideas about how we could address the problem of youth unemployment. Sadly they were ignored by the select committee. They were ignored by the select committee like all but seven of the over 500 submissions that were received by the committee. Out of those over 500 submissions most of them—over 500 of them—were opposed and only seven submissions were in favour of the bill. Yet the Government went with the seven not with the 500. 
Why were those 500 submitters opposed to this bill? Well I will tell you. It is because it introduces unacceptable discrimination into our law. I have said this in the first reading and in my second reading speech. It is not acceptable in our country any more to pay women less than men for doing the same job. It is illegal to do that. It might still happen but if it does we do our best to find out about it and prosecute. Similarly it is not acceptable to pay people from ethnic minorities less than others for doing exactly the same job. It is illegal and when that happens we do our best to prosecute and report it. Similarly it is not acceptable to pay young people who are doing the exact same job as older workers less for the same job. Since 2008 thanks to a member’s bill in the name of the former Green MP Sue Bradford it has been illegal to do that too. But this bill reverses that change and reintroduces lower minimum wages for three categories of young people: 16 and 17-year-olds in their first 6 months with a new employer 18 and 19-year-olds who have been on a benefit for 6 months or more and 16 to 19-year-olds who are in industry training. 
Not only is it discriminatory and retrograde to do this it is nonsensical because where is the incentive for young people on a benefit to move into paid work if they will not get even the minimum wage when they do? How is it fair for a 16 or 17-year-old to have to go back to subsistence minimum wage rates if they move to a new employer even if they had been paid at the full adult minimum wage for months even years? If they start a new job they have to go back. How does that make sense? What we will actually see are young people who are taken on for 90 days under the 90-day trial period. When they finish that 90 days they will be flicked on to a new employer and many of them will be locked into these low wages for much longer than 6 months because they cannot get a foot in the door. 
This bill reinforces New Zealand as a low-wage economy. It will help to keep wages down not just for young people but actually for all workers and subsidise employers. But worst of all I think it sends a terrible message to young people about the value that we in this Parliament place on them. It says that they are not worth as much as older New Zealanders that their skills and their labour are less valuable that their expenses and their costs are not as important and essentially that they as human beings are simply not as important as older New Zealanders. It is no wonder that with a Parliament that sends that message young people are turning away from us in droves Mr Bridges. As I said in the second reading last week there was a glimmer of hope last week when we passed the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. We threatened to look relevant and interesting to young people for about 5 minutes and the galleries were full of young people but we have completely undermined that message this week with the passage of this bill. It tells young people they are not worthy of our respect and as I said last week in Parliament I am ashamed of this House for passing it. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 We have heard from both the Labour Party and the Greens about people leaving in droves to go to Australia. Well I ask members of this House: why? Mining—mining and the opportunities that mining brings. Yet both those parties in the last debate voted against the very bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill that will open up the opportunities for people here in New Zealand. So it is a little bit rich when those members get up on that moral high ground that they seem to think they should occupy and start voting against a bill like this the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. 
New Zealand has got some real challenges around youth unemployment and there are a number of reasons for that. Two of the primary reasons are the global financial crisis and the economic impact of the Christchurch earthquakes. When the employment market gets tough it gets tough for employers and the follow-on for that is employees. Who is right at the bottom of that ladder? Unfortunately it is young people who lack the skills and lack the work experience and they are often most hard hit when times are tough. This is not unique to this Government—this is not unique at all. This is something that you clearly see evidence of when times get tough so we have to meet that challenge. When employers are struggling the reality is that they have to sail closer to the breeze; their margins are less. So what do they do? They look at ways in which they can be innovative and ensure that they can produce the products that will yield the profits that help them employ and grow their business. When you have youngsters who lack experience who lack the job skills and who lack even a simple work ethic that often only comes when people are in work and then you have employers looking to take someone on and on balance they have someone who has more skills who has a work track record and who has experience the choice becomes a very easy one for an employer. What we need to do what is incumbent on members in this House is ensure that employers have the appropriate incentives have the appropriate assistance to give those young people a chance. That is exactly what this bill is about—it is exactly what this bill is about. 
I know that members on the other side of the House agree with this because one Darien Fenton in 2007 was on record on  
Hansard 
 saying this: “the inexperience of first-time workers or new entrants deserves the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work.” They deserve the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work. Well I thank the member Darien Fenton for agreeing on what this bill is about and I commend this bill. We have heard the Opposition saying this is classic National Party. Well you know what? The classic Labour Party’s failed socialist ideology is why it is there and this National Government is getting on with what needs to be done. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill because it is an out and out attack on young people—the vulnerable young workers who are at just the beginning of their working careers. Cheap labour is not the silver bullet to create jobs which are vanishing every day under this Government. 
 More tax lower wages—that seems to be the way of this National Government. It has raised GST after saying that it would not inflicting pain on those people on fixed incomes. Then it has gone and taxed paper boys another set of young workers. And here it is again launching an attack on our young workers. This is obviously not a Government that is intent on solving the big issues. Job creation for all New Zealanders must be the primary focus of the Government and this bill will not provide additional jobs. 
On this side of the House we are quite concerned for older workers. It is hard enough for anybody over the age of 50 to get a job anyway so how stable will their jobs be? We have heard from the other side of the House that these are hard times for employers. Mike Sabin said that. It is easy for some employers to employ young people at a far cheaper rate particularly in these hard times. 
With this piece of legislation the National Government shows how totally disconnected it is from the harsh realities that are faced by most of our vulnerable young workers. It is really a slap in the face to those young workers. This bill does not affect just teenagers earning a bit of extra pocket money while they are living at home with their parents. Many of them will not have financial support from their families at all. Some of these affected people will for all intents and purposes be independent or trying to be independent. So how are these independent young people any different from people a couple of years older than them? Will these people get a 20 percent discount on their rent? Perhaps a 20 percent discount on their electricity bills? Or even their groceries? No they certainly will not definitely not on their petrol. 
Sue Moroney 
: Could be the “YoungerGold Card”. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Perhaps we will have to have a “YoungGold Card”. You never know—we could perhaps come up with that. The passing of this legislation is definitely going to make all of these people’s lives 20 percent harder. Their living costs are exactly the same as other older New Zealanders’ living costs so why is this Government so intent on kicking young workers into the gutter especially at a time when people are struggling? In the last year alone we have seen the number of young people looking for work increase from 80000 to 90000—90000 young people not in work or any form of training. It is a real disgrace and a sad indictment on this Government. 
If we are not careful New Zealand will see a bubble of young people going out into the world without any real work experience. What a total waste of a young vital resource that we need here in this country. I do not believe that we should be sending these people off to Australia in ever-increasing numbers. This piece of legislation is not going to help young people despite Mr Auchinvole laughing and smiling about it. This piece of legislation will not encourage young people to go out and seek work. If anything it really encourages them to give up. By the time young people have paid to travel to work in their cars because petrol is not cheap they are worse off than they would be if they were on welfare. 
So where is the incentive for these young people to try to find these nonexistent jobs? And what exactly is the rationale for this change? Where is the demand? Well the Government is claiming that the bill will create more jobs but we have not seen any valid statistics to back up this claim. It claims that reducing the minimum wage for one sector of the population is going to create more jobs. The truth is that this bill will not create more jobs. It is just another hurdle for young people trying to stay afloat in these pressing economic times. We all know that prices are increasing dramatically in every part of the economy. With this piece of legislation this Government is ignoring the plight of hard-working young New Zealanders. It treats them as second-class citizens. 
It is a bit like a  
Back to the Future 
 piece of legislation. We have seen it before. Within living memory it was women who were allowed to be paid less than men for exactly the same work but fortunately those days are passed. We know that it is totally unacceptable to pay one sector of the population a lower wage. It is illegal discrimination. It is very concerning to see ideologically driven policies emerging that would once again treat one part of the labour force worse than the rest. Youth rates will not encourage employers to create additional jobs. It is a sad reality that under this Government there are families who rely on their children working in order to be able to make ends meet. This is the harsh reality for many families—young people working after school bringing the money home so that the families can actually make ends meet. So what good will this change bring to them? What good is it going to do? It is simply going to make their lives harder. And as my colleague Asenati Lole-Taylor said Maori and Pacific Island families will find it very very challenging. 
Before we came into this House I had the opportunity thanks to my colleague to find a good quote from someone whom we more than likely all know of. He is a very successful businessman called Robert Bosch. We no doubt have got dishwashers and fridges in our homes that bear his name. He said: “I don’t pay good wages because I have a lot of money; I have a lot of money because I pay good wages.” I think that is a very good message there. 
New Zealand First believes that all people irrespective of age should be given equal pay for equal work. We believe that this Government is now on a very slippery slope. With this bill the Government takes another step towards a low-wage economy. If this Government believes that reducing the minimum wage for some people will create more jobs perhaps it is keen to abolish it entirely. Is that part of the plan too? 
New Zealand First is disappointed with this bill and quite honestly we cannot support it. We have listened to the National members of the House speaking listening for good reasons to support this legislation but sorry we have not heard any to make us change our mind. Where is this brighter future that National promised us? We keep looking and waiting and looking and waiting but to no avail. The future looks very gloomy for some people and particularly for young people. The horizon is not bright for them. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise with pride to support the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges. My goodness me! We have just heard from Barbara Stewart who is always a very pleasant person but my goodness me the response to this bill reminds me of that line from Shakespeare: “Methinks she doth protest too much.” I cannot see where the problem is. Where is the problem with providing opportunities for young people to get into work and off the dole? Where is the problem with giving young people a job instead of being on welfare? Those members would rather they stay on welfare. They would rather they did not have a job. Do the Labour Party or the Green Party not like young people? Because that is the only conclusion we can come to. 
Is the real reason lurking in the depths of the Labour Party mind to protect the union-established hierarchy of employment practice? I think that is the case. We heard Mr Goff give it voice. We heard Mr Goff say: “This will lead to job displacement.” That is the real reason. Andrew Little was right up there behind him saying: “We’ve got to protect existing jobs.” National does like young people and does want to help them. This bill is pro-youth pro-employment and pro-opportunity. I honestly commend it to the House. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 This day sadly will go down in history as the day that the Government officially gave up on young people—the day that the National Government officially gave up on young people—and the day that the Government the National Government officially gave up on the brighter future. This bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill does both of those things. It gives up on young people. It says that they are not worthy of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. It says that this country is not going to have the brighter future that that Government promised in two consecutive elections and still has not delivered on. This bill is the reason why. Government members think that actually lowering wages is the way forward for this country. Lowering wages for whatever group in our society that may be is a downward economic spiral and it is going in the wrong direction to where this country needs to go. When wages are lowered—in this instance for those people aged 15 to 19—workers have less money to spend. If they have less money to spend then there is less work in our economy. When money is not being spent then we have fewer jobs in our economy not more. 
I think that that is where this Government has got it so wrong. It is a very basic economic theory. It is not hard to understand. It has been proven time and time again that a high-wage high-skill economy is the way forward for countries like New Zealand. When we have high wages in our country then spending occurs and the whole economy lifts up. That is how work is created—there is a demand driven up because people have money to spend. If people have their spending power reduced then that is the path to economic decline. That is exactly what this Government is up to. It has also given up pretending that this piece of legislation creates jobs. Even the Government itself when it started out on the first reading of this bill argued that this was going to create jobs. But Government members have all stopped arguing even that because it is plainly ridiculous—plainly ridiculous—to keep up the pretence that cutting wages creates jobs. It does no such thing. In fact as I have just demonstrated it actually reduces the number of jobs available in our economy. 
I want to give some very real information to the House about where the real problem exists. In the  
Waikato Times 
 2 days ago on the front page the banner headlines screamed out to people in the Waikato “Jobless fight for work”. That is the true reflection of where that Government has got this country. The jobless are indeed fighting for work. What that story detailed was that in the Waikato the number of people on the unemployment benefit increased by 33 percent between September and December last year alone—33 percent more unemployed people in the Waikato region just in the last 3 months of last year. If you compared those unemployment figures in the Waikato with December 2008 there is a massive 65.9 percent more people getting the unemployment benefit in the Waikato now than there were in December 2008. That is what the real problem is. It is not the amount of wages being paid to young people. It is the absolute dearth of jobs available in our economy. And until the Government gets real fixes the real problem stops blaming young people for their plight and starts looking at itself in the mirror about its lack of a plan we are going to continue to struggle as a country. It is sadly the day that the Government gave up on young people and the day that the Government gave up on a brighter future for New Zealand. 
I think that when the new Minister Simon Bridges came into his new role as Minister of Labour—it was a significant promotion for him—there was a lot of hope that he might bring a new young shiny approach to National Party policy in that portfolio. But what this shows is that he is just following the same tired old lazy policies of every National Government that has ever been in power in this country. Every time we have a National Government in power—it does not matter what part of the economic cycle we are in whether we are in a recession whether we are in good times or whether we are in the middle of that cycle—it always has the same tired old approach the same lazy answer to what it wants for New Zealanders. And what it wants for New Zealanders is low wages. It has proven that time and time again. Every single time that has been its formula. This time it thinks it can get away with it under the cover of a recession but if you look historically it shows that every single time we have had a National Government in place it has gone after workers’ wages. 
This time it is using the cover of high youth unemployment. It says that because young workers are overrepresented in the unemployment figures therefore the solution is to actually discriminate against them by having lower wages. Well what is to stop this Government from using exactly that same theory when it comes to Maori workers who are also overrepresented in the unemployment figures? Is it going to use the same justification? Is it going to say— 
Darien Fenton 
: They should. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is right. That is where its argument leads us. Is it going to say that Maori should get only 80 percent of the minimum adult wage? Because that is exactly the argument that it is using for young people. Pacific Island workers are also overrepresented in the unemployment figures. Is Simon Bridges going to have the same solution for those workers as well? Because if National applies its failed thinking for young workers across the whole— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It’s very different. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Simon Bridges says that it is very different. I will be interested to know why it is very different because the only argument that this Government is putting forward is that it has failed young workers. They are overrepresented in the unemployment figures so therefore the Government has to actually lower their wages. The Government has also spent its time talking down young people. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh rubbish. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well according to Mike Sabin—if the Minister listened to his contribution to this debate—they all lack skills. All 15 to 19-year-olds lack skills. 
Mike Sabin 
: I didn’t say “all”. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well now he is saying that he didn’t say “all” but the only thing he had to say about young workers and their contribution to the workplace was to denigrate them say that they lack skills and say that they lack experience. 
The Government has no understanding of the value of young people. That is why it is quite happy for the youth of this country to be exported to places like Australia because it does not understand the value of young workers to this country to their families and to this economy. It is no wonder we are losing our brightest and best—our young bright future—to Australia. That is where they are headed under this Government. This piece of legislation will make that departure happen at much faster rates. Families will lose their young people to Australia because there is no brighter future for them in New Zealand under a National Government. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a brief call in the third reading of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that improves the chances of our young people to gain skills. It improves the chances of our young people to gain experience. It improves the chances of our young people to earn money find a sense of purpose and a feeling of belonging and find the dignity of work. 
We do have challenges around youth unemployment which we are addressing at a number of levels. Youth unemployment is unacceptably high for this Government and we are working in many different areas to bring it down. Looking at the global picture of course we are doing a lot better than most economies around the world. Recent figures that came out just today add emphasis to that fact coupled with the imprimatur of the IMF just a few days earlier about how this economy is tracking. 
The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment suggested that this bill will help 2000 sixteen to 19-year-olds into the workforce in the next 2 years—2000 more of our young people in work. I commend my colleague Chris Auchinvole’s comment and will repeat it for the House. This bill is pro-youth. This bill is pro-work. This bill is pro-opportunity. I commend it to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Split call—5 minutes. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I rise to give a short contribution to the third reading of this bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. Three words came to mind when listening to the speech from Cam Calder before me and they are “humbug” “poppycock” and “not true”. Labour believes in the dignity of work. We in this party here believe also in the living wage and because this bill undermines the living wage and because this bill attacks the dignity of work Labour opposes this bill. 
Mangere my electorate has the youngest population of any other community throughout New Zealand. With 30.4 percent of our people aged 15 years and under we are ranked No. 1. If you add the age group of 15 to 19-year-olds that whole collective becomes 39 percent. For that reason I promote Mangere as the gateway to the nation the land of the young beautiful and gifted. That statement expresses a desire by our parents that we have great hope for our young people. We see them as the future leaders of this particular country. For that reason Labour has a plan that is different from what this Government proposes. We want to produce the future leaders of this country through education through skills development through opportunities and through higher wages—not the kind of future this Government is building for our young people. Government members want our young people to become used to second-best rates. They want our young people to become used to low wages. Labour’s plan is to create wealth through innovation to ensure that our young people are earning while they are learning. New Zealand parents right now are doing it tough under this particular Government. The future is bleak for hard-working families across this nation the majority of them wanting to believe what they were promised—the brighter future. 
But alas 72000 young Kiwis aged between 18 and 30 have left this country for Australia because they see that as the country of opportunity the country where they can get ahead while this Government is here. It promised all of New Zealand a brighter future. I want to ask Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro: where is the brighter future in paying workers low wages? Where is the brighter future for Pacific communities when those members continue to support low wages for workers? I do not hear a response from that side so they are content to drive wages below. They are content to make sure that our young people—the future of this country—become used to low pay and second-best. 
Since this Government has come into power it has presided over the worst economic period in 51 years the worst and highest unemployment numbers in 13 years and 175000 people without jobs. The report of the Salvation Army that was released not too long ago identified that we have got people who are on the unemployment benefit and cannot find jobs because this Government continues to sit on its hands. The future for New Zealand families has to be about high-value jobs it has to be about full employment even it has to be about skills and it has to be about high wages. John Key has failed our young people. John Key has failed to deliver for young people—30000 under-20-year-olds are not in education not in employment and not in training. That is more than 4000 since that Government came into power and if we include the age group of 20 to 24-year-olds that becomes 90000 people not in education not in employment and not in training. The Government simply acknowledging that there is a problem is not fixing it. It has got to fix it. It has got to fix it but it is content to drive wages down. It is not prepared to do anything so Mr Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga where is the brighter— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Point of order Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. The member’s time has expired but there is a point of order. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the sound system is not working but we are not far from Mr Sio. He does not need to shout in this Chamber in order to get a little bit of attention for the man. So please just— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure that the sound will be adjusted. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is good that this House is looking at youth unemployment. It is the right question that we are asking but what we have in front of us the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill is clearly the wrong answer. 
I am proud to stand to oppose this bill—this flawed ideological and discriminatory bill. It is flawed because the entire premise is wrong. Cutting wages does not create jobs. Cutting wages does not encourage people into work. I have not heard a single economic report or a single piece of economic research being quoted by the Government members. The fact is that there is limited research. In fact the research is strongly in the other side of the camp which says that higher wages do encourage work. We saw it in New Zealand when the Green Party ended discriminatory youth rates in the mid-2000s and it had no impact. If anything more young people were in work. So it is flawed the premise is wrong and it is ideological. 
We know it is plainly ideological because the regulatory impact statement says as much and because there were no alternatives canvassed by officials. It is ideological because it is 1990s thinking in 2013. The Government’s whole plan for the economy is to cut wages and to make us even more of a low-wage high-work economy. Mr English said as much on competitiveness. John Key said he would be fine with seeing wages drop. 
This is not the way to build our jobs and our economy. All it is doing is ideologically supporting a small—and I mean a very small—number of some employers who see their future in cutting wages and flicking workers off. It is flawed it is ideological and it is discriminatory. It is clearly discriminatory because it is picking on one group. This bill targets 16 to 17-year-olds and sets up two types of employment in New Zealand: those 16 and 17-year-olds who are paid a discriminatory rate and those 18 and 19-year-olds who have been on the benefit and will also get a discriminatory rate. So it is flawed ideological and discriminatory. 
In fact I would call it nasty. The Government did not look at the alternatives and now we know from an Official Information Act request as well that even the Ministry of Education advised against it because it is contrary to the Government’s own education goals. But I would also contend that from the Government’s perspective it is counter-productive because this sends a terrible message to young people that they are second-class citizens who should be earning less. It sends a message to employers to flick off young people after 90 days so that they can keep paying their workers at the discriminatory lower rate. But also for all New Zealand workers be they aged under 20 years or above it is driving down wages across the entire New Zealand economy. 
Again it goes back to that flawed approach to the economy. The way to build prosperity and growth in jobs is not about reducing wages and working conditions through 90-day trials and picking on paper boys and paper girls as in the last Budget and it is not about damaging the environment and racing other countries to see who can cram as many cows as possible in a paddock. That is not our future. That is not a way to provide solutions for the 90000 young people who are right now today not in employment or training—at similar rates to Spain and other countries. 
 What young Kiwis and our economy need is a plan for jobs a plan for sustainable prosperity. Every week we get bad news. We see Mainzeal Property and Construction and Solid Energy—and Telecom might be on the cusp of losing 1500 jobs. We have lost 30000-plus jobs in manufacturing. Kiwis want to hope. They want a vision. They want a plan. That is what we went with to the election in 2012: a plan to create 100000 green jobs. This is the way the future is going. This is where capital investment trends are going. It is what the influential business leaders are saying. They said we could see 50000 jobs in clean energy. 
I was at the Wind Energy Association conference last night. Its plan for 3500 megawatts of wind electricity would deliver 1500 jobs for New Zealand. What we know from the oil and gas report—the industry Minister Bridges was quite happy to subsidise to the tune of $130000—was that this industry could see in the most likely scenario 199 jobs. Yet this region lost 910 jobs in the first 3 years of this Government. 
Under National we are going backwards. Kiwis want real solutions. That is why we are working with Labour and the other parties on the manufacturing inquiry. That is why we are supporting employers and exporters. That is why we are promoting information and communications which was up 17 percent in the last year. It has grown $3 billion in the last 2 years. That is why we are putting forward our innovative proposals for a second cable greater training and education incentives sensible patent reform and better Government procurement. And that is why we are looking at clean energy options and the 50000 jobs we are seeing there and the $600 million we could be saving per annum and the Greenpeace report— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s time has expired. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 “More good news” was I think a phrase that my colleagues in a previous generation used to say. The Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill is good news and why it is good news is because National believes in young people. People listening out there today would have been hearing all these terrible things about youth. In fact it was not National saying any of it; it has been the Opposition. National believes in young people. Young people in New Zealand we believe you have an opportunity. We believe you can develop the skills and develop the experience to be a positive contributor to this country. You know what? This National Government is not going to keep obstacles in the way. If providing a slightly lower wage allows an employer to make the choice of you a young person over another then yes this Government is prepared to back you. 
This is a positive bill. This is good news. Young people of New Zealand this is an opportunity that the Government is providing for employers to employ you—sorry not you Mr Deputy Speaker but youth; yes let us put a “t” and an “h” at the end of that—and to actually get an opportunity over 6 months. I pointed out the other day when we went through the Committee stage that the Opposition was attempting to argue from principle but it of course has its own youth— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who chose that tie? 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: I believe you might have a similar one Chris; maybe we could have a cross-party discussion here. This is an opportunity though for young people. We believe in young people. We believe they should get into jobs. We want to support them. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Bill read a third time. 
Families Commission Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development)  
on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move  
That the Families Commission Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill amends the Families Commission Act 2003 and is part of the process designed to refocus the Families Commission in order to make it a more relevant effective and efficient organisation. We are streamlining the commission’s core activities through a leaner and more focused structure as part of our confidence and supply agreement with United Future. I wish to thank it them for its contributions and these changes. 
The changes provided for in the bill are relatively straightforward and can be summarised as follows. First the commission will acquire a new monitoring research and evaluation function. This will encompass the whole social sector and be separate from the commission’s current main function of advocating for families. Under this the commission will identify evidence and research that will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s policies and priorities in the social sector. The commission will also play a role in coordinating research and evaluation across the wider social sector. 
Second the bill changes the commission’s governance structure by removing the title “commissioner” from all but one member of the commission who will be known as the Families Commissioner. It puts the commission on the same footing as most other Crown entities and will ensure a more focused structure. Thirdly the bill also provides for the creation of a social science experts panel. This group will complement the work of the commission’s board and provide guidance and academic peer review of research undertaken by or for the commission. This will ensure that all research is rigorous and credible. Finally the bill will require that the commission prepares and publishes an annual family status report. This will provide a means by which the well-being of New Zealand families can be regularly measured and monitored. 
I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for its thorough and careful attention to this bill. A total of 11 submissions were received on the bill. A number of submitters were positive about the new model of the Families Commission. The Salvation Army the National Council of Women and the IHC all support the changes and the new function for monitoring research and evaluation. The IHC pointed to the huge potential advantage of the new—to be known—SuPERU database to avoid research silos and the Salvation Army is particularly interested in joining projects in partnership with the Families Commission. 
There have been some recommended technical amendments from the Social Services Committee and the committee recommended including new clauses 4A and 9A. This addresses some submitters’ concerns based on a misinterpretation of the bill’s provisions and relevant Crown entity legislation. These clauses make it clear that the autonomy of the commission as prescribed in the Crown Entities Act 2004 remains unchanged. 
The committee also recommended changes to new section 8A in clause 7. These changes make it clear that the commission is to actively “identify evidence and research that will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s policies and priorities in the social sector.” Other changes make it clear that in carrying out its monitoring evaluation and research functions the commission must act independently of the programmes and interventions being monitored or evaluated. This is an area where I believe the commission can add real value. 
Finally I wish to comment on the potential of the new SuPERU unit—the monitoring research and evaluation arm of the Families Commission. If we— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I thought Subaru was a type of car. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: It has got the wheels buddy to do the business. If we are going to make a difference for the families who are struggling we need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will work. This new unit will build a body of evidence that will allow policy makers NGOs and anyone wanting to invest in social services to make informed decisions about which programmes are effective for New Zealand families which will add real value to the way that we all work together. I commend the bill to the House. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to rise to give this contribution on the second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues on the Social Services Committee. In particular I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern and Dr Rajen Prasad because it was those two who took the lead in Labour’s contribution as this bill was analysed through the committee. 
As the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows said this bill seeks to amend the Families Commission Act 2003 to make a number of changes to the role and operation of the commission with the aim of improving decision making in the social sector. Labour supported the first reading of this bill. We wanted it to go to the select committee as we wanted to look closely at the implications of the bill and give the wider community the opportunity to make its submissions and to raise its concerns on this matter. 
We understand that one member of the commission would be appointed by the Minister for Social Development as Families Commissioner while the remaining members would remain members without being appointed commissioners as they are at present. The Families Commission members would continue to comprise the board. The restructure would include the establishment of a social science experts panel to provide guidance and academic peer review of any research undertaken by and on behalf of the commission. The commission would also be given a new monitoring evaluation and research function which would require it to determine where evidence and research would help decide or achieve Government priorities and to commission research and manage research contracts in the social sector. The commission would also be required to prepare and publish an annual Families Status Report which would measure and monitor the well-being of New Zealand families. It would also be given access by the Government Statistician to individual schedules for research or statistical purposes. 
After the select committee process and in consideration of what we heard from submitters Labour now opposes this bill. Labour believes that the changes proposed to the commission in this bill continue an agenda to fundamentally alter its nature so that it becomes something close to a Government department or ministry rather than being an autonomous Crown entity. These changes in our view compromise the commission and will limit its independence and ability to advocate effectively for families. Given these changes Labour stands by its policy of disestablishing the commission and instead establishing a ministry for children to focus on policies and programmes that place children and families at the centre of all policy and ensure their interests are paramount. 
I think that when we considered the significant submissions that came from the public the one that stood out in my mind was the submission by the Salvation Army and more particularly it was reaffirmed in its report  
She’ll be Right 
. One cannot help but recognise that we have a huge problem amongst the children of New Zealand. In fact the figures show that unless we actively have the political will to address the poverty that is experienced by many families we are just not going to get on top of it. So in Labour’s view establishing a ministry for children would enable a greater focus of energy resourcing and political will in attempting to address this issue recognising that the issue of the safety and the well-being of our children has to be a priority for the long term. 
This bill before us limits the advocacy function of the commission and establishes a centre for family and whanau knowledge within the commission to focus on consultations and advocacy. It is unclear to us why Peter Dunne is supporting this bill given that the Government is curbing the role and independent nature of the commission. The funding for this function is predetermined at $3.8 million per annum but this centre is given the additional function of producing an annual Families Status Report which measures and monitors the well-being of New Zealand families. Arguably this could be done by the Ministry of Social Development. This function is likely to be the dominant focus of the commission’s advocacy function and will take up a big chunk of the funding if it is done well. It is likely that there will be little focus on the more general advocacy role of the commission. The amendment bill stipulates that the commission’s consultations with families will be limited to its advocacy functions. Hence its research and evaluation function will not benefit from the views of family generally. 
The bill also establishes a social policy evaluation and research unit within the commission with a predetermined annual budget of $3.55 million. This unit will provide independent monitoring and evaluation of programmes and intervention in the social sector and provide research into key issues programmes and interventions across the sector. This section has the additional functions of identifying opportunities where evidence of research will assist in achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector commissioning research on behalf of the Government and managing contracts—again on behalf of Government. This will be closely linked to what the Government is doing and thus eliminate the independence of the commission to undertake research it considers necessary—for example research into poverty and financial literacy research into paid parental leave and research into family violence: research into all the areas that our community has identified are important in order for us to address this issue adequately. 
The bill significantly alters the governance arrangements of the commission. There will be only one Families Commissioner who will not necessarily be the chair of the board of the Families Commission. Others on the board will be members. The functions of the Families Commission will be determined by the board. The chief executive officer position is retained. In addition a social science experts panel will be appointed by the Minister and the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor to peer review the commission’s evaluation and provide advice. Currently the commission uses peer reviewers from universities other research centres and independent experts. It is difficult to see how a panel of four people can peer review the range of research that might be undertaken. Once again arguably the commission will be acting like a Government department or ministry focusing on the issues that the Government considers important. We question the need for this. 
This is in our view a confused governance structure. The power effectively lies with its chief executive as the Families Commissioner’s sole role is redundant. It is unclear who will set the work programme for the commission: the Minister the Government the advisory panel the Families Commissioner the chief executive or the senior staff of the commission. The advocacy functions of the commission will be seriously limited as it will be preoccupied with reporting annually on the state of families. This is something the social report used to do yearly and which will be produced only every 3 years. 
Recently there was an example where my colleague Sue Moroney promoted a very successful campaign around paid parental leave—a campaign that was picked up and supported by the majority of New Zealanders which this Government does not like. But the commission abandoned its role as an independent commission and agreed with the Government on paid parental leave solely based on the economic cost rather than evidence-based policy assessment. 
That gives you an example that this Government rather than allowing the commission to independently provide evidence-based advice—as the commission was set up to do—wants to be able to control the commission. I think the Government is on the wrong path. The right path is the Labour Party policy of disestablishing the commission and establishing instead a ministry for children. That then gives the Government and us—this House—a greater focus of energy and resources on addressing the issues of children. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak; I thought that guy would be speaking until 7 tonight but I thank Su’a William Sio for his contribution. I just want to say that it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I just want to first thank the Minister for Social Development the Hon Paula Bennett. Yesterday we acknowledged her role and her legacy in terms of the welfare reforms that she has brought to this Parliament which will have a huge positive impact on our country. Today we are going to acknowledge her contribution in terms of this legislation because the Families Commission is about to undergo a welcome transformation. 
 The reason it will be transformed is that this Government this National Government believes in better more effective public services. What does that mean? What are we going to do? Well the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows touched on it earlier. We are restructuring the commission because this will see its core activities streamlined into a leaner more focused structure. It will be headed by a single commissioner and the search for that single commissioner is going on as we speak. The number of commissioners will go down from the original number of seven. That is right—less bureaucracy in one fell swoop. It will be governed by a board and the board will include Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. It will also have public sector philanthropic and business representatives and it will give credible community input into—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh! Asenati Lole-Taylor knows this—the direction of an important entity in our Government. 
For the benefit of Parliament I say that yesterday we had the financial review of the Families Commission. We had some valuable contributions from the acting chairman and the acting chief executive officer as well as Sir Peter who turned up to elaborate on the future of this commission. 
The commission will also commission and contract social sector research on topics referred by the Government. I know my colleague Su’a William Sio referred to the lack of independence but it really is important that some of the research done actually becomes implemented and becomes part of the Budget-setting process for the Government so that those things can make a difference to people out in our communities. There is no point in having research sitting on a shelf in the Wellington office of some policy analyst in one of the Government departments. It is really important that we have this type of research out in the open read by many distributed across many sectors and implemented by those who are able to do the implementation which includes Government officials and politicians alike. So the commission will take on a new role providing independent monitoring evaluation and research to measure the effectiveness of initiatives across our social sector. 
 Labour doubts this but we were left in no doubt on this side of the House by the testimony of Sir Peter Gluckman yesterday at the financial review that it is about independence. It is about evidence-based research that will be implemented in our communities through policy. So funding will be reduced from $32 million over 4 years to $28 million and $14 million will be reprioritised for the social policy evaluation and research unit which some people call SuPERU. 
Before I finish my contribution tonight I just want to touch on the recommendations of the Social Services Committee which the Minister also alluded to. I want to thank all the members of the committee for their contributions Dr Prasad and those across the aisle and also my colleagues like Alfred Ngaro and Melissa Lee who is the deputy chair and the other members of our committee. Even though there were a small number of submitters—there were 11—we actually gleaned quite a bit of feedback and we made certain adjustments. Also I want to acknowledge our officials parliamentary counsel and our clerks who were also part of the team if you like that brought these recommendations back to the House. I want to acknowledge them and they are with us here tonight. 
Just very quickly we are amending clause 11 to ensure that the social science experts panel will comprise a minimum of four members—a minimum of four Su’a. I know he criticised the figure but it is a minimum of four members and we changed it to allow for a degree of flexibility to appoint additional members if required. So we have allowed for that degree of flexibility in our recommendations. It is also about amending clause 11 to ensure that the panel would come under appropriate provisions pertaining to the appointment and payment of members conflicts of interest indemnities and insurance. So that is another important addition to the bill as presented to the House at its first reading. 
 The Minister referred to amending clause 7. It is really about correcting the misconception that the commission will merely identify opportunities for evaluation and research. It will be actively identifying these opportunities. I think that is an important consideration when we move forward in terms of those subjects that will be identified. Yesterday the commission went through some of those. Some involved improving the achievement levels of Maori and Pasifika children. There is a whole host of these subjects that it is seeing as priorities going forward. If we are going to make a difference for the families in this country Aotearoa New Zealand who are struggling we need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will work. 
The body of evidence that will come out of this commission will allow policy makers service providers politicians and anyone wanting to invest in our social services to make better more informed decisions. It is about having an evidence base as Sir Peter Gluckman referred to at our financial review of the commission yesterday. It is about those evidence-based interventions that produce better long-term outcomes for our families our communities and ultimately our nation. That is why I support this bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am very interested in what the member opposite Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has just said. The member talked about the legacy of the Minister for Social Development. It is very interesting that we had the Families Commission before the Social Services Committee yesterday and now we are talking about this legacy. Let me tell the chairman of that committee that there is daylight between how the Minister conceives this commission and how the commission presented itself yesterday. There is daylight in that—absolute daylight. Just putting a small number of very well-known researchers on to the commission will not make an efficient commission in the sense that the Minister thinks it will. 
Let us take just one of the things that this Minister is presiding over and I look forward to hearing what the explanations are. Yesterday we found out about the commission in this manifestation spending $411000 on one staff member for 17 months—$411000. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: That sounds like the sort of thing that used to happen under the Labour Government. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Is the member supporting this? Is the Hon Mr Bridges supporting this? Because if the member is then that Government has got a lot of work to do to find out about all of the consultants who are being used. That is what this commission has been driven to: bringing people from Australia who then establish their own consultancy company and then their own consultancy company gets hired—hiring the same person back to the commission and spending $411000. That is what this Minister is presiding over at the moment. I know there have been some justifications such as “We’ve been restructuring.” and “We’ve been having a look to see.” Well why is this commission not developing the capacity within the commission? It is not. So there is daylight between what the legacy of this Minister will be and what this commission is set up to do. 
There is also daylight between how the Minister conceives of the research functions of this commission and how the commissioners described it yesterday. At the moment it seems it will end up being probably not too different from what it has been evolving to yet the Minister has couched this in terms of this radical differentiation between what the commission has been set up to do and where she wants it to go. There will not be much difference. There will still be largely—[ 
Interruption 
] Three million dollars Mr Bridges will not give you the kind of research that this Minister wants. The Minister talks about evidence-based research. There is daylight between evidence-based research—that Government is not using the evidence that is currently available. On the “boot camps” legislation the research says do not do it. The Minister did it. It is not working. Mr Bridges might like to know about this. It is the same with the welfare reforms that we debated yesterday. The English experience and evidence show that those kinds of sanctions do not work. But no the Minister wants to do it. So why is there this daylight between the Minister’s policies— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: How much will it cost? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: —in the area of the most vulnerable in our society and the work of the commission trying to set it up to do the evidential work that it will do? It will produce the reports and I bet you this Government will not put them into operation. That is what will happen. So now there is this daylight. What is the question the member is asking about costs? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: How much will it cost? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well all that your Government is giving for this role Minister is $3 million. It cannot be done—cannot be done. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.