Volume 703 Week 8 - Thursday 19 February 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 703 Week 8 - Thursday 19 February 2015[Sitting date: 19 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 19 February 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):When the House resumes on 24 February the Government will look to progress legislation that is currently on the Order Paper including the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Wednesday is expected to be a members’ day.Points of OrderIntelligence and Security Committee—Nominations ProcessJAMES SHAW (Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order relating to Speaker’s ruling 209/3 which requires the Speaker to rule as out of order any notice of motion regarding statutory appointments where consultation procedures have not been followed. In your ruling yesterday with regard to the motion endorsing members of the Intelligence and Security Committee you ruled that the Speaker has no part in the statutory process but this seems to be in direct contradiction to Speaker’s ruling 209/3. I do not want to relitigate the actual nominations by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition but for the sake of the integrity of the nominations process in the future I would like to request that you do reflect on your ruling of yesterday in light of Speaker’s ruling 209/3.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I am sure that you will also in your reflection consider the difference between an allegation and a complaint. People may complain that they have not been consulted but that should not lead to an acceptable allegation that a statutory obligation has been missed. Consultation does not mean that all parties need to agree.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I understand where our colleague Gerry Brownlee is coming from but in your letter to me when I requested that you take some action concerning the notice of motion and potential illegality you did not refer to this particular Speaker’s ruling and I suggest that it would be wise if there was a reflection on that ruling as my colleague James Shaw has suggested and that you respond accordingly.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the points that have been raised by all members but in regards to the point raised first by Mr Shaw this is a relitigation of a matter that was raised in the House yesterday. I will because I have been asked to do so have a further look but I accept the point made by Mr Brownlee and having watched much media coverage on this issue there is clearly a difference of opinion as to what level of consultation did occur.Questions to MinistersBetter Public Services—Target Update1.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its programme to get better results from public services?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Today we released the update of results from the Government’s Better Public Services programme. This programme measures results in 10 areas set out by the Prime Minister in 2012 where we believe not only that we can but that we should make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. The results include reducing assaults on children reducing long-term welfare dependency improving educational achievement increasing immunisation and reducing the incidences of rheumatic fever. I am pleased to say that the latest 6-monthly update shows we are making progress in all of our results. Our challenge now though is to keep progress going as we try to help people who are harder to reach or address problems that are simply more difficult to resolve.Alastair Scott: What changes has the Government announced to the Better Public Services programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is a Government that believes that it should be transparently accountable for what it is trying to achieve for New Zealanders. This programme certainly is going to be challenging because today we have confirmed we are going to make three of our targets more difficult. We are extending the target to reduce welfare dependency beyond those who are somewhere near ready for work to people on all main benefits including those who may not have worked for some time. As we have already signalled we are changing the overall crime target to require a 20 percent reduction by 2018 where the previous target was a 15 percent reduction by 2017 because we have already achieved a 15 percent reduction in crime. We are also lifting the target to increase the workforce skills of people aged 25 to 34. Our aim is that 60 percent of all 25 to 34-year-olds have a level 4 qualification by 2018 up from the previous 55 percent by 2017.Alastair Scott: What new approaches is the Government taking to get better results from public services?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a lot of new approaches but a few of them matter quite a bit. In particular we are shifting the focus to individuals their families and communities rather than focusing on our Government departments. This is because to turn round intergenerational welfare dependency or lift National Certificate of Educational Achievement results further for groups who have a long record of low achievement we have to understand what is going on in the homes and lives of these people. That will allow us to find better solutions to what have been longstanding and difficult problems. These answers may not always come from the Public Service; they may come from other organisations that know a lot more about our customers than we do.Alastair Scott: How do these changes fit with the Government’s continuing programme to restrain its spending?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Achieving better results is at the heart of the Government’s programme to restrain its spending. Where the previous Government had a model that spending more was the result that it was after what we are trying to do is actually get results for people. We are finding that that often means better use of information and reorganisation of Government services and changing the philosophical approach—for instance to Whānau Ora—rather than spending more money. So although we have had tight spending constraints in recent years we have been able to achieve better results with our public services.Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case2.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First)to the Minister of Corrections: Was there a Victim Notification Register Alert generated for Phillip Smith at any stage prior to his temporary release from custody in November 2014; if not why not?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Corrections: Yes I am advised that on every occasion that Phillip Smith was temporarily released from prison his registered victims were informed in accordance with section 35(1)(a)(i) of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. In respect of the November release victims were notified on 20 October 2014.Mahesh Bindra: Why were Smith’s victims not informed of his release prior to 6 November as they should have been since in the Minister’s own words “Phillip Smith is subject to the Victim Notification Register and his victims are recorded on it.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer the member to my primary answer and that is that they were indeed notified prior to his release and indeed immediately following advice that he had not returned to Spring Hill prison in the time required.Mahesh Bindra: Can he give an assurance to this House that convicted murderer and paedophile Phillip John Smith is currently on the victim notification register?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is hard for me to give a 100 percent guarantee but I am assured that the victim notification register has not changed since his return to prison and therefore the answer would be yes.Mahesh Bindra: Is it not a fact that this murderer and paedophile was not on the victim notification register and that this is the real reason his victims were not notified and that the Minister and his department covered this up by putting him on it retrospectively?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It may be that we are talking about direct notification versus other forms of notification. I am advised that a registered victim can appoint another person to receive on their behalf any notice that is given to the victim. This person is referred to as an appointed representative. The representative is required to make all reasonable efforts to receive information on the victim’s behalf and ensure that the victim is given and understands the information that has been received. There are four victims registered for Phillip Smith. Two of the registered victims have authorised another of the registered victims to be their appointed representative and have done so since the time of their registration.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus3.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that he would post a “meaningful surplus” in 2014/15; if so what approximate dollar figure would constitute a meaningful surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes I stand by that statement. In answer to the second part of the member’s question in the current circumstances of low interest rates and inflation that could be heading to zero any surplus will be meaningful.Grant Robertson: Why then if any surplus at all would be meaningful did he and John Key make that promise the centrepiece of two election campaigns and would not a failure to post a decent surplus actually mean he had broken his promise to New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The centrepiece of our election campaigns were the outstanding leadership of the Prime Minister and the very good management of the economy which is helping lead to higher incomes and more jobs. We are on track to surplus but of course it would be easier to achieve that if that member stopped organising protests in Wellington against any constraint on the Public Service as he regularly does.Jami-Lee Ross: What progress can the Minister report on the Government’s track to surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our record is one of steady improvement in the movement towards surplus in what I might say were somewhat trying circumstances. For instance a deep recession followed by an earthquake where the Government has contributed $15 billion to the rebuilding of Christchurch. So I can report that from a large deficit of around $18 billion current forecasts have us headed towards surplus over the next 2 years.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer why then knowing about the global financial crisis and the recession did he promise to New Zealanders for two elections in a row that a meaningful surplus would be reached in 2014-15?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we believe that is achievable. We believe that uniquely among developed countries we are able to protect the most vulnerable not reduce any entitlements improve our public services and get better results maintain stability in our public services without large-scale change and get back to surplus. I admit to the member it is a bit difficult but we are just about there.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm his answer to the primary question that a surplus of $1 will constitute a meaningful surplus in his world?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. As I said any surplus will be meaningful but they are likely to be larger if that member stops organising protests against restraint in the Public Service as exhibited by him here in this photo with his megaphone protesting outside Statistics New Zealand against reasonable constraints.Grant Robertson: Does the Minister think he might be able to manage a “$1 Bill” surplus because he is overcharging New Zealanders $178 million because the ACC worker and earner accounts are fully funded and why will he not give New Zealanders a fair go and not overcharge them for ACC?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with any of that. As I said to the member the Government has been consistently conservative in the way it has handled ACC levies and we have had smaller increases than officials recommended and smaller decreases. But even in that context by 1 April next year we will have reduced ACC levies by $1.5 billion per year the equivalent of a moderate tax cut for every household in New Zealand.Grant Robertson: Given that he is satisfied with a $1 meaningful surplus will he now not give New Zealanders back the $178 million that he has ripped off them from overcharging them for ACC?Hon BILL ENGLISH: ACC is giving back something like $450 million of ACC levy cuts on 1 April including a reduction of $130 for every New Zealander who registers a car. That is not a bad effort.Partnership Schools—Priority Learner Groups4.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green)to the Minister of Education: Is she planning to undertake another Partnership School application round this year; if so will any new schools be required to target the same priority learner groups as existing Partnership Schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakahaere. E te mema tēnā anō hoki koe. Ngā mihi nui huri noa i tō tātou Whare.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Acknowledgments to you the member as well and to all throughout our House.]No.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I clarify whether it was no to both parts of the question.Mr SPEAKER: I think we can take it that it was no to the first part of the question.Catherine Delahunty: Will she urgently—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise. Point of order Grant Robertson.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Catherine Delahunty but it is a primary question to which there are two parts so the Minister does need to answer both of them. It could be no to both—I do not know.Mr SPEAKER: I think it would clearly be no to the second but if the Minister wanted to help by saying no and no—[Interruption] Order! Would the Minister like to assist the House and clarify the answer.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You stray into dangerous territory if we accept what Mr Robertson has just said. If you read the question it says “if so”. It should be abundantly clear to the whole House what the answer was.Mr SPEAKER: I would have thought it was abundantly clear but clearly there was some confusion to the left of my chair. I was seeking whether the—[Interruption] If the Leader of the House wishes to stay for question time he also needs to be reminded that when I stand to my feet to rule on a point of order I expect silence. It is over to the Minister as to whether she wants to assist the House on this occasion. The answer clearly addresses the question maybe not to the satisfaction of those who have interpreted the question in a slightly different way. I invite the Minister if she wants to assist but she certainly does not have to.Hon HEKIA PARATA: No I am not planning to undertake another partnership school application round this year.Catherine Delahunty: Therefore will she urgently publish the assessments of the current partnership schools so that we can all be sure that these students currently are in a safe learning environment?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have long made it a practice that when I have considered assessments and reports and made decisions they are published so all of those in that category are on the website. If they are not yet there it is because I have not yet made a decision about them. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ask the supplementary question please.Catherine Delahunty: Is she concerned that rather than targeting disabled and high special needs pupils—one of her priority learner groups—partnership schools are avoiding them because they are difficult and expensive to teach?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I reject that utterly. In the performance standards that make up the agreement for these partnership schools they are required for their rolls to include 75 percent of priority learners but we do not specify exactly which priority learners make up that 75 percent. All existing partnership schools meet that standard and exceed it.Catherine Delahunty: Can she confirm that there was not one single high-needs pupil enrolled in any partnership schools last year?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can confirm that there has been no application for an Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme - funded student at a partnership school as the member was advised at a select committee yesterday. That does not in turn mean that there are not students with special needs enrolled at these schools.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request response establishing that there are no high-needs students at partnership schools.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Catherine Delahunty: Does she agree that it is statistically unlikely for 3 percent of all students to have high needs but none of them were enrolled in partnership schools when the schools were required to target them?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No I do not agree because the specification of who priority learners are includes Māori Pasifika children from low-income homes children with special needs and those with permutations of all four. But we do not prescribe to the schools specifically which group of needs they should look for. They are required to enrol the students who turn up in the same way as every school in New Zealand is.Catherine Delahunty: Is the Minister saying that it does not matter whether there are no disabled children targeted attending these schools; so long as there are plenty of Māori or Pasifika kids or kids with other problems we do not need to worry about them?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am most definitely not saying that and I hope that is not what the member is saying either. We want New Zealand schools that attend to the needs of every child and the partnership schools have a standard higher and more prescribed than any other school. They are required to have 75 percent. They meet or exceed that.Catherine Delahunty: How can partnership schools do a better job than State schools in educating priority learners when they are not even targeting or enrolling children with the highest special needs?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member fundamentally misunderstands our general education system which is that all schools are required to enrol the students who turn up. Schools do not go around hunting for particular kinds of students in order to satisfy this member’s decision as to what is appropriate or not. We have challenges across our system and our education system responds extremely well and we have diverse options available. Partnership schools make up nine of 2543 schools. Let us give them a chance to help these kids be successful.Employment and Skills Training—Progress5.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress is the Government making to boost workforce skills?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):Very good progress. Earlier today I announced that in fact better-than-expected progress has seen the Government revise our workforce skills target to 60 percent of 25 to 34-year-olds having a qualification at level 4 or above by 2018 having already almost achieved our initial target of 55 percent by 2017. Increasing the target shows that the tertiary education system is making very good progress in boosting workforce skills since it was set. The new target of increasing to 60 percent by 2018 will be very challenging. The public sector agencies will need to work well together with all players in the sector and employers to deliver on this goal.Jacqui Dean: Why is it important to boost workforce skills?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is very important that we keep increasing the level of skills in our workforce to support a growing and more productive New Zealand economy. We know that a higher-skilled workforce supports better innovation and productivity and higher wages for New Zealanders. That is why for example we have worked in partnership with the industry training organisations and employers to improve industry training and we have introduced New Zealand Apprenticeships. Of course last year’s apprenticeship reboot also helped to grow numbers. Industry training enrolments at level 4 including New Zealand Apprenticeships were up significantly on 2012.Jacqui Dean: What other initiatives are under way to boost workforce skills?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The results released today show that the work we are doing to improve performance in the sector is paying off. We are of course expanding the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative which started out at 500 places and is now heading towards 3000 places and we have a commitment to take it to 5000 places. We are boosting the number of engineering students and there is a target to meet the OECD average in the number of engineering graduates. Importantly we are making study and employment outcomes of careers more accessible to students through things like the Occupational Outlook report and app which link people’s education choices to what they can expect in the world of work. This will help students make better study and career choices and it shows the benefits of higher-level study.Partnership Schools—Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru6.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence in the Partnership School’s Authorisation Board; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā anō koe. Yes; because the board comprises high-calibre successful practitioners educationalists and well-respected individuals.Chris Hipkins: How can she have confidence in the authorisation board given that it advised her to open the trouble-prone Whangaruru School—which she did against the advice provided by the Ministry of Education—a school that has subsequently been beset with bullying drug use absenteeism management infighting staff turnover and poor educational outcomes?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have full confidence in the board. It has taken into account all of the issues when it made its recommendation. When we observed that that particular school was having difficulties I asked the board to provide some mentoring and it has done that. I would just like to correct the member’s characterisation. I did in fact take into account the ministry’s advice and I made my decision having taken it into account. The advice actually related to the readiness of the school property.Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Education advise her that Whangaruru’s application “did not adequately communicate the need for the school in this area” that their “approach to behaviour for learning and creating a safe learning environment for their students was not well articulated” and that the proposal “did not create a compelling argument for the establishment of the school”; if so why did she go ahead and approve it anyway?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am glad to see that the member has taken advantage of the papers freely available. Yes I did have that discussion with the ministry and we did go through the fact that in this area there have been longstanding issues of underachievement and that we needed to look at what some other options might be for these groups of children and that is what we have done. But yes there are problems with this school.Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Education provide her with advice that indicated that its analysis had highlighted reservations with 58 percent of Whangaruru’s application with 32 percent of those categorised as serious or unacceptable; if so did she accept that advice or did she simply pay it as much attention as the time she took to pay attention to the red flags on Novopay when she approved that as well against advice?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I take all of the advice that is provided by the Ministry of Education seriously. We have full discussion—Hon Trevor Mallard: You just don’t take it.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Taking advice does not mean accepting it and it does not mean ignoring it. I took its advice considered it and made a decision.Chris Hipkins: Is she refusing to release the Education Review Office report into Whangaruru School which was due to be released imminently 6 months ago because it has shown just how seriously that school experiment has gone off the rails; if not why will she not release the report?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I understand that that report will be ready for release next month.Chris Hipkins: Has she received any advice from the Ministry of Education suggesting that any member of the partnership schools authorisation board has any conflicts of interest; if so what was the nature of that advice?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not aware I have had any such advice.Building and Construction Industry—High-alkali Cement7.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he think he is competently fulfilling his ministerial responsibilities; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):Yes but thankfully my responsibilities do not extend to matching the carpets and the curtains.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is what goes for a joke over there. When he was made aware last year that tens of thousands of tonnes of cement had been imported to New Zealand that according to the import company’s own test results failed to meet recognised industry standards what if anything did he do about it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I did note some social media reports last year about high-alkali cement. I have been assured by officials that imported cement must meet the New Zealand standard that the Drymix product referred to does in fact meet that standard and provided that it is mixed in accordance with the concrete standard the product is fit for purpose. I would also invite the member to be careful as there are competition issues in the building industry and some people would rather that imported product did not compete with other products. If we are in fact to get better value for money it is important that there is active competition in all building materials.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he was made aware that imported cement alkali levels resulted in a condition called concrete cancer causing expansion and cracking in concrete and major structural problems what if anything did he do about it seeing as it was also brought to his attention by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the issue was brought to my attention I raised it with officials. They assured me that the products did meet the standard. The officials also made contact with the New Zealand concrete association and it too was satisfied in its report that the product was up to standard.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that this dodgy cement was used in the $40 million Manukau District Court upgrade and Fonterra’s $120 million UHT factory at Waitoa plus dozens of other buildings around the country that are now facing serious long-term adverse consequences? Why did he not in those circumstances competently carry out his ministerial responsibilities and not rely upon a trade - paid for conflict of interest report?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My own expertise is in landslides rather than concrete. I have relied on advice—Hon Member: That is right.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —well actually there was a bit of a landslide I noticed on 20 September last year. But I have to say that on the technical issues of the suitability of cement and concrete I rely on the expertise of people who are suitably qualified and I suggest they are more qualified in that area than the member.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he says—[Interruption]—pardon? You want to say something junior?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am very keen that the member now carries on with his supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he says that concerns were brought to his attention why did he as a competent Minister not rely upon a biased report—which his own officials had brought to his attention—but rather order core samples to be taken from the sites mentioned for chemical analysis by an independent certified laboratory rather than turn a blind eye to what is now looking like potentially rotting buildings?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the matter was brought to my attention I sought advice. I was reassured that the cement meets the New Zealand standard. I challenge the member to table a technical report that shows it does not meet the standard. For the member’s information the technical issue is this: high-alkali cement is allowed under the New Zealand cement standard provided that when it is properly mixed and made into concrete the alkali content does meet the concrete standard. And I am assured that both those standards are met by this product.Better Public Services—Businesses and Interaction with Government8.BRETT HUDSON (National)to the Minister for Small Business: How will the New Zealand Business Number system make it easier for small business to interact with the Government?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business):The New Zealand Business Number aims to make it easier quicker and less complicated for small businesses to interact with the Government. We have already allocated 1.1 million New Zealand Business Numbers to registered companies. Small businesses will have to provide the Government with information only once. The number will automatically be shared across Government agencies. The New Zealand Business Number is a core initiative of the Government’s Better Public Services for business (Result 9) programme which works in collaboration across a number of agencies making sure that joined-up Government services are not a one-off event but an ongoing commitment from agencies to improve interaction with the Government. A business reference group of 1200 small and medium sized enterprises has been tracking progress in this area. A survey over the last 6 months reports a net 7 percent reduction in reported effort since 2012 and a substantial improvement in reported performance by Government agencies.Brett Hudson: What other initiatives are there to make it easier for small business to interact with the Government and access the information that they need?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Business.govt.nz the Government’s website for small businesses brings together information from across government and explains it in a way that makes sense to small businesses. Business.govt.nz has recently released a new tool called Compliance Matters bringing together compliance requirements from across government into one easy-to-use tool. A business simply enters its industry stage and type and the tool will list all the requirements that are relevant for across government linking off to the relevant agencies for more information. This allows small businesses to access information quicker and enables them to spend more time on what they do best: business.Brett Hudson: Has he seen reports outlining initiatives that would lead to businesses having to spend more time interfacing with the Government?Mr SPEAKER: Provided the answer is within the ministerial responsibility the Hon Craig Foss.Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen reports on proposals to add new and complex requirements and taxes even on to small businesses. This would mean small businesses spend more time on administration and dealing with Government obligations and less time on growing their businesses and hiring Kiwis. If we want businesses to grow and employ more people the last thing they need is new complex complicated capital gains taxes and water taxes as proposed by the Opposition.Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that according to his own Cabinet paper “Larger businesses and industry representative organisations strongly support extending the New Zealand Business Number but smaller businesses were less enthusiastic.”?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The member should get up with the times and perhaps get out a bit more. The reference group and many companies dealing with many small businesses across the country have now in fact come on board and are endorsing the opportunities that the New Zealand Business Number provides.Social Development Ministry—Spending9.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston)to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence in the ability of the Ministry of Social Development to exercise financial due diligence?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):Yes.Carmel Sepuloni: What confidence does she have in the ministry’s ability to responsibly manage taxpayers’ money given that in 2013-14 six ministry officials spent an average of over $30000 on “other expenses” for international travel including a ministry official’s nearly $50000 taxpayer-funded 5-day trip to Melbourne?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say first that that member needs to do a bit more homework because in fact that particular $50000 payment was for a 2-year postgraduate study for the chief legal counsel of the Ministry of Social Development. I think that that was money was well spent.Carmel Sepuloni: Why should the ministry fork out nearly $30000 for “other expenses” for the Minister’s private secretary’s trip to London Paris New York and Honolulu in May 2014?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Ministry of Social Development is involved in a great deal of reform. We have welfare reform a reform of Child Youth and Family and I would expect that we would be looking to countries overseas for their answers to some of the issues that this country is facing. I would say that if we are learning from other countries that again is money well spent. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A little less interjection through the answers would be helpful and the questions.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the response from the Ministry of Social Development’s chief executive officer about the $3.1 million increase in external contracting the $3.4 million increase in advertising and public relations costs and the trebling of funding of international travel being a drop in the bucket compared with the overall ministry’s budget; if so why?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: First of all I am not exactly sure what the chief executive said nor in what context but what I am sure of is that this chief executive is responsible for a budget of about $23 billion delivers services and support to over a million New Zealanders across the spectrum and manages about 10000 staff. I am sure that he came along expecting the Opposition to ask him questions about things that New Zealanders are really worried about like the unemployment rate support for solo parents and support for people in our communities who are disabled and sick not to ask him about minute expenditure that is well explained in public relations campaigns that respond to concerns around teenage sexual violence and also around campaigns to help elderly with enduring powers of attorney. Those are the sorts of things that were explained to the member in the annual review yesterday.Carmel Sepuloni: How can she claim that this misspending is minute or not significant when it amounts to $5.4 million and the Ministry of Social Development’s programmes that it was forced to defer in the last Budget due to lack of funding came to only $7.2 million?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I did not say that this money was misspent; in fact I disagree entirely with that proposition. I am surprised that the Opposition thinks it is not worthwhile responding to huge public concern in the wake of the Roast Busters case to actually make sure that there is an education programme on giving young teenage New Zealanders tools to protect them against sexual violence. That was one part of the expenditure that that member was criticising yesterday. As I say a campaign that gave good information to our seniors on the meanings on the concerns around an enduring power of attorney was another one of those increases in expenditure that the member raised yesterday. I am surprised that the Opposition does not think that they are worthwhile.Carmel Sepuloni: Is the reason she thinks her ministry’s extravagant expenditure is OK that she thinks that all those people without work are living pretty good lifestyles because of their as she says “little bit of dole cash crop and kai moana.”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I would say in answer to that question is that the member needs to stop playing to the media and actually do some homework and make sure that the accusations she makes are correct because of the three accusations that she put to the chief executive yesterday three were incorrect.Food Labelling—Irradiation and Genetic Engineering10.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)to the Minister for Food Safety: Will she assure consumers that irradiated food labelling requirements will be enforced immediately in light of reports that irradiated fruit is being sold in New Zealand without the appropriate label?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for Food Safety):I can assure New Zealanders that requirements for irradiated food to be labelled are enforced. The Ministry for Primary Industries takes any reports of unlabelled fruit and vegetables seriously acts on any complaints received investigates and where necessary will undertake enforcement action.Steffan Browning: Considering that some irradiated fruit labelling printed in 4-point font is so small that many customers cannot read or see it will she assure New Zealanders that she will enforce more visible labelling for irradiated products immediately?Hon JO GOODHEW: I can assure the member that today I have raised the size of the font of the labelling with officials because I heard through the media yesterday that it was a problem. I would urge members of the public who have a belief that they cannot read the labelling that must be there to make a complaint about that and I can assure you that the Ministry for Primary Industries will enforce the necessity to have the fruit and vegetables labelled.Steffan Browning: On the basis that there is in fact no labelling in some cases can she guarantee that labelling requirements will be improved and enforced before she approves the importation of 12 more types of irradiated fruit and vegetables?Hon JO GOODHEW: There are a number of issues that I will try to deal with one by one in that question because they are important. First of all to clarify for the member and the House since the beginning of 2013 there have been 10 complaints of incorrect or missing labels. All were investigated and all were substantiated. Therefore action was taken on every single one of those. The Ministry for Primary Industries will take those complaints seriously and will work to protect New Zealand. In reference to the other products that the member has raised that are currently proposals these have not been gazetted yet. There is no import health standard for those new products but—and I take issue with the member on this—the labelling requirements are already significant and clear and the Ministry for Primary Industries will enforce those labelling requirements; they do not need to be changed.Steffan Browning: Given that New Zealanders really want to know what is in their food when will she monitor and enforce labelling for GE in food ingredients in products that are currently on our supermarket shelves?Hon JO GOODHEW: What I can assure the member is that any current regulatory or legislative requirements for labelling will continue to be enforced by the Ministry for Primary Industries but I would urge the member upon hearing of any alleged breach to make sure that the Ministry for Primary Industries knows about it as a priority perhaps even at the same time as he takes it to the media.Biosecurity Management—Baggage ScreeningHon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):My question is to the Minister for Biosecurity. Was the Government’s decision to cut 100 percent bag scanning indicative of the priority the Government places on biosecurity?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member did not read out the question as written on the sheet.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I did not pick it up but I will ask the member to repeat the question.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):To the Minister for Biosecurity given he is so angry—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is the Minister for Primary Industries according to my sheet.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This question is for the Minister for Primary Industries. It is a shame he is not the Minister for Biosecurity.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think to progress just read the question.11.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman)to the Minister for Primary Industries: Was the Government’s decision to cut 100 percent bag screening indicative of the priority the Government places on biosecurity?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes. This allows the Ministry for Primary Industries to target more resources at high-risk passengers. The only people who go through the green lane are assessed by a Ministry for Primary Industries officer as low risk and they are still likely to be screened by sniffer dogs. X-rays are just one tool that the Ministry for Primary Industries uses to manage biosecurity risks. Analysis shows that passengers coming through the green lane have a higher compliance than those who do not. We are constantly exploring ways to improve and we will be looking at tougher measures but it is too early to say what they might be.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given that Biosecurity New Zealand has previously said in its strategy that screening all bags halves the risk of incursions why did his Government stop screening all bags in 2012?Hon NATHAN GUY: We have a multi-layered world-class biosecurity system. We still have a process—a very robust process—on border control. The member needs to be aware that there are four pathways that we focus on: cargo craft mail and passenger. The member also needs to be aware that we have increased funding in biosecurity we have got more front-line quarantine inspectors working on biosecurity—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have heard enough and it is clear that the Minister is not answering the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?Mr SPEAKER: Because I told him to. If the member had listened more carefully to the answers he would realise that that question was quite definitely addressed.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Have we reached the point where a senior member of the Opposition is not allowed to raise a point of order without being treated rudely by the Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member felt I addressed him rudely I apologise. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. What I am saying is that it is important for people to listen to the answers and in that case if the member goes back and studies the answer he will see that the answer certainly addressed the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I carefully listened to the answer with great acuity of hearing as good as you—as good as you I am assuring you. The question was about a certain specific procedure that was ceased in 2012. None of that in the Hansard will cover that as you said so why do you not listen to the answer yourself?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the sort of comment that is very unnecessary to this Chamber. I invite the member as I have already once to go back and look at the Hansard. It might not be the answer Mr O’Connor was hoping for but it certainly addressed the question.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the statement on his ministry’s website that “Fruit fly is most likely to arrive with plane passengers bringing infested fruit in luggage.” page last updated 19 February 2015 will he reinstate 100 percent X-ray screening; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: Well if the member listened to my primary answer—I am not sure that he did—I said that the Ministry for Primary Industries has a real target on high-risk passengers. I also went on to say that we are continuing to review the biosecurity system to ensure that it is world-class multi-layered and indeed my No. 1 priority as Minister.Hon Damien O’Connor: Why has he not acted sooner to reintroduce 100 percent bag screening given that there have been at least three fruit fly incursions in the last 2 years?Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member listened to the answers that I have been trying to give him today and if he had a look at the pathway analysis on the Ministry for Primary Industries website which he obviously has not looked at that will confirm that indeed there are four pathways where an egg or larvae could have come in. Importantly the member needs to realise that we have never had a breeding population established in New Zealand which goes to show that the 7500 traps in New Zealand are working.Joanne Hayes: What are some examples of the emphasis this Government places on biosecurity?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. In the last 2 years we have roughly doubled the number of dog detector teams we have got 15 new X-ray machines working at our international airports we have got 130 new front-line quarantine inspectors and we have got two portable labs. We have stepped up a very quick response to this detection of one Queensland fruit fly in Auckland at the moment. The member will also be aware—he might have forgotten—that we are investing $68 million in a new biocontainment facility in Wallaceville and also we have brought in Government industry agreements where the kiwifruit and the pipfruit industries are sitting around with the Ministry for Primary Industries and working closely with it on preparedness and response.Hon Damien O’Connor: Did he or his officials raise any concerns with the Prime Minister as Minister of Tourism about the increased risks to biosecurity when the proposal to cut 100 percent X-rays was being considered?Hon NATHAN GUY: The whole of Cabinet made the decision to make the change.Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is very clear: did he or his officials raise concerns? It is as simple as that.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty—Hon Damien O’Connor: To the Prime Minister—sorry just to clarify for the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that I doubt whether the Minister was actually the Minister at the time. But he said that the matter went before Cabinet to meet.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have a point of order from the Hon David Parker. I hope it is more helpful than the last one.Hon David Parker: In respect of your last point the Minister has responsibility for the actions that happened under the watch of prior people in that role. He might say “I don’t know.” but he has responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: He did not say “I don’t know.”; he said the matter had been raised before Cabinet which means that the Prime Minister certainly was present for the discussion. So in that regard the question has been addressed.Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just wanting clarity because—Mr SPEAKER: If the member now is—[Interruption] Order! I just want to be clear. I have ruled that the question has been addressed. Is the member now relitigating that matter?Hon Damien O’Connor: I am just wanting an answer.Mr SPEAKER: I have given an answer as to whether the question has been addressed. If the member wants to raise—[Interruption] Order! Resume your seat. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order that is legitimate. If the point of order is now relitigating a decision I have made as to whether that question that has been raised by the member previously has been addressed then I have given a ruling on that and to continue to relitigate that matter will bring this House into disorder.Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. The question would be then what is appropriate as an answer from a Minister who may not be aware of what has happened previously. I accept—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now the member is starting to waste the time of this House. The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! Unless the member wants to make an early departure from the House I suggest he sit down. Question No. 12—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat. I am on my feet. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I would be delighted to hear it but if the member is going to raise a point of order relitigating a decision I have just made about the adequacy of an answer that again is leading to disorder and I will deal with the member quite severely if that happens. Does the member have a point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am going to ask you this question because frankly it is to do with your explanation to the questioner. The questioner wanted to know whether the Minister or his officials raised an issue with a specific person or body. What we got was that the decision was made by the whole Cabinet. I am no wiser and nor is he as to the particularity of that question. If that is an offence I am willing to take the consequences.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I thought that the answer was very very clear. Firstly the member is obviously asking questions based on some official information he has already received most likely—Hon Damien O’Connor: No I haven’t. I wasn’t.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well look at the website; it is all published. One of the things that are most salient here is that when all of these things are put before Cabinet the Prime Minister is sitting there chairing it. So he is saying effectively that not only did the Prime Minister see it but the whole Cabinet saw it. I appreciate that the member’s limited experience of these matters might mean he does not know how that works but there is some information for him.Mr SPEAKER: The matter has been dealt with. The answer was satisfactory. The question was whether the Minister had taken the matter to the Minister of Tourism. As I recall it he said he had taken it to Cabinet which means that all Ministers were there. So certainly the question has been addressed and I should think that if the members think carefully about the answer they will know that the answer has given the information that was required.Canterbury Earthquake Memorial—Design and Consultation12.NUK KORAKO (National)to the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress has the Government made on the Canterbury Earthquake Memorial?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):On Tuesday six shortlisted designs for the Canterbury Earthquake Memorial were released for public input. The memorial will honour those who died or were injured during the Canterbury earthquakes acknowledge the suffering of those who lived through them and recognise the heroism of those who were involved in the rescue and recovery operations. More than 330 designs were received from 37 countries. Each of those shortlisted designs is outstanding and any one of them would make a fine tribute to Christchurch and Canterbury.Nuk Korako: Kā mihi anō. How can members of the public have their say on the memorial designs?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The public can view each of the designs and have their say online on the Christchurch Central Development Unit website until 15 March. Alternatively people can go and see the designs on display in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens alongside the Canterbury Museum and post their opinions. The public input will be considered along with further feedback from the bereaved families and seriously injured an evaluation panel of professional experts and the memorial leadership group.Coroners Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Courts):I move That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The Coroners Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Coroners Act 2006 to provide better services to families by improving the quality consistency and timeliness of the coronial system. The 2006 Act instituted a major reform of the coronial system and was a significant step forward. It established the Office of the Chief Coroner to provide leadership and coordination it moved to a smaller number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners it ensured family members are notified at significant steps of the coronial process it introduced a specific regime for retention and release of body parts and body samples and it enhanced inquiry and inquest processes.In 2012 my colleague the Hon Chester Borrows the former Minister for Courts initiated a targeted review of the Coroners Act to look at how well the Act was working after 5 years. The review found that good progress had been made since the Act came into effect but that there was room for further improvement. Following on from that review the main changes in this bill include better focusing coroners’ recommendations; improving processes in the coronial system including giving the Chief Coroner more tools to manage the overall system; better defining the cases that need to be reported to the coroner or should have evidence heard at a public inquest; and making the restrictions on publicly reporting self-inflicted deaths clearer and better targeted to matters most likely to cause harm. Many of the changes in this bill are small but taken together they will help to speed up the coronial process to make things easier on grieving families.Coroners play an important role in helping to prevent deaths by investigating the cause and circumstances of certain deaths and making recommendations to help prevent similar deaths. There is public debate from time to time about the merits of coroners’ recommendations. For example there has been debate about whether the recommendations are workable and whether they would have prevented the particular death the coroner is investigating or about why the recommendations have not been implemented. The bill will require coroners’ recommendations to be specific to the case and the evidence before the coroner and also to be clear about how the recommendations will reduce the likelihood of future deaths in similar circumstances. This will make it easier for the public to understand how the recommendations relate to that death.The bill will also strengthen the requirement for coroners to consider who should be notified of the inquiry or inquest so that they have the opportunity to contribute to the evidence before the coroner. If the coroner proposes to direct any recommendations or comments at individuals or organisations they will be notified and given the opportunity to respond before those recommendations or comments are finalised. There has also been discussion on whether there should be a mandatory requirement for organisations to formally respond to the coroner about any recommendations directed at them. This is not proposed in the bill. Many organisations already respond voluntarily to the coroner and to compel all to do so in every case would place a considerable burden on them particularly for smaller agencies. Once a coroner has issued his or her findings that coroner’s role ends and so they are unable to formally deal with any response. Where organisations do however respond to coroners’ recommendations as often happens the responses will be made publicly available alongside the coroners’ recommendations.The Chief Coroner provides important leadership in the coronial system. The Coroners Act sets out a long list of functions of the Chief Coroner. The bill reprioritises the Chief Coroner’s functions to make it clear which functions have a higher priority gives the Chief Coroner more flexibility to manage coroners’ workloads and establishes a Deputy Chief Coroner position. The bill also encourages the use of practice notes to improve consistency between coroners and emphasises the importance of maintaining good relationships so that the coronial system works effectively. The bill will also allow the Chief Coroner to direct that no further investigation is needed if another authority has already investigated the death and has dealt with the matters a coroner is required to determine. Some aspects of the pathologist’s role are clarified such as the ability to answer questions from the family about the pathologist’s report. There are also some small improvements to the processes for notifying and returning human tissue samples to families. Other improvements will better protect the rights of people whose conduct may be called into question in an inquiry. It requires the coroner to notify them of their right to be represented at the inquest and cross-examine witnesses.Medical deaths can pose a particular difficulty in deciding whether a death should be reported and some of the terms used in the Act such as “operation” “procedure” and “treatment” can be broad and difficult to define. The bill will reduce uncertainty by requiring deaths to be reported only where the death would not have been expected before the operation procedure or treatment commenced. Coroners have adopted a process requiring all overseas deaths to be reported to the coroner if the body is brought back to New Zealand for burial or cremation; however many of these deaths are not suspicious and have been adequately investigated by an overseas authority. The bill makes it clear that such deaths may be reported if the body is in New Zealand and someone has concerns about how the overseas authority responded to the death but that there is no requirement to report the death to the coroner. If a member of the New Zealand Defence Force is killed by enemy action while on operational service overseas a coronial investigation into the death could raise some concerns about the kinds of questions the coroner can ask about military matters. The bill will give the Attorney-General the role of determining whether a coronial inquiry is required and clarify that the scope of the coronial inquiry is on establishing the person’s identity and the cause and circumstances of the death.The current Act restricts the information that can be made public about a self-inflicted death without the authorisation of the coroner. There has been much public discussion about the appropriateness of these reporting restrictions and what impact they have on public understanding of suicide as an issue. The Law Commission undertook a first principles review and recommended a number of changes that are reflected in the bill. The bill restricts making public the method of the death and the place where the death occurred if the place suggests the method unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption. The Chief Coroner will be able to grant an exemption only if satisfied that any risk of copycat suicidal behaviour is small and outweighed by other matters of public interest. The bill prevents anyone from describing a death as a suicide unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption or a coroner has made a finding that the death is suicide. However a death can be reported as a suspected suicide if the facts support that conclusion. The reporting restrictions apply to anyone including individuals using social media or traditional media. However any enforcement is likely to be targeted to the more serious and persistent breaches of the Act.Although many of the changes in the bill are small as I mentioned earlier in the speech they reinforce the public expectations of an effective coronial process which allows deaths to be investigated in a timely and efficient way so that lessons learnt from the death can be addressed quickly and bereaved families can move on with their lives. I commend the bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call on the first reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister for Courts for her summary and explanation as to what this bill hopes to achieve and I would like to indicate upfront that Labour will be supporting this bill. We do think that it makes some sound and necessary changes. The Funeral Directors Association I noticed put out its support very publicly—obviously there are some ties there with the new chief executive keeping a keen eye on what Parliament is doing—and I understand that the association had some input into the review.There are some additional areas though that we would like to see at the Justice and Electoral Committee and if they are within scope—and I am sure we will be asking the Minister that question—perhaps we would like to explore them given that we have the opportunity to look at the way coroners are functioning generally. I want to come to those extra issues at the end of my address but for now just to give a sense of scale I note that in 2012 there were 3286 incoming coronial cases so there are a reasonable number of cases that our coroners have to deal with on an annual basis. Not all cases will lead to inquiries but for those that do we are looking I think at something like at least 1 year on average before the inquiry takes place. They are significant pieces of work so we want to make sure that when they are undertaken there is no duplication that the expectations for our coroners are very clear and that we make the most of the advice that they then produce. So let us see how the Coroners Amendment Bill makes sure that it does that.The bill as the Minister has set out does a couple of things around the way that coroners make recommendations. It will require a coroner’s recommendations or comments to be specific to the case and the evidence before the coroner to be clear about how the recommendations will reduce the likelihood of further deaths in similar circumstances. Making coroners’ reports relevant to family members or relevant to the organisations they affect is of course very important. I would say that many of the reports or inquiries currently probably already do that but being very clear about the need to be focused in that way of course is useful.Also strengthening the requirement for the coroner to consider which individuals or organisations have an interest in the death and ensuring that those individuals or organisations have the opportunity to give evidence I think is particularly important if we are going to ask those organisations to pick up recommendations and particularly if we for instance down the track ask for mandatory responses. Having that natural justice process upfront allowing those organisations to have input will I think lead to a greater likelihood that those findings are then likely to be implemented.What I will be looking for at the select committee however is to ensure that those recommendations do not limit a coroner from making recommendations and findings as a consequence of their review that are relevant from their perspective but that they may consider to be constrained by this Act because of how specific their recommendations need to be. So that is just a general test I think that we should perhaps test at the select committee.We then come on to a few things around process. The bill sets out that it wants to improve the use of practice notes. That suggests that there is some perhaps regional variation in coroners’ reports. I would be interested to see whether any specific issues have raised that concern but I think it is simply just good practice to have that greater sharing. It also suggests that there needs to be clarity of role for pathologists and improved guidance around the retention of human tissue samples. We have seen examples in the past that have caused considerable distress to families and having clarity there is useful.The bill also sets out to better protect the rights of people whose conduct may be called into question in an inquiry by allowing them to be notified and represented. Again that is good natural justice process and if we are going to do anything around the mandatory response to coronial inquiries then good process upfront and applying those natural justice principles means that that will be a fairer process.We then come to duplication of other investigating authorities and making sure that the Chief Coroner has the ability to ensure that no further investigation is needed if another authority has already investigated the death. I will be keen at the select committee to seek some examples of where that duplication has occurred. I would hope that what we are aiming for is that the highest bar is applied.So for instance if we have two authorities investigating a death the one that has the greatest independent mandate where there might be crossover is the one that is undertaking that inquiry. This is just to make sure that we are not losing our oversight by saying simply: “Well it’s already being undertaken by X inquiry and authority and therefore the coroner does not need to be involved.” I think we just need to make sure that we maintain the appropriate standard there. That is something that I will be interested in asking questions on.Then we come to better defining which cases need to be reported to the coroner. There is one provision here that I am particularly interested in. The bill as the explanatory note states removes “the requirement for a mandatory inquest into deaths in official custody or care to provide the coroner with more flexibility particularly when the death is from natural causes and there are no suspicious circumstances”. I think we have to be incredibly careful in this area to make sure that we are not removing from within the coroner’s authority deaths in care where there may be more than meets the eye. It is a question I will ask at the select committee.It may be that this can be dismissed out of hand. But what if for example a death in care—in corrections for instance—is classified as being of a natural cause because an offender has had a heart attack but actually it is found after you look at the circumstances that the offender had been in considerable distress and in confinement for a long period of time? That could be deemed to be natural causes but I would imagine that we would have an interest in ascertaining whether that finding was appropriate. It may be that there is a good explanation as to why it would not fall under coverage but I would be interested to explore that at the select committee. Then there are a number of clauses that cover off deaths overseas which I think are useful as well.There are some changes to suicide reporting. The Law Commission has done considerable work in this area and I think this will be a particular area of interest for the select committee. We have got to make sure that we are making evidence-based decisions in the way that we are guided in both the recording and the reporting of suicide in this country. There has been conflicting evidence in this area. I think that most of this House would agree that we would want to be guided by the evidence and ensure that we are doing right by the general public when we talk about the very sensitive issue of suicide.I come now to the issues that are not included in this bill which I am disappointed by—there is still the opportunity though. In January of this year in fact a study was carried out as to whether or not we could improve the coronial system. It was funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation and carried out by Otago University. The report was released at the beginning of this year and it argued interestingly that this Act was the place where we could make some useful changes. The co-authors stated: “It is disappointing that the current government does not wish to adequately consider whether the lack of mandatory follow-up to coronial recommendations limits coroners’ ability to put preventive principles into practice.”They reviewed coroners’ findings and basically suggested that although roughly 31 percent of recommendations directed to the organisations they interviewed were taken up 20 percent were rejected. But for them it was the fact that there was no mandatory follow-up around those recommendations—no mandatory requirement for response. They also said that making some of the changes in this bill first would be a very good thing so I applaud the Government for doing that.They also said that we need to make access to coronial inquiries easier to find. But ultimately if we are going to make sure that the coroners’ work is put to use then requiring a mandatory response seems like an absolute no-brainer. In fact it was supported by the Chief Coroner. Back in 2012 the Chief Coroner at the time said that he would like it to become mandatory for coroners’ recommendations to be responded to—not implemented but simply responded to. Why would we not? I would really like to hear arguments from any side of the House as to why that is a bad idea.I will just give a quick example Rotorua coroner Dr Wallace Bain told the Rotorua Daily Post that if his recommendations after a Taupō jet-ski accident that resulted in the death of Genevieve Lewis had been followed teenager Bishop Thompson who died after a jet-ski accident would be alive today. Surely we would want to make better use of all that work and all that time—up to a year per inquiry. Something like $16 million I think goes to our coroners. Surely we could make better use of that.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I will move straight to the matter raised by the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern around the mandatory response to coroners’ recommendations. Before I do that I want to thank the Labour Opposition for its intention to support this bill. I think indeed that this is an important bill that builds on the Coroners Act 2006.To address the member’s question around mandatory responses to coroners’ recommendations—and I believe this is something that we will have a pretty good look at in the Justice and Electoral Committee—my response and the Government’s initial response to that query is that it sounds good on the face of it and of course heed should be taken of the coroners’ recommendations because after all the coroner is charged with considering all aspects of his or her inquiry but to make a response mandatory in the first instance will require a significant amount of time and a significant amount of resources particularly for smaller organisations. It may be that in a particular instance of an inquest an organisation might not have a direct interest or need to respond and so that mandatory requirement might have a bit of a perverse effect in that it ties up a number of smaller organisations with responding to a matter that is not necessarily of direct concern to them. One would expect that those organisations and groups and agencies that do have a direct interest in that particular coronial inquest would no doubt be responding anyway because it is in everybody’s interests for them to do so.The other point I would make around mandatory responses to coroners’ recommendations is that perhaps it is more beneficial that we are moving towards the inclusion—and it is contained in this bill—of those relevant individuals and organisations early on in the process of the inquest and the investigation itself. So it is a matter of bringing those interested parties on board in the process so that when the recommendations are made those parties that have a view or a response to make are brought inside as part of that report. Having said that the previous speaker raised a valid point—and it is one that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be considering during its consideration on this bill.The whole purpose of this bill is to make more timely and more efficient coronial decisions in what are in anybody’s terms very very difficult situations for grieving families. That will be at the forefront of the consideration of all members of the select committee and all members of this Parliament when we come back to debate it throughout the course of its passage. It is a fact that the average coronial inquest takes around 400 days. That is over a year for the grieving family and friends and those involved to have the matter still unresolved for them both on a personal level and also if it involves perhaps an air accident or some other form of mishap or misadventure there may well be consequential legislative or regulatory changes that the Government may need to look at as a consequence of that death. Expediting an inquest has got to be for the benefit of all New Zealanders not only those who were involved and who have sadly passed away but also those who may be impacted and affected in the future. Even more disturbingly perhaps with an inquest that is a little more complicated and involves other agencies such as perhaps the Air Accidents Investigation Commission there might be multi-agencies involved in an inquest and that can take up to 700 days which is a couple of years. That is too long for a family to wait for closure and resolution.There will be families out there today perhaps taking an interest in this debate. I know there are people with many many personal stories who will come and speak to us and I welcome those people. This matters to them so for those people who are listening or watching the debate today this Parliament is determined—and I do hope we enjoy the support of the rest of the House—to speed up the process to make it more relevant to those people with a personal interest and also to those Government agencies and other sectors of New Zealand that will have an interest in the result of inquiries.One of the bill’s main provisions is to require a coroner’s recommendations to be more specific to the actual case that they are considering and the evidence before the coroner and to be clear about how the recommendations would reduce the likelihood of future deaths in similar circumstances—so maybe tightening up the criteria around what the coroner is reporting. The bill will give the chief coroner better tools to improve timeliness and I have already made reference to that. One such tool—and I think it is a very good provision—is a requirement to monitor the progress of older cases. I would not like to think that due to perhaps caseload management there are older cases waiting for resolution because these are not just cases; these are inquests into the deaths of people. So we want a sharper focus on providing resolution for those.I want to acknowledge the input of a number of organisations into the drafting of this bill. The Law Commission of course—let me just go through my notes because we met with the Law Commission this morning and it made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee and it made reference to its work on this bill. The commission made 17 recommendations to the Government on coroners’ inquests and the Government fully accepts 14 proposals for changing the Coroners Act and generally accepts three further recommendations about developing reporting standards around inquests. I want to acknowledge the Law Commission for its work on this but also other organisations. The Funeral Directors Association of New Zealand is a relatively small association and it has a new chief executive who was mentioned by the previous speaker and that is the former MP Katrina Shanks. Katrina Shanks as its new chief executive has made an absolute focus of the care of families at the time of death but in particular in this instance the care of families in times of sudden death unexplained death or suicide.In the couple of moments I have left I just want to talk about suicide and the suicide of young people. I want to talk about a meeting I attended in Alexandra and there was another one in Kurow and another one in Ōāmaru. I am describing my electorate but this happens throughout New Zealand. At the meetings groups of parents and educators are getting together to discuss youth suicide. In those meetings that I attended late last year Mike King came along and spoke of his experience of depression and the prevention of youth suicide. At each of those meetings the town halls were absolutely full of concerned parents and concerned children. Youth suicide suicide and suicide reporting are a critical part of this bill. There will be new regulation around suicide reporting. We do not want copycat suicides through misreporting to continue in New Zealand. It is a concern that has been raised in many quarters.I look forward to the examination of this bill. I look forward to working collegially with members across the House and on to the second reading and the Committee stage.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau):Tēnā koe kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take this call. Seeing as this is the first time I am speaking in the House in 2015 can I echo the sentiments heaped upon yourself and your colleagues and wish you and indeed all of us in the House a happy New Year and a prosperous New Year.It is my pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has mentioned the Labour Party’s support for this bill and its proceeding on to the select committee. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the former Chief Coroner for his hard work in steering the coroner’s office since 2006. We understand that recently the former Chief Coroner has moved on and we wish him all the best in his work in the field of ACC. Can I also in that vein—I am sorry that was Judge Neil MacLean. Can I also in that vein congratulate the Labour Government and Helen Clark in particular in 2006 who allowed for the Coroners Bill to enter into this House set up the coroner’s office and of course Judge MacLean was the first Chief Coroner appointed to that office. I would just like to take the time to highlight that fact.Of course we move on to the amendment bill we are discussing here today. I have already mentioned that we support this bill moving on to the select committee deliberations. I want to point out some things within the bill especially around some of the amendments that are being proposed strengthening the coroner’s recommendations.I am reminded of other such arbitrary groups or tribunals such as the Waitangi Tribunal whose recommendations although well researched and well founded often fall on deaf ears. We know that that particular tribunal is often considered to be a toothless lion and I would hate to see the same happen to the coroner’s office. I would hate to see that the important recommendations the coroners make after their inquiries fall on deaf ears.I want to highlight a particular case if I can—a recent case of two young people who passed away sadly following inhaling butane. They were a 19-year-old and a 12-year-old. One of the recommendations of the coroner’s office was: “determining whether there needs to be support for Māori communities to develop their own solutions to the problems of the abuse of butane and other volatile substances”. This is because statistics show that 30 out of the 63 butane-related deaths between 2000 and 2012 were people of Māori ethnicity. I am not too sure whether or not that recommendation was taken seriously but I would like to think that these types of amendments will allow for those recommendations to have some real teeth so that we can stop the sad and tragic cases around the inhaling of volatile substances that I have just pointed out. That is just one particular case.I support the amendments being proposed to strengthen the recommendations of the coroner but I think they just do not go quite far enough. I look forward to hearing some of the submissions from interested parties at the select committee because I feel that these particular amendments just stop before the try line. We want to see that the recommendations gain a bit more mana.We want to see that the proposed streamlined processing and administration of particular inquiries in the coroner’s office puts people and families at the forefront of its thoughts. I raise that point because of having had experience with such tragic cases. Sadly a lot of Māori tūpāpaku—or loved ones who have passed on—end up travelling very far distances for an autopsy. If for instance they pass away in Kaitāia too often the tūpāpaku is sent to Auckland. What needs to be done is done there. By the time the tūpāpaku makes its way home 2 days have passed. In Māori terms and in tikanga—in our custom—that is not a very good thing. So when we make recommendations—and the recommendations made in the Coroners Amendment Bill—I would like to think that people loved ones and pragmatism are put to the forefront of all submissions put forward on the amendment bill.I want to carry on around the proposed improvement of the coronial system. The coroner’s office is already extremely overworked. I say this from some indirect experience; the coroner for the far north is a relative of mine and discussions with him point out that he is extremely overworked. He points out to me also that there are many cases that are just sitting gathering dust in particular places in his office because he is overworked at this point in time. So I would like to think that the proposed amendments in the Coroners Amendment Bill will allow for not just a streamlined process but for more resourcing—more resourcing to allow a streamlined process of the coroner’s office and the important work that they do. The hope is that the recommendations will indeed ease the workload as I have already spoken about and will also provide the tools to the coroner and to the coroner’s office. We have heard some kōrero some discussion already on this bill from the previous two speakers around pragmatic solutions.I want to pick up the case around self-inflicted deaths. We do know that there needs to be responsibility around the open publication of the way that people who sadly suffer that fate pass away for fear that others may copy the person who has passed away. I support that but I wonder whether much thought was given to particular cases in the far north in particular at Kamo High School where there was a suicide ring or a suicide pact. No form of silencing through non-publication of self-inflicted deaths will stop the types of ring and pact mentality that sadly afflict our youth today when we talk of self-inflicted deaths. I wonder whether there could be any more thought or recommendations—and I look forward to submissions—concerning those particular instances because it is not just about the publication of names; it is about dealing with the issue itself.I look forward to hearing submissions on this particular amendment bill not just from interested organisations but I would encourage families who have experienced the coronial process in the past to come forward and share their experiences in the hope that it can best inform the amendments that are being proposed in this bill. I have already mentioned that we the Labour Party are supporting this amendment bill moving forward and going into the select committee of which I am a member. I look forward to hearing those submissions and thank you for your time. Tēnā tātou katoa.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui):I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill. With a change of roles it is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House this term and I am pleased it is on this bill having previously had some responsibility for the bill in another role. The bill seeks to correct some anomalies and to fix some concerns that have been identified in recent times.I want to start with one in particular. People will remember the Iraena Asher investigation from Pīhā Beach a number of years ago. The result of that coronial inquiry has thrown up some anomalies and some unfairness around some people who were involved in respect of that case. This bill seeks to make a change in respect of that. I am speaking specifically around the coronial inquest. Some negative comment was made by the coroner in respect of a witness on the night—someone who sought to give assistance to Ms Asher and that was Bobbie Carroll.What happened was that the coroner made some comment around the ramifications of actions that Ms Carroll took and speculated on what could have happened if other actions had been taken. In the end of course the Chief Coroner came to a position where we needed to change this law to make sure that if any comment was going to be made that might negatively impact on a witness or someone who had previously appeared or had some connection with a case then the coroner must identify what those comments are and make them known to that person before they are released publicly and give that person the opportunity to be able to speak on them.I know that this has been a terrible concern for that particular family and for Ms Carroll particularly her partner and the people who supported her. It is unfortunate that no apology has ever been given. For instance she was not given the opportunity to be represented or advised of her opportunity to be represented at the inquest or that comments were going to be made and the effect that that would have. So I would like to state here and have it recorded in Hansard that as a former Minister for Courts with responsibility for coroners I am sorry that that was not done and that those comments and those errors were made and I am pleased to see that there has been some attempt to rectify that now.I would also like to talk about suicide and the provisions around suicide reporting. The fact is that New Zealand has a terrible record in respect of suicide. About 500 people take their own lives each year. We know a lot about the statistics and we know very very little about the whys. We raise a lot of questions about suicide and have not necessarily sought answers hard enough although there is some good work going on at the moment at the behest of the Prime Minister and his Chief Science Adviser to find out more of the answers to the questions we have around suicide. For instance we know that of the 500-plus suicides a year about 100 of them are Māori which is four times the number of Pacific Islanders who take their own lives but we have no understanding of why that might be. We know for instance that about one in five is under the age of 25 and our youth suicide statistics in this country are among the worst if not the worst in the Western World. We have no understanding really as to why in this country that we take huge pride in that should be the case. We also do not necessarily understand why for instance those people in the lowest decile are just as represented as those people in the highest decile when it comes to income and social deprivation indexes—why they are equally represented. In fact we know very very little.When it comes to an investigation around suicide the cause of death which is what the coroner is chiefly charged with establishing is frequently blatantly obvious and having attended probably 100 suicides and several hundred sudden deaths I suppose I speak with some experience sadly in that respect. But to do some sort of psychological autopsy on what the contributing factors were—what was weighing on the mind of that person who took their life at the time they did the various stresses and strains that come upon somebody that drives them to the conclusion that those whom they love would be better off without them there is something we know very little about.I would like to see us as a community have a very broad discussion around suicide and its causes. I would also like to see authorities take a lead in implementing what has come to be known as a psychological autopsy into the issues that were weighing on the mind of the person who went on to take their life.I would also like to pay respect to Sir Grant Hammond who was the member of the Law Commission who worked on this the most and gave us advice on the reporting of suicide. We have had law around the reporting of suicide for some time. It has prevented what would most be of interest and helpful not only to professionals but also to the public in the investigation and the understanding of suicide. They have been prevented from being able to do that. Then there have been breaches that have been unable to be constrained as well. The previous speaker Peeni Henare made the point for instance that social media took over and breached all the laws around the publication of matters around suicide. Mainstream media which would have had some sort of integrity and credibility and could have been the vehicle for getting some facts out into the public domain were prevented from doing so under threat of prosecution. So the advice that Sir Grant Hammond has given has been very very helpful.I would also like to pay respects to a group of young South Taranaki people who have recently over the last week ridden the length of the South Island and raised $150000 towards supporting people affected by suicide. This came out of a South Taranaki situation. One of the women Nicola Symes who is very involved in the arrangement of that event lived in a community called Manutahi and within her own family was affected by the suicide of close relatives including her husband. She then grasped the nettle and raised the awareness. In this small community within a 5-year period there were about six different suicides of people mainly from the farming community. You can imagine then that within this small community which incorporates only about 50 different farms it had a huge effect on the local community.There has been some discussion around recommendations and whether or not there should be mandatory responses. I have to say that this is something that we thought about long and hard. The problem was that various coroners have differing results differing recommendations from similar deaths and those recommendations frequently conflicted. If one looked for instance at the recommendations made around cycling deaths or around quad bike deaths they conflict with each other quite frequently and often the coroners making those reports went far beyond the facts surrounding the particular death that they were investigating.I have to say that and I know time is short my main theme around this particular bill and what needs to happen in respect of coroners’ matters in the future is that we need to sort out the relationships. There has been an almost toxic relationship between coroners and pathologists over the years. There has been some strife between coroners and police—the ability for coroners for instance to direct the police to make inquiries which ran in conflict with the duties of the police to prosecute matters for instance. So effectively you had members of the judiciary being able to instruct the police to make inquiries but members of the executive such as the Minister of Police could not instruct the police to do absolutely anything.In the end though what we need to remember is this. All of us whether we be community members or people who have had a close association with these matters—such as myself as a police officer then as a lawyer and over that time as a funeral celebrant and then recently as a member of Parliament and a Minister with some sort of responsibility—need to remember this: who do we work for? We work for the public of New Zealand. They are the customers. Anything we can do to assist them in dealing with the tragedies that they are confronted with has to be good and it is incumbent on us to do all we can. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I would have to say that I am genuinely looking forward to the debate on this bill. I think it is an important bill. It is challenging. It will cover some very sensitive topics and I think there is some space for controversy within some of the proposed provisions in this. Having said that I would hope that we are able to avoid a political contest over this bill. Yes I think we should politicise things like taxes but death I think we should endeavour to simply come to the best outcome and put our evidence-based hats on our serious debating hats. I have to say that I am reassured by the quality of some of the contributions we have heard already from Jacqui Dean from Mr Borrows from my whanaunga Peeni Henare. People are engaging at a very serious level with this and that is a very positive beginning I think to this piece of legislation.I think there is a popular view that coroners are people who are to be found in morgues wearing white coats and waving scalpels about. I think that is due to the influence of television programmes and the like. That is completely false of course. The Chief Coroner is a District Court judge. The coroners are all typically lawyers or have some legal training. And their task of course is to discover the cause and circumstances of sudden or unexplained deaths with a key focus on seeking to prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of similar deaths occurring be they by accident or by whatever means that the death occurred.In just doing some background reading about this stuff it seems that the Budget of the coronial service is rather modest and this might reflect the comments we heard about the Kaitāia coroner and his or her difficulty in meeting the workload demands. The last figure I saw was something to the tune of $17 million. About half of that was devoted to paying for specialty services pathological services lab tests—those sorts of things. So it seems it is a service that may be under some financial pressure and no doubt that is something we will hear about in the submissions if that be the case. I do not think I have ever made the point actually that the Greens are intending to support this legislation; just to put that out there.What we are amending is legislation that is not particularly old. It was from 2006. It saw a fairly major overhaul of the coronial services and the establishment of the Office of the Chief Coroner. The intention and the purpose of that change at that time were to streamline services. It created a network of full-time coroners with legal qualifications whereas I understand that earlier there were perhaps more people. It was a sort of a hodgepodge of part-time positions or part-time services which were found to be unsatisfactory. So it is fair to say I think that 8 years down the track we are looking at the outcome and clearly the results—or the anecdotal evidence at least which is presented in the regulatory impact statement—would indicate that the system is still far from perfect.Some of the perceived problems have been touched on already. Particularly in procedural delays processes that are not delivering swift resolution is obviously significant and very damaging potentially when it is around issues of the return of bodies. Allowing families to reclaim their loved ones after their sudden deaths is enough stress enough grief without the clumsy legal processes layering another level of concern and stress on to that. So I think we need to bend our minds to anything we can do to resolve those procedural and process issues and make some significant effort to ensure we are streamlining the processes to the extent that we can. I think the point has already been made—and again this is evidence or at least anecdotal evidence as presented in the regulatory impact statement—about the overlap of jurisdiction about the lack of clarity about who is in charge about who can do what and about who should be doing what and these are things that are amenable to improvement I am sure. Clearly as I said where we have these procedural and process bottlenecks or imperfections that creates not only financial cost but significant social cost as well and we need to do as much as we can to remedy that. None of these things look to be straightforward but some as I say are amenable to attention to the more mechanistic aspects of the Act—just trying to make it work better.I think that where the real controversy will kick in—in my assessment anyway—is around two provisions of the Act. One of those is changing the requirements around deaths in custody and the other one of course is around the issue of suicides. In terms of deaths in custody I guess the primary change as discussed in the explanatory note is in “removing the requirement for a mandatory inquest into deaths in official custody or care to provide the coroner with more flexibility particularly when the death is from natural causes and there are no suspicious circumstances (however the corner would still be required to hold an inquiry):”. Putting aside for a minute the difference between an inquest and inquiry—it is a key difference of course in the matter of holding a hearing—we have had recent examples of significant concern challenges and quite high-profile cases around deaths in custody where there has been considerable unhappiness about the results the findings and the outcomes of those deaths. I am not going to comment on specific cases because I am aware that some of them are still either in some sort of legal process now or there will potentially be legal issues arising around them. In general terms I think it is fair to say that deaths in custody have been seriously challenged as to liability and the circumstances leading up to a death.I think part of the problem there—and I perceive it as a problem; others may not—is the fact that in medical services within our prisons the people providing those services are employees of the Department of Corrections. I advocate very strongly that there ought to be an independent organisation be it a district health board or whatever that provides medical and health services in our prisons simply to draw that bright line between a focus on containment if you like and that on delivery of health services. I think some of that has come through in the controversy around some of the more recent high-profile deaths in custody. It is not only prisons of course; it is people detained under alcohol and drug addiction legislation young people who are kept in residences mental health detainees people in police custody and people in custody of security officers while being transported. There is a raft of situations where people in custody have passed away and often in circumstances that are obviously unnatural. But I am sure there will be unease about this change from a mandatory inquest to simply an inquiry. It is something that I think we need to investigate and invite submissions about and to look very hard at the costs and benefits of.The other issue of course is around suicides. I think I entirely understand what the legislation seeks to do and that is to manage the reporting of suicides to take away the opportunity for these things to be sensationalised and to try to manage the risk of copycat suicides particularly with young people. So on that side there are very sound arguments which I generally agree with to control the release of information about suicides.Alongside that and not necessarily in conflict with it though is an advocacy for actually talking more about suicide particularly with young people. I have been involved around the margins with groups in Northland—Riders Against Teenage Suicide is one of them. We discovered that a bunch of people on noisy shiny motorcycles coming into a town attracts the attention of young people and that they open their ears. I will just acknowledge Arthur Harawira who has been driving some of that having suffered a tragedy in his own life around this and who is passionate about trying to ensure that our young people do not see suicide as an option. We can only do that by talking to them and by very carefully managing situations to endeavour to get that plague of suicides out of our communities and out of our young people not least of all in Northland where there is a very serious problem. That has already been mentioned. So I think we will have to carefully manage that to ensure that people do not perceive that by endeavouring to manage better the reporting of suicides and events around suicides we are trying to shut down the debate. I look forward to this ongoing debate. We will support this legislation.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support the Coroners Amendment Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The work of coroners is often underrated but it is very important work. The Coroners Act 2006 has gone a long way to modernise and improve the service and this amendment will hopefully deal with some of the remaining issues.Strengthening coroners’ recommendations is covered in new section 57A. New subsection (1) reconfirms that a coroner can make comments or recommendations during the course of an inquiry or as part of the findings. New subsection (2) says: “Recommendations or comments may be made only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred.” New subsection (3) would impose further restrictions on recommendations or comments especially in paragraph (c) which requires an explanation of how the recommendations or comments may result in a reduction in deaths.These two subsections will require some very careful consideration by the select committee. I have some concerns that new subsection (2) is in fact too restrictive. I accept that there is a need for coroners to have clear limits on how far a coroner may go with recommendations or comments but the words “only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar” will I think cause rather too much limitation on what a coroner may legally comment on.An example I would give is the 118 people killed in the CTV Building in the Christchurch earthquake. The cause of that was clearly the earthquake itself but the building failure and also the command failures and rescue methodologies during the rescue phase also caused significant concerns and there were allegations made that deaths resulted from those. So it should I think be possible for a coroner to have a little more freedom to discover and comment on or recommend on those kinds of issues. Whether or not fewer deaths may result in similar events is not really all that important. So those are words that we should I think take another look at otherwise we might end up with an Act that does less than we need it to do.That amendment may in fact remove a coroner’s ability to comment and make recommendations on matters that are of great importance thus creating a gap in the system. So I will likely be seeking some amendment or at least some robust discussion in the committee. I would ask that Amy Adams and Jacqui Dean having heard their comments take another look at it and perhaps think about it again.Overall I seek a better coronial authority to comment and recommend rather than less authority to do so. The CTV building disaster also needed a commission of inquiry of course but the coronial and commission inquiries could both have been much more valuable in dealing with the many complex causative issues involved. There was much overlap between causes of building failure and of deaths caused potentially by rescue efforts and so on. So we must be very careful not to be too restrictive as far as coronial inquiries are concerned.There are many people in Christchurch like me who are deeply concerned about the lack of clear findings in that case of cause of who contributed and about accountability. There was so much illegality and so much negligence that it deserves thorough and robust inquiry wherever we can get it and that includes in the coronial system. We have seen far too few of those responsible identified and brought to book. This Government seems to be more interested in sweeping it all under the carpet instead of ensuring that its agencies have ensured full accountability.Regarding new sections 59 and 59A I see no particular issues at this stage with these. New section 59A prevents a coronial inquiry into the death of a member of the Defence Force only if it was caused by hostile action. So deaths such as those in the recent RNZAF Anzac Day helicopter crash would still be subject to coronial inquiry and that is appropriate. There was a lot of confusion in that case about who was responsible to investigate what as some of us will remember.Regarding new section 60 I agree with David Clendon. It must be mandatory for a death from any cause in official custody or care to have a coronial inquiry. New section 14(3)(c)(i) will include in the definition of a person in official custody or care a child or young person who has been placed in custody or care under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. It is essential that deaths in these circumstances always be subject to coronial inquiry for what I think are obvious reasons. The avoidability of the deaths of babies can too often be hidden issues needing full investigation even if the death was regarded as resulting from natural causes. This is also something that I think we need to look at and discuss thoroughly at the select committee stage.New section 71 is very welcome and necessary. It says that if a death is self-inflicted or there is reasonable cause to suspect that the death was self-inflicted no person may make public the method or any suspected method of the death or the place where the death occurred if the place suggests the method or any suspected method of the death or a description of the death as a suicide. There are exemptions provided for. The Chief Coroner may grant an exemption only if the Chief Coroner is satisfied that granting exemption does not present an undue risk that other people will attempt to copy the behaviour and that any risk that people will attempt to copy the behaviour of the dead person concerned is outweighed by other considerations that make it desirable in the public interest to allow the publication of the details.I also note with approval the new section 116A establishing a suicide and media panel to advise a coroner on applications for those exemptions. These are important matters. On the one hand it is important not to unduly restrict the media’s freedom to report but it is also essential that the reporting of suicides will not encourage copycat attempts by other people. So these new sections appear to provide for what I think is an appropriate balance and on behalf of New Zealand First I say we are very happy with those new provisions regarding section 71 and suicide.I look forward to further discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I have identified some matters—some very important matters—that I particularly wish to investigate and hopefully as a result of that discussion there can be further amendment of the bill. If so New Zealand First will then be happy to support it further.JONO NAYLOR (National):It has been just great so far to hear the various things that have been said around this room and the level of support there is from right across the House for this Coroners Amendment Bill to move to the next stage. I think it is critical for us that we do support bills like this because as Mr Clendon said earlier when it comes to talking about death when it comes to talking about the effects of death on families and on the general population of our country I think it is beholden on all of us to take a really mature approach to it to take a very broad approach to it and to really just ensure that what we do absolutely serves those people because that is what we are here to do: to serve the people of New Zealand to serve families who have suffered trauma who have suffered grief and to make sure that we get processes like this right.Before talking about the bill specifically can I also just acknowledge the work that is done by our coroners around New Zealand. It is not a task I do not think that anyone would actually get a whole lot of pleasure from when you have to investigate and probe and look into sudden or unexplained deaths. You are dealing with very important matters. You are dealing with grief. You are dealing with the feelings of families who have been affected by it and often you are dealing with really quite unpleasant details as well. I think those people who—I guess we all have to do different things in our jobs but being a coroner I do not imagine has too much upside at the end of the day other than knowing that you are going to bring some level of resolution and perhaps some closure for people and perhaps prevent deaths in the future. But I do just want to acknowledge the great work that is done by those people in serving our country in the way they do in that regard.Yesterday we spoke to the Judicature Modernisation Bill which was substantially bigger than the one that is before us and so it was quite nice to see that we had 36 pages to get through today rather than the 1226 we had yesterday. I think the thing we have to take into mind as well is that actually this bill is equally as important as part of the ongoing process of this Government to improve our judicial processes to ensure that they are more efficient that they are working better and that we are putting victims whether it be victims of criminal acts or simply people who are suffering grief through sudden loss at the centre of what we are doing.That is very much what this Government is committed to doing. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those people are at the forefront; that we are not just devising processes that suit the professionals who are involved and that we are not just devising processes that suit any kinds of administrative tasks or other people involved in the process but that we are in fact putting those people who are most adversely affected by these events at the centre of our process.So it is really encouraging to see that in this bill we are aiming to streamline the processes for families and for those people. It was for me a little bit disturbing when I was reading through it to discover that actually often coroners’ cases that involve an inquest or hearing take over 400 days to complete on average. I know that there is a lot involved but if you are grieving and you are looking for some answers as to the exact reasons why you have lost a loved one well 400 days or perhaps 700 days if a further investigation is required is an awfully long time to get some answers.I believe we owe it to those people to improve these processes and that is what this bill sets out to do. I think we need to ensure that those people who have suffered that level of loss can in an appropriate manner and at an appropriate time receive the closure they need. And if there is an outstanding coroner’s inquiry if there is an outstanding inquest then no matter how much you may have emotionally moved on there will always be a part that is left open. It is difficult I think for people to have complete closure on that sudden loss of a loved one until that process is completed. So as I said it is great to see that we are going to be speeding up those processes; that for the sake of those families who are involved we are going to be speeding that up.A number of people have also already talked about this but I want to touch on the issue of the suicide reporting provisions within this bill. I have had the privilege in some respects of working with young people for a lot of my working career. At times that has involved working with teenagers in particular who have either attempted suicide or are planning to or are at different stages of a depressive state of affairs. I have sometimes had to deal with the aftermath of events like that as well and I think it is really important that we ensure we keep the young people of our country as safe as possible.Over time we have had the suicide prevention strategy in place which is I think a really great piece of work. It is ensuring that we try to work towards keeping our younger people safe—and not just younger people I might add—as we go through. That strategy has a number of goals whether they are to promote mental health and well-being improve the care of people who are experiencing mental disorders or reduce access to means of suicide. There are a number of things but in particular the strategy says we should promote the safe reporting and portrayal of suicidal behaviour by the media.We know that it has been proven that actually if these things are talked about inappropriately in the media it can lead to copycat-type behaviour from young people. It can lead to at times glorifying the act of suicide. We need to ensure that that never ever happens. So I think it is important that we ensure there are appropriate provisions in place. I think it is great that we are not just including conventional media in this but actually in this day and age of social media where things can spread so quickly where there is a medium by which young people—I keep picking on young people and I should not I know. People within society spread information so so quickly that it is important we capture those social media mediums as well to ensure that we are not advocating for or allowing the glorification of copycat-type suicides.I think though that it is really important when we have all been talking about the importance of not portraying it inappropriately in the media that we do not also then send out the message that it is not OK to talk about suicide. I think we need to stress that although it is at times not beneficial to put too much information out there in that regard it is important that we do talk openly about depression that we do talk openly about mental illness and that we do ensure that people are keeping themselves safe. We are not looking to clamp down on people talking about those things; we just want to ensure that media whether it be social media or conventional media are not talking about the events of somebody’s death in an inappropriate way that may lead to further harm being caused.I just want to touch finally on the fact that I am encouraged by the level of input that has been sought already on this bill. It has been great to see that coroners have been spoken to. It is great to hear that the Funeral Directors Association—there is a group that clearly has to deal with death all of the time as coroners do. Families have already been listened to as this bill has been drafted. I am sure that as we take this bill through to the next stage as we take it through to the select committee we will hear from those people again and they will be able to give us perhaps some insight to fine-tune this in some ways to ensure that we really are putting forward the best legislation we can.I am certainly glad that I am going to be a part of that process as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am looking forward to hearing those views and looking forward to ensuring that the kind of legislation we are putting forward as I have said is going to put families particularly grieving and struggling families at the middle of our thoughts and our processes. I commend this bill to go to the next stage. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Eugenie Sage.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Coroners Amendment Bill. As the Minister has noted the aims of the bill are to improve the accountability and transparency of the coronial system and its efficiency and timeliness. As David Clendon has noted we endorse the bill and will be supporting it. It is important to put families at the centre of the coronial system and some of the changes will help do that.It is really important to safeguard the independence of coroners and as other speakers have noted we also want to ensure that they are adequately resourced. The coronial system has dealt with some major inquiries: the Pike River mine disaster the Christchurch earthquakes and the collapse of the CTV Building and it has done that on a limited budget of $17 million annually. Improving efficiency and timeliness may have more to do with increasing resources rather than changing the law.The issue around the independence of coroners is important. They act in different ways and it is important that the public can be confident in their impartiality and independence. We welcome the provisions in the bill that improve the transparency around the appointment process and around dealing with conflicts of interest. Submissions on those provisions that seek to clarify the coroner’s role and claim to reduce the duplication with other agencies will be very important to determine whether there has been any attempt to just by the way the law is drafted constrain the independence of coroners.We are very interested in submissions because as the regulatory impact statement noted the bill has been prepared after consultation with key stakeholders but not with full public consultation which the department said would have been desirable and that was not done because of the time frames that the Minister imposed.In the brief time remaining I would like to comment on the provisions around suicide reporting. There are over 500 self-inflicted deaths in New Zealand each year which is far higher than the road toll. All of those deaths are desperately sad for families and friends. Most escape public notice but some do attract significant media attention. New Zealand is quite unique in the way it deals with reporting self-inflicted deaths. We are the only country that uses the law to restrict reporting and for more than 50 years our law has had restrictions on reporting the method of self-inflicted deaths. There is certainly no restriction on the reporting of the problem of suicide in general and I endorse the comments of Jono Naylor that there is sometimes a bit of confusion there and there is certainly no restriction on that.The whole issue of constraining the reporting on the method of death has been because of a desire to avoid an inquest by media before the coroner in his or her judicial role has been able to rule on the cause of death and because there has been a number of studies as the Law Commission noted that show that reporting the method of a suicide has significant imitative effect on subsequent suicides especially when the victim is a celebrity and when people identify with the age and sex of the victim. It is particularly young people and people experiencing depression who are vulnerable here.Those restrictions have a strong purpose in preventing social harm but there has been a widespread recognition through the review that the ministry did in 2012 and the very insightful report of the Law Commission that the current law is not working or is working inadequately. There is uncertainty about the meaning of the law. It is uneven in its application. It does not apply to deaths overseas but it does apply in New Zealand and because of social media and changes in technology there has not been a lot of compliance with the existing law. So it is very timely that we have this bill and we in the Green Party will be very interested in submissions as to whether the way it is drafted actually improves the situation and gives more clarity around the restrictions on media publishing the details of the method of death. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):It is a pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this particular bill. I would like to use this time to do three things. Firstly I want to talk a little bit about the aims of the bill. Then I would like to look at a couple of aspects that I hope the Justice and Electoral Committee will take particular note of and that I believe some robust submissions will come through on.Firstly it is important to note that for families who go through the coronial process one of the aims of course is to improve the quality consistency and timeliness of the coronial investigations and decision making. For those families as has already been expressed in the House this afternoon it is really important that the investigations are conducted well that the issues come out in debate and that families are not having to extend the time that they grieve for their loves ones and are allowed appropriate time for the grieving process to occur.The second aim of this bill of course is to clarify the role of the coroners to identify any areas where there might be a duplication of services and to ensure that they have got the adequate resources to appoint and involve those people who are important in the investigation—maybe pathologists; it could be requiring information from the deceased person’s own health practitioner—to ensure that there is robust health information available during the process. Thirdly it is about clarifying the role of coroners in making recommendations to prevent future deaths. I will talk a little bit more fully about this later when I talk about what I hope the select committee process will engage in. Lastly it is about ensuring that resources are effectively used. Here I want to pick up on the comments that have already been made about how the resources should also include adequate funding to ensure the timeliness of coronial investigations.What is important of course is that this bill aims to ensure we recognise that the cultural and spiritual needs of the family and others who are close in relationship to the deceased person are fully taken on board and that public good associated with the proper and timely understanding of the causes and circumstances of the death is understood.Further to that this bill really wants to ensure that recommendations and comments are drawn to the public attention so that they may reduce further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those that have occurred. So this bill adds clarity to the function of the Chief Coroner to the effectiveness of the coronial system in managing and overseeing the workloads and the processes that are engaged and additional to that to supporting coroners and pathologists and others to provide effective coronial services.The bill also establishes a process to report overseas deaths if there is some ambiguity or doubt as to the accuracy of the conclusions reached regarding that death. Here I also want to make just two comments about what I hope the select committee process will investigate further. We have already spoken a lot about the sensitive nature of suicide and the reporting of such I know has already been explored. But I want to make just one comment about the coroners’ concerns that they raised that their reporting and recommendations potentially do not have the ability to be acted upon. Here I want to comment on the work of a colleague of mine Darien Fenton the work that she did with families of forestry workers. She did significant work with those families in trying to establish appropriate reporting so that these deaths did not occur in the future. Thank you.CHRIS BISHOP (National):It is a pleasure to take a call on this very important bill. It is my first contribution on a justice matter in the House. Can I say it is a very exciting time although quite a sobering piece of legislation. But it is a very important piece of legislation and it is good to see from listening to the debate which I have been doing that it largely has the widespread support of the House I think at first reading because it is important that we discuss the matters at select committee contained within it. I want to limit my remarks a little bit to the suicide reporting measures contained in the bill. This has obviously been a vexed issue in New Zealand society—the issue of the appropriate limits that are placed on the news media in reporting on suicides or self-inflicted deaths. It has obviously been a vexed issue in New Zealand for many years. In some ways the two extremes in the debate can be summed up as this. One side says “Publish everything.” I guess that is the pure libertarian view—that there should be no restrictions placed on the reporting by the news media of suicide or of self-inflicted deaths and that we should have total freedom of speech. Allied to that are arguments about the educative or therapeutic nature of that reporting. Then of course there is a very strong counterargument to that which is that the harm that arises from the reporting of suicides through contagion effect and through copycat suicides outweighs the freedom of speech for media to report that.Working through those two conflicting arguments is obviously difficult and challenging but necessary and I think it was appropriate that the Minister of Justice and the Government referred this issue to the Law Commission because the Law Commission in my view is the appropriate body to work through a sensitive and difficult issue where there are two competing viewpoints and come to some sort of recommendation. I think it is the right body. It is interesting just to note that New Zealand is actually the only jurisdiction—or one of the only jurisdictions in the world—that uses legislative force to prohibit the reporting of suicides. Every other country that the Law Commission could find uses a mixture of education and voluntary guidelines. I for one find that interesting but I do not necessarily think it means it is wrong. It just means that New Zealand uses a slightly different mechanism to say other countries.I think there is widespread acknowledgment that the status quo is not working and that the current measures in the Coroners Act 2006 have been proven to need improvement. The Law Commission in its report outlines a range of failings and a range of things that have gone wrong with that Act. It pointed to the uncertainty in the current law—uncertainty that puzzles or at least confuses in some ways the news media and the general public about what exactly is allowed to be reported. It pointed to the fact that the current law is not actually observed in some cases. The Law Commission study suggests that around 20 percent of the time the law is at least not complied with in some way. That is even in clear breaches of the law.It also pointed to the unevenness of the law so that overseas suicides are allowed to be reported—the example pointed to in the Law Commission report is Marilyn Monroe—but New Zealand - based suicides have a prohibition placed on them. The Law Commission also pointed out that the law has not kept pace with social media. This is another classic example of technology running a little bit ahead of the law—something that we are grappling with in a number of different circumstances. So the Law Commission wisely in my view recommended some changes to the Coroners Act which have been included in this Coroners Amendment Bill.I would like to talk a little bit about the free speech elements of this bill because section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of speech or freedom of expression and that obviously applies to the news media. But it is trite also to observe that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. I am as I think I said in my maiden speech a strong believer in the importance of freedom of speech. As Justice Anderson as he then was in Hosking v Runting said: “Freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty.” I think that quote for me has always summed up what freedom of speech is all about which is liberty. But it obviously has its limits and this is the issue that we are grappling with today.I went and looked up the legal advice that was provided to the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Members will be aware of course that the Attorney-General is under obligation under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to report to the House when he finds that a measure is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It was thought for a while that just a prima facie inconsistency in a piece of legislation would require the report to the House by the Attorney-General but I think starting from the outset of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act successive Attorneys-General have taken the view that it requires a report to the House when in the legal advice—or at least in his or her view—not only is there a prima facie inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but where it is an unjustifiable inconsistency and that justification process is actually at the heart of the Act. So we have not had a report in this case from the Attorney-General which suggests obviously that in his mind it is a justifiable limit on section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but I went and looked up the actual legal advice. Since 2003 all the legal advice that goes from either the Crown Law Office or the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney-General has been placed online.I have to say just noting it for the House’s record that I was a little bit disappointed in the analysis in the legal opinion provided to the Attorney-General. In my view it was quite a cursory analysis and it did not fully engage in that very important justification process that the Attorney-General is required to undertake. That justification analysis is in some ways actually contained in the actual Law Commission report which in some ways is the genesis of this legislation. So it was slightly disappointing to see a very cursory—I would not go so far as to say glib but somewhat cursory—analysis within the legal advice. The officials simply said that they have found this to be a justified measure and there is not a huge amount of analysis or substantive detailing of why that is.That is a little bit disappointing but if members go to the Law Commission report they will find some substantive analysis as to why the measures the Law Commission is recommending are a justified limit on freedom of speech. There the Law Commission goes through whether or not this is a significant and important objective and whether or not the limit that is placed on the freedom of expression is a rational and proportional limit. Those words are very familiar to me from my law school days doing New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. I think they come from the Moonen test later revised to R v Hansen—things that I thought I would not have to think about again but now I fortuitously find myself in this very privileged position.I think it is obvious that trying to prevent harm from suicide reporting is a significant objective and it is an important objective and the question then is whether or not the limits that are proposed in this legislation which are very narrow limits are rational and proportional. The evidence that the Law Commission points to suggests that that is the case. The Law Commission points to the fact that “The evidence is irrefutable that some forms of reporting are strongly associated with a risk of further suicides.” and it points to the fact that “There is some evidence of a causal link between some forms of reporting and subsequent suicide …”. There is a huge amount of detail in the Law Commission report and in the appendices which I commend to members. In my view the recommendations from the Law Commission that are enacted in this legislation are appropriate and they are wise and the select committee is the appropriate place to consider any further refinements to those proposals if they are required. I commend this bill to the House.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi o te Tau Hou. This is actually the first opportunity I have had in the new year to make a speech in the House and I want to begin with a little bit of indulgence please Mr Assistant Speaker just to acknowledge some of our fallen leaders. I particularly want to acknowledge Api Mahuika a rangatira from Ngati Porou. I want to acknowledge Dr John Angus a former Children’s Commissioner—it was sad to hear of his passing in mid-January—and also Celia Lashlie who passed away this week. I know that all of us in different capacities have had engagements with some of these people and I think that their contribution to New Zealand should be acknowledged.It is my pleasure to take a call on this the first reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I am not a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I wish I was because I am actually incredibly interested in this piece of legislation and I am interested from the perspective of having worked with the Hon Chester Borrows who I want to acknowledge has led a lot of the development of this piece of legislation. My engagement with Chester was around suicide reporting specifically and whether or not there was an opportunity to increase the mandate of the Chief Coroner not only to look at individual deaths but to actually provide an analysis at the end of every year on suicides.Particularly important for me was the suicides of young people and whether or not there are themes that could be extrapolated such as regional themes themes pertinent to young Māori males Pacific and LGBTIQ. I wanted to know whether there were discernible groups for whom we could actually look at having preventative initiatives led by the Chief Coroner. So as this bill is before us I think that it is timely to also look at extending the mandate of the Chief Coroner to specifically be able to look at such things.The other interesting part of being able to speak on this bill is just reflecting back on when this bill was introduced. It was introduced on 31 July 2014. It was interesting to note that nearly 2 weeks prior to that on 18 July 2014 the acting director of the legal issues centre of the faculty of law at University of Otago Dr Jennifer Moore actually released a very interesting study about coronial cases. She looked at a discrete cohort between July 2007 and June 2012. She looked at 607 cases. Just for those listening we have about 29000 deaths in New Zealand every year and of those 20 percent or 5800 deaths are reported to the coroner. So in that 5-year period she looked at 2 percent of those cases and actually came out with a number of recommendations. Her analysis of our coronial system was that we did have issues about poor information-sharing. But one of the findings that is incredibly relevant was that this area is hugely under-resourced. So if you look at the fact that we spend $17 million in this area and there are approximately 5800 deaths referred to the coroner that averages out to only $2931 per case that we invest in the coronial process. So I think it is worth looking at whether or not the recommendations from this particular report are relevant to this bill given the bill was drafted before this evidence became available.One of the particular recommendations I want to focus on is about the introduction of a mandatory response regime. I want to note that that mandatory response regime would not be unique if New Zealand were to enact such a regime because in England and Wales they have a mandatory response regime. Looking at amended section 7(2)(e) as set out in clause 6 of the bill we are actually going to require the Chief Coroner to expand their function “to set up and maintain a register which must be publicly available of coroners’ recommendations and comments …”. So it seems to me that under this legislation if we are going to require the Chief Coroner to establish a register of recommendations actually we should just go to the next step and therefore establish a mandatory response regime to those recommendations. It seems a simple step from getting the coroner to set up a register to then monitor that register and empower the Chief Coroner to follow through on the recommendations and actually build on the capacity of the Office of the Chief Coroner to actually do what it is empowered to do under the legislation.I just want to focus us back to what the purpose of the Coroners Act is. The purpose is to help prevent further deaths in similar circumstances it is to promote justice but it is also about identifying causes and circumstances of deaths that ensure that we as a society and a country are being responsive to creating the change that is necessary to prevent further deaths and injuries. I think the whole integrity of the Coroners Act and in fact the coroners’ position in our society means we should be ensuring we actually follow through every step of the way to realising the purpose of their establishment. So I found it incredibly interesting that given our Chief Coroner Neil MacLean has just retired after 8 years in the job one of the first things he said upon his retirement was that the recommendations that they make need to be mandatory and that we as a country need to be a lot more responsive to those recommendations. I also found it really interesting that one of the things that he chose to highlight in his departure was around quad bikes. He said that if he could he would recommend that children be not allowed to ride quad bikes because there has been a number of deaths related to children riding quad bikes. I think there was a death earlier this year of a young person under the age of 10 a young girl. I think it is incumbent on people who hold these positions to be able to fully realise I guess the mandate that we give them.So I would hope that in the deliberations of the select committee it looks at the latest evidence available to it and actually make some amendments to this piece of legislation which obviously we on this side of the House support. But I think there is an opportunity for all of us to add a bit more value to the process that we are engaged in and I guess recognise that when the legislation was drafted we did not have all of the information available to us. I think if we look at the processes of the House that is in fact what the select committee process enables us to do. It is about catching up on the most up-to-date information so that we have laws that are actually fit for purpose not for yesterday but for today and into the future. So I look forward to being involved in this bill if I can in any way.This is really unusual but I will say to our whips that if they need cover on the select committee please assign me. I would love to be part of the submissions. I am on the Health Committee and I love being on the Health Committee but actually in respect of pieces of legislation like this I would welcome the opportunity to have input into them. And for me as I said earlier around issues to do with youth suicide I would absolutely welcome the opportunity to feed into the process so that we can produce a piece of legislation that actually is going to prevent preventable deaths and actually benefit our country. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.ALFRED NGARO (National):Kia orana tātou katoatoa. E te ora matoa o te atua. Louisa Wall can I just commend you for expressing what I think is something that is universally accepted throughout the House: that the essence of this bill is important and that it is going to the select committee. I am sure that as my colleague Chris Bishop said we would welcome you. I acknowledge your experiences. I know you and we have had some experience of working together in the community. I know that your connections especially to youth have become really important. So I am sure that there will be a number of others but I particularly want to encourage your contribution which I think will be important in ensuring that we have good law. That is what this is about. This is a bill that needs us to make a good law that helps our communities that are in need of this bill.This is the Coroners Amendment Bill. My remarks I will preface firstly by saying that this bill will be important for me being a member of Parliament and in my fourth year. This will be one of those bills that I would regard as being important because some 6 years ago when I was in the community and on a board of trustees of a local high school within the space of a month two young girls took their lives tragically. One of them was even close to my youngest son—she was one of his best friends. The impact that that had not only on the family but on the community was one that I imagine—often the talk is that at that time in a sense of hopelessness and despair the person feels that in order to remove the pain of the burden it may be easier to take their life. Yet out of that there has been a lot of tragedy and pain and I know that many families around our country have experienced that. So it behoves us to do a good job with this bill to ensure that the role of the coroner is important.I want to pick up on the aspect that the role of the coroner becomes important in this situation because it is also about ensuring that the information gets out. We know that on average most reports take around about 400 days and then at the same time too if there is another inquest it then increases to about 700 days on average. But in most cases it does take a long time. And we know that when that process is prolonged it prolongs the grieving of families who are struggling to find answers to the reasons why. And that is one of the tragedies that happens that people are constantly in this mode of inquiry saying: “So why did this happen to us? Why did this person in this situation take their life so tragically?”. And so we know that it is important to reduce that time. To have at least some understanding is an important part of the grieving process and for people being able to work through their trauma into some form of healing and restore family life. And so we believe that that is important.We knew that the bill when it came out in 2006 was important. It changed the coronial system. But at the same time two key stakeholders were not included. We know that pathologists and also funeral directors had an important contribution along with other families. Hence part of the Law Commission’s recommendations is for us to amend this Act. It was only in 2006 that this legislation was enacted and received the Royal assent and yet we know now that it is time to continue to improve this legislation in the roles that it plays. I want to cover just some of the recommendations that we believe are also going to be important in achieving this. I want to cover a couple of things too while we talk about that—some of the other contributions that I think are happening right across Parliament at the moment.Cyber-bullying is another part of the intimidation and bullying that happen. We know that the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which is now being processed is another important bill. Some of the surveying and research have shown that one in 10 New Zealanders experiences cyber-bullying. We have seen the impact of this especially on our young people and again the contribution that that makes. It is important that we take this into consideration. We know that cyber-bullying increases from the ages of 19 to 29; it almost doubles. So that is another form of bullying that is out in our communities. We believe that the Harmful Digital Communications Bill is an important contribution to addressing this issue as well.In regard to the parts of the bill that were covered by Louisa and were mentioned by her around the mandatory responses there has been a lot of talk about this and the importance of this in other jurisdictions—that there is a mandatory requirement for agencies and organisations to be able to respond. I suppose that throughout the submission process we will hear some of those views. What we already know is that there is no one-size-fits-all. We need to be mindful of the fact that where there is a tragedy and a trauma that has happened in a situation it is not as simple as just saying: “Well we need to remedy this by certain changes whether they be physical or operational.” There may be other areas and demands that may be there. So I think that what we will do during the submission process is that we will hear what those issues are at this point in time. But I think it is something that we are taking into consideration—whether we do make a mandatory response. And again we need to be mindful of the range of organisations—whether they be from schools or from other bodies sports clubs and so forth—where some of these tragedies may happen as well.We know that in improving the coronial system though some of the changes are small they do contribute to improving public safety reducing unnecessary deaths and speeding up the coronial system to make these changes easier on the grieving families. So the question I suppose is why we are making changes to the coroners’ recommendation-making powers. Coroners’ recommendations are an important way to learn from a death and hopefully prevent similar deaths in the future and I think that is the important aspect. Many New Zealanders do not realise in a sense the role that the coroner plays and especially in a sense the usefulness of that information to all those services that are out there supporting whether it be NGOs with counsellors and social workers and youth workers whether it be the police who often have to triage a tragic situation when they are met with this tragedy and trauma whether it be the other support services victim support services that are wrap around. There are a number of different services I think and key stakeholders that need to fit into this. So that is the reason that extending those powers becomes important for improving the system as well.The other thing is that while we are doing that we are improving public safety. We know that the coroners’ recommendations are sometimes criticised for not being relevant to the particular deaths that they are investigating or for not taking expert evidence into account. We believe that the proposed changes will focus the recommendations on the facts and circumstances of the death in front of the coroner and will involve individuals and organisations such as Government departments at an earlier stage and will ensure that relevant people contribute to the evidence and help develop robust and workable recommendations.I also like Louisa Wall want to commend the Hon Chester Borrows. I know that some of the work that was done around the Suicide Prevention Action Plan—and I was actively involved in some of that in our communities—was critical and was important. We know that it was all-encompassing—the contribution that was made to preventing suicide deaths in our communities. I think that work will go a long way in focusing our efforts on reducing suicide and putting better support in place as well. As part of the Justice and Electoral Committee I look forward to the submissions and to hearing from the committee. We do encourage as many as possible of those who are involved in our community providing necessary support and services to take the time to submit to the select committee just to ensure that we have covered all the necessary aspects of this bill so that it is a good bill and does empower the coroners in their role and responsibility. But at the same time too at the end of the day this bill is also focused on the families in our communities just to ensure that they have adequate information and that support services are able to operate efficiently effectively and in a timely manner to be able to address these issues. I want to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the work in the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)Third ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs):I move That the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This is a momentous day. This bill was introduced some three Parliaments ago by the Hon Rick Barker. It had its second reading in 2009 under the Hon Dr Richard Worth. Since then Minister Guy Minister Adams Minister Tremain and—now—I have had responsibility for this bill. I can claim that under my stewardship the bill has at least gone through the Committee of the whole House and today we begin the third reading. So nearly 7 years after its introduction this bill stands on the verge of being passed by this House.Hon David Parker: Why don’t you take a short call and we could get it finished?Hon PETER DUNNE: It is going to be a short call. I am not going to traverse the history of the last 7 years. I simply want to make these points about the legislation because some may conclude from that passage of time that it is not actually a significant piece of law. In fact it is because it deals with a lot of the community support that arises from gaming machines and ensuring that as far as possible the funds so derived go to the point where they are meant to go. I think that the amendments contained in the Supplementary Order Paper I introduced during the course of the bill made some important additional changes in that regard.Some changes had to take account of the fact that time had moved on from the time of the introduction of the bill. In particular we have put specified obligations on gambling operators after they are licensed. We now emphasise to gambling operators their responsibilities in having the community at the forefront of their operations and help ensure that operators are part of a clean well-run sector. It is also clear that operators can be held to account if they lose sight of that focus.Gambling always contains a high harm potential so it is important that the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation measures work well and there are a number of useful steps contained within it to achieve those objectives. For example the current requirements for the banking of community money generated by non-casino gaming machines have been strengthened. That has been a problem area for this sector for some time.The bill also enables us to collect better information to publish on grants made to the community by gaming-machine operators. Again this is a move towards greater transparency in an area where there is a lot of public interest and often fascination. There are fresh obligations on grant recipients about how they use the funds that they have been advanced in accordance with the terms of those particular grants.The bill also contains a number of other reforms. I think it is fair to say however that it became clear during the latter stages of the debate that given the rapid changes in the gambling space some of the provisions that this bill contains and some that the companion measure the No. 3 bill which is currently before the select committee also contains may well in short order be overtaken by a move to much greater non-terrestrial gambling. I have indicated that that is an area the Government is looking at in terms of whether there is a requirement for a much broader review of law to take account of that particular area of change.I am not going to name all of the members who sat on the Government Administration Committee. I suspect many of them have gone on to do other things since the bill was first introduced. But I do want to acknowledge the contribution that the committee made. I want to acknowledge the contribution that members during the debates over the years have made. I recall Mr Hipkins’ pining comments at one stage that at the rate of progress he has seen so far he has got three more elections before this bill will finally come into law. I can assure him that that will not be the case. I think he will have to find some other causes to worry about over that time.I do not want to delay the House unduly. I do not want to trivialise what is a very important issue. Despite the delays this bill does bring some forward some worthwhile changes. It has been widely supported. I am delighted to be the Minister who finally commends the third reading of this bill to the House.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):I have to agree with the Minister. This is a momentous day to get to the third reading after such a long time. I congratulate the Minister Peter Dunne and the Government Administration Committee on finally getting it to this stage.Can I say that it is difficult to find the right balance between two very contrasting parts of the sector. It is difficult to find the balance between the people who are harmed or who participate in gambling and also within the industry itself. This particular bill goes some way to addressing some of the issues that have been raised since the original Gambling Act was enacted in 2003. We on this side of the House are very proud that it was the Labour Government that put this legislation on the statute book in the first instance. There are some really important and major changes that were brought about by this particular Act.As the Minister has said there are some minor and technical amendments in this bill. As I mentioned in the Committee stage raising the minimum percentage of funds returning to the community is a very good one and I want to acknowledge that again in this third reading. If there is one redeeming feature of gambling in this way it is that it does return some funds to the community. But on the other hand there are also some issues and they are really serious ones around the harm caused by gambling. I want to talk a little bit about that. I want to commend the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister as well for their strong words over the last few days to the industry—that it needs to as I would put it up its game or feel the full force of the law. In the mystery shopper sting if you like 102 venues were visited and only one out of those actually helped the person who was in trouble with their gambling and that is not good enough. The message that we need to be sending from this House to the industry is: “Up your game.” With the third amendment and after 11 years one would think that the industry would have got themselves to a point of being able to operate within the framework that was put down.I think also that the Government’s dealing with Skycity has not helped things. I think it has sent the wrong kind of message to the industry—that gambling is OK in a way that it is not. I think we need to find a balance. Last year we our Labour Party campaigned on having a full review of the gambling legislation. I think we still need to think about doing that in the future unless there are serious changes of attitude from the industry itself. I think it is inevitable that Kiwis are going to ask that that happens.The gambling industry must become better corporate citizens and act more considerately towards the people who are most vulnerable. I take my hat off and mihi out to those providers that provide very good services in helping people affected and harmed by gambling—in particular those families who bear the burden of one of their family members being harmed by gambling. Inevitably it is their families who suffer the most. I want to acknowledge all of the good work that has been done out there. Even those within the industry that have done well—and by the looks of it they are few and far between but there are some and I want to acknowledge them in this third reading.I think a review in the future may find a way forward to strengthening the powers of communities and local authorities. I think therein lies the real nub of the solution moving forward. When communities have control over their destiny in terms of gambling that is a good thing. I heard at our select committee that there are some good models out there and one of them is in the Deep South. The member across the House there Sarah Dowie has informed us about that. So there are some opportunities out there not only through this bill but also through some cooperation between the parties. I would encourage at this stage also both the gambling sector and those providing services to minimise harm caused by gambling to get together too and have real discussions—mutually respectful discussions.A couple of other clauses within the bill itself provide as the Minister said the power for licences to be suspended in certain circumstances in respect of breaches in the past. It also provides that societies must ensure that they continue to meet certain criteria that enabled them to get a licence in the first place. So they cannot stop doing what they agreed to do to get the licence in the first place. I think that those two along with a number of other clauses within this bill are very helpful in moving forward to a place where there are better operations within the gambling industry.As I have said it has been 11 years since this law has come into force. I think that it is important that we reflect on those 11 years and see how far we have come in the operation of gambling within this industry. I want to reiterate that we need to do better. If in fact we do not do better by those families who bear the burden of harm caused by gambling then we would need to make further changes and I would advocate for that. That is all I have to contribute. Nō reira tēnā tātou.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):I appreciate the opportunity as the deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee to talk to the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). Echoing the sentiment of the Hon Peter Dunne—this is a momentous occasion.Before I decided to get into this game I was probably like you Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard a political tragic who would spend many hours watching Parliament TV. When you are watching Parliament TV and some of these technical bills come up that make minor wording changes I guess there is a bit of risk that you think they are not momentous and they do not matter. If I have learnt anything in my short time here in the House it is that this is definitely an important bill. It goes to making changes to the parent Act the Gambling Act 2003 to make it work better and more important to make the framework work better so that we can enforce it in a better way. In my address tonight I am obviously going to highlight what the greater intent of the bill is move into a few of the clauses that I think add value and then talk about a few examples that I think are relevant to the way things are working well which we can perhaps use as a model going forward.As I said before this bill makes changes to the Gambling Act 2003. That Act was a step change in the way we look at gambling. It is acknowledging that gambling—as well as other activities out there such as having alcohol or simply getting into a car—can present some danger. There are people who undertake these activities and they are unaffected. But in the same breath there are people who suffer dreadfully from those activities. They become addicted and it is devastating for them and their families. This Government is definitely supportive of minimising harm. We support this bill going through with the main thrust of it being that the funds generated from class 4 gambling which is pokies and non-casino venues are filtered back into the community—into the communities where that money can be lost and into communities of need.The progress of this bill has been 7 years in length. Of course I did not sit on the original Government Administration Committee that heard the submissions but I have been privileged as a member of the current committee to hear submitters submitting on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) and I would like to take the time to thank those submitters because they certainly have educated me as to the risks of gambling and some of the issues we have in our system. I want to say again that even though this is a technical bill we have taken our role seriously and I am looking forward to seeing it passed and to the industry being tidied up.As has been alluded to by the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe it is no secret that the Department of Internal Affairs has undertaken some monitoring and some mystery shopping exercises and that it has undertaken some prosecutions. There are some class 4 operators out there whose behaviour has been disappointing to say the least. Again this bill cleans it up. We want to make things more transparent we want to prevent rorting and we want to make sure that the funds generated from profits are shifted back into the community. But we also want to put the onus on organisations to account back to that community as to how the money is spent.I am going to talk about two ways in which that is done in this bill. The first is very practical—I had no idea that it was actually going on but the Hon Peter Dunne mentioned it—in that there is an obligation in the bill for venues to bank gaming machine profits directly into the society’s bank account. I had no idea that normal accounting processes were not being adhered to. This practical prohibition is going to mean that there will be an obligation for societies to deal with the funds appropriately and not filter them off for unsecured and unauthorised loans so to speak.The other thing in the bill that I like is that when the grant is made those societies actually apply the money to the purpose for which it was allocated. Again you would have thought that this was happening as a matter of course but apparently it is not. So these are technical and minor changes but in the grand scheme they will make a big difference to the gambling sector.In respect of harm minimisation again there are some practical changes that the bill makes. There is the prohibiting of eftpos machines being in the proximity of pokies meaning that if those playing need further funds they have to get up from the pokie machines walk away and have some time out to think. The other change is to put an obligation on venues to advertise about problem gambling and to provide a duty on venues to assist those whom they identify as problem gamblers to give them help to give them advice and support them to get further qualified help and advice. I am definitely supportive of this. I think that these sorts of changes will assist the industry and will hopefully have a beneficial effect on problem gambling.As the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe has alluded to I have been busy as the member for Invercargill educating people about fantastic Southland. We all know that you Mr Assistant Speaker are an honorary Southlander as you have attended many Southland parties over the years. One thing that we do well is that we have a trust called the Invercargill Licensing Trust with an associated foundation. It is a very very popular trust and I believe it is popular because it is accountable to the public and it is—Dr David Clark: They build good velodromes.SARAH DOWIE: It does build very good velodromes. In fact one of the projects that it has supported is of course the ILT Stadium which it has put quite significant funds into. It is a fantastic venue. I do not want to go on too much about Invercargill—the weather is good at times—but the Southland stadium is needed. It is needed for the community. Those trustees are integrated into the community they are well in touch and they are elected people. They have skills second to none across the board and they can look at projects with a good eye and know where to put the funds for the best benefit of the community.I just want to take the time—it is not just about venues; there is another programme that I really like and that is the Invercargill Licensing Trust schools swimming programme. During 2013 there were 37161 entries for school swimming lessons funded by the Invercargill Licensing Trust and that learn to swim programme is recognised nationwide. So as you can see when a trust is doing something well it is putting those profits from pokies into community projects that make a difference where it is needed and it is extremely commendable.Just finishing with a few statistics about Southland in actual fact the number of pokie machines is sinking and despite the funds decreasing from pokie machines and pokies sinking in number the trust is still making a profit. As part of that it is investing in pilot schemes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the honourable David Clark I just want to give him a health warning. Of the nine members who spoke on the introduction of this bill eight have since lost their seat or gone into retirement.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I shall consider my retirement options carefully as I rise to speak. I do rise with some concern about this bill. We on this side of the House will support it because of the more practical application of the law and the rules around it that it brings. The original law had some gaps in it which became obvious when it was implemented and this bill goes some way towards addressing them. But we support it—well I support it with something of a heavy heart because I know that at the same time there are a number of things happening that will affect the sinking-lid policy which is designed to reduce problem gambling in New Zealand.Just today I have learnt that Dunedin’s last two gambling inspectors are to leave town. Those inspectors who look out for many issues in the gambling sector including the harms of gambling are to pack up their bags and leave town.Chris Hipkins: Is there a casino in Dunedin?Dr DAVID CLARK: There is a casino in Dunedin—there is a casino in Dunedin. Of course the harms of problem gambling cover the pub sector class 4 gambling and casinos where pokies are also found. That will leave a real gap and I have fears for the—Grant Robertson: The region’s being neglected again.Dr DAVID CLARK: —implications for our region. As my colleague says there is a regional neglect aspect of that.I want to address also in respect of the sinking lid a point that was made by the previous speaker Sarah Dowie about the Invercargill Licensing Trust. She rightly praised some of its good investments. The velodrome is one that I particularly admire and think that it is a fabulous structure. But I would also like to note that this Government has received comment and concerns from the licensing trust about some of the treatment of pokie machines and recommendations that have been ignored—recommendations that were made to the Department of Internal Affairs that have been ignored by this Government. That trust is a responsible trust. It does seek to reduce the harm of gambling. It is very well to crow about the good things it does but it is also important to listen to its experience of the harms that can be created as gambling continues in New Zealand.The original legislation which we are amending here was brought in to address the issues of problem gambling and the intention of the law changes around the sinking-lid policy likewise were all about minimisation of harm. Right now we are seeing changes across society that are actually going to lead to increased harm from problem gambling. So in supporting this bill it is hard not to do it with a heavy heart when we know that the numbers of pokie machines are going to skyrocket with the Skycity deal for example. We know that 230 more pokies are going to be introduced with the Skycity deal and Treasury says that 8000 more people will be affected as a consequence of problem gambling. So it is very hard to accept all of the positive messages coming from members on the other side of the House as they seem to be looking at the benefits without really examining the balanced case about that particular deal.Obviously it has got political egg on its face. The Auditor-General called that casino deal neither transparent nor even-handed and Treasury expressed some really grave concerns and said it was worried that private benefit was going to come from public investment and that it was not a good deal for the taxpayer. So Treasury and the Auditor-General both expressed huge reservations about the Skycity deal. Of course now we are learning we have been told that that centre which was built on the premise of having a 3500 capacity as a minimum to attract international visitors is now being downgraded to 3000 capacity and likely up to 10 percent lower. Already we are being softened up. The original feasibility study said it needed to be big to attract the international conferences. What we are now being presented with looks more and more like a white elephant—a taxpayer-subsidised competitor to other domestic convention centres like those in Hamilton Rotorua and Taupō.That is very worrying because we on this side of the House are not sure that it is the job of Government to subsidise domestic competition for one city against another. There is a proper role for Government to consider whether there is benefit in attracting offshore business to New Zealand and whether there is an issue of scale to be overcome for a convention centre. But encouraging business to shift from Hamilton or Rotorua or Taupō to Auckland is not core Government business.Hon David Parker: Subsidise Auckland but not Queenstown.Dr DAVID CLARK: And subsidising Auckland rather than Queenstown is another point my colleague makes. I was coming to that too Mr Parker because there are other bids that this Government has considered in respect of gambling facilities. The other day in the select committee we heard of a $10 million bid for a Queenstown casino. I assume it was an extension Mr Parker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will get the member to come slightly—it is coming into the select committee now. It could hardly be relevant to this bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is true Mr Assistant Speaker. What I am coming back to is the sinking-lid policy the reduction of harms that is promoted in this bill and the fact that the Government is making calls all the time about what will reduce harm which is how we have ended up in this bill with these particular measures. They are designed to reduce harm—the ones we are passing today in this bill. They are designed to build on the original changes put forward by Labour in 2003 I think it was. Mr Robertson will correct me if I am wrong.Grant Robertson: They were.Dr DAVID CLARK: They were put forward in 2003. My memory is right although my notes say that the bill was introduced by Labour in 2007.Grant Robertson: No.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is not correct Mr Robertson tells me. It has been around a long time; that is certain. The changes that are being made in this bill tighten up the Gambling Act 2003 and that bill represented a shift in focus towards the minimisation of gambling harm. We are tightening it up where it has become clear that there were implementation issues.These other things that are going on at the same time and that appear to expand gambling are what give me a heavy heart. These other measures the Government is undertaking will increase problem gambling in Auckland. It seems to be making calls to take gambling inspectors out of my home city—I learnt of that today—thereby running the risk of more problem gambling across the country where it is considering other bids but is unclear what the criteria are. It does not seem to be focused on harm minimisation in every aspect of Government business. It seems to be doing one thing on one hand and on the other hand it is just introducing more gambling measures at the expense of problem gamblers in Auckland seemingly with no eye to the harms that that will cause as a result of the Skycity deal.The bill itself of course provides the power to suspend certain licences if there are retrospective breaches whether or not they have been prescribed as to what should be done. Failures to comply can result in the cancellation of licences and so on. These are sensible and good measures and we support them. We will support them as we vote this bill through its final readings. But I do that as I said with a heavy heart knowing that gambling harm is going to be on the increase with the Skycity deal. Gambling harm is on the increase with gambling inspectors being done away with. Gambling harm is on the increase and at the same time taxpayers are not getting a good deal on the Skycity deal. We know that it was promised by Mr Joyce to be free. It was promised by Mr Key to be free. Now taxpayers look like they are facing a white elephant that will just be about domestic competition subsidised in Auckland rather than about reducing gambling harm or something else that would be good for New Zealand as a whole. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National):It is very much a pleasure to stand here and speak to the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). I would have to say having listened to a number of other speakers give their pieces in this debate that it does appear you can say with some degree of confidence that there is a very good chance this bill will receive a successful third reading at the conclusion of the debate. That is very very good to know because it is in fact a very important bill. It is one of three—one of multiple amendments. The first fortunately was passed some time ago and the third amendment currently sits in front of the Government Administration Committee and that will give it full attention in due course.The Government’s focus particularly in the area of class 4 gambling is to minimise harm within our communities while maximising returns to those communities. Before I get into the substance of that I will hark back. This bill of course as has been acknowledged was introduced in 2007 under the previous Labour Government by I believe the Hon Rick Barker. I think he was mentioned as the member who introduced it. Of course it was not passed by that Government prior to its some might say richly deserved ousting by the public in late 2008. So Government members had well over a year to deal with it. The public might draw its own deductions from that on just what the priority of that bill was to that Government back then. I have heard members complain about how long this Government might be taking to deal with it. Certainly the previous Labour Government had all the time it needed and treated the matter with the importance it obviously placed on it.I turn to the bill and what I hope will be a successful third reading. As I have said we wish to maximise returns to the community while minimising harm. If we look at this class of gambling in the year 2013 it contributed around $637 million to the community. So it is a source of much-needed very welcome funds within our communities. Of course we need to strike a balance to make sure that we minimise harm and find ways to help those who have issues with gambling. We currently require around 37 percent of funds as a minimum to be returned to the communities but that will be lifting over time to 40 percent or more. Really importantly actually this bill requires that 80 percent—80 percent—of those proceeds go back to the areas where the funds came from. So if we have areas for instance where problem gambling appears to be a greater issue then we have certainty that in fact more of the funds going to communities will go to those specific areas which is a very positive thing indeed.I would like to talk a bit on harm minimisation. It starts in fact with ongoing obligations and duties for the gaming societies after having received their licences and they are around obligations to minimise costs maximise community returns and minimise the risks of problem gambling. Alongside that the Government raises a problem gambling levy which raises approximately $55 million over 3 years to fund services and minimise gambling harm in communities. A point I would like to note because I have heard Skycity mentioned a lot is that local councils already have the power to impose sinking-lid policies on pokie machines. In fact the total number of machines has dropped from approximately 25000 in 2003 to around 17000 now. Despite what the Opposition members are trying to say it has been well established that the total number of pokie machines will reduce even after we get our $400 million conference centre for no cash outlay from the taxpayer. It tries to pretend that that is not the case but it is a well-established fact that it is.On top of that through the Department of Internal Affairs we continue to investigate further harm minimisation actions particularly the use of technology within machines to help prevent problem gamblers getting into greater difficulties such as facial recognition technology. The department has investigated areas such as this. At the present it has concluded it still has further work to do and it still wishes to do further monitoring of evidence particularly in other countries just to ascertain that that will be an effective use of technology should it be mandated particularly as part of a standard that societies and venues may have to adopt.Along with that I think another good practical measure that this bill allows is that it allows operators the ability to prohibit mobile eftpos machines from being taken near gambling machines in their venues. That is a very sound pragmatic and practical idea. It would mean that players would be forced to take a break. They would have to walk away from machines if they were in fact going to seek additional funds to continue gambling. I think everyone can agree that that break would help most many certainly some to actually question whether or not they want to and whether or not it would be the right thing for them to continue gambling at that time. It is a very good idea indeed.Other parts of this bill that I think are very important and that really add some protection and some value are around transparency and accounting. I think there has been a public perception that there is rorting for want of a better term that does go or has gone on around this form of gambling and I think venue fees is one rort that has been canvassed as something that the public or many in the public at least feel is something that is manufactured and a bit distorted. This bill basically specifies that venue fees will be limited to actual reasonable and necessary costs. It puts some very clear limitations around what societies and the venues can try to do to prevent distortion of returns through manufactured costs.The bill also requires that profits be paid directly into the society’s account and not used for instance—as has been suggested may have been the case in the past—to manage cash-flow pressures either on the society or potentially also on the venue. It also sets out circumstances in which a society may apply gaming machine profits to its own authorised purposes—i.e. instead of making grants to the wider community. It also mandates a requirement that community grant recipients must use the grants for the specific authorised purposes the grants were issued for. I think that will all help to give the public far greater confidence that the system is not being rorted that the profit distributions are being fairly applied and that in actual fact those receiving the moneys are actually using them for authorised purposes and the purposes they were stipulated for in the first place.Another area that I think is particularly important—and in fact it strikes me as a bit surprising that it was not originally in there—is the area of information gathering. It appears that there have been some gaps. We have expected that the Department of Internal Affairs would record information around gambling and it would monitor it but it appears that we have not actually given it the proper authority to collect the sort of information that would help it to do its job most effectively. This does seek to repair or ameliorate that. So it will now have a better defined authority around the information it can collect what it can collect how often it can collect it and the manner and the form in which it can be collected and in fact used.It also now—now but not previously—permits including details of how the gambling profits are distributed. That struck me upon going through this as a very odd situation—that it is an amendment that must be made now and was not there already. But another very good thing in terms of transparency is that the bill requires any resulting statistical information that comes from that monitoring and compliance activity to be published in electronic format at a minimum on the Department of Internal Affairs website. Any interested party any member of the public or any particular group can satisfy themselves through the data that the monitoring functions are being delivered well but also that the information is available for all—all—to access.But there is another thing that struck me if I may say as just absolutely bizarre—absolutely bizarre. I will not sing from the old song.Tim Macindoe: Oh!BRETT HUDSON: How bizarre how bizarre how bizarre! The change in this amendment now actually permits the Department of Internal Affairs to test new technologies new ideas and new models in gaming and gambling venues. It was never able to previously take a new piece of technology and determine how it would work in real life. That is a substantial and really positive change. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to it receiving a successful third reading. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This bill has been around for many years—8 years. I do not think it needs to have any more delay with a massive contribution from myself except to say the Green Party supports this bill which mostly contains technical amendments to the original Act dating back from 2004. Denise Roche our gambling spokesperson has spoken on it frequently articulately and cogently. She would point out that although this bill has some measures to address problem gambling we are still not addressing those root causes.It is important that New Zealand the Government and this Parliament acknowledge that New Zealand does have a problem-gambling problem. I know the Department of Internal Affairs has been raised many times in this debate. One figure I would like to draw members’ attention to is an estimate that there was $209 billion lost—$209 billion lost—in gambling over the financial year 2013-14. That is a huge amount of money coming out of New Zealanders’ wallets. What we have seen is that around 40 percent of that comes from class 4 gambling venues or say pubs with a dedicated room with pokie machines. Forty percent of that—so 40 percent of 40 percent—came from pokie machines where we know players for want of a better word have limited control over gambling behaviour when it comes to those machines.We have talked about some of the work that the Department of Internal Affairs is doing but we have not heard about the work the media has done to raise this very important issue. I know that Television One last year actually sent a pensioner into Skycity Casino to stay there and gamble for as long as they could. It took 14 hours before that person left without an intervention. There was no intervention whatsoever over those 14 hours. My colleague Denise Roche actually laid a complaint. It took 6 months as I understand and basically what Skycity Casino received was a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket giving a pledge that it would work with the Department of Internal Affairs to develop its host responsibility policy.When we know the scale of the harm—not only the $209 billion but the cost in human lives on families and on businesses whose employees take the money to gamble with and to feed their addiction—we need to get more serious than just wet bus tickets. We have heard of the mystery shopping which is fantastic but I still have not heard a member point out that of the 102 venues that were mystery-shopped only one intervention was found—one out of 102. That is not exactly great odds. I welcome the mystery shopping but let us also focus on the other side. Let us make sure that those interventions are happening and those people with gambling problems are getting the support they need.Lastly Skycity is a topic that has been raised in this debate. It is important because the Government through its example and through its policies plays an important role. It is sending New Zealanders a signal that it is OK to see more pokie machines in exchange for law. We have seen a deal criticised by the Auditor-General for its process. At its core when you look at the ethics our laws should not be sold to feed something like problem gambling which brings so much harm to so many New Zealand families. The Greens are strongly on the record with our position on that and I just point out before we rise the irony that we are passing some small albeit welcome changes to reduce problem gambling while at the same time massively increasing pokies in Auckland in a dodgy dirty deal.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. It is great to see the time—I am actually going to squeeze in my presentation today which I am very excited about all the more so because I have put so much time into this so I am pleased that I get to do it in one go.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Peak listening time too.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Peak listening time—hello viewers back home.I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the third and final reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) which is a large multifaceted and inflexible piece of legislation that has been around for debate since 2007. New Zealand First opposes this legislation as it forms part of an overall perfect storm for small class 4 gaming operators and it will ultimately go towards creating a monopoly for the large casinos around New Zealand such as Skycity Casino. You can see the National Government members squirm every time Skycity Casino is brought up as so much legislation seems to be directed at looking after this multimillion-dollar gambling corporation whether it be with zero-hour work contracts which 66 percent of their staff are employed under sweet convention centre deals with consents for 500 extra gaming machines being given and of course who can forget the images of the pre-election fund-raiser at Skycity Casino where contributors paid $15000 per ticket to attend the event? This definitely raises questions for New Zealand.I would like to put it in the strongest of terms that New Zealand First does not condone excessive gambling or in any way suggest that gambling should be taken up recreationally. New Zealand First supports sensible legislation that will further minimise harm to problem gamblers and give better support and help to those gamblers who need help or ask for support.It is important to point out that New Zealand is in a harm-minimisation period particularly when you compare the statistics from 2002 with now. In fact the state of the nation report that was released last Tuesday by the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit says that pokie machine numbers have sunk to a 14-year low dropping from 27000 machines to fewer than 1700 machines today. And unsurprisingly this decline in gaming machine numbers has translated into declining losses by gamblers. In normal terms this is 2.4 percent less than in the previous year and 5 percent lower than in 2010.Unfortunately this is good news only on one hand as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Although class 4 gaming spending is on the decline other forms of gambling are on the incline and what is of particular interest and worry is the steady increase of online gambling which is very difficult to legislate against as it is established offshore and outside our legislative jurisdiction. It is like the Alcohol Advisory Council advertisement—it is not what we are drinking; it is how we are drinking. The same thing applies to those people with gambling addictions—it is not that they are gambling; it is how they are gambling. The only difference is that there is far more help available for those people with drinking problems than there is for those people with gambling problems.I am talking about the gambling levy that is collected from all legitimate gambling outlets including Lotto Keno casinos pokies horse racing and sports betting. I am talking about the fact that a large amount of this collected money is not being put towards assisting those people suffering from gambling addiction.To put that statement into context the latest Ministry of Health Preventing and Minimising Gambling Harm report clearly outlines this problem. It says that $6.8 million is being collected and put aside for public health initiatives of which $4.7 million is being spent on primary prevention. When those experiencing harm from gambling are identifying themselves the access and availability to support is found lacking. The Government needs to be seriously looking at the allocation of funds and consider increasing support to front-line service providers. We must back up public campaigns with the support we profess is available and is not.There was an article released in the Southland Times in March 2014 outlining this problem with the headline “Gambling addiction services lacking”. It goes on to say: “Accessing pokie machines in Central Otago and Queenstown is easy—finding help when gambling becomes a problem is not”. It went on further to say that “Counsellors say a lack of services for problem gamblers and people who need addiction-related help in Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago is ‘outrageous’.”This is not an issue of how much money public health is collecting for problem gambling; it is about how the money is being spent. More needs to be done for the people who need it the most and the latest report also outlines the steady decline in the numbers of people using the Gambling Helpline. This service has now amalgamated with Lifeline Aotearoa because of the lack of requirement. However perhaps the $1 million that it cost to run this service could be put towards rehabilitating those people seeking help.There is not a person among us who would not agree that gambling addiction is an insidious sickness one that has the destructive power to destroy lives and families. Currently in New Zealand we have around 0.03 percent of our people suffering from gambling addiction which is on the decline. I am concerned that the legislation that is being put forward today combined with the legislation that was supported in the House last December will create a perfect storm and become the death knell for class 4 gambling or pokies as we know them.I can hear some of the members over there cheering gleefully with regard to my last comment but it does come with a warning and that warning is that the increase in harm minimisation initiatives put forward in this bill and the last one will be the death knell for community funding from grant applications. Applying for financial support for societies and foundations for sports clubs surf clubs community centres arts and culture groups schools hospitals and emergency service providers will vanish like magic under these proposed cumulative conditions. We are not talking here about tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and we are not even talking about tens of millions of dollars. We are talking about $300 million of community funding that is being put at risk. That will be taken away from our community groups which so heavily rely on that funding to survive. Is this Government in a financial position to be able to make up that funding shortfall in our communities? I would suggest not.Legislation has been passed—despite strong opposition from New Zealand First—that could force small businesses to introduce real-time player tracking technology and facial recognition software to reduce gambling harm. This is combined with new legislation being put forward in the bill currently before the House today allowing problem gamblers who have excluded themselves from licensed premises to go back on to the premises providing that they do not enter the gambling room. What? That is ridiculous. Talk about being led into temptation—Matthew 6:13.The excessive costs associated with upgrading gaming room technology and extra security costs required to manage gaming areas will force many small businesses to close their operation which will have a catastrophic effect on money not being made available for the community by way of grant applications. Potential harm is around us wherever we go. Whether we are crossing the road eating fast foods climbing trees or walking down the beach we need to be careful and conscious of harm and we need to do what we can as individuals and as a society to mitigate as much risk as feasibly possible.However I along with so many other New Zealanders feel concerned about the nanny State that New Zealand is finding itself rapidly becoming. We need to be doing far more to offer support and help for people who need it but it does not need to be at the expense of the community and it certainly should not involve creating more wealth for the likes of the large casino corporations who will be the big winners under this latest piece of legislation. Thank you.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I am not on the Government Administration Committee so it is a real privilege to be able to speak on this bill. As we have heard the Gambling Act 2003 took effect on 1 July 2004. As it happens with time we learn observe and bring reforms. This has happened time and time again and it is happening to this Act which brought major reforms to the gambling sector. It is very important that the intent of the Act is maintained. The amendments in the bill are consistent with the intent of the Act which is to minimise harm from gambling.Before I get into any technical aspects I would like to highlight that National is aware of issues around gambling and our interest is to reduce the harm that can be caused by gambling. We also keep in mind that we work on making sure that returns to the community are taken full advantage of for the betterment of our communities. The problem gambling levy is currently raising $55 million over 3 years to fund services and minimise the harm caused in communities. Various organisations use this money as a source of funding for their services which are provided to the wider community. They are required to be accountable according to this bill for the grant or funding that is awarded to them from gambling societies. The amendments to the Act will make sure that the regulatory framework operates as it is supposed to and that gambling operators know their obligations. The behaviour of some class 4 gambling societies has been disappointing. There have been efforts put in place to make progress in this area. There has been a number of prosecutions and a clear message has been sent to the sector.I believe in personal responsibility and realise that the gambling policy is always a balancing act for the Government because there are some people who know how to engage in activities that are kept strictly at a social and leisurely level but then there is a group that can be prone to become addicted and some who just get into gambling with the hope—or shall we say false hope—of winning something big. It depends very much on the individual. I have seen families who gamble on occasion and understand the separation that it means in their lives while other families have struggled with addiction hence leading to rifts in families and financial situations. Once again the situation is very subjective to the individual.Overall if we look at the number of pokie machines their number has actually decreased significantly since 2003. This number should continue to drop because as per local councils venues with gambling machines that close down cannot be replaced. A major focus for the Government is on ensuring that the Gambling Act 2003 can be properly enforced. These changes are intended to resolve any confusion about meaning and reinforce to the sector how important aspects of the Act work. For example Supplementary Order Paper 454 clarifies the ongoing obligations of gambling societies after they are licensed. With regard to the additional provisions in the Act relating to class 4 gambling which includes all non-casino pokie machines from this at least 37 percent of all net proceeds must be returned to the community.The Government takes problem gambling seriously and our policy on class 4 gambling is to minimise the harm caused while maximising the returns to the community. Harm minimisation is a priority for this Government. The bill has additional harm minimisation regulation-making powers that may offer the opportunity to introduce additional well-targeted interventions in the future—for example regulations could be made to specify minimum standards of content for problem-gambling awareness training for venue staff.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.