Volume 675 Week 84 - Wednesday 14 September 2011 
Volume 675 Week 84 - Wednesday 14 September 2011 
[Volume:675;Page:21265] 
Wednesday 14 September 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Rugby World Cup Minister—Confidence 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister for the Rugby World Cup; and in his Minister’s handling of the Government’s relationship with the Auckland Council? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it acceptable that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup failed to tell Mayor Len Brown that the Government was about to seize extended control of the waterfront in an unprecedented takeover? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My understanding is that the officials had been working together on this—from the Auckland Council and from the Minister for the Rugby World Cup’s office—from the weekend. There was an assumption that Neville Harris had spoken to Len Brown’s chief of staff Doug McKay and an assumption that the mayor knew. Obviously it turns out that that was not the case. My understanding is that it is a shame that that phone call did not take place but as soon as the Minister understood that that was not the case he rang quickly. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Then what is his response to Brian Rudman who wrote in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Mr McCully and Mr Key have not just demonstrated their contempt for the city’s leadership they have deliberately humiliated the mayor and shown how hollow their talk of partnership was.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not believe that to be a correct assessment by Mr Rudman. I would say that what was demonstrated on Friday night was a situation where an enormous number of people went down to the waterfront or attempted to use Auckland transport and at some point for some people that failed. It is unacceptable and it has to be fixed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the best outcome for the Rugby World Cup celebrations will be achieved— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to the National Party backbench on this occasion please Dr Russel Norman has every right to ask his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the best outcome for the Rugby World Cup celebrations will be achieved by a collaborative approach by all parties involved and that the constructive partnership with Auckland is being sabotaged by his Minister’s unilateral approach? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not agree with that last point. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not common courtesy when throwing a party in someone else’s home to work closely and constructively with the hosts which in this case are the people of Auckland represented by their democratically elected council? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe that is happening. As I said the officials from the Minister for the Rugby World Cup’s office and the Auckland officials have been working collaboratively on this project not only for a long period of time but actually over the weekend. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What specific action did Auckland Council not agree to that justifies this unprecedented Government takeover? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well with all due respect I do not think that the member actually understands the empowering legislation. The legislation and the use of the Government’s place in that legislation is required in order to get those consents in a time frame that would allow Captain Cook Wharf to be used as a back-up facility by Friday night. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was asking specifically what actions did the council not agree to. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s framing of the issue but the question was what actions the Auckland Council did not agree to that justified the action. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understood the Prime Minister’s answer he indicated that it was not a matter of specific actions not being agreed to. A matter of some urgency I think the Prime Minister indicated in his answer was the relevant issue and I think he is entitled to do that—to indicate that what was implied in the question is not in his view the relevant issue. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can this Government or any other lay the blame for the failure of public transport on the Auckland Council when Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said this morning on Radio New Zealand National: “6 years ago every single mayor in Auckland flew down to Wellington” to try to get central government to increase investment in public transport but were ignored by both that Government and this Government who delayed further electrification— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must be able to hear Dr Norman’s question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he lay the blame for the failure of public transport on the Auckland Council when Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said on Radio New Zealand National this morning: “6 years ago every single mayor in Auckland flew down to Wellington” to try to get central government to increase investment in public transport but were ignored by both that Government and this Government; and is it not time that this Government called a truce in the war on Auckland— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member but I just cannot hear the last part of the question. When we get to a certain point in the question the interjections on my left mean that I just cannot hear the last part of the question. I will invite Dr Norman to start again and I hope that the House is sufficiently sick of hearing the question to be sufficiently quiet for the Prime Minister to hear the question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he lay the blame for the failure of public transport on the Auckland Council when Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said this morning on Radio New Zealand National: “6 years ago every single mayor in Auckland flew down to Wellington” to try to get central government to increase investment in public transport but were ignored by both that Government and this Government who delayed further electrification; and when will his Government end the war on Auckland and get on with building a decent public transport system? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to rule whether there was any irony in that question and if there was to rule it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question as far as I am concerned meets the Standing Orders. I cannot be a judge of the accuracy in any question. I did not detect any undue irony in it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I find myself in an incredible position that I never thought I would find myself in and that is that I am in total agreement with Trevor Mallard. What nonsense! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 2 the honourable Leader of the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called the honourable Leader of the Opposition and he has every right to ask his question. 
Rugby World Cup Minister—Use of Provisions in Act 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did he raise with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the need to utilise the provisions of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 before the opening night; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 From time to time there were very informal discussions about the circumstances under which the Act may be required to be used but before this week there were no discussions about the specific use of its powers. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In relation to the chaos in downtown Auckland and the debacle around the transport system why was the Government not “ahead of the game” as the Minister for the Rugby World Cup assured New Zealand that it was and promised that it would be? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because we relied on the assurances given by amongst others Auckland Transport and those managing the downtown waterfront that they had all contingencies covered. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say in response to this email by Jan Gillespie to him: “You’re extremely lucky that there was no death or serious injury from crushing or trampling in Quay Street.” and then further: “It was an extremely dangerous and scary situation to be in. If anyone had fallen they would have been seriously trampled. There was no supervision in sight.”; and does he take any responsibility for that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not think it would be right to say there was no supervision in sight because I am aware that literally dozens and dozens of police were dispatched to Quay Street but what I would say is that I actually agree with her that we cannot take that risk. That is why the Minister for the Rugby World Cup used the empowering legislation to have a back-up at Captain Cook Wharf and that is why I think the Government has taken the right course of action. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he accept any responsibility in this sense: that party central on Queens Wharf was his idea and it was at his insistence that the council focused on that instead of having diverse fanzones around the city which would have prevented the crush of people who could not be properly contained and the disaster in the transport system and people trying to get there? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In a previous question the member said there was no crushing and we were lucky; now the member is claiming there was crushing. So the member really should get his question right before one of the “Camp Davids” takes over. But anyway to go back to the more serious point the Government has taken I believe the appropriate steps to ensure that it is in a better place. In terms of the environment on Queens Wharf it operated very effectively on Friday night. That was the bit that did work well because it was a controlled environment where there was access. It was co-managed by the Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say to Jason and Cheryl who said this about the situation on the trains and I am quoting: “People were having trouble breathing due to lack of oxygen. People started to become concerned and agitated. Babies were crying. Elderly people were changing colour. Some needed water some needed the toilet.”; and why does he blame them for pressing the emergency button instead of accepting responsibility for having the wrong venue and an inadequate transport system? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would depend on where they were on the train in relation to whether one could even claim it was the wrong venue. They may well have been going to the Eden Park stadium. Secondly I invite the member and those people who wrote the email to read the Auckland Transport report when it is finally published this afternoon to see exactly where the blame might lie. They may find it quite interesting reading. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the promises that he and his Ministers repeatedly made that everything would be right on the night why did ministerial oversight fail? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing is that a lot was right on the night. An awful lot was right on the night. I know that the member wants to create a misery out of what was otherwise a great celebration for New Zealand. On this side of the House we are not doing that. It is clear that there was an operational failure in transport and an operational failure in the downtown part of Quay Street in certain parts. The Government is working very hard to resolve those matters. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given that events like Christmas in the Park have attracted hundreds of thousands of people how many people did he expect to go to the free concert the spectacular fireworks display the waka display and the hype and excitement around the waterfront areas? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The advice we had from Auckland Transport was 50000 people. That advice was tested by the Rugby World Cup officials on at least one occasion and they came back to say their advice was absolutely right and they stood by it. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Who wrote the speech he gave at the opening of the Rugby World Cup? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I did. I would not go as far as to say I wrote a speech; I would say I created one. 
Economy—Protection from Global Market Volatility 
3. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How is the New Zealand economy placed to withstand current global financial market uncertainty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I mentioned yesterday we are continuing to see bouts of concerning economic news from Europe and I expect that this will continue. The effect of this is to put every debtor country under the microscope. In particular financial markets are asking whether debt levels are acceptable whether there are plans to contain debt and get it down and whether Government policies are helping or hindering growth. In this respect the New Zealand ship is in better shape than it was 3 years ago but the seas are getting rougher so there is more work to do. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How does New Zealand’s economic position compare with that of other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Compared with similar developed countries we have come through the recession and on-going market volatility in reasonable shape. However compared with developing countries with significant surpluses we are much more vulnerable to volatility in financial markets. However looking ahead we have many opportunities particularly to increase our trade and therefore our ability to earn higher incomes and create more jobs for New Zealanders by trading with countries in the Asia-Pacific region with fast-growing surpluses. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What risks does New Zealand face from the current global economic environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are really two sorts of risk. One is financial market risk. New Zealand has high levels of external debt mainly in its household sector and we have to continually return to those financial markets to borrow more from them. If they are volatile that may make the borrowing a bit more problematic. The other risk we have is demand risk. That is when those high-value markets such as the US the UK and Europe are facing financial volatility and a slow-down in growth it is likely they will be less willing to pay the prices we want for our products. So that could flow through to a slow-down in the New Zealand economy. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What steps has the Government taken over the past 3 years to reduce our vulnerability to volatile global markets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: First can I say that our exposure to these markets has built up over quite a long period of time—over the last 20 years or so but particularly so since about 2005. It will take some time to get New Zealand back into a position where it is not vulnerable to these markets. In the meantime the Reserve Bank has taken a number of steps to ensure that our banking system is secure and well capitalised. The Government has taken significant steps to get its own debt under control and to encourage the household sector to get its debt under control. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Would narrowing the gap between New Zealand’s GDP per capita and Australia’s GDP per capita make the New Zealand economy more able to withstand global financial market uncertainty; if so has the gap narrowed or widened since he took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer the second question in detail although it is likely that in the current calendar year the New Zealand economy will grow faster than the Australian economy which tells us that we may be more likely to close the gap. But certainly if we were able to increase our savings and channel our investment into the tradable economy rather than reduce our savings and borrow money to fund consumption and housing bubbles then we would be more likely to close the gap with Australia. 
Rugby World Cup—Briefings on Auckland’s Preparedness 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: Has he received any reports or briefings verbal or written since he became the Minister for the Rugby World Cup on the ability of downtown Auckland to host Rugby World Cup 2011 related events and what were the dates of those briefings? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for the Rugby World Cup) 
: 
 The member may be aware that the Government is leading the delivery of a range of activities at Queens Wharf of which it is the part-owner. As a consequence I receive a range of regular reports and briefings regarding its capacity to host planned events. With regard to the wider waterfront ATEED—Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development—the events arm of Auckland City is active in the lead role. Officials would have received reports and briefings in the context of the management committee responsible for Queens Wharf. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a deliberately straight direct question asking—in the end—what the dates of those briefings were. I think he has had plenty of time to sort through his files for them. He did not attempt to answer that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it is a fair point of order. Although it may not be reasonable to expect all the dates because there may be quite a long list of briefings—the Minister indicated a number of briefings—some dates I think would be appropriate to answer the question since it is a primary question. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I can indicate that there would have been a substantial number of those reports around the time of the acquisition of Queens Wharf and more recently as we got closer to the opening of the Rugby World Cup there would have been a significant increase in the number of reports on the various activities to be engaged in at Queens Wharf. If the member would like me to supply a list of the dates of all of the reports I have received I would be happy to make it available to him separately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I accept the offer. Did he receive in the briefing to him as an incoming Minister at the end of 2008 warnings about transport and crowd issues in central Auckland for the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What priority did he give to the task of sorting that as Minister for the Rugby World Cup between December 2008 and last Friday? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: With regard to the transport challenges it would be fair to say that they would have received the highest priority. It is no great secret that I identified in the risk assessments that were undertaken in conversations with agencies including directly with the Auckland Transport Agency itself that I assessed that the transport challenges were one of the greatest risks facing the Rugby World Cup and accordingly a good deal of time and discussion have gone into managing those challenges. Again I would be very happy to make a list of the various discussions with the Auckland Transport Agency available to the member. Further the issues of crowd control and participation on the Auckland waterfront have been managed by ATEED and Auckland Council. The Queens Wharf interface has been the focus of the Government’s attention in that respect but of course it has alongside other elements of the Rugby World Cup received attention from officials and therefore from me from time to time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he receive a full-day briefing along with the Minister of Transport on the Rugby World Cup—mainly transport issues—in June of this year which led to some photo opportunities and did he express at the end of that briefing satisfaction with the arrangements? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: It was not in fact a full-day briefing but it was a substantial part of a day. It involved a range of visits including a visit to the transport control centre to see how it worked. But no it would not be fair to say that I pronounced myself fully satisfied with arrangements as a consequence of that briefing and as the member will discover when I give him an ongoing list of the interactions there were further matters that I was exploring with the Minister of Transport and directly with transport officials. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister spend more time focused on crowd issues in the event that more than 12000 people wanted to go down on to the wharf or on picking the colour of the shirt for the Prime Minister to mince in? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will find that that comment was totally unacceptable to this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to be ruling out words that may be marginal words. I am sure we are big enough children not to take offence at every possible word. If I thought the Prime Minister was going to be terribly upset by that word I might rule it out but I do not want to be ruling out endless words. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: It has been my impression that the Prime Minister has an extraordinarily good sense of fashion judgment and therefore is in no need of advice from me. Indeed were he in need of such advice I doubt he would seek it from me. 
Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill—Chief Justice’s Views 
5. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does the Government share the Chief Justice’s “grave concern” stated in her 25 February submission on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill that the proposed notification of issues in dispute in advance of trial and also at the commencement of trial is “contrary to longstanding principle being inconsistent with a defendant’s right to have the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt not being obliged to assist the prosecution by volunteering information”; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure I heard exactly the question in front of me but I think it was close enough to be reasonable. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No; because I am advised that the Chief Justice’s concerns were based on the bill as introduced. As the member knows the bill—and in particular the issues in dispute provisions in the bill—underwent change at the select committee. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister find it acceptable that in the Attorney-General’s report on the bill dated 15 November 2010 he clearly said: “I have considered this bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and report it separately to the House that in three respects it appear to be inconsistent with the rights affirmed by section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”; if so is the Minister prepared to resubmit the amended bill as reported by the Justice and Electoral Committee for further vetting by the Attorney-General? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I believe that the first part of the question related to the acceptability of the Attorney-General’s report. I find all of the Attorney-General’s reports to be acceptable. I note that I am advised that the issues the Attorney-General raised in respect of those reports were generally resolved at the select committee. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Is he aware that the departmental report for the Justice and Electoral Committee dated 16 May 2011 described several submitters including the New Zealand Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association as being in support of the bill when in letters provided by those organisations and tabled in this House on 16 August this year each confirmed its opposition; if so will he take action to correct that select committee report? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The report is a matter for the select committee not for the Minister in charge of the bill. I have to say that although I read the report at the time I have not read it recently. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Minister confirm to the House that he has the Labour Opposition’s assurance of support to pass the bill provided he is willing to make only eight changes to it? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes I am aware of the changes that the member refers to. He has written to me about these matters and I thank him for his constructive approach to this legislation. As my office informed him yesterday I am taking a close look at the points he raised in his letter and I expect to be in a position to respond shortly. I think that in the interests of good-faith discussions that is all I am prepared to say at this stage. 
Rugby World Cup Opening—Transport Issues 
6. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he accept any responsibility for the failure of the train services in Auckland on Friday night? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No. The Minister of Transport has roles in the provision of infrastructure funding policy and legislative matters. The Minister of Transport’s remit does not extend to transport operations although there are some days when I wish that it did. As members will be aware the issues that occurred on Friday were the result of operational matters. They are currently being addressed by the operator Auckland Transport and its contractors. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does section 50 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act prohibit Auckland Council from public transport management and vest that power in Auckland Transport and did his Government pass that Act? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the Government passed that Act. 
Phil Twyford 
: Did he see any warnings about establishing an autonomous body to run Auckland transport instead of making Auckland Council responsible and did he ignore those warnings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. If the member thinks that that would be the issue then obviously we would not allow Air New Zealand to run air transport we would not allow KiwiRail to run rail transport we would not allow road freighting companies to run road transport and we would not allow bus companies to run bus transport. That premise obviously does not apply. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he take responsibility for creating the structure and appointing the people and for the subsequent debacle produced by the structure he created and the people he appointed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No for the points that I have just made in answer to the previous supplementary question. The member seems to suggest that only elected bodies can run transport operations. I suggest that the evidence worldwide is that that is not the case. If he thinks that for example Councillor Mike Lee would be better to run it that is entirely up to him. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with the statement of Nikki Kaye that due to his Government reorganising Auckland local government and splitting Auckland Transport off as an autonomous organisation “We will be able to get rid of those transport bottlenecks.”; if so why was he not able to get rid of the transport bottlenecks in Auckland last Friday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has had considerable success in improving the transport situation in Auckland but the issues last Friday as I explained to the member yesterday were to be fair at least in part the result of much much higher transport loadings than were anticipated by any party that considered the matter over the last 4 or 5 years— 
Phil Twyford 
: Not true. Michael Barnett said 150000 people. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No that is incorrect. And— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did McCully appoint him in a cafe? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Oh for goodness’ sake! 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he intend to reconsider and take into account any factors in addition to his ministry’s cost-benefit ratio when considering funding of the city rail link such as our inability to manage international events without it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I must say I find amusing the suggestion that somehow the answer to the question is a $2.4 billion central business district rail link through the middle of town. If that is what is required to move people from downtown Auckland to Eden Park then we have a very big issue indeed. I am sure we can find a slightly more economical way of doing that. But it is important to point out that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are meeting pretty much as we speak to address those issues and will be making announcements later on this afternoon on both the causes of what happened last Friday and their mitigating actions and I think we should give them the opportunity to do that. 
Surgery Elective—First Specialist Assessments 
7. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made in providing improved access to surgical specialist assessments over the last three years? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 First specialist assessments are the gateway to elective surgery and most diagnostic tests. I am pleased to advise the House that over the last 3 years the number of patients benefiting from first surgical specialist assessments has increased by 24000. This compares with an increase of just over 2000 over the term of the previous Government which meant that access in real terms was cut. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other progress is being made to such assessments? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Many patients are referred to a specialist in order to get a diagnostic test or scan like endoscopy or magnetic resonance imaging and this of course involves waiting to see the specialist who then refers the patient on to the test or scan. That is one of the reasons why under the Government’s “Better sooner more convenient care” policy in primary care we are progressively giving more general practitioners the ability to refer patients directly for a test or scan without having to go to the hospital to see the specialist first. This of course means less waiting and faster service and it also frees up specialist time to deal with other patients. 
Youth Unemployment—Human Rights Commission Report 
8. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the report by the Human Rights Commission released in June entitled  
Tracking Equality at Work 
 that “unless action is taken urgently the youth situation will become unsustainable representing a threat to social cohesion”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 To date I have found very few reports from the Human Rights Commission that I entirely agree with. I do however agree with the report where it states: “over 3000 employers employees and job seekers broadly said they enjoyed their work cared about the people they worked with were proud of the services and products they delivered and loved the challenges of working life. For many work defines them and was a critical aspect of self-identity and self-esteem not just a pay cheque.” 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How many young people will move into employment education or training through the Government’s welfare reform for 16 and 17-year-olds and does this figure take into account that roughly 50 percent of independent youth benefit recipients the main target of her reforms are already in education and training? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What the member has not understood about our reforms for that age group is that we are actually looking at those who are not in education employment or training. That is anywhere between 8500 and 13500 and that was a major part of the announcement we made—we connect them. We changed the law so that we can actually get that information from education and from schools and we then connect those young people through a transition service into a provider that will wrap a service around them and get them into training or education. The part the member talks about was a small but significant part but the bigger part is around those young people—up to 13000—who are not in education or employment. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What proportion of her $20 million to $25 million Securing a Brighter Future package will go towards the establishment and administration of the benefit card system and what proportion will go towards the Youth Transitions Service network which currently covers only half of all school-leavers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Again the member has kind of got it wrong. She is lumping everything together into the payment card and for that small number who are on a benefit. There are a small number under our package who were on a benefit but a much bigger number are not on a benefit but are on a fast track there unless we intervene. This side of the House is committed to intervening to intervening properly and to making sure we wrap a service around those young people that sees them connected into something more and more into education and training. For years under the previous Government we have seen one in five young people leaving school illiterate in what they can take forward. We are determined to do better by them. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand entirely that there were two parts to the Government’s package but we were given only one figure for that package. That is why I explicitly asked the Minister what proportion of the $20 million to $25 million was for the benefit card and what proportion was for the transition service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may repeat her question just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What proportion of her $20 million to $25 million Securing a Brighter Future package will go towards the establishment and administration of the benefit card system and what proportion will go towards the Youth Transitions Service network which currently covers only half of all school-leavers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: A very small proportion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the Minister. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: A very small proportion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s answer was “A very small proportion.” 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I was asking of either package— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It would be helpful if the Minister indicated to which of the two components her answer refers. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member to my understanding was asking—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the answer. I apologise to the Minister. I have specifically asked the Minister to provide the House with more information and there is no way it will hear that information if the Hon Shane Jones keeps up such successfully loud interjections. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: So there— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Straight after you admonished one of my colleagues the senior Government whip yelled out to the point where I am having trouble hearing the Minister—who has the mike. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that my right ear is—I will not use the language I would normally used to describe it at the moment—not functioning well. Members will notice that it is not because I have a crick in my neck that I am listening like this; it is because this ear is the only one working. I warn Government members that if they take advantage of that I will come down on them heavily. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I was explaining a very small proportion of the $22 million to $25 million that is part of that package would be going to any administration. The fundamental part of that package is around the support we give to non-government organisations. We will be funding them to work with these young people. We are taking the current funding under the Youth Transitions Service and extending it further and that is what the cost is for. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she believe that young people are eager to take up employment opportunities where work exists; if not how does she explain that in 2008 there were roughly only 200 young people on an unemployment benefit long term but that on her watch that number is now eight times higher? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: And in January 2010 we saw that number at about 23500 young people who were on an unemployment benefit. I am pleased that the member is acknowledging how important it is for those young people because that is now down to fewer than 16000 young people. So we have seen over 7000 young people come off that benefit and into work. Have we got more work to do? Absolutely. But is what we are currently doing working? The proof is in those numbers and the number who are getting into work. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Temporary Accommodation Assistance Payment 
9. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has the Government made any recent announcements on the Canterbury Temporary Accommodation Assistance Payment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Temporary Accommodation Assistance payment provides financial support to homeowners affected by the earthquake who have dual housing costs while their homes are being rebuilt or repaired. It is for those who cannot access cover through other means such as insurance. We recognised that there needed to be more flexibility around the end date to support those homeowners most affected so we have made some changes. These changes will allow those eligible for the Temporary Accommodation Assistance payment to continue to receive support after the first Government deposit. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Given that excellent announcement how can people apply for the Canterbury Temporary Accommodation Assistance payment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To apply information can be found at the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service website which is www.quakeaccommodation.govt.nz. So far for the House’s information 195 homeowners have taken up the Temporary Accommodation Assistance payment with the average payment being around $280 per week which is costing the Government about $55000 a week in total. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table a document which is in fact three emails. The first one is the follow-up from the cross-party forum where we asked for this change to be made. The second one is dated 19 August asking whether there has been any progress on a reply to the inquiry. The third one is dated 30 August saying that this is now urgent and we are getting increasing inquiries about this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there an objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Minimum Wage—Value Relative to Cost of Living 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What advice if any has she recently received on the value of the minimum wage relative to the cost of living? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I can reply that as part of the annual review of the level of the minimum wage she has received advice on a range of measures concerning the changing cost of living and wages here in New Zealand. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will her Government compensate minimum-wage workers when the annual increase in food prices of 6.6 percent in the August 2011 year has far outstripped the minimum-wage increase of 25c per hour which was delivered by her Government on 1 April 2011? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member knows there is an annual process of consideration about what the minimum wage will be set at and the Minister will no doubt take that information into account in her consideration. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she accept that the income of minimum-wage workers has declined in real terms by $16.80 a week since June 2010; if so will she take that into account in this year’s minimum-wage review and increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Since 2008 the Government has increased the minimum wage from $12 to its current level of $13 per hour. This is an increase of 8.3 percent which is in line with the CPI. I would reflect that that party opposite had 9 years while previously in Government in which to put the minimum wage up to $15. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with the proposals put to the Prime Minister by the Maori Party that lifting the minimum wage to $15 per hour would have a hugely positive effect on reducing child poverty and on the cost of living for many people; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government is working every day to raise the living standards for all New Zealand families in the most difficult economic times for generations. Advice from the Department of Labour suggests that in fact the policy the member has described would have the opposite effect with the loss of more than 6000 jobs. 
Darien Fenton 
: What plans does her Government have to improve the situation for other wage-workers whose real income has declined under her Government with an average increase of just 1.9 percent in the past year compared with 5.3 percent inflation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government has a plan that will grow the economy and create more opportunities for New Zealanders by lowering taxes by investing in skills by making sure that infrastructure is boosted and by ensuring that science and innovation remain strong priorities for national investment. 
Student Loans—Debt Recovery from Overseas-based Borrowers 
11. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What action is the Government taking to ensure overseas-based student loan borrowers are meeting their repayment obligations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 We are expanding our successful debt-recovery programme which is a pilot programme in conjunction with the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne to target a further 50000 debtors in Australia and the United Kingdom. This follows an Inland Revenue Department pilot that targeted around 1000 Australia-based loanholders which has in the past 10 months led to the recovery of more than $6.6 million. This extended campaign will see loanholders across those two countries contacted either directly or through their nominated contact person in New Zealand to pay the arrears or set up payment arrangements. Legal action will follow for cases of continued non-compliance. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How do the repayments of overseas-based borrowers compare with those of New Zealand - based borrowers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Most New Zealand - based borrowers comply with their repayment obligations. In fact the median repayment time for New Zealand - based borrowers after they leave tertiary study is just 4½ years compared with overseas-based borrowers at around 14 years. Student loan borrowers need to understand that if they choose to access the loan scheme they are also choosing to take on the responsibilities that come with it even if they head overseas. We remain committed to providing interest-free student loans so improving the repayment rate by overseas borrowers is a priority in order to deliver greater value for taxpayers who fund the student loan scheme. 
Roading Auckland—Puhoi to Wellsford Route Costs and Benefits 
12. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is he satisfied that the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance represents good value for money and has had its costs and benefits adequately assessed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In regard to the Puhoi to Wellsford road it is too early to confirm exactly what the final cost-benefit ratio will be. The New Zealand Transport Agency remains in the design and investigation phase and this work is ongoing. The most recent published benefit-cost ratio is 1:1 including wider economic benefits and this can be found on the New Zealand Transport Agency website. Given the nature of the ongoing work the exact cost—the “c” of the “b-c”—will not be known until the design is complete and the New Zealand Transport Agency will continue to update me as this work progresses. 
David Shearer 
: I seek leave to table the  
Puhoi to Wellsford: Project Summary Statement 
 which states that according to a Treasury calculus the cost-benefit is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member goes into that detail what is the source of the document? 
David Shearer 
: The New Zealand Transport Agency 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A New Zealand Transport Agency document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
David Shearer 
: Was a specific cost-benefit analysis of the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” project undertaken or anything like that before it was identified as a road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In answering the member’s question I should point out that he is inaccurate. There is actually a table of benefit-cost ratios with different discount rates and with or without wider economic benefits—I should point that out. That table is of course in the report that the member has just tabled. In relation to the question though the projects were specifically identified as strategic projects that the Government sought to see developed and the identification of the actual benefit-cost ratios has continued through that process as the member is aware. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically asked whether a benefit-cost analysis was done before the road was declared a road of national significance and I do not think the Minister really addressed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister believes he has answered that. Maybe if the Minister just clarified that part of his answer because he did start his answer with some rather different information. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Repeating that answer for the member I say that the projects were identified based on their strategic benefit for the country. The benefit-cost ratios of all the projects have been calculated. Some of them had benefit-cost ratios calculated at the time and others had them developed through the process. But as I said to the member in my answer to his first question these continue to be refined over time so there is no final benefit-cost ratio. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. It was a very specific question which had to do with one project. The Minister made general comments about other projects but did not answer that question for this project. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seemed to me despite my ear being terrible on the right that he was saying that at the time it was named as a road of national significance there was no information about the costs so it was impossible to have a benefit-cost ratio. That is what he seemed to be saying. The answer to the member’s question seemed to be no therefore. 
David Shearer 
: Does the Minister still have confidence that the “Holiday Highway” can be built under a budget of $2 billion when the State highways manager Tommy Parker recently stated: “Every time you put a spade in the ground up there you’ve got to put in retaining structures or tunnels or something. The level of ground movement is more than we had anticipated which makes huge problems and huge costs.”; if he does have confidence what might minimise these unforeseen costs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously the member has been catching up with his reading. I mean this was publicised in mid-July of this year— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a straight question—although you Mr Speaker do not like the title given to the highway—and it was a gratuitous initial response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An opinion was sought asking whether the Minister agreed with Tommy Parker and questions asking for an opinion are always less precise. But perhaps the start of the answer was unnecessarily gratuitous. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have dealt with the question. The Minister should— 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a further point of order. The member persists in calling it a “Holiday Highway” which I think many people around the country find a little offensive and I think that is a gratuitous and opinionated matter so I think that on balance the question was met with a similar answer. 
David Shearer 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will deal with this matter right now and take no further points of order on the matter. The Minister does make a valid point that calling a road of national significance a “Holiday Highway” is gratuitous. The Minister makes a perfectly fair point. However let us get on with the answer because a question was asked and apart from the unnecessary use of that language the question was a perfectly reasonable question so let us hear the answer. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I take your advice on that about a year ago Mr Joyce was at a meeting where he called the highway the so-called “Holiday Highway”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and there will be no further comment from anyone. Clearly if the member wants a straight answer to a question the road being referred to is the Puhoi to Wellsford road on State Highway 1. If the member wants answers to questions it is best to use the straight language. It leaves Ministers less opportunity to wriggle. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point I was making to the member is that we have been aware for some time that particularly north of Warkworth there are some challenges. In fact the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of Friday 15 July broke the story for the member by saying that there were some issues in Dome Valley in particular. I think that is the point—it is challenging and there are significant challenges to be worked through and there are engineering challenges which I believe I have also acknowledged previously in this House. There is more work to be done and again we will not know the final benefit-cost ratio until that work is done. 
David Shearer 
: Given that more than 40 people have died on the Puhoi to Wellsford road in the past 9 years what action has the Minister taken to upgrade the existing State Highway 1 while we wait for his Puhoi to Wellsford road? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Transport Agency has taken a number of initiatives including two—I would have to say—varied reviews lowering the speed limit on part of the section of that road to 80 kilometres an hour to assist in lowering the road toll. As I say they have been varied reviews but doing that has actually had some success in the incidence of accidents. It remains a very dangerous piece of road though and ultimately the answer is to have a separated highway for those high-volume highways around the country where we have high volumes of traffic seeking to pass each other in opposite directions in very difficult conditions. That is why this road is being developed. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Rugby World Cup Minister—Extension of Queens Wharf Fanzone 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is to invoke powers under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 to take control of the Auckland waterfront for cup celebrations. Dr Norman’s application refers to the decision by the Minister to extend the Auckland Rugby World Cup fanzone beyond its current limits. No such decision has been made. 
In ruling on an urgent debate application the Speaker has to determine not when an announcement is made but when a particular case of recent occurrence occurs. The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for decisions that have actually been made. The grounds for an urgent debate today are not made out. 
However this is an important and controversial matter. There is a significant element of urgency. Where there is no other parliamentary means of debating an urgent matter in the reasonably foreseeable future this is a relevant consideration for the Speaker in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House. It may well give grounds for the matter to take precedence over other business. That stage has not been reached today but I am prepared to reassess tomorrow. The applications are declined. 
General Debate 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In May I addressed the crisis we are facing in Christchurch following the February earthquake. I said then that knowing the challenges ahead of us in what is now the new normal we need to engender a sense of hope in the community. Since then I have convened a series of public forums in Christchurch marrying local expertise and civic engagement in order to develop a vision of a future 21st century eco-city. In August I released my report  
The Future of Christchurch 
 with copies going to Minister Brownlee and the parliamentary forum Environment Canterbury the city council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. I thanked the Government for its commendation of the report when I tabled it in Parliament recently. 
My report contains 26 recommendations identifying four overarching goals. They are resilience sustainability harmony and beauty. This parallels the council’s own plan which conveys a green message from the people of Christchurch about the kind of city they want. But my report goes further and wider because a necessary condition of a sustainable harmonious and beautiful city is its resilience and resilience requires us to think ahead. One of my recommendations is to extend the planning period for the recovery strategy and the city plan from 9 months to 18 months and to stipulate a time horizon of 100 years with identified milestones of 5 20 and 50 years within that period. It is only within the context of such a long-term horizon that the issue of a city’s resilience comes into focus. 
That addresses two main considerations: the seismic nature of the land and sea level rise. With regard to the seismicity of the land we all know that the aftershocks are expected to continue into the indefinite future with an 82 percent chance of a significant shock over magnitude 5 in the next year. That is a major complication for any rebuild—short term or long term. We remain uncertain over the true nature of the land under the city. A geotechnical report commissioned by the royal commission and released last week regards the land under Christchurch as problematic. The inner city is built largely on liquefaction-prone soil making it complex and challenging to construct earthquake-resistant buildings on it. The ground is only 1 to 1½ metres above the water table and is riddled with aquifers and streams. The report states that the foundation conditions of the city are complex and challenging for geotechnical engineers in regard to their performance in strong earthquakes. Buildings on liquefaction-prone soil need robust shallow foundations often accompanied by deep piles anchored to solid rock that is 25 metres below the ground. Tougher seismic foundation standards need to be considered. The report concludes: “One may argue that the current philosophy … does not address the issues of the overall impact of big earthquakes on a city or a country and the need for a reasonably quick recovery …”. So what might be the limits when an engineer would acknowledge that rebuilding on the site of the original city should be abandoned? Some engineers have said the limit is a 1:4 chance of a similar earthquake over the next 50 years. 
In my report I called on the Government to do two things prior to the rebuild. First Greater Christchurch should be declared by Parliament to be an issue of national significance. A conference should be convened after the election with political leaders scientific advisers and corporate and civic leaders present to consider the recovery plan. The conference should address the issue of rebuilding Christchurch on its present location having regard to the basic features of land contour and composition waterways and climate. Second following the conference Parliament should agree to a motion that Christchurch should be rebuilt on its present location in the event that such a political judgment rests on sound publicly transparent scientific advice. 
Concerning sea level rise my report recommends an alteration to the city plan acknowledging a possible sea level rise of 2 metres by 2100 and specifying minimum finished floor levels accordingly. This would include automatic review of the issue in light of evolving scientific work in each of the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as they come out. 
It appears that neither the council’s draft city plan nor the draft recovery strategy of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority focuses on these prior resilience issues that will none the less determine the fate of Christchurch. I call on the Government to act on these recommendations before it is too late. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Over the next few years New Zealand has a great opportunity to build on the solid foundations of faster growth a stronger economy and more jobs and opportunities here in New Zealand. The National-led Government has a plan to take New Zealand forward by reducing our debt getting our country back into surplus over the next 3 years and building a faster-growing stronger economy based on an export-led recovery. That is the direction that the John Key - led Government offers New Zealanders; it offers a determination to improve our economy to improve the opportunities and to give people the tools to empower themselves and their families to enjoy the sorts of futures that they want. 
As a result of our efforts over the last 2 to 3 years New Zealand is much better placed than many other countries to manage what is a very uncertain global environment. Members need only read the international section of their newspapers to see what is happening and they need only watch the international television stations on Sky to see how uncertain the international environment is. They can see what other countries are doing and they can see the very moderate and future-focused way this Government has responded. In Britain half a million public servants are to lose their jobs over the next 3 or 4 years. In France 100000 public servants are to lose their jobs in the next few years. All around Ireland and in other parts of Europe there will be 15 percent pay cuts to the salaries of public servants teachers and nurses. There are difficult times in Greece where the economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. There is significant retrenchment in its economy. 
But here in New Zealand we have been able to steer the economy through these difficult times and ensure that New Zealanders have been able to avoid the sharp edges of that economic difficulty. This Government has had a responsible and steady hand at the front of this economy and right up there has been our Prime Minister John Key who has been able to use his international experience to help the New Zealand economy. 
At the same time the Government has remained firmly committed to growing and protecting important social services here in New Zealand. Not only has the Minister of Education put 1600 extra teachers in front of classrooms in New Zealand but also she has invested $100 million extra in early childhood education which is the most money ever spent on early childhood education. That is record levels of spending on early childhood education and she is focusing on the kids who are most vulnerable and who are not getting access to early childhood education. That is the leadership that we have had from the Minister of Education Anne Tolley who has brought national standards into our schools. She will be horrified to know that a Labour Government would remove national standards from our schools. We would go back to those low standards back to the messiness and the “unions know best” approach to education. 
In the public health service we have invested $1.5 billion of extra money into our public hospitals. That is 800 extra doctors and 2000 extra nurses on the district health board payrolls. It is great to have the staff but what is the benefit for patients? What we know is we have record levels of elective surgery in New Zealand. There are 27000 extra operations a year being performed for New Zealanders. That is hips cataracts ear nose and throat operations and hernias—27000 extra operations. That is 500 extra operations a week under the National Government. Since we were elected we have had 23000 more elective operations for people over the age of 65. 
Grant Robertson 
: That’s right: all those ingrown toenails! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh “all those ingrown toenails!”. Actually the complexity is about the same every year so we are doing quite a lot— 
Grant Robertson 
: What about case-weighted discharges? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Case-weighted discharges are at a record level—at a record level. There are more general surgeries and more operations for children. We are delivering New Zealanders the services that they want. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Five years ago the Labour Government secured a major achievement for New Zealand: the right to host the Rugby World Cup. That was fantastic. It was a fantastic opportunity to have the Rugby World Cup on our own ground in front of our own supporters and for the All Blacks to win. It was fantastic because it gave us the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to an audience of 4 billion people. It was fantastic because it is likely to bring this country ultimately $1 billion. 
Everything is there to make this cup a huge success. We have the public enthusiasm. We see the Samoan and the Tongan flags flying around my electorate—it is really good. We saw a good opening at the ground and we saw some really good rugby particularly the Wales and South Africa match. But I have to say that last Friday’s debacle really let down New Zealand. We saw the failure of our transport system to deliver the loss of opportunity—a lifetime opportunity—for those folk who had saved for months and months to come to the game from South Auckland the risk that those people were put at and the absolute chaos around the waterfront area. Les Geller who is an intensive care specialist at Auckland City Hospital said we were really lucky that nobody died in that mess. 
I expect the Government to front up to take its share of responsibility and to do something constructive about it. It is not for this Government to put the blame on everybody else. “It was the Auckland super-city’s fault.” Well that Government created it. “It was Auckland Transport.” Well that Government set up the council-controlled organisation and appointed most of the board. Then it was Veolia Transport’s fault and then Mr Key said it was the fault of somebody on the train who pushed the emergency button. Well they pushed the button because kids were fainting old people were ill they had sat there for an hour and the transport system had failed. But the Prime Minister blamed the people in the carriage. 
If anybody should take responsibility it is Prime Minister Key. It was his insistence that the whole focus would be on party central on Queens Wharf. It was not a suitable venue. It was too small. It held 12000 people and we know from Christmas in the Park that several hundred thousand people turn up at these events. Why did the organisers have the fireworks down there why did they have the concert down there when they knew that Michael Barnett had told Murray McCully that probably 150000 people would turn up? They were told. They were warned. It was their idea. Why do they not man up and accept responsibility for it? 
When it comes to accepting responsibility that implies also the responsibility to get it right. So what did Ministers do? They used the empowering legislation not before the event when they could have planned and worked with the council to put in place special measures but after the event as a damage control measure. They then play politics with it by embarrassing and humiliating the council—saying it was the council’s fault—instead of looking for a joint plan of action and working constructively with the super-city to get it right. I tell this Government that it has to get it right. I tell Murray McCully and Steven Joyce that I accepted their assurances that everything was fine. I believed John Key when he said everything was in place. It was not in place. 
There was an absolute failure of ministerial oversight in this. What do we get at the end of that process? This debacle meant that Pacific Islands Forum leaders said they would not go downtown because they feared for their safety it meant that papers from  
The 
Hindu  
and the  
China Post  
to the  
Winnipeg Free Press  
are reporting on New Zealand as a country that failed. That is not what the Labour Government wanted when it secured the Rugby World Cup for New Zealand. It wanted to showcase our beautiful country and say that we are competent that we can run these things. But our Government first of all let us down and then I say to Mr Williamson would not accept responsibility for where it had got it wrong. 
Why was it that we were told by Steven Joyce that there were contingency plans in place for the transport system? There were no contingency plans. This Government has got it wrong. Even in trying to address and clean up the mess those members are still playing politics by blaming everyone but themselves. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In that speech from the Hon Phil Goff we saw the negativity of the Labour Party. We saw the  
Hobbit 
 haters the Rugby World Cup droppers the people who do not like to celebrate New Zealand for all that it is and for all that it achieves. 
I proudly stand here as an Aucklander and as someone who is proud of our city and what it achieved on Friday night. It was an outstanding match. It was an outstanding Rugby World Cup opening. The people there had smiles on their faces pride in their country and pride in what they were achieving. They are proud of themselves and of what they are doing and we stand next to them as the National Government in that. Aucklanders are proud of their city. Yes they have a waterfront that they want to show off and be a part of. I think that is fantastic. 
This Rugby World Cup has brought aspiration hope and pride to New Zealanders. That is something we should be celebrating—celebrating the successes. But instead all we hear repeatedly from the other side of the House is just the relentless negativity of what is wrong what is wrong what is wrong. Those members will talk it up and talk it up as much as they possibly can. I say paint it black and I say be proud of our rugby team; be proud of our country and be proud of what we can achieve. Although there are lessons to be learnt there is one thing that is absolutely sure and that is that New Zealanders are ready to learn them and they are ready to do better—because we can. 
We see it in employment as well. We constantly get: “It is dire it is negative nothing is happening.” and it suits Labour to talk that up completely that there are absolutely no jobs for anyone. Does Labour count the 7225 people who went off the benefit just last month—just last month—to go into jobs? 
Jo Goodhew 
: How many? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes 7225 people went off the benefit just last month to go into work. Does Labour count the more than 7000 young people in net numbers who have gone off the youth unemployment benefit in the last 18 months to actually get into jobs? What we saw during the 2000s under that previous Government was young people coming out of school into jobs that were not sustainable. As soon as things got rocky and as soon as things got tough they fell out of those jobs. 
Until that side of the House stands up and says sorry the reality is that the rest of New Zealand has not just got its phone off the hook but does not even know those members’ names. That will be the case until that side of the House actually stands up and takes up the responsibility for what it has done and for how out of touch it has got with New Zealanders and the real issues that affect them and actually understands families and what happens in a household and what their requirements and their needs are—how they actually have the ability to stand up for themselves—instead of constantly seeing them as victims and consistently putting them down leading them to being dependent on a Government like we saw in the 2000s when we saw them falling out of the few opportunities that they had. 
One in five young New Zealanders leave school unable to read and write at the capacity they need to get on and get jobs. The jobs we saw created for those young people were not sustained when the economy got incredibly wobbly. The jobs were not there for them and there is a reason for that. They did not have the skills and they did not have the abilities to stay in those jobs. As far as I am concerned members on that side of the House should be ashamed of that and should actually stand up and apologise to New Zealanders then just maybe—just maybe—they might start listening at some stage. 
We are seeing more young people taking up training opportunities. We are seeing more young people staying in school longer and I think it is fantastic to see the growth in the number of young people who are staying in school and coming out with more qualifications. I certainly think the trades academies that this side of the House has introduced will make a massive difference for those young people. Let us see whether Labour members will stand up and say they will support those semi-retired older people who want to go into our schools and teach trades—those panel beaters who want to go in and give young people a hand. Let us see Labour actually recognise that for all it is worth. I am proud to be a New Zealander proud to be an Aucklander and that is where this side of the House stands. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Firstly it is important to acknowledge in respect of the fiasco around the Rugby World Cup on Friday night that there actually were service workers who tried their hardest and there were security people—no doubt enjoying very minimal wages—who were stressed and trying their hardest. There were the police who tried their hardest. The person who did not try his hardest was the Prime Minister who went to Eden Park exploited an opportunity delivered a half-baked insipid speech and deliberately went out of his way to show that he does not govern for all New Zealanders. He waited for a manene he waited for a visiting European to bring just a small measure of our indigenous language into a greeting. When the Prime Minister did that it showed that he was willing to exploit the limelight but that when the acid was going to come on him he would run from the attention. 
Why are we angry on this side of the House? There are concerns about the health of the young people because a number of us in this House were down at the Viaduct Basin on Friday night where we saw the thronging crowd and we saw the poor organisation. We were deeply fearful that had there been a spark of incivility had there been a spark of violence bad planning would mean our security forces would never have coped. We should congratulate the majority of the Kiwis largely young people who were there and who answered the call. Unfortunately it has proven to be a siren call from the Prime Minister: “Come and party!”; “Haere mai ki te whakangahau!”. 
Well he obviously thought he could use those terms a year 18 months or 2 years ago and that would overlap in terms of a feel-good factor for the election. Well it does not feel good now because media around the world have picked up on that egregious lapse of organisation. It is inevitable that the Government wants to blame someone else because we have never had a Prime Minister more skilful at shifting liability or shifting the blame. New Zealanders know and they are not happy at the prospect of a showcase like this being used to diminish our reputation internationally. The media had every right to ask questions. 
Of course the majority of people who managed to get there on time had a fantastic opportunity to see some of the finest sentiments showcased at Eden Park. We had the Pasifika influence the Maori influence and we had the broad Kiwi influence. What we did not have was a Prime Minister showing the influence of his office and agreeing to stand up and be counted. 
What did the Government do? It blamed the hapless Len Brown who had no formal authority and who has no power whatsoever over Auckland Transport and indeed who has very little influence over its budget. To make matters worse the Government then invited Minister Steven Joyce to further humiliate the super-city. The super-city is an autonomous unit but in this case it is not responsible for the debacle that we saw in terms of the failure in security and crowd control and in the transport woes that the Auckland Council is endeavouring to fix up. Every time it comes up with an innovative idea that might have reduced the prospect of what we are dealing with in terms of Rugby World Cup transportation it is humiliated. It is a further example of a small coterie of Cabinet Ministers who intensely dislike Len Brown. They will not rest until they have had the opportunity to wear the man down. 
The real agenda here is not to improve the prospects of running the Rugby World Cup for the next 7 or 8 weeks; the Government is using it as an opportunity to humiliate and deprecate a person who has a larger mandate than any single member of the House. We should call it on that. This is being done under the cloak of the Rugby World Cup fiasco to settle personal political scores. No one is doing it with more alacrity than Steven Joyce. He is the man who the National MPs tell us has the nickname of “Figjam”. We want to hear about the problems of traffic jams and the solutions to traffic jams. 
I will go on to explain why we hold the Prime Minister to account. It is not good enough to want to bask in the glory of the work that Helen Clark and Tana Umaga did in actually securing that concession for New Zealand. When the Prime Minister stands we want him to be the Prime Minister for all New Zealanders and we want him to be a Prime Minister who stands up and is willing to be counted when things go wrong because inevitably things do not always go swimmingly well. But what we see is a person who not only is willing to blame Len Brown but also is unwilling to take responsibility. As a consequence of this National’s election campaign does not look flash. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I watched the Rugby World Cup opening from the fanzone in Hagley Park in Christchurch and I was proud to be a New Zealander. But right now I will talk about National’s blue-green agenda and the significant environmental achievements we have made in the last 3 years. 
It was really interesting when last night we introduced the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill to protect and manage the seas around the New Zealand coast. The bill was supported right across the House by the Greens by the Maori Party by ACT and by United Future—everybody except Labour. That does not make any sense to me. It is that constant negativity. The exclusive economic zone right now has no protection and Labour does not want it to get any. That is totally irresponsible. 
A couple of weeks ago Labour voted against the Freedom Camping Bill. That legislation is to stop our beautiful pristine environment from being fouled and damaged. I do not get that Labour decision either. It seems that in Labour’s effort to try to differentiate itself from National it is happy to sacrifice the environment and that is not good enough. 
Dr Nick Smith and the Bluegreens have worked hard over the past 3 years to clean up our existing environmental problems and to give a new environmentally friendly agenda. We have had some good results. In 2010 we had the cleanest air ever recorded in New Zealand. That success is mostly due to the Clean Heat programme. In the last 3 years we have converted 26000 homes to clean-heating appliances. Labour converted only 800 in its 9 years—800. We have been working with the Greens on the Warm Up New Zealand insulation programme and have refitted 100000 homes. Labour refitted 5000 in its time. This insulation project has much wider benefits to health and well-being for New Zealand families right across the country. We are continuing that programme in Christchurch as we repair houses there. 
We are also cleaning up waterways and contaminated sites such as the Tui Mine which has been a blot on the Coromandel landscape and lakes and rivers all across the country. In these tough economic times we are spending nearly $100 million on clean-ups. That is five times as much as Labour spent in 9 long years when it was responsible for looking after our waterways. 
I was delighted to join Nick Smith recently when we signed up to the big clean-up of Lake Ellesmere Te Waihora. We are working together with Ngai Tahu Environment Canterbury and Fonterra so we have round the table all the people who can make this happen. It is a real step forward. 
We are also keen to see the collaborative model working across the country. It is what underpins the Land and Water Forum. Fifty-four stakeholders from all parts of our community are working together to develop a long-lasting framework to manage water quality and water quantity. That is another important milestone. 
We are making progress in Canterbury too by pushing forward the community-focused Canterbury Water Management Strategy and zone committees and they are doing very good work. 
Our moderated emissions trading scheme is also working well. We are on track to meeting our Kyoto Protocol targets which will save the country $470 billion. It is a sensible practical policy that is really delivering. Helen Clark talked a lot about being carbon neutral but during her time emissions increased by 23 percent. In the last 2 years without any fanfare under National emissions have dropped by 4 percent. Forestry is also important for managing carbon and during Labour’s last 3 years it chopped down 15 million trees— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: —15 million—whereas the National Government has planted 5.5 million more so we are on the way and are increasing that as well. 
We are also making progress with renewable energy. In 2010 74 percent of our energy was generated by renewables. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Because we will talk about the Rugby World Cup tomorrow let me take members to another place. I will talk about today in history. 
I for one have had the honour and privilege of meeting and talking to Corporal Willie Apiata VC. There is something special about that man that is hard to describe. There is sort of an awe a mana to him. I am sure that Mr Speaker would have come across that having met him. Although he is not someone who wants to share the spotlight too much in any sort of way on receiving the Victoria Cross he had some really good messages which I want to share with everyone. He explained that we are all carriers of information and he says that his aim before they start shovelling the soil on top of him is to hand over to the young people what he has been taught because it does not belong to him. It was passed down by the people he grew up with and they did not keep it to themselves. 
I like to think that Maori Party members share the same philosophy with Corporal Willie Apiata. We acknowledge the past for the progress that has been made to date. We do our best to ensure that goals are being met and that new goals continue to be set always in the pursuit of rangatiratanga the desire to look after our own affairs. So today I stand here on 14 September 2011 remembering those carriers of information those who fought to change their world by using their influence and by inspiring others to do just as they had done. 
On 14 September 1894 Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero was elected the third Maori King. He went on to persuade many Waikato landowners to take up the land development scheme led by Te Puea Herangi. He was later described by Sir Apirana Ngata as being a great influence for progress and had he lived longer he would have been one of the greatest champions of land settlement. 
I remember the information carriers such as Hana Te Hemara Jackson who with the support of Nga Tamatoa and the Te Reo Maori Society presented the Maori language petition to Parliament in 1972. I acknowledge the strong Maori language supporters such as Matiu Rata and Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan—two former Maori MPs who stood at the steps of this Parliament to receive the petition which significantly led to the declaration that 14 September be the first Maori language day. Today is a really significant day in the Maori calendar. 
The publication of  
Te Karanga a Te Kotuku 
 in 1974 drew attention to the issues facing Maori in regards to land ownership and its struggles. Its author the late Saana Murray fought for the land rights of her people Ngati Kuri and for all Maori. On this day in 1975 from her papakainga in Te Hapua the historic 1975 Maori Land March departed for Wellington led by Dame Whina Cooper. When the 1975 hikoi marched across the Auckland Harbour Bridge it was led by Joe Hawke of Ngati Whatua o Orakei. Eighteen months later Joe and his whanau led the occupation of Bastion Point and Joe of course is another former MP. 
During the same period Eva Rickard—supported by Tama Poata John Hippolite and others—occupied the Raglan golf course to protest its seizure from Maori owners. Some years later with Saana Murray and the late Dell Wihongi and others they lodged the Wai 262 claim for rangatiratanga over taonga tuku iho. It took direct action at Raglan and Bastion Point for the public and the Government to recognise the injustice but in due course the lands were returned. Wai 262 of course is now an issue for us to settle for future generations. Land rights protests prompted Matiu Rata to draft the Treaty of Waitangi Act passed in 1975 which established the Waitangi Tribunal and a mechanism for addressing historic injustices against Maori. 
So Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero Hana Te Hemara Jackson Matiu Rata Saana Murray Dame Whina Cooper and Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan were all carriers of information who left behind a legacy. Today the Maori Party advances this legacy right into the lion’s den of te kawanatanga taking New Zealand into the future but with Maori at the table. The Maori Party was born out of the greatest land grab of all time—and the Labour Party can shout—the confiscation of te takutai moana. 
Today we have abolished Crown title restored the jurisdiction of the courts and reopened a proper process for determining ownership of the foreshore and seabed. We have helped to restore te reo Maori to its rightful place in this House as a symbol of the mana of all New Zealanders. Simultaneous translation helps all of us to understand te reo Maori. Today is an important day in the Maori calendar. I stand here on behalf of the Maori Party to salute those who have gone before me and to accept our responsibilities to pass on that heritage. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I was one of the very lucky ones who were able to get to Eden Park on Friday night. I have to say to Ms Dyson that it was a terrific night to park in my electorate. It was a great night. The opening ceremony literally brought tears to my eyes. Like a lot of other people I was very proud to be a New Zealander and proud to see how our country and our diversity was portrayed and to see that we could have an opening like that that was positively world-beating. It was a great game too. It was not a great technical game of rugby but it was a good game. It was good to see the Tongans really giving it particularly in the second half. Auckland itself has been alive with red flags certainly all over my electorate and around the place. I do not have any problem with red flags all over Auckland. 
But the night was soured by events that did not go so well elsewhere. Our transport did not stack up as we thought it would. It was never great from the start and it certainly did not stack up. There were too many people down at the waterfront—370000 people made it down there on Friday. On a normal day 240000 would be using our transport system. The Government announced that it wanted to have party central down at the waterfront. It said: “Come on down to party central!”. The area held only 12000 people but the Government encouraged everybody to go down there. There was the biggest fireworks display in New Zealand’s history. Why would people not go down there on a great night to celebrate? So they went down and what happened? They certainly did not get the reception that we wanted. 
That was bad enough—that was bad enough—but that is fixable. We can do something about that. The council sat down on Friday night and said: “This isn’t what we wanted; this isn’t what we expected. Let’s see what’s wrong and see how we can fix it.” But instead of that we have had a whole lot of finger-pointing by this Government—a whole lot of finger-pointing particularly by Mr McCully. He swans in like he is some sort of tinpot banana republic dictator and tells everybody what he is going to do. He brings in his Wellington jackboot crowd his bureaucrats who think that somehow they can tell Auckland a city of 1.4 million people how to run their show and how to do it better. This is exactly what we do not want in Auckland. We do not want somebody who micro-manages a city right down to the colour of their costumes and T-shirts and who gets to say who sits in which corporate box and who does not. We want somebody who can work with our council who can sit down with our council and work out what went wrong and how we can do it better so that Auckland can turn on exactly what we want it to. And it can—it can. 
The thing that is most galling about this is not the fact that things did not work—that was bad enough—but the reaction from the Government of wanting to shift blame away from itself and on to the Auckland Council. McCully came walking in with not even the courtesy of a phone call to our mayor—not even the courtesy of picking up the phone and saying he is taking over. He just came in and said he is going to declare martial law down on Auckland’s waterfront. 
There is another way to do this which is to sit down and get on with the Auckland Council and do it together—do it together—so that we have a good outcome in the future and not a bad one. We have ended up with basically a peeing competition between Mr McCully Mr Joyce and Mr Key about who will really be in charge of the Rugby World Cup. We do not need this. We do not want Auckland to be portrayed around the world as some sort of banana republic. The International Rugby Board said to a number of people I know that it understands that the transport did not work very well. It did not work very well in France either when the Rugby World Cup was handled there. But we did not expect the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to come launching in like some banana republic dictator and lord it over everybody else. All that did was put the story into the international pages; it did not actually solve the problem. At the end of the day the Auckland Council will still have to get on and do exactly what it needs to do which is to quietly get on and fix it. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The National-led Government came to office with a steely determination to turn the tables on crime so that it is no longer victims who pay. As a child living in Taranaki every summer we went on holiday across the country. We left home with our back door unlocked. We did that every summer. Honesty and respect for other people’s property was the prevailing attitude in our country which made this one of the great places to live in the world. In recent years many New Zealanders would have looked on in dismay at some of the values that underpin our good and decent society being eroded. When this Government came to office there was a strong feeling in the community that crime needed to be attended to. It was out of control and the scales of justice were tilted too far in favour of criminals rather than victims. 
Our position is that although we understand that the drivers of crime can pervade communities for generations crime must never be an accepted activity and it must always be resisted and never tolerated. We have worked very hard over this last term to bring some changes which we are seeing the benefit of in our country. It is why law and order continues to be one of the Government’s biggest priorities. The good news is that under the National-led Government the crime rate has dropped by 6.9 percent per head of population. We have passed 18 new laws to make families safer in their communities and in their homes. We are addressing the drivers of crime with a range of cross-agency initiatives. These address behavioural issues in young children reduce harm caused by alcohol offer alternative approaches to managing low-level offenders and offer pathways out of offending. I am very proud to be part of a Government that has delivered and is delivering a better and safer society. 
One of the biggest law and order issues facing this country is the spread of organised crime. I am sure members will be aware as many others will be that in recent months Australia’s largest and most troublesome outlaw motorcycle gang the Rebels Motorcycle Club has been attempting to set up base here in New Zealand. The evidence is that gangs are no longer groups of small-time thugs. They have large criminal businesses with global connections and they have a willingness to use violence. Of course the game-changer around all of this has been methamphetamine. The vast amount of money that can be made from the sale of this drug has brought gangs wealth and influence previously unheard of. The police estimate that the combined profit from methamphetamine and cannabis sales alone in New Zealand is between $1.4 billion and $2.2 billion per year in New Zealand. Our Government has led the charge in its fight against drugs. We are fighting a war against P. In 2010 P busts took $30.4 million worth of P off the streets. Of course one of the biggest concerns is that when criminals gain access to large amounts of money it increases the possibility of corruption taking root. It has been very important to address this issue. 
On 1 September not long ago—just over a couple of weeks ago—it was reported that every known patched member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club gang in Taranaki was locked up on that day following a massive police hunt. The police executed search warrants at 13 addresses in New Plymouth one in Otaki one in Auckland and seven in Northland. Ten vehicles were located and searched in New Plymouth. In stark contrast to this it was only 3 years ago that New Plymouth was voted New Zealand’s top city heading off Christchurch Wellington and Auckland as the best place in New Zealand to live love work and raise a family. This gang from Australia which seeks to come and pillage our society and sell its drugs has sought to take root in the province that I come from and the city in which I live. I say congratulations to the police and well done to the National-led Government on its war against P which has seen New Plymouth eradicate these sorts of problems. The people of New Plymouth will no doubt be thankful and I am sure their support will come forth on 26 November this year. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who has just spoken Jonathan Young. I think he is an underrated National member. In fact I was just commenting to my colleague that four members sitting in the back row are underrated by National. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No there aren’t—there’s only three. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Three of them are underrated by their National colleagues. It is somewhat sad from my perspective to see them treated in that way. 
The topic of the debate today is clearly the problems that are occurring in Auckland. I am not referring to the remarks that have been attributed to Mr Williamson; I am referring to the chaos in Auckland on Friday afternoon and Friday night. Today in the House I referred to the assurances that were given during and following the “99 days to the cup” visit. According to the Auckland Council it was a full-day visit from Mr McCully and Mr Joyce. They went around the facilities and pronounced themselves satisfied with the preparations. I am somewhat saddened that repeated offers—offers at the end of 2008 offers when the legislation was going through the House and more recent offers—to work on a bipartisan basis to give assistance without any need for recognition to make sure this thing worked well were spurned by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup who continually said that things were in hand. Clearly they were not. 
The Minister rejected the possibility of using the Auckland Domain as the major family-friendly site with possibly alcohol around the edge or on part of the domain. As the place that is used for Carols by Candlelight it has shown an ability to take a quarter of a million people. That possibility was rejected by the Minister and he has yet to explain why that was the case. 
The Prime Minister and the Minister had asked Aucklanders—and in fact people from around New Zealand and around the world—to come down to the wharf to party central. He has yet to explain why he thought only 12000 people would come. Why did he think only 12000 people would come to party central? The Prime Minister invited them 18 months ago to come to party central. We had concerts and fireworks and we had spectacular waka paddling. He thought that only 5 percent of the number of people who go to Carols by Candlelight would go to this magnificent opening. We are assured that he was told that the number would be 150000 by Michael Barnett who is a close friend of his from Auckland. He apparently appointed him to a position over a coffee at a cafe on one occasion; it is not as though he is distant from the National Party. The Prime Minister was told to expect 150000 people and we are now told that that was an underestimate. 
I am not sure that even now the Minister knows what he is doing. I think possibly this weekend will be a bit of a test but the real test will be when New Zealand plays France on 24 September and during the quarter-finals and the semi-finals. There will be four countries there for those weekends. The number of fans will begin to lift and the test will be at that time. 
We have seen I think one of the most spectacular ministerial failures in our time. We have a Minister who was appointed for a specific purpose: to make sure that the Rugby World Cup works well. I think that generally he did pretty well with his changes and appointments to the board. I think it is a good board. It has worked together and it has a good chief executive. The board has delivered on the field and close to it. But there has been an abysmal failure in the business development side of it. That has been almost absolutely missing. What have we had? We have had a Minister who chose the colour the shade of blue for the Prime Minister to mince in but did not focus on the numbers who would be going to the wharf. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the member who I understand is the Labour Party campaign manager given that he spends more of his time cycling and talking about what is going on in every other place in New Zealand rather than focusing on the Labour Party campaign. In fact only today the  
Listener 
 has put out this great double-page spread looking at the wonderful candidates for leadership in the Labour Party. They are all posing. Mr Shearer is there but there is no Mr Mallard. The two “Camp Davids” are there and Mr Jones is there. 
I want to touch on one of the things about the great Mr Jones. All we have heard about from the Labour Party in this debate is the Rugby World Cup. The pleasure was mine to go to the Rugby World Cup opening. We went on a train. Mr Woodhouse and I sat on a train for 35 minutes with all the other New Zealanders. The thing is nearly 2 million New Zealanders watched the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony and the opening game—2 million New Zealanders—and all the Labour Party cares about is a very very small number who became very upset because they could not get to the game on time. That is why the Government has brought in the regime that it put in place yesterday. 
You see Labour members are not worried about the many; they are worried about the few. They are worried about the things that put the Labour Party leader at 7 percent in the polls but National is focused on those things that matter. It is not about voodoo it is not about the scary thoughts of what may or may not happen it is about the economy. It is all about the economy. The National John Key - led Government has achieved many things in the economy. It put in place a tax reform package that benefits most New Zealanders. It put in place—in a very uncertain global financial environment—a mechanism where in the space of collapsing economies throughout Europe riots throughout Western Europe in particular massive unemployment in the US and huge debts rising across the Western World we have an economy that has set the confidence of people to invest in this country across the board. 
We have lowered taxes at a time when other countries in the world are raising them. We have put in place a regime where our debt track is lower than that of other countries going forward and which will remain so so that we can maintain a credit rating that will be the envy of the Western World for years to come. That means that mortgage rates for those mums and dads out there will be lower than in most other countries in the Western World. 
Jobs are increasing. Labour does not like talking about that about real jobs and the real economy whether it is in Canterbury and the rebuilding of my fine city or in other parts of the real economy. It is not about bureaucrats; it is about real jobs. Labour seems to be focused on the absolute minutia of things that do not matter. We have moved people from the offices in the medical areas to the operating theatres and those things are the many things that New Zealanders actually care about as shown by the reaction of the people out there. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s imitating John Key’s pronunciation. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Unlike Mr Mallard over there New Zealanders actually care about these things that the John Key - led Government is putting in place not about the things that Mr Mallard or the Labour Party seem to care about. 
We have already spent over $1 billion rebuilding my fair province of Canterbury and many more billions of dollars are yet to come. I have actually enjoyed some of the debate and discussions we have had even with colleagues from across the other side of the House and we have agreed from time to time on some of those things that are required to rebuild our fair city. I think that is a good thing. 
We are rebuilding our city and our province and the people actually agree with us in spades. It was a pleasure to go to the opening of some of the big steps forward in the rebuilding of my fair province in recent days. My own high school Shirley Boys High School has its first day tomorrow on its campus and that is a very important thing for the largest boys’ high school in the South Island. The biggest shopping mall on my side of town The Palms reopened last Thursday so that people can go and get their cake and their coffee buy their flowers and have a good time with their friends and family. 
The National Government has put in place a wonderful thing which is the National Infrastructure Plan. It had its genesis only 4 years ago in a small group of National Party activists. We have seen the results of this being implemented in the last 3 years and they will continue to be implemented through the National Government’s investment plan which is the first ever such plan seen in New Zealand. It will see over $100 billion spent on those things that Kiwis up and down the country really care about—hospitals schools roads and those things that drive the economy. 
Despite all that we still have some challenges. My mum and dad in their house in Parklands still cannot have a functioning toilet. There are 800 people in Canterbury who still have those problems and our Government is working hard to solve those issues as well as the big-picture issues around our economy. I actually care about what my mum and dad and other New Zealanders really think. They are a good microcosm of the small problems we still have here in New Zealand. 
It has been a pleasure in the last few days to talk about the Rugby World Cup but I want to take the last few seconds I have to talk about the great Parliamentary Rugby Team and its great successes. What a wonderful thing that was being part of winning the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup again. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Last Friday was an utter fiasco. All the years of planning the hundreds of photo opportunities the hundreds of press releases and the assurances from the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport came to nothing. There were 2000 rugby fans who were denied the opportunity to go to the opening ceremony and to the game at Eden Park. People were crushed in railway carriages for hours people were passing out in railway carriages from a lack of air and people on Quay Street were crushed in the crowd. That is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment to New Zealand and it is an embarrassment for New Zealanders. 
I want to talk about accountability. What we have seen in the last few days from this Government is an absence of accountability. We heard Murray McCully at the weekend deny that there was any problem. He said: “Oh well you have to look at this in the context of a normal Friday and Saturday night.” He was playing down the problems. He was denying that there had been any serious breakdown of systems. We have seen John Key pointing the finger at everyone—everyone—but the Government: Len Brown is to blame and Auckland Transport is to blame. He even tried to point the finger at the people who pressed the emergency stop buttons in the railway carriages because in certain instances they had been holed up in those carriages stationary on the tracks for hours on end. This is a complete failure of ministerial oversight. 
What happens now? We see Murray McCully like my colleague David Shearer said declaring martial law over the Auckland waterfront and behaving like some tinpot general. A few days before Murray McCully said there was no problem. A few days later he declared and used the emergency powers in the Rugby World Cup legislation to take control of the Auckland waterfront. Well what changed? It was not a problem on Saturday. On Tuesday suddenly it was a massive problem and Murray McCully had to use the emergency powers. 
I will tell members what changed: this became a political liability for the National Government. It panicked. It hit the panic button because it could see what a disaster Friday night was for it and inevitably the public will blame the National Government. So who is in charge here? We have a notorious micro-manager the Minister the Hon Murray McCully. We found out today that he even selected the colour of the jackets that the volunteers are wearing at the Rugby World Cup. What I want to know is if the All Blacks do not play well in their next game will Murray McCully insist on choosing the next team? 
What we saw yesterday was a hatchet job on the Auckland Council and on the Auckland Mayor Len Brown. We know that from the beginning of the week Government and council officials were working closely together on a plan to address the inadequacies of crowd management and public transport that took place on Friday night. They were working together they had a plan and it was going to be unveiled. What did the Minister do? He unilaterally briefed journalists on his plan to invoke the emergency powers from the Rugby World Cup legislation. He did not even have the decency to pick up the phone and tell Len Brown what he was doing. I think that that is a disgrace. It is a political stunt. Everything we have seen from the Minister Murray McCully in the last 24 hours has been about trying to sheet blame home to somebody else. In this case Murray McCully’s sacrificial lamb is the Auckland Council and Len Brown. 
This is a new low in this Government’s relations with Auckland. It is not only an admission that its planning and preparation over the last few years has been a complete failure but also a demonstration and a confession that this Government cannot work constructively with Auckland. We saw it throughout the Auckland super-city reform process and we saw it with Murray McCully abusing the Auckland Council over Queens Wharf. The three Ministers who are responsible for this Government’s handling of the Rugby World Cup—the Prime Minister John Key the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce and the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Murray McCully—are all Auckland MPs yet their relationship with Auckland is completely dysfunctional. It ranges from handwringing to lecturing to abuse and now they have used emergency powers to take control of the Auckland waterfront. Why? Because this Government always knows best. Steven Joyce insisted against the advice of the mayors of Auckland and public opinion on setting up Auckland Transport under a corporate model. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Road User Charges Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 6 September. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Road User Charges Bill. It is a fairly technical bill. I came on to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee only part-way through its deliberation on it given my election to Parliament only 6 months ago. The bill is one that the select committee heard submissions on and one that I was privileged to hear submissions on. By the looks of it it seems as though the bill has some sensible changes to the road-user charges system that are necessary in order to bring the system into the 21st century. 
It is also about reducing compliance costs for transport operators and ultimately reducing the transport costs for businesses and exporters. You see the way road-user charges work at the moment transport operators have to put a lot of time and effort into estimating the weight of the goods they are carrying on their vehicles. The changes that this Road User Charges Bill brings into effect essentially make it a whole lot easier for businesses because they will be using the fixed weight that is assigned to the particular vehicle. Changing the definition of licensed weights removing the confusing time licence system and simplifying the list of exempted vehicles will all reduce compliance costs. The New Zealand Transport Agency will also be able to take greater advantage of modern internet technology in administering road-user charges payment channels. The bill also addresses concerns about road-user charge evasion which is conservatively estimated to amount to about $30 million a year. Currently honest payers of road-user charges are effectively subsidising those who evade payment. This bill will remove a number of evasion opportunities and encourage timely payment making the system fairer for all users. 
The Government is bringing this bill to the House because it is necessary to bring the system through to the 21st century. This Government is all about simplifying legislation for businesses. It is all about making it easier for people to do business in the community and simplifying the road-user charges system is a good change that is being brought forward. 
One of the changes the select committee made was to reduce the road-user charge licensing penalties for individuals from $3000 to $1000. We heard a number of submissions from people who felt that the penalty at $3000 for individuals was too onerous and too punitive. Also the select committee reduced the penalty for bodies corporate from $15000 to $5000. I and the other National members—indeed I believe that it was the whole select committee from memory—were happy to reduce those penalties because it is important that when we have penalties in legislation they are in line with the actual problems that the penalties are trying to solve. So reducing those penalties from $3000 to $1000 for individuals and from $15000 to $5000 for bodies corporate seemed appropriate. 
Another particular change that I will highlight was the new clause 12. We included a new clause 12 to enable vehicle operators of certain road-user charge vehicles issued with overweight and high-productivity permits to either pay for an additional licence to the distance licence required for the vehicle under clause 9 or obtain a distance licence specifically for road-user charge vehicles of type H. Again that was a technical change to the bill that the select committee made but it is an important one for those who made submissions on it. 
I am happy to support this Road User Charges Bill. It is important to bring the system into the 21st century and I look forward to the bill passing its second reading this afternoon. 
Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Local Government Borrowing Bill 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The purpose of the Local Government Borrowing Bill is to assist local authorities to borrow funds at lower interest rates than they can currently achieve. The bill will achieve this by facilitating the establishment and the operation of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency. Local Government New Zealand has estimated that the funding authority will save local government in the order of $25 million each year. The operation of the agency will also strengthen New Zealand’s capital markets by providing a new high-quality investment option. The scheme is a win for local government and a win for investors. 
Unsurprisingly the bill has a high level of support across the local government sector. I have been advised that around 50 local authorities have indicated that they will participate in this scheme. The bill has also enjoyed a high level of support in the House. No significant amendments have been proposed; technical amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee to clarify two clauses of the bill have been agreed to. 
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) authorises the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currencies. To achieve and maintain a high credit rating the funding agency will not be able to lend disproportionately to one council. Therefore because of the Auckland Council’s size and its significant borrowing requirements it will need to continue some borrowing outside the agency. The bill addresses that issue. It effectively gives the Auckland Council the same access to foreign currency markets as other councils will be able to achieve indirectly through the funding agency. Like the funding agency the Auckland Council will carry out its foreign currency borrowing on a fully hedged basis avoiding any risk associated with currency movement. It is encouraging to see central and local government working together to achieve cost savings of this magnitude and savings that will ultimately benefit ratepayers. 
I take this opportunity to thank Local Government New Zealand and the funding agency steering group for all their hard work on this scheme. I particularly thank the president Lawrence Yule for his work and also the chief executive Eugene Bowen. I understand that the funding agency will be up and running either late this year or early next year so the benefits of the legislation to ratepayers will quickly become evident. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports this legislation; we have done so throughout its entire passage through the House. I reiterate our congratulations to the Minister of Local Government which were expressed during the Committee stage on the work that has been done in shepherding this legislation through its development and through its stages in the House. It is worthwhile legislation. It is good legislation and will save taxpayers money. That is always a good thing. 
The legislation offers a collective approach that will essentially allow local authorities to operate as a cooperative for the purpose of a coordinated and efficient approach to borrowing the money they need to invest in infrastructure around this country whether it is in buildings swimming pools or water treatment and supply—you name it. The infrastructure demands on local government are huge in many parts of the country. Many local authorities are struggling to meet those challenges and if the Local Government Funding Agency which will be established under the Local Government Borrowing Bill saves some money and makes it easier for those councils to do that then that is a good thing. 
What does this bill do? It establishes the new agency the Local Government Funding Agency and it amends a whole series of other bits of legislation in order to reduce compliance costs but also it gives confidence to the lenders who will be putting money into this bond bank. That is of critical importance. We have discussed in the various debates in this House but also at the Local Government and Environment Committee the figure of $25 million which was originally put about as the possible annual saving to local authorities. That figure may be a little optimistic given that the original calculation was based on the cost of capital a couple of years ago but I think we can be confident that a significant sum of money will be saved as a result of this bill going through. We are very happy to see it go through before the end of the parliamentary term. 
There is an added benefit which I think we all support and it is that this bill will make some small but useful contribution to the deepening of our capital markets. The idea originally surfaced I think from the Capital Market Development Taskforce. Since then it has been picked up and discussed in various places by political parties and has attracted near-universal support. It will offer to the mythical mum and dad investors the chance to buy local government infrastructure bonds which will not be guaranteed by the Government but will be backed by the highest-possible credit rating which our advisers were confident would be attained by the new agency. By golly mum and dad investors need things they can be confident of investing in. This bill gives them the chance to invest in the long-term future of their communities so that is a great thing. 
On the Labour side of the House we are particularly keen on this bill because it is an alternative to the track of privatisation and of establishing public-private partnerships that the National Party and the ACT Party are so keen on. Labour wants to see this country build up its assets not sell them off and that is why we are implacably opposed to the policy that this Government is taking into the election which is to flog off 49 percent of our most profitable best-performing and most-valuable State-owned enterprises. We are opposed to that policy as are the majority of the people of New Zealand. 
At the local government level the issue about assets and privatisation is very much alive. We saw that in the creation of the Auckland super-city when the National Government supported by ACT took away the right of Aucklanders to have a say through a referendum on any future proposal to privatise the Ports of Auckland. We saw in the Government’s amendment to the local government legislation last year that it opened the door to 35-year contracts in the municipal water sector which would allow private sector operators to own and operate water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years. We had this debate many times in the House and we are still of the view that those 35-year contracts amount to a de facto privatisation. Every time New Zealanders are asked a huge majority say that they do not want their water privatised. 
The issue has died down a little bit in the last year or so but people are beginning to ask whether if the National Party is re-elected to a second term the city of Christchurch will be compelled to sell its significant community-owned assets to fund the reconstruction of Christchurch. The National Government has yet to provide a convincing answer to that question. 
The way that this Government is going with the infrastructure needs that are facing Auckland I wonder whether the Auckland Council will get the hard word from Steven Joyce and Bill English and will be told that if it wants to fund the city rail link—if it wants to fund a world-class transport system—it will have to sell off its airport shares or its ports. I can tell from the expressions on the faces of many people in this House and around New Zealand that they are completely opposed to that proposal. 
Labour wants to build up our assets not sell them off particularly in respect of natural monopolies which are so often the things that ACT and National want to put on the auction block. Those parties want to sell off our energy companies which together are effectively natural monopolies. They want to sell the ports when they are effectively natural monopolies. We know that when we privatise natural monopolies we basically hand over a licence to print money and a licence for rent-seeking behaviour. They will almost inevitably end up in the hands of foreign owners and we are against that. If this bill does one thing if it can provide local authorities with a cheaper readier source of investment capital for investing in infrastructure I think all New Zealanders will applaud that. 
There is in this legislation special provision for Auckland and that acknowledges and recognises the imbalance in size between the Auckland Council and all other local authorities in New Zealand. If the Local Government Funding Agency had to accommodate all of the capital needs of Auckland then there would be gross imbalance. We were advised at the select committee—and I think everybody was happy with the advice—that the Auckland Council has the capacity that it has a treasury unit that is capable of managing that risk and that all its international borrowing would be fully hedged. 
The whole issue of local government debt is I think really interesting and it has been brought up a number of times as this legislation has gone through the House. Before I finish I acknowledge the work of the Office of the Auditor-General in analysing the state of local government debt. A significant debt is held by local authorities around New Zealand and we are looking at a 55 percent increase over the next decade from $3.9 billion to $10.8 billion. That is significant but the Auditor-General made it very clear that he did not consider that level of local authority debt to be a problem. He did not consider it to be outside the normal parameters of fiscal prudence. I think that is noteworthy in light of the kinds of justifications that were being bandied around in this Parliament about a debt crisis in local government. We do not have one. Debt is a fair and efficient way to spread the cost of infrastructure across the generations of New Zealanders who will benefit from it. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to support the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill. It is great legislation and it will save ratepayers money. It was one of the good ideas that came out of the Prime Minister’s economic summit and now we are putting it into legislation so that is very positive too. 
New Zealanders are very aware of the need for capital investment in local infrastructure in the oncoming years. It is expected that local government will need to borrow in excess of $10 billion in the next 5 years. Ratepayers want the services that are delivered from this capital but they do not want to pay for rates increases. So I support this legislation because it is all about local councils coordinating their borrowing needs to obtain economies of scale so that they can borrow more cost-effectively. 
This legislation will create the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency which will be able to issue debt on behalf of all participating local authorities and will have the same regulatory environment as those participating local authorities. Councils by collaborating will be able to get the benefits of the economy of scale and the resulting lower interest rates. Councils are very reliable borrowers and they have a very low credit risk so by coordinating their borrowing demands they will get better deals. In fact the savings have been estimated at about $25 million a year. It is absolutely true that every ratepayer would rather see their council spend money on infrastructure or their priority projects than just on servicing debt. They are very keen to keep rates down and this may help towards that. 
It has also been noted by some members opposite that it will have benefits for the capital market in New Zealand as well. At the moment it is a very fragmented market but this will make it more efficient for both issuers and investors and it will develop a deeper and more liquid market in standardised local authority bonds and that will provide opportunities for both wholesale and retail investors. 
This legislation has the ability to cut costs for local authorities and ratepayers. It is all about doing business smarter and it is a real positive so I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Like my colleague Phil Twyford I am pleased that Labour is able to support this legislation in its third and final reading. I have some anxiety after hearing the member Nicky Wagner who has just resumed her seat. She is from Canterbury. Despite hearing the concerns expressed by Phil Twyford in his contribution earlier on this legislation about the fact that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation gave Minister Gerry Brownlee a suite of wartime powers such as the power to instruct the Christchurch City Council to sell assets and the frame that has been developed by the Government around the potential of sale of assets—constantly blaming Canterbury for the shortfall in funding for the crisis with the reinsurers and for the fact that other parts of our country might have to give up something because of the Christchurch earthquakes—and despite the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation the member who just resumed her seat said not a word in defence of Canterbury keeping ownership of our strategic assets. 
That is of real concern to me because around this legislation we have a clear choice: do we follow the opportunity for some efficiency some savings and some money that can be saved by ratepayers and local authorities and put into our communities or do we follow the path that clearly John Key and the National Government are on—and I say that with the greatest respect to Rodney Hide who has always been absolutely consistent in this area—and the view that they would prefer which is one of a total slash-and-burn and getting out of every single ownership model that they can? I am troubled that the member said not a word in defence of our ownership in Canterbury of our strategic assets but I suppose we will wait and see what happens as time progresses in that regard. 
Although there are a variety of reasons why we support this legislation the primary reason is that it is hugely preferable to the option of privatisation. If we say: “Let us look at ways that our local authorities can make more money can save more money and operate more efficiently.” everyone is in support of doing that and then we get a range of options. One of them clearly is the privatisation option where we just have to hock off something. That is a really short-term model. It saves money in the short term but in the longer term we lose a huge amount. We lose the benefit of strategic ownership and obviously we lose the income stream from whatever the asset is. 
In New Zealand currently if we look at our power companies we see we have a large income as a result of the generation and the distribution of power throughout our country. It is income that is derived from New Zealand citizens. It is collected by the Government. It is then distributed back through other channels. Whether it is through education and health superannuation or our social security system it is distributed back into our country. All New Zealanders own those assets and all New Zealanders benefit even though of course we resent paying higher power prices. Why would we want to sell off that strategic asset so that some owner other than the New Zealand public gets that income? We still have to pay the price and as we have seen in other privatised parts of the system we actually pay a much higher price when the owner is anyone other than central government. 
Another one of the models that the Government could have considered is the public-private partnership and again this legislation is in preference to that. This is about mobilising the savings of New Zealand investments. It is about local authorities having the opportunity to save a significant amount of money. It is a very efficient proposal. 
The local government bond bill was floated from an idea originally suggested at the Job Summit 2 years ago. It is very interesting that this is one of the few ideas that has been picked up from the Job Summit given the fanfare around the fact that the Prime Minister was having the Job Summit. Very little has come out of that but this legislation has come out of it right towards the end of this parliamentary term. This has taken so long to come from a really good idea supported broadly across the parties in this House yet it has taken all this length of time to come to fruition. 
The concept of the local government bond bank was also proposed by the Capital Market Development Taskforce. That task force was set up when Labour led the Government in 2008. It reported to the National-led Government at the end of 2009. At the time the Government said that it supported that recommendation but all it has done since is to set aside $5 million—a tiny amount of money in the overall scheme of things—in the Budget last year. 
The funding agency is a win-win situation both for local authorities and also for New Zealanders and the public particularly for New Zealanders who are looking for safe and new opportunities for investment and for saving. We will know as investors that that investment is good for our communities. That is always a reassuring thing. People are quite particular about the ethical regime under which their investments occur now. People look more at the downstream effect of their investments. Not only do New Zealanders know that they are investing for the good of their community—and they have some personal benefit from that as well—but also they are ensuring that through this efficiency they are taking one more option of privatisation off the National Government agenda. I think that will be a very good thing particularly given the fact that a number of the assets that are in the ownership of local authorities are monopolies. The only thing worse than a State monopoly that runs inefficiently is a private monopoly that runs inefficiently. We do not need either of those models and local authorities have done New Zealand proud in the way that they have demonstrated their ability to own and have management regimes that ensure the strategic assets of local government and central government are able to be managed very efficiently. 
The other point that I will mention which goes back to the situation in Canterbury is that it is still to our frustration anger and deep regret that the Government has not seen fit to restore our right to democracy in terms of our election of a regional council. Every other citizen in New Zealand has the right to vote for his or her regional council. In Canterbury that right was taken away from us with no justification and no reason. That measure was rammed through Parliament in a totally inappropriate way and it caused some of the biggest anguish that I have ever heard in Canterbury from National Party supporters and even members against their own Government. That residual anger remains. People resent having their democratic right taken away from them. I was really hopeful that the Government might see fit to restore that democracy before the upcoming election. We have only a small number of sitting days left before the House rises for the recess for the election and then we start again after 26 November. I urge the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide to put on some pressure if he has any influence at all. I am not sure of his status with regard to influencing his other ministerial colleagues these days but if he has any ability to influence his other ministerial colleagues I would ask him to use it and restore our democracy in Canterbury. 
It is quite an unusual situation when Labour National and ACT all support legislation as I know do the other parties around this House. But I think it is not only a very good indication of the way that this legislation has gone through consideration by the external groups—as I mentioned by the task force in particular—but also it is a bit of a tribute to the Local Government and Environment Committee as it gave this legislation rigorous consideration. It made sure that the potential or unexpected consequences of the legislation were considered. I will conclude by paying tribute to all the members of that select committee and also to the officials who have worked so hard to ensure that this legislation will get such widespread support. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party too is pleased to support the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). We are pleased that the legislation is going to get through in this term of Government—in fact it will be passed today. The Local Government Borrowing Bill will enable local government to set up the Local Government Funding Agency and to become a large-scale borrower on behalf of local councils. We think it does make sense. Borrowing as others have mentioned has been very fragmented and by councils combining in this entity we will hopefully be able to get much cheaper borrowing. That will of course depend on getting a good credit rating but assuming we do borrowing will be cheaper. Treasury has projected that there could be savings of anywhere up to $25 million over time. 
The Green Party supports the bill for the same reasons that Labour has mentioned. We would far prefer that councils raised capital for investment by borrowing rather than by privatising by public-private partnerships or by other things such as 25-year public-private partnerships to own water infrastructure for example. We are also pleased that the Local Government Funding Agency is a voluntary entity so councils will not be forced to join up. I think the Minister of Local Government mentioned that about 35 councils are already signing up. So for all of those reasons we support it. 
But I have mentioned that we have some misgivings about it so just let me share in this House what those misgivings are. No one has yet mentioned the fact that all councils who sign up to the Local Government Funding Agency will be required to guarantee each other’s debts; councils will be jointly liable. So if ever a council were to default all of the councils would be liable and all of them would have to pay for that debt. This may be unlikely but nevertheless it is a possibility particularly when we have scenarios such as the one in Christchurch that a council could in time default. I suspect that most ratepayers of the councils that have signed up will be unaware of this joint liability and that in 10 years’ time they could wake up and find that their council has incurred significant debt that ratepayers were not aware of at the time. 
My second concern is that because the Local Government Funding Agency will enable councils to borrow more cheaply there will be a temptation to borrow more. Treasury has already forecast that council borrowing is likely to increase to $10 billion in the next 5 years. I believe that with this new agency we could see local government debt rise steeply because of the temptation to just borrow rather than put up rates. It is fine to share the debt for some infrastructure over generations particularly for example in public transport where councils are required under our bizarre law to pay for 50 percent of any public transport infrastructure—but if roads are being built councils do not have to pay anything at all. The Government will fund fully State highways and roads but only 50 percent of public transport infrastructure. So in an area like Auckland which has huge vast needs for investment in public transport as we have become acutely aware in the last few days then if we are to see a significant investment in public transport the council—the ratepayers—will have to invest massively. Obviously councils will want to borrow and they will be able to use the Local Government Funding Agency. That example is a very reasonable one of using this agency for cheaper borrowing but I worry that there will be a temptation just to incur more and more borrowing because it puts off the day of having to put up rates which is always politically unpopular. 
But having said that those are our misgivings I repeat that it is far preferable that councils have this ability to borrow and to borrow more cheaply through this agency than to have to sell off their assets. Labour members have been referring to the fact that they believe there is still an agenda to sell off assets. We know there is an agenda to sell off national assets such as power companies but also we expect that in the next term of Government there will be a further push to sell off assets in local government. I just refer to my own experience of a council selling off local government assets. When I first got on the Wellington City Council there was a great push by members—such as Kerry Prendergast and council members Mark Blumsky and others—to sell off a very very satisfactory and efficient local energy company called Capital Power. The argument was that we needed to sell off Capital Power because it would be much more efficient the new private investor would invest better in our local energy infrastructure and furthermore our energy bills would decrease. But despite a vigorous campaign against the sale of Capital Power it was sold. 
It is a sort of sad story of what happens. Immediately the company was transferred to one foreign owner—TransAlta. Then TransAlta sold it on to another entity who sold it on. It has now changed hands about four times and presently our lines company in Wellington is in the ownership of I think the richest man in China. It is really a Chinese company that owns our lines so all of the money goes offshore. Far from our energy bills decreasing as we were promised they have just skyrocketed over the last decade. Money has poured out and there has been a lack of investment in our infrastructure. So exactly what we predicted would happen has happened and it has been a disaster. 
Christchurch by contrast hung on to its very excellent power company. It is a very efficient power company and it has invested in infrastructure. Christchurch has not seen the huge increases in power bills we have experienced in Wellington as a result of having sold off our energy company. There is a very important lesson there and that is why we are so opposed to selling off local council assets and infrastructure. That is also why Wellingtonians will never believe the promises that are made about the advantages of selling off local council infrastructure because we have seen how disastrous it has been for us. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation with misgivings. 
We also have some misgivings about the fact that the Auckland Council will be able to borrow in foreign currency as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). Other members have said they think the Auckland Council is capable of managing the risk of borrowing in overseas currencies. We are not quite so sure. People say: “Oh not to worry; they’ll be able to hedge.” etc. We have all heard that before. Let us remember that one of the triggers of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 was that organisations and entities in Asia had borrowed offshore in overseas exchange to finance their domestic activities. When the overseas exchange rates fell the Asian organisations and entities were left insolvent and that precipitated the crisis. So we are still worried about giving this permission for the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currencies. We are not as sanguine as other members in this House are. 
Having said all of that we still think that making borrowing cheaper makes sense. We support the Local Government Funding Agency and we hope that councils will never be in a position whereby one council defaults and all of the other councils are required to pick up the debt. That is a possibility and all local councils going into this agency need to be aware of that. Thank you very much. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not intend to take too much time other than to make one or two salient points. As other members have said the purpose of the legislation is to make borrowing cheaper for local councils. To cut to the chase the legislation will do that in two ways. 
The first way is by establishing the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency an umbrella organisation if you like for the purpose of borrowing money for local councils. As Sue Kedgley mentioned the whole notion of bringing together councils is a good idea but there are some risks. Multiple councils using their debt collectively will hopefully lower the costs of borrowing. In essence a collective approach to investment makes good sense. I was interested that the Federation of Maori Authorities particularly supported this concept of a local government borrowing authority. It believes that it will reduce overall costs to councils by borrowing collectively through the new borrowing authority so that is good. 
The second way that the legislation will make borrowing cheaper for local councils is by exempting the Auckland Council from the section of the Local Government Act 2002 that stipulates that local government can borrow only in New Zealand currency. Again that was alluded to by Sue Kedgley. This section has acted as a deterrent to overseas borrowing. As I understand it the reason for this exemption is the size of Auckland City and the inability of the domestic market to loan enough money at a reasonable price—that is there is no competition in the domestic market for lending because of the size of the council. 
It probably could not be a better day to talk about and think about the Auckland Council’s massive demand for resources. Earlier today the House heard the debate on Auckland City’s accountability and performance committee and in particular on the release of its report addressing the aftermath of Friday evening’s chaos at the opening of the Rugby World Cup specifically the crowd chaos and transport failures. Clearly although the council failed to deliver on travel expectations—ferries were closed down and trains were stalled—it did not really plan for the appropriate numbers. It prepared for 50000 people I think it was but 200000 people turned up and so on and so on. I think it is important that we cannot leave our councils in situations where planning and performance are clearly insufficient to meet the needs of the people. 
There is one issue that I want to place in front of the House and it should be no surprise. It is about the whole question of local authorities taking on board a commitment to increase Maori representation. The concept of dedicated Maori representation at the local government level is similar to the approach used by Environment Bay of Plenty and its three Maori constituencies. Maori constituencies at a local level will enable greater enhanced opportunities for local authority candidates to engage with Maori. This is important because we all know that traditionally Maori have had low voter turn-outs at local body elections. By way of some background research conducted by two people Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tawhai demonstrates that Maori feel a greater sense of connection with local government if they are able to recognise their elected representatives based on their community activities and interaction at a grassroots level. We say that dedicated Maori representation has the potential to improve voter enrolment and therefore democratic accountability and engagement. 
In standing briefly to support this legislation I say that we are hoping for a marked improvement in local government patterns of spending that will result in better services. The one key thing that I hope I leave as a key point in this particular debate is the need for more effective representation for Maori at that level. Kia ora tatou. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is great to have the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). In effect this legislation represents a cooperative approach to raising finance in the local government sector. 
I disagree with one of the comments made by a previous speaker. I do not actually believe that by reducing the cost of borrowing we will necessarily see a significant increase in borrowing. I will explain why I disagree. It really comes on the back of other reforms this Government has made under the leadership of the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. He has done some fantastic work that has been very widely accepted by the local government sector. He has put in place reforms with our earlier legislative changes that provide better visibility better transparency and better accountability for ratepayers so that they are able to better see exactly what their councils are doing—the levels of borrowing what the borrowing is for—and have better more meaningful reports that are easier to understand. 
I do not believe that necessarily making the borrowing cheaper and making it easier for councils to take on debt for large capital projects will increase the level of debt that councils will take on over and above what is already expected. That is the reality of this. There is a projection of large capital projects over the next decade or two so for local councils to be able to save $25 million in interest costs is quite significant. 
The Minister of Local Government has done a fantastic job in this 3-year period. This legislation is yet another example which we are pleased to get over the line. It is well supported by the House which is I think an important point to make. We are seeing councils working together. They are working together and they are focusing on the efficiencies they can gain by working together and by sharing services. 
Every one of us in this room understands the pressures that our constituents and ratepayers face. They will be very pleased to see this legislation passed because its impact will reduce the burden of their rates in the years ahead. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I too am pleased to take a call in this third reading of the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). I will recapitulate a number of comments that have already been raised in the House. 
I support the general intent of the legislation which is to enable councils to borrow at a lesser rate than they currently do. In my mind this will do a number of things. It will enable councils to borrow at lower interest margins than they are currently borrowing at. It will also assure councils that have significant projects ahead of them that they can plan forward and have access to this type of borrowing mechanism. They will therefore have certainty of access to funds to enable their plans to be implemented. 
In listening very carefully to the contributions made across the House the significant types of infrastructure projects we are talking about are all the ones that are covered in the 10-year plans that various councils have been consulting on throughout our communities so one should not expect that access to this type of borrowing will enable pet projects to get off the starting blocks. In fact one might consider that this is where the council-community outcomes in the 10-year plans that are being consulted on with communities actually have a higher obligation to engage with communities so that they are very comfortable about the projections of significant infrastructure requirements that are being looked at and that are needed but also that need to be funded. 
I raise one small concern. We know that this Government has pulled away from funding the sewerage and waste water subsidy scheme and the drinking-water subsidy scheme. My one concern is that in small communities and rural communities of fewer than a hundred or so people will it be a significant type of project that would gain access to this type of funding? I draw the attention of the House to those smaller but very necessary types of schemes that were funded by the Ministry of Health. This Government pulled away that funding but they are very needy schemes in terms of their worthiness of being supported and funded. I am not absolutely confident that they will rate high on the radar of significant infrastructure projects. 
We are talking about small communities of 100 households here 100 households there and the like. I would like to think that those rural communities in very many of our electorates would gain some priority for funding their significant sewerage infrastructure upgrades but it is a lot of money for a small number of households. I have had direct experience with a number of councils that have said “Look it is just too costly for us to fund that by ourselves and to put the onus of that cost either directly on the council itself or to apportion some of that cost to that small number of rural residents.” I think it is still something that is worth considering. If not directly as a benefactor from this type of initiative it is worth considering those important infrastructure needs that need to be funded in some way or another. 
There have been contributions by my colleagues before me who have highlighted that we are supportive of a local government bond bank. We know that Kiwi mums and dads can actually contribute to investing in infrastructure requirements throughout their community have a stake in the ground if you like about what is happening there and about their ability to contribute and also benefit from their contribution through a bond-type scheme. We see this as a far better way and course to follow than public-private partnerships which will limit I think the types of people who can be involved in such investments. 
I also want to draw to the attention of the House that it was good to see that the Federation of Maori Authorities made a supportive submission on this legislation. They interfaced with local councils throughout the country on a number of issues and it is also in their best interests I think to see a better borrowing mechanism for councils because we know that there are a lot of unutilised lands that are currently in front of the federation that they are looking to get greater utilisation from but which have serious infrastructure deficits in terms of basic things like roading water sewerage and other infrastructure requirements. I can see the rationale for why the federation put such a supportive statement to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this legislation and where they see the greater benefits in terms of optimising currently underutilised pockets of Maori land in their area and optimising existing pockets of land that are currently being partially used but which could be optimised through having better infrastructure services in their area. 
I do not want to take too long on this legislation because much of the support that has been spoken about by colleagues before me really clearly put Labour’s position which is that we support it. We listened carefully to the submissions and I raised a number of small concerns but in evaluating I guess the effectiveness of this legislation in time to come the proof will be in the pudding and that will be specifically whether small infrastructure schemes often rural schemes will be funded to the degree of their need and whether they will see any benefit from this legislation. I certainly hope they do. As I said previously there are a number of worthy small rural communities in my electorate that have serious infrastructure needs in terms of sewerage and waste water and infrastructure schemes are not currently being funded because councils cannot afford to do it and because they cannot afford to apportion that responsibility totally on the resident population that requires these services. 
With that said I look forward to watching how this tracks out for councils over time. I also look forward to seeing how councils work together strategically thinking smarter about their infrastructure requirements and their capacity to borrow and service some quite big needs over the next 10 years. Kia ora. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a small call on the Local Government Borrowing Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge the work done by the Hon Rodney Hide in this area. 
There can be few of us in the House today who on receiving our rates bill have not shuddered as the rates bill seems to climb inexorably ever higher. Good local government is something we often take for granted but it is essential for the well-being of our communities our economy and our environment. The challenges facing local government contribute to the drive to ever higher council rates. Such rates rises are ultimately unsustainable and that is why this Government is committed to helping local councils to operate in a more cost-effective manner. This legislation allows for more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities. Through a cooperative approach to raising finance it is estimated that the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency could save local councils approximately $25 million a year. This is good legislation it enjoys support as we have heard from across the House and I commend it to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would also like to support the legislation as my colleagues have and to pay a tribute to Rodney Hide. I imagine that this will be the last legislation that Mr Hide will put through this House. It is not a bad way to go with the Labour Party sailing along behind him. I consider that he will probably put that on his CV for whatever he will be doing—that he passed legislation with Labour Party support. 
I applaud this legislation because as people have said before it shows some foresight and for local bodies raising cash it is certainly a much preferred alternative to privatisation and the selling-off of our assets. Certainly one of the issues that we were concerned about when the Auckland City bill was going through last year was that much of the infrastructure of Auckland City might be sold off. This legislation keeps the assets basically in New Zealand hands and certainly when we look at the opinion polls we have seen on the privatisation process until now we see that probably two-thirds or more—between 65 and 70 percent—of New Zealanders do not want their assets to be sold off. They want to keep them in New Zealand hands. I think that certainly one of the defining issues at the coming election will be how we resolve our debt issue which has marched on to about $18 billion now—whether we bring in a capital gains tax or sell off the majority of our key assets. 
This legislation also goes beyond that. It deepens our capital markets which was a recommendation of the Capital Market Development Taskforce. It is good that some of those recommendations have been picked up. Not a lot of the recommendations of that task force have been picked up but this is one of them and it is good that that is actually happening. 
This legislation engages ordinary New Zealanders—I do not like the term “ordinary New Zealanders”—New Zealanders who may not otherwise be attracted to investing in a stock market. This provides a very safe vehicle for those people because it looks like one of the bonds that they will have the opportunity to invest in would probably be rated triple A in terms of the high level of its security. That is largely because the rating base by which it is supported is pretty much as good as a Government itself being local government. 
All in all this legislation provides a real choice for New Zealand investors to invest in something that will contribute to their communities and will help their children. Whether it be parks sewerage waterways or whatever these are the sorts of things that all of us will benefit from in time. Because many people are more interested in investing in ethical-type investments this is the type of investment that will satisfy people in that regard as well. It provides that alternative to the appalling investments that we saw go down the tubes with our finance companies. This is a real opportunity for New Zealanders to invest in their communities and to do that safely and securely knowing that their money will come back and that they will get a reasonable rate of return. 
It gives local bodies access to capital. About 85 different bodies I understand could potentially line up to use this facility. They will have their own sense of control. It will mean that savings for the local bodies—particularly if they have a triple A rating and the funding agency can do away with much of the administration costs—are estimated to be in the order of 40 basis points or as one of the law firms estimated possibly in the order of $25 million. Obviously local bodies—that is us—are there because of our rates and what we pay into them so that is a big saving for us as well. 
Quite a lot of borrowing is estimated down the track. There are estimates of $10 billion and even up to $20 billion over the next 10 years but certainly local bodies and local government will need access to capital in order to fund the various pieces of infrastructure that they will need. Up to now local bodies were going to banks to be able to do this or they sold assets. This legislation will enable them to go to their own ratepayers and to ask them whether they want to invest. 
I am particularly pleased given the size of the Auckland Council that the Auckland Council will be part of the scheme as well. With 1.4 million people in Auckland—about a third of the population of New Zealand—having the Auckland Council in the mix is to be welcomed. 
In the rare times I have agreed with Louise Upston about the cost of borrowing and whether that would provoke more borrowing I agree with her that I think that is right. I do not believe that lowering the cost of borrowing will encourage councils to go off and raise more money through the bond market but what it will do through the funding agency is to be able to keep a track of some of the local body funding that is out there and that is ongoing. 
Of course there is a degree of risk if there is to be any sort of borrowing. Sue Kedgley raised a couple of those issues. But I do not really think in the context of what we are trying to do here that the oversight to some degree of the funding agency in terms of how much each local body will be taking out and the separation of the funding agency debt alongside some of the other debt is necessarily a valid concern. 
What this legislation will do for many of these agencies—and I think the Auckland Council in particular is relevant at the moment—is to enable the Auckland Council and other councils to raise funds for their own infrastructure. Auckland definitely needs that sort of funding because as we have seen over the last few days the lack of investment in our public transport in particular has meant that our public transport has really let us down. Although we do not plan for one-off events like we have seen at the Rugby World Cup nevertheless over the last 5 years we have seen the use of trains and the patronage of trains in Auckland double. We know that in a couple of years when the line is electrified and we finally get the electric trains to run on it there will be a massive spike in the patronage on those lines because that is exactly what happened in other places in the world. It is what happened in Perth. By the way we have Perth’s diesel engines that were about to be put on the scrap heap. We managed to buy those and keep them running for another 20 years. That gives us an understanding of why we need to be investing in our own infrastructure. Aucklanders I believe understand that and they understand the need to be able to make that investment. 
I hark back in the case of Auckland to the regional transport levy which was imposed under the Labour Government. No taxes and no levies are ever welcomed by anybody but the regional transport levy was welcomed to a large extent in Auckland because Aucklanders recognised that this money was going to help them move around Auckland—and it did. It did and they accepted the levy. It was well and truly accepted. What happened? It was taken away by Mr Joyce. He consolidated it into the consolidated account so now Auckland which gets less tax money back for the amount that it pays— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. His time has expired. 
Bills read a third time. 
Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] I am looking forward to Mr Shearer’s wholesome support. I say to Mr Shearer that the bill is a timely response to New Zealand’s challenging economic circumstances. It will provide some more certainty around the growth in Government spending and greater spending restraint and will improve the transparency of spending decisions. The bill will lead to Government objectives being delivered through a State sector that takes up a smaller share of the economy rather than a larger one. That is something I know that Mr Shearer is concerned about. A smaller more efficient State sector will allow a lower tax burden over time supporting higher economic growth and higher living standards. 
The bill also responds to weaknesses in our present legislative framework. The fiscal responsibility provisions of the Public Finance Act 1989 focus on achieving and maintaining a prudent level of Government debt and on the operating balance required to achieve that. The Public Finance Act has served us well in that regard and has helped New Zealand bring down its net core Crown debt from 56 percent of GDP in 1992 to 5.6 percent in 2008. But the Public Finance Act has not prevented core Crown expenses from rising as a share of GDP. We have seen Government expenses soar from 28.8 percent of GDP in 2004 to a forecast 36 percent in 2011. I will repeat that: Government expenses have increased from 28.8 percent in 2004 when Helen Clark was in charge to 36 percent now. It has been easier for Governments to increase spending than to reprioritise and to drive greater efficiency within the existing base of spending. 
The bill is designed to place greater disciplines on governance deliver greater value for taxpayers’ money and protect New Zealand’s growth prospects. The bill has two main elements I say to Mr Shearer. The first is a spending cap that limits the annual increase in core Crown expenses to the rate of population growth multiplied by the rate of inflation. The second is a requirement that any proposed spending increase above that cap be subject to a binding referendum on whether the cap is to be raised to allow for that increase. The spending cap for a financial year beginning 1 July is based on the product of the annual percentage change in the resident population and the Consumers Price Index. This rate of increase is based on data for the 12 months ending 30 September in the year prior to the financial year for which the cap has been set. That rate is then applied to the core Crown expenses from the previous financial year. 
The spending cap provides for a small number of sensible exclusions. For example the cap is designed to allow fiscal policy to continue to play a stabilising role in response to the economic cycle and shocks. Unemployment benefit expenses are therefore excluded from the cap so that they can continue to expand and to contract through the economic cycle in a counter-cyclical way. Borrowing expenses are excluded from the cap as they are effectively limited by the Government debt objective required under the Public Finance Act. Similarly capital expenditure is excluded from the cap because it is constrained by the debt objective and the fact that the operating expenses associated with capital expenditure would need to be met from within the cap. The bill provides for national emergencies such as natural disasters where it is appropriate to exclude expenses incurred in responding to an emergency. Impairment losses on assets such as student loans which are recorded as an expense are also excluded from the cap. These tend to be volatile from year to year and hard to forecast and therefore difficult to manage within the cap. 
The bill fits with the annual Budget cycle by requiring the spending cap for a coming fiscal year to be publicly announced in the Budget Policy Statement ahead of the Budget. Indicative caps for the following 2 financial years must also be disclosed. The Minister of Finance would be subsequently required to state when presenting the annual financial statements of the Government to Parliament whether expenses were within the cap for that year. If not the Minister must explain why expenses were incurred in excess of the cap and what measures will be taken to ensure compliance in the future. 
The Government may at any time initiate a binding referendum on a proposal to increase the spending cap for a specified financial year. The bill requires any referenda to be held under the provisions of the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000. The question put to electors requires a simple yes or no response and is specified in the bill. If a majority of votes cast in a referendum favour the proposal to increase the spending cap then the cap is raised by the specified amount. A referendum may be held on a proposal to increase the spending cap for the financial year ahead or to increase the indicative spending cap for a subsequent year. It is envisaged that a referendum on the later proposal would fit better with the Budget cycle. In such a case a referendum could be held 12 months before the start of that subsequent financial year allowing time for the result to be reflected in the Budget strategy and process relating to that financial year. 
The Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill has its origins in the New Zealand Taxpayer Rights Bill which I drafted as a member’s bill during the previous term of Parliament. The National-ACT confidence and supply agreement provides for the New Zealand Taxpayers Rights Bill to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as a Government bill. That bill has been refined so that it focuses solely on limiting the growth in expenses thereby allowing for future taxation to be lower. It has also been renamed the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill to better reflect its intent: capping the annual growth in spending and allowing people a direct say over any higher increase. 
New Zealand is grappling with the hangover of too much spending and too much debt. Putting New Zealand back on the right path will require restraint and a determination to never again allow excessive public spending to drive up interest and exchange rates and to drive out growth. The Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill will help to provide that restraint and will support that determination. 
There are two questions in the bill really. One is whether there should be an announced cap on Government spending each year; certainly I believe there should be. The second is whether if Government is to exceed that cap and increase spending in real terms the people of New Zealand should be able to have a say on that through referenda outside the normal electoral cycle. I say they should. I think it is tough for members to stand up at this time and say that they do not support the idea of Government getting its spending in order and that they do not support people having a say. After all it is the people’s money that we are spending here. I commend the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill to the House. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Normal transmission has been resumed in this House. I found it deeply unsettling in the last debate to hear one Labour speaker after another get up and give praise to Rodney Hide. It was very very unsettling and concerning to a Labour member of Parliament to hear one speaker after another on this side of the House praising Rodney Hide for his good stewardship of the Local Government Borrowing Bill. We are now back on much more familiar territory. We are here to oppose and criticise the nutty extreme ideas that have been Rodney Hide’s hallmark since he came to this House. The bill before us now the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill is another batty idea borrowed from the extreme right internationally. It seeks to institutionalise and to structure into our political system a cap on Government spending. 
Amy Adams 
: Where’s the finance team? Is this it? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Amy Adams is sitting in the back row there chipping away but she knows that National does not support this bill. National members think it is a nutty extreme bill because it is really— 
Hon Member 
: Amy doesn’t. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: OK so Amy supports it. Now we know where Amy stands on the political spectrum within the National Party. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Full names. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to say before we leave the subject of Rodney Hide that I was disappointed that in that speech there was not more personal content more anecdotes and more recollections of his time in this House. Rodney Hide is one of the more interesting people that have passed through this House in recent years and it is a matter of some disappointment to us that we are being denied our democratic right to hear his valedictory. That is a great loss to this House. I think he would have some very interesting stories to tell and some very amusing anecdotes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But he might be back. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: He might be back; it is true. It is hard to know what is happening with the ACT Party list these days. He could well be back. There could well be a counter-coup any day now. In fact the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill could be a Trojan Horse for Rodney Hide’s counter-putsch. However I will address my comments to the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. 
It will not surprise anybody in this House least of all Rodney Hide that Labour is opposing this bill. We do not think spending cap legislation is needed and there is plenty of evidence from overseas where it has been tried that it simply does not work. In the course of this debate we will be discussing some notable examples of countries that have a spending cap that simply has not worked. 
This kind of approach—a spending cap—is no substitute for the normal democratic process where elected leaders and citizens work out between them the appropriate parameters for Government spending and taxation. Nothing like a spending cap can really achieve the kinds of aims that it has. It is an attempt by stealth to systematically and drastically cut Government spending and we think that would be damaging to the economy and damaging to New Zealand. 
Under this bill core Crown expenditure would be capped in dollar terms at the level of the previous year’s spending prior to the law coming into effect and increases would be allowed only at the rate of inflation plus population growth. The limit can be bypassed by a referendum or by the use of emergency provisions. We will see that there are other examples—Japan most notably I think—where such a spending cap is bypassed on an annual basis. If the cap was effective—and we think that is a big if—it would result in Government spending as a share of the economy declining over time and would lead to severe spending restraints. 
If National and ACT really want to slash Government spending then we think they should be much more honest and upfront about it. They should go to the people and say: “This is what we want to cut and these are the things we are going to cut—superannuation health education.” Why not just be upfront and honest with the New Zealand people and campaign on that basis? But this bill is a sneaky attempt to slash spending and to roll back the State. I do not believe for a moment that that is what New Zealanders want. 
The impact this bill would have on superannuation is one of the illustrations of how misconceived it is. The allowance to increase Government spending at the rate of inflation plus population growth deliberately ignores the fact that in the case of superannuation because of the ageing population and increasing health costs those things are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation and faster than population growth. Under Rodney Hide’s bill they would be drastically cut back. 
We believe that a much better solution is to have those trade-offs those dilemmas discussed and debated and decisions made in the course of the democratic process. For example the spending cap would rise 8 percent by 2015 but the cost of superannuation will rise by 22 percent. What would National do if it had the opportunity to pass this bill? What would it cut to make up for that crunch? 
In very recent history we have an example of a Government that cut back the national debt—Government debt. Over the period that the fifth Labour Government was in office Government spending in the first year was 30.9 percent of GDP. When the fifth Labour Government left office in 2008 it was 31.1 percent. So there was basically no change in the level of Government spending as a share of the economy. That is an illustration that this issue is about political will. It is about the democratic process. It is about good policy and good economic stewardship. 
Under National spending has skyrocketed to 36.4 percent of GDP. At the same time the Government has cut revenue particularly by means of tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the top end of New Zealand income earners. It has opened up a massive hole in the Government accounts and it has led to National borrowing $36 billion in less than 3 years. 
I mentioned Japan before. That country is a really good illustration of what we are talking about with the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. Japan has had a spending cap since World War II but that has not stopped the country from amassing a debt equal to 200 percent of GDP. Every year the Japanese Government gets an exemption from its spending cap legislation from the Parliament. 
This bill is ideological and ill-thought-through legislation that even Treasury opposes. National deep down knows that it is not a goer. It is basically a going-away present to Rodney Hide. National is paying lip-service to the confidence and supply agreement otherwise it would have done it within the 6 months that it promised in the confidence and supply agreement. But National knows that this bill will not be passed in the term of this Parliament and really it is the equivalent of a bunch of flowers that it is giving to Rodney Hide in lieu of his valedictory speech. 
I will comment on what Treasury had to say about this bill. It insisted on a number of modifications which were made to this bill before it came to the House. Even Treasury thought it was an extremist and ideological draft law. Treasury said that it “does not support imposing constraints on the ability of the government to set fiscal strategy via hard parameters in legislation. A legislated spending rule which a government did not wish to be bound by could lead to efforts to circumvent the rule—potentially favouring certain types of decisions … and raising the risk of unintended or perverse outcomes.” 
One of the commonly found perverse outcomes of these kinds of spending caps is that they encourage Governments to meet their policy objectives through tax rebates. “To be effective”—Treasury says—“the fiscal framework needs to be reasonably stable over time. This criterion would not be met if a legislated spending rule was likely to be overturned shortly after its introduction because it lacked widespread and enduring political support.” That is exactly what would happen if this bill was passed. A future Labour Government would see it out the door straight away. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 When reading through the general policy statement at the beginning of the Spending Cap (People’s Vote) Bill we see that the bill is designed as we heard in the first two speeches in this debate to put in place a cap whereby annual increases on core Crown expenditure are linked to the rate of inflation and the rate of population change and then to put in place a mechanism by which the public of New Zealand through a binding referendum can express a view on that spending cap and seek to increase it. As the Minister said in his opening words they could do that either for that year or for out-years. 
This is an interesting issue. I think we would all agree that certainly in the current economic climate across the country managing the Government’s books and keeping control of Government spending is critical. A key plank of this Government’s economic agenda is that we manage our expenses well—that we are careful how we spend our money and most important that we do our best to keep debt at prudent levels. On that point I note that under the Public Finance Act the very first principle of responsible fiscal management is that debt is reduced to and maintained at prudent levels so I think we are all very aware of the need to keep public debt as low as possible. 
I note that given the extraordinary events this Government has faced not the least of which occurred in the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes it is still an impressive achievement that having inherited Michael Cullen’s decade of deficits we are still able to project a return to surplus in less than 3 years. But that has not been without this Government having to make some very strong decisions and express the very clear view that if we are expecting New Zealand to constrain its spending and get beyond the ethos of living well above its means by spending more than $1.11 for every $1 earned the Government also has to model that behaviour. We have spent these 3 years being very clear with the Public Service that we expect all of Government to be very very careful with what it spends. 
We are very aware that Government money does not belong to us. The Government has nothing except for what it takes out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. Frankly we owe it to those people to make sure that every dollar we spend is spent in the best way possible having a very careful analysis of the opportunity cost of where we spend that money and understanding that we can spend it only once. We do have to ensure that when the Government spends it does so in a very careful way. The Government should support economic growth but it should not be leading it; it certainly should not be dominating it as we saw with the last Labour Government. 
The issues around controlling and tightly constraining Government spending are very live ones and ones that we have to pay careful attention to. What we have in this bill introduced today by Minister Hide is certainly an interesting approach to addressing that and to looking at the measure of a spending cap to ensure that future profligate Governments are not able to borrow and spend and borrow and spend. In that vein it is no surprise to me that Labour members are dismissing the bill out of hand without even wanting to have a public debate about it. Labour is a borrow-and-spend party. The only way Labour knows how to govern is to borrow and spend borrow and spend. It is of no surprise to me that Labour members are not even willing to have a debate on the issue because frankly without a borrow-and-spend platform they know they would never be able to win another election. So it is no surprise that Labour wants to shut this down before there can be a debate. 
I think this is an interesting issue. I think it is worthy of debate. I think we should send the bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and consider the issue in depth and I look forward to that consideration at the select committee. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat Amy Adams is generally not a member whom we would accuse of letting us die wondering what her opinion was on an issue. She is a woman who has different politics than me but who has very strongly held principles and beliefs. I have never in the past heard her so reluctant to share them. I have never heard a speech by that member that totally ignored the topic of the debate which is the bill from Rodney Hide the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. The member barely gave it a passing glance throughout her entire speech and certainly she did not give any impression—certainly not on the public record—that would leave us in any doubt that she supported it. She was not prepared to commit those words to this bill. 
If I was Rodney Hide I would be spitting tacks at the way he has been treated by this Government. What a humiliation to have the confidence and supply agreement that Rodney Hide signed with John Key ignored. Rodney Hide signed with John Key that they would have this agreement and that Rodney Hide would vote for John Key’s legislation. That is what Rodney Hide said he would do all the way this term if National agreed to the conditions of the confidence and supply agreement. What did John Key do with the part of the confidence and supply agreement that said that the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill would be introduced—when did it say it would be introduced in the confidence and supply agreement I say to Mr Hide—within the first 6 months of forming the National-led Government? When was the election? It was on 8 November 2008. 
Grant Robertson 
: Seared in my memory. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was 8 November 2008. Grant Robertson was elected as the member of Parliament for Wellington Central that day. That was excellent. That was an excellent move by the fine people of Wellington Central. That member might help me calculate the 6-month period from that day when he was elected. Iain Lees-Galloway was also elected as the member of Parliament for Palmerston North on that day. So 6 months from 8 November 2008 is May 2009. Let us give National a bit of leeway. It did not form the Government on the day of the election so let us give say 3 months leeway. Let us be really generous. That would take us to— 
Grant Robertson 
: May to June June to July July to August. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right—August 2009 is when John Key pledged to introduce the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill into this House. That is the outside limit being very generous. What did he do with that confidence and supply agreement with Mr Hide? This is what he did with it—worth nothing. Who cares? 
So with only 8 sitting days of this Parliament left the bill is introduced. No wonder Amy Adams gave such a careful speech. How many times did she say in that very short but careful speech that this is an interesting proposal to deal with an interesting issue? That means: “This is completely out of the ballpark for anything we would do and we have delayed introducing it for as long as possible. We don’t care how embarrassed we have made Rodney Hide.” That is not nearly as embarrassed as his own party made him frankly by having a successful coup for the leadership led by a man who was not even a member of the party. It is extraordinary. So this bill is being introduced and referred to the select committee only in the dying days of this Government rather than in the 6 months of the forming of the Government which is what was promised in the confidence and supply agreement. 
As my colleague Phil Twyford said there are spending caps on Government spending in other countries. We should look to for example Japan. Japan has had a spending cap on Government expenditure since the end of World War II. It has not stopped Japan amassing debt equal to 200 percent of GDP. That is what the level of debt is in Japan—200 percent of GDP. What the Japanese Government does every year is just ask for an exemption from Parliament. I do not propose that as a good idea either. What I suggest is that our democracy and our Parliament should be robust enough to have those debates for ourselves not to be restricted by some mandatory dream of Rodney Hide that we would have a spending cap imposed on us let alone a spending cap when we could just ask ourselves for an exemption which obviously would be granted given that the largest party would be leading the Government and would have that exemption to the spending cap as part of its confidence and supply agreement. Let us hope that future confidence and supply agreements have more integrity than the one that National signed with ACT. 
The member of Parliament for Selwyn Amy Adams also spoke about the crippling debt and actually implied that it was left by the last Labour-led Government. Well she should be very careful about what rubbish she puts on the public record because those facts are available to every single member of the country. When we were elected in 1999 Government spending was 30.9 percent of GDP—30.9 percent of GDP. When we left office at the end of 2008 it was 31.1 percent. What is the difference between 30.9 percent of GDP and 31.1 percent of GDP? Not a lot. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tell us. Add it up. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think even that member would be able to add it up. Even that member would be able to add up the difference between 30.9 percent of GDP and 31.1 percent of GDP. And 2¾ years on under National what is the percentage now? It is 36.4 percent of GDP. So who are the reckless spenders? 
Grant Robertson 
: Borrow and spend. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Government borrows money spends up large and cuts tax rates for the highest income earners. At the same time it is slashing front-line services for New Zealanders from Government departments and agencies particularly in the provincial areas. So this bill is not what is needed; what is needed is a responsible attitude for Government and an ability to tell the truth. The truth about the level of debt is that it has blown out of control since National was elected. I will just repeat those figures for the member who still does not understand them. When Labour was elected at the end of 1999 Government spending was 30.9 percent of GDP. When we left office it was 31.1 percent of GDP. Now after 2¾ years of the National Government it is 36.4 percent of GDP. It might be hard for those members to get their heads around those figures but that is a factual presentation based on information that is available to the public and on the public record. 
It is hard to understand when we see so many people losing their jobs around the country and so many people like those for example in the provincial offices of the Department of Conservation and the Inland Revenue Department. They are people who have been available in their local communities to help people with particularly important issues—whether they are enhancing our local community and environment through the Department of Conservation they are scientists who have been charged with protecting our endangered species or they are workers in the local Inland Revenue Department office whom one can approach face to face to receive help to deal with difficult tax issues. Those are the people who are losing their jobs despite Government spending blowing out of control. This is a borrow-and-spend Government. The Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill is a nonsense bill and it deserves to be thrown out. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the ACT Party’s Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill from the ACT Party. The effects of this bill will be that over time Government spending as a proportion of GDP will decline. It will effectively cause a real reduction in Government services over time. That would be the practical import of the bill. 
This bill comes in and is driven by the ACT Party’s belief which I am sure is very genuinely held that the Government should have a very small role in society and that it should maintain the rules and that is about it. All the other things the Government does are seen from the ACT Party’s point of view to be a constraint on our freedom and a constraint on our ability to do things for ourselves. So the ACT Party takes the view that we should reduce Government spending reduce taxation reduce regulation and so forth. 
Good on the ACT Party for having a set of beliefs that it brings to this place but we do not agree with the beliefs that the ACT Party puts forward. Rather than subscribing to a philosophy of “freedom from” which underpins the ACT Party view—that is a freedom from Government intervention—the Green Party subscribes much more to an idea of “freedom to”. We see the role of Government to be in collective action and when we all work together it actually increases our freedoms rather than reduces them. Take for example public education. Public education is a very expensive impost on the Government and the taxpayer. We all contribute to pay for public education yet public education adds to our freedom. It means that all children regardless of where they come from in our country are given a fair chance to get an education which adds tremendously to their ability to experience life and to make the most of their abilities and their talents. Public education adds to their freedom. The fact that we all pay taxes and that we all contribute sufficiently so that we have a proper public education system so that all children in New Zealand have access to it perhaps from an ACT Party point of view is a constraint on all of us because we all have to pay taxes to have that. But I would argue that collectively it adds to our collective freedom because it means that all of us and all of our children have the opportunity to get a decent education so that they can be fully fulfilled and reach their potential. So we have a different perspective on paying taxes to pay for public health and public education. 
Public health is of course another example. We could view the taxes we pay for public health as an impost and as a constraint on our freedom. You know we all hand over taxes so that there is this public health system. When any one of us here in New Zealand gets sick or is in an accident we know that we have access to a public health system so that we can be looked after and hopefully brought back to good health. I would not view the fact that we pay taxes to support public health as a problem; I see that as a great addition to our freedom. The fact that we can walk around knowing that if something terrible happens to us or we get a terrible disease the public health system will be there for us actually adds to our freedom. It is not a constraint on our freedom that we have to pay taxes for a public health system. Collectively all of us chipping in means that individually we are all effectively insured by the whole. All of us contributing together gives us that freedom. That freedom would not be available otherwise. We could argue that we could have private health care but basically private health care in New Zealand is entirely dependent on the public health system. At the end of the day if something really terrible happens to someone they always end up in the public health system because the private health system cannot do the kinds of treatments that the public health system can. 
Also the private health system is a problem for the poor. If people do not have the money to pay for private health insurance then if there is not a public health system to support them their freedom and their life opportunities are reduced dramatically if they are unfortunate enough to have an accident or to get a disease that means they need expensive treatment. I am sure many people in this House and of course right across New Zealand have experienced that either personally or know of people close to us or in our extended family of people who have had illnesses or accidents and who have had tremendous support from the public health system. That adds to our freedom. The fact that we have access to the public health system gives us all the assurance that we can go about our daily lives without having to live in fear that should anything happen to us we will not get access to the public health system we need. 
I say to ACT Party members that they may see taxes and collective action in Government as a constraint on our freedom but from the Green Party’s point of view those kinds of collective contributions actually give us all the security we need and add to our freedom. If we do not have that basic security that no matter where we come from we can access decent health and decent education then fundamentally our freedom is constrained. That is why we do not think of this as Government intervention that we need “freedom from” which I know is how the ACT Party sees it and as a terrible burden that means the Government is on top of all of us. We see it as the Government enabling us to increase our freedom so that we can do the kinds of things we really want to do. 
This of course—and this is slightly at a tangent—also applies to regulation. There is a similar philosophy within ACT and the ACT view about regulation. It is always trying to restrict regulation. There are times when regulation is very important as it is with leaky houses. We saw that when we removed the regulation protecting consumers it cost us all $20 billion to fix up leaky houses. I would argue that that is another example of where the philosophy that sits behind this bill which is I am sure genuinely held and honestly expressed none the less is a mistaken philosophy. 
Nobody is saying that we want absolute Government spending to be 100 percent of GDP. Nobody is saying that the Government cannot over-regulate and cause harm. Of course it can. But we do think that putting this kind of constraint on the ability of the Government to spend money when it needs to will result over time in a decline in the provision of real Government services as Government spending as a proportion of GDP declines. We will find a cut over time in the quality and quantity of the Government services that we all rely upon and that actually increase our freedom. So for those reasons the Green Party will not be supporting this bill tonight. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to take a call on the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. It is a bill that Rodney Hide and the ACT Party have brought to this House. The objective of the bill is to limit the annual increase in core Crown expenses by linking them to the rate of inflation and the rate of population change. I note that the last Labour speaker on this bill Ruth Dyson made a big point about Government spending. Her issue was that Government spending had increased. Well it has increased and that is because we have had a recession and we have had an earthquake in Christchurch. So if Labour does not want to deal with the recession nor the earthquake then fine; we will tell the public of New Zealand that. But at this stage the New Zealand Government has dealt with those issues and dealt with them in an appropriate way. That is important for our economy and our country going forward. 
We look forward to this bill progressing through this stage of the House to the Finance and Expenditure Committee so that there can be further deliberations and so that the public has the ability to have their say with regard to this proposal. The objective once again of this bill is to limit the annual increase in core Crown expenses by linking them to the rate of inflation and the rate of population change. We look forward to the bill progressing through the House. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 If David Bennett’s speech was an indication of the level of commitment and passion that the National Government shows the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill I can tell members now that it will be going nowhere very quickly. In fact that is why the bill is being introduced just before the end of this parliamentary term. The National Government has no intention whatsoever to continue with this bill beyond the next election. If it did it would have introduced it 6 months after it was elected as Government as the supply and confidence agreement somewhat indicated. That member had all the passion of a wooden block when he spoke to the particular details of the bill— 
Hon Member 
: Improvement. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I hear that it is an improvement but I have heard him in other forums and he is actually not too bad. It is a clear indication that the National Government does not intend to progress this bill. When I was reading through the intent of the bill and its purpose I struggled to see why we were debating this bill at this late stage in the parliamentary term. I think it is an absolute affront to members in the House that we are even spending time on it. 
Labour will not support the bill. We do not see the need to progress a bill like this. If we look at the intent of the bill which is to put a spending cap on Government spending we see that it is an affront to how good Ministers actually manage their vote and try to ensure in the context of the time that they are managing their budgets accordingly and are able to ensure that they are keeping within budget for the most part. But this bill is not addressing one iota the level of debt that this Government is going into to fund tax cuts. I would far rather debate that as an issue and a very real concern. That is the type of concern New Zealanders have: why is National providing tax cuts to the top 3 percent of income earners and borrowing for those tax cuts? That is the type of question that Kiwis when they want to make a decision about who they will support in Government want to hear this Parliament debating. 
They also want to hear what the Government is doing to ensure that more young Maori and Pacific people will be trained and employed. That question would lead them to the Government’s investment policies in skills and training and what is happening within that vote. There is in fact a cap on the spend in that particular area. The Government is currently pulling funding away from skills training under tertiary education which makes it harder for those providers to get young people employment-ready in order to get a job—if there is a job out there. I would far rather spend time in this House debating those types of issues rather than the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill which we in this House know will not see the light of day beyond the next election. 
So why are we bothering? Why are we bothering when the very real and pressing issues facing Kiwis are about what the Government is not spending and the priorities that are not being addressed which are affecting everyday families? We could be discussing things like the greater inequality that Maori and Pacific children are facing where one in five is in a benefit-dependent household. The great majority of them are Maori and Pacific children. What is happening there? The spending cap there is an affront to the greatest level of inequality of the most vulnerable young people that we have in this country. We are not debating that issue at all but we should be. Instead we are debating a bill that will not see the light of day beyond the next election and it is terrible. 
I look forward to hearing the next member who will take a call on this bill justify why we are not debating in this House the pressing issues that are facing Kiwis and New Zealanders—vulnerable low-income and modest-income families—and the issues that they really want addressed. Instead the Government has put Parliament in a position of debating a bill that is a sop to an outgoing member of Parliament who is soon to leave this House. The Government has no intention whatsoever of pursuing this bill through the select committee. If the next member taking the call can assure this House before it rises that not only will the bill go to select committee but also the Government will call for submissions in the same session in which it is tabled at the select committee I will be very happy to sit and reflect on my comments. If they could further give a guarantee that this bill may be picked up beyond the next election let them stand in the House and put their name on the record to give that undertaking. 
I can say right now that in this very late stage leading up to the election we are looking at a first reading and at sending the bill to select committee before the election. It is a bill that the Government members certainly have no passion whatsoever to endorse not Amy— 
Grant Robertson 
: Adams. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: —Adams not David Bennett and I am sure not the member who will follow me. None of them will have sufficient passion to convince any person listening to this debate that the National Government will continue with this particular bill. 
We know that it is a waste of time and we are not supporting it. We understand that in fact good Governments and good Ministers manage their votes and are quite upfront and clear about their priorities when they are looking at their portfolio and at where they will shift their priority spend. That is a far better more transparent way for all Kiwis to understand what the Government’s priorities are where funding will be attributed and where the priority spend will be. That is far more transparent and it gives far more accountability and far more opportunity for Kiwis to see what the Government stands for and its priorities. 
Instead this Government wants to continue down a path of some vague priorities that will I think be slipped away. People are not debating the real issues as we should be. We should be debating why the number of Maori and Pacific youth in unemployment has gone up why there is not enough spending in upskilling and training those young people and why there is greater inequality in households in New Zealand. Low-income and vulnerable families and especially Maori and Pacific children are becoming more vulnerable under this Government. 
In this House we should be debating with respect the very serious issues of the lack of jobs in our communities so that we can provide people with a real plan for growth and opportunity so that they can get a job put kai on the table and feed their whanau. It is that simple. This bill has no future in this House and I challenge the next National Government member to tell us that it does. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. Unlike my colleague who has just sat down the Hon Nanaia Mahuta I believe the intention of this bill is an admirable one. It is a meritorious one. It is about looking at Government spending and how it should be limited. It is about limiting the annual increase in core Crown expenses by linking it to the rate of inflation. 
I do not know where members opposite have been for the last 3 years. I do not know whether they have witnessed what has gone on in Greece and Ireland and what is continuing to happen in the United States of America. Government debt is crippling those economies. Recession has taken hold and export growth has contracted. In the light of those crises the points that the Hon Rodney Hide has raised in terms of this bill on Government spending are admirable. 
We all know that debt has debilitating effects on our economy. We also know that Labour when it was in Government expanded only the Government sector and did not expand jobs in the export sector. Through its economic plan over the last 3 years this Government has demonstrated that we are about controlling debt—we will reach a surplus within the next 3 to 4 years—about promoting expansion of export growth and jobs and about supporting local industries. 
Darien Fenton 
: How? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: That member asks me how. When I go through my own electorate of Maungakiekie and look at companies like Compac Sorting Equipment I see the types of contracts that it is now expanding through to the United States in terms of its sorting equipment. When I look at companies like Rakon I see the technological and innovative ways that it expands its business. It earns valuable export dollars which is not something that the previous Labour Government endorsed or promoted. This Government is about promoting export growth. It is about infrastructure. The broadband initiatives that we have put in place will bring this country into the new century. We believe that infrastructure—through roads broadband our hospitals and our schools—will drive that growth. 
Let us talk about education and skills and what we are doing. The last member who stood up asked what we are doing for Pacific and Maori populations. I can tell members that it starts at early childhood as the amount of money we have poured into Maori and Pacific early childhood centres shows—and I see my colleague nodding here. Getting those kids up to scratch with numeracy and literacy is such an important part of our education system. That is what this Government stands for. 
It is about reducing regulations and the Resource Management Act reforms that this Government has put in place have reduced the red tape and bureaucracy that was built up by the Labour Government. After 3 years we are already promoting the type of regulation-busting statutes that National stands for. On innovation and trade it is also about free-trade agreements. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill seeks to impose a constitutional limit on spending as a sure way to create fiscal health. The Maori Party believes this legislation must be opposed at all costs. 
As other speakers have noted in the United States similar laws have been used to bring several states to financial ruin leading to massive cuts in social services. Thirty states already limit how much their legislatures can spend or raise revenues devastating funding for education and essential public services in their wake. Although we appreciate that the bill’s intention is to prevent the State from ever again accumulating a deficit like the one it faces now simply placing limits is a Draconian measure designed to appeal just to popular conservatism. Tea Party Republicans brought the United States to the brink of collapse a couple of weeks ago when they exercised a veto over raising the federal spending cap. 
The real reason for the bill coming up now is that National is seeking to tidy up the loose ends of the confidence agreement it has with ACT. In essence the bill is the desperate breaths of a party seeking to have some influence in the last 7 days of the Government’s work programme but we say in the strongest possible terms that this must not be ACT’s legacy to New Zealand. The motivation for Mr Hide bringing in the bill today is to protect the wealthy from having to pay their share of tax. As a Parliament we must be wary of any populist attempts to conjure up voting power that lacks sound rationale or academic justification. 
Spending discipline is an important ingredient in any recipe to fix the State’s Budget but putting in place a pre-imposed fiscal cap is a recipe for disaster. If our constituents need any proof of that we simply remind them of the spectacle of the fiscal envelope. I will remind National members of that bleak period in our history. The late Hepi te Heuheu attracted 100 percent support from iwi for his stand against this approach. The genesis of the fiscal envelope was that one fixed amount was offered to settle all claims for ever—approximately 3 percent of all appropriations for one year. The $1 billion fiscal envelope compared miserably with other transactions of the Crown leading Maori to believe that they were locked into an unhappy relationship with the Crown. At the time the fiscal envelope was seen as the final straw. A fiscal envelope of $1 billion for the settlement of all historical claims was in effect a definitive limit on what the Crown would pay out in settlements. Maori vehemently rejected such a limitation in advance of the extent of claims being fully known and as a consequence the fiscal envelope was subsequently dropped after the 1996 general election. One might have thought that Governments could learn from their mistakes. 
Internationally too the concept of a preordained limit has been met with as much comparable heat and fury as the fiscal envelope fiasco. What we have seen happen in Colorado is that the state’s roads declined to being in the worst shape since it stared monitoring them. The contribution to higher education funding fell from 60 percent to 40 percent and revenues returned to pre-recession levels. When the economy was restored to a more positive state of health it was almost impossible to make up what had been cut—a decision that was essentially devastating to public services. I found some devastating information about the spending cap concept from Rich Jones director of policy and research for the Bell Policy Center a progressive research group based in Denver. According to Rich Jones: “It’s been particularly negative on the state on state government and its ability to retain and raise the amount of revenues that it needs to function effectively.” 
Of course we are all in favour of any proposals to rein in spending and lower taxes. It is about value for money and we are as keen as the next party to look at that. But there are other things we could do that could tell us about effectiveness efficiency and the best value for our dollar. For example we could get the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to report annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Maori Pacific refugee and migrant communities as well as young people. How effectively spent is the taxpayer dollar in this regard? We could ask for an annual report on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Maori. We need as Nanaia Mahuta said earlier to discuss the real issues about value for money for government. We want to see more community services and less government bureaucracy for the outcome of whanau restoration. That is the best way of controlling debt and of creating prosperity and growth not a rigidly imposed fiscal envelope of ACT’s making. 
What we really need to see and what the Maori Party is determined we will see is that the Government is made more accountable and transparent through the unbundling of public money spent on tangata whenua. Kia ora. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. I never thought that I would say this but I feel a bit sorry for the Hon Rodney Hide. It is not that I agree with his bill; far from it. The bill is a bit of an ideological burp of the proportions that we have come to expect from the ACT Party. I know that the Hon Rodney Hide does not want my sympathy but I offer it in a genuine— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: No. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well I offer to the member— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Please please. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He does not want it. OK I will stop feeling sorry for him. But I do want to say that not only is Rodney Hide leaving this Parliament after being chucked out by his own party but also the confidence and supply agreement that he negotiated and signed up to with National has been treated with contempt as well. 
This bill was one of the showpieces of that confidence and supply agreement even though National has no intention of supporting this bill beyond its referral to a select committee or beyond this Parliament. Like some of the other great initiatives we saw in the wonderful confidence and supply agreement between ACT and National negotiated by the Hon Rodney Hide—who does not want my sympathy so I will not give it any more—there was the agreement on the concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 and the establishment of a so-called high-quality advisory group led by none other than Dr Don Brash. That part of the confidence and supply agreement is a bit like this bill. The advisory group that was set up has been dumped after costing the country half a million dollars for advice that we could have dug out of the  
Hansard  
of the Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. The gap now between ourselves— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Now you’re talking! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —that is right—and Australia has grown under this Government. It is now 38 percent so not only has the Government failed to get anywhere near achieving that goal but also it has gone backwards. 
This bill in the confidence and supply agreement was called the New Zealand Taxpayer Rights Bill. I believe it copied some of the bills that other members have talked about and I will eventually talk about other legislation from other parts of the world. The bill was supposed to have its first reading within the first 6 months of the new Government. I think my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson did a very very good job of reciting the calendar of this Government which was elected on 8 November 2008. Six months from then—being very very generous—was 8 May 2009. This bill was not on the Order Paper then—nowhere near it. In fact even if we are generous and give a bit of space for the National Government to find its feet and figure out what kind of Government it thinks it might be we realise it has still taken all this time. We are heading for 2012 so I think that delay is a real failure on the part of not only the ACT Party and its confidence and supply agreement but also the National Government. The Government has failed to live up to the agreement it made with its confidence and supply party. We are at the eleventh hour of this Government’s first term and certainly nearing the end of Rodney Hide’s political career but we are debating the first reading of this bill. 
As I said this bill has no show of surviving the general election. This bill is a cynical move by the National Government. If National wins the election which is very unlikely this bill is a good lesson for other parties about the folly of signing up to confidence and supply agreements with National. I think the Maori Party might be learning that lesson as we speak. I hope the other parties will take notice of how shabbily Rodney Hide and the ACT Party have been treated by the National Government. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: We’ve loved every minute. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He has loved every minute of it. Well shame on him. 
Having said all of that I want to register Labour’s strong opposition to this foolish and ridiculous bill. It has no purpose; it is meaningless. Spending cap legislation is not needed and it has not worked overseas. I was very interested in the National Government’s weak attempts to try to show some sort of feeble support for this bill by describing it as “interesting”. “Interesting” usually means “We think it’s a crock but here’s one way we can say that without insulting the Hon Rodney Hide.” We do not need a law like this. We need a responsible Government that will lead by example and be fiscally responsible like the last Labour Government was—and thank goodness for Michael Cullen. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That member can laugh but New Zealand is in the best situation of any country in the world because of Michael Cullen and the previous Labour Government. 
We cannot have this debate without considering the present context in which the Government is slashing spending and there are job losses in the core State sector. National and ACT have made a really good job of demonising our public sector workers. They have done an appalling job on that. These workers provide essential services and so far National and ACT have got away with cutting 2500 jobs. They are quite happy to take the credit for our front-line workers who have been there during the tough times like the Christchurch earthquake but they are ruthlessly slicing through public services. As an example of what can happen with a cap on spending I am told that the Government is now struggling to get decent independent policy advice from some Government departments. We realise that from some of the junk that we hear back from Government Ministers when they try to justify the terrible decisions that they make. 
This bill is just another attempt to try to slash more vital Government services and to create more tax cuts so the rich can benefit and be handed over more money while fundamental services are cut for those who need them the most. Let us talk about that because I know that members opposite like to have a bit of a laugh when we talk about Government spending. Let us talk about the facts under Labour and under National. When Labour was in power for 9 years our Public Service spending was 30.1 percent of GDP. What is it today? It has gone up to 36 percent. That is despite the slash-and-burn approach of this Government. That spending has skyrocketed to 36.4 percent of GDP so I would like to hear the next speaker from National explain—that is if National is going to speak for more than a minute on this bill and show some enthusiasm in its support of it which would be quite a nice change—why after attacking the last Labour Government for its Public Service spending that spending has skyrocketed under National. Of course attacking public services is the intention of this bill. This is happening at the same time that the Government is slashing public services. 
I am interested in why the Minister and the Government have not had a good look at how this proposal has worked overseas because it seems as though they have not done so. Certainly Treasury has looked at that and some other members have talked about what has happened in Colorado and in Japan. Japan has had a spending cap since World War II but that has not stopped it from amassing debt equal to 200 percent of its GDP. Every year the Japanese Government gets an exemption from the Act in Parliament. This proposal is an old hardy annual of the Republican Party in the United States and we all know what has been happening there. A member of the Maori Party talked earlier about the Tea Party in the US and the irresponsible actions that we have seen there that took the whole world to the brink of an economic collapse when politicians could not agree on the Budget because they were playing politics around spending caps. This proposal has never achieved widespread support. We can look at other places and California is a really good example of one of them. It has not quite had a spending cap but it has emulated the proposal in this bill which is about holding Government-initiated referenda on spending. But proposition after proposition has brought the state of California to its knees. 
Spending caps are a populist approach: if we go out and ask people whether the Government should spend any more of course they will say no. I think the proposal by the member that there be a Government-initiated referendum is quite frankly stupid. It is a stupid proposal and it would leave Governments absolutely vulnerable. I was interested to hear Sam Lotu-Iiga who spoke before the dinner break. He spoke about increases in spending on early childhood education health and other things but he did not seem to realise that this bill would put caps on that spending. Thank you. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill. It has been interesting to listen to how the bill’s provisions but more important the bill’s benefits have been misrepresented in this House this afternoon and this evening. Let me just take a minute to reflect on some of the key provisions in this bill. 
In essence what this bill is seeking to do is to put an upper limit on public expenditure as a percentage of GDP and that is that percentage as it is today. Then it would provide that Government expenditure can increase only in real terms. So we have a certain level of Government expenditure today and as the population increases one would expect the tax revenues to go up and as a consequence expenditure on public services necessarily to increase. Likewise with inflation; that will also affect the spending power of taxes. As a consequence one of the provisions of this bill is that a total amount of spending is adjusted upwards for increases in population and for the effects of inflation. There are also adjustments to take out and look specifically at the impact of unemployment benefits because we know that through the economic cycles unemployment goes up and it goes down. It would be wrong to include the cost of unemployment benefits within that cap. Equally borrowing expenses a function of interest rates and the level of debt are separately calculated. The cost of national emergencies such as the Christchurch earthquake is also separately calculated. We are actually adjusting for known one-off occurrences if you like of that nature and for population and inflation effects. 
Why is this bill important? Darien Fenton had a very interesting contribution. She made some comments which I am sure were tongue-in-cheek about Rodney Hide but she then went on to praise Michael Cullen. Let us just look at Michael Cullen’s record because Mr Cullen can take some credit for the fact that Government expenditure coming into the 2005 election was some 29 percent of GDP. What happened then? Well Labour fearing a defeat in the 2005 election went on a spending spree. It was a massive spending spree in a desperate effort to buy the 2005 election. We are living with the consequences of those decisions today. I suspect we will be living with the consequences of those decisions for many years to come. As a consequence of substantially increasing social welfare entitlements through Working for Families and through a massive extension to the interest-free student loan scheme we find a situation today where Government expenditure is some 36 percent of GDP—an increase from 29 percent to 36 percent. Just think if we had actually had this bill in place prior to the 2005 election and if we had been able to contain Government expenditure to 29 percent of GDP—the figure that Michael Cullen achieved prior to the 2005 election—rather than the massive blowout in expenditure the massive blowout in debt that Labour members have spoken about today we would be spending some $12 billion or $13 billion less today than we are. 
Why is that important? It is important because money that is spent has to be taken off people. It is taken off people in the form of taxes and through increased debt on future generations. That has an impact on jobs. It has an impact on the number of jobs and it has an impact on the standard of living in New Zealand. Prior to the dinner break Nanaia Mahuta was waxing lyrical about poverty in New Zealand the need to reform our social welfare system and the lack of jobs. It is unfortunate that her knowledge of the economy and how it works is not better than what it is. I suspect the same comments could be made about most members of the Labour Opposition. How do we create jobs? We create jobs by encouraging entrepreneurs to invest to build factories to create opportunities and to look for new markets overseas—that is how we create jobs. What creates that investment? It is the potential return an entrepreneur a businessman will get from investing. We live in a global market place. The investors of the world are free to invest in New Zealand in Australia in Asia and in the United States. We are competing for capital. If we want to attract capital to New Zealand if we want to create capital if we want to create the investment and the sorts of jobs that Labour members say are so precious to them we need to have a system that incentivises people to invest in New Zealand. The way to do that is to ensure that those entrepreneurs those businessmen those people saving and those people working have the greatest possible return. The way to do that is to reduce wasteful Government expenditure to bring Government expenditure under control and to allow New Zealanders to keep more of the income they earn. 
I mentioned earlier the massive spending spree that went on after the 2005 general election. We know that one of the things that was implemented was a substantial extension to interest-free student loans. When the student loan scheme started there was a write-off of 11c in the dollar. So for every dollar that was borrowed the Government ended up writing off 11c and 89c was repaid during the early to mid-1990s. By the time we got to 1999 the Government was writing off 23c in the dollar and students were repaying only 77c. If we fast-forward the clock to 2009 the write-off was approaching 50c in the dollar and students were repaying only half of what they borrowed. Why was that? It was because there was no control on Government expenditure—there was no control. The Labour Government put in a plan to buy the election and we had this massive blowout in expenditure. If we had had this very bill the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill that may well not have happened we may well have had Government expenditure today at 29 percent of GDP as it was under Michael Cullen in 2005 the Government may well have been spending $12 billion or $13 billion less and we may well have had the investment and the jobs that Labour members are very happy to wax lyrical about. 
I was also interested in the comments of Russel Norman before the dinner break. He talked eloquently about the benefits of public education. What is important about public education? Surely the key issue is education—that is the key issue. Does it matter that teachers are paid by the State? Is that important? Is it important that taxpayers pay taxes to the State for the State to go out and employ the teachers? What is wrong with letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money so that they in turn can directly purchase education for their own children? What is wrong with giving New Zealanders more freedom? Russel Norman said that if we really wanted freedom in New Zealand we should have better public education. The ACT Party says that it is not important who employs the teachers; what is important is how successful those teachers are how good those teachers are. We say we need to let New Zealanders keep more of their own money let them have the freedom and let them go out there and choose whether they want to send their children to a State school where the teachers are paid for by the taxpayer through taxes or to an independent school—actually let them have the freedom. Let New Zealanders have choice. Let us ensure that those opportunities are funded equally. It is the role of the State to collect taxes and to fund education but there is no reason that a person should have to pay twice—to pay their taxes and also to pay for an independent education if that is their choice. 
Yes I say to Mr Russel Norman we do stand for freedom. What we stand for is freedom and for equal opportunity. This is a bill whose time has come. Many people have waxed lyrical about the fact that this bill will not see the light of day after the election. Well I say to New Zealanders that if they want to see decent controls on Government expenditure if they want to see expenditure back at 29 percent or less of GDP there is a very good way to do that: vote for the ACT Party with their party vote to put us into a position where we actually have some leverage on the incoming National Government. Unlike Darien Fenton I am not in cloud-cuckoo-land. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill a bill that has come to this House because of the confidence and supply agreement between National and the ACT Party. National is a Government that delivers on its confidence and supply promises. Darien Fenton can wax lyrical all she likes about the fact that this bill took some time to get to the House—and I am sure there are many reasons for that—but it is here. I contrast that with the confidence and supply agreements that the previous Labour Government had with its minority partners and in particular with United Future. I know of at least one example where not only was a confidence and supply agreement not followed through in one Parliament but it was not followed through in at least two and maybe three. 
I draw the attention of the House to the particular agreement that Labour had with United Future on the issue of support for private health insurance which was in the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and United Future. It was so dismissed by the Labour Government that by the time Pete Hodgson became the Minister of Health he did not know it even existed—he had absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever. So I refute any of those accusations that this Government has not met completely its undertakings under the confidence and supply agreement. 
There are many things said by Rodney Hide that I will agree with. One of them is that although I agree that this bill is one part of the “response to the need for greater fiscal prudence” I suggest that the best response to that need will be the future election of a National-led Government and the appointment of Bill English as the Minister of Finance. It was only when Bill English became the Minister of Finance that any attention was drawn to any notion of fiscal constraint. We can play the game of “my statistic is bigger than your statistic”. I think Ruth Dyson tried to indicate that there was no problem with Government spending under the Labour Government but there is no doubt that Government spending increased dramatically during the period of the Labour Government. Crown spending went up by 63 percent from 2001 to the last Michael Cullen Budget of 2008-09. Even adjusted for population growth that increase was 51.5 percent more than double the CPI growth during the same period. At the same time the tradable sector was being strangled. 
I also want to draw attention to the comments made by the Maori Party MP Rahui Katene who said that this was simply a means to stop the wealthy from paying their fair share in tax. Well I draw the attention of that member and the House to the data presented by the Minister of Finance which has received quite a bit of air time I have to say on who is really paying income tax in this country. Thanks to the fiscal policies put in place by this Government 44 percent of households are paying no effective income tax after wealth transfers such as Working for Families and housing supplements and 10 percent of households are actually paying 71 percent of net taxation. If we take it out to 17 percent of households they comprise 97 percent of all net income tax paid in this country. I think that is fair. I refute any claim by any member of this House that this bill is a means to stop the wealthy from paying their fair share in tax. They already are. 
I will come back to Government spending over the period of the Labour Government. Dr Russel Norman implored the House that somehow this was necessary to maintain health and education services. On the issue of health services he made a very interesting comment. He said that the private sector existed only because the public sector existed. Well I think there might be some merit in that argument but I would argue the counterfactual and that is that the public sector exists because of the private sector especially in the areas of surgery anaesthesia radiology and endoscopy. I relate the case of a surgeon who was considering working at Dunedin Hospital 3 or 4 years ago who when told what the salary was at Dunedin Hospital said: “Well that’s pretty good for a monthly salary.” He was then told that that was the annual salary at which point he ran back to New York from whence he came. It is increasingly the case that the surgical and anaesthetist fraternity see their core business as their private business and view their service to the public sector in the same way lawyers view legal aid. There was a need to increase that but the fact that productivity went up not one jot during that period is a blight on that Government. 
In summary I think this is a sound bill that is worthy of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration and if by the electorate’s good grace I am back here after 26 November and still a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I would be very happy to listen to the submissions on the bill. I strongly support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) contains the substance of the policy and it is the part to which Parliament needs to address its special attention. This Government came into office with the specific intention of developing an appropriate response to violence against children. We are well aware of the incidents that have resulted in the horrific deaths and injuries of young and vulnerable children. Far too often the perpetrators or the parents and caregivers of these children are able to evade their responsibilities. An effective response is required. Part 1 provides a significant step towards making New Zealand a safer place for our children and for vulnerable adults by holding those responsible for the care and welfare of the vulnerable as well as the perpetrators to account. 
This bill represents a small but significant step in responding to incidents of abuse of the most vulnerable in New Zealand society. Other measures such as those outlined in the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children as well as a greater willingness by communities to prevent these incidents are required if we are to seriously address the scourge of child abuse. 
The bill itself spends a small amount of time looking specifically at the ill-treatment or neglect of a child or vulnerable adult. In particular in new section 151 substituted in clause 6 the bill deals with the fact that “Every one who has actual care or charge of a person who is a vulnerable adult and who is unable to provide himself or herself with necessaries is under a legal duty—”. In new section 152 also substituted in clause 6 the bill deals with the “Duty of parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury”. 
In particular new section 195 substituted by clause 7 deals with “Ill-treatment or neglect of child or vulnerable adult” and states that “(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who … intentionally engages in conduct that or omits to discharge or perform any legal duty the omission of which”—and the significance of the inclusion of matters that are omissions will no doubt be the topic of some discussion following the putting forward of the amendment by the ACT Party in respect of its concerns as to how those offences should be treated. That is where no doubt I will be looking to take another call to describe the subtle differences between omission and commission and duty-bound statute and offences as opposed to those who may be involved in the actual commission of a serious or violent offence which would attract strike provisions under the sentencing legislation. What section 195(1) does is to make sure that those who have oversight of a child or vulnerable adult those persons “described in subsection (2)” who are “likely to cause suffering injury adverse effects to health or any mental disorder or disability to a child or vulnerable adult”—known as the victim in this part of the legislation—“if the conduct engaged in or the omission to perform the legal duty is a major departure from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person.” will be liable to imprisonment. 
New section 195A substituted in clause 7 specifically deals with the issue of a group of people close to a household or in a household who would basically be considered to be part of that household and who “(a) knows that the victim is at risk of death grievous bodily harm or sexual assault as the result of (i) an unlawful act … or (ii) an omission by another person to discharge or perform a legal duty … and (b) fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim from that risk.” Subsection 195A(2) states that those persons are: “(a) a member of the same household as the victim; or (b) a person who is a staff member of any hospital institution or residence where the victim resides.” For the purposes of clarification subsection 195A(4) goes on to state: “(a) a person is to be regarded as a member of a particular household even if he or she does not live in that household if that person is so closely connected with the household that it is reasonable in the circumstances to regard him or her as a member of the household:”. In particular “(b) where the victim lives in different households at different times the same household refers to the household in which the victim was living at the time of the act or omission giving rise to the risk of death grievous bodily harm or sexual assault.” 
In other words it is no longer enough to simply turn away one’s mind attention or face from the harm or the risk of harm that is occurring in that household and to say “It is nothing to do with me.” It is not enough for persons to say they saw nothing occur there and that because they have no legal duty as a parent or the equivalent statutory substitution they attract no legal liability. This legislation says that that is not good enough. After the passage of this legislation eventually concludes if the persons are members of that household for the purposes of the legislation and they know that the victim is at risk the persons who have that knowledge will find themselves bound by a duty to take some responsibility for what is occurring in that household. No longer will a code of silence be able to descend over a family group who refuses to tell the police what has occurred in that household when its members can reasonably be expected to know. 
This is a step that I hope Parliament endorses—as it did at the second reading by quite a substantial majority—in order to confirm that this Parliament is prepared to take the steps necessary to protect the children and vulnerable members of society who find themselves in those households and who in a legal sense are unable to reach out to those who should know better and who should intervene in activity that is putting those children or vulnerable parties at risk. This is the first step in this process but it is part of a wider piece of work that the Government has been doing to try to protect children and vulnerable parties. I look forward to hearing the debate on this issue in the Committee stage and at a later time in this part of the discussion and I am happy to address the matters contained in the amendment that has been put forward by the ACT Party. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a first call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)—it may be one of a number of calls—to respond to some of the points that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice has made but also to talk about other matters that have to do with Part 1. Clearly from the outset I say that we are supporting this legislation and the clauses in Part 1. We also want to join with the Government to give that very strong signal that the Minister wishes to give. There is no reason to withhold that. Clearly that strong signal must come from Parliament and we join the Minister in giving that message. That is not to say that this bill solves everything that child abuse will go away and that there are not still a number of practical issues that will come out of these clauses when they are put to the test in particular cases. 
I will go through a number of clauses clause by clause. Part 1 makes some very very important changes and I agree with the Minister that it is the nub of the policy proposals that the Government has put forward. I will talk first about clause 4(2) and the redefinition of “claim of right”. I will talk a little bit about the submissions the Social Services Committee received because a number of legal people—learned people if you like—applied their minds to what this clause was doing and expressed their uncertainty about some of the provisions as well. We are all aware of where this comes from and we are all aware of why this has become necessary because with the amount of damage that happened in the Waihopai case where that defence was used we ought to come back and look at that to see whether this is what was intended. 
The Dunedin Community Law Centre raised a number of very important points. It referred to the longstanding tradition in common law that requires a person to claim that they had a belief—mistaken or otherwise—that their conduct was lawful. The law centre was really saying that perhaps since this particular rule was codified in New Zealand the defence has really been restricted in order to prevent moral claims from being raised. The amendment to section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 by clause 4 of the bill in the law centre’s view—well not in its view; it is a fact—would see the defence restricted further with the addition of a property right criterion so that only defendants who believe that they had a proprietary or possessory right in the property could use the defence. The law centre believed that the amendment was unnecessary because the defence already has limited use as it can be claimed only where it is an element of the offence of which there are 14 in the Crimes Act 1961 and it is raised rather infrequently. They went on to say that this is a reactionary proposal; it reacts to the “Waihopai Three” being acquitted. And really they felt that prior to this case there had been no apparent issues with its scope or use. 
The New Zealand Law Society also had some amendments to make and it proposed those amendments. So although the new definition is supported there is still some anxiety out there that this may not have solved it in its entirety. 
I will talk a little bit about clause 5. I simply state that it gives us an opportunity to express our abhorrence at the whole area of sexual grooming—at what is happening to our most vulnerable. If covert operations are undertaken by the police to expose those who are involved in grooming then this clause gives the police that protection and so it should. It certainly gives us that opportunity to express our abhorrence at sexual grooming. Any action that stands to stamp that out from our society is to be supported. 
The major parts of Part 1 are new sections 150A 151 152 195 and 195A. I was reflecting on the submissions made to us by the Law Commission. It was not until I read the Law Commission’s submissions and then went back and read its report  
Review of Part 8 of the Crimes Act 1961 
 that I became aware of what the Law Commission was saying and it began to make some kind of sense. I guess there is a question to ask the Minister in the chair: is it the Government’s intention at some point to respond to the review of Part 8 in a much more comprehensive way? The law commissioners when they were submitting on this part of the Act expressed their disappointment I believe that a comprehensive response to the review of Part 8 had not emerged. They said that by taking some of their provisions out from the report and putting them in these particular amendments in fact we tend to lose some of the coherence that they were trying to develop. I think their submissions also led then to a clarification that indeed by leaving out “discharge or” from new section 150A(2) we were losing a sense of what the amendment was designed to do which is why that section is amended further. I just wondered whether the Minister might at some point make some comments about the other parts of Part 8 of the Act “Crimes against a person” of which this forms a part. When might we see those coming to the fore? 
Certainly when we are talking much more directly to the provisions around the requirement that those who are aware that vulnerable people—children as well as those who are vulnerable in other ways like the elderly and the disabled—are experiencing abuse and neglect there is a duty of care to do something about that: to take it to the authorities to intervene and to make sure that the kind of assistance that is required to alleviate the problems is actually provided. We very strongly support those provisions because they provide a legal duty and some requirements on those who are caught in that respect. However we will see how this turns out in practice. In terms of the institutional arrangements etc. we were wondering in the select committee who was caught and who was not caught. Would the gardener for example being aware of something that is happening in an institution be caught by these provisions? If so how? 
The other point is that having placed a legal duty on those who are involved at the periphery or directly how will they protect themselves? Would it be through reporting the particular incidents? Is there a possibility then that this is mandatory reporting by stealth? Would it not have been better to actually address that far more directly? Mandatory reporting will have other consequences. The Children’s Commissioner presented to the select committee. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to reflect the view that came through from the public and agencies that we really need to do something. The public of New Zealand are ready to step up in terms of the provisions of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). They want to have the opportunity to actually hold to account people who choose to close their eyes and step back from those abhorrent incidents that happen right within view. We heard for instance—or it was retold to us—the names of those on a tragic list of young people who have been abused and murdered in this country. We heard people recite shock at the neighbours of people like Nia Glassie. The neighbours saw her placed on the roof they saw her on the clothes line their children came home and reported the incidents of her being put in a dryer and they stood back did nothing and took no action. Now they have to live with the fact that they did that. 
This country is coming to terms very clearly with the belief that it is our responsibility to get involved. People use the quote—and it was used in the House last night—about it requiring a village to raise a family. Well the village is ready to step up and take that role. I am pleased to see that we will receive support on this bill largely from across the House and so it needs to be. 
I will also reflect on other provisions within the bill that relate to for instance the new offences around sexual grooming. This is a fairly intricate provision. It means that it is a crime for a person who is setting about sexually grooming somebody in cyberspace whom they believe to be a minor—but who in fact may be a police officer or other investigator posing as a minor—to turn up in a situation or to arrange a meeting in a situation where they are preparing to commit a crime. The reason why this is not an offence at the moment is that it is not the penultimate act towards committing that crime and it does not fit within the purview of the offence of preparing to commit a crime under the Summary Offences Act. 
We needed to extend the law to take account of these advances in technology and the ways in which desperate deviant people set about using information technology to attract their prey through sexual grooming and go on to commit sexual offences. We had a gap in the law that has been created by technology and that had not been filled by previous legislation. Offenders did not have the ability to contact victims or supposed victims in order to perpetuate their own deviant behaviour. So the amendment or addition to the Crimes Act that allows the investigation of this type of crime is very right and proper. I am also pleased to see that that particular part of this bill received wide support. I do not like it but I understand that the Greens were supportive enough of this particular part albeit they will not be supporting the bill in its entirety. I do not understand that in any way whatsoever. 
The substantial part of this bill is around expanding the duties of care as previously outlined by the Minister of Justice to bring into line a community responsibility—which the community has flagged to the Government and previous Governments the need for—to extend for instance to those people who do not have a familial or blood relationship as a parent the need for them to take action when they see crimes being committed when a crime of neglect is being committed or when omissions are occurring that have a substantially criminal and detrimental effect on young people or alternatively on older people who are the most vulnerable and in need of our care. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I want to address clause 4 and its amendment to the claim of right which is one that seriously concerns us. It seems that the amendment to the Crimes Act is motivated by the Crown losing a particular case sometimes known as the “Waihopai Three” case where the defendants used claim of right—sometimes called colour of right—as a defence. 
Presently in the Crimes Act claim of right is defined “in relation to any act means a belief that the act is lawful although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed”. The change in the bill before us is to make the wording a belief that “at the time of the act in a proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed”. 
I think it applies in its very restricted form to for example someone who picks up a bag off the conveyor belt at the airport chucks it in the back of the car drives off then all of sudden finds blue flashing lights behind them because somebody saw them steal a bag off the conveyor belt. The person says: “Look I must have picked up the wrong bag. It looks very much like mine.” Of course they would not get away with that if the bag had been stolen from say a rich-looking tourist and was of a completely different type to their bag but if they had a reasonable belief that it was their bag they would get off the charge. 
So there is an element of reasonableness in this amended law even though the word “reasonableness” does not appear. If we look at the law that it is narrowing we see it is also there implicitly even if not explicitly. Sometimes colour of right or claim of right laws around the world do have explicit reference to reasonableness in terms of the mistake or belief. But in this case in both the amended law and the original law there is not that reference to reasonableness but implicitly it is there. This is true internationally. 
Another example which now unfortunately is not covered by claim of right is somebody who hears someone in the house next door yelling and screaming and it appears that someone is being attacked. The neighbour breaks down the door and rushes in only to find that the noise is coming from a television set. The owner of the house gets very upset and takes the neighbour to court for breaking down the door criminal damage etc. The neighbour may be able to get off if it is thought that they honestly believed that a person inside the house was in real danger and they made a genuine mistake. 
The “Waihopai Three” case was in some ways an extension of that principle in that in respect of the two cases I have mentioned in the first case the person technically might have thieved the bag from the conveyer belt and in the second case of breaking down the neighbour’s door the person technically might have committed damage to the door. In the Waihopai case the defendants did not deny that they had technically damaged the covering of the satellite dish. The question is whether there was some reason a genuine belief that overrode that technical breach of the law. In the case of the “Waihopai Three” they argued that they did it to abide by a larger purpose a larger law—that is to stop the continuing killing of people by the American Government in the illegal war in Iraq. The jury in that case presumably accepted that argument. 
Some of those questions have been challenged in a recent decision by Justice Gendall in the High Court and this has been covered a bit in the media. Justice Gendall went back to that case and assessed whether in fact there was reasonableness in what the “Waihopai Three” did. He brought out some very interesting points. He said that the defendants had not “identified imminent peril or danger to an identifiable person or persons”. 
The defendants in the earlier case had argued that they were not specifying people. There was an ongoing war an illegal war where hundreds of thousands of people had been indirectly or directly killed and the whole question of the legality of that war related to the legality of what the defendants were doing in damaging the dome at Waihopai. 
The other element that Justice Gendall brought up was “the legality of a decision by the executive arm of government to go to war is beyond the capacity of the courts”. That is we cannot judge something if it is related to something happening in another country and being done by another Government which I do not think was the way that the District Court jury had decided it in the “Waihopai Three” case. But that raises a whole interesting question of the relationship of New Zealand law to international law. Another point Justice Gendall raised was that although clearly it was an act of protest he said that to qualify it had to be an act of rescue—of rescuing particular people. 
So there is a whole controversial area there of whether the courts can accept that protests might have a good effect in terms of upholding international law and protecting lives in another country. It could be argued if we look at the Arab Spring that some of the mass protests there have ended dictatorships that were killing people imprisoning people torturing people. Although the protests might not have been a direct act of rescue in Justice Gendall’s term they were acts of protests that were helping to uphold the law and protect lives. 
So there are a whole lot of controversial issues here which is why I think of what Rajen Prasad said in terms of some of the submissions before the Social Services Committee. We should not really be rushing to change the Crimes Act provision for claim of right on the basis of just one case when these issues are very much alive in debate. We should take our time. It is not as if there has been a whole pile of cases beyond property-related cases using the claim of right. We do not need to rush to change it so the Green Party is very strongly against changing the law on that basis. 
I think of the whole question of the relationship of domestic law to international law and the extent to which not only Governments can help uphold international law particularly law relating to aggression the killing of people genocide and all of these things. It is not just Governments that have a role in upholding that international law; communities protestors and all kinds of people can engage in a similar exercise. 
In fact we have been celebrating the 30th anniversary of the anti - Springbok Tour demonstrations where clearly by all accounts including Nelson Mandela’s the protest action then some of which did technically breach laws did help end the suffering of black people in particular in South Africa. In one sense many of the defendants in those anti - Springbok Tour cases 30 years ago used a kind of claim of right defence even if they did not actually spell it out that way and were given light sentences or no sentences or community service or whatever for sitting on planes on motorways and God knows what. I think some people actually invaded Auckland Airport or Wellington Airport and sat on a plane. Today they would be carted off for a major terrorism offence but they were given community service because their motive was helping people overseas. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) this evening. In fact it is not my pleasure. I am actually saddened and pretty sickened to take a call on this type of legislation. It saddens and sickens me that we have to pass legislation to protect our children and our most vulnerable adults from abuse and neglect in New Zealand. I do not know when we decided in New Zealand that it was in any form acceptable to abuse and neglect our vulnerable adults and children but I know we do it and we do it very well in New Zealand. 
This bill is one of the solutions that this Parliament can take to protect our children and vulnerable adults from assault neglect and ill-treatment. This bill is about protection—that is why we have this legislation here today. It is about holding to account people who do these terrible acts or who turn a blind eye to these terrible acts every day in our society. 
This legislation will provide greater accountability for the acts of violence against and abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults. It will affirm that special status that children and vulnerable adults have under criminal law and will enforce the current obligations that parents and caregivers have to protect them from harm. It will recognise that other members of the community have responsibility as well for the well-being of children and vulnerable adults in certain limited circumstances. 
When we talk about protecting our children and our vulnerable adults I think it is important to acknowledge that the issue is not about just the immediate parents. It is also about the community taking that responsibility. I know that in the second reading of this bill we talked about the fact that it takes a community to raise a family and to raise a child. I think we all have to sit back and look at what is happening in our own communities with our neighbours and in our extended families and take responsibility as well. 
This bill is about breaking the code of silence that exists in our communities and it includes a new offence—the failure to protect a child or vulnerable adult. For me this is a no-brainer and for many people listening tonight this is exactly what we should be doing as we watch innocent lives being wasted and see lives being taken away from our youngest children our most vulnerable in New Zealand because we have not had action before. I do believe that this bill will turn round some people when they are sitting by watching it happen. They will think that they can make a difference. 
We had a number of submissions to the Social Services Committee that called for tougher penalties against those who abuse and tighter controls on at-risk families. It is about getting that balance right. The bill increases the maximum penalty for breaching a duty from 7 years’ imprisonment to 10 years and it doubles the penalty for the offence of the ill-treatment of a child from 5 years to 10 years. 
The Government is also carrying out a number of programmes aimed at improving the situation of at-risk families. Our initiative to address the drivers of crime is preventive to ensure that women families and whanau are connected to the maternity and early parenting services they need when they need them. We know that early intervention is so important to making a difference in people’s lives. 
Another important aspect of the bill is the inclusion of vulnerable adults. Clause 7 substitutes new sections 195 and 195A so the provision in the principal Act was widened and it was widened deliberately to ensure that the elderly the disabled and those who cannot remove themselves from a situation are also covered. I think it is terribly sad in New Zealand when we have to pass legislation to protect our elderly and protect our disabled from people abusing and neglecting them. 
Age Concern gave a fantastic submission to the Social Services Committee in support of the extension of the legislation to include vulnerable adults. Our committee discussed in depth the qualifiers of being considered vulnerable. This is typically an area that New Zealand does not like talking about but it is an issue that we must face particularly as our population ages. 
The key test in the definition of a vulnerable adult relates to whether a person is able to withdraw him or herself from the care or charge of another person as a consequence of that person’s age or any other cause. It is not a person’s age that results in him or her being vulnerable. However it is that loss of independence of freedom that makes someone more vulnerable. 
As a whole the select committee worked hard to incorporate the suggestions of submitters during the select committee process and we have come up with a bill that will go a long way to ensure that our most vulnerable are protected and that those who are responsible for abuse and neglect and who watch abuse and neglect are also held accountable. We cannot sit back and do nothing and I believe that this bill is a part of the solution to make a difference in New Zealand. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). It broadly covers several areas; I think roughly four. We have focused quite heavily on certain parts of this bill and I will probably hone in on a couple of them as we traverse Part 1. 
Before I do so I will make a general statement. It has been referred to at different times by other speakers—that is the very strong linkage between factors of poverty and violence. I think ultimately if we are to address issues of child abuse and child neglect in New Zealand we need to look at these causal factors. Of course I acknowledge that to seek to explain does not see to excuse. In my mind there is never an excuse for child abuse and child neglect in New Zealand but we cannot ignore that when levels of poverty and deprivation are at their highest we also see an increase in the levels of child abuse and child neglect. That is a linkage that we cannot ignore. 
I was very pleased that in the beginning of the term of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice he focused on the drivers of crime. This linkage inevitably would have been part of that focus given that it is also one of the roughly five risk factors that we see amongst young people who come before our criminal justice system. I would like to see the issue of the drivers of crime stay on the agenda. It feels like it has fallen away a little bit when we start discussing for instance these kinds of bills which are often band-aids for much wider problems. Also we have a green paper. It will take us potentially 3 years to look into these issues when ultimately I do not think that some of the work the Minister kicked off was intended to take as long as that. So I hope that is a mantle that whoever—actually they would not need to because Labour will just pick it up and continue what we did when we were in Government. We have unfinished business in the area of child poverty and child abuse. 
Coming to the bill itself I will go through some individual clauses of Part 1 starting with clause 4. I think it is important that as a select committee we separated out the reference to “vulnerable adult”. It is not just children we are talking about. Someone is implicit in a crime if they neglect to raise issues of neglect or abuse not only against a child but against a vulnerable adult. I think that was incredibly important. We have heard in the past some quite horrifying stories not only of elderly vulnerable people abused in aged-care facilities but also of abuse against disabled people who might be in receipt of home care. So I think it is important that the definition of “vulnerable adult” is listed in clause 4(1) as: “… a person unable by reason of detention age sickness mental impairment or any other cause to withdraw himself or herself from the care or charge of another person”. They are unable to remove themselves from what may be an abusive care relationship or even just periodic abuse. I am pleased that we are covering those people with that clause. 
I come to clause 5 which actually jumps over entirely into the other area that the select committee covered. The select committee was the Social Services Committee. It was a little odd that we as a select committee considered this bill. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I know that this is the kind of bill we would usually consider. I am still not entirely clear why the Social Services Committee had this bill. Perhaps it may have been because the Justice and Electoral Committee had just a few too many things to consider. Maybe it was also because there was some discussion around three-strikes provisions. Three-strikes provisions as we know never go to the Justice and Electoral Committee; they go anywhere but the Justice and Electoral Committee. We discussed the three-strikes provision in relation to this bill; I will at some stage come to the amendment from ACT on that matter which we will not be supporting. Clause 5— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I acknowledge the honourable member Jacinda Ardern. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am acknowledged and I will continue. Clause 5 is “Meeting young person under 16 following sexual grooming etc”. In a nutshell right now we have law enforcement officers who for the purposes of protecting young people online will explicitly set out to approach those who might be seeking to groom young people online. I guess a comparison I could make is a mystery shopper exercise for under-age drinking where a young person is sent into an off-licence or an on-licence to make a purchase. If someone makes a sale to that young person then they are by virtue of the law able to be penalised for that. It would be totally inappropriate to do the same thing when it comes to the sexual grooming of a young person online. Even though of course we can hide a person’s identity we would not want to put a vulnerable young person into that situation in order to seek out these offenders. Instead this clause allows that if someone is fictitiously presenting themselves as a young person the person they then draw out who is defined to be a groomer can be prosecuted even though technically that young person was not 16 or under. I think that is a common-sense provision. I think it is probably what the public would absolutely expect and I utterly endorse that particular clause. 
I then come to new section 151 under clause 6. This section sets out that “Every one who has actual care or charge of a person who is a vulnerable adult and who is unable to provide himself or herself with necessaries is under a legal duty—(a) to provide that person with necessaries;”. I wanted to pick up on that. We are bouncing back again to the clauses that relate to anyone who might be implicit in the abuse or neglect of a child or vulnerable person. We have been explicit in that we have not said “the necessities of life” but “necessaries”. We have kept it much broader because we have seen examples in the past—aged care comes to mind—where people may have been provided with the necessities of life but they were not provided with the standard of care that the average person would have expected. They were tied to a bed for example which is a complete loss of dignity and care and humanity for those people. So I think it is important that we have kept that provision broader than simply “the necessities of life”. 
Coming to new section 152 we see here the first reference to a definition of “age” for these provisions. Section 152 states: “Every one who is a parent or is a person in place of a parent who has actual care or charge of a child under the age of 18 years is under a legal duty—”. We have put in there the definition of the child. But there is another provision that pretty much means that the only time someone under the age of 18 can be charged under these provisions is if they are a parent themselves. The select committee discussed that at great length. It was our decision that it was not appropriate for someone under the age of 18 who is not a direct parent to be covered by these provisions particularly if for instance we have a situation where it may be a sibling of another child who is being neglected or abused. They may not be directly implicated themselves but is it reasonable to expect that a child be drawn into this legislation? We thought not. 
Coming to new section 195 in clause 7 we see the criminal penalty lifting from 5 years to 10 years and there are some explicit subsections that implicate a staff member of a hospital an institution or a residence. We had quite a bit of discussion about how widely drawn the circle would become but we think that the tests in this bill are adequate to ensure that it is a reasonable expectation. Someone actually has to be privy to and aware of abuse or neglect being perpetrated against an individual for them to be implicated in this legislation and we felt satisfied by that. 
Coming then to new section 195A I highlight what the Minister has already talked about: who is considered to be a member of the household. We have been explicit here and the select committee endorses that it does not have to be someone who is resident in the home. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to direct some remarks to clause 4(2) of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which relates to the proposed modification of the defence of a claim of right. First I agree with the comments that were made by the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern. This amendment should not have gone to the Social Services Committee. I mean no disrespect to the members or the chair of that select committee or to the advisers in making this point but quite why it did not go to an appropriate subject select committee so it could be considered in the context of the other justice reforms that the Minister of Justice is seeking to advance I do not know. I can assume only that it has been wrapped up in a bill to toughen our anti - child abuse laws so that it would have the effect that it has had of the Labour Opposition not voting against it because it is a very bad proposal. I ask the Minister whether he has really thought about these amendments—in particular the amendment concerning the claim of right defence. 
I was talking to a barrister the other day who told me about a case he had taken recently. Here are the facts. His client was a young man just under the age to drive legally who was working in a hardware store warehouse. It was Christmas time and the car a customer was driving broke down in the driveway of the retail warehouse blocking the driveway and stopping all customers from coming in. The owner of the car walked off and left the car sitting in the driveway broken-down. The owners of the store were distraught. They were losing custom; they could see cars just driving away and going to the store down the road. It was Christmas time and people were at the height of the shopping frenzy. 
The barrister’s client’s employer asked the employee to get the forklift and move the car out of the driveway please. The employee said that he did not have a driver’s licence and the car was partly on the open road. He could drive the forklift and could probably operate it reasonably safely but he was not entitled to do so. The employer said that they really needed him to do it. There was nobody else who could do it and they needed the car out of the driveway because it was Christmas time. The forklift was duly operated and the car was moved out of the driveway. The owner of the car eventually returned saw a big scratch on the car where the forklift had caused a little bit of inadvertent damage and rang the police. The police charged the employee with an offence concerning which a claim of right or colour of right defence would have been available and the colour of right defence was pleaded successfully. 
That is what we are doing away with. It is a common-sense defence. It has practical application in certain circumstances. An argument should have been had in the select committee about the Government being a sore loser in the case of the “Waihopai Three” and seeking to amend the law on a blanket basis to do away with all sorts of application of this defence in this type of circumstance. That argument ought to have been had and it has not. I know because I have talked to members of the select committee and there was no such discussion. 
I hope the Minister will listen to this sort of case. This employee had no proprietary interest in the car that he was told to move and he would have no defence under the law if this legislation was passed. It is a bad idea to amend the law on a blanket basis when the Government loses a court case because what we will inevitably do is do away with the defence where it was intended to operate in appropriate cases. 
The Labour Opposition will as it happens be voting for this legislation in its entirety. No party will vote against the sort of motherhood and apple pie provisions that appear in the rest of the bill— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: The Greens are. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I meant mainstream party. I do not want to labour the point but given that I have tried to carefully put on record the sort of case where this defence ought to be able to continue to operate and where it will not be able to operate if this legislation is passed it would be appropriate to hear from the Minister why such an approach is being taken. I would also like to hear why this Parliament is yet again at his behest doing away with the rights of the citizen without appropriate consideration. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is a relatively short bill. Of course it has wide-ranging provisions. It deals with property offences as we have just heard from Mr Chauvel and it also deals with the ill-treatment or lack of defence provided to children and vulnerable adults. I will speak on the latter issue. The bill seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults—the elderly and the mentally handicapped—from assault neglect and ill-treatment. It does so by creating a liability for people who are not actively involved in the mistreatment but who have frequent contact with a child or a vulnerable adult and fail to protect them from mistreatment by others while having knowledge of that mistreatment. So they are with these young children or vulnerable adults and although they may not be actively involved in the mistreatment directly they are aware of it and they fail to move to protect those vulnerable children or adults. We have heard extensive arguments in the Chamber this evening in support of that position. 
The ACT Party will be voting for this bill and as Mr Chauvel just said Labour will be voting for this bill but I take this opportunity to speak to a typescript amendment in my name on behalf of the ACT Party. Earlier this evening we were talking about the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill being a consequence of the confidence and supply agreement that the ACT Party entered into with National soon after the general election. One of the early achievements of that confidence and supply agreement was our three-strikes legislation which the National Government supported. That legislation has been an outstanding success since its introduction. 
My amendment incorporates the provision for the failure to protect a vulnerable child or adult into the three-strikes legislation. Specifically my amendment would add subsection (3) to new section 195 to define someone who intentionally engages in conduct that is likely to cause suffering injury adverse effects to health or any mental disorder or disability to a child or vulnerable adult or equally someone who engages in conduct and omits to do an activity that would bring that conduct to a halt. The penalty under new section 195(1) would impose a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. As the Committee will be aware all offences that carry imprisonment terms of 7 years or more are defined as a “strike” offence. The ACT Party believes that the three-strikes legislation should apply to the provisions of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) and I have put forward a very simple amendment for that. 
I mentioned earlier that the three-strikes legislation had been an outstanding success and I heard some sniggers from the Opposition—[ 
Interruption 
] Now we hear them again. Opposition members should go out and speak informally to the judiciary. Certainly we in the ACT Party have feedback that the judiciary does support the legislation. It is having an effect. Members of the judiciary are using the opportunity when a judge registers a conviction against someone for the first “strike” to remind that offender of the consequences of repeating that offence. It has been a great success. It is having an impact on crime— 
David Shearer 
: Ha! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: You can ignore it if you wish but I would suggest to you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Apologies Mr Chairperson. I would suggest to members of the Opposition that if they have a genuine interest in crime the causes of crime and how we can reduce the incidence of crime— 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in this debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I have to say it is a little disappointing to have in front of us this amendment from the Hon John Boscawen. The three-strikes legislation is something that like a good number of my constituents and a number of New Zealanders out there I was happy to see being passed through the House because it dealt with the sentencing of serious violent offences. But one would have to say when one reads the provisions in new section 195 of the Crimes Act that are proposed in clause 7 of this bill that they just simply do not fit with the crimes that fall under section 86A of the Sentencing Act. Let me just read out a number of those crimes. We have sexual violation rape murder manslaughter wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated injury. Those are all crimes that are acts of commission. The new section 195 is essentially for the most part about an act of omission. It is about a situation where an individual is not taking certain steps around children and vulnerable adults. Certainly if the person was the one committing the child abuse then absolutely that is terrible and absolutely that goes a step further along the lines of what the Hon John Boscawen was talking about but one would have to say that there is quite a difference between being the child abuser and being the person standing back and doing nothing about the child abuser. This bill is saying that it is wrong to be the person standing back and doing nothing about the child abuser but it is a lesser offence than actually being the child abuser. 
That is quite a critical point because the three-strikes legislation was something that this Government felt was important to pass but there is a difference between being tough on crime and going too far. I would say that the amendment that we have today goes just that step too far because there is quite a difference between an act of commission and an act of omission and what we are talking about here in new section 195 is an act of omission. 
On a wider note I will say how good it is that this legislation is being debated. Jacinda Ardern made a comment earlier in the debate. She said that Labour had unfinished business with this legislation. Well this is something that Labour never did when it was in Government and it has taken a National Government to come here and do this. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It took 130000 children out of poverty. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: I hear Carmel Sepuloni the woman who could not remember which reading we were on yesterday. She did not know which reading we were on yesterday. She thought it was a first reading when it was actually a second reading that we were debating. She is claiming to be an expert on this. It took a National Government to bring this bill to the House. We are doing this because we are a Government that is about action. We are a Government that says that children are the most vulnerable members of society that standing back and doing nothing about child abuse is not a good situation to be in and that those people should be punished as well. 
I will talk about a few other matters that have not been covered yet in the debate today and one is the increased penalty for carrying offensive weapons. We have not heard a lot about that but that is another step that the Government is taking in this bill. We are increasing the penalty from 2 years’ imprisonment to 3 years’ imprisonment and we will be doubling the penalty for child abuse under this legislation as well. Those are some other matters that have not been debated so far but they also need to be mentioned because they are important parts of this bill. 
The final part of this bill that I will mention is the claim of right defence and we heard Keith Locke talk about it earlier. I will refer to a comment that Metiria Turei made yesterday in the second reading debate. She said that the changes to the claim of right defence were an attack on civil rights. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will respond to a couple of comments that have been made by the Opposition members during the course of the debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The first point is that one of the reasons that this bill was sent to the Social Services Committee was that the Justice and Electoral Committee had an enormous amount of work before it. The neglect and ill treatment of children and any changes that could be made to the law to protect them or to extend duties for those who should be required to protect them seemed pretty logical subject matter for the Social Services Committee to determine. That decision and the fact that the Government was prepared to look for a select committee that had a like mind in respect of the issues contained in the bill I think emphasises how serious the Government was about turning this matter round quickly and not having it sent to a committee where four or five other big pieces of legislation were rightly consuming the committee’s time. 
I thank the members of the Social Services Committee for their attention to this bill. Despite some of the comments that have been made by their colleagues who were not on that committee I thank the Opposition members on that committee for their thoughtful contributions and for the seriousness with which they have taken this matter. 
I also take this opportunity—because I did not do so in my opening remarks—to reconfirm that this bill deals also with a change of definition to the claim of right defence. It also deals with some changes to the issues of sexual grooming. Clause 5 amends the offence of sexual grooming of an under-16-year-old by enabling a constable to covertly engage with a sexual offender to bring that particular person to answer for his or her alleged offending. Lastly—and I think Jami-Lee Ross may have been the only member to refer to this matter; I stand to be corrected—part of the Government’s response to an emerging trend of knife crime and in particular young people and their use of knives is contained in clause 8 which indicates that an offence that currently carries a penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment will now carry a penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment. 
I will comment just briefly on the ACT Party amendment that has been tabled. I understand the reasons for the ACT Party wanting to table that amendment and the abhorrence that I suspect those members hold for the type of offending this bill is trying to cover. Loosely speaking those members want to place that offence into the three-strikes regime portions of the Sentencing Act. I certainly understand that motivation and I respect it but according to the select committee report it spent some time considering this matter while it was working on the bill. It had this to say as part of the report back: “We considered whether or not these provisions should amount to an offence subject to the three-stage regime under sections 86A to 86I of the Sentencing Act 2002. All such offences”—that is the offences from those parts of that legislation—“require a positive violent or sexual act by the perpetrator which is fundamentally inconsistent with the offence provisions” contained in the bill that the Committee is now considering. In effect the distinction could be summarised as being a duty or an omission in respect of that duty versus the commission of a serious violent or sexual offence. In other words the committee’s view was that the fit was not quite right in that regard. The Government accepts the advice and will be following the advice of the committee. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Malo le soifua Mr Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. I accept what the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice said about one of the reasons why this particular bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) was referred to the Social Services Committee. However given that this is his last term in Parliament and given that we have indicated to him that we are supporting this bill but nevertheless we have reservations around some of the elements of it I ask the Minister to take on board what my colleague Charles Chauvel said with regard to the claim of right defence. As I recall it there were submitters who had some concerns and issues around that so I would simply ask the Minister to look at that. 
I think it is also important I say to the Minister that collectively around this House we all agree that violence in the home is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. As I have outlined in previous speeches legislation alone will not solve this problem. The Minister should see this legislation as a legacy that he leaves behind for the rest of the parties here to build upon in the years ahead. I say those words as opening statements because I do not believe one iota that we will solve this problem overnight. Over many many years we as a country have built up a culture that is almost immune to some of the violence that occurs in society and in our homes being beamed through television channels etc. I do not also believe that the bill will get on top of this problem simply because when we link poverty with violence in the home we see that there are some real issues that need to be tackled. 
I have several points. First I ask the Minister to take on board what some of the submitters said about the claim of right defence and also what my colleague Charles Chauvel has said. The second point I make and I know that the bill is narrowly focused on the package of how to deal with the perpetrators of violence is to highlight for the Minister the submission of the Children’s Commissioner. Although the commissioner agreed in principle with the bill he noted that tougher penalties and a broader range of offences would not provide a panacea and that enforcement should not come at the cost of the broader social investment required to reduce child abuse and neglect. 
I make the point that Labour opposes the amendment suggested by the ACT Party. I think ACT Party members’ heads are in the sand so far. As well as trying to be tough on crime—a political ploy leading up to the election—they need to listen to the organisations and the significant individuals who are leading the work on rehabilitation. The Social Services Committee members heard that putting people in jail is the last resort and even when we send people to jail we need to engage with them. We also need to work out how we rehabilitate offenders so that they return to society and take up the rightful positive role that they have to play in the long term if we are serious about this problem. This—screwing it up and throwing it away—is what I think of this amendment! I tell ACT members to pull their heads out of the sand and to play seriously when they are looking at this problem. I tell them to stop playing politics with it. 
My third point is one that was belaboured in the submission of the Children’s Commissioner: we must provide support programmes for children and caregivers and rehabilitate child victims of abuse. I can take this point further. One of the submissions that I will raise for the sake of the Minister is the submission made by the National Council of Women. It made the point that families are being marginalised. It believes we urgently need to find ways to recognise parenting as work and to create structures that enable all parents to opt for working at home as a parent if they so desire. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I listened most carefully to the Minister of Justice’s speech and have some sympathy for his position regarding the three-strikes amendment of the ACT Party to the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) but with great respect I think the Minister is wrong. I also think Jami-Lee Ross is wrong and Labour too is wrong. If I may take my time I will explain why. 
We are introducing a new offence in this bill. We are reflecting society’s desire that if someone stands by and does nothing and allows a young child to be hurt to be maimed and to be sexually molested that person has committed an offence. That is what we are saying in this bill. We are saying that for that crime an offender can be put away for 10 years. That is how seriously Parliament is taking such a new criminal offence and we are right to do so because the public is sick to death of people saying: “Oh it wasn’t me. I couldn’t do anything.” when we know they could have done something. We are saying that although the offender did not commit the crime—they did not physically go over and hurt the little baby—they stood by and did nothing when they could have stopped it. Parliament is saying that is a criminal offence and society is saying that is a criminal offence. That is what we are doing in this bill. 
We are saying that the offence is as bad as if the person committed the crime because they can be put away for 10 years. But hang on we are saying—Jami-Lee Ross said this the Minister said this and Labour is saying this—that in our criminal code standing by while a little baby gets molested is not as bad as aggravated burglary. Why? It is because we will not allow the three-strikes provisions to apply. If people commit aggravated burglary and are convicted in New Zealand once they get just the sentence twice they get no parole and three times they get the maximum sentence. What Labour is saying what the Minister is saying and what Jami-Lee Ross is saying is that if an offender sits by and allows a young baby to be maimed and molested it is not as bad as aggravated burglary. If they do it once they get just the sentence if they do it twice they get just the sentence and if they do it three times they get just the sentence. That process does not reflect what the people of New Zealand believe. They want to see this crime dealt to. They do not want to say that aggravated robbery is up here and standing by while a little baby gets molested is down there. 
The Committee tonight is creating an anomaly. It is saying that for a violent offence the three-strikes law applies if the sentence of imprisonment is for more than 7 years. But for this crime—sure I accept it is a crime of omission but we are saying it is as bad as if the person committed the crime because they could easily have stopped it or called the authorities yet the person did nothing—we are saying it is a lesser crime. We are failing in our duty. Yes we have rhetoric but let us back it up by saying that standing by and not calling the authorities when a little New Zealand baby is being maimed and sexually molested is as bad as aggravated robbery. Whatever members think about the three-strikes law it should apply in this case because if it does not then the actions of members tonight do not match their words in saying they are getting serious and sending a signal. The Committee is not doing that. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to follow up on Charles Chauvel’s comments on the claim of right defence. I think in essence and I think that others have indicated there is quite a contradiction in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) between the major part of it in terms of the number of clauses that are concerned with helping children who have been abused even though there could be a few problems with the clauses and the claim of right defence which is trying to penalise people who are trying to help others. A lot of the use of the claim of right or colour of right in defences historically going way back was beyond property-related matters for which the defendant has a proprietary interest in the property which is what the bill is restricting the claim of right to. When we go beyond that most of the cases relate to people doing things for good motives and often to help people. 
I think Charles Chauvel’s example is a case in point: a young chap was faced with pressure on him to remove a car that was blocking the way into the forecourt of a business—I think it was a retail business—during the Christmas period. He was doing it for totally good motives. He had no proprietary interest in the car he removed and scratched but he could use the claim of right as a sort of broader catch-all provision that covers people doing things for very good motives even if in this case he might have been technically driving under age and scratched a car or whatever it was. The same applies in the case that I used of someone going next door hearing yelling and screaming and thinking someone was getting beaten up so they break down the door of the neighbour’s house. Of course the person doing that has no proprietary interest in the door of the neighbour’s house but they could use the claim of right as a defence. That is similar to the “Waihopai Three” who were trying to do good for the people in another country in Iraq who they saw were being killed partly as a result of the information being provided by the Waihopai satellite communication station. The information was being provided to the American Government and could have been of use to it in the Iraq war. 
I am concerned about the rush to remove a claim of right or colour of right defence after the one or two centuries it has been operating in common law; it still operates in the law of many countries. It is true that in some countries it has been restricted and its application has been narrowed but there is still a tendency internationally to use it to protect people who for the best of motivations technically break a law. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Government to take that bit on claim of right out of the legislation. The Minister of Justice after these appeals from Labour and the Green speakers could just admit that. He said it was put in the bill for practical reasons and that the Justice and Electoral Committee was busy but it does not really fit with the legislation. It deserves more attention from the legal profession and the public before colour of right is removed from our legislation or is narrowed right down to property that people have a proprietary interest in. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon John Boscawen to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to section 195 the following subsection: 
(4)An offence under subsection (1) is a serious violent offence as defined in section 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 111. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other enactments and transitional provision 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 stand part. But before we put that we have a new clause 9A. It is the Hon John Boscawen’s typescript amendment to insert a new clause 9A. I wish to advise the member that this is out of order contingent on an amendment previously negatived. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given the progress the House has made I seek leave for the House to now rise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 9.38 p.m.