Draft transcript - Thursday 16 June 2016First draft - subject to correction.Draft transcript - Thursday 16 June 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 28 June the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day.[Continuation line: FINANCIAL VETO]Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoMr SPEAKER: The Government has delivered to the Clerk a certificate not concurring in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] Order! That is given under Standing Order 327. As a result of the issue of the financial veto certificate the bill may still be debated but the Speaker will not put a question on the third reading at the conclusion of the debate—Standing Order 328(3).Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 327(2). I have got possession of the certificate that you have just noted. What is required under Standing Order 327(2) are two things: the Government has to “state with some particularity the nature of the impact [of this] on the composition of the Vote and the reason why the Government does not concur in the change.” The veto certificate certainly does give some detail about the impact on the vote in terms of the amount spent. However when it comes to the question of whether or not there is any particularity on the reason why the Government simply states that it does not concur. I do not believe this fulfils the obligations under Standing Order 327(2). This is very unusual. It happens very very rarely and I would ask that consideration be given as to whether the certificate in fact breaches Standing Order 327(2).Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The certificate complies in every respect. I would respectfully suggest that you might encourage the member raising this point of order to simply look for the word “particularity” in a dictionary to better understand what it means. [Interruption]Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoMr SPEAKER: Order! This is not something that happens frequently so I have given the matter quite a lot of thought. The judgment about whether a bill has more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates is one for the Government to make. I have had a look at the certificate. It does not get officially tabled in the House because it is delivered to the Clerk; however the Clerk has copies available for members who may want to look at what has been set out by the Minister within the certificate. I have certainly had a look at it and I concur that it does comply with all Standing Orders. The Speaker has no role in evaluating the financial veto beyond ensuring that it complies with the Standing Orders. I have looked at it and I concur that it does.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes it is Mr Speaker. In the comments you have made just now you have referred to the question of fiscal aggregates and I have in my original comments noted that although that is under Standing Order 327(1) I am raising my point of order under Standing Order 327(2). I have acknowledged in my original comments that I do believe that it has fulfilled the first of the two criteria in 327(2) about the nature of the impact on the composition of the vote. The second part of that is particularity on the reason why the Government does not concur with the change. All it has stated in the final paragraph of the veto is that it does not and I do not believe that is sufficient for something that is so unique where the will of Parliament is for the bill to be passed but the Government does not want to pass it. It should have to have particular reasons; it has failed to do that.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoMr SPEAKER: Yes but section 327(2) is actually about a vote. It is not about the bill. I have had a look at the certificate; I have ruled that it does comply. I accept the point that the member is making but I do not think it is relevant in this case.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoSUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your ruling you have outlined that the bill in question will have a third reading but no vote at the end of that. I wondered whether you could inform the House about what precedent you have used to derive that ruling from and whether that has occurred before.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoMr SPEAKER: If the member had listened to me I gave that in my ruling—Standing Order 328(3). Questions for oral—Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoSUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: We are not still arguing I hope? Further point of order—fresh point of order.SUE MORONEY: I seek leave to table a petition signed by 16085 people for John Key and Bill English to respect Parliament’s will and the needs of children and their families and not veto the bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment BillFinancial VetoMr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that petition. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Sorry leave is sought to table that petition. I am putting the leave. There is no objection. It can be tabled.MORONEY SUEDocument by leave laid on the Table of the House.[Continuation line: ORAL QUESTIONS]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill improves the coronial system by making it more efficient and more responsive to the needs of grieving families. The coroner’s role is to establish the cause and the circumstances of a death and to identify any lessons that can be drawn to prevent similar future deaths. In that role coroners have been said to: “speak for the dead to protect the living.”. Coroners work with families when they are traumatised and vulnerable and they do so with professionalism and sensitivity as part of a coronial system that operates throughout New Zealand 24 hours a day. Our Chief Coroner 16 coroners and those who support them are well-respected participants in our legal system. Having myself experienced the death of a loved one where the coronial system was involved I know that no one wants official processes associated with these deaths taking any longer than they need to. The bill makes a range of amendments to the Coroners Act 2006 to ensure that coronial processes are more efficient that bodies are returned to families as soon as possible and that inquiries and inquests proceed without delays and duplication. Around 5700 deaths are reported to coroners every year. Coroners accept jurisdiction in around 3200 of these deaths. This tells us that there is a degree of unnecessary reporting and that there is uncertainty about reporting obligations amongst those who must report deaths. The bill clarifies the requirements for reporting deaths to coroners such as deaths that occur during medical procedures. The bill provides that such deaths only have to be reported if they would not reasonably have been expected by a medical practitioner competent to perform the procedure who was familiar with the deceased medical condition before the procedure began. The bill also clarifies and reduces the need to report deaths where it is unlikely a coronial investigation will contribute to determining the cause and circumstance. This includes where historic remains are discovered or when a body is returned to New Zealand following an overseas investigation. Once a death has been reported and a coroner has accepted jurisdiction the usual step is for the coroner to direct a pathologist to perform a post-mortem. New Zealand has a very high rate of coronial post-mortems at about 90 percent. By comparison in Victoria which is a jurisdiction to which we look for examples of good practice the rate is only about 50 percent. Post-mortems are costly raise cultural and religious issues for some families and delay the release of bodies back to loved ones. That is why this bill enables preliminary inspections of bodies using medical imaging technology to ensure that unnecessary post-mortems are avoided. At this point I would like to acknowledge the pathologists who support the coronial system by performing both post-mortems and soon preliminary inspections. Their work provides crucial scientific evidence to coroners who in New Zealand are lawyers not medical experts. The bill also formally recognises forensic dentists who play a crucial role in identifying bodies in mass casualty situations as they did so commendably after the February 2011 Canterbury earthquake. The Coroners Act currently requires coroners to investigate certain deaths regardless of the circumstances including deaths that occur while the deceased was in official care or custody. Mandatory public inquests are held into such deaths even if they were plainly due to natural causes and the facts would not have warranted an inquest. Most deaths in official care or custody once investigated turn out to have been from natural causes. The bill restores the discretion of coroners as independent judicial officers to decide whether such deaths require the cost and time of an inquest or whether an inquiry on the papers is sufficient. Importantly those with an interest in the death including family members will be able to ask the coroner to hold an inquest if one is necessary. The bill provides that coroners should not investigate the deaths of New Zealand Defence Force personnel occurring overseas as a result of hostile action unless the Attorney-General directs them to. Coroners have not traditionally investigated such deaths. Quite apart from the potential for such investigations to stray into matters of both national security and tactical decision making in the heat of battle coroners are not well placed to inquire into military deaths in distant battlefields. Where investigations are needed they will occur. There will also be the option of using the court of inquiry processes established by the Armed Forces Discipline Act. I pointed out in the second reading speech that the requirement for the Attorney-General’s direction is modelled on the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act which governs deaths in New Zealand of foreign-service people. Turning to the coroner’s recommendations the bill does not require agencies that received them to respond to them although I note that the evidence shows that most agencies already do so voluntarily. Such requirements are not common internationally although some comparable jurisdictions require only Government agencies to respond. I do not consider that there is a good case for mandatory responses especially as it is clear that agencies both public and private take coroner’s recommendations very seriously and respond to them if they can. The bill also implements changes to make coroner’s recommendations more relevant more closely linked to the evidence before the coroner and better targeted at those with the ability and responsibility to implement them. The bill requires coroners to consult with the intended recipients of recommendations before finalising them increasing the likelihood that the recommendations would be relevant realistic and implementable. The bill deals with the difficult topic of suicides and their reporting in the media including discussions by ordinary New Zealanders on social media. As we know New Zealand has a tragically high rate of suicide especially in our youth. Our country is also unique in restricting the publication of certain details in the media. This is based on the well-established evidence that certain kinds of media reporting of suicides can spur further suicides. I acknowledge concerns that the restrictions limit the right to freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. I believe that this is a justified limitation especially in light of the overseas experience of the kinds of media reporting that can occur in the absence of restrictions. My officials have highlighted a recent example of media reporting of a 13-year-old schoolgirl’s tragic suicide in the UK. The reporting was not sensational and appeared in a respected British broadsheet but none the less there were detailed descriptions of the circumstances and the method as well as a prominent photograph of the site where the suicide occurred which itself left no doubt as to the method. This is the kind of reporting that serves no purpose and which the bill seeks to limit. The bill clarifies and eases the current restrictions by focusing on preventing reporting of details that are most likely to spur copycat behaviour being the method and anything that implies the method. Media will however no longer need to use euphemisms such as “no suspicious circumstances”. They will be able to describe a suspected suicide as such if the facts support this before the Coroner has made any finding. These changes will help foster responsible discussion and reporting of suicides before and after any Coronial investigation both by the traditional media and the wider community. The bill reflects the outcomes of the Ministry of Justice review of the Coroner’s Act 2006 which was completed by my predecessor as the Minister for Courts the Hon Chester Borrows. The review found that the principal act and the major reforms that it instituted were generally working well overall. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor the Justice and Electoral Committee those who made submissions to the review and those who have worked on developing the bill. I certainly believe that it will improve our coronial system and I thoroughly commend it to the House. [Interruption]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is a strong convention in this House that Ministers giving third reading speeches are entitled to read their speeches.Stuart Nash: She did not even look up once. No passion at all.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is not a debate on that.[Continuation line: ARDERN]Oral QuestionsSenior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness DayJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think the Minister is absolutely fair to reflect the amount of work that has clearly gone into this bill and the select committee process was a place for robust debate and discussion. After that robust debate and discussion and our attempts at committee stages to make a number of amendments we have unfortunately had to make the decision that on balance there are elements of the bill that we simply could not support. But there were elements and I would include in that the purpose of the bill generally that we did support. We come back at the point that it was first introduced it set out as the commentary of the Justice and Electoral Committee states that the primary aim of the bill was to seek to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the coronial system by amending the Coroner’s Act 2006. I think that is a point that we could all agree on. At the moment there are significant delays in our coronial system. The Minister spoke today in the select committee estimates about the fact that there has been a 20 percent reduction in the time that these cases are taking but even then there is a significant backlog. During the course of this debate I had a family member of someone who is the subject of a coroner’s case who had waited more than a thousand days and that is not unusual. That length of time is absolutely devastating if you are a family member waiting for closure in a case. So when it comes to the substance of the purpose of this bill we certainly supported it. We would also use this opportunity to just state a few concerns. Although we want the backlog of coroner’s cases to be dealt with we do have concerns that there has been talk of contracting out and bringing in external legal services in order to facilitate the processing of coroners’ reports. Our worry with that is that this is a legislated function that a coroner hold and it does muddy the waters somewhat to be having external legal services processing those inquiries and inquests. If I could come to the areas where we still have concerns that we considered significant enough to on balance not support this bill. The first which we did not submit a supplementary order paper on but which did stand out for us sits under Part 2 57A (3) of the Coroner’s Amendment Bill which amends Part 3 of the Coroner’s Act 2006 and that sets out what a coroner is able to make recommendations around. This bill used the opportunity to narrow that function. The point that I would make is that if this bill was really about just trying to make the system more efficient it is not at the point that a coroner is writing recommendations that really we are seeing a lag in processing. The point at which a coroner is sitting down at a desk as it were with an administrator perhaps to say “Look well these that I finally deciphered from this report”—that is not the thing that is leading to a thousand days before a report is issued. So to argue that to narrow the ability of a coroner to write a recommendation is necessarily going to save time or efficiency I think is a stretch. I think instead it impedes on a coroner’s ability to speak to the points that they consider valuable. The specific recommendation that the Chief coroner spoke to that they were concerned about was a narrowing of their ability is under this section 57(3)(a) which states that a recommendation “be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates”. We have used a few examples previously. Just been reading one of many forestry deaths that have tragically occurred in recent years one determined causes of one of those deaths was that there were high winds in the area when a tree came down on a forestry worker. In that circumstance a coroner may only feel able to make recommendations that relate to the fact that this was an accident obviously caused by high winds that caused that tree to come down. But to what extent are they able to speak to the wider context of fatigue long hours the effects of the way that contracting works within the industry and other factors that may have led to the potential distraction for that worker the pressure they may have felt to continue to work in those environments. This clause potentially limits a coroner’s ability to make those wider recommendations so we thought that was problematic. The second area we have concerns with and I would have to say this is a real sticking point for us is not what was included but what was not included in the bill—the lost opportunity as it were. We have spoken about this at great length. Most people in New Zealand might be surprised to learn that when a coroner makes a recommendation there is no obligation on anyone who might be the subject of that recommendation to reply to respond to give a written view on that recommendation. That view may be that it is a ridiculous recommendation and should not be implemented. But actually there is nothing to say that they need to say anything at all. That seems to be a crazy situation. We are funding at great expense to the taxpayer a coronial system that can write a recommendation and a report that can go absolutely nowhere—nowhere except perhaps to the family. That seems—it seems ridiculous. Am I the only one to have made that declaration? The New Zealand Law Foundation recently funded a student of Victoria University to conduct a piece of work—as you can see here a sizable piece of work—on the very question of whether or not coroners’ recommendations should be responded to on a mandatory basis. Whatthey found and this is of interest is that there were 607 coronial inquiries over a 5-year period. That resulted in 1644 recommendations. There were 309 recipients of those recommendations over 5 years—309 recipients. Government organisations received the highest proportion of recommendations. That is interesting. The people whom we protected in this House by refusing to accept an Supplementary Order Paper that made responding—not implementing; responding—to recommendations mandatory were Government departments. Surely given that this legislature is the one requesting and guiding coroners in the work they do—we are telling them how we want them to operate how we want them to be more efficient how we want their recommendations to be more punchy. But on the flip side we are saying that if you issue them we are not going to make our Government departments do anything with them which seems nonsensical. The report then goes on to describe that of the most frequent set of recommendations they included transport accidents drowning intentional self-harm and complications of medical or surgical care. Transport accidents this House has an interest in. Government departments have a direct role in the way that we regulate in the prevention of transport accidents. So it is relevant to us and we should want to know. Drowning—if it is a regulation that relates to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act we should want to know. Intentional self-harm—of course when it comes to mental health provisions we should want to know. I note that the Auditor-General today has issued a report on the reporting and gathering of information around self-harm. Surely amongst that we should be saying: “What is happening to our reporting of recommendations?”. Complications of medical or surgical care—again very relevant. The report rightly summarises that the Government review—that is this Act—presents an opportunity to initiate much-needed reforms. It is a review that includes few proposals to enhance preventative functions which may mean that coroners’ recommendations are a lost opportunity to save New Zealanders’ lives and that is exactly how we see it. To briefly summarise our remaining concerns what has been well-traversed by my colleague Phil Goff does include the Defence Force provisions that they requested in this bill—the reversing of the onus so that deaths in hostile action will no longer be the subject of a coroner’s inquest. That will occur only if the Attorney-General orders that it occur. Our view is that that should be flipped. It should default to the coroner to add transparency for those families. Those in and of themselves were enough for us to say that although we support absolutely narrowing the number of cases that coroners are having to deal with to make it more efficient to get more timely responses—the mechanisms that have been used in this bill went too far; they went too far in our view. And there was a lost opportunity as well. On that basis reluctantly Labour has decided that we cannot support this bill. We will be keeping a close eye on the changes though. We do support the general intent but we must be the ones who try to preserve transparency in our system and the ability for coroners to make the recommendations that they feel are necessary for our safety.[Continuation line: DEAN]Oral QuestionsSenior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness DayJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am sad to hear that the Labour Opposition will not be supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge all of those families in New Zealand who have suffered a sudden death in the family whether it be by accident or by some other means. I want to acknowledge the bravery of those families who were prepared to come to Parliament to give witness in front of our committee which helped inform our deliberations. I want to acknowledge their grief and I want to confirm to them that despite what is going to be a split vote on this bill which I do regret very much Parliament has listened. I believe that today we will be passing a bill that for future families of victims of a sudden death who are subject to a coronial investigation that coronial investigation will be more timely and it will be more efficient. The families will be kept better informed. The coroner’s comments will be directed more closely towards the matter at hand. I would like to think that the measures that this Government is proposing and will soon pass into law will have a small but none the less positive impact on those families. I want also to thank members of the select committee including the Opposition members who now find themselves opposing this bill for their generally thoughtful contributions to what we finally have before us. Indeed there are points of difference between the parties. But I think that those points of difference which seem to mainly centre on sudden deaths in custody deaths of personnel in times of conflict and something as simple as requiring a response to coronial recommendations—I do not see that as the basis for opposing this bill; I really do not. What I see in this bill is a piece of legislation that as I have outlined will make a number of beneficial changes to the way grieving families are able to respond to the findings in an unexplained or sudden death. So I will go through the main provisions of the bill. As I also said coroners’ recommendations will now be required to be specific to the case and the evidence that is before the coroner and to be very clear about how they could or would reduce the likelihood of future deaths in similar circumstances. I do know from people who have approached me and others that often the family of the person deceased just simply does not want it to happen again. They want a little bit of comfort in knowing that through the inquest process changes will be made and lessons will be learned. The bill will give better tools to—and will require the Chief Coroner to—improve timeliness such as the requirement to report and monitor progress in older cases. The legislation will reduce duplication with other investigating agencies by giving the Chief Coroner the ability to direct that a coronial investigation is not required and that is when we come to deaths in custody for example or deaths while on active duty. The bill will clarify which deaths are reported to the coroner and in particular the jurisdiction to investigate overseas deaths in deaths of New Zealand Defence Force members caught in enemy action. That was a sticking point for the Opposition but we always have to remember that it is not in New Zealand’s interests to disclose matters of national security. I do not know whether that point has been well-enough regarded by the Opposition. There are also new recommendations to improve and simplify the legislative restrictions on suicide reporting in the media. That is a very important part of the bill. It has not been contentious but it has I believe a wide-ranging impact on suicide reporting. We do not want copy-cat suicides in New Zealand and so these restrictions will go some way I hope—there are penalties and greater penalties for breaches of this but I believe that the new restrictions on suicide reporting are a very important and good part of this bill. I am very pleased that this bill will be coming into force very soon. The reason I am pleased about this is that it will provide comfort to those people who have been bereaved. Thank you.[Continuation line: HENARE]Oral QuestionsSenior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness DayPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau):I thought it appropriate to farewell the departed. I say that because throughout this entire Coroners Amendment Bill we have heard some very horrific stories some sad stories from families who have shared their experiences and remembered their loved ones during their time sharing with the Justice and Electoral Committee. Now that we have come to this final stage the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill—Mr Deputy Speaker thank you for your indulgence in allowing us to put that part behind us and to now address the living. It is in that vein that I turn now to the Coroners Amendment Bill—thank you for allowing me this contribution. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has already made clear the position from this side of the House—or certainly from the Labour Party—about the thoughtful consideration given to the Coroners Amendment Bill. At some points in time throughout the process we were very close to supporting the bill—in fact if I recall correctly we were going to support this bill. However on balance and upon reflection we have decided not to. She has detailed quite clearly the reasons for that and I wish to touch on a few of those and also respond to some of the comments made by the chair of the select committee the member Jacqui Dean who has just finished her contribution today. She mentioned that the Labour Party did not consider or regard well enough the amendment in this particular bill with regard to those of our armed services who pass away or who die tragically during service. I take my lead on this matter from the Hon Phil Goff who I thought represented his particular proposed amendment really well throughout this bill. He was very clear in his discussions with the select committee and indeed in the debates in this House. He put the family at the forefront. He put the family at the centre of all considerations with regard to his proposed amendment and this particular bill. But he also was quite I thought balanced in his view of it with regard to the ability for the Attorney-General to be able to withhold some of the information to be able to direct parts of the investigation should the coroner have to step in and investigate the passing of our armed service people while in military combat or military action. I take my lead from him because like I say I thought he delivered a very well-balanced proposed amendment. He fought hard for it and we are disappointed on this side of the House that it did not come up and make it above the bar to be considered in this particular bill. My colleague Jacinda Ardern also spoke about the need for recommendations by the coronial system to be considered seriously and at the very least to be given an appropriate response—at the very least. Recently approximately 3 weeks ago an uncle of mine passed away tragically on a farm up in Mōtatau in the far north. I understand the coronial process has kicked into gear and I wonder whether or not some of the recommendations that may come from this report hopefully will save others who find themselves on the farm and find themselves in those situations. But what can we tell the New Zealand public to reassure them that that coronial process is: one robust; two well considered and three that recommendations that they make will keep New Zealanders safer make processes better and hold people accountable. I am reminded of a particular saying that says: “The first time is a tragedy; the second time is a farce.” If we do not allow the recommendations by the coroners’ office to be taken seriously or at the very least as I have mentioned be given a response then I am afraid we may find that the unexplained deaths the tragic deaths of Kiwis moving forward or into the future will be an absolute farce. My colleague mentioned the forestry sector which has experienced its fair share of tragic incidences over the past few years. They were highlighted to in particular the Labour caucus if I recall a year ago when we received some of the families who are dealing with the loss of a loved one from the forestry sector. They felt their voice was not being heard. They felt these kinds of deaths could have been avoided. I think about their stories told to us when we look at the Coroners Amendment Bill which we are debating right now. We hope that in the future there will be an opportunity whereby the recommendations made by a coroner can be taken seriously and can at the very least have a response. My colleague mentioned earlier that despite the amendments presented by the Labour Party by Jacinda Ardern by the Hon Phil Goff and by Kelvin Davis and despite them not passing through or being considered in this particular bill and being voted down we will be continually looking at the coronial process to make sure that well one it meets the intent that is described in this bill and two we will be keeping a close eye on it to make sure that if at any time in the future we have the opportunity to come back in here to make this particular piece of legislation more robust and make sure the coronial process is more robust then we will be right at the forefront of that. We want to reassure the New Zealand public that despite of our opposition of the bill at this particular point in time in its third reading we do take it seriously. We thought long and hard about it we considered the bill and its detail for some time and debated amongst ourselves about whether or not to support it and sadly we feel that at this point in time we cannot support it. Just to my point around the recommendations and Jacinda Ardern mentioned it briefly in the particular study we considered the New Zealand Coroners’ Recommendations 2007 to 2012—the results of those recommendations were over a 5-year period. There were 607 coronial inquiries that resulted in 1644 recommendations. There were 309 recipients of coroners’ recommendations. Government organisations received the highest proportion of recommendations—the highest proportion. The evidence is right there that all of these recommendations we believe given the robust process the coroners go through need to be considered seriously. They need to be considered seriously. In conclusion once again we reluctantly cannot support this bill. We hope that the coroners’ office going forward into the future will receive the support and the capacity from this Government to fulfil its duties to the best of its abilities. Just in conclusion can I echo the words of the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee in thanking the families the officials and those who came in and made submissions on this particular bill. I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution just how hard it was for some of us to hear the evidence and the submissions from the families. Once again on this side of the House we reluctantly cannot support the bill.[Continuation line: NAYLOR]Oral QuestionsSenior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness DayJONO NAYLOR (National): Certainly as we have gone through this Coroners Amendment Bill it has been a very interesting process and as other speakers have already alluded to a very challenging one as we have had to confront some issues that I guess we usually try to avoid often in life and certainly they are experiences we do not necessarily want to have to go through ourselves. I too just want to acknowledge the number of submitters who came and shared their personal stories with us in a public setting. That is a big thing to do and I just want to again acknowledge their bravery and their commitment to wanting to see things improve. It was I guess a privilege for us to be able to share that time with them and also to hear from them with regard to those issues they wanted to raise. This is a bill that is designed to improve people’s interaction with the coronial service and it is also designed to introduce and bring in some more pragmatic approaches for the coronial service to be able to deliver a better service for the people who interact with it and also you know basically to deliver a better result for all of New Zealand. Firstly—and I think it is a critical part of this—is the desire through this bill to be able to reduce the length of time that people wait for an outcome from a coroner’s report. For families who are grieving and who are wanting to bring closure having that as an outstanding matter can just make the grieving process that much more difficult. Waiting 400 or 700 days for that report to come out really just is not acceptable if we are wanting to deliver a service that is going to have a level of sympathy and empathy for those people who are suffering who have been through the difficulty of experiencing the sudden loss of someone. So if we can through what we are doing as legislators improve that for them then it is absolutely beholden on us to do that and so I support that. There is a practicality in this bill also about not making it mandatory for there to be coronial inquests in certain matters. For example if somebody dies of obviously natural causes—perhaps they have had a long-term illness that has led to their death—while they are incarcerated and there is nothing pointing to a suspicious death it seems absurd that at the moment a coroner is mandated and has to do a full inquest rather than just an inquiry. So this is a practical step that has been taken. Of course there is nothing to stop a coroner from actually doing an inquest. If they have got concerns then they can still follow through with that. Just in response to what we have heard with regard to the now non-mandatory inquest for service people who die in the service of their country overseas if the Auditor-General perceives that there is a need to have a coroner’s inquest or inquiry then then Auditor-General can still do that. We are not prohibiting the coroners from being involved at all in those overseas deaths of service people but we are ensuring that it is not mandatory—it does not have to happen. The bill does not prevent it from happening and so I believe that the concerns that the Labour Party members have raised can be addressed. If the Auditor-General believes that the family does need to have that coronial input not just the service inquiry then he or she whoever is holding that office can make that happen. In summary this is a balanced bill it is a pragmatic bill and I hope that it will go some way to alleviating the suffering of New Zealanders who have suffered the sudden loss of a loved one going forward. It is a pleasure to endorse it to the House.[Continuation line: CLENDON]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingDAVID CLENDON (Green): Like others I am pleased to be speaking to this bill for the final time in this third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. It was feeling that this bill had been around a long time; I actually looked and indeed it has been around for quite some. It was introduced in August 2014 so almost 2 years ago. Acknowledging of course there was an election that intervened but the bill has been with us a while and it will be good to see it progress and to finally pass in. Having said that the Greens are supporting this legislation but I would acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed by the Labour speakers. For us it was something of a line call; we fell down on the side of saying “Well this bill does a number of very good things and for that reason we’ll support it.” but certainly it is far from complete. I am sure we will have no problems supporting the changes that Labour will make next year when from Government we are all in a position to do that. Part of the purpose of this bill is to streamline—to make more efficient—some of the coronial processes and procedures. That is a good thing clearly and we hope it will achieve some of that to reduce the workload. But to speak on behalf of the coroners I do think that the workload will not be sufficiently relieved and I do think that there is a case to be made to increase the number of coroners and to increase the level of support for those judicial officers. We have had in a sense a privileged position those of us on the committee who have followed this bill all the way through. We have had a very close firsthand look at the work of the coroners in their office without having to be in the very unfortunate situation of being close to a tragedy—the reason normally people would get to know what the coroners do. We have discovered from my view anyway that the coroners’ workload is unreasonable. I have seen their roster and it is brutal; it is a 24/7 call on their time and expertise. It is a very difficult task. It is a judicial role but nevertheless they are also required to be grief counsellors and psychologists as well as being practitioners of the law. So I do think there is a very strong argument and we regret the fact this current Budget does not actually recognise that and assist the coroners in clearing some of the backlog of cases that does exist. We are told that there has been about a 20 percent reduction in that backlog; I think that really is not sufficient and we would like to see more provision to enable them to do their job even better than they do. They are people of considerable integrity and I think we should support them better. One of the more fraught parts of the select committee process was entering into the issues around suicides the reporting of suicides and the provisions of this bill that do deal with that. The Auditor-General’s report that has come out just today notes that in 2013 suicide was the third-leading cause of premature death in New Zealand after heart disease and lung cancer. No doubt the numbers have changed marginally in the last few years but it just highlights the tragedy and prevalence of suicide in New Zealand. It is something I am sure across the House we would all seek to redress—youth suicide in particular. Sadly we are seeing more instances of suicides in the rural areas as the reality of the rural downturn kicks in and for some people they do not see a way out except sadly through that. I think it is incumbent on us to do everything we can to reduce the incidence of suicide and one of those things is around the reporting of it. I think this bill has come down in the right place. It enables sober and sensible reporting of incidents where it is presumed that a death has been caused by suicide. It does not allow anyone without the coroner’s approval to say anything about the method or the location where that might indicate what the method was and I think that is appropriate. The bill puts in place a process where a coroner might allow for an exemption and to allow that detail to be released to the public through the media but only after there has been a panel established including a person with expertise in suicide prevention a person with expertise in tikanga Māori and a person with expertise in the media and their processes. I think it creates some fairly robust means to balance out the undoubted commitment we all have to freedom of expression and freedom of speech but also puts some reasonable constraints in place. We had a fairly robust dare I call it submission from an organisation called Media Freedom speaking on behalf of the media. The thrust of that submission was that the media should be allowed to report—that it should be left to their discretion and good judgment—and frankly I do not think that that submission got much traction with the members of the committee. There are too many instances where the media undoubtedly would be tempted to overstep the boundaries of good taste and of protecting other people who might be moved to emulate or copycat suicide. I think we found about the right balance. We acknowledge all the arguments that—in this day and age with social media the internet—sadly some of this information will get out in a way that it ought not to. But we just do what we can do to manage at least the mainstream media. I do think we have got to a good place with that. I think it is important that we do talk about suicides. Suppressing information and conversation in the wider populace and particularly with our young people who are most vulnerable—suppressing debate is not the solution. We need to have an informed debate but a carefully managed debate—a carefully presented debate. I actually went along to a couple of—what is the organisation? Riders Against Teenage Suicide is a group of people active in Northland. I must acknowledge Arthur Harawira  who suffered the ultimate tragedy as a parent of losing a son to suicide and yet is still able and strong enough to stand in front of audiences of young people talking about what the cost to his family was and to him personally of losing that young man. I think that is an admirable formula if you like: the context is such that we can address young people and explain to them why they ought never to consider that that is a choice they should ever make. But it needs to be a very careful managed and structured conversation and the media is not the place to do that. One of our initial objections to this bill was the current situation where deaths in custody particularly deaths in prisons must trigger a full inquest—that is mandatory. There is now discretion for the coroners to choose in some instances not to undertake a full inquest. There must still be an inquiry but not a full inquest and we think that balance is about right. I have personally been persuaded by personal conversations with coroners and by the submission from the Chief Coroner  that said in this present-day reality of more people getting older in our prisons there are situations where deaths in prisons are entirely predictable given the ill health of inmates and the like. So I do think that we can put a level of trust in the coroners to make those calls. Personally I do not have confidence in the culture of the Department of Corrections to be transparent to be open and honest about deaths in custody. So I think we have hit a good spot with the current language or the new language of the bill as it is now presented in its final form—talking about deaths with the medically unexpected or where a medical officer would not have expected a person to pass away based on their previous history the medical notes and the like. Obviously it is something we will need to continue to monitor but for the moment we think that is adequate protection to ensure that there is a very rigorous application of inquiry and if necessary inquest where deaths do occur in custody. There have been too many examples sadly where people have died in custody in prison and it has been the result of negligence inadequate health care and inadequate monitoring. Preventable deaths have occurred in custody. We have got to be very sure when they do occur that there is a spotlight shone on them and that we seek to ensure that those circumstances do not recur. The final point that I would like to make is that the new bill puts in place some provisions in situations where a body is returned to the family but where some body parts or samples are retained by the coroner—or the pathologist more accurately. It is a requirement effectively that families need to be informed of that and that they can request that those parts be returned to them at the appropriate time. That is important not least of all to Māoridom but to people more generally. With those few comments we do continue to support this bill.[Continuation line: O’ROURKE]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First has always supported this bill. We recognise that the Coroners Act has needed revision for quite a long time and we think that overall this bill makes a pretty good job of doing that. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee also which I think did a very good job in refining the bill and bringing it back to the House in the state that it is now in. In essence what the legislation needs to do is to balance some public and private interests especially to avoid unnecessary inquests on the one hand but to ensure full transparency on the other. That is really what the coronial system is all about. It needs to balance the freedom of the media to report deaths and their circumstances against sensationalising those sorts of circumstances because they can of course encourage other suicides. It is actually relatively easy to do that even though it may be unintended so there needs to be a balance there. There also needs to be a balance in terms of inquiry into deaths in State custody because that is a particularly important area for coronial jurisdiction because of the possibility of abuse of people in State custody. But on the other hand the balance needs to be against pointless inquiries where they are really not needed. So I do think it is appropriate that the Chief Coroner should have the discretion that they will now have to decide whether an inquiry is needed or not. The last area that I want to mention where I think this balance is particularly important is the need for a balance between an independent inquiry for deaths of defence personnel especially where the deceased was killed in a hostile action on the one hand and on the other the need for national security considerations to be taken into account and for national security to be protected. That is another very difficult area where the balance is needed. So I think that this bill actually does achieve—largely achieves—those balances and that is why New Zealand First is going to continue to support it. Nevertheless we are disappointed in a couple of things. There were two amendments that we feel should have been adopted and incorporated into the bill. I am a little bit sad that the Government has not done that and has not given good reasons for not doing so. The first relates to the proposed new section 57C in clause 30 and the question of whether it should be mandatory for Government agencies to respond to coronial recommendations. There is not much point in having a system that spends a lot of money and effort in producing those recommendations if they can simply be ignored or brushed off by Government agencies and to be fair most of them do not do that but on the other hand it is perfectly clear that on some occasions that is exactly what happens. So the proposal had been to require a response and to make it mandatory within 60 days and we in New Zealand First feel that that would have been the right way to go. It is disappointing that that has not been adopted. I cannot see what the harm would have been in requiring that. It would have achieved something positive and worthwhile. The second proposed amendment concerned deaths in hostile action. The position currently is that coronial jurisdiction covers deaths for Defence Force personnel regardless of circumstances and that is in addition to court of inquiry processes. And that process itself has a safeguard in that it is subject to external legal review panel considerations and that would be conducted by a Queen’s Counsel. So that is the current situation. This bill would change that so that coronial jurisdiction will continue where death does not happen during hostile action and new section 59A(2) and (3) would instead operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry where the coroner determines the death is caused exclusively by hostilities during a hostile action and not otherwise. The current section allows coronial inquiry into death during hostile action too but only if the Attorney-General directs it and that is stated the wrong way round . Instead the section should allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General takes action to prevent it. It may seem like a fine point but it is actually quite important in particular because new section 59A(4A) would still apply even if what is in the current legislation continues by putting coronial authority and transparency first and new section 59A(4A) provides for the criteria that the Attorney-General has to consider. I want to quote those criteria because I think it is important: “(a) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to identify the cause and circumstances of the death; and (b) whether the investigation or inquiry could reveal information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand; and (c) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to examine military tactics; and (d) whether a court of inquiry has been or will be assembled …” and so on. So those are the sorts of criteria that would have to be considered and therefore I feel that it would have been better for what is in the current legislation to continue or for the amendment that had been proposed by Phil Goff to be adopted because those considerations would apply. The amendment would have better reflected the balance I spoke of by putting the primary need for coronial inquiry as the primary consideration and to have the need for national security considerations to effectively be secondary because they can be taken into account only if those criteria that I listed were met. So that would have been the better way to proceed and it is a bit disappointing that the Government did not in fact adopt the proposal for amendment that had been put forward. It is a disappointment but it would not itself be enough for New Zealand First to vote against the bill. The only other thing I did want to mention was that other area of significant difficulties—and I have already mentioned them at the beginning of my speech—concerning the reporting of suicides. I do believe that new section 71 does achieve the right balance because it says that if a death is self-inflicted or if it may have been the method or the place where the death occurred—if that place suggested the method—or a description of the death as a suicide may not be published. But there is a balance there in that the Chief Coroner may grant an exemption if satisfied that in doing so it would not present an undue risk that other people would attempt copycat behaviour and that any risk that people would attempt copycat behaviour is outweighed by other considerations that make it desirable in the public interest to allow the publication. So I think there we have a good demonstration of the balance that I spoke of and so we in New Zealand First do think that in that very important area section 71 is appropriate. Finally overall we in New Zealand First do think that the bill is a significant improvement over the current Act that it does achieve the balances that I spoke of and that it will work better for a robust coronial system. So we will be voting in favour of it.[Continuation line: BISHOP]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingCHRIS BISHOP (National): This has been a good bill and I have got to say the process that we went through on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill was also a good process and Jacqui Dean did a great job. It was a real pleasure actually to work with the Government members and also the Opposition members. Denis O’Rourke the speaker who has just resumed his seat has played a very constructive role in relation to this bill and also another knotty issue that we are working through on the committee at the moment as well. I think we have come to a good space on this bill. We have got into a good position and we have made some useful amendments which have come through the select committee process. I want to briefly talk about suicide reporting which is obviously covered by the bill and is a topic that I took a particular interest in. It was something I had been interested in before I came into Parliament. I think everyone has acknowledged that the current law under the current Coroners Act 2006 around what the media can and cannot report on or say about suspected or actual suicides is deficient. You see that the law is widely flouted and actually just yesterday a news media organisation ran a story that was definitely a breach of the law because it described in the headline that a particular incident was a suspected suicide. Well that is a breach of the law. You are not allowed to do that. It will be legal once we have passed this bill and the legislation comes into force but it is not legal at the moment. That is just a small example of how the current law is ignored. It is a very vexed issue because the pure libertarian view is that everything should be able to be published. There are some people who make that argument—that you should be able to publish anything you like about suicide. There is another school of thought and I have heard people express this view as well which is that there should be absolutely no reporting on any type of suicide in New Zealand and that the risks are just so great from that reporting. It is a very very tricky issue and actually I think the Government did a good thing in 2013 by getting the Law Commission to do a first principles review of this and actually go away and look at the evidence. The experts at the Law Commission did that and I think the recommendations that they came up with which have largely—and particularly in this instance wholly—been endorsed by the Government and made their way into this amendment bill are good ones. The conclusion that they found after studying the international evidence from overseas is that some forms of reporting are strongly associated with the risk of further suicides. That is why after we have passed this bill into force you will not be able to publish the method of death or the place where that death took place if publishing the place would suggest the method of death—I am sure people can think about how that might come about. The international evidence suggests that the publication of those details is very risky in potentially perpetuating further suicides copycat suicides. The evidence tends to suggest that. In some ways the new law will be a liberalisation but it will also be a toughening up. The penalties for breaches of the law have been raised but we are going to allow the media to report that something is a suspected suicide. If something is a suspected suicide that will be allowed to be published but it is only in the event that the coroner finds that something is a suicide after the investigation has happened that the media will be able to say that. I think that is appropriate. After a death happens if it is a suspected suicide the media can say that. This will avoid the media having to use the sorts of code words and euphemisms that they use at the moment which everyone in the know knows about and some people do not. We will end that farcical situation but if you are in the media you will be able to call something a suicide only if the coroner says that and as I say you will not be able to publish the method of the death or the place where publishing the place would suggest the method unless the coroner grants an exemption. I think this strikes the right balance. What we are trying to do is encourage responsible reporting. It is important to have a conversation about suicide I think in New Zealand. We want responsible reporting but we do not want irresponsible reporting and that is what the bill seeks to prevent. I thought long and hard about this issue on the committee and I did quite a lot of reading about it. I think we have struck the right balance and it is good that this bill is going to become law. I commend it to the House.Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.[Continuation: LOGIE]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingJAN LOGIE (Green): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this the debate on the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill for the Green Party. The Green Party as previously stated by my colleague Dave Clendon will be supporting this bill. I would like to spend the time in my contribution firstly as with other members acknowledging the people who shared their personal experiences with the Justice and Electoral Committee. Grief is a very significant thing to share and I think when people make that effort and the effort is in the hopes of helping produce good public policy we should acknowledge them for that effort. I would like to talk mostly on the points about deaths within prison and youth suicide reporting and to acknowledge the work of the select committee in making the improvements to the bill specifically relating to deaths in prison. My understanding of the bill as it was first introduced is that it would have meant that the coroner could demand an inquiry for a death in prison only if the coroner was satisfied that there had been some negligence or misconduct which really presupposes the outcome of the inquiry at the beginning of the process. It was really good to see that the committee has worked through that problem and shifted the presumption the other way round. Now the coroner is enabled to use their judgment to decide if they could have reasonably expected the death given the knowledge that they have of that person’s health status and health records. Initially obviously we had concerns about the change. My colleague Dave Clendon spoke to several coroners it is my understanding and they spoke to him about the changing demographics in our prisons. We have an increasingly ageing population in our prisons and so as a result people are more likely to be dying of natural causes. That should not take up the resources of the coroner which should not be spent on inquiring into natural deaths. It does for me raise a question that is a bit of a sad indictment on us as a society though I do have to acknowledge. The thought of somebody dying of age-related diseases while in prison or dying of cancer while in prison when we have known that that is going to happen does seem to me an extra level of punishment that is not necessary in terms of ensuring the security of our society. The other point I would like to speak on which has been widely canvassed is the consideration of the reporting of youth suicide. I know that there has been a call from a lot of parents as well as the media about wanting more liberalisation. There is a sense at times that we are stifling an acknowledgment of how big a problem this is in our society. When we do have one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the world and very high rates of suicide generally I can understand that feeling from people and a desire for this to be dealt with publicly. However I have worked in youth health and have a background of seeing that impact on young people where suicides are covered in our media—in a fictional sense as well as being reported. That has actually directly contributed to an exacerbation of some young people’s mental health issues to a point where they have attempted suicide on the basis of that trigger. I even think of my experience as a young person of spending many years feeling suicidal. Part of that was as a result of how commonly it was talked about and it was only when I became an adult working in the area that I realised that actually feeling suicidal was not normal. That is not a situation we would ever want to see encouraged in our society so the restrictions to reporting on—recognising that it could be a cause but not naming the place if it could identify the method or naming the method seems a sensible place to come down. Thank you.[Continuation line: WILLIAMS]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to confine my contribution at this time to the impacts of this piece of legislation on family or the role that families would actually like to play with regard to coronial inquests and inquiries into deaths of loved ones. Why I put family at the centre of my contribution is because I believe that the coroner’s role has three prime responsibilities. One of the prime reasons that we would want the coroner’s work to continue is in order to find cause of death so that we may put in place measures that could prevent future deaths of that nature. The second reason would be that if the death is as a result of a crime adequate information and evidence is produced in order for that crime to be prosecuted appropriately and accordingly. The third reason and for me one of the prime reasons is that the families of the deceased person feel that the manner in which that person lost their life has been adequately investigated and that due measures are put in place to prevent it happening to any other family. There are parts of this piece of legislation that speak specifically to the role of families in the process. I speak specifically as I did during the committee stages on the handling of deceased bodies and what may happen when investigation happens to that body and some of the parts particularly tissue are not returned to family. There are huge cultural implications around the treatment of deceased persons. In my own culture it would be unusual for a dead body—for our loved one when they are deceased to be on their own at any point in time. We go to great pains to ensure that a family member is with that body at all times until they are interred. So for families who submitted like the Still family whose daughter was killed as a result of the Wairarapa balloon crash to anguish over not being able to see their daughter’s body and not to be able to be in touch with her tūpāpaku is in our culture hugely distressing and their distress came through in their submission. It would be one thing that we would really encourage future examinations of the coroner’s process to really hold in high regard that families at this time are in distress. There is no doubt that the process has improved over time but there is also no doubt that there are improvements still to be made. The examination of this piece of legislation has led to the Māori Affairs Committee launching an inquiry into the handling of tūpāpaku because it is an important cultural aspect. It is an important cultural part of our lives—the rituals and the rites that must occur when someone has deceased. So in that regard I want to encourage that the coroner’s process does take family wishes into full regard. Also when the body is not returned to the family completely whole there is also an implication for that. The family should be notified when and if that process can occur to ensure that the body can be interred completely. Sometimes that cannot occur so the family must be consulted fully as to how they would like the treatment of the body to occur. Just in conclusion I do want to touch on the amendments in the name of Phil Goff because again I feel it is really important that the role of families of the Defence Force when their loved ones are killed overseas should be considered in the process. Thank you.[Continuation line: PUGH]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Coroners Amendment Bill. This bill will support coroners in their important and difficult roles by making their system more efficient. That in turn supports grieving families and is another example of this Government delivering Better Public Services. The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered this bill and during the process it received a number of submissions the most significant of course being from the Law Commission which made 17 recommendations. Of those 17 recommendations 14 were accepted in full and three were accepted generally around reporting standards—so all in all a very constructive process. One of the main provisions of the bill is to reduce duplication with other agencies and this will be done by giving the Chief Coroner the ability to direct that a coronial investigation is not required. The Act currently lists 13 different authorities with investigative responsibilities such as the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Royal Commission of Inquiry so it is obvious that there are overlaps possible in some cases. Under the current legislation the relationship between coroners and other investigative authorities has not always been clear and that has led to uncertainty about the respective roles. The Chief Coroner at the passage of this bill will have an oversight role and that will allow him to direct that an inquiry is not opened or may not resume postpone or adjourn an inquiry. On average cases involving an inquest or hearing take over 400 days or over 700 days if the coroner is required to wait on another investigation to be completed. This is far too long for grieving families and so providing the ability to reduce this duplication will go a long way towards supporting those families and providing closure. This is a very pragmatic bill and I am very happy to commend it to the House.[Continuation line: WALL]Coroners Amendment BillThird ReadingLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o te Whare . It is my pleasure to speak on this the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I am going to outline why the Labour Party is not supporting this piece of legislation. After going on the coroners’ website and looking at what coroners do I really want to start by taking time to mihi to our coroners. They do an incredibly important job. What they do is they help to determine when where how and why a death has happened in Aotearoa New Zealand. What they also try to do is work out whether anything can be done differently that might prevent similar deaths in the future—so I want to emphasise that. They want to identify if there is anything that we could have done to have prevented a death. In fact I think that is one of the most significant roles of the coroner in addition to ensuring that families have the information and know what has happened to their loved ones. It is very much about an individual’s good—I suppose you would call it—and about the individual’s family understanding of what has happened to their loved one but coroners also have a responsibility in terms of our collective or public good. Those reasons essentially are why coroners make recommendations. I would like to highlight the Supplementary Order Papers of my colleague Jacinda Ardern that were actually rejected in the Committee stage of the debate in this House. They were Supplementary Order Paper 145 and Supplementary Order Paper 146. Essentially what they said were that persons or organisations or Government agencies must respond to coroners’ recommendations. Where did that come from? Actually the Law Commission wanted to support it too. I want to note some particular University of Otago research by Dr Jennifer Moore and Professor Mark Henaghan. Dr Moore actually has a public health degree as well as a law degree. Her piece of research focused on the effectiveness of New Zealand’s coroner’s court. Her rationale was that the coroners’ work is extremely important and the recommendations save lives and guide policy. What she did was investigate coroners’ cases and recommendations—remember that this Act started in 2006 and so her research was from 2007 to 2012. When she attempted to ascertain what happened to those recommendations she was actually mystified—mystified is probably the best word—because what she found is that the coroner’s court does not report annual law reports. She found that intriguing and so she spent months travelling around the country going to different courts and gathering data herself. What she found in that 5-year period was that there were 607 cases and 1644 recommendations that involved 309 parties and of those 309 parties 121 were Government organisations. So what did she do? She contacted them. Of those 309 parties she contacted 200 of them and of those contacted 79 agreed to be interviewed and a further 42 completed a questionnaire. Essentially the key finding of her piece of research was that a mandatory response regime should be put in place to ensure that organisations responded to coronial recommendations. Sounds pretty simple? What Dr Moore has continued to do is to engage with coroners and to work with them because one of the other findings of the research was that some of the recommendations were not targeting enough. They were not specific enough about who should actually do something to prevent deaths in the future. That has become an ongoing piece of work that she is engaged with. In fact the coroners themselves said that sometimes they made recommendations in a vacuum. So this two-way process that she wanted to create and that my colleague Jacinda Ardern suggested has been rejected by this House—and that is a sad thing. The other part of the process that we have gone through that I wanted to highlight was the amendment of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Essentially what his amendment would have done was to continue the presumption that coroners would investigate military deaths unless the Attorney-General directed the coroner not to—as opposed to what this legislation will create in the future which is that coroners cannot investigate military deaths unless they are directed by the Attorney-General. The rationale for coroners continuing to investigate military deaths was actually highlighted in a Stuff article that was actually titled “Secret death panel planned”. Within that particular article former army medic Sarah Erb who was the partner of Corporal Luke Tamatea was quoted. Corporal Luke Tamatea was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2012. I want to highlight Corporal Tamatea’s situation because in that instance there was a coronial inquiry and there was also a court of inquiry because it was a military death. What we know from what Corporal Tamatea’s whānau have said is that because of the coronial report the whānau actually received a copy of that report. Having read that report they got the answers that they were looking for. There was a particular emphasis in this article about Corporal Tamatea’s mother receiving the answers that she needed to get some closure because her son died not in Aotearoa but in Afghanistan in the line of duty and she was mamae because she did not know what happened to her son. I think all of us would agree that it is incredibly important for families to be able to understand what happened to their loved ones so that they can answer all the questions they may have and then they can actually process that have closure mourn grieve and then get on with their lives. I think a number of us would agree that unless you get closure it is very difficult to move on because you have a whole lot of unanswered questions. I want to contrast that however with the court of inquiry and the record of proceedings. There was also involvement from the military because in any military death there is a court of inquiry. I spoke about this in the select committee stage. I wanted to look at a supplementary order paper actually but because the governance of military deaths courts of inquiry are actually enabled through the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 I could not. One of the things that I wanted to ensure was that family members have access to the record of proceedings when there is a court of inquiry because of a military death. The reason I want to particularly focus on this is that I asked at committee stage for the Minister in the chair to confirm that if there is a military death and if the only inquiry into that death is a military court of inquiry families have automatic access to the record of proceedings. No Minister got up to refute my assertion and in fact I want to highlight that the chair of our select committee Jacqui Dean was in the House at that time and she said I was wrong. So I am taking her on her word. I want it recorded in Hansard that it is the expectation of this House that if a military court of inquiry is the only inquiry undertaken family have automatic access to that record of proceeding so that whānau can have those questions answered they can get the closure that they need and that they can move on with their lives. Other than that I hope that I have clearly outlined why Labour is not supporting this legislation. Finally I really enjoy my membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee I think we have incredibly robust discussions but we do because we are talking about law and we are talking about matters of principal and matters of policy and so I hope that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand understand now why the Labour Party does not support the Coroner’s Amendment Bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.[Continuation line: VOTE]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillThird ReadingsHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be now read a third time. These two bills are part of the Government’s post-earthquake contribution to rebuilding the city of Christchurch as well as supporting the Government’s broader programme of increasing the supply of housing around New Zealand. Together these two bills will enable some 40 hectares of Riccarton Racecourse land in Christchurch to be developed into more than 600 homes. It is a bill that is going to enable $300 million of development and they are builds that are going to enable the Government to require that 180 or at least 30 percent of these homes are in the bracket to complement the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. The Government and the Christchurch City Council made a joint commitment to increase the supply of homes in Christchurch. We entered into the Christchurch Housing Accord in April 2004 with the aim of both increasing the immediate and the long term supply and affordability of homes in Christchurch. In the debate around Auckland housing it is noteworthy that the Government’s programme with Christchurch has been successful and the same approach will work with the city of Auckland. I recently attended the opening of the first homes that were completed from part of the accord programme at Awatea and I was hugely impressed with both the quality and the affordability of these houses that are coming on-stream and in the context of the broader debate around housing would bring those initiatives to the House’s attention because they do paint the picture of where the solution lies. Back in 2014 the trustees that govern the racecourse reserve approached me seeking to convert part of the very large Riccarton Racecourse into housing. The trustees were seeking opportunities to make better use of the underutilised land at the racecourse to ensure that the rest of the racecourse would be able to continue functioning. These bills break the barrier that the Riccarton Racecourse Act 1878 and the Reserves Act 1977 were creating for the utilisation of that Riccarton Racecourse land for housing development. This is robust legislation that ensures the land will be developed with a quality residential development. Once the bills receive the Royal assent the board of trustees has a period of 1 year to submit a development plan to me and to receive approval. The development enabling bill sets out the requirements for the development scheme including meeting that minimum of 180 affordable houses on the developed land and to have the code of compliance certificate for those homes issued within 5 years of that development scheme being approved. Before recommending the development scheme to the Governor-General for approval I am appropriately required to consult with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Christchurch City Council. These bills have been carefully crafted to ensure that they respect both the intent and the deed of the Ngāi Tahu settlement in Canterbury with more than 180 homes to be at the affordable price point. These bills will also contribute to the need to replace the affordable homes that were destroyed through the Christchurch earthquakes. I think there is an acknowledgment that the area of Christchurch most affected by the earthquakes in the east tended to provide that city with a greater range of its affordable homes and that there is a need not just for more homes but for more homes than are in that affordable range. The Government has deliberately linked the bill and the development plan with the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. This is the most generous support that the Government has provided in a generation for first-home buyers. It enables grants of up to $20000 to be provided for purchasing a home in the Christchurch scenario below $450000 and for the scheme to work we want to both support the homebuyers but also make sure that there are new homes coming on stream within that price range. The legislation ensures that if I am not satisfied that the development scheme will meet those requirements and will not result in the quality residential development within 1 year of the passage of this legislation then the legal basis for converting that racecourse land no longer becomes available. I have to note this bill in the context of the broader debate on housing. I keep hearing from the Opposition that the Government is not doing anything around housing and that every time we bring a bill to the House pragmatic bills like these ones then Opposition parties vote for it. This legislation is just further evidence of this Government’s pragmatic and comprehensive approach around the challenge that New Zealand has around housing. The public understands that there is not some single silver bullet or that there is an instant solution. It is about taking every opportunity to grow the supply of housing. The housing development at Riccarton is one on four sites in Christchurch—at Colombo Street in Awatea and in Welles Street—that in total will provide over 1000 additional homes for Christchurch. It sits alongside a very identical programme that we have initiated in Auckland. It sits alongside initiatives like the special housing areas the housing accords the National Policy Statement on Urban Development the HomeStart scheme and the large bill before Parliament to reform the Resource Management Act. I note the GDP data out today showing that the New Zealand construction industry is at an all-time boom with the fastest rate of both residential and commercial construction ever in our history. We have seen since we signed the housing accords with councils like the Christchurch City Council the rate of house build in New Zealand more than doubling from 13000 homes a year. The latest statistics are now showing that over 28000 homes are being built. I would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse Ngāi Tahu Property and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the Christchurch City Council which have all worked hard to ensure the progress of these bills and opening the door for this development. The Riccarton Racecourse is an ideal site for new housing. It is a neighbourhood with lovely surroundings good access to community schools to public transport and to community facilities. The development of these 600 homes that are in this attractive part of Christchurch is an important part of the rebuild plan for that city but also the wider challenge across New Zealand of ensuring that our housing supply keeps progress with our population growth. I look forward to seeing the first homes built on this site as we bring the development plan together. I commend both bills to the House and move they be read a third time.[Continuation line: DYSON]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillThird ReadingsHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a pleasure for me to take a call in these third readings of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. As was made obvious during the early stages of the debate Labour supports these bills. But I have to say it is a bit rich actually even for the Minister—even for that Minister it is a bit rich to have him claim credit for the development of 600 houses in Canterbury which were entirely instigated by the board of the Riccarton Racecourse. I do not think that Minister is a member of the board. That Minister was asked to shepherd this legislation or part of this legislation through the House and good on him for doing that. And good on him for getting the support of so many members of this House. But for him to claim credit for the development as if it was a State housing or social housing proposal just beggars belief. But they have got to be desperate for any glimpse of light any silver lining on the dark cloud of the few weeks that they have had. Usually after a Budget the Government sort of bounces around the place. Well the only place where this Government has been bouncing around since the Budget is down. It has been showing its true colours—increasingly arrogant and out of touch with the wishes of everyday New Zealanders. It has been totally ignoring the big issues. The big issues that people are concerned about do not seem to be anywhere near this Government’s agenda. It has totally ignored the housing crisis arguing about whether or not it is a crisis does not help a single person move into a warm dry affordable home. It totally ignores the jobs issue. It totally ignores the wages issues. Now it is ignoring the increasing cost that families in New Zealand have to face when sending their children to their local school. Education costs jobs housing and health underfunding are all issues that are totally ignored by this Government. Under these two bills 600 houses will be built on what is currently Riccarton Racecourse land and 30 percent of those houses are going to be sold for less than $450000. That figure has been described as affordable. I certainly hope it is because we know that unlike when we were young we grew up and knew that if we worked hard and saved hard that we would be able to put a deposit on a home and call it our own—many members in this House have had the opportunity to do that to buy a home. But sadly for many New Zealanders now even $450000 in Christchurch is well out of their range of affordability. I hope that a lot of people who currently cannot afford to buy a home are able to buy one of those affordable homes. But I am sure that despite that we are still seeing the Kiwi dream of owning your own home being totally off the agenda for many New Zealand families and particularly for young people. So 40 hectares of the current entire Riccarton Racecourse area is going to be turned over for housing. As I said earlier this is a move that was entirely instigated by the board of trustees of Riccarton Racecourse and I want to pay tribute not just to the current trustees but to former trustees as well. They have had a huge responsibility since the instigation of the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878 to provide this public racecourse for the benefit not just of Cantabrians but of all New Zealanders and more recently from the Reserves Act of 1977. So those two pieces of legislation are what is being changed by these two bills—the Reserves Act and the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878. We had a Government bill and a local bill initially. I queried during the Committee stage about whether it was the first time that we had had a Government bill and a local being heard in tandem and I want to return to the answer to that question. I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to answer it during the Committee stage. I hoped even more that he would have been able to address it in his third reading speech but he did not. I guess for many in the National Party and particularly the Ministers of the National Government they will be hoping that the passing of these bills—and I certainly support their passing—will quieten down the noise around housing issues. But what it actually will do in reality is put an even stronger spotlight on who is doing what to address the housing crisis in New Zealand. We know one of the organisations that really put its hand up and said “We can see our people in trouble with nowhere decent to sleep at night including children sleeping in cars and garages for heaven’s sake—in New Zealand in 2016.” Te Puea Marae put their hand up and said “We will help.” I want to pay a special tribute to them. I think that was a courageous thing that they did. They did it for the right reasons. They did it with the help of hundreds of other community organisations and individuals who donated goods and services to Te Puea Marae. What we saw this week was a blight on the integrity of our Parliament. We saw private information—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not in the bill—that is not in the bill.Hon RUTH DYSON: —about an individual from Te Puea Marae which is providing housing in the same way as is being provided under these two Riccarton Racecourse pieces of legislation that we are debating. We saw the chairman of that marae being undermined and slighted—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: —because he had put his hand up to address the housing situation.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look I have allowed quite a wide range on the overall housing stuff but you are getting to specifics in Auckland and I asked you to come back to this bill.Hon Simon Bridges: Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: As I—Mr Bridges. As I noted earlier in my contribution during the Committee stage I did talk about whether or not somebody who followed Parliament closely would be able to advise us in the House about whether this was the first time that both a private local bill and a Government bill had been heard together at Committee stage. As I said I was disappointed that the Minister did not answer me and no other member of the House was able to provide that information. But I am now able to advise the House that the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill which was a Government bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill which was a private bill were cognate throughout their passage through the House but that neither of those bills had a Committee stage. So we have set a new precedent. We have a precedent—of course it is new—in this House with the debating of these two bills one a private local bill and one a Government bill being held at the same time during the Committee stage. Of course it was sensible to do that because both bills are needed in order to change those two pieces of legislation that control the ability of the Riccarton Racecourse board of trustees to alter its legislative mandate and enable it to turn that 40 hectares into a housing development. I want to make some concluding comments not in any criticism of the legislation because we are supportive of it but just to raise the concerns that were raised right at the original first reading—actually that were raised by my colleague Dr Megan Woods following her discussion with surrounding residents of this area. This was not concern about the housing development in itself but concern about the increased traffic pressure. We know how bad the traffic is around that part of Christchurch. It is not Auckland—it does move—but it is pretty congested. It is one of the peak traffic points. And there was no engagement with either the city council or the regional council in terms of what additional transport opportunities might be opened up as a result of this significant increase in housing. I would like to see the Minister for Building and Housing now take an additional step and work with the city council and the regional council to see how we can ensure that during the development of the site we do not end up with unpleasant road congestion as a result of these additional homes. The surrounding area as the Minister pointed out is magnificent. It is close to the university it is close to schools it is close to parks. There is lots of activity in this area. They have an excellent member of Parliament. Dr Megan Woods is the member of Parliament for Wigram. Riccarton is actually divided between two electorates and the people who live on this side of Riccarton are very grateful they are in the Wigram electorate—Dr Megan Wood’s electorate—rather than another. Can I just say in conclusion that a lot of people who contributed to this deserve to be thanked particularly the board of trustees and the city council and of course the Local Government and Environment and its officials. Thank you.[Continuation line: SIMPSON]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon RUTH DYSONSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a real privilege to stand and support these two bills in their third reading. The select committee that I chair the Local Government and Environment Committee paid a lot of attention to these two bills. In fact we had an opportunity to visit the actual racecourse and have a tour around the site of the proposed development. For those of us who are not Cantabrians it was a real eye-opener and an opportunity to see just what a great development this is going to be. The original legislation that created the racecourse and its trustees dates back to 1878 and as somebody mentioned in an earlier debate at one of the earlier readings of these two bills that actually pre-dated the invention of the motor car. So it gives some idea about what was in the minds of the people who set this up back in 1878 and the foresight they had to set aside 112 hectares of Canterbury land which in those days was actually a long way out from the centre of Christchurch. These days of course the Riccarton Racecourse is right and central in the city of Christchurch and as part of the Government’s plan to help the regeneration of Christchurch it has been a real pleasure to work with the trustees to work with Ngāi Tahu and to work with the city council in developing this practical sensible plan to create a really high-quality property development that will help ease the housing requirements of Christchurch and at the same time go a long way to supporting the regeneration of Christchurch. A significant proportion of the land that is going to be designated of these 40 hectares is going to be designated for affordable housing. The Minister for Building and Housing in his speech made it clear that that has been designed specifically to meet the HomeStart cap of $450000 dollars. A minimum of 180 of the 600 homes that will be developed on this site will meet that criteria and I think that is a very very good step. Christchurch is expected to grow by about 80000 residents between 2013 and 2043 and so there does need to be further opportunity for residential growth and residential development in a city that is not only just growing generically but also is in a regrowth and a regeneration phase. These bills could not have come to the House and be at their third reading today if it had not been for the cooperation and support of a really good collaboration of stakeholders that have been working very hard to ensure that we are at the point we are today. I particularly want to thank the board of trustees at the Riccarton Racecourse for their help and assistance in nurturing this through for working their way through it and for their hospitality on the day when they showed us around. But we should not underestimate the input of the Christchurch City Council for its role in helping this bring this about and of course Ngāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu Property who will be the developers of the site. I want to also mention as I have done in previous contributions in the House the submitters who came to us and gave us the benefit of their insight and their wisdom on this development. Naturally some of them were a little bit concerned about some of the impacts in the neighbourhood. This is an area of Christchurch that has great social facilities great community facilities and this development will add to that. But they wanted to express their views and the committee I think listened carefully and respectfully to them. I also want to thank the officials who were working on the bills. Just in terms of the contribution of the Hon Ruth Dyson I absolutely think it is a bit rich for that member to stand in the House and complain as the Labour Opposition so frequently does that the Government is not doing anything about housing when in fact in relation to Christchurch both the AMP and the Massey index research shows that housing in Christchurch is actually 40 percent more affordable than it was when Labour was in power. Those are facts that Labour members conveniently forget. They also forget that interest rates are now at about 4.5 percent—very low indeed—but when they were in power interest rates were about 10 percent and rents dropped 5 percent last year in Christchurch and in Christchurch housing values increased only 2 percent in the last year. All those indicators point to the fact that the Government’s approach is working. These are pragmatic sensible pieces of legislation. These two bills go a long way to helping reinforce a need for a growing Christchurch a regenerating Christchurch and it is a good practical sensible step the Government is very happy to support. I commend the bills to the House.[Continuation line: COSGROVE]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon RUTH DYSONHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That was a far more generous speech from Scott Simpson than that from the Minister for Building and Housing. In fact I suppose if we were to use a racing parlance after the Minister’s speech we could say he well and truly scratched himself. You would think this proposition as Ruth Dyson said had all been the work and the idea of the Government. I went on to punters.com.au to look up a couple of definitions. I thought: “What would fit the Minister’s contribution?” I thought for a while and then I found it. It is a quintessential Australian punting term. Mr Smith I think could be described as a coat-tugger. The definition of a “coat tugger” is someone who offers a punter a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings and after that speech he fits the description and the definition of a coat tugger absolutely clearly—absolutely. This is a Minister who got up—I counted how many times he said “the Government” and I think it was about 22: “The Government did this.” “The Government’s responsible for this.” “They’ve got to come to me to consult.”Hon Member: All his own work.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: All his own work of course when we actually know that this idea had nothing to do with the coat-tugging Minister—it had nothing to do with him. The genesis of this idea was the Riccarton racing club. People like Roger Finlay an eminent business person and his fellow board members and trustees of the Riccarton racing club thought long and hard about how they could utilise their asset and they engendered this idea. They planned it they thought it through they went to the Government and said “We’ve got an idea that could help us as a club but also help a lot of people in Christchurch who lost their homes via the earthquake.” and they came up with the 600-house plan. Yes this Parliament—and this is a Government bill a local bill—is responsible for facilitating that through the legislative process as is normal. But you have got to say—and I return to Scott Simpson who I think made a far more measured and generous speech than the Minister did—that this was the archetypal definition of coat tugging by that Minister. A guy who gives you a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings—that sums him up. But we should celebrate the passage of this legislation.Nuk Korako: Hey good. Now you’re talking—now you’re talking.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We should celebrate it and credit to that member back there—credit should go where credit is due yes. To the racing club to the city council to Ngāi Tahu and to the other stakeholders who assisted in this; credit should go where credit is due. Six hundred houses 30 percent of which will be affordable homes—the ceiling is what $450000? That will still be a struggle for many in the Canterbury and Christchurch community but it is an excellent initiative. If I were Dr Nick Smith I would actually look at that and say: “Well the way to deal with a housing crisis”—even though he will not admit there is one—“is to do what the Riccarton racing club has proposed and that is build more houses.” It is actually a pretty simple proposition; pretty basic even for some of the less sharp tools in the box in this Chamber. It is a pretty simple concept and actually what will happen—what is starting to happen and what will ultimately happen—in Christchurch according to projections is that we will end up in that province of Canterbury with a surplus of housing. You can see in some of the figures that house prices have plateaued a little in certain places as the construction has come on stream as those houses have been built and as people have gone out of their old munted properties into viable new homes. It is a pretty simple proposition—supply and demand; I did fifth form economics—it adds up and it could be replicated around the entire country and especially Auckland if the Government had a mind to become involved in that proposition. The Ministers want to get up and talk about consents and lovely little bits of paper like that but as others have said in this Chamber you cannot live in a consent. A consent is permission to build on a piece of land.Kris Faafoi: Consent warming party.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well that is a very interesting point actually. Maybe Dr Smith could have as my colleague said a consent warming party.Grant Robertson: A party of one.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A party of one yes and a bit of a punt at the same time. The Riccarton racing club its facilities and the Riccarton Market—and we have said these things before as Canterbury colleagues and we cannot say it enough—are iconic parts of our city. Not only have many people in our province have gained much pleasure in participating in the racing club activities—often they have lost a bit dough—but many community organisations and private sector organisations have utilised those facilities for many many events many of them charitable. Many of the members of Parliament are invited. The Riccarton Market is a staple in the weekend calendar of most Cantabrians when they want to go and participate and we are pleased that that will be preserved. The club itself will be far stronger financially and far more secure in its future thanks to their own good idea their own initiative and their own innovation. It would be nice if the Government could actually show a similar set of skills in respect of innovative ideas and if it could give credit where credit is due. I think this is a shining example of what can be achieved with collaboration—smart people in Canterbury getting together doing a deal coming to the Government with a sound proposition that will meet a whole series of needs none more important than housing people who are in great need. Equally this is an example of where political cooperation—putting aside the lack of generosity of some speeches—can lead to a very viable outcome. But there are other issues as Ruth Dyson and others have raised. I know the area very well. As I have said in other speeches I in the early years of my life grew up about a block away across the road—across Yaldhurst Road. I know it well and as I said in other speeches in those days it was a pretty sleep area. You did not have traffic jams.Kris Faafoi: What in 1878?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You did not have—thank you for that. You did not have—Hon Member: Did you have traffic? Were there cars?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You can pick your enemies but not your friends. As I say it was a pretty subdued area. It is a nice area. It will change with 600 houses there. There will be infrastructure difficulties; traffic will be a huge one. I think what the Riccarton club the city council and the other stakeholders will look to is for some Government leadership—not Government telling them what to do but some Government involvement and partnership to deal with some of those infrastructure problems the most stressful being the traffic. You look at what is happening down Johns Road by the airport the widening the four-laning. That is a good thing. Access from Hornby into that Yaldhurst area is huge now. The traffic volumes are immense. They will only get worse. If planning and infrastructure and resources do not follow then what is a fantastic project for that part of town and for our city could and will experience some difficulties. And of course those people who are already resident in that area of Avonhead Northlands Road and the racecourse area around there—and Hornby—they can be impacted as well. So what we look forward to is hopefully some indication from the Government that it will be a participant and partner in this in respect of the infrastructure requirements. The Labour Party as other colleagues have said has much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Again congratulations to the Riccarton Racing Club. Credit where credit is due: to them and their board their trustees and the other stakeholders. It would be great if off the back of this once we have passed this legislation the Government could use this as an excellent example of what can be achieved to deal with housing difficulties. There should be no reason where there is political will that these sorts of schemes and arrangements could not be replicated say in Auckland or other parts of New Zealand if the land is available. So I would say in closing congratulations to the select committee and the chairman who I am told did an excellent job in respect of this legislation. We look forward to those houses being built and especially we look forward to people moving into the 30 percent of affordable homes and getting on with their lives.[Continuation line: HAYES]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEJOANNE HAYES (National): Just before I get into my contribution I just want to make it very clear that the Riccarton Racing Club came to the Minister to discuss the lands that we are discussing today in the House. They came and they actually proposed that that property be leasehold property. After some discussions with the Minister and to-ing and fro-ing  it was the Minister who discussed with the Riccarton Racing Club the idea of turning that land not into leasehold but into a housing area. And that is what the true story is. That is how the Riccarton Racing Club ended up with the 40 hectares of land to build these 600 homes in. It is true. The racecourse will continue to operate the Riccarton Market will continue to operate—there are a lot of community groups in Christchurch watching on with interest as to what would happen to the Riccarton Market and all of them are very happy that even though there is all this development happening they will get to keep their Riccarton Market. I just want to quote from a submission from the New Zealand Racing Board about these bills. They said: “These bills are an excellent example of where racing is able to develop both its own industry as well as making a meaningful and substantial contribution to the local community.” That is why they fully support this bill. Ngāi Tahu Property said that “The passing of these bills into law will mark a great milestone for both the Trustees and NTP enabling the realisation of a vision” that has been around for several years. Ngāi Tahu Property also commented that it was a real privilege for them to be part and parcel of the whole process of the development of the Riccarton Racecourse land. This Government is committed to the 13000 homes the brand-new homes that are being built in Christchurch. We will continue to strive to do that. This is one of many projects that are happening within Christchurch. As a new Cantabrian in Christchurch East I believe that a lot of great things will actually come from this. Yes Christchurch East has lost a lot of their houses through the earthquake but this is a step towards making sure that those homes even though they are being built somewhere else—some may even come back to Christchurch East—are actually going to be made affordable for couples. Some may say that $450000 is very expensive. It may be but it is what the market price is. It is what affordable homes are being sold for in Christchurch. These people will also be able to access their KiwiSaver put towards a deposit or to help pay for these homes. As my colleagues have said this is a pragmatic bill. It is a good bill and I have no problems in commending it to the House. Thank you.[Continuation line: SAGE]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. These bills have proceeded through Parliament relatively quickly. They were introduced in October last year. They attracted only a few submissions to the select committee and we are pleased that the bills are going through their final readings today. But we have a little concern about the Minister’s comments that this is really part of the Government’s strategy to help with the Christchurch rebuild and to help provide affordable housing. The 180-odd affordable homes are to be provided as part of the quid pro quo for a quarter of the racecourse having its reserve status uplifted and the trust board for the racecourse being able to sell that land and develop it or have it developed with Ngāi Tahu Property—the quid pro quo is the provision of these affordable homes. But that is not going to be able to tackle the crisis. It is not nearly enough because we have hundreds of people tonight sleeping in their cars in Māngere. So many ordinary Kiwis recognise that we have a homelessness crisis we have a housing crisis and this Government is not doing enough to address that. We have seen that over and over again in the House when questions have been asked of Ministers and we have not seen them acknowledge that there is a crisis. Instead they talk about there being a supply challenge. The first step towards solving the problem is recognising that it exists and the Government has actually failed to do that in terms of the housing crisis. Instead we are seeing denial excuses distractions and now talk that this bill is a contribution to dealing with that crisis. These homes that will be built in Champions Mile even though some of them will be affordable homes—i.e. they have got a sale price of less than $450000—they are not going to be affordable to the people in Christchurch who are sleeping on the streets in their cars in garages or are dossing down on the floor of a family member or friend. We need more emergency accommodation for people like that who are struggling even to provide themselves with basic accommodation and these bills are a solution to that. The Green Party says we need the Government to invest much more in building emergency accommodation and in building more State homes instead of having the Government sell off State houses and allow the waiting lists for them to get longer and longer. I want to live in a country where the Government cares that people are sleeping on the streets and does not just stand by and watch and deny that there is a problem. One of the other things that the Minister had said in the second reading was that these bills are unlocking land that is not being well-used at the moment and that is a concern if that is going to be part of the Government’s strategy of providing more homes through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development which was released recently. That policy statement has some objectives of enabling people to provide for their social economic and cultural well-being but it fails to mention environmental well-being and we heard from the few submitters on this legislation that they really valued the open space that the racecourse provides as a place to recreate as a place to practise their golf skills and as a place to walk the dog. So we cannot see the housing crisis being tackled simply by using reserve land in centres around New Zealand to increase subdivision and residential development. We want healthy cities and those are cities that have got adequate green spaces in them. So it is very disappointing that in this new National Policy Statement on Urban Development there is a reference only to social economic and cultural well-being and not to environmental well-being because we will not have healthy cities and we will not have a healthy economy unless we sustain the environment which is the basis of that. Nevertheless because this legislation does provide for an extra 180 “affordable” homes and because the land is actually situated in what is now part of the centre of Christchurch—it is not on the outskirts as it once was; it is close to schools shopping facilities and the industrial area further to the south in Riccarton—it is a good place for development to occur because it is not promoting urban sprawl. But we think that the Riccarton Racecourse trust board will get a substantial financial benefit from these bills. It is well aware of the amenity values of the racecourse. It has said that the revenue that the bills will allow it to generate will be used to promote racing and to enhance the amenity of the racecourse and that is all well and good. It also needs to be cognisant when it is working with Ngāi Tahu to actually ensure that we do not get some of the rabbit hutch developments that we have seen elsewhere in Christchurch where houses are placed cheek by jowl with no consideration of passive solar design limited consideration of energy efficiency and little consideration of how the homes interact with public transport links and one of the problems here is that although there are criteria in the bill that the subdivision has to meet they are quite limited and that is a problem because the district plan in Christchurch is currently being reviewed. The final form of that is not yet known and it is that plan that will determine what conditions the Christchurch City Council can put on the development to ensure that the subdivision does provide for good interaction and links with public transport infrastructure good walking and cycling links and good protection of reserve areas open space and smaller places for children to play and for people to walk. So there is still quite a lot of uncertainty about the actual form that this development will take and quite a lot of responsibility on Christchurch City Council to actually get that right. So we are pleased that the bills are going through but we have some qualifiers on the type of urban development that this Government looks to be promoting if it is keen on using reserve land in other areas for subdivision given that its national policy statement does not recognise the importance of environmental well-being.[Continuation line: O’ROURKE]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I was very surprised that the Minister when he spoke took so much of his speech to pat himself on the back because of this particular proposal this particular development.Hon Ruth Dyson: He did. Yeah it was a joke.DENIS O'ROURKE: He did—he spent a good part of his speech patting himself on the back as though he was entitled to take credit for it and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I was quite offended by his comments because this proposal has never formed any part of the Government’s housing plans in any respect whatsoever. In fact what actually happened was that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated the discussions—and no doubt had discussions with various parties including the Minister—and yet Joanne Hayes got up to say to us well because of that it was Nick Smith’s idea. That is simply not true. It is not true. It was not Nick Smith’s idea. He had to be involved simply because legislation was necessary. The truth is that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated this and then went to the city council to develop a local bill. To prove that I was written to—as other MPs would have been—by the city council. The letter was dated 9 September 2015 and it said this: “I write formally to notify you under clause 4(1) of Appendix C of the Standing Orders of Parliament of the intention of the Christchurch City Council to promote a local bill into Parliament called the Riccarton Racecourse Bill (the Bill). (2) The objectives of this Bill are to (a) identify part of Riccarton Racecourse to be available for housing development …”. That is the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that it was not the Minister’s idea at all; it was the idea that came from the Riccarton Racecourse itself. It had discussions with various parties but it was actually the Christchurch City Council that proposed and has put this piece of legislation forward. Yes the Minister had to get involved because the legislation was necessary and that is why we are now looking at these two bills. But the point I do want to make is that while he was claiming—inaccurately—credit for this particular piece of legislation and this particular proposal for the development of that racecourse at the same time his Government has failed to actually provide anything like an adequate plan for housing in New Zealand. Nor has it done anything about immigration which has greatly exacerbated that situation. It has built only half of the houses required especially in Auckland and we are therefore finding people living in cars and garages and being provided with motels at great expense to the taxpayer. As far as Christchurch is concerned the reality there for most of the new housing that has gone up in Christchurch in recent times is the spending has come from two places. One is from insurance which is the lion’s share of the funding and the projects for housing in Christchurch and the other is the Earthquake Commission (EQC) which is a Government fund for disaster relief and replacement of infrastructure and so on—nothing to do with this Minister or the Government’s housing plans. Now that I have got that off my chest I can move on to the bills themselves. I did want to say this in particular: New Zealand First is particularly pleased with these bills and we want to thank the Riccarton Racecourse board and also the Christchurch City Council for promoting the bills. They will make a valuable—small but valuable—contribution to housing in Christchurch. Riccarton Racecourse is a very important piece of land. In fact it is an institution in Christchurch and in Canterbury but the land that is required for racing will still be there and people will still be able to enjoy that. There are over 120 hectares and only 40 hectares of that will actually be developed for housing—as I have said a very welcome relatively small but very important contribution to the need for housing in Christchurch where new homes are certainly in demand. There will also be a significant area of the land set aside for green open space and that is also very important. So you get three advantages: retention of the racecourse new housing and some open space. Given that it is a pretty positive proposal and a very positive development. The key purpose of these bills is to provide for both affordable and market housing in Christchurch. For those houses that are to be set aside for affordable housing the price is to be a base of $450000. That is affordable in today’s markets and that is going to be very welcome indeed. Of those 600 homes 30 percent will be targeted to be in the affordable home category. As I have said in previous speeches on this New Zealand First would have liked to have seen that at 50 percent as a minimum but having said that 30 percent is still a valuable contribution and is entirely supportable as far as we are concerned. The methodology is that the Riccarton Racecourse board will provide a development scheme meeting all of the minimum specified requirements in the bills and that will be submitted to the Minister for final approval. It will mean at least 180 affordable homes and they will be very very welcome in Christchurch City. I also wanted to say this about that situation in Christchurch. Immediately after the initial earthquakes in 2010 and especially 2011 there was an exodus of people away from Christchurch. In fact 16600 people left in those years immediately after the worst of the earthquakes occurred simply because their houses had been damaged or were red-zoned or uninhabitable and there were not enough houses for all of the people in Christchurch to live in. So it is no surprise that that number of people left. That situation in more recent years has been reversed and we are still seeing an increase of about 5000 people per year in the Christchurch population. That is because as I said of the effect of the investment from insurance moneys and from EQC in building homes. Very little if any of that was actually due to any Government policy as far as housing development is concerned so it is most inappropriate that the Government should use these bills to say that it has done such a wonderful job. The opposite is the case. The Government has done next to nothing. In fact after the earthquakes it even refused to put a cap on rents so they skyrocketed—they skyrocketed and yet Scott Simpson had the temerity to tell us in this House a few minutes ago that in recent years there had been a 5 percent reduction in rents. Well big deal. Before that there had been years and years of huge increases in rents because the Government did not do anything about it. That is the truth of that situation Mr Simpson. Finally I would like to say this. The influx of people now beginning to occur in Christchurch and actually in other places is driven not only by the history that I have just outlined but also as a result of Government inaction about housing across the country—especially of course in Auckland because of the chronic housing crisis that has now developed there because of the utter mess that this Government has made of housing policy in New Zealand. These houses spoken of in these bills are needed but many many more will be needed as well: because of the flight from Auckland because of house prices there because of the whole situation concerning the deficit of houses in New Zealand and especially because of the gross neglect by this Government not only of housing development but also of social housing in New Zealand. With those facts specifically in mind it is very important that somebody does something about housing in this country and this small but important project will make a contribution that is valued. It will be valued by Christchurch people and is certainly valued by New Zealand First. For that reason we will have no hesitation in supporting these bills.[Continuation: MALLARD]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call a member I would just like to make a quick ruling. Members on both sides early in Mr O’Rourke’s speech looked to me when he indicated that he felt that members—one member in particular and possibly one earlier—were not telling the truth. Members looked to me to intervene at that stage. I do want to make it clear that if the member thought that someone was deliberately not telling the truth it would be a contempt of the Parliament and a breach of privilege under Standing Order 410(b). The member did not use the word “deliberately”. I will say this carefully: he did not indicate that the members knew what they were saying was actually untrue or that the action was deliberate. If it was not deliberate and someone was mistakenly indicating something and the member was pointing out that what they were saying is not true that is not a breach of privilege and it is not something that should be interrupted. It is a debating matter.[Continuation line: KORAKO]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVENUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. As someone who is quite new in this House it is really interesting to watch the dynamics on both sides. You have got an agreement here it seems that we are all agreeing to pass this bill. On the Opposition side it is all about that but the interesting dynamic there is that it is not actually acknowledging a lot of the really good things about this bill and the journey that the bill has taken to get to this particular point. When we look on this side of the House the Government—I know everyone has a job to do in Opposition and also in Government but here on this side of the House I would say compared to the other side where after all was said and done there was more said than done whereas on this side of the House there are indeed a lot of things that have actually happened particularly around the Christchurch rebuild. When we looked at the emergency the recovery the rebuild and then what we are in now which is the regeneration phase and when we look at the incredible amount of money that has been dedicated to the Christchurch rebuild—we are talking $17 billion. Thinking about that it is indeed this type of bill that has been the catalyst to actually address so much around the rebuild of Christchurch. When we come to this bill the interesting thing the important thing about it is that it really does pave the way—it really does pave the way—for a really exciting and a really dynamic housing development. The dynamics within this one were actually about the fact that we had collaboration here and we had goodwill. That collaboration was between the Government the Christchurch City Council Ngāi Tahu and also the Riccarton Racecourse. When we look at the goodwill factor it is about Ngāi Tahu in a lot of ways because it was their goodwill in the fact of the right of first refusal (RFR). When we look at the RFR they waive it in this particular case and the reason for it is that they can see the immense opportunity that this would bring. In this bill we talk about land trapped in ancient history—not so ancient I suppose in 1878—but this was an opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to look at this and say: “Look here’s a great opportunity.” When you look at our land Māori freehold land—Māori land—that is ancient history but when Ngāi Tahu saw the opportunity for this incredible development to happen they took it. I can remember the Hon Nick Smith coming to Ngāi Tahu back in 2009 and there was talk then of how we could actually use our RFR to be able to instigate some better uses of our land through the laws that were available. This bill really does it and the thing about it is that it is unique in the fact that it is probably one of the first developments that we have had the opportunity to have really true partnership in but it is also a bill where it is unique because we can actually include in this as the bill is saying affordable housing. This is the beginning of affordable housing the use of land that was tied up in legislation. It releases all of that so that everyone can actually utilise this type of land for the benefit of the people. When we look at this it is about the benefit of the people of Christchurch it is about the benefit of the iwi and it is about the benefit of racegoers and all of that. Just to conclude this bill here is a very principled one. It is pragmatic and it is progressive but the bill reflects the great work that the National Government is doing in the regeneration of Christchurch. There is going to be a lot more of this particularly when we look at the template because when iwi who are getting towards or already have settled in Treaty settlements they are looking at this and thinking: “Good old Ngāi Tahu again—look they are leading the way because we have another opportunity here to use our RFR.” On that note kia ora and I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: LOGIE]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEJAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to take a short—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry I am going to start the member again because I think the comment was probably directed at the previous speaker but it was pretty rude for the current speaker who was just starting. So we will restart the clock.JAN LOGIE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. For the Green Party it is critical in terms of our policy of recognising that the design of our towns and cities affects how we live work and play and we believe that warm dry affordable homes set in some smart urban planning can improve the liveability of our communities for all New Zealanders. Building location design processes and materials have a major impact on the environment on our transport options on our health and on our quality of life and housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of individuals whānau families and communities. We see this sadly in the negative sense in our deaths as a result of poor housing every week in the hospital admissions in this country. But if we get it right we can support well-being and health and the Green Party believes that all people are entitled to secure tenure of sustainable and affordable housing. So we are happy to support this legislation because in as far as it goes it is going to provide land within the city limits of Christchurch to enable the building of 600 homes 180 of which have been designated “affordable”. We do have a bit of a quibble with the definition of “affordable” being set at $450000 which sadly for many New Zealanders is still well out of the range of affordability and it is particularly when you think that the average price of housing in Christchurch is $490000. So to be setting the level of affordability at only $40000 below that average I think is doing a disservice to the real need of communities and families within Christchurch. But that said it is a start and we certainly know that there is real need. I have heard some of the debate around actually whether there is still an affordability issue in Christchurch and the member on that side saying that actually the affordability has improved under this Government in recent years forgetting how massively out of control things got after the earthquake because the Government chose not to intervene and actually put some controls around rental prices in particular as well as building prices. We know that definitely and we will acknowledge that there have been a lot of new building consents happening in Christchurch and that some new houses have been built but as we are seeing in Auckland and in other parts of country most of those builds are targeted at the higher end of the market and the market is not delivering for most New Zealanders. The market is delivering for speculators and those who want to make a profit off housing and it is leaving families and the vulnerable behind on the streets in people’s garages or sleeping on the floor in family members’ houses. And there is a clear clear call for the Government to be more interventionist to make the market work. So back to this bill Mr Assistant Speaker as you have so nicely prompted me. One of the points that I would like to acknowledge that we do have some concern about and it is from the Minister’s initial speech on this bill when he spoke about this in effect as wasted space. There were submissions to the committee from residents living in the area who talked about how much they used this space for recreation. Part of our vision for those sustainable healthy developments is for there to be a good balance between green space transport and the homes and that the homes are sustainably built and we are disappointed to see that there is not very much guidance within this bill to ensure that that is the end result for the community of Christchurch. It is a missed opportunity particularly when we know that the Christchurch district plan is still under review so there are a lot of questions about what is going to result. But all in all we are happy to support this small measure in support of the people of Christchurch.[Continuation line: FAAFOI]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - Hon CLAYTON COSGROVEKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on both the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. Can I first open with some comment and I think other members have made it during this debate around some of the comments from the Minister in his speech in this third reading. I have a brother. I love him very much so I will not name him but Jason’s worst trait as a youngster was turning up when the dishes were almost done and then taking credit for it and taking undue credit for the work that had been done. That is essentially what the Minister did today in his third reading speech. You would have thought that the Minister had come up with this idea himself will actually go out and build the homes himself—everything about his speech was taking credit for something that has actually got very little to do with a Minister at all. Credit where credit is due: the Canterbury racing club has seen a need for housing in Christchurch post the earthquake and has taken steps to look to change the legislation which binds it to keep hold of the land that we are talking about here. But you would not have thought that it was the Canterbury racing club’s issue or maybe Ngāi Tahu’s issue which they had brought to this House to get the caveat around that land changed; it sounded like it was the idea of Nick Smith. I want to also comment on some of what Jan Logie said and what the Minister said—that this land was wasted space. And just take a moment to reflect on the fact that Nick Smith our housing Minister said the words “wasted space” because I think there is a certain irony in there at the moment when we have a housing crisis that the doctor says does not exist when we have got banks taking action because of what is happening with foreign-based buyers but he says there is diddly-squat there but our “wasted space” - Minister says there is nothing to do here and has the audacity to take credit for this piece of legislation when the people of Christchurch have seen a need for housing and some affordable housing and have brought this piece of legislation to the House. So let us give the credit where the credit is actually due: to Ngāi Tahu to the Canterbury racing club who have said that we need these 40 hectares of land in order to have a housing development of around 600 homes. But importantly they have said that 30 percent of that must be affordable. Now the benchmark for that has been set at $450000 and a number of my colleagues have already mentioned whether or not that is in fact affordable given the housing situation in Christchurch. Regardless of that we think that the fact that they have decided to put 30 percent of that towards affordable housing is a good thing. This piece of legislation is necessary because there is a piece of legislation that I believe was passed in 1878 which landlocks this land with the racing club and gives first right of refusal to the Crown and also to Ngāi Tahu and this allows this piece of land to be developed. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Clayton Cosgrove who harked back to 1878 when he lived close to the Riccarton Racecourse I believe. He said that it is much different from 1878 now. Back then in 1878 the Riccarton Racecourse was well beyond the fringes of what the Christchurch City was—Hon David Parker: Connected by rail.KRIS FAAFOI: Connected by rail I hear from the Hon David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove can remember this. The land itself was rural and protected for the purpose of the racecourse itself. But now we find ourselves in different times. The land is needed for housing development some of it affordable. This brings two issues that I hold dear: housing and racing—as our racing spokesperson—and brings them closely together. This Government has been useless on housing and I think this week the Minister for Social Housing has found herself in serious danger of being scratched—taken out of the equation no longer useful to the Government in terms—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and ask him now to stop the analogies and get back to the bill. It is a pretty specific bill.KRIS FAAFOI: So back to those 600 homes. The fact that the Government has taken little or no action on social housing or on building affordable housing is why we are here. It is why Christchurch needs more housing and we have got three housing Ministers who have failed to take any action to ensure there is affordable housing for New Zealanders. Whether you are living in a car or you are looking to buy your first home this Government has been hopeless. But credit where credit is due not with Nick Smith our Minister of Housing not with Paula Bennett our Minister for Social Housing not with Bill English our Minister responsible for HNZC responsible for something else—none of them have been able to do that job. But hats off to the Canterbury Racing Club and to Ngāi Tahu for actually doing something to build some houses something that this Government has been completely incompetent at.[Continuation line: FOSTER-BELL]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - KRIS FAAFOIPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. In following on from that rather mean-spirited contribution on this third reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill I just want to say that this is a very pragmatic and sensible measure. I do agree with one part of what the member said which is that this is necessary. It is necessary because there were 13000 homes lost during the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. It is very necessary to ensure that there is both a mix of higher-end but also most importantly affordable housing available to the residents of Christchurch. It represents—“wasted” is a strong term and the member who has just resumed his seat is somewhat wasted on this debate I feel. I had the benefit of going down and having a look at the Riccarton Racecourse as part of the committee hearing process. There was land there that was not best used. There was considerable land dedicated to what can only be described as a third-world-style ramshackle flea-market. It is quite popular among people on one day of the week when they go in to these tents and marquees and so forth to buy and sell and deal in products but it could be much much better used in housing. Having that partnership with Ngāi Tahu and having the city council as it does backing the use of one third of the Riccarton Racecourse reserves—that is only 40 out of the 122 hectares that will be dedicated towards this housing development—I think is a very sensible measure. It is a fine bill. It has been put to the House by the very competent and capable Minister for Building and Housing the Hon Nick Smith and for those reasons I commend it fully to the House.[Continuation line: WILLIAMS]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - KRIS FAAFOIPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to correct the previous speaker on a couple of points. The first point is that in all those many many years when people were struggling to find affordable housing in the city that was hugely damaged by earthquakes when 11000 to 13000 homes were damaged by the earthquakes the Government did not step in. There were calls for the Government to regulate rents which sky-rocketed. There were rents in parts of New Brighton where $1200 a week was not unusual. That member who spoke previously has the audacity to say that the Government stepped in. Well it did not. I can assure you it did not. And the other thing I want to say is that the Riccarton Market is not ramshackle it is actually a well-supported well-loved institution. The people who attend that market will be hugely offended to know that the member on that side of the House thinks that it is ramshackle. When this bill was first proposed there were many people many markets and many community organisations who said they would love the Riccarton Market to come to their site. That is how much it is loved in Christchurch. So it is not ramshackle. I want to also correct one of the statements about how involved the Government is in promoting this bill. When the Riccarton racing club was promoting the idea of having 40 hectares developed into housing some of the Christchurch City Councillors were questioning the rationale about why that should happen. Their fears and concerns were allayed to the point that they actually became the formal promoters of the bill. For the members on that side of the House to say that the Government has been the key driver and the key institution particularly in supporting the development of housing in this area is blatantly not correct—it is not correct. I do want to say that I do commend the Riccarton racing club members for their foresight and their forward thinking in wanting to do this. Some of the reasons that they have gone down this path have been traversed but one of them has not been expressed in this Chamber tonight and that is because the Riccarton racing club really wants to preserve its racing club the facilities the track the buildings that make up Riccarton racing club for perpetuity for the people of Christchurch. In order to do that this development will help them to achieve certain things and one of the most important things is actually the ongoing maintenance of some of those buildings at the club that are old. They need maintenance and ongoing maintenance and because of their age they need specialist care. So that is one of the reasons that this is happening. The other reason is they saw an opportunity to support the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to be able to have some housing. For such a long time the redevelopment and the rebuild of our homes has taken a significant period of time and adding 600 homes to the mix actually really does alleviate a lot of that pressure. So we are really looking forward to the development going ahead. I do want to commend and acknowledge the hard work of Dr Megan Woods the local MP. When the local residents were concerned about what would happen to their much-loved park area she made sure that there was lots of good information. She had public meetings. She got members of the racing club to attend these meetings and really talk through some of the big issues that they were concerned about. I think that a lot of the work that she did up front really has allowed for a succinct and well-crafted process. This is because of a lot of the work that she did to ensure that the voice of her community was heard. Some of the issues that the community raised were around the significant increase in traffic that would happen. Yaldhurst Road is a significant thoroughfare. It leads from the southern part of the city right through to the airport and beyond. It also leads on to the main highway that heads out west and on to the West Coast. So it is quite a significant arterial route and it will be impacted by 600 new homes in the area—all those people at rush hour wanting to get out to work and to school and then coming home at the end of the day. This development was originally going to be an exemplar. An exemplar project has to have certain criteria within it—affordability a percentage of affordability which this development assures us it will have; it has to have particular amenities; good urban design; and infrastructure and transport planning. Well in that regard I think that perhaps there may be some problems. But this development is not an exemplar. Clause 9 in Part 2 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill talks about the requirements which include relevant regional and district planning that the interests of Ngāi Tahu are fully considered and that—this is an interesting provision— fibre-optic broadband connections are provided to all premises. I thought that was really interesting. What it does not include which I think is really short-sighted is the ability to have good design that means that the homes are accessible whether you are 3 years old or 100 years old or whether you have a disability or not. They have missed an opportunity to build accessibility options into the requirements which I think is really short-sighted. So we are looking at 600 homes—a third of which will be priced at $450000 or below. It is in the legislation that affordability is $450000. I said in previous readings of this legislation that I think Aucklanders would love to have legislation that determined what affordability was. However I suspect that in the Auckland market we would be coming back to the House week after week after week to change the level of affordability. There is one thing that is for sure—affordability and the Auckland housing market do not go together. They are not synonymous at all. But in this piece of legislation we have got a definition of affordability at $450000. Some of my colleagues have questioned whether that is actually affordable when the average price of a home in Canterbury sits at around $490000. I too would question that definition of affordability. It may be that we at some point have to come back and redefine what affordable is in terms of the Christchurch housing market. To end my contribution I just want to say that housing is a major concern across our country. I want to just acknowledge what is going to happen tonight at Park up for homes Māngere where 1200 people have indicated that they are going to sleep in cars in solidarity with all the New Zealanders who are forced to sleep in cars. Twelve hundred people are going to volunteer to sleep in cars tonight including Labour MPs. I just want to acknowledge that they are making a stand for those people who cannot afford housing in this country.[Continuation line: PARMAR]Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling BillContinued Speech - KRIS FAAFOIDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I support these bills and commend these bills to the House. Thank you.[Continuation line: SHOP TRADING HOURS AMENDMENT BILL 2R]Shop Trading Hours Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The question of whether to allow shop trading over the Easter period is a contentious one considered by this House on numerous occasions. Those in support of Easter Sunday trading emphasis economic opportunities and the freedom of shoppers to choose while those against it focus on the need for shops to be closed to mark a day of significance and for workers to be able to spend time with their families. The Government is eager to resolve this perennial issue. The inconsistency in the present law is pretty well known with Queenstown and Taupō able to open on Easter Sunday but Wānaka and Rotorua not able to. Actually it is not as clear as that with the Pembroke Mall in Wānaka—but only stage one of that mall—actually able to open. Picton is able to open but only if there is a cruise ship in town as if that is the only centre that gets cruise ships these days. In my home city of Dunedin the Carnegie Centre in Moray Place is able to open but only for arts crafts and children’s toys—but books and toys can only be sold while performances are happening on the mezzanine floor. It is a ludicrous artefact of the law when to the best of my knowledge the Carnegie Centre does not even open for retail trading any more. The point is: the law is a complete muddle. Although there have been successive attempts to change it these have been defeated on personal votes that oppose such a change on the grounds of religious or union beliefs. I myself have opposed such a bill but supported one in the name of Hon Todd McClay on whose bill this bill is modelled. It simply gives choice to the local community through its territorial authority to decide whether its retail store should be able to open. The vote on this bill is likely to be deemed a personal vote but the National caucus has agreed to vote in support of it at this and remaining readings. I want to thank members of the Commerce Committee well-led by its chair Melissa Lee for their hard work and also the submitters who made thoughtful submissions on the bill. The Commerce Committee spent a significant amount of time considering it and heard from a range of submitters. Unfortunately it has not been able to reach agreement on amendments that could be reported back to the House for consideration. That is a shame because there were some useful improvements that could have been presented to members in order for them to decide in their conscience whether to support it. The role of the select committee in considering a bill that will the subject of a conscience vote is in my view to present the bill in the best shape for that vote not to impose its will on the House. But Opposition members have voted against any amendments and that course of action caused the vote on the amendments for consideration to be tied and therefore lost. I think that is a great shame. It is a great shame that not only does the House not even get to choose what it should do and be the architect of its own destiny with a personal vote but also the Opposition members cannot bring themselves even to support that very simple concept of democracy which is the freedom to choose—the essence that is in this bill. I think that is a terrible shame. The amendments to the bill that were the subject of the committee’s deliberations were very good; I thought they had merit. So I have introduced Supplementary Order Paper 179 for the Committee’s consideration at the Committee stage. Supplementary Order Paper 179 proposes to change the mechanism by which territorial authorities permit shop trading on Easter Sunday from a by-law to a local policy. It also further strengthens the protections for shop employees who refuse to work on Easter Sunday. The bill makes two key changes to the shop trading restrictions regime. First it allows communities to have a choice to determine whether shop trading can take place on Easter Sunday and second it grants employment protections to employees ensuring they have the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.Dr David Clark: Yeah right.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Local communities will have the ability to choose whether shop trading—see there is the “Yeah right.” Labour does not even believe employees have a right to choose. It does not even believe that they should be able to choose to say no to choose whether they want to earn income on that day. It just shuts it down. I think that is a terrible reflection on the Opposition. Territorial authorities will be required to consult with their communities. Their communities will choose—another choice the Opposition does not want the public to have—on any proposal to permit shop trading on Easter Sunday. Some had suggested the bill will further confuse and complicate shop trading restrictions but given the descriptions I made earlier in my speech I think the only way really is a pathway of clarity. It is simply a yes or no to the opening of retail stores on Easter Sunday. Authorities cannot impose any additional shop trading rules under this amendment. Territorial authorities in consultation with their communities can determine whether shop trading should be enabled and whether it should occur in an entire district or in parts of it. It is a pragmatic solution to an issue that has been constantly debated in this House. The bill provides shop employees the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. Shop employees can refuse to work on Easter Sunday without providing a reason. An employer cannot compel them to work. If a shop employee is compelled to work or is disadvantaged for refusing to work the employee can take a personal grievance against the employer in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000. The personal grievance mechanism is the appropriate recourse. This is in line with the dispute-resolution mechanisms in place for other issues concerning unjustifiable actions by employers. The Employment Relations Act 2000 provides for free mediation and low-cost dispute resolution via the Employment Relations Authority and the authority could send the parties to mediation first as they do with other employment relationship issues. The bill clearly requires employers to ask employees to work on each Easter Sunday and sets out the employer obligations relating to this. This agreement must be sought each year; it cannot be part of an employment agreement. Any such provision in an employment agreement would be unenforceable. The right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday will be extended to all shop employees on Easter Sunday under the bill. This includes employees who currently work in garden centres petrol stations dairies and so on. It is a pragmatic and well-balanced approach that provides choice for local communities on whether or not to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday while also giving protections to all shop employees on that day. I commend it to the House.[Continuation line: CLARK]AdjournmentDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This is a crap bill. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has failed to ram zero hours down people’s throats and here he is trying to undermine the rights of working people once more. He says that people could get on the phone get their lawyer involved and take a personal grievance. Well not everyone has Ken Whitney on speed dial. Many people feel they are under pressure from their employers and do not have the luxury of a Panama Papers lawyer to give a quick bell to sort things out and to make a bit more money. People in New Zealand are feeling the pressure. The Government has produced very little for middle New Zealand in the Budget. They are feeling the strain. They are working they are trying to keep their employers on-side and this makes it a little bit harder for them to spend time with their friends and families. This is one more step down the road to a complete squashing of the rights of working people in New Zealand. That is why I will be standing to oppose this bill. I do not think it is in the long-term interest of New Zealand to continue to squeeze the rights of working people. The Commerce Committee received a letter from Caritas during the proceedings when we heard submissions inviting members of the committee to attend a meeting on Easter Sunday morning. They kindly said to us that the meeting would be at 10.30 on Easter Sunday morning at Hill Street in Thorndon Wellington and although they themselves had plans to be with family the community and church on that day they were willing to sacrifice that to help members of the committee understand the impact of having to work on Easter Sunday. As best I am aware not one member of the select committee wished to take them up on that offer. I think that illustrates the point. We have in this House people willing to make rules that they themselves are not interested in following.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.