Volume 693 Week 52 - Tuesday 27 August 2013(continued on Thursday 29 August 2013)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 52 - Tuesday 27 August 2013(continued on Thursday 29 August 2013)[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 27 August 2013(continued on Thursday 29 August 2013)Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution on the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that is an important bill for some people. It is a particularly important bill I understand for farmers because what it does is regularise what is currently an irregular situation. I think most of us who have had an association with farming communities know that there are some inconsistencies in the way that farm vehicles are treated and in the approach that is taken. In fact this is dealing mainly with road-user charges and the treatment of road-user charges. The inconsistency goes much further than that. I think that many of us are aware of the problems with trusts and way that they deal with vehicles and one of the questions I would like to ask the Minister is whether that is being considered as part of this exercise. There is a number of what might be described as Queen Street tractors which are driven by university students in Dunedin and I want to know what the road-user charges treatment is of those particular vehicles.What I understand is that the objective of this bill is to get into a more regular situation. I think of any of us who have been involved in farming in any way. I spent 6 years of my life in Taumarunui and like most people I used to do odd jobs on farms on occasions especially after the period I was a teacher. We had relatively long holidays and we did quite a lot of scrub-cutting a bit ofdagging and quite a lot of haymaking. Probably the most important one in this particular case was haymaking because when you are haymaking especially in some of the side road areas you tend to drive the tractors when you are going from one hay paddock to another or when you are taking the hay back to the barn as I was more likely to be doing. What you tend to do is drive on the road. There is a question then as to the legality of that because the vehicles are not registered as road vehicles. The problem with our current legislation is that the road-user charge system drives off registration and clearly there is a degree of avoidance going on.I am slightly in two minds about it. Sometimes trying to make the world perfect and to get everything regularised and in line is the last refuge of officials and fools. But what is not clear is whether there is such a major loophole and a major revenue loss in this area that it is something we should actually be worried about. I would be interested in the member forRangitīkei’s view on this as to whether it is worth regularising the situation or whether the gap is so small that it is something that is not that important. This matter is of course a question of tractors and whether we—[Interruption] Well the key proposal is to exempt fast tractors—that is tractors—Louise Upston: We’re not going over this again surely?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well no sorry—I am just relying on the regulatory impact statement—you know tractors that go over 40 kilometres per hour. Back in the days of the MasseyFergusons the ones that I used to drive they never went over 40—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch):Fergie 28.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well the Assistant Speaker has more technical detail as to the quality of tractors than I do. But the old MasseyFergusons were very similarthough to those that actually went to the South Pole and probably at about the same pace. They certainly could not go over 40 kilometres per hour. I would just make the point that those tractors actually go at half the speed that Team New Zealand goes on the water. A fast tractor is quite a lot slower than a fast boat and a wind-powered boat at that. Although calling the Team New Zealand yacht a boat is probably a bit marginal; I think it is closer to a hydroplane or a hydrofoil or something similar to that. But what this does is it exempts fast tractors—that is tractors operating over 40 kilometres per hour on the road—from road-user charges and subjects them to an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges to cover the costs that they impose on the road network. The real question I have is when you have a tractor with big fat tyres as it tends to have—Hon Ruth Dyson: On the back.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well yes they are big on the back; the driving wheels are big. The question that I have is what is the damage to the road of that? I was involved in fact in the King Country in an incident with a bulldozer on one occasion. When that went across the road—out of Taumarunui so it was State Highway 3—it made pretty tremendous damage. It was a bulldozer on a bit of soft tarseal and it was very very clear where the bulldozer had been and there were repairs and there were costs involved in it. But what damage does a tractor with fat tyres do to a road? In fact I cannot see any. So the question here is whether we are setting up an annual charge system in lieu of road-user charges that is actually unnecessary because there is a question of whether in fact as is the want of this Government it will spend more on the cost of collection than the actual cost of the problem. I really hate to quote Ruth Richardson—Hon Member: No don’t.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —but I will. I will—no I will. What is the mischief here? What is the mischief caused by a fast tractor with big tyres going on a road? Colin King knows it does not rip up the road because the tyres are fat they are relatively low-pressured—Hon Tau Henare: Of course it does. You know down TeAtatū Road.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No the city boy from west Auckland has probably never driven a tractor in his life. The city boy from west Auckland who used to have potential has probably never—Hon Member: When? When?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He did. He did. I can remember when he was the deputy leader to Winston. He was loyal to Winston—he was loyal to Winston. Then he was loyal to Jenny.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full names.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh sorry—oh sorry. The honourable member from west Auckland somewhere.Hon Tau Henare: TeAtatū.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: TeAtatū.Hon Tau Henare: Because the local member doesn’t do any work somebody’s got to do it.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well no no no. That is a member who has lost a marginal seat three or four times—three or four times. Never—Hon Tau Henare: Who won the party vote?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member is nearly as bright as Paul Quinn and he keeps on losing the seat. But getting to the issue of the tractors I agree with the other suggestion that all unregistered vehicles—that is vehicles exempt from registration or not required to be registered or operating under trade plates—should in fact be exempt from road-user charges. There is some logic to that. The only question I have is that ifvehicles have the dealer’s plates on and are running up and down the country should they be exempt from road-user charges? But I am sure that is something that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will consider.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes120New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes1Independent: Horan.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.Animal Welfare Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I moveThat the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Primary Production Committee considers the bill.New Zealanders are passionate about animal welfare. Animals whether they are domestic wild or in agricultural production are important to our way of life and we care deeply about the way animals are treated. Animals matter to us personally. Around 68 percent of New Zealand households have at least one pet. Not only is animal welfare important to us here in New Zealand but also it plays a vital part in our export brand around the world. Each year around 50 percent of our export earnings come from animals and animal products. We pride ourselves on our assurance to the world that we have high standards of animal welfare. Isolated cases of poor animal welfare can have a very negative impact on our reputation as a responsible agricultural producer.New Zealand has a strong animal welfare system but we cannot afford to be complacent. It has been 14 years since the Animal Welfare Act was passed and a review of this Act is long overdue. Last year under my predecessor the Rt Hon David Carter the Act was reviewed. The review found that the principles and policy underpinning the Animal Welfare Act remain sound but that the enforceability clarity and transparency of the Act needed to be improved. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill has been introduced to do exactly that. The bill is about making a strong system even stronger.I would like to highlight some of the specific changes in the bill. Two key objectives of the bill are to provide for clear and enforceable standards of animal welfare and to broaden the range of enforcement tools. Clearly minimum standards and codes of welfare are not directly enforceable. This bill will provide for new regulations that will complement codes of welfare by establishing specific and enforceable mandatory standards. Currently the enforcement tools in the Act are limited especially for low to medium level offending. New enforcement tools will allow animal welfare inspectors to address all offending against animals at a level that is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime. To strengthen the Act’s enforceability the bill also provides for a new tiered enforcement scheme made up of existing offences in the Act lower-level offences and regulations infringement notices and compliance orders.The Act as it stands has no specific requirements for exporting animals. This bill will enable the Government to establish new mandatory standards and regulations forexporting live animals. This will give exporters more certainty and will enable the Government to enforce requirements more easily to help protect New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible exporter. The bill will not change the Government’s policy of prohibiting live exports for slaughter but it will enable the prohibition to be implemented under the Animal Welfare Act instead of the Customs and Excise Act. All of the regulations to be developed following the passing of the bill will be subject to further consultation at that time.This bill resolves the current uncertainty around the ill-treatment of wild animals. The bill will clarify that conduct towards an animal in the wild that goes beyond generally accepted hunting or killing practice is an offence. The new offence will target acts of wilful or reckless ill-treatment but will not affect ordinary hunting fishing and pest management practices. The bill also makes it explicit that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee may consider the practicality and economic impact when developing minimum standards and codes of welfare. These factors will not be able to override animal welfare considerations but making them explicit in the Act will ensure that minimum standards are realistic and achievable.I also know that some will focus in this debate on the testing of party pills on animals. This focus was inevitable following the recent passing of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The Animal Welfare Act places strict controls on the use of animals in research testing and teaching. Organisations using animals in research testing or teaching must follow an approved code of ethical conduct that sets out the policies and procedures that need to be followed by the organisation and its animal ethics committee. If the trial cannot demonstrate to the animal ethics committee that its benefits justify any harm to the animals involved then the trial will not take place.In summary this bill will strengthen an already well-performing animal welfare system and will ensure that New Zealanders can remain proud of the way we treat our animals. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Indeed it is a pleasure to stand and speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The Minister for Primary Industries has quite rightly made reference to a regime in this country that does uphold and certainly promote and demand the highest levels of animal welfare of any country in the world. Indeed we rely on it because our economy is dependent upon our reputation. The Minister has not been so good in some areas in upholding that reputation but I applaud the fact that today he and the Government are bringing the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House. As the Minister has said there are a number of changes—technical for the most part—to the 1999 Animal Welfare Act that will improve the regime of animal welfare management right through from farms through to saleyards and slaughter and indeed it deals with the issue of export of animals from this country.We do have a good reputation. I think the images of New Zealand of sheep or cows in pastures with a spectacular backdrop anywhere around New Zealand are the images that sell our country to the world. The assumption of course in that that we have a clean environment is one; the next one is of course that we have good welfare practices that look after the beautiful animals; and the third of course is that whatever we produce from that system is safe for consumption. It is a huge reputation one hard-earned by farmers and processes and workers and everyone through 150 years of innovation and is something that we must work hard to maintain and uphold.The dairy industry alone has seen a rapid growth in the number of dairy cows—heifers and calves—across this country and with that there has been a greater level of public awareness of the way they are managed. It is rather timely I guess given the focus on the dairy industry and what is produced from it that as the public drive up anddown our roads or go out into the country and see dairy animals it is important that they understand that those animals are being well managed. It is a commercial operation. It might not meet the needs or the expectations of a pet owner but it is a commercial operation and the legislation that we pass must balance the economic needs of this country with I think the underlying assumption and demand from each and every New Zealander and indeed people across the world in most Western countries that we respect the right of animals to not be treated unfairly tortured or in any way I guess demeaned and treated without any respect at all. I am not one who thinks that animals deserve the same rights as humans—not at all; I am a farmer—but I also believe that the abuse of animals should not be tolerated in any way.Shane Ardern: You must be the only one Damien.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There have been—it might have been on that member’s farm; I would hope not though—a number of cases recently where farm workers have abused animals. I have to say the industry needs to take a look at that. I know that those kinds of situations arise out of frustration and those workers should not be there—they may be for whatever personal reasons—and the industry needs to take a good look at how it better offers pastoral care for workers on farms. That is just a note for the couple of dairy farmers on that side of the House.The bill as I say creates regulations and creates a better regime for implementing standards that we are demanding. Labour in Government looked at the issue of sow crates and of course hens for egg production. We made progress in that area. We moved to phase out sow crates. We gave the industry time. The reality that the industry has half the pigs produced out of the sow crate environment and half in means that it is possible to do but there is a cost involved so we in Government gave a clear indication to the pork industry that it should phase those out. It was the same for egg production. There have been some changes I think to the size of crates for hens—Hon Trevor Mallard: Cages.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —cages yes; my colleague corrects me—that have moved in the right direction. “Free range” is wonderful marketing terminology. There are issues around animal welfare if all chooks were to be free range believe me. So it is about balance.We in Labour are happy to support the Government but what we do need to get from the Government is an assurance that it will provide the resources to implement the new provisions of this bill. I go to the regulatory impact statement here and although an enthusiastic supporter of the bill and of the improvements it will make I have to say that the regulatory impact statement is rather alarming because it says here: “In terms of costs to Government all proposed changes to the Act would be implemented by the Ministry on a fiscally neutral basis.” What that says is that it is not going to spend any more money on this. So although there will be an expectation of higher levels of animal welfare and of implementing and policing those standards this National Government true to form is not going to put any more money in.Colin King: Can the member give us a figure? How much should be spent on it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well an example of what has happened is that the National Government has got this proposal to double export earnings from this country—a laudable and worthy objective. It wants to rapidly increase exports from particularly our primary sectors. Right? But it cut the funding to the agencies that oversee protect and monitor that export sector. You cannot have it both ways. We are now currently dealing with a major problem of reputation for our dairy sector because the National Government cut funding for the Ministry for Primary Industry’s responsibility while expecting that the growth in the industry the growth in exports was to continue—in fact to ramp it up even further. It does not collate that you canhave both. In the end you do not get something for nothing and those so-called smart business people over there should understand that.Hon Ruth Dyson: Ha! Which one?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well I have not been able to identify one but I am sure there must be one. You do not get something for nothing as most of my constituents understand. The problem is that when you have a regulatory impact statement saying effectively that the Government is not going to spend any more money in this area then we have to ask the question of whether the increased standards the better standards the better regulations that we are going to pass through the bill will be implemented because what is at risk here is our reputation. We have millions—in fact about 6 million—dairy cows I think at the moment and rapidly growing—Colin King: 6.5.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —and rapidly growing. One situation on the front page of a newspaper the abuse of one of those cows or calves is enough to start to undermine our reputation. So it is no good passing the best legislation here in the House and then not having the resources to ensure that indeed we carry that out and that every farmer and every individual carries that out across the board in this country.We have a good reputation. It has been hard won and we must uphold that just as we do in food safety. But the Government again because it has cut resources to core Government responsibilities has allowed that reputation to be dragged through the mud for too long internationally. Hopefully we can restore that. We do not want the same thing to happen here in animal welfare and although there have been a few more inspectors appointed by the Government the overall pressure—Hon Nathan Guy: That’s right.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —I acknowledge that—on the whole of the Ministry for Primary Industries which covers a raft of things from biosecurity through to forest management and fishing is that the budget has been cut. The pressure is on and we need to know—and we will be investigating in the Primary Production Committee—that the Government is going to commit more resources to implement the higher standards that will effectively be put in place when this bill becomes law.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I rise this morning to speak in support of the first reading of this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is the result of a comprehensive review of our animal welfare laws and I want to thank the Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy for his important piece of work. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1999 and from day one I knew that this day would arrive—some 14 years later. At the time that the legislation we are amending was progressing through Parliament I told the then National Minister for Food Fibre Biosecurity and Border Control that there were gaping holes in the legislation that needed to be fixed. They were not fixed then; they are being fixed now. The problem we have is that notwithstanding the select committee process that I was witness to 14 years ago the then Minister ran roughshod over public sentiment and submissions to the select committee and barrelled onon the advice of the officials. I told the Government of the day that that was wrong and the people told the Government of the day that it was wrong and here we are trying to fix that wrong. So it is a golden opportunity for this Government and this Parliament to fix some of the wrongs that should have been righted all those years ago.The bill will go some way—some way—to strengthening our standards of animal welfare and protecting animals from ill-treatment. But it also represents a real missed opportunity to take our legal protections for animals a lot further and to be a world leader in the area of animal welfare. I am pleased for instance that there will be a new “low-level” offence for people who hurt animals so we are not focused just on theworst offending. We need to be focused on all offending and this bill addresses just that. I am pleased the new regulations will specify mandatory and enforceable animal welfare standards. I am pleased that the wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals will now be an offence that can be prosecuted. These were issues I raised with the Minister at the time all those years ago so I am pleased that some of them are being addressed in this piece of legislation.I am glad that the killing of an animal to test on it post-mortem and that the breeding of an animal with known or potentially compromised welfare will now need the approval of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. I am not signed up to the proposition that an animal ethics approval committee is a sinecure for the problems we have around the treatment of animals in this country and it will depend entirely on the quality of those individuals who are selected for that important piece of work around the implementation of this piece of legislation. But this bill—as I said all those years ago in Parliament from this seat—could achieve a lot more and should achieve a lot more.Let us start with live exports of animals for slaughter. Currently there are no mandatory standards for live animal exports so it is promising that this bill introduces them. The Government’s current approach to live exports for slaughter is that they are prohibited unless an exemption is granted. An exemption cannot be granted unless New Zealand’s trade reputation can be adequately managed. Well this is not about just a trade reputation; this is about taking into account the suffering of animals and the suffering they go through when they are exported live from sovereign States to be slaughtered overseas. Humane Society International has said: “Every year thousands of dead sheep are thrown overboard as ships depart”—for instance—“Australian ports for the Middle East either whole or minced without care or consideration for the consequences of these actions”. Live animal exports need to be very closely monitored—indeed if they are necessary at all and I not convinced. But let the Primary Production Committee hear evidence on that. Thankfully there are currently no live exports from New Zealand but I would like to encourage the select committee to look very carefully at why the provision for an exemption is even necessary.Most disappointingly this bill totally fails to ban the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. Beagle puppies specifically bred to be used for testing are not being protected by a bill that claims to enhance animal welfare. It is an outrage that an unnecessary chemical could be tested on animals and that in the process the animal will suffer unimaginable pain and a miserable death. New Zealanders made it very clear during the debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill that they abhor the idea of animals being tortured and killed so that people can take recreational fun drugs. They marched on this Parliament. They signed petitions. They visited members of Parliament. They wrote to the Health Committee to voice their outrage but their outrage fell on deaf ears. Sadly the select committee refused to hear submissions about animal welfare and it told us at the time that it was the wrong bill to address the issue of animal testing. Well this bill is the right bill to address the issue of animal testing. This is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and what better bill what better piece of prospective legislation could be more useful for animal welfare than to ensure that psychoactive substances are never tested on animals?Fun drugs should not be tested on animals—full stop. That was the proposition I put to the National Government at the time of the Psychoactive Substances Bill going through this House and to the select committee chairman and to anyone else who would listen. Well this is the right bill and I am glad that the right bill the right vehicle has arrived in Parliament—not at the right time but well overdue. But let us take that as an opportunity. I will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 341 issued by Trevor Mallard to amend this bill to make it clear that no animal should be used in research ortesting for the purposes of gaining approval for a psychoactive substance. But I also call on those individuals and animal welfare groups to submit to the select committee. This is their opportunity. It is better than a march. It is better than writing letters. It is better than individual members of Parliament being lobbied. Go to the select committee and make your views known. I ask the select committee to listen to New Zealanders on how they feel about animal rights.I want to leave you with a message from animal welfare advocate and Auckland-based lawyerCatrionaMacLennan who has argued that this bill is too timid. I argue that this bill is too timid. I argue that this is the golden time of opportunity in the interests of the animals that we are responsible for caring for while we share the Earth with them. This is what she said. She suggested that the bill should “start with a very basic statement: that animals are in fact living beings rather than inanimate objects.” Animals are living beings—I think all New Zealanders can agree on that sentiment. Animals also feel pain and we have a duty to protect them. So I say to the chairman of the select committee as you go into your deliberations remember that animals have a right to live alongside us on this Earth. They feel pain and we need to protect them.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to concur with everything the Hon John Banks has just said on this particular question. I think it is fair to say that it is relatively unusual although becoming more common for us to be in agreement on issues. I do want to reinforce that at the end of this debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill I will be seeking leave to send my Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee—not to debate now—and have submissions on the question of animal testing for psychoactive substances. I will get back to that but I want to thank the member for signalling this.The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. Animal welfare is important for its own sake it is important for our economy and I think it is also important for how we think about ourselves. The way that people treat animals is one of the measures of civilisation in a society. This bill is moving in the right direction. I think there is going to be debate at the select committee as to whether it moves far enough and I know that my colleague Phil Twyford has a series of issues that he is going to raise with the House as to the fact that we are not moving far enough and that there are some quite big loopholes in the bill as introduced. We will want to see those closed as we progress the bill through the House.I do want to now return to the testing of party pills and when I say “party pills” I think most of us know what psychoactive substances are. They are the synthetic cannabis and the quite broad range of drugs that are known as party pills. Unfortunately when this House dealt with the issue a matter of a few weeks ago we did not take the opportunity to ensure that there was no testing of these recreational drugs on animals. We left open the possibility and I think it is fair to say the expectation that in the end animals—and a range of animals but including dogs—would be tested to see whether or not the drug dealers would be allowed to deal in particular drugs. I think all of us know that when this testing occurs it results in the death—and often the painful death—of animals and that from my perspective is something that is just not acceptable.We have known since Tuesday that this issue was going to be coming up. Late on Tuesday I sent out an email to a number of people and because they have been kind enough to copy me back into the email I know that over 4000 people have already sent a message via email—4000 distinct individuals have sent a message by email—to Nathan Guy asking him to ensure that this matter is on the agenda for the select committee.I was talking to my colleague before about snapper and I think again I am going to agree with Michelle Boag that there are two pretty big issues that are hanging aroundslightly under the radar but are probably coming up above the radar. One of them is the snapper issue and the other one is the very poor decision by the Government weeks ago to allow animal testing of psychoactive substances on dogs.So in about 36 hours the Minister for Primary Industries has got about 4000 emails. I have put a page up on Facebook again late on Tuesday night. That has already had 32000 views. You know I do not have a wide group of fans on Facebook or “likes” on Facebook but this issue is one that is going viral and it is going viral because New Zealanders care. New Zealanders do know right from wrong in this area. They do know—it is innate in us—that it is wrong to have cruelty to animals for no good purpose.I am not going to go as far as some members. I think there are occasions in medical research where for the greater good of the health of individual people around the world it is OK at the moment to test on animals. It is a—Hon Ruth Dyson: If there’s no alternative.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If there is no alternative. You know if it is human lives or animal suffering in the end I will accept some animal suffering for the curing of disease. I think that is fair. But where it is for no good at all and the support of recreational drugs is in my opinion not a good thing then it is absolutely unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable—to cause animals to suffer and die. What we are effectively promoting is State-sanctioned cruelty. That is what the Psychoactive Substances Act does. It promotes State-sanctioned cruelty to animals and that is the sort of Parliament Government and State that I want no part of and that I want to work hard to reverse.I am certain that people are going to come to the select committee on this issue. I think the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a broad bill and that is there. But what I want to make sure of is that when they come to that committee they have a proposition to address—that they have a positive suggestion to which they can submit as well as submitting on the bill. That is why I have drafted Supplementary Order Paper 341.I want to make it clear: I am not a law draftsperson. You know this is something that has not been drafted with the armoury of Crown Law around it. It is a relatively simple amendment. What it does is say: “Notwithstanding anything in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 no animal shall be used in research or testing for the purpose of gaining approval for any psychoactive substance as defined in section 9 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.” It is simple it is clear and I would like to hear views on it.I want to conclude with an email that I have got from a gentleman called Jonathan Woodford-Robinson in response to the email that I sent out in the last couple of days. What he said was: “As the testing has no medical benefit I liken it to cosmetics with which animal testing has declined due to public attitudes toward it. I can’t justify any testing on animals purely for the pleasure of humans—i.e. recreational drug use. If the testing goes ahead one may as well legislate for cock fighting dog fighting and any other form of animal suffering for the sake of human entertainment.” He said: “So much for man’s best friend. We’re certainly not dog’s best friend are we?”. I think that puts it pretty well. At the end of this debate I will seek leave for my Supplementary Order Paper to be referred with the bill to the committee. Thank you.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am proud to be speaking on behalf of the only party in the House with an animal welfare policy and a separate spokesperson on animal welfare. This is an indication of how seriously the Green Party takes the well-being of animals. We do have significant reservations about this bill but we are going to vote for it to go to a select committee in order to give the public a chance to have their say and toprovide input as to how it can be improved. It is a cliché to say that animals have no voice but the reality is that animals cannot speak for themselves. They have no voice and they have no vote and they are not able to make submissions on this bill which directly affects them. So it is essential that Parliament really listens to those people who have expertise in animal welfare and can speak on their behalf.The focus for the Green Party will be firmly on ensuring that this bill genuinely protects animals from cruel living conditions and abuse regardless of whether they are farm animals or companion animals. If after the submission process there are no substantial improvements to this bill it is unlikely that we will continue to vote for it. This is because the bill in its current form will not result in meaningful improvement in welfare outcomes for working animals—in particular factory-farmed animals. An animal welfare bill is meant to be just that—a bill that puts in place legal protections to ensure the well-being of animals. That means the bill needs to address the current systematic practices that cause ongoing suffering to working animals.In New Zealand animals work very hard for us. They form the backbone of our economy with animal products forming 45 percent of New Zealand exports last year. As well as food fibre entertainment and income animals provide us with companionship affection and security. We should as an absolute minimum ensure decent lives for them. And quite apart from doing the right thing for animals our reputation as an ethical food producer relies upon this. As recent experiences around the safety of our food exports have demonstrated we cannot be too vigilant on this front.Public opinion against cruel food production practices is increasing both in New Zealand and internationally. As this country we risk a serious backlash if we continue to sanction the suffering of millions of animals that are killed on factory farms and elsewhere. We have been exposed on television to the appalling conditions that these animals spend their whole lives in. Most New Zealanders are repelled by what they have seen—images of hens kept in cruel cramped cages suffering extreme feather loss broken bones foot deformities and ammonia burns and pigs in crates with sores on their bodies. These animals are clearly suffering unhealthy and distressed. It is a national disgrace that as a country we allow animals to be kept in such conditions for economic gain.The Animal Welfare Act places an obligation to meet the physical health and behavioural needs of animals in our care and if this was enforced then cruel practices such as those occurring in factory farming would not be permitted. And it is not just factory farms. I have seen distressing photos that have been emailed to me of animals that have been transported long distances crammed so tight that their skin has been rubbed raw to the flesh. And we know that every year thousands more animals experience extreme levels of pain and suffering in unnecessary and unethical animal tests.We welcome the improvements in transparency in this bill but none the less there are some tests that should absolutely be ruled out. These practices are clearly in breach of the main provisions of the Act and they occur because the Act contains loopholes that allow them to continue. I had hoped that last year’s review of the Act would result in a bill that closed these loopholes and ensured that the main provisions of the Act were properly enforced. Unfortunately this amendment bill does not do that. Of particular concern is clause 56. It inserts section 183A which allows for practices that do not meet the obligations of the Act to continue indefinitely. That is completely unacceptable.There is no room in a decent society for Government-condoned cruelty to animals least of all for the indefinite confinement of animals in cages. Parliament has a moral and ethical responsibility to legislate against such cruel practices for animals. Webelieve that clause 56 must be removed and that existing practices that do not meet the obligations of the Act must be phased out within a specified time period. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty whether it happens to a pig a cow or a dog. Farm animals are just as deserving of protection from cruelty as companion animals.Another important area is animal testing and experimentation. As I have said it is great to see more transparency in the bill in this area but we really want to see a clause added that prohibits the animal testing of both cosmetic and recreational drugs along the lines of Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for this is that such testing on animals causes extremely high levels of pain and suffering. It is completely unnecessary and unethical—there are alternatives to these tests—and it is completely and strongly opposed by New Zealanders as we have seen in respect of the recent Psychoactive Substances Bill.With this bill we have another chance to get it right and rule out these tests completely. Such a move would be aligned with what is happening internationally. In the last year alone animal testing of cosmetics and/or recreational drugs has been banned in Israel in India in Italy and in all 28 countries of the European Union. It is time we followed suit. There are many other changes we would like to see and we will talk about these more during the select committee process. But we would particularly welcome a clear prohibition on the export of live animals for slaughter; independent monitoring of animals used in breeding racing and entertainment; and the establishment of an independent parliamentary advocate for animals such as a commissioner with oversight of animal welfare in New Zealand. All of these changes would help ensure better outcomes for animals. We have a golden opportunity to become world leaders in animal welfare and ethical food production. It is time we took it up.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and I look forward to the submissions that will come to the Primary Production Committee on this matter. Other speakers have touched on and certainly the Minister for Primary Industries has covered the need for New Zealand to be absolutely transparent and better than most—ahead of the pack if you like—internationally in animal welfare issues. That is without debate and without any dissention I would suggest because we are so dependent on our animal production systems for our export earnings and the standard of living that we enjoy in New Zealand. But there are a few issues I guess that need to be teased out in this discussion—that is just how will this legislation work?What the proposed amendments in the bill do is allow for a regulatory authority or for a code if you like—what has formerly been known as the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee or NAWAC—to take all things into consideration when it makes its decisions. This brings a higher degree of transparency and enforceability to the work that it does and that is a good thing. It has been required for some time.Could I also touch briefly in the few moments that I have on the issue that has been so passionately spoken about by the Hon John Banks and the Hon Trevor Mallard—that is the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. As a member of the Health Committee as well as the Primary Production Committee I know that the dilemma that the Health Committee faced was whether you would set a separate and different standard for the testing of psychoactive drugs than you would for drugs in general.Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes.SHANE ARDERN: The answer from the member is “Yes.” and if that is the will of Parliament well so be it. But effectively in that debate we were looking at whether or not there should be a full ban or a prohibition if you like on these drugs full stop and I think that Parliament overwhelmingly conceded that prohibitions do not work. Themember himself the Hon Trevor Mallard spoke passionately about a relative who ran a club distributing alcohol in the King Country during the time when there was a prohibition in the King Country.Prohibitions generally do not work so what is the next best option? The next best option is harm minimisation. So then the dilemma is whether you have the same standard of test for the harm minimisation of psychoactive drugs as you would have for any other type of drug that you might use for medical applications. Members have said yes so that is fine. If Parliament decides that is where it should be and that is the overwhelming majority of the consensus well so be it. I have no strong view on that one way or another. I will of course ask the question though do you believe it is better to test these drugs on our young people in New Zealand than it is to have these things tested on animals? That is a debate for people to have and for people to have a view on.I guess the next real issue is the definition of animal welfare because you see everyone has a view on that. Sometimes when I have been in the cities and I see a well-loved German shepherd cooped up in an apartment overweight because the owners are loving the animal to death I actually see that as an animal welfare issue. I do. I see it quite regularly—cats dogs and other loved pets that are overfed under-exercised and cooped up for long hours because the owners are away at work. That is an animal welfare issue.Probably the issue that I really want to touch on in closing though is this. During the flooding in theWhakatāne area—Hon Trevor Mallard: “Fokatāne”.SHANE ARDERN: —in theWhakatāne area there was a major animal welfare issue up there—a major animal welfare issue. There were farms that went completely under water. Houses cow sheds—everything went under water. I was invited up there as part of the agriculture team in the National caucus at that time. The SPCA an organisation that I have a lot of respect for drove out from Tauranga to where it could have been helping people move these animals and carrying out useful work. But instead of that it served notice on some of those farmers because their cows had been standing in a cow yard or somewhere high above the water—and the only way they could keep them alive was to do that—and they were not able to transport them there and then because the Ministry of Transport had shut down the drivers of the trucks that had come from other parts of the country to shift them away.Hon Trevor Mallard: Just shows there’s idiots everywhere—just shows there’s idiots everywhere.SHANE ARDERN: Well yes—well you know Trevor that is what happened—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!SHANE ARDERN: First of all that is—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is “Mr Mallard”.SHANE ARDERN: The Hon Trevor Mallard.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right. Well done Mr Ardern.SHANE ARDERN: Yes. So that is what happened. So in my view the SPCA were creating an animal welfare issue by being bureaucratic and less than supportive of those people who were distressed at the time and some of the animals were as well.So this is going to be an interesting debate going forward obviously on who says what about what animal welfare is and determining what that actually means and just how through the select committee aided and abetted by good solid legislation we can decide that and the outcomes of it. Thank you. I look forward to the passage of the bill.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. NewZealand First supports this bill at least going to the Primary Production Committee in the first instance and very probably beyond but I would signal that we do have some concerns that we will seek to have addressed. The general policy statement tells us that the bill “makes changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 … to improve the enforceability clarity and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.” These are commendable goals. New Zealand First is very pleased to be able to stand in support of them. The statement indicates that the changes will “enhance the operation of the Act rather than alter the fundamental principles and policy settings which”—it proclaims—“remain appropriate.” This may be regarded as a good thing.The bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from the 2011-12 review of the Animal Welfare Act so this bill is essentially a device by which the existing Act may be brought up to date and may be made to be more functional. As I have alluded to there are quite naturally one or two aspects of the bill as it has been introduced with which we are not entirely happy. We will seek to address these at the select committee or later on by way of a Supplementary Order Paper as circumstances dictate. We note that under the current Act the export of livestock for slaughter is prohibited—which we are happy about—except with the consent of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. This bill will tidy up some of the regulations and processes around that issue but we further note that the bill will not change this policy per se. This we find somewhat disappointing. New Zealand First can think of no good reason for allowing the export of livestock at all for any purpose other than perhaps breeding—Colin King: Come on—what about racehorses? What about cattle?RICHARD PROSSER: —and that itself should be subject to some fairly stringent conditions with few if any exemptions. Bloodstock would of course be one example. But the general export of New Zealand breeding livestock is not we would contend in the greater interests of “New Zealand Inc” as a whole particularly when it involves the selling of prime New Zealand bloodlines—dairy cows for example or fine-wool merinos—to our competitor nations in these crucial industries.New Zealand First does not advocate killing the golden goose nor does it approve of selling the goose to foreign buyers. We can sell the golden eggs we can sell the feathers we can sell the pâté defoiegras—these are all good things—but to sell the goose itself is counter-productive in our view. This may not be the most appropriate bill to deal with this issue but it is a fine opportunity to make the point. Given that in most instances livestock being exported will be going to countries and jurisdictions where the treatment of animals is not afforded the same degree of importance that we in New Zealand would generally consider as being of a required standard I do think it fitting to raise the issue with regard to what will be the deliberations of this House on the matters that this bill encompasses.New Zealand First does have an issue with the transparency provisions of the bill. Although we acknowledge that the explanatory note under the heading of “Enforceability” makes reference to regulations that support codes of welfare “by setting specific and enforceable mandatory standards for example prohibitions on the use of sow stalls or requirements for layer hen housing.” we are concerned by some further references to these very issues in the section on transparency. The explanatory note states that “The Bill makes the criteria that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) consider when developing codes of welfare more transparent by explicitly including ‘practicality’ and ‘economic impact’ as second-tier considerations. This will allow economic and practical factors to be considered alongside but not to outweigh animal welfare issues.” Well either they do or they do not.I would contend that the very fact that these considerations whether they be second-tier or not are to be allowed to be examined alongside animal welfare issues suggeststhat almost by definition they will indeed in some cases be allowed to outweigh them. In the same section of the bill the explanatory note informs us that “The Bill also replaces the exceptional circumstances provisions with transitions and exemptions. The exceptional circumstances provisions currently enable NAWAC to recommend minimum standards in codes of welfare that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act. These provisions have been used for example to permit the use of battery cages until a certain date is reached and to permit the ongoing use of farrowing crates for pigs with no final date. The new provisions will enable NAWAC to recommend regulations permitting practices that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act—during a transition to a new practice where there is a defined expiry date: [or] for an indefinite period where there is a need for an exemption. The Bill establishes criteria that would need to be satisfied before a transition or an exemption is recommended and an exemption would only be available if a transition were not feasible. Exemptions would need to be reviewed within 10 years or earlier if the regulations so specify.”Once again this is a case of either it is or it is not. Either we as a nation give enough of a continental to pass a law that affords proper priority to the concerns of animal welfare or we do not. We cannot say that we care about animal welfare but only up to the point where caring is going to cost us money or put us out. We can do better than that and New Zealand First contends that we should. We would like to see this bill making a bold statement a definitive statement a statement that hoists a flag and says this is the way forward. We would like to see this bill set an end date beyond which sow crates and battery cages may not be used in New Zealand. We would like to see this bill mark the road ahead; for it to say to the industries concerned: “This is what you will achieve and this is when you will achieve it by.” We would like to see that incorporated in this bill and we will be lobbying for that.One thing we will not be lobbying for however is Supplementary Order Paper 341 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. New Zealand First members will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. That is not because we do not think that the Hon Trevor Mallard will make a fine Speaker of this House in due course and in the fullness of time—quite the contrary. We do believe that Mr Mallard will make a very fine Speaker when the time comes for that baton to be passed into his care. We will be opposing it because we do not have a blanket opposition to the use of animal testing. New Zealand First members accept that there remains in this day and age a need for the use of animal models in the testing and evaluation of medical substances intended for the use and betterment of humans.We do not agree with the use of animal testing for such things as cosmetics. We accept that there is very probably little point in using animal testing for the evaluation of substances that are intended to have a psychoactive effect in humans. But in terms of pure toxicity there is not at this time a viable alternative to animal models when it comes to determining how much or how little of any particular substance is too much. The term LD50 is an abbreviation for lethal dose 50 percent. It is the dose of any given substance in milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight at which half the rats died. Medicines are tested against this model as are industrial chemicals agricultural chemicals pesticides herbicides and even food additives. We all rely on animal testing to a greater degree than I think many people realise. New Zealand First does not advocate for and is opposed to—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry somebody has got a cellphone. I heard it ringing. It is not permitted. The member will continue.RICHARD PROSSER: We do not believe in testing potentially poisonous psychoactive substances on dogs or cats or on dolphins and chimpanzees for that matter. But no one ever said it was going to be easy being a rat and if a few rats have todie so that a large number of humans do not then that is something we can live with. That may be harsh and in the future it may not be needed. Perhaps in the fullness of time we will have computer modelling that can replace it but for now it remains a necessary evil. For that reason New Zealand First will not be supporting Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper.In conclusion I reiterate that we do support what we perceive as being the broad aims of this bill. We do accept that there is a motivation to improve the lot of our furry and feathered friends and we will happily support this bill’s referral to a select committee at least in the first instance. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member can I just advise the House that the Chamber is a place of listening and debate. This is not a call centre. Cellphones are not an extension of the member’s office and when in the House they must be in silent mode.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to make a contribution during the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and I must commend the level of debate that has preceded me. There is no doubt that there is a lot of emotion a lot of passion for the welfare of all animals and when one reflects on the progress that has actually been made over the last 30 years in managing this topic one can say that there has been a marked improvement. However that having been said it is also very clear that society’s expectations have moved along considerably.Fundamentally this bill will establish a framework under which enforceability clarity and transparency can occur. And when we look at that enforceability there were some very passionate arguments put forward from various contributors to this debate but unless we have a framework whereby those people with the responsibility can actually make people accountable for poor practice or for cruelty then it is of no avail. That is where the difficulty really lies because there quite often is not a silver bullet to addressing these issues and they need to be well-thought-through. As they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So effectively this is what the bill endeavours to do and we acknowledge the fact that as a nation 50 percent of our export receipts come from the sale of animal proteins. On that basis we have got to be very very resilient and very accountable and transparent in the way that we deal with things.Just looking at the two sides of the debate we have the agricultural basis which is enormous but on the other hand we have a large population of domestic pets. It is interesting when I think about it: the saying is that the dog admires its owner the cat despises its owner and the pig treats the human as equal. It is quite humorous but however we are surrounded by animals. We have one and a half million cats in New Zealand we have close to half a million domestic dogs 31 million sheep 3.75 million beef cattle six and a half million dairy cattle and a million deer. So when you look at the proportionality of four and a half million New Zealanders dealing with a population of that size—and yet we are feeding probably 20 million to 30 million worldwide and that is what maintains our standard of living—it is crucial that we do maintain locally nationally and internationally a leading standard around animal welfare.I certainly welcome the opportunity for debate around the psychoactive substances. It will be very important that we actually take away the heartstring tugs that we feel and the difficulty around the morals of that situation. But again when we boil it all down and we think of the national effect one only has to cast one’s mind back to the 6 o’clock news and what can appear on that. We have to be really resourceful so that we have a framework around animal welfare that can in time develop. I see in the bill that it is going to take up to 5 years to get some of these regulations really developed and set in so that they do work appropriately. It is going to be 5 years. It gives us a lot of time toget it right and I believe that the select committee has the resources and also the clarity of thought on balance in respect of how to make this work.I certainly welcome the arrival of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and in doing so we look forward to dealing with it in the select committee with great diligence and professionalism. I commend this bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I want to start by saying what is good about this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It regulates to create enforceable standards where before the old codes were not directly enforceable. It sets up a tiered enforcement scheme with infringement notices and a range of penalties. It creates compliance orders so that animal welfare inspectors can stop a person from doing something that contravenes the Act. And it enables mandatory standards for the export of live animals to be set in regulations.But in other ways this bill is a disappointment. It fails to fix one of the big defects in the current Animal Welfare Act and that is the provision that allows indefinite exemptions for breaches of the animal welfare obligations. In the Animal Welfare Act codes are intended to set out standards of care and welfare. However many of the codes contain standards that violate the Act’s own welfare obligations. Even more bizarre the exemption clauses in the Act allow these breaches to continue for indefinite periods of time. In my view exemption clauses have been invoked too readily particularly in relation to factory farming practices.It has been 14 years—14 years—since the Act was passed and I think it is fair to say that there has been incremental improvement but too little improvement in the minimum standards for animal welfare under the 15 welfare codes now in existence. Under these codes many farm animals suffer practices that violate the welfare obligations in the Act. That is clear. Layer hens continue to be kept in battery cages confining a hen for the duration of its life in a cage with a floor smaller than an A4 sheet of paper a sloping mesh floor and a height of only 35 centimetres to 40 centimetres. It is flagrant breach of the Act’s welfare obligations but the Government does not intend to phase out battery cages until 2022.The code of welfare for broiler chickens disregards the welfare obligations in the Act. It allows stocking densities of 19 birds per square metre—19 birds per square metre. There is no ability for birds to express their natural behaviours; the lighting and ventilation standards I argue are inadequate; the code fails to address the selective breeding of so-called non-survivor birds that are unable to support their own weight; and nor does it address the feeding of chemicals to promote rapid growth.Although the code of welfare for pigs will see the use of sow crates phased out over the next year it will still be lawful to continue using farrowing crates. I want to talk briefly about farrowing crates because I think they are perhaps the most egregious example of a breach of the Act’s own welfare obligations that is currently allowed to continue indefinitely. Farrowing crates are used to house sows when they are about to give birth. They are about 2 metres long and 70 centimetres wide. They are designed to stop the sow from crushing the piglets by rolling on top of them. But the crate is so small that the sow can only stand up or lie down. Sows are kept in these cages for up to 12 weeks per year. The Government acknowledges that the use of farrowing crates does not meet the animal welfare obligations in the Act. That is clear. That is a fact. They do not allow the sows to express their normal behaviour. And with the aid of the exemption clause the Government perpetuates this inhumane practice arguing that there are no better commercially available alternatives. This is a triumph of commercial expediency over ethics.In fact the commercial argument itself does not even hold up. Thirty-five percent of sows already give birth in alternative systems. Some are outdoor and some are indoorbut all require more space. The pig industry admits that alternative systems can be as good as or even better than the farrowing crates when it comes to productivity. The international literature shows clearly that there is no difference in piglet mortality rates between for example Sweden where farrowing crates are banned and Denmark where they are used. The critical difference here is that free-range methods require more space more land. Farrowing crates by their very nature are more intensive. They require less space and therefore they are cheaper. It comes down to money and that is what is going on here. The Government through the inadequacies of the Animal Welfare Act is colluding with factory farming to perpetuate inhumane and cruel practices because they are cheaper than a decent humane alternative. If we look at the bill before the House section 183A(5) inserted by clause 56 allows these indefinite exemptions to continue—to continue ad infinitum. Pigs could be kept in farrowing crates for decades to come.This bill as other speakers have argued offers a chance to end or reduce the suffering of millions—millions—of factory-farmed animals in New Zealand. And I believe that as New Zealanders are ready to make a choice and say that animals should not be used to test party drugs New Zealanders are also ready to raise the standards of animal welfare. This House and the Government deserve credit for finding the courage to ban sow crates. Now they need to follow through and ban farrowing crates.There is growing revulsion at the cruelty of keeping hens in battery cages and I believe that that should be banned much sooner than 2022. I intend to bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the House that would close the loophole of section 183A(5) and ensure that any practice that did not meet the welfare obligations contained in the Animal Welfare Act would have to be phased out within 5 years. Animal-based agriculture contributes more than $21 billion to the economy every year. Factory-farmed animals contribute only 2.3 percent of that figure but some of the inhumane practices of factory farming are a stain on the reputation of our farming sector and potentially a threat to this important industry. For the sake of brand New Zealand we should be making ethical and humane farming practices just as much a feature of our reputation as food safety high quality and sustainability. But this argument above all is about what is right. To subject sentient creatures to such misery and cruelty on an industrial scale simply in order to allow some producers to undercut their competitors on price is in my view unethical. It is time to remove this contradiction from our law that identifies a practice as a breach of the law and then in the same breath gives it an indefinite exemption. It is not right it is not the Kiwi way and it is time to change it.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I came to Parliament to represent an electorateRangitīkei that is very dependent on the well-being of animals the welfare of animals and the health of animals to make its living. Interestingly I have spent much of my life involved in a sport and a business that are dependent on animals for their survival. I would go so far as to say that many of my best friends have been animals. That is because they can be trusted they are faithful they are sympathetic and they are always there when needed. There is the odd human who demonstrates the same traits.Shane Ardern: Name one.IANMcKELVIE: Exactly—name one. This bill is an enabler. It enables us to build a more competitive and productive economy. It creates suitable legislation to ensure that animals are treated well. We have become world leaders in welfare—in animal welfare—which we surely must be.I want to touch on three things. One is our pets. We own pets with confidence and this bill enables that. Did you know that 68 percent of all New Zealand households have a pet? That is an amazing statistic. There is everything from a donkey to a mouse from a cat to a bird. The fact that we have cats and birds as pets makes the call of GarethMorgan a little hard to follow until one realises that many of those pet cats that are supposedly loved by New Zealand citizens are then dumped in the wild. This is what creates most of our problem with our wild cats: the fact that people do not look after their pets properly. As I have said this bill is an enabler. By containing many of its tools in regulation it allows welfare standards to evolve more freely for societal expectations science current practice and technology. The world is evolving and changing so quickly that I can understand the need for this.I want to talk briefly about standards applying to the live export of animals. We must remember that the racing industry the thoroughbred breeding industry and the horse industry would not survive in this country at all were it not for the live export of animals. The dairy industry is exporting a considerable number of animals around the world at the moment with significant benefit to that industry. So as we work our way through the standards for live export we need to be very cautious that we do not compromise the good parts of that export industry.I want to talk briefly about fireworks. I do not like the way we let off fireworks around this country. I think that it is particularly relevant or pertinent when one talks about animal welfare in this country and I think that in the course of this bill we should deal with this issue to the best effect we can because there is no question in my mind that fireworks are extremely intimidating for animals. We have talked about psychoactive substance testing at length this morning. I tend to agree with most of what has been said although I did hear a fellow on a relatively well-known TV programme not very far from here a few weeks ago offering to test them on himself provided we paid him enough money to do it.Hon Ruth Dyson: He might have failed.IANMcKELVIE: I thought it was quite good actually. I think he would have failed the test at the time.I have got no problem with supporting this bill. I think it is fantastic. It provides clarity and the tools to ensure the integrity of our export industry. Finally the way we treat our animals measures us as a nation. If we can treat our animals well we can live at ease with our fellow human beings. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand this is a split call?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I understand that as well. It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from theManawatū Ian McKelvie. I think he spoke very well to the purposes and thrust of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill which is to ensure and improve animal welfare. He recognised as I am sure other speakers have how important New Zealand taking a positive and progressive stance on animal welfare is to our international reputation and therefore how important it is to our economy. There is no doubt that although people are probably acutely aware of welfare issues when it comes to domestic animals—pets cats dogs mice and birds—perhaps sometimes farm animals particularly for urban dwellers are a little bit more distant and we need to be aware of the welfare of production livestock as well.What I want to talk about this morning in the brief call that I have is how our position relating to the testing of psychoactive substances on animals relates to that international reputation that is so important to our export economy. It was an oversight of the Health Committee not to receive submissions regarding the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. We had the choice. It was not out of scope for us to hear those submissions. It was a matter for the committee to decide on and the National Party members of that committee blocked us from hearing submissions on issues of animal testing of psychoactive substances. That was the National Party members on the Health Committee. The argument was made at the time that that wasnot the right piece of legislation to consider that issue. I disagree with that argument but the argument was made at the time. Indeed the chair of the Primary Production Committee also sits on the Health Committee and he made the comment at the time that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill would be the appropriate mechanism through which to consider those issues.Therefore I implore the members of the Primary Production Committee to hear submissions on animal welfare in relation to the testing of psychoactive substances. I implore the thousands upon thousands of people who emailed us when we were considering the Psychoactive Substances Bill and the thousands upon thousands of people who have written to the Minister for Primary Industries facilitated by my colleague Trevor Mallard to make their submissions to the Primary Production Committee and have their voices heard. This Government far too often overrides democracy silences our citizens cuts people off from their democratic right to have their say about the way legislation is passed in this country and it must not do it on this bill. It must hear those submissions because—Shane Ardern: How many?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: How many? I think about 4000 I reckon you will get. I may be pitching it a little low there but I reckon there will be about 4000. I reckon many of those will be substantive and the members on that committee should hear them. In fact I pledge that if that committee finds that there is too much work I will help out. I will come and substitute in. I will help out and come and support that committee so that it can hear those submissions because I think New Zealanders are sick and tired of having their democratic rights undermined and they need to be heard.This is not just an issue of animal welfare; this is an economic issue of New Zealand’s reputation internationally because we know that the world is looking at us because of the innovative approach that this Parliament has taken to psychoactive substances. The world is watching to see how that new regime actually works out and they will certainly be watching to see whether or not we accept the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. I have spoken to people working in the industry and they assure me that testing on animals is not necessary. If it is not necessary let us make it clear. Let us stop the testing of psychoactive substances on animals.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The Green Party is supporting it going to the select committee. We want New Zealand to be world leaders in ethical food production.A friend in the National Party said that he saw this as an enabling bill but we have to be very very careful that this bill does not rest at a level of just enough and that it is not just seen as a bill minimis as such. We have to reflect that in the rural scene and our farming scene there are systematic practices on our working animals that really have to be looked at very very hard. We have to lift the game on those because we are getting too many bad stories. But it is actually still our average. Can we lift our average up a bit to be something that absolutely everyone rural and urban can be very very proud of?Animal products as stated earlier make up 45 percent of our export income. Our economy is underpinned by these animals particularly these working animals. We also know very very well what international expectations are around food safety for example how much that expectation is rising how important that is and how closely we are being regarded. Animal welfare is similar and it must be rapidly improved to ensure that it is not the nextClostridium dicyandiamideendosulfan - type event.Photos of cages or mistreated dairy animals are not ambiguous. An image is way way less likely to be seen as a false positive as we might get in some food safety issues. Our clean green “100% Pure” branding and ethical stature means that this bill mustensure the absolute best possible outcomes that translate into something that New Zealanders rural and urban can be very very proud of.Live animal exports are intended to be managed through regulations through this legislation. Let us look at stopping the live export of animals for slaughter full stop. Let us have a look at that. In the select committee I think we will see some submissions that will give us good cause to do that.Why are some of these exemptions that are foreshadowed in this bill seen to be acceptable? We need transitions that are not indefinite; we need transitions that have a very clear and short-term cap on them. It has been mentioned already that in section 183A(5) inserted by clause 56 of the bill we have reviews. Those reviews must be much shorter as a mandatory than 10 years but we actually need caps in there.Also it has been mentioned around psychoactive drugs testing on animals. It was appalling that the submitters could not present to the full cross-section of the House their submissions that they had made in good faith around psychoactive drugs. The speaker from National compared this: do we test on young people or animals? There is absolutely no need to test on either. That is something that came out of the submissions to the Green Party which listened to those submissions. We do not need to do either. We can deal with the psychoactive drugs testing very very quickly—short and sharp.Research is one other issue. We have to think of the genetically engineered animals up at Ruakura where they struggle to get 5 to 10 percent of inseminations to come through to live births. Often it is zero out of a batch. There are “goys” up there—goats. They call them “goys”—females in a boy’s body. They come out as young male goats and are induced into milking at 9 months by hormone treatment and the like. The number of abortions and the issues up there are appalling.These are things that we can address very very well through this bill if we put enough emphasis on them. We can make a significant change through this legislation. As we say we support it going to the select committee and look forward to hearing the submissions on that. Thank you.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand and speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill which is before us. I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee so—Shane Ardern: You’d make a big contribution.JONATHAN YOUNG: No doubt it would like to call me in occasionally. I did have the advantage I think of growing up on a farm for the first 10 years of my life. I had that awkward experience of having animals as pets on the farm. I think of the pets that I had which were calves lambs pigs and horses. Unfortunately in my memory every single one of my pets—Shane Ardern: Died?JONATHAN YOUNG: —died. Some were economic units and some just had accidents. I think that that experience of having a farm animal as a pet sort of shows a little bit of what this whole issue is all about because we have animals as contributors to our economy and we have animals as contributors to the sense of well-being that we enjoy as companions. Trying to find the right middle ground in this area is really important which is why this bill is very important.It is important for animals’ sake but it is also important for our sake. How we treat living things that are lesser than ourselves and often dependent upon us and loyal to us says a lot about who we are. I recall the remark of a man called MilanKundera who says: “Humanity’s true moral test its fundamental test consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.” I think it is important therefore that this bill goes to the select committee. There are some very important aspects of it that will bediscussed and debated and it will no doubt receive some submissions from the general public.It is important to understand that there are a number of provisions in the Animal Welfare Act that require greater clarity and enforceability and as the select committee identifies those and works through them as they are in the amendment bill I think we are going to come to some good place where we can continue to see the contribution to our economy that animals bring and also the well-being of their lives as New Zealand is no doubt very committed to.It is a very important bill before the House and I am very pleased to stand in support of it. I wish the select committee all the best as it goes through this process. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Primary Production Committee.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave to move without debate an instruction to the Primary Production Committee requiring it to consider the prevention of animal testing of psychoactive substances in its consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? No there is not? There is no objection.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I moveThat it be an instruction to the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill that it consider and if it sees fit adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 341 relating to preventing the use of animal testing for the purposes of gaining approval for psychoactive substances.Motion agreed to.Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders BillFirst ReadingHon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I moveThat the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This bill demonstrates the Government’s support for the victims of serious violent and sexual offences. The bill would create a new civil order called a non-contact order to reduce the likelihood of a victim of the serious violent or sexual offence coming into contact with the offender once they are released from prison.Research shows that the impact and effect of serious violent and sexual offences can last for a significant period of time after an offence has been committed. The healing and recovery process of victims can be hindered by ongoing fear and anxiety about the offender. Victims can suffer significant setbacks in their recovery if they come into contact with the person who offended against them.This Government is determined to support these victims. Through a non-contact order the court will be able to impose conditions prohibiting an offender from contacting the victim in any way and prohibiting an offender from living or working near the victim. The order will be available on application by the victim of the serious violent or sexual offence that resulted in the offender being sentenced to 5 or more years in prison for that offence. This will ensure that only the most serious offenders are captured by the order. The bill shares the definition of the “victim” in the Victims’ Rights Acts 2002 and a victim can include the close family members of a murder or manslaughter victim.There are already a number of mechanisms to restrict or monitor the behaviour of an offender. These include a mixture of conditions imposed at sentence and orders imposed on application. Examples of these are parole conditions extended supervision orders and civil and criminal orders. The purpose of these existing mechanisms is to manage offenders after their release from prison to enhance public safety and in the case of protection and restraining orders to protect individuals from perpetrators of domestic violence or harassment. However these mechanisms do not cover all situations. If an offender is not subject to restrictive parole conditions or in a case where a victim does not qualify for either a protection order or a restraining order the current law does not provide any mechanism for preventing unwanted contact with the offender.This creates the need for the non-contact order. Situations like the one we have seen in Invercargill where a convicted rapist moved near to his victim clearly demonstrate that everyday events such as walking past the driveway of the offender can be very stressful for the victim of a serious violent or sexual offence. Where these situations arise but the victim does not have either a restraining order or a protection order against the offender the police cannot take any enforcement actions unless and until the offender commits a subsequent offence. We want to ensure that victims are not left feeling unsafe in their homes and unprotected by the law.The new order is flexible to ensure that a judge can decide how many or how few conditions are necessary and which conditions are practicable and workable in the circumstances of each case. This flexibility should ensure that the order can be effective for victims no matter what their circumstances. For example it should be able to prevent or limit contact with the offender whether the person who offended against them has moved next door two blocks away or 5 kilometres away. Breaches of the order will be punished by the same graduated penalty system as for breaches of restraining orders. The maximum penalty available will be up to 2 years in prison for multiple breaches within a 3-year period. This penalty ensures the breaches will be dealt with seriously.This order will help fill a gap in the justice system where victims are not able to access existing legal protection mechanisms. It shows the Government’s support for the victims of the worst offences and it will help those victims feel safer while they continue on their journey to recovery. I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and say that the objective of this bill is a very important objective—in fact I would go as far as saying it is an essential objective and we have no objection to it. That objective is to protect victims of violent crime and to protect them after the perpetrator of the crime against them has either been convicted and served their sentence if they have been incarcerated or if they have not been incarcerated at least are managing their post-conviction processes.But the problem with this bill is that the way it has been promoted by this Government is just totally cynical. The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Invercargill case which is the case that prompted this bill in the first place. The reality of that Invercargill case is that a rapist was sentenced to a term of 4 years and then post-release harassed and basically made a nuisance of himself towards his victim. In that case the victim would not be able to avail herself of an order under this bill because the threshold is too high. When we look at the detail of that particular case and at what is in this bill actually the argument by the Government begins to unravel. It is not only the very high threshold that would apply in relation to victims who might be looking for just this type of protection and assistance it is the very fact that it is the victim once again who has to take the initiative to protect themselves from something that the criminal justice system ought to take responsibility for. The burden falls on the victim.This yet again is from this Government which boasts about crows about supporting victims. This is not a victims’ rights piece of legislation. This once again yet again by this Government puts the burden back on the victim. Itrevictimises the victim. That is the problem with a Government that seeks to push red-hot buttons around the electorate but has no real commitment to fixing the problem at all. It is just cynical.Let us go through some of the issues in this legislation. There is the one I have already referred to which is the cost to the victim. It is the victim who has to meet the cost because it is a civil proceeding. Worse the victim will have to front up to court to square off against the very person whom they are seeking a non-contact order against. Thatrevictimises the victim again. Then there is the threshold which requires a 5-year prison sentence which is just way too high. There are victims of sexual offences and violent offences where the perpetrators do not get sentences of 5 years or more. They get much lesser sentences. But after the completion of their sentence that perpetrator is equally capable of harassing and intimidating and threatening the victim of their crime as in any other case. Why should those victims not have a remedy if this Government is serious about victims?This bill is totally inadequate. This is probably one of the laziest pieces of legislation I have seen in my short time in Parliament. When you look at the regulatory impact statement it is quite clear that the Ministry of Justice and the advisers to the Minister of Justice considered a range of options. They considered an amendment to the Harassment Act so that it would apply in these sorts of situations. But the Harassment Act again provides for a civil proceeding. A civil application is required for a restraining order under that legislation. But the other sensible suggestion that the advisers came up with was an amendment to the Parole Act. I think one thing they failed however to suggest was an accompanying amendment to the Sentencing Act. They argued against or advised against an amendment to the Parole Act on the grounds that they were concerned about uncontrollable costs. The problem with that piece of analysis is that when they drew that conclusion they seemed to have forgotten that they expected there would be about 10 applications for this type of order each year but they said they thought there would be a snowballing sort of effect. I think that could have been dealt with ameliorated by putting term limits on the extent of the application with a right to renew on subsequent occasions.But the fundamental point is this: this is a bill that deals with victims of crime—victims of criminals. The criminal justice system is the part of our judicial system that should take responsibility for managing all aspects of the criminal—not leaving it up to the victim once the criminal justice system has disposed of and washed its hands of the offender. It should not leave it up to the victims to have to make applications to further protect themselves. That is the responsibility of the State. That is the responsibility of the criminal justice system. We are saying that the intent of this bill the objective of it should be achieved can be achieved under something like the Parole Act and perhaps the Sentencing Act but should not be left to the victim to make application for.We will support this bill with these very severe reservations. We will support the bill at its first reading to get it before a select committee so we can hear from advisers and perhaps from the Minister to provide some further rationale but also to see if we can come up with a piece of legislation that is a real victims’ rights piece of legislation not the piece of whitewash that we have in front of us at the moment. The Minister in an article at least in relation to the “Beast of Blenheim” had the temerity to come out and say that she is sick and tired of hearing from people like the lawyer for the “Beast of Blenheim” and his defence of that case and the argument for his rights. The Minister in fact was quoted as saying: “Frankly I’ve had enough of listening to people like thelawyer for the Beast of Blenheim worrying about their rights—and I am far more concerned about victims and their rights.”Well that is a piece of bunkum that is just hocus-pocus by probably one of the laziest Ministers of Justice we have had for a long time. But I want to say this. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing from a Minister of Justice who does all the window dressing she can but does not deal with the real issue. She does it on victims’ rights. She does it on other issues as well. She does not care. She does the minimum she can to get away with the appearance of doing something meaningful. But this is not meaningful as indeed are any other pieces of legislation that she has been responsible for. I was going to say “championed” but she is not a champion of anything apart from herself.This is a hopeless piece of legislation in its current form. It has good objectives. We should be doing something for victims of violent crime. We should be protecting them. We should be making adjustments to the criminal justice system so that those victims are protected. We should not be putting the burden back on victims so they have to stump up at their cost and front up and face the person who has abused them has raped them has violently assaulted them. We should not be putting victims in that situation. We should be providing proper protection. This bill does not do that. Let us get past the hocus-pocus and the bunkum and all the window dressing that this Government and this Minister of Justice represent and let us do something meaningful. Let us not only make the criminal justice system responsible for dealing with offenders who upon conviction are then punished and if necessary incarcerated and serve their time but also make the criminal justice system truly responsible for protecting the victim. Let us come up with a system of orders that will properly protect the victims at the State’s cost so that they do not face the threats and intimidation that were exemplified in the case in Invercargill. This bill simply does not do that. If we are serious in this House’s drive and call to provide better protection for victims we need to do something way better than this very lazy piece of legislation coming from a very lazy Minister.We will support this bill at its first reading. We will get it in front of the select committee and we will pull it apart. We will hear from officials why they have abandoned their advice to the Minister to amend the Parole Act and to consider the Sentencing Act. Let us see if we cannot together if the National Government is serious come up with something that will afford proper protection and be a genuine victims’ rights piece of legislation.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which is in the name of the Hon Judith Collins. It is always interesting to follow that member Andrew Little who is a good old-fashioned socialist from way back. In fact I am disappointed that he is not contender No. 4 because with a speech like that you could rightly believe that he was a contender in every respect other than being a nominee in the contest that is so captivating members of the Labour Party at the moment. As is in the best tradition of good old-fashioned socialists there is something that is buried deep in the psyche that somehow wants to create victims who are victims again.I am delighted to be able to speak in support of this bill which proudly and I think rightly so puts the victim first in our criminal justice system. This is another piece of legislation that the Hon Judith Collins has championed in a way that has become almost a hallmark of her administration and it is one that I support. She as I do makes no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that victims of serious crime cannot be free from ongoing intimidation and persecution from those who have done the offending against them. The fact people cannot be allowed to get on freely with their lives to return their lives to some sense ofnormality after being victims of serious crime strikes me as being completely unacceptable in a modern society. So I make no apology on behalf of the Government for putting the rights of victims first in our system.This new piece of legislation is introducing a restraining order to protect victims of serious crime or indeed sexual crimes from further unwanted contact with those people who have perpetrated attacks upon them. It is completely unacceptable that a situation like this could have been allowed to occur for so long. Victims can feel intimidated. In fact it can be more than just a feeling of intimidation; it can be actual real intimidation by having for instance a previous offender moving close into the victim’s neighbourhood maintaining contact with them and being able to further persecute them even after the sentence that they have been convicted of has been served. This piece of legislation seeks to remedy that and I say that it is about time too.Currently protection and restraining orders are available only where there has been active harassment in a situation where there is a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim. Unfortunately that means that for some victims there is currently no legal protection available to them and I say that that is simply not good enough. These new orders which will be issued by the District Court will impose a range of conditions upon offenders including restrictions on visiting particular locations or geographical areas where the victim may be. This is a new mechanism. It is established to recognise the ongoing effects of violent offences on those victims. Fair and anxiety about unwanted contact is a very very real factor for many of those victims. It can impair their recovery and their pathway back to a free and normal life after having become the victim of serious crime.As a Government we want to ensure that all victims can be protected from unwanted contact with the person who has offended against them and can get back to enjoying normal life. This bill establishes a mechanism to do exactly that. It introduces a non-contact order that will prohibit an offender from having any form of contact with a victim and it may also prohibit the offender from entering any specified area or from living or working in that specified area. The District Court is able to impose any conditions or directions in relation to any prohibition that it considers reasonably necessary in those circumstances. I for one think that is a good thing. An application for a non-contact order it is important to note cannot be made by a victim if there is already in existence a protection order against the offender under the Domestic Violence Act 1995.In summary this is a good piece of legislation brought to the House by a very capable and proactive Minister who is doing a terrific job on behalf of the victims of violent crime in our society. I commend the bill absolutely to the House. I will watch with interest its progress through the select committee.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am rather sad that this legislation the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill was promoted in the way it just has been by Government members because this bill does not do what do the member Scott Simpson actually said. The purpose statement is absolutely supported on this side of the House. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to reduce the likelihood of a victim of a violent offence coming into contact with the offender subsequent to the offender’s release from prison in any case where that contact would be detrimental to the victim. (2) To achieve this purpose the Act empowers the court on the application of a victim”—and that is something we have an issue with: on the application of a victim—“to make a non-contact order prohibiting the offender from having any form of contact with the victim.” What we have just heard from the member is the suggestion that this is going to resolve something that should have been resolved a very long time ago.In fact let me quote from the regulatory impact statement which I have to say is dated 12 September 2012. So this particular regulatory impact statement is nearly a year old. So what has taken the Government so long to address this issue if it is so imperative in terms of resolving the problem? Let me just read to the House why the review of the law was ordered: “In response to an incident in late 2011 where an offender who had served a prison sentence for rape moved into a property next door to his victim the Minister of Justice requested a review of the existing orders and options available to protect victims in similar situations.” The bill we have before us will not protect that victim and would not have protected that victim if it had been in place at the time. Let me just read why. Clause 5 of the bill states: “In this Act violent offender or offender in relation to a victim means a person who at any time—(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in respect of that offence.” That rapist was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. So the very case that gave rise to this Government’s sudden concern about this particular matter is not addressed by the bill.Perhaps the next speaker from the National Party could explain why the very case that actually sparked off the review has lead to a bill that would not address that case. Perhaps that would be something that they could begin with. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a legal framework that is able to address these issues. That is why I have been such a major supporter of the regulatory impact analysis process. What we have to do is we have to learn in this House how to actually state what the problem is and what the objective is then we have to set out a range of options about how we might achieve that objective and work through each one of those. That is what the Ministry of Justice did for this. But does anyone know whom the Ministry of Justice consulted with in relation to this particular matter? The consultation it did in order to progress this important issue was with three community law centres two victims’ representatives and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Actually it received only four responses—two in support and two opposed. How on earth is that a quality regulatory impact analysis? That is nonsense. That is about coming to a conclusion and then finding a post-facto justification for the decision that the Government has already made.This was written on 12 September 2012. Do not tell me that there could not have been a much broader engagement with the victims’ rights organisations and with others about what would be the most sensible approach. Why are we requiring the victims of crime to actually themselves go through this process? One of the recommendations was to amend the Parole Act to allow for an indefinite non-contact residential parole condition. What was wrong with that option? That would have put the onus on the State to protect the interests of victims and not put it back to the victim to go to the District Court and be subject to a legal aid assessment. Why on earth was this option not put up as the top priority? Oh I know why: “This option is likely to result in significant cost increases to the Department of Corrections over time.” That is the only reason that this one is ruled out. So I think that people on that side of the House should think very carefully about the way that they are presenting these.I want to make a comment in response to the suggestion that the rights of the perpetrators of these offences are somehow more important than the victims. So let me just read from the regulatory impact statement. It said there was a problem with the proposal of the Harassment Act being extended because “… it relies on judicial discretion to determine what is necessary to reduce the likelihood of unwanted contact in each case. A risk is that this will vary depending on the circumstances in each case and some victims may not consider the order offers them adequate protection. This risk could be mitigated by conditions applicable to their situation being imposed. For example in a small town where the victim and offender have support networks and livenear each other a judge may consider that making the offender move out of town is an unjustified limitation on their rights. In this situation the conditions imposed would be designed to help the victim feel safer by preventing contact between the offender and victim wherever possible e.g. curfew specific prohibition from visiting certain place(s) unaccompanied. In addition to comply with the condition the offender would have to be aware of the victim’s location which could increase the fear and anxiety a victim has in regard to the offender.” So that issue was raised by the Ministry of Justice.I just want to tell a story about a conversation I had. When I first arrived here in Parliament I was an associate spokesperson on justice and we made a decision to travel around all the different prisons in order to get a real sense of the whole of the justice system. I recall a conversation that I had with a prison officer back then. He described what has actually become the process of restorative justice but it was initiated by the victim of a terrible rape. The two rapists who were completing their sentences were about to go home to small-town New Zealand. So stop thinking about victims as just being in large cities or towns where people can have freedom of movement. In a small town this is very real. So this is a real story. This woman approached the prison and said she wanted to meet the rapists before they returned to her small home town. The prison service was not used to this and it was very concerned about what that might mean. So after much discussion it arranged for the meeting to occur. The real reason that it agreed to it was her motive in meeting with the offenders.The trouble was that they had pleaded not guilty. Coming back to that home town meant that the town was divided. Half of the town believed her and half of it believed the offenders. Half of the people in her town believed that she had made up the story of being raped and she wanted to confront the offenders before they came home and re-entered that whole victimisation process where she was a victim of half of the town’s opinion. She sat there in that room with them—and this was reported to me by the guy who observed this happening—and she looked at them and said: “You’re coming home. You must tell the truth. You’ve served your time. Tell the truth now.” And they admitted for the first time that they had raped her. That to me is much more meaningful much more real and much more beneficial to the whole of society than anything that this bill will ever do. How dare the Government put it back on the victim to sort this out. Why does the State not play its role and protect the victim? It could do that with an amendment to the parole legislation. I believe that that is what the Law and Order Committee has got to seriously look at in considering the future passage of this bill.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I have listened with interest to the contributions from the Labour Party speakers in particular. I think it is fair to say that in the Greens we have come to a similar position. We will support this Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill as far as the Law and Order Committee but our support is highly conditional. We have major concerns about this bill. If its purpose is the proposition that we need to offer a level of protection and a level of comfort to people who have been the victims of violent crime then undoubtedly that is entirely a wholly tenable proposition and one that we can support. But in terms of the mechanism the content and the detail of this bill we see so many fish-hooks in it that we do have serious concerns about whether those can be ironed out sufficiently. We will be supporting the bill going to the select committee. We look forward to the select committee process. Clearly we will engage with it and we will re-evaluate our position and our support or otherwise at the conclusion of that process.As I said the proposition that it is desirable to offer comfort to victims of crime and criminal offending is at the forefront of this legislation. It reminds me again though that we seem to see a number of bills that seek to incrementally add some level ofservice to victims of crime. This country desperately needs a clean sheet of paper an overall review a sort of zero sum game about victims’ rights. How do we address victims’ rights across the board? That is something that successive Governments seem reluctant to engage with. Again it has been a Green position for a long time that we need to get cross-party agreement that in all sorts of ways we are not serving victims well in this country. We need to sit down and work out how we can do that strategically and in an integrated way and not relying on these amendments and additions and the meddling round the margins of legislation.What will eventuate if this legislation is enacted is that a non-contact order will be created. As we learnt from the explanatory note the non-contact order would prohibit an offender from having any form of contact with a victim. It may also prohibit the offender from entering any specified area or from living or working in any specified area. That is an extremely potent set of conditions to impose on a person—to determine where they may or may not live where they may or may not work and what areas they may or may not enter.The consequences for a released person could be quite profound and actually counter-productive to their continued rehabilitation and reintegration back into society. A person might for example be denied the right to return to a small town despite the fact that that may be the place they are most likely to have family or other support networks. It might be the place where they might find more secure tenure and accommodation and the place where they might find a job and actually work to put their offending behind them and become a contributing person in society. They may be denied that opportunity and the best opportunity they have to put their offending behind them and to get on with life.It just raises with me an interesting conundrum too: what would happen in the event that an offender is released from prison and goes to live in and is working in a particular place and then a victim of that person’s offending chooses to move into the area where they are established? It is kind of a reverse sensitivity thing. I am not sure that this bill has anything in it to accommodate that particular instance. I think it is one of the little details that we would need to reflect on and think about.Successful reintegration of a former offender demands that that person commit to changing their behaviour and that they honestly and truly put their offending behind them. But as AnneOpie pointed out in her excellent study which she titledFrom Outlaw to Citizen: Making the Transition from Prison in New Zealand there has to also be a social space. The community must also give a person an opportunity to redeem themselves to demonstrate that they are actually willing and able to reform and to become contributing members of society. Some of the provisions of this bill could actually be counter-productive in that sense and count against the possibility of that person having the opportunity to prove that they may once again be trusted members of society.I am concerned at the definition of “offender” in this bill. It seems that a person who offends once will for ever carry that label. It is the Shylock dilemma—you call me dog therefore beware my bite. It almost sets up a situation for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Labelling somebody for ever as an offender could have a counter-productive outcome on their behaviours forthwith.I was interested to hear some of the Government spokespersons talking about the need to prevent victims from being further intimidated and being persecuted and victimised again. In fact the status quo protects people against those very things. If I seek to intimidate or persecute someone the law will be on to me very quickly and quite rightly so. In the status quo we have release conditions parole conditions restraining orders protection orders and bonds to keep the peace. These are all timelimited. One of the concerns we have is that the proposed non-contact orders could be open-ended and we see some difficulties with that.We are told that a problem with some of the existing protection orders is that many victims are unaware of the existing orders that they may mistrust the court system and that they are people without internet access or with poor English skills. These existing provisions simply are not accessible to them. I ask the question: what is going to change if we simply create another form of protection order a non-contact order? Is that going to be any more accessible to people who already are demonstrably not able to access the restraining orders the protection orders and all these other mechanisms that are in place? I would also echo MsDalziel’s comments about the consultation. Yes of course the consultation should include community law and should include Women’s Refuge or indeed the Ministry of Women’s Affairs but it is an extraordinarily limited range of opinion. It was a very limited range of views that seems to have informed the drafting of this legislation.So I simply ask what is going to change if we do not deal with some of those limitations some of those barriers to people finding the existing legal protections. What is the earthly point of creating yet another layer of theoretical protection which actually may be no more accessible to those people than what is in place already? Again in the regulatory impact statement we hear repeatedly this notion of a legislative gap suggesting that there is a gap in the legislation. I would actually question that.With reference to the bill itself what would be the effects of a restraining order? The effects of a restraining order would include that an offender against whom an order is made would be prohibited from “doing or threatening to do any of the following: (i) watching loitering near or preventing or hindering access to or from the protected victim’s place of residence business employment educational institution or any other place …”. So for loitering hindering somebody going about their daily business or preventing them from accessing their home their place of education or their place of work we have existing legal remedies for that. If I seek to simply hinder somebody from entering their place of work of course I could be taken to task legally. Equally an offender would be prohibited from “following stopping or accosting the victim;” and from “giving offensive material to the victim or leaving offensive material where it will be found by … [that person]”.All of this is covered by existing law. I think this notion of a legislative gap is something we need to interrogate a bit more. Maybe we need to facilitate access to some of the existing protections for victims of crime because as I started out by saying it is absolutely true that a person who has been violently assaulted raped or subjected to some form of violent abuse will understandably be extremely nervous arguably about the offender coming back into close contact in their community.But there is a flip side to this and we need to look at that wider picture. It has been pointed out that in all likelihood this legislation would be found to be in breach of section 18 and section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of freedom of movement and in respect of double jeopardy. Are we going to for ever punish a person who may have done their time and rehabilitated themselves? Violent offending sometimes is serial but often they are one-off events—somebody gets to a point in their life they respond violently commit an unacceptable act pay the punishment and pay for the crime. Ought we continue to punish them with a lifelong punishment potentially for something they have done and which they may wish to put behind them?So to where I began—as I say we do support the purpose of this bill. We need to do more to secure victims’ rights and for that reason we will be supporting this legislation but we will be asking some very difficult questions. We will be seeking to get a much more robust a much better-balanced and a much fairer piece of legislation in order tolook for a mechanism that will serve victims without necessarily imposing damage on others. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kia orana andmeitaki.ALFRED NGARO:Meitakimaata Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in its first reading. I am concerned about the member David Clendon because what I continue to hear what we continue to hear but what New Zealanders need to know and understand is that the Greens are continually looking at and focusing on the rehabilitation and the rights of the offenders as opposed to those of the victims. The National Party is focused on ensuring that balancing the rights and responsibilities for the victims is clearly paramount for us. What we have heard continually from the Greens—in particular Mr Clendon—is about rehabilitation. We have no problem with that. In fact the honourable Minister of Corrections the Hon Anne Tolley has actually sought out a regime of rehabilitation that is proving successful now.However this particular bill is dealing with serious offenders and in this case it irks me—and I think the rest of New Zealand should understand this—that what the Greens are saying is that we should look at the rights of the offender let us look at their freedom to move and to be able to rehabilitate themselves into those communities which are the very communities in which they have caused harm and concern and where they have caused trauma and tragedy for family and for victims. In particular as the honourable member Lianne Dalziel said when we see victims of rape and of crime and offending of a sexual nature it appals everyone—it appals everyone. But what continues to I suppose offend some of us here is that the Greens continue to say that the rights of the offenders should be put forward ahead of the rights of the victims. That is not what we are about; we are about ensuring that this bill ensures that the rights of the victims are upheld. It is unacceptable to have a situation where a victim of serious crime may have unwanted contact with an attacker.In reading the regulatory impact statement there was some comment by the honourable member Lianne Dalziel about three community law centres and the consultation that was had with two victims’ representatives and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Again the intent is that this is a very focused piece of legislation in a suite of other forms of legislation that this Government is undertaking. It is focused in particular on victims of violent sexual crime—that is here. Therefore it was important that we go particularly to those who have specialty experience and knowledge around this.It is fair to say that the respondents were not totally in agreement. However what they were in agreement on is that the status quo is not adequate—hence the reason for the change. In fact arguments against introducing a new regime and a new order included that it would breach a person’s right to freedom. However according to the regulatory impact statement: “Two responders indicated clear support for the introduction of a new order stating that it would provide victims with an element of certainty and may help to reduce the levels of anxiety victims experience when their offender is released.” This is clear evidence. The fact is that the transition of this bill to its first reading and to the Law and Order Committee absolutely follows the process where submissions can be heard in a wider form of being able to be informed about how we can transform this bill. But I make it very clear from this side that we are very clear that this bill ensures that victims can no longer feel intimidated by an offender moving into their local area near their home or their workplace.Finally I just want to say that when people talk about the context of what we are doing this is not a lazy piece of legislation. This is not legislation that is taken lightly atall. In fact in the suite of things can I also state the fact that this is what is happening right up and down the country. We are seeing that New Zealand crime rates are the lowest on record. The fiscal year crime statistics released today show that recorded crime is continuing to drop with a 5.2 percent decrease on the previous year. Deputy Police CommissionerViv Rickard’scomments were that “These figures indicate that New Zealand is becoming a safer place to live. They will act as further motivation to keep our focus firmly on preventing crime before it happens.” That is the best form of rehabilitation that we are taking.However in saying that we do see its importance because sexual assaults and related offences have increased by 3.6 percent. Sexual offending is known to be significantly under-reported so it is difficult to know to what extent this increase is a result of increased reporting rather than increased offending. Hence understanding this is the reason why this bill going through its first reading and then going to the select committee so that it can hear submissions is absolutely important. It is timely. The bill is not lazy; it is intentional. It balances the rights of victims. I commend this bill in its first reading and to go to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill going to the Law and Order Committee with the hope and expectation that with amendment we will be able to continue to support it thereafter. The bill would enable a victim of a violent crime or a close family member if the victim has died to obtain a non-contact order against an offender where the offender has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years or more. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself. A fundamental duty of the State is to protect victims and we think that this bill is very much overdue. In fact the Government has been rather slothful in progressing it to date. New Zealand First wishes to assist its passage through the House as expeditiously as is practicable. I am unable however to agree with the Greens that the existing protections are adequate. Yes there are existing ways in which people can get these protections but they are not easy to use.This bill I think is needed but I have a number of suggestions to make so that the bill might be as effective as possible. The first concerns clause 5 which defines a violent offender as a person who “has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years or more”. That definition is quite narrow and I suggest that it should be widened. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more I suggest that it would be more appropriate instead to require only sentencing for an offence punishable by 5 years of imprisonment or more. That would broaden the scope of the legislation to capture offenders whose sentences are fewer than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable a court to sentence them to 5 years or more. After all if the offence was so serious as to attract imprisonment at all then the victim should be able to use this new law.Another issue concerns clause 7 which provides that a victim may apply to a district court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from imprisonment. The requirement that an application must be made after the release of an offender from prison is I think too late. The victim should be able to apply for the order at any time after the conviction so that the court can make an order to have effect immediately as from the date of release. My concern is that there is likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service upon the offender. That would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim and this issue needs to be addressed by the select committee. Another point for its considerationwould be the meaning of the term “release from prison”. Does this include release on parole? If not then the victim may become subject to risk and may have to rely only on parole conditions rather than this new law so let us have a look at that.I also have concerns about clause 9(1) which says: “The court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that—(a) there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim;”. Why does the court have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending? What will the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not think that the effects of the offending are really the issue here. It would be better for the subclause to require only for example that the victim reasonably believes that he or she may be subjected to unwanted contact by the offender. That is what the issue really is for the victim. So that is what the subclause should use as the test. Otherwise it would be satisfactory to delete this test and this subclause altogether because the other requirements in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) are sufficient by themselves with the words “ability to deal with those effects” being deleted consequentially from subclause (1)(b).I move on to clause 11. This clause sets out the effect of a non-contact order. Such an order prohibits the offender against whom it is made from having any form of contact with the victim. In addition the court may prohibit the offender from entering living in or working in a specified area. The only concern I have with this clause is that subclause (1)(c) should be qualified by the addition of an exception as to entry that is incidental to and necessary for the purposes of the offender’s employment. I would also like the select committee to look at whether it is desirable to require as part of clause 11 that the court is to specify an area only as large as is necessary to enable the offender and the victim to avoid contact with each other. Although we need to make the order effective we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining their employment and carrying out his or her duties of employment.Finally I come to clause 15. This provides for a non-contact order to be discharged by the court if it thinks fit on the application of the victim or of the offender against whom the order is made. I suggest that the select committee look at whether the court should be required in this clause in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted to consider some specified matters such as the record of the offender in complying with the order; the behaviour of the victim which may itself justify discharge; and obviously the places where the victim and the offender live permanently. If one lives in Australia and the other lives in New Zealand then I would expect that to be an important factor in deciding whether to grant the discharge.As I have said New Zealand First does want this legislation. We do think it is necessary. We do not think that existing laws are adequate to protect victims who have justifiable fears in relation to ongoing contact with an offender. So New Zealand First wishes to vote for this legislation not only to be referred to the select committee but also hopefully thereafter as well provided that we can get the most effective law possible to protect victims from those ongoing risks resulting from unwanted contact by the offender. But as I have said there are a number of ways in which the bill might be improved that we wish to discuss and I hope that other parties and the Government in particular are willing to look at amendments for those purposes.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow what I think have been two pretty considered contributions—one from the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke and one from the Green member David Clendon—from opposite ends of the spectrum. The Green contribution I was somewhat disappointed with because when we hear comments to the effect that this bill contains a potent set of conditions to impose on a person he isfocused totally on the offender. And when he thinks that the status quo is OK and talks about double jeopardy and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the offender I think that actually his attention is in the wrong area. We are focused on the victims. It is the victims who are the innocent ones in this situation and we are focused on them. I also think that the New Zealand First contribution was pretty thoughtful and I guess my comment on that is that the whole purpose of having the bill go to the select committee is so that those issues can be teased out discussed and decided upon at the select committee consideration.In a nutshell the bill provides for a non-contact order that prohibits an offender from any form of contact with a victim and can impose conditions. Whether those conditions are tight enough or not tight enough again is a matter for the select committee. We have heard contributions from Labour members who talked about whether the threshold of 5 years’ imprisonment for the offender is actually the right threshold. Maybe it is too high. I do not know the answer to that but again I am sure that that will be an issue that will be fully traversed at the select committee. But I have to say that if we really want to sum it up it is totally unacceptable to have a situation where a victim of a serious crime may have unwanted contact with their attacker. That is the bottom line because the priority has to be the victim not the offender.This bill is a good bill. It is not the only bill of course. It is part of a programme it is part of a suite of measures. Actually I think that as a party on law and order our record on crime and on victims is pretty good.Dr Cam Calder: Outstanding.Hon KATE WILKINSON: Oh “Outstanding.” says Dr Calder—outstanding. If we traverse that just momentarily we introduced a $50 victims’ offender levy. Remember that at the time the Labour members said that it was a gimmick—a gimmick—and that it would not work. A total gimmick—“a bizarre piece of gimmickry” is what they said. Well actually the amount collected from that is $4.4 million.Scott Simpson: How much?Hon KATE WILKINSON: It is $4.4 million. That has been collected from the $50 offender levy. If we look at some of the programmes that have benefited from that we have got thesafe@home programme for the women and families who are at the highest risk of serious injury or death. We have got a discretionary grant to assist families of homicide victims. We have got funding for homicide support coordinators. Our record on this is outstanding but that is not all. We have created 13 new services and entitlements for victims. We have also increased restorative justice. We have expanded the restorative justice services. They receive an extra $4.4 million. That actually means a total of an extra 2400 conferences. In addition to that we now have police safety orders to help prevent domestic violence. I understand that since their introduction there have been over 27000 of these orders.National is the party for law and order. National is the party that is focused on victims. This bill is a good bill. It is part of that suite of measures and I certainly look forward to receiving the select committee report once it has come out after proper consultation and discussion. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour will be supporting the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill but I have got to say that we do so with some serious reservations. Kate Wilkinson touched on one of them and that was the issue of the threshold. When I read the regulatory impact statement I read that this bill was motivated by the case of a young woman in Invercargill who found that the person who had been convicted of her rape had moved in next door to her. Everybody in this House would understand the absolute trauma that a rape victim would suffer confronting each day the person who had been responsible for her rape and there was nothing that couldbe done in that case apparently. I thought well fair enough. The Government has admitted it has got a gap in its system and it has moved to address it.Then I went back and read theSouthland Times and what did theSouthland Timessay about the person who was convicted of the rape? TheSouthland Timessaid that that person was sentenced to 4 years for the rape. Hang on in this bill it says that this protection applies only if you have been sentenced to more than 5 years. So the very case that provoked this legislation would exclude the victim that the Associate Minister of Justice was crying crocodile tears about and saying that there was no legislation to help her. Minister there is still no legislation that would help her in that case. So well should Kate Wilkinson come into the House and say that the threshold level might be too high—absolutely. Victim Support the Shine organisation—JaneDrumm the person who is the chief executive of that organisation and who worked in this field for a long time asked why the hell the Government was bringing in legislation that would deny the protection to so many of the people who are victims of the crime that it claims the legislation is about.I do not want to respond to Kate Wilkinson’s long litany of self-praise for what the Government has done by saying that the Government has done everything wrong. You know all Governments I hope have a focus on the rights of victims and on protecting the rights of victims. But I have got to say that there are some much more fundamental things that need to be done in this area than what this scrappy little piece of legislation provides. I read Kate Wilkinson and Chester Borrows in the regulatory impact statement that this bill will apply to 10 cases—10 cases—a year. Well look for each of those cases that might be important; I am not knocking it solely on that basis. But what I am saying is do not come into the House full of self-praise about a piece of legislation that will help 10 victims when there are thousands of victims out there.I want to go back to what Alfred Ngaro said in his speech on this bill. He said: “We’re bringing down the crime rates.” Well I did a little bit of research. Members might be interested to know that in 2009 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs reported on the whole issue of women who suffer from sexual violation. What it said about that was that only 9 percent or less than one in 10 of all sexual offences were ever reported to the police—9 percent. Only 9 percent of all of those dreadful crimes against women were reported to the police but it does not even end there. Of the 9 percent that were reported and taken to the police only 13 percent of those actually resulted in a conviction. So we are talking probably about the four in 100 victims of sexual violation who achieve justice under our current system.If the Minister of Justice was really serious about the question of sexual violation of women and about how they can achieve justice and how they can be helped to recover from that she might like to consider a couple of things and I say this in all genuineness because these are things that we need to consider. The first thing is to ask whether our adversarial system is helpful for the hearing of cases of sexual violation and sexual assault. I would put it to the House that most women who have been traumatised by sexual violation would not want to be re-traumatised by having an adversarial system where their word is thrown into doubt. When women were asked why they did not report they said that they did not want to suffer the trauma of sexual violation only to go to court and be disbelieved as to whether they were making it up because in most of these instances there is no independent witness. I am not saying that people will never falsely report rape. Unfortunately—tragically—that happens. But in the vast majority of cases the women who have suffered that trauma will not see satisfaction through our adversarial system; they will not be believed because they do not have independent witnesses.Carol Beaumont: And why would they put up with that?Hon PHIL GOFF: So why would they go through that as my colleague has just said?I want to talk about restorative justice because Kate Wilkinson said that more money has gone into restorative justice and I truly welcome that. When as the Minister of Justice I talked to a group of rape survivors they said to me: “You know it’s not about wanting to see the offender jailed for a long period of time.” and I was quite astounded by this. Many times these were people who were suffering from sexual violation by strangers—sometimes the so-called date rape—but it was not about revenge. The main thing they wanted was an admission by the offender that he had offended against them. Surely that is not too much to ask. And they wanted to see remorse from the offender. Some of them said to me and I was astounded by this—and by their personal generosity having been through that trauma—“You know we don’t want to see that person locked up for 14 years in prison. We do want to see their admission publicly that they have wronged me and we do want to see that they are remorseful about what they’ve done.”So you know we are dealing with a piece of legislation in the House today that is about 10 of the thousands of people who are subject to sexual assault and violation and maybe Minister we should be looking at something more fundamental than that about how we can change the nature of the wider system to help prevent this sort of abuse and to deal with it in the majority of the cases not 5 percent of the cases. I say that not judgmentally of the Government but as a genuine expression of the problem that we have got and the failure of the system to address that.I want to come back to what is in the bill. The need for this bill is apparently because there was a person who was the victim in this case where the rapist moved in next door and changed the nature of her life which made it far harder for her to recover from the trauma she had originally suffered. A protection order does not help the victim in this case because she was not the subject of domestic violence. A restraining order would not help in this case because she was not the subject of further direct harassment by the offender. So there is a gap. I accept there is a gap in the system and I think the victim does have to come first. I listened carefully to David Clendon and I think he was making some reasonable points in a reasonable way but the victim must always be put first.What we have got is a bill that we have real problems with which I want to address in the Law and Order Committee. The threshold is too high. Five years would not have helped the victim that this legislation is purportedly about and would not have helped hundreds of other victims who are automatically excluded. I ask the Government where this figure came from. Was it just arbitrarily plucked out of the air or was it based on cost? That is what I really fear—“Well if we limit it to 10 it won’t cost us much.” I am sorry but if the victims come first cost is the secondary consideration. Secondly there is a real concern about the time between the release of the offender and the acceptance of a non-contact order application. There should be the ability to apply for non-contact orders before the release of the offender so that the victim is not suffering from a long period of trauma until the application is heard. That is a change that I think we should look at as well.Thirdly I think Andrew Little is right. This places the burden on the victim both to take the initiative to seek the order and also to pay for it. If we are trying to relieve the pressures on victims do not put the costs on victims for what they are rightly entitled to. That is the third change we need to make. The fourth change is the limited application which I mentioned before. There are 250 offenders of serious violent and sexual offences released a year and this will help just 10 victims. So OK maybe there is agood intent here but it does not make much difference. I think the select committee has got a lot of work to do if we are truly to put the interests of victims first.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in its first reading in the House today. It is always great to see the House getting behind a bill as the House has today and to see a bill that has cross-party support—at least for its first reading. This bill is about victims and victims should always come first over offenders.I listened to what David Clendon said. I think he was measured but I did not agree with everything he said. I think that the balance has to go to victims over offenders and that victims’ rights safety and security must come first. I think that most of the debate today has been measured. I think there have been some really good strong points that should be debated and teased out in the Law and Order Committee. The points around when you can apply for an order I think are a really important issue. We do not want victims to have to relive the crime again 5 years later when the offender gets released. The point about the length of time of a conviction has been a really good point as well today. Also in terms of getting the balance right between victims and offenders as much as I think it should always be on the side of victims I think it is good to have that debate as well during the select committee process. That is what it is for—to tease out all the issues that people have concerns about in the debating chamber today.I cannot imagine for a moment what it is like to be a victim of a serious violent offence or a sexual crime. I have got no idea how a victim moves forward from that or what they go through when it happens to them or even what their family faces when something like that has happened or the time it takes to recover. I could not even imagine what it would be like to be that victim with the offender loitering around my front fence. I cannot imagine meeting that person in the supermarket. I just could not imagine what that would be like. So I think this bill is very very important.I think this new mechanism is very important. It allows victims to obtain a non-contact order and that puts another tool in the toolbox for victims to actually be able to move forward with their lives and to put some of this behind them. We have had debate today about how communities can be very small and what you do when you have got a victim and an offender in the same small community and they have to live together. How does that work? I hope that submitters who are in that scenario come to the select committee and tell us what types of tools we need to make this legislation even stronger.I think that this bill is just one of many that this Government has put forward to strengthen victims in New Zealand where they stand what they face and how we can help them. But I actually think our focus—and it is our focus as a Government—should be on the prevention of crime because with prevention of crime we have fewer offenders and we have fewer victims. That is where we are growing and it is where our outcomes are coming—with the reduction of crime in New Zealand. I think this is a fantastic bill and I cannot wait to hear the debate in the select committee. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. I really want to make just a couple of really clear points. For me central to this piece of legislation picking up on what my colleague Katrina Shanks has just said is really the question that if you commit a heinous crime such as rape should that for ever affect your rights to live in the same community as your victim. For me it is central to this conversation and debate that we are engaged in that that is the question to be asked.I am not going to labour on about what prompted this and the fact that there have been some flaws in the drafting of this bill. What I really want to focus on is the whole issue about the victim needing to initiate a non-contact order. If we truly want to support victims in their rehabilitation they should not have to be initiating non-contact orders. There is a current flaw in our criminal justice system. We have protection orders and restraining orders but they are all about relationships that people have and victims have with their offenders. There is an anomaly in the legislation because we are talking in this instance about victims who have no relationship with the offender other than having been raped by them. So it would seem to me that to create a piece of legislation that wants to protect victims but then has victims initiate the non-contact order themselves is actually the biggest flaw in the whole design of the legislation as it is currently worded. So the victim has to seek that non-contact order.I note the individualism of that measure. Knowing some people who are involved in ACC through its sensitive claims unit and the whole process of women who have been through such a trauma trying to get on with their lives I think that anybody who had intimate experience of that process would not be making victims apply for a non-contact order. What I hope this piece of legislation would ensure is that the criminal justice system in fact puts at its heart any response of people in that situation where there is such a gap and looks after the interests of victims in those particular circumstances. So there is an opportunity—because this bill will be referred to the Law and Order Committee and Labour supports that—for other mechanisms to be looked at in terms of this gap in the system.We would advocate that amendments to the Parole Act should take into consideration a systemic response and that amendments to the Harassment Act ensure that whatever protection orders and restraining orders there are they actually ensure victims in this particular circumstance are taken care of. Obviously for us we want all of this done and that is why the parole process provides the best mechanism for these things to be in place before the person is released from jail. Essentially what this piece of legislation does is allow a victim after the release of the person who has perpetrated a heinous crime on them such as rape an opportunity to apply for a non-contact order. So I am hopeful that throughout this entire process we will keep central to this whole discussion about our response as a criminal justice system as a community and as legislators the question of how we can best meet the needs of victims who do not qualify for the current mechanisms we have to ensure that they never have to engage with the perpetrator of a crime against them.I am hopeful that there is a lot of goodwill in the House to make sure that this piece of legislation will work to the fullest for victims and that we look at a community response to this not an individualistic response of making victims themselves be responsible for ensuring that they live in a safe secure environment where their needs are central. Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to rise and offer the Greens’ support for the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill at this stage to enable this conversation to happen. I have been interested in the debate so far today. I think it has been constructive. I would like to acknowledge first of all the case that triggered the introduction of this bill the appalling and quite heart-wrenching situation for a woman in Invercargill whose rapist moved in next door. That highlighted for us several areas for legislative review and policy and funding change. This woman actually had an indefinite protection order in place apparently but it did not prevent her abuser from moving in next door. The police had been for a chat and suggested he move but stated that they could not do anything else unless he breached the order and crossed that line. In this situation his friends had been threatening and harassing her as well but this didnot constitute a breach either. It is quite strange that in the case that has triggered the introduction of this bill this bill will actually do nothing to solve that actual situation because the perpetrator in that instance had been sentenced for a crime for only 4 years which does not reach the threshold required in this bill.The Greens have several concerns related to this bill that we are keen to explore through the select committee process while acknowledging that there is a real problem at the moment. The concerns we have as have been raised by Labour are the requirement for the victim to apply for and pay for the order rather than the State taking responsibility for the safety of victims; the situation for people in small towns where it may not be so easy to be able to define their place of living in the same way; and also the possibility that in a larger city this may create a perverse result of enabling abusers to have free rein of a city outside one specific area and the potential that this may actually lock victims in to quite a prescribed safety zone. That may be I think quite a perverse result if it creates this safety zone for victims that they then become locked in to. That is certainly not something that we would want to see happen.We are very keen to have the select committee process and to have victims and their advocates present to the Law and Order Committee to ensure that we are adequately informed on these issues. But I do want to speak now to some of the wider issues. There has been a lot of discussion around the importance of focusing on victims and the terrible situation of victims being so closely engaged with their abuser. I want to remind this House of what I believe is a completely tragic reality. Only one in 100 victims gets justice in this country. Research shows us that only seven victims out of 100 report the abuse. So we know that at the moment because of this situation and the lack of action that has been taken around sexual abuse most victims are on a regular basis if not a daily basis having to interact with their abusers because of the failure of this House and this system to actually provide them with a system where they can access justice. Of those seven out of 100 cases that are reported only three go to court and only one results in a conviction. That is appalling—one in 100 victims in this country accesses justice. Those of that one in 100 whose offender is sentenced to over 5 years will now be able to access this protection. That is not a victim focus. Any pretence that it isis actually covering up what I believe is a massive injustice in this country.I also would like to just speak to the fact that those who have been convicted—Kim McGregor from the Rape Prevention Education network has noted numerous instances—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in this first reading debate. As other members have canvassed this bill brings in a much-needed and welcome measure by creating a new kind of restraining order that will protect victims of serious violent or sexual crimes from unwanted contact with their attackers. I think it is a very positive thing that both sides of the House are supporting this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. It is also positive that the debate this morning has been a balanced measured and constructive one.New Zealanders have an absolute right to feel safe in their homes as they enjoy life in any of the diverse and thriving communities that make up our great country. I would say to the members Ms Logie and Mr Clendon who have spoken about the difficulty of applying this to small towns in New Zealand that that right to feel safe in your home and your community applies to every community in New Zealand equally be they in the big cities the main centres the provincial towns small villages or rural hamlets.I am proud to be a member of a National team that is building a safer New Zealand. This bill is one small part of a comprehensive programme of reform that is designed to protect our communities to prevent crime and to put victims first. These measures are having real effect. We see crime rates now at a generational low—a once-in-30-years low—so I am very pleased to see this bill adding further to that progress that we are making.This bill establishes a clear and practical process to enable any victim of a violent crime—and specifically victims of offences of a sexual nature—to obtain a non-contact order against the person who attacked them. Such an order will be available in any case where the perpetrator has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years or more. I actually have to acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member Denis O’Rourke in querying whether that time frame is appropriate. I will certainly be going into the select committee hearings with an open mind on that issue and interested in hearing evidence on that particular issue.These non-contact orders will ban offenders from having any form of contact with a victim. This can be used to stop an offender from entering a specified area or from living or working in a particular place and—this is an issue that has not really been canvassed yet—the District Court will be empowered to impose any reasonable conditions or directions that it considers necessary in the individual circumstances. I think that this level of common-sense flexibility is a very positive thing. Strong sanctions will exist where there is a breach of a non-contact order with a maximum of up to 2 years’ imprisonment for repeated breaches. Again I think that this is a necessary measure because without teeth any legislative measure does not have real impact.I would like to congratulate the excellent Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins and her ministerial justice sector team. I look forward to considering the bill in more detail at the Justice and Electoral Committee which is so ably chaired by my esteemed colleague Scott Simpson. I commend this bill for consideration.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Law and Order Committee.Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) BillFirst ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of theMinister of Customs: I moveThat the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This is an omnibus bill and it amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. This bill makes important amendments to existing legislation to underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the new $89 million Joint Border Management System.The Trade Single Window component of the system provides a single electronic gateway for industry to interact with Government agencies for its customs and biosecurity requirements. The Trade Single Window will promote more effective protection of New Zealand’s border facilitate a smoother flow of legitimate trade and is consistent with the Government’s priorities relating to the provision of more joined-up online services.Regarding the purpose of the bill the bill contains three main categories of amendments that underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window: registering users of the Joint Border Management System; providing information to and receiving information from the Trade Single Window; and consequential changes to offences.The bill also makes minor technical changes to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to provide more clarity and to improve the effectiveness of the Act to meet Government policy goals for border management.Regarding registering users of the border management system the Customs and Excise Act 1996 requires that all goods imported or exported must be entered into the Customs Service computer system by individuals being importers exporters or their agents who are registered users of the system. The Trade Single Window will provide for a wider range of border requirements. For example registered users will be able to provide and receive information on the movement of their goods streamlining supply chains.The bill amends several aspects of the Customs and Excise Act to ensure there is an appropriate registration mechanism for access to and use of the Joint Border Management System. The areas covered by the amendments include allowing companies to be registered users instead of individuals only. Specific grounds on which the Chief Executive of the Customs Service can refuse an application are included allowing the chief executive to issue unique user identifiers for the Joint Border Management System that can be used by both the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries for border-related purposes.The provision of information to the Trade Single Window will be through the use of the World Customs Organization’s new international data model for lodgment messages supporting access for our exporters and reducing compliance costs for industry. The new lodgment messages will include customs biosecurity and food safety - related information enabling the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries to receive more accurate and current information to better identify and target potential risks to New Zealand.Several amendments will assist in supporting how information is provided to the Trade Single Window. These amendments cover advance notices of arrival and departure for all goods and craft crossing our border and inward and outward cargo reports and establish a more effective and transparent transhipment process for the national movement of imported goods. Additionally the bill amends the Customs and Excise Act to provide the Chief Executive of the Customs Service with the ability to prescribe customs rules that reflect other border-related requirements such as health biosecurity and marine safety. This will be done using a process agreed by the chief executives of those agencies. This process will promote clarity and consistency to industry and reduce the administrative burden of maintaining multiple often disparate requirements via agencies at the border.There are consequential changes to offences in the bill. To enforce the amendments contained in the bill some consequential changes to offence provisions are necessary. These amendments relate to the advance notice of the arrival of goods and craft and the departure of goods and craft. The amendments are to cover such aspects as failing to comply with the new requirements and failing to update the Customs Service with the correct information.There are other minor technical amendments in the bill. The bill includes some minor technical changes to provide more clarity and improve the effectiveness of the Customs and Excise Act to meet Government policy goals. These amendments include updating the definition of motor spirits to reflect the 2012 changes to the excise and excise-equivalent duties table in the Act but the amendment does not alter the type of fuel on which excise duty is collected; replacing the term “rate of duty” with “amount of duty” where goods are re-imported into New Zealand and a refund of duty has been claimed on the previous export; delegating the power from the Minister of Customs to the ChiefExecutive of the Customs Service to approved certain international organisations exempt from excise duty on alcohol and tobacco; and enabling regulations to be made that may prescribe the valuation method and value for an import consignment below which duty need not be collected by the Customs Service known as de minimis.In summary the bill will help underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window which will deliver at least $450 million of benefits to our economy over the next 10 years. I commend the bill.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to make a contribution at this first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. We in the Labour Party are supporting this bill. At one level the bill is very non-controversial; it is actually quite constructive in a lot of ways. The actual genesis of the Joint Border Management System occurred when we were in Government and I acknowledge a former Minister of Customs here my colleague Nanaia Mahuta. The joint initiative the collaborative work between agencies to modernise and to improve the systems is what agencies should be doing all the time particularly when we are talking about our borders. Our border management system is critical to our livelihood as a country as we all know and it does not take much to remind everybody here that we have challenges every day on our borders. Eighty billion dollars worth of goods are moved backwards and forwards into our country. We have over 10 million travellers who go to and from across our borders. We like to welcome our manuhiri—those travellers—but we also want to put up ourpā defences for those things that are unwanted whether it be persons or cargo or biosecurity incursions and threats.This is as I have mentioned a non-controversial bill in one way. We want to improve our border processes and our border management system but I think we also need to take a step up and look at the context of these new IT information systems and look at the disasters that have occurred in the past. I need only mention a word like “INCIS” and that sends a shudder through members opposite who may have been connected with the police in the 1990s. Obviously a more recent example isNovopay which has entered into the lexicon as another absolute disaster in implementing new IT platforms.When we are looking at the Trade Single Window this is a positive measure we do support it and we want to make sure that the implementation of this new system is a success. Our freight importers and exporters and our cargo and logistics industries are reliant on being able to submit information and receive information from the relevant Government agencies involved on our border. So it is a welcome change that we have a live system now that they can have a single point of entry whereby they can do all their bits and pieces of messaging with their new systems to be able to actually get the business done. The Trade Single Window as part of this Joint Border Management System is a great improvement for our border management agencies and for managing and promoting the flows of commerce and trade across our borders. So we do support that.If we look at the different players in the industry I know that they have been very supportive and have worked closely with the relevant agencies on this. This is as I have mentioned a very big project hitting up to in excess of $80 million. That is actually a bit more than was originally budgeted for the project but I think given the importance of this new platform and these new tools that our exporters and importers and the whole industry are using we want to do it right. There have been delays but it is better that these systems are thoroughly tested and are thoroughly in conjunction with the industry to make sure that they do run smoothly.I recall from the briefing from the Minister at the estimates hearing before the select committee which I sat in on that the Minister mentioned that the two systems—the former system which I cannot quite remember off the top of my head another acronym or similar type of name will be running in parallel with the new—Hon Phil Goff:CusMod.RINO TIRIKATENE:CusMod—that is it. TheCusMod system will be running in parallel with the new Trade Single Window system for at least the next 18 months. Those users who still want to use the old system and feel safer under that can gradually migrate over or transition into the new Trade Single Window. The Minister has been very careful I suppose in the roll-out of this new platform. I suppose he needs only to look to his colleagues in terms ofNovopay and to the past and the huge disasters that have happened in the past in order to want to make sure that this new technology platform is a success. The Minister acknowledged that if there was a failure in this new system it would be catastrophic for us as a country which is why we have to get it right. It would be catastrophic in terms of interruptions to trade interruptions to imports and exports but most fundamentally the impact that it would have on our international reputation. We have seen in recent days and weeks the impact of certain blunders happening within our relevant agencies. We need only to look at the Ministry for Primary Industries and the loads of containers of our meat that were sitting in China unable to be processed. That was a huge faux pas on the part of officials and as we understand it came down only to the incorrect filling out of a form—not describing the name change from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the new superministry the Ministry for Primary Industries.Those sorts of blunders can have huge consequences for our exporters for our primary sector and for our farmers and that flows right across our economy. We need to make sure that we have really good systems and that we are always looking to improve modernise and promote joint cooperation among the different agencies that are involved because it is very complex. We also need to make sure that we have resourcing going into those agencies that can support these flash new tools—the new Trade Single Window and joint border management types of systems. This is where I get to the point that you can have the flashest IT systems and technology but if you do not have front-line investment in people who can fill out forms or who can be proper lab technicians who can do tests that can identify particular bugs or potential threats that will have huge consequences in terms of our international reputation and the potential well-being and standard of living of many of us here in Aotearoa.What we do not want to see but what we have seen under this Government is a reduction in the budgets of front-line services for the likes of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service and a really big emphasis and focus on these new IT-type systems. As we have seen fundamental basic clerical mistakes—as well as a dirty pipe in Fonterra and a technician who obviously was not thorough in terms of their analysis of the samples that were taken—can have huge impacts across the whole economy. That is why we need to make sure we have a really good balance between the systems and the resourcing on our front line. Apart from that I commend this bill to the House.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I would like to thank my colleague across the House Rino Tirikatene for supporting the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. I look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee where submissions will be called for and the bill considered processed and returned to the House. There is one small thing I would like to correct in what my predecessor was saying. He said that the bill would facilitate the movement of hismanuhiri back to New Zealand. I would just like to point out to him that this bill applies only to goods and will not be applying to his manuhiri. I understand that he was trying to fill his 10-minute allotted gap and that he did not have a lot to say or to offer to the House. That led him into a slightly murky area of—Hon Member: Be gracious John.JOHN HAYES: I will be gracious yes. I just make the point and I would just like to let him know that had he read the paperwork he would realise that from the beginning.What is seriously important about this bill is that it is another strand of the rope that the Government is building to pull this economy forward and to catch up with and surpass Australia. It is not just a matter of signing our trade agreements. Before our committee at the moment is the trade agreement with the third element of the Chinese infrastructure Taiwan. That as I have mentioned in the House before—provided we can get it through our committee and into law before the end of this year—will generate $45 million of savings to cherry farmers in for example Central Otago and it will help apple growers in the Wairarapa and in the Hawke’s Bay.But there is no point in making gains in the trade area without at the same time straightening up our administration. This is what the ever hard-working Minister Williamson has been doing. He has a very good understanding of IT issues and he is applying that in this area of the Government’s administration. This legislation he has brought to the House will save exporters and importers $450 million over 10 years. That is money that is not being taken out of people’s pockets for no particular purpose. That means that money stays in people’s pockets and it will add to economic activity in our economy. That is good for everybody. The Trade Single Window will lower traders’ compliance costs—admittedly over time—and it will help us build a much more productive and competitive economy which is of course exactly the Government’s priority over this term of office. It will help supply-chain efficiencies with a joint border management system.The other point I would like to raise is that this legislation will enable our industry to interface in a far more efficient way—with one electronic gateway—with Government agencies for its customs and biosecurity requirements. It will also plug us into the World Customs Organization and doing that will give more effective protection of our borders and ensure a smoother flow of legitimate trade. As I said at the outset there will be no impact on travel coming into or leaving New Zealand because the changes relate only to the importing and exporting of goods.This is a very good piece of legislation. It has got broad support I hope across the House. I support it entirely and I look forward to it coming to our committee. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I appreciate the member over there John Hayes and with all due respect to him if you ever wanted to get a classic Tory speech then that is it. Obviously the research unit has once again dragged out the template—dragged out the template—and given it him. I know that the member over there is far better than that speech but it is a classic Tory speech: the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Here is the point. We support this piece of legislation. In fact we developed the concept of one hub for information sharing. We did so on the basis of our border systems being more effective but this National Government has come in and said: “Oh we want them to be more efficient so we will focus on the $45 million that’s going to be saved every year.” Well good luck to it. It has saved $26 million in the cost of the Ministry for Primary Industries too. We are now starting to see the value that is being destroyed from an ideologically drivenGovernment that wants to drive down the investment drive down the cost and forget the value of what we are doing here.We support this bill and the concept of it. It is just about evolving technology. It is about sharing information but being more effective. Efficiency is a great objective but it should not necessarily be the sole objective particularly when it comes to the issue of border protection for trade coming in and out of this country so as to ensure our reputation for outgoing goods or our biosecurity for incoming goods the value of which we cannot calculate. We cannot calculate the lost value of our reputation through the latest debacle over meat and dairy exports. We will be a long time trying to calculate the cost of that in the same way that if we let into this country any major biosecurity incursion we do not know what that will do to this country. The Government might try to establish the cost of it but the value of having proper border security and proper customs security is something difficult to calculate over the long term. The Government has worked out $45 million a year in the same way that it could say that it saved $260 million over 10 years from driving efficiency in the Ministry for Primary Industries. Well we are now starting to see the cost of that. Ask exporters of our food products what is going to be the lost value for them in the marketplace of the massive botch-up that we have seen over dairy and over meat.The point is that the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill that we are discussing here is a good objective and a good exercise but if it is driven by just ideology and efficiency and not driven to give us a more effective system of border protection and protection of our country from unwanted goods then I suggest that the Government has got it wrong. We have seen its consistent approach to that. The first Budget we had in terms of border security was a cut to biosecurity of $2 million the loss of 48 front-line jobs and a squeeze on a large number of other Government agencies. That is what the Government was doing to give efficiency but at a big cost to effectiveness. We are starting to see that roll out. We have hadPsa we have had the large white butterfly and we have had varroa. We have just recently seen that scorpions have been brought into this country. So clearly the system is not effective enough.Hon Phil Goff: It’s just the Prime Minister masquerading as a scorpion.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well that is true. The Government has got a few scorpions over there now and there will be a few more stings coming for the poor average Kiwi worker in the months to come if we allow it to get away with what it wants to.I will come back to the bill before us and say that conceptually this is the right thing to do. The bill in principle is the right thing to do. We are just simply aligning the information database and platform so that we can check and investigate. But let us not forget what is actually being done at the moment which is a systems analysis and the sharing of this information will allow that to develop further. We are not checking people more closely we are not checking goods more closely we are just putting in place better systems or so we are told—better systems with less money so we are told; more efficient we are told. What I want to know is whether they are going to be effective. Are we going to correctly identify through the new efficient systems where there is real risk to this country. The performance of border management agencies—I applaud them for identifying and capturing some drugs hauls. This is no reflection on the front-line staff but I get emails from biosecurity staff who have walked from the job because they cannot ethically remain in place knowing they are not doing what they should be able to do and what they need to do.There is a compromise here and my concern is that in the drive for efficiency which the Government is determined to undertake at every level of Government responsibilitythe effectiveness of the systems is being undermined. The Trade Single Window that we are aiming to have there—a bit like the SmartGate system for individual travellers—poses huge risks for us long term if not properly resourced and if we do not have the investment in the best technology. I see what we are exposing now is that in the area of trade certification and clearance the reality is—in spite of the Ministers over there cutting funding and continuing to get up on their hind legs and say: “We have the world’s best practice. We have the world’s best systems.”—that we do not. We need more investment in the area of border protection. If as in a couple of other bills being passed through this House under urgency the objective of the Government is to have them fiscally neutral then what we are doing here is maybe improving the database but if we do not have the resources to go with it we will not have a more effective or better system in place. That is what Labour supports—moving to a more effective system of border processing but keeping in mind our ultimate objective and that is protecting us from unwanted goods or persons or products or organisms.We have a huge advantage internationally through our reputation the value of which is impossible to calculate and the cost of which this Government drives down every single day. It thinks driving down the costs is going to give us better outcomes. That is a dangerous strategy to undertake and I say to the members getting up and saying that this is going to save $450 million etc. etc. and put more money back into the pockets of people—ask the exporters what the cost is of the latest debacle around dairy and ask the exporters what the latest cost is of the debacle around meat and you very quickly get to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. The projected savings quickly disappear if we do not end up with a more effective system not just a more efficient system. I know there are members over there scratching their heads saying “What’s the difference?” because they have never heard of that but hopefully they will take time to reflect. I know maybe the next speaker might explain that. It is time to reflect on the reality that effectiveness is more important than efficiency. When it comes to our reputation when it comes to our border protection and to this current privileged position we have where we have relatively low disease rates and a reasonably safe uncorrupted healthy environment we do not want that compromised by an ineffective system.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to take a call on the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. The Green Party is supporting it at this stage. We are looking forward to the select committee stage to hear some details and examples of how the benefits of this bill will be actualised. We are very optimistic about this bill in terms of its efficiency and following on from the other speaker we will also be looking to see particularly on biosecurity its effectiveness. Certainly we appreciate the intended and expected benefits to border processing.There are a couple of points in particular that I will be interested to hear about from officials. One is the exemptions for the re-importing of goods exported. There is a whole wide range of scenarios that could be imagined around that. It is clear that they are meant to be in the same or substantially the same condition as when exported from New Zealand. I am keen to hear about that. It is in section 109 inserted by clause 14. I am keen to hear what the examples of those are and what those situations are. I can imagine that a fair bit of that will be about shipping and stuff—just having some sort of efficiencies of transport but still coming back past and not wanting to be open for tariffs or other conditions. So we can expect from that I assume that off-shore value adding of product from New Zealand will not be exempt on re-entry. But I look forward to getting some clarification around that.Another part is the de minimis part in section 118. I will be looking forward to hearing about what the regulations may allow around that. That is looking at the valueof goods below which duty need not be collected so the officials again at the select committee consideration will be able to run some scenarios for us. Clearly in the regulatory impact statement it is pointed out that there are issues around the internet—purchasing around the internet. That balance between the cost of say enforcement or the bureaucracy around collecting appropriate revenue from that importation relative to the value of it is clearly the issue. It has certainly come up in other situations where the big loss of GST because of overseas internet purchases becomes relevant and it becomes relevant through this bill.I would also like to speak on biosecurity for a bit. I do see that this bill allows for a much better flow of information and a very tidy and efficient way of getting information about shipping about goods coming and going. There are some reasonable expectations and some penalties for those who do not play ball with the appropriate information-sharing. But as our friend over in Labour just said the important part of course is effectiveness. So we do need to ensure that whatever system we have in place is absolutely effective. We are still having failure around biosecurity. It is still costing us millions upon millions of dollars and unfortunately these things are often in perpetuity because they are not able to be resolved as my friend who was speaking directly before will know because in his region we have got the great white butterfly as one of those examples. So no matter how efficient our information system is in coming in ultimately it does come back to the effectiveness the inspections and the ability for biosecurity to jump on top of these situations. I am watching that one very very closely because I am really concerned that that pest is likely to get away. I am not sure that New Zealanders understand the seriousness of that. If it becomes a mainstream pest throughout New Zealand it would have a huge impact and there would be lots of ramifications.The Green Party is supporting this bill. We will be looking at what some of those examples are so that we know we have got an absolute full understanding of the ramifications of the different parts of it. We are looking forward to that and to seeing this bill no doubt progress reasonably speedily right through the process. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a great pleasure to speak on this Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill and it is also a great pleasure to hear that Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition the Labour Party and also the Greens are going to be supporting this forward-looking progressive bill which of course is sponsored by the Hon Maurice Williamson a very enthusiastic Minister of Customs and a Minister who is very very well acquainted with information and communications technology and of course is wanting to progress things. Of course this absolutely typifies the work of the National Government towards economic development towards efficiency and effectiveness towards reducing compliance costs and towards modernity. We are the Government that has been well-known for championing the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and that is entirely relevant to this particular bill. I was quite surprised to hear Mr Tirikatene going into the past on various concerns which the Labour Party is inclined to do.One of the things that we did hear from the Hon Maurice Williamson at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was the huge lengths that the Customs Service went toto test in parallel the new system with the old system over a significant period of time to get the bugs out of it and also that this particular system will come out in two tranches—again over a period of time. Although we all know that various computer systems all over the world do have difficulties a great deal of thought and effort to detail have been put into this particular one.The other thing is that everyone in New Zealand is concerned about biosecurity and again we have heard the Customs Service time and time again say what a difficult taskit has where every day there are thousands upon thousands of shipments coming into and out of New Zealand and that customs officers have to do everything they can to avoid biosecurity risks. It is a bit rich when we have Damien O’Connor the member for West Coast - Tasman shroud waving and mastering the art of misinformation when it was under his regime thatdidymo came in and under his regime that of course the very devastating varroa bee mite came in. Some of these things are inevitable but what we do want and what is encapsulated in this new system is a modern system that is well tested and that is highly necessary for New Zealand.I think it is worthwhile spending just 1 second on what the regulatory impact statement says regarding the reasons for bringing this legislation in. It says: “The opportunity for improved efficiencies in border management and lower compliance costs for industry is potentially impeded by existing legislation.” But moreover: “The flows of people goods and craft arriving in New Zealand create significant risks. New Zealand needs a border system capable of facilitating trade and travel while managing risk and collecting Government revenue of over $10.5 billion a year. Management of the border is undertaken by a number of agencies including Customs …”. The statement goes on to say: “The management of the border for customs and biosecurity purposes relies on computer systems that are over 15 years old and lack the flexibility to respond to the increasing needs of border management.” This is the reason why it is so important to progress this very necessary legislation.It is great that all parties are supporting it. I look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which is so ably chaired by my colleague John Hayes. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a relatively brief call in this first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee and probably beyond. I say that though with some trepidation because this bill appears on first examination to have a great deal recommending it. It appears to simplify. It appears to streamline. It appears to make swifter easier and more efficient. It appears to promise to make the establishment of a single window through which importers and exporters both may conduct their requisite transactions with Her Majesty’s New Zealand customs and excise and meet their biosecurity obligations a less cumbersome and more user-friendly experience. Therein hangs the conundrum.This bill promises a great deal. It promises to be the best thing since sliced bread and if it works it will be a very good thing indeed. The Joint Border Management System itself if it works as intended and as advertised will be a good thing. It is clearly a well-intended initiative and as long as it proves to be true to label it will be of great benefit to the Government traders and travellers alike. For anyone who has cause to cross the border who has goods that must cross the border inwards or outwards and for Government departments that have responsibility for or interest in those people a good well-designed and well-functioning one-stop shop as the explanatory note describes it offers a tantalising promise. So we hope that it will. We hope that it will perform as desired and as intended and we are certainly supportive of the concept behind it.The potential pitfall of course is the possibility that it might not work or it might not work properly or it might have teething issues that expose this country to biosecurity risks. The Ministry for Primary Industries is still a relatively new organisation. The melding together of what were three separate Government departments is no casual undertaking and there are still hiccups coming through the system as people and methodologies which used to operate independently learn towork together in an environment where the greater part of the new organisation is unfamiliar territory for all of them.Taking on this partnership with yet another department that being the New Zealand Customs Service will bring its own challenges and requirements for learning and we sincerely hope that the new system will be able to be brought to full operational functionality with as few problems as is humanly possible.We are pleased that it is not all new ground that is to be covered—that established international models such as the World Customs Organization will be adopted and that the lodging and formatted data with regard to customs biosecurity and food-related information will be compatible with international standards and with the systems used by our trading partners so that is very encouraging. But we will need to be vigilant. New Zealand needs to pay very close attention indeed to the potential for biosecurity risks being allowed to slip between the cracks as we transition to this new regime. I am sure that everyone involved with the management and security at the border will have this as a primary concern. As New Zealand First and others have said repeatedly in recent months in this House and in relation to various Government bills and policy actions it is absolutely essential that our biosecurity operations and personnel are resourced adequately and focused appropriately in order to ensure that this potential for incursion is met and minimised.Online portals for processing forms and information are all well and good but they are of little value in identifying shipping containers full of cocaine or muddy boots bearing the foot-and-mouth virus. It is our sincerest hope that the Government will not use this new system as an excuse for making yet further cuts to biosecurity resourcing resulting in even fewer X-rays being taken fewer dog teams working our ports and airports and fewer boots on the ground.I do not intend to detain the House unnecessarily during this time of urgency when the most appropriate forum to address any concerns that we have will be the select committee. We look forward to examining the bill in greater detail there and to listening to the submissions of the public who are wise beyond the recognition afforded to them in too many cases where Government policies are being forged.In closing then I would reiterate that New Zealand First acknowledges the wisdom behind the concept that is driving this bill and we are certainly in favour of the benefits that it will bring so long as it is able to function properly. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—not that the proof is in the pudding. Why do people say that? Too often we hear people proclaiming that the proof is in the pudding. No it is not. That does not even make sense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating is the correct quote and that does make sense. What it means here is that this bill appears to be a very good idea but the proof of that will be whether it works properly or not. We certainly hope it will and we are happy to support the bill going to the select committee. Thank you.Hon TAU HENARE (National): The more we let business do business the more economic growth we get. The more growth we get the more employment we get. That in a nutshell is the main thrust of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. The main thrust of this Government is to make business able to do business so that it creates the wealth so that we can get on with creating the opportunities for employment better education and so on and so forth. My colleague Mr Hayes said that this bill is one of the strands of the rope. It is the link in the chain. It is the doughboy in the boil-up. It is essential that we allow business—Hon Member: It’s the toe in the shoe.Hon TAU HENARE: It is the cliché in the cliché. It is essential that we allow business to get on with what it knows best—that is doing business—and that we get outof the way. But we must also make sure that there are protections there for our consumers and also for our business people.I am heartened to find that Rino Tirikatene mentioned bugs and grubs. There was one in the House yesterday that we have not really got rid of yet but hopefully there is time to get rid of that grub. I commend this bill to the House and I also cannot wait—I cannot wait—for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to do its business.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a pity that every one of the National speakers who have got to their feet have talked a little around this bill the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill and have then run out of content and substance to actually debate the bill properly. This is an important piece of legislation. I have got to say that when I came into the House to discuss this bill and I saw Craig Foss start the first reading I thought: “Oh my God. The Minister who brought usNovopay and all of the botch-ups that were involved in that is now bringing to the House a piece of legislation that makes fundamental IT changes in our critical border security and biosecurity area.” I thought: “This is doomed. We will go down the same path asNovopay in this term of the National Government.”I was in the House when the National Party brought in INCIS and spent $100 million on it. National members spent $100 million on a police computer system and it failed and they chucked it away—$100 million down the drain. I thought: “I do support the concept of a Trade Single Window and I do support the joint border management system but do I have confidence in this National Government which has a track record of bungling IT every time they put their hands on it?”. There he is—John Hayes is putting both hands up in the air to take responsibility for each of those failures.I am particularly worried because this bill does deal with our trade. I have seen the bungles that have been made in our trading over the last few months; the bungles in regard to the export of our biggest single export product which is dairy products; and the bungles in regard to meat processing. When I see how the National Government has mismanaged that and I see the problems that have arisen because National thought that it can make some quick savings—cut costs and slash the officials that work hard and conscientiously on this—I think again: “My God can we trust the National Government to bring in an important system like this?”.John Hayes: Yes you can. Yes you can.Hon PHIL GOFF: You know Mr Hayes if we are looking as we are at why we have had this immense unprecedented problem in trading in our most important products look no further than the Government’s decision to abolish the Food Safety Authority. Look no further than its decision to restructure the Ministry for Primary Industries. Look no further Mr Hayes than its decision—a totally botched decision—to take the best people out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. More than anybody else Mr Hayes knows that some of the best people that we had working in that division went down the road lost their jobs or left because they were disillusioned. The Prime Minister having demolished that ministry with his ill-thought-out and botched restructuring—conducted by Murray McCully—is now saying: “Oh maybe we’d better beef up our trade negotiation sector.”I support this legislation and I support the intent of it. It began under a Labour Government—Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Credit Rating Forecasts and Alternative Approaches1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Earlier this week ratings agency Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed its AA foreign currency long-term rating for New Zealand. Its outlook remains stable. It said that New Zealand’s credit rating reflects the country’s fiscal and monetary policy flexibility economic resilience public policy stability and a stable financial sector. As it has noted before Standard and Poor’s also commented on New Zealand’s high external debt which is driven by high household and agricultural sector debt. Even so it has forecast current account deficit of around 6 percent by 2015—which I think is too pessimistic—which is significantly better than the 8 or 9 percent peak of current account deficits in the 3 years to 2008.Maggie Barry: What did Standard and Poor’s say about New Zealand’s immediate economic prospects and what are the main sources of expected economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Standard and Poor’s said that New Zealand does have the benefit of a resilient and relatively high-income economy and expects GDP to grow at about 1.5 percent per annum per capita over the next few years consistent with total GDP growth of 2 to 3 percent as we have spoken about for a number of months now. Growth is expected to be driven by post-earthquake construction in Christchurch as well as strong underlying demand for more residential construction in Auckland. The ratings agency notes that the Government’s checks and balances are effective and that we are near the top of many surveys on governance government efficiency and business promotion. However it is clear from its commentary that our external debt position is still too large and the more that we can encourage and support businesses to invest and households to reduce their debt the better for our long-term economic prospects.Maggie Barry: What other reports has the Minister received on the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has this week issued its quarterly predictions which note that the New Zealand economy is recovering moderately. It notes that there are significant global risks with signs of a slowing economy and financial instability in China and slower growth in Australia and some emerging markets. It notes that optimism is spreading across businesses and consumers. However this is no recipe for complacency. Clearly with our still relatively high debt levels and the need to grow our export sector there are many challenges ahead in lifting incomes and providing more jobs.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report that he just quoted that on page 4 says of Auckland: “growth in jobs has stalled and the region is on a ‘sugar high’ of rapidly rising house prices and debt”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes to some extent. The Auckland housing market as I think is well understood has been growing faster than makes sense for a stable economy. Construction and housing there will promote growth and I would hope that the Opposition will be able to support the Government’s measures to ensure more houses on the ground more quickly in order to moderate that growth and moderate the sugar shock in the Auckland economy.Maggie Barry: What reports has the Minister received on alternative approaches to managing the economy particularly the management of the Government’s balance sheet to control debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One measure that the Government has taken to control debt is the partial sale of some Government assets which allows us to get cash from mainly New Zealand investors to invest in other priority public assets. I notice there is some opposition to this policy but I have not seen any reports that the opponents of the Government share offer programme will actually buy back the shareholdings in the Government electricity companies. I take it from that that the candidates for the Labour leadership do not actually believe the positions they are taking because they will not commit to buying them back.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a satisfactory long enough answer.Syria Internal Conflict—International Response to Use of Chemical Weapons2.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: What advice was New Zealand given in New York last night on the likely response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria?Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs)on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: We are receiving updates from a range of posts around the world including obviously New York which convey the perspectives of a range of countries about possible responses to a clearly abhorrent act. We have repeatedly said that the United Nations Security Council needs to show leadership on Syria and needs to show it now.Hon Phil Goff: Has New Zealand given any commitment to the United States or any other country as to what action it might take in the event of a military strike against Syria; if so what?Hon TIM GROSER: No.Hon Phil Goff: Is New Zealand supporting Ban Ki-moon’s position that no decision on a strike should be taken against Syria until such time as the United Nations weapons inspection team has completed its task?Hon TIM GROSER: Clearly the report of the inspectors will be a crucial ingredient in any serious response but we are not given the seriousness of this nature taking a position on a hypothetical question at this stage.Hon Phil Goff: What direct approach if any has New Zealand made to permanent Security Council members—in particular Russia and China—urging them not to veto any appropriate collective action that might otherwise be supported by the vast majority on that council?Hon TIM GROSER: Our representatives have taken a number of steps with a number of Governments including those Governments to convey our position on that. Once again it comes down to the central matter: it is time for the Security Council to show leadership and the Security Council should unite behind that position.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about some country; it was specifically about permanent Security Council members—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask the member to repeat his question from the start.Hon Phil Goff: What direct approach if any has New Zealand taken to permanent Security Council members Russia and China urging them not to veto collective action that has widespread support from other members of the council?Hon TIM GROSER: I believe I answered that very clearly in the answer I have just given. I said “including” those countries.Hon Phil Goff: How would a military strike against Syria help secure the chemical weapons—the hundreds of tonnes of chemical weapons—that are stockpiled there rather than increase the prospect of those chemical weapons falling into the hands of people who might use them or being used by elements of the regime in retaliation for the strike?Hon TIM GROSER: Clearly that is a huge and legitimate question and we can be certain that the strategic thinkers who are considering the range of options will have that at the forefront of their attention.Hon Phil Goff: What lessons can be learnt from Iraq where 10 years after the military invasion of Iraq by the United States more than a thousand Iraqi people a month are still being killed or for that matter Libya where after the air strikes against Libya the conditions there today range somewhere between anarchy and chaos?Hon TIM GROSER: I am sure many lessons can be learnt from these situations. But as the member would be well aware having served as our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade every situation has its specific characteristics. Some lessons will be generally applicable across different conflicts but each has to be looked atsuigeneris.Schools Partnership—Standard of Applicants3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by her statements in relation to Partnership School applicants that “the range of applications we have received is impressive” and what she was impressed with was “the broad range of applicants not the calibre”?Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of theMinister of Education: Yes.Metiria Turei: Was the poor calibre of applications the reason why the Government missed the June 2013 date for contracts to be signed for these schools; if not what was the reason that that date was missed?Hon JOHN BANKS: The Ministry of Education and the officials have been going through a long and rigorous programme of deliberation on all of the 35 applications to make sure that the right applications get to the right place at the right time and under intense scrutiny. We are not behind time. In the very near future we are about to announce the successful partnership schools for day one term one next year.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister consider thatCatherine Isaac head of the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Authorisation Board was telling the truth when she issued a press release on 8 May this year praising “the range and calibre of applicants”; if so why?Hon JOHN BANKS: I am advised that the minutes refer to the ministry’s score of how the 67-page application forms were completed; it was not an observation about the quality of the applicants as the minutes go on to point out. The authorisation board and Miss Isaac were charged with determining the quality of the applications. The applicants have been put through tight hoops and high hurdles and the very best applicants will be allowed to open a partnership school on day one term one next year.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I invite the member to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister consider thatCatherine Isaac head of the Partnership Schools Authorisation Board was telling the truth when she issued a press release on 8 May this year praising “the range and calibre of applicants”; if so why?Hon JOHN BANKS: I have absolute confidence that Miss Catherine Isaac the chairman of the authorisation board would always tell the truth about the 35 applicants of the partnership schools those shortlisted and the successful applicants who will open partnership schools up and down this country on day one term one next year.Metiria Turei: How can the Minister consider that Ms Isaac was telling the truth in her 8 May statement given that the day after her press statement praising these schoolswas made the board she chairs noted the low scores and the lack of capability among the 35 applicants for partnership schools?Hon JOHN BANKS: We were impressed with the 35 applicants from across the country and I am advised that what the member is talking about—low scores—is the ministry’s score of how the 67-page application forms were completed. It was about the 67-page application forms not an observation about the quality of the applicants as the minutes go on to point out. The authorisation board was charged with determining the quality of the applicants. The authorisation board has done that and has come back with a group of very successful high-quality applicants which will face statutory obligations high hurdles and tight hoops before they open on day one term one next year.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a copy of the 9 May minutes of the authorisation board meeting which clearly shows that the board commented on the overall level of scoring which was lower than—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of a description. Leave is sought to table the minutes dated 9 May. Is there any objection to those being tabled? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: Has the authorisation board sought further applications given the applicants’ low overall scores and the gaps identified in business planning operations and legislative knowledge given that all of these are vital to the running of a school?Hon JOHN BANKS: They are vital to the running of these schools and the running of these schools will be set down in the statutory contract set by the Government on behalf of the people for the funding of these schools. Yes they will have high levels of accountability openness and structure around them to make them work on day one term one next year so that the underachievers in this country can have an opportunity for a world-class education as the Minister might have had.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the authorisation board was seeking further applications given the low quality of the 35. That question has not been answered.Mr SPEAKER: Well again part of the problem is the length of the question. The question was certainly: “Has the authorisation board sought further applications?”. It is difficult for Ministers sometimes to decipher a question when it is a long-winded question with a relatively simple question in it. If the member wants to just stand and repeat the essence of the question which is: “Has the authorisation board sought further applications?” I will attempt to get an answer for the member.Metiria Turei: I will take up that opportunity. Has the authorisation board sought further applications given the 35 applicants’ low scores?Hon JOHN BANKS: No because on balance the authorisation board has come up with a number of partnership schools that will open on day one term one next year. Amongst the 35 applicants will be very high-quality people who will work in the best interests of the local community and in the best interests of underachieving schools and they will produce outcomes that are absolutely committed to a world-class education for these kids.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that any applicant for one of these schools should at least score highly on the operations criteria given that that is the ability to run a school?Hon JOHN BANKS: I do not have any argument with the proposition put by the member and I can tell the member that the contracts being negotiated now with the successful group of partnership school applicants will be very very tight the hurdlesvery high the hoops very tight and the accountability open and transparent. She will be able to see it for herself when all the documents are laid out in front of the country when the successful applicants are named in a very short space of time.Metiria Turei: Given the poor quality of the applications including deficiencies in operations legislative knowledge and business planning will she now reconsider this disastrous and wasteful experiment and put the money spent on these schools back into our overstretched public education system?Hon JOHN BANKS: No no and no because the successful applicants will work in the best interests of the kids from those communities who are underachievers. This will give them an opportunity for a world-class education. I am surprised that the co-leader of the Green Party would not want an opportunity for a world-class education for many of the people who fail in the present system.Chris Hipkins: How quickly will poorly performing partnership schools be closed down given that the Prime Minister is already stating: “If those partnership schools do not succeed the Government will be just as quick to close them down as we have been to establish them.”?Hon JOHN BANKS: Well I have got very good news. Because of the process that these 35 applicants have been through and because of the high quality of the final applicants that are going to be announced very soon to start on day one term one next year they will not be closed down. The only fear that members on the other side of this House have got today is that these partnership schools will work for the most vulnerable kids in our education system.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Chris Hipkins: My question to the Minister was actually: “How quickly will poorly performing partnership schools be closed down?”. The Minister basically said that he did not think there were going to be any poorly performing partnership schools but he did not actually say how quickly they would be closed down.Mr SPEAKER: If he does not think there are going to be any poorly performing such schools how could he then decide how quickly they would be closed down? I think the Minister adequately addressed the question.Science and Research Funding—2013 Science Investment Round and Other Initiatives4.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Science and Innovation: How much will the Government invest in new research through the 2013 Science Investment Round?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Yesterday I was pleased to announce that New Zealand researchers will receive $278 million in new research investment through the 2013 science investment round. The 51 research programmes that will receive funding through the contestable process are in areas as diverse as biological industries high-value manufacturing and services energy and minerals and health and society. Science and innovation are critical to New Zealand’s economic success and growth. These new investments must result in research programmes that deliver economic environmental and social outcomes. Many of the proposals involve collaborations between several research organisations with industry partners contributing co-funding and market knowledge in order to help accelerate commercial outcomes.Tim Macindoe: What are some of the projects that will be funded through the 2013 science investment round?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are 51 projects in total receiving funding but let me highlight just a couple that the House may be interested in. The Cawthron Institute willbe receiving $21 million over 7 years to domesticate New Zealand’s valuable shellfish species. The official project title is the Cultured Shellfish programme. This will provide a reliable seed supply and enable selective breeding yielding higher productivity quality and of course market value. Another interesting project is Scion’s precision forestry programme. Scion will receive $20 million over 6 years to shift forestry management to precision forestry so that New Zealand’s forest products can be sold to overseas markets by demonstrating environmental and social sustainability.Tim Macindoe: What other investment is the Government making in science innovation and research?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very good question. The Government recognises that science and innovation are key drivers of economic growth and of making New Zealand businesses more competitive internationally. That is why we have increased total funding for science innovation and research across Government to $1.36 billion in the current financial year up from $1.24 billion last year and an increase in 28 percent over the last 4 years. In Budget 2013 we allocated an additional $75 million for business research and development grants $31 million for repayable grants for start-up businesses and an additional $73 million for the National Science Challenges. Of course we have established Callaghan Innovation the new hi-tech HQ for businesses’ research and development.Primary Industries Ministry—Response to Incidents and Performance5.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to theMinister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he stand by his statement: “It is a high-performing ministry. During the recent hiccup MPI stood up. It responded incredibly well. It did a fantastic job.”?Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he believe that he and his ministry did a fantastic job during thePsa virus infestation the great white moth incursion the dicyandiamide milk scandal in China palm kernel expeller importation and possible contamination the ministry’s recent failure to certify meat for ChinaFonterra’s botulism scare Russia’s blockade of New Zealand dairy productsFonterra’s dicyandiamide issues in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and nitrate levels in Westland Milk Products’ lactoferrin powder?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Ministry for Primary Industries is a high-performing ministry. From time to time there arelearnings and I am sure there will belearnings as a result of the compliance investigation and the ministerial inquiry.Shane Ardern: What reports has the Minister seen regarding the Ministry for Primary Industries?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have seen a range of reports including one that claimed that the Ministry for Primary Industries was subsumed into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and that Murray McCully is the Minister of Trade and another that claims that I have cut the Ministry for Primary Industries’ budget by $26 million. Of course all of these claims are factually incorrect and were made by Damien O’Connor.Hon Damien O’Connor: Without getting into debate on that particular answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given his statement: “Every day I am filled with the purpose of adding value to our economy …” on which particular day in the last 3 months has he achieved this?Hon NATHAN GUY: Every day I am very proud to be a hard-working Minister.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Government’s announcement that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will hire food safety trade specialists amount to an admission that his Government’s cuts to both the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade went too far and has his Government ruled out compensation to those companies affected by its recent ineptitude?Hon NATHAN GUY: No what this shows is that the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade are responding to growing markets.Hon Damien O’Connor: What can the Minister say to the 240 workers stood down on 8 August and now without pay from the AlliancePukeuri meatworks nearŌāmaru because his ministry has been unable to complete its audit following suspicions that it was certifying meat from other works for export which has compromised their ability to get into the China market?Hon NATHAN GUY: I am aware of that issue and I caution the member because there are some issues with that particular plant that the Ministry for Primary Industries is working through.Parenting Support—Peekaboo App and Other Initiatives Targeting Fathers6.ALFRED NGARO (National) to theMinister for Social Development: How is the Government promoting technology to support young fathers to better connect interact and parent their children?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Today in partnership with Plunket and Vodafone we launched a new mobile app designed to encourage young fathers to better interact with their children. It was launched to coincide with Father’s Day on Sunday. The concept is the work of Josh Briggs—[Interruption] Listen up. This is interesting. The concept is the work of Josh Briggs a young Wellington dad and Vodafone New Zealand Foundation World of Difference recipient. This is a fantastic example of the Government NGOs and the corporate sector working together to create a product with real benefits for our dads.Alfred Ngaro: When will the application be available for parents to download?Hon PAULA BENNETT: ThePeekaboo app will be available in both English and Te Reo and is a free download from both the Apple and Android stores from 1 September. It is designed for babies aged 9 months and older. I particularly like that it was designed by a dad in conjunction with his baby. It is interactive and it has their own family involved in it.Hon Tony Ryall: What’s its name?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Josh Briggs is the father and it is called thePeekaboo app.Alfred Ngaro: How are other Government initiatives supporting young fathers?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is true that during those down 2000 years teen dads were ignored so in Budget 2010 we provided investment in teen parent programmes that support our young dads in particular. These programmes arm these fathers with information and skills to prepare them for birth give them parenting skills and also help them to respond effectively to their child’s health education and social needs. It is fundamentally making a difference on the ground and helping support them in their role as fathers.Employment 90-day Trial Period—Impact on Vulnerable Workers7.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to theMinister of Labour:He ahatānatātaritangamōtepūrongo ekiianaatuite 11000ngāpāhikuatangomahiingākaimahiirotoitetautuatahi otāteKāwanatanga 90rāwhakawāmahi ehia oēnei ongākaimahi hekaimahiMāoriPasifikarāneikeiraroitetau 25?[What analysis has he undertaken on the report that more than 11000 employers fired at least one worker during a trial period in the first year of the Government’s 90 day work trial law; and amongst the group of employees fired how many wereMāori Pasifika and aged under 25 years old?]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for his question. I have not undertaken any specific analysis but I am being updated on the use and impact of 90-day trial periods. The information requested in the second part of the question is not available. What I can tell the member though is that the figure the member quotes represents 19 percent of employers who used the trial period. The far more important figure in my view is that 80 percent or more of employers who had employed new staff on trial periods retained those employees. This equates to upwards of 46000 employers who used trial periods and kept staff on half of whom they would not have even given a chance to otherwise.Te Ururoa Flavell: How is it possible to know the impact of this legislation onMāori Pasifika the disabled the young and other disadvantaged groups if basic labour market statistics are not recorded and does he intend to ensure that proper data is gathered in the future in order to assess the success or otherwise of the legislation?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is another fair question. As I have said in the primary answer—and it is true for this supplementary question also—I do not have the specific data or statistics that he asked for. But what I do know and what the employer surveys make quite clear is that young people and people in the categories that the member has talked about who would not have even been given a chance at a job got long-term jobs as a result of this law change. Forty percent of employers gave chances that as I say they otherwise would not have given so this law has been pro-jobs particularly for the sorts of groups that the member refers to.Te Ururoa Flavell: Given that this law does not protect vulnerable workers from being dismissed what avenues are available to workers who believe that they have been discriminated against—such as those for example who experienced discrimination in the Merrill Lynch case in America—and does he accept that discrimination in employment may well exist in Aotearoa?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Systemic discrimination in a workplace is never acceptable. What is very clear with this 90-day law is that the ordinary laws that prohibit any form of discrimination on the basis of sex race and so on remain in place and as I said anything other than that is not only entirely unacceptable but also unlawful.Pest Control—Aerial Use of 1080 Poison8.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements regarding 1080?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes as they are backed up by solid science. I draw the member’s attention to the recent reports by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that conclude that if it is properly used it is safe and that it is critical to the survival of our native birds and our native trees. Members advocating a ban on aerial 1080 are indirectly signing a death warrant for our kiwi our blue duck our robin and ourtūī as well as undermining our economy and the work ofTBfree New Zealand to ensure our food exports are disease-free.Richard Prosser: Given that the Department of Conservation’s own findings as reported in theNew Zealand Herald show that almost 13 percent of kea will be killedby repellent-treated 1080 baits is he happy that approximately 130 of the estimated 1000 kea in the area of the westernKahurangi which is to be poisoned by his department will be killed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that in a 1080 operation inŌtira when they monitored the 39 kea five were killed. It is also true though that in over eight other 1080 operations where every kea was monitored including in theKahurangi National Park not a single kea died. The evidence seems to be that in areas where kea are humanly fed they can get into the habit of taking bait. More important though—and I point this out to the member—in areas where 1080 has not been used 99 percent of kea chicks die because of predation—99 percent. That is a path to extinction. In areas where 1080 is used 100 percent of kea chicks have survived in the first year and 68 percent in the second year confirming that overall kea survival depends on the use of 1080.Richard Prosser: Can he tell the House how many of the 13 percent of kea killed by repellent-treated 1080 died as a result of eating baits directly and how many died from secondary poisoning after consuming insects that had been killed by 1080; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can only record as much as the science that is available. It is true that there is risk of kea eating bait directly and a risk of kea eating stoats or rats that are killed. But I would point out to the member that in the area ofKahurangi National Park in the Nelson region where he is objecting to a 1080 operation the last time a 1080 operation was done not one of the monitored kea died. Secondly—and this is critical—we have just had a beech tree mast. The most recent indication is that we have got the worst ever plague of rats within theKahurangi National Park and unless we treat with 1080 the great spotted kiwi and birds like the kea and the blue duck will be wiped out.Richard Prosser: How many dead kea is an acceptable number of dead kea?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would of course prefer that no kea died just as in the same way I would prefer that no stoats or rats or possums killed kea chicks or kiwi chicks. The reality is though that when the science says that 99 percent of chicks will die from predation without 1080 operations I am happy to be part of a Government that will back the science back our native birds and use whatever tools we need to ensure that our native birds survive.Richard Prosser: Is he aware that under the Wildlife Act 1953 the killing of any endangered or protected native bird is illegal; if so will his department face prosecution should it be found to have killed a protected native species by using 1080 poison drops; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That question is about as stupid as suggesting that we prosecute the stoats the rats and the possums that every single night kill our kea our kiwi and our other native birds. If that is what New Zealand First stands for well I am a bit lost.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether his department will face prosecution and the Minister did not answer that question.Mr SPEAKER: No but I think he gave you a very fair answer as to the likelihood of that happening.Oil Gas and Minerals Exploration—Public Notification of Deep-sea Drilling9.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: Why has her Ministry proposed that applications for exploratory deep sea drilling won’t require public notification given that it is the same activity that the Deepwater Horizon was engaged in when it exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The discussion document released yesterday is for consulting on classifying exploratory drilling as “non-notified discretionary” meaning that the regulator will have total discretion to consider and determine the application on its merits and to impose any required conditions. The critical point is that until now there has been zero environmental oversight of such operations but now under this Government there will be.I consider that this classification is appropriate because exploratory drilling takes place over a short space of time involves the drilling of a very small hole in the seabed and when operating as intended has low environmental impact. At this exploratory stage of the process it is the environmental impact that the regulator needs to be satisfied of. Oil spills from exploratory drilling are rare. In the Deepwater Horizon event referred to my understanding is that the failings related primarily to bad well design and integrity and inadequate containment measures. Regulation of both those aspects falls under other pieces of legislation.This Government is committed to ensuring that all petroleum and minerals activities have rigorous environmental and safety controls which means having procedures in place to stop spills from happening and having effective response mechanisms in the unlikely event that spills occur.Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister explain the logic in shutting the public out from having a say on proposals for the riskiest phase of oil drilling which is exploratory drilling but allowing the public to have a say on proposals for production drilling and is the Minister aware that it actually takes the same amount of time 4 to 6 weeks to drill both?Hon AMY ADAMS: These exploratory wells have been drilled in New Zealand for more than 45 years without any environmental oversight and without actually any history of serious issue. The point of this part of the process is for the regulator to be satisfied that the proper environmental controls are in place. And yes I am satisfied that it is appropriate that they do that based on the evidence and on the information and bearing in mind that this is an exploratory fact-finding part of the process. Before anyone could move to full production they would absolutely have to have a full public process. I consider that that is the appropriate part of the process for the public to have their say.Gareth Hughes: So is the Minister seriously telling the people of New Zealand that this Government will ask Kiwis their opinion on what colour to paint Department of Conservation huts but has proposed to deny the public their say on proposals for deep-sea exploratory drilling?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I am telling the public of New Zealand is that the National-led Government is the one that has put in place any environmental protections and safeguards in the exclusive economic zone and that the Labour-Green Government did not see fit to bother with any regulator discretion and certainly no public notifications. So I think the New Zealand public can be very satisfied with the protections we are creating.Hon Maryan Street: Given her reference to the regulator which is the Environmental Protection Authority what contribution to environmental protection can the Environmental Protection Authority offer when it does not have environmental protection as one of its stated purposes?Hon AMY ADAMS: The critical aspect that members need to be aware of is that under the proposed classification the Environmental Protection Authority has full and complete discretion to accept to refuse and to impose conditions based on the merits of the application and on the information put in front of it. I have full confidence that the authority will be absolutely satisfied before it makes its decisions.Gareth Hughes: Given that the Minister cannot guarantee that we will not see a Gulf of Mexico - style oil spill from an exploratory well in New Zealand’s waters why will she not protect our economy our environment and our “clean green” reputation and make exploratory deep-sea drilling a prohibited activity?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well largely because there is no scientific evidence that backs up the member’s assertion that that is necessary.Employment Relations—Impact of Legislative Reform on Workers10.DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to theMinister of Labour: What advice if any has he received about whether workers will be better or worse off under the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): Well from the real workers’ party in this Parliament it is great to answer this question. Overall the advice I have received suggests that the changes will create an employment relations framework that increases flexibility and choice and ensures a balance of fairness for employers and employees.Hon Trevor Mallard: The member’s never done a day’s work in his life—never done a day’s work in his life.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The bill is not about making things worse for workers although I am sure the member has convinced herself it is. To the member who says I have never done a day’s work in my life I have worked at Foodtown I have worked in bars I have worked in cleaning—probably more than that loser ever has.Darien Fenton: Will workers be better or worse off given that his bill will mean a return to the situation under the Unemployment Contracts Act where unions fail at the first hurdle of bargaining if an employer insists they want only individual agreements?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have said per se it is actually not about better or worse off. But protracted—Hon Member: Answer the question.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I am answering the question. But protracted bargaining that goes on and on and is contentious is in no one’s interest actually. The real way to get wages up is through better productivity and more profitability which results in more money in workers’ pockets.Darien Fenton: Will workers be better or worse off under the provision in his bill where the so-called 60-day grace period is actually a 100-day no-strike period where workers have neither the protection of collective bargaining nor the right to strike?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well the purpose of the grace period is very clear. Of course if you have got a collective bargaining period that comes to an end you need to then have a mechanism so that it does not just go straight back to collective bargaining. But as I said in the answer earlier it is in no one’s interest to have protracted endless bargaining that gets no one anywhere. It is much better just to have a good faith relationship where workers and employers benefit.Darien Fenton: How will bargaining be more efficient as he claims if every district health board decides to abandon its multi-employer collective agreements for doctors nurses and service workers and negotiate hospital by hospital as they did in the past?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member well knows there is still good faith there is still freedom of association and there is still absolutely collective bargaining and a role for unions in everything in this bill.Darien Fenton: Does he believe that workers think they will be better off; if so why does he think that 1500 workers in Wellington 5000 workers in Auckland and 1200 workers in Christchurch have attended rallies to tell him he is wrong?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well overall they will be better off because we will have a more productive and a more businesslike working environment. But the fact of thematter is that with a union membership in this country of nearly 400000 actually the numbers she and her lot managed to get out were stuff-all.Aged Care Residential—Access to Audit Information11.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding publication of rest home audit information on the Ministry of Health website?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Yesterday I announced that from November the Ministry of Health will be trialling a new system giving people access to full rest home audit reports in addition to improved audit summaries. The ministry’s website will also now show whether a rest home has any current problems and what is being done to fix them. It will also have historical audit summaries going back to 2009. These will be published so that people can see what progress has been made and whether there are any ongoing issues.Dr Paul Hutchison: Why is the Government providing more information about rest homes to the public?Hon JO GOODHEW: As well as continuing to improve the quality and safety of rest homes the Government wants to make sure that families who have a relative living in a rest home or are considering their options can quickly and easily access the information they need to make a choice or a decision for them. This announcement adds to the initiatives we have already taken including publication of audit summaries online introduction of spot audits third-party accreditation of auditors and rolling out theinterRAI comprehensive assessment tool.Barbara Stewart: Will follow-up audits be carried out to ensure identified deficiencies are corrected and then reported on online?Hon JO GOODHEW: Most certainly.Wanganui Collegiate School—Integration12.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by her statement with regards to Wanganui Collegiate that “integrating the school will ensure…that a Collegiate education is available to a wider number of students”; if so why?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of theMinister of Education: Yes; because it is self-evident that the integration of Wanganui Collegiate School increased the State integration options available to families that reside in the Whanganui-Rangitīkei area. I acknowledge however that it is still very early days. The school has been integrated for less than a year. It is important to note that the proprietor has made a commitment to making this happen.Chris Hipkins: When she signed off the decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate had she read the Ministry of Education’s advice on the financial implications for the Crown which stated that the approximate additional cost to the Crown if the school was to integrate would be over $3 million annually in staffing and operational funding costs and does she believe that this constitutes value for money given that this works out to be a bill of over $440000 per student for the additional seven students who are going to have day places at Wanganui Collegiate?Hon NIKKI KAYE: There were three parts to that. In terms of the last part I disagree with the number that the member quoted. In terms of the other part of the question around cost I am aware that the cost of integration is about $3 million. But can I say this: members opposite say that they care about the provinces and say that they back the provinces and its communities but when it comes to a school that has contributed significantly to the local economy in this House they do not back them.Chris Hipkins: I am happy to help the Minister out. I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a Ministry of Education briefing specifying the cost of over $3 million annually.Mr SPEAKER: That is described. What is the second document?Chris Hipkins: The second document is the aide-mémoire stating that the roll for day students pre-integration was 143 and the third is the integration agreement which shows that post-integration the roll is 150.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen Wanganui Collegiate School’s enrolment scheme which provides that where there are more applicants who live in the area than places available priority will be given to siblings of current pupils then children of employees and board members then siblings of past pupils then children of past pupils and only then to other children living in the area; if so does she believe that her decision to integrate the school means that a Wanganui Collegiate education will be available to a wider number of students or is it simply going to remain a school for the wealthy and the privileged?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes; and yes. Can I also say that the proprietor has committed via an agreement to broadening the availability of its quality education and special character to more families from a wider range of circumstances. I do note that when you look at the breakdown of the cost you see that currently the maximum attendance dues are $2760. I think the member opposite needs to give this school time and I do back the integration of this school.Louise Upston: What other reports has the Minister seen on Wanganui Collegiate?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen a statement that said: “It was very important for this district that integration was granted ... I am very pleased that it has been.” This person went on to say that he hoped that the four other State secondary schools in Whanganui were also looked after: “There are top local secondary schools here.” That was HamishMcDouall Labour candidate for Whanganui. The reality is—Chris Hipkins: When she signed off the decision to—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question—will the member start again please.Chris Hipkins: When she signed off the decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate had she read the Ministry of Education’s advice that Wanganui Collegiate does not make a significant contribution to raising achievement for priority groups—Māori and Pasifika learners with special education needs or learners from low-income backgrounds—and that integrating the school is not making the best use of educational resources for this area and will not contribute to raising the quality of education for learners in the Whanganui area to any extent; if so does she still believe that her decision to integrate the school means that a Wanganui Collegiate education is available to a wider number of students or is it just going to remain a school for the wealthy and the privileged?Hon NIKKI KAYE: In terms of reading that document because I am answering on behalf of the Minister I obviously cannot answer that question. In terms of the other two parts to the question I am advised that this school is a high-achieving school. I am also advised that there were a number of documents that were saying that achievement is good but also that the benefit to the local economy was significant and that in terms of the other criteria taken into account many boarders across New Zealand will haveaccess to the school. So there are huge benefits from integration. I support the integration of the school.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the reports that the school fees for day students at Wanganui Collegiate School in 2013 are $10900 over $1000 more than they were before integration; if so does she believe that her decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate School which has led to its fees going up and only seven additional day places being made available is going to lead to a wider number of students getting access to a Wanganui Collegiate education or is it just going to remain a school for the wealthy and the privileged?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I think the member does make some incorrect assumptions there. Secondly what I would say to the member is that in terms of the fees situation I am aware that the attendance fee is the only part that is actually compulsory. In terms of those other fees the meals charge is for voluntary good. The other charges are in the donations category and parents are free to choose whether they pay at all. What I would say is that the member is out there saying that this is not a good integration but at the end of the day it is early days. There were many wider benefits for this integration and he is being very very—I think—dodgy in terms of the statements that he is using because we know what the real figures are in terms of what is compulsory and what is a donation.Chris Hipkins: When she said that those additional fees were voluntary and parental contributions were voluntary did she realise that those voluntary fees include meals house activities and supervision? If the family of a day student chooses to purchase these goods and services then they are required to pay for them. Therefore if a family does not purchase these goods and services then the proprietor is not required to provide the student with meals house activities or supervision. Does that mean that the children of those parents who are unable to pay the $5200 parental contribution will not be supervised and will not be able to attend house activities a requirement of the school?Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I have said this is the breakdown: the attendance due is compulsory for parents. The meal charge is for a voluntary good; that is if parents agree that their child will eat the school’s meals then fair enough but parents must have that choice. The charge cannot be levied automatically. All other charges are in the donations categories and parents are free to choose whether to pay all some or none of them. The Ministry of Education will monitor this very closely.Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Before question time we were debating this riveting piece of legislation called the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. The bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993 to support the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the joint border management system. These are ideas and concepts that were introduced initially under a Labour Government.This is not hugely controversial legislation. Labour is intending to support it. But lo and behold when the bill came up for its first reading who was the Minister moving the first reading motion? It was Craig Foss the Minister who was responsible forNovopay. The joint border management system is an IT system. It is designed to replace outdated systems in the Customs Service and in biosecurity in the Ministry for Primary Industries. When I saw Craig Foss the man responsible for the debacle overNovopayget up to move the first reading of this bill I almost recommended to Rino Tirikatene that we change our mind on whether we support it because after that debacle how could we have confidence in this IT system which is in fact the biggest single investment probably ever made by the Customs Service?A year afterNovopay there are still bungles that have not been sorted out and we have spent tens of millions of dollars more than was budgeted for a system that has failed. So how could we have confidence in this system? Then I read that the actual IT agency that is supplying the goods is IBM. IBM is the agency that about 12 years ago was responsible for the police INCIS system. The police INCIS system—I think you Mr Speaker were here at the time—cost $100 million and at the end of it they threw it away. That was $100 million of wasted investment.Between the combined influence of Craig Foss and the track record of the National Government time and again getting it wrong I wondered whether we should be supporting this legislation. Look let us be fair about it. Labour brought about the introduction of this legislation. It is designed to give the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries better information and risk assessment tools for targeting higher-risk trade and passengers. For Mr John Hayes who said that this had nothing to do with people I note that the joint border management system of course does include passengers though this tranche deals with goods and services. I am particularly worried as to whether this legislation which is inherently good legislation will be undermined by cuts that are being made to border security and biosecurity.Mr Hayes shakes his head but in 2009 that Government sacked 54 biosecurity officers from around the airports and the ports of this country. That was in 2009. In 2010 18 months later we hadPsa in this country.Psa has cost this country tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars and John Hayes knows that. So what I want to say to this Government is that it is penny wise and pound foolish. It will try to make cost cuts to save a little bit of money in the short term only to find that the long-term costs and risks to this country are immense.Then we saw the Budget this year and in terms of biosecurity the Government had chopped another $6 million. You can bring in whatever border security IT system you like but if at the same time you are undermining biosecurity by cutting costs and cutting the officers who are working hard to protect New Zealand its agriculture its exports and its lifestyle then you are wasting your money on this legislation. So I ask the Government how we can be confident that we will not see further botch-ups because at the same time as we are introducing this legislation we have seen restructuring of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Food Safety Authority. At the same time that that was happening we saw an unprecedented failure in terms of quality assurance about our export goods on dicyandiamide on botulism—or the suspected botulism—on nitrates and on meat exports that sit on the wharves.I say again to this Government that yes it has been smart enough to pick up Labour’s idea on this legislation but not smart enough to stop cost cutting where it affects New Zealand’s vital interests and not smart enough not to restructure departments so that they no longer work. The Food Safety Authority is a classic example of that. I could talk about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which lost its key trade negotiators Mr Hayes and now John Key is saying “Maybe we’ve got to go out and recruit some.” Of course you have got to go out and recruit some because the botched restructuring saw some of the best people—and Mr Hayes knows this to be the truth—in the trade negotiation area lost.The Trade Single Window as a concept is a good idea. It will enable businesses to complete border requirements for customs food and biosecurity purposes through one electronic transaction. It will make compliance easier. It is better at providing risk-related information and for that reason Labour will support this bill despite the bungling and the botch-ups of the Government which has done so much damage in other areas of biosecurity and trade.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. New Zealand is a trade nation. Trade is essential to our economy. The National-led Government has done or has been doing whatever it can do to promote New Zealand trade and to help our traders. This bill is yet another example. Our trade has been growing. For example we have a plan to double our trade with China from $10 billion in 2010 to $20 billion in 2015. We are confident that we will be able to achieve that goal. This bill is an omnibus bill. It amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993 to support the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the new $89 million Joint Border Management System or the JBMS.The changes in this legislation are important because they will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Acts. The Joint Border Management System is a joint initiative by the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries to replace current information systems. A more efficient and effective system will result as border clearance processes for persons goods and craft are modernised and combined. The Trade Single Window component of the system provides a single electronic gateway for industry to interact with Government agencies for their customs and biosecurity requirements. New Zealand’s border will be better protected and a smoother flow of legitimate trade will be ensured. So there is no impact on people travelling in and out of the country because the changes relate to the importing and exporting of goods and the arrival and departure of craft only.The amendments in the bill fall into three categories: first registering users of the Joint Border Management System which will provide for a wider range of border requirements; second providing information to and receiving information from the Trade Single Window which will adopt the World Customs Organization’s international data model; and third consequential changes to offences which include failing to comply with the new requirements and failing to update the Customs Service with the correct information. Building a more productive and competitive economy is one of the National-led Government’s priorities. Supply chain efficiencies from the Joint Border Management System are estimated to deliver benefits to the economy of at least $450 million over 10 years which is good news for New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member can I just ascertain whether this is a 5-minute call a split call?Hon Members: Yes it is.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): It is an honour to take a short call to speak on the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. Labour supports this bill and I welcome it going to the select committee where no doubt it will be scrutinised tested and enhanced for fit for purpose. For the benefit of viewers and listeners at home can I remind us all that the intent or the purpose of the bill is to amend the Customs and Excise Act of 1996 and the Biosecurity Act of 1993 to support the implementation of the trade single window component of the Joint Border Management System. To that end can I commend this side of the House for conceiving the Joint Border Management System initiative and this is why Labour is supporting this bill to the select committee. What is the single trade window? It creates a hub for exchanging information. I particularly want to acknowledge previous speakers who talked about front-line staff ensuring that our borders are secure particularly ourbiosecurity systems because as previous speakers have said our reputation as being a green safe economy is important to our economy.I particularly want to talk about two areas that were raised by previous speakers. One is the IT reputation of the system that is being put before us in this bill. I too share some of the concerns that the Hon Phil Goff mentioned in this House around the debacle withNovopay and in particular with INCIS. When reading that this initiative is to create a one-stop shop of intensive data-sharing it did give me some concern to ensure that we do not fall down that trap of what happened with INCIS andNovopay. This is why I again look forward to the bill going to the select committee to get those assurances that that will not happen this time around.I also want to acknowledge Mr Hayes for introducing this bill. He mentioned in his speech the advantage that this will bring to particularly cherry-growers and apple-growers. As the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and coming from the fine Hawke’s Bay where apples amongst other things such as wine are grown I too look forward to a bill that enables economic growth at the regional level. Can I share with the House that in my by-election days members of the Labour caucus were fortunate to meet with apple-growers in particular with JohnBostock from Hawke’s Bay who shared his views on economic growth particularly in the apple-growing industry. He shared with us the hope of having expanding markets land availability and skilled labour. What I can respond to him is that we are introducing a Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill that will lead to economic growth. Hopefully John will see the value in that.We also spoke to the owners of Apollo Apples Ltd—one of the largest apple-growers in Hawke’s Bay—and they shared their views on economic growth in the Hawke’s Bay. They have got one of the largest cool-storing facilities in Hawke’s Bay and it has been under-maximised. When we talk about benefits for apple-growers and cherry-growers I want to bring to the attention of the House the need for regional development investment particularly in the Hawke’s Bay to ensure that we can maximise the primary industry around apple-growing and that it is realised which I completely support. Again I stand in support of this bill and commend it to the select committee. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on the first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. I would like to acknowledge my colleague John Hayes who is the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which will be receiving the bill. I am sure that the committee will be very happy to get this bill.If we accept the fact that we are an export-based nation—and we are—and that 70 percent of our productivity is driven by the private sector then this is actually a very very good and important bill. One thing that we do face as a small nation down the bottom of the world competing with the rest of the world is our supply chain the fact that we are further away and therefore we do incur more costs and therefore we have to be more efficient. I would just like to acknowledge our exporters and our private sector because they spend a fair bit of time and invest a fair bit of their own capital in making sure that we are competitive and that we do have an efficient supply chain. The Government should be doing its bit in supporting them and this bill goes a long way to doing that.From my own experience in the logistics industry there has been a lot of investment gone into very very sophisticated programmes in partnership with companies like Microsoft focusing very heavily on in-transit visibility. Of course this bill has also got a flavour of that in terms of exporters and importers being able to have visibility on where their freight and where their containers are.I would just like to focus in on the registering of users of the Joint Border Management System because really this is where the rubber hits the road for a lot of our companies in terms of being able to streamline the process. Having had to deal with multiple agencies they are now able to interface and deal with one agency. The Customs and Excise Act 1996 requires that all goods imported or exported must be entered into the customs computer system by individuals—being importers exporters or their agents—who are registered users of the system. The trade single window will provide for a wider range of border requirements. For example registered users will be able to provide and receive information on the movement of their goods streamlining the supply chains. That sort of comes back to what I was saying earlier about this in-transit visibility and actually how critically important that is. The bill amends several aspects of the Customs and Excise Act to ensure that there is an appropriate registration mechanism for access to and use of the Joint Border Management System.The other thing that is actually really important about this bill is that there is a focus of course on making sure that our borders remain secure. We are very fortunate in many respects that we are an island nation. I have lived in countries where they have multiple shared borders of course and border security and biosecurity are always very very big issues there and costly in terms of trying to manage those. We are fortunate as an island nation that we are able to focus very carefully on how we do that ourselves.The areas covered by the amendments include allowing companies to be registered users instead of individuals only specific grounds on which the Chief Executive of the Customs Service can refuse an application are included and allowing the Chief Executive of the Customs Service to issue unique user identifiers for the Joint Border Management System that can be used by both customs and the Ministry for Primary Industries for border-related purposes. Finally I would just like to say again that this is a very very good bill. I am sure that Mr Hayes and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee are looking forward to receiving this bill and I commend it to the House.Mr SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins for the balance of the 5-minute call.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a short call on this bill the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. Look like every New Zealander I probably think most about border control when I am going through the airport and going through Maurice Williamson’s SmartGate. It is one of those terrible things to admit but when I get off a long overseas flight one of the first people I think about is Maurice Williamson. I think about Maurice Williamson when I am going through the border and going through SmartGate. You will be pleased to know that the SmartGate technology has obviously improved considerably because the first time I tried to go through SmartGate I failed and it would not let me through. I did not pass. But my most recent interactions with SmartGate you will be pleased to know were very very positive and I made it through. I was very relieved.Tim Macindoe: That was your security profile not the technology.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh that was the security profile. That is right the Government Communications Security Bureau has been on to me.Border security is incredibly important to a country like New Zealand. To some extent I guess we are lucky in the sense that we do not have any other countries touching us. We do not have other land masses touching us. We are surrounded by a massive amount of water so on one level that makes controlling our borders a little bit easier but then on another level it creates a whole lot of challenges as well because we cannot patrol absolutely every beach and every potential area where somebody might try to come ashore in New Zealand. But I think that by and large we do a very good job of controlling New Zealand’s borders.One of the reasons that border security is important of course is the significant biosecurity implication for New Zealand if things go wrong. We just cannot afford to get that wrong. We have an amazing advantage I guess in New Zealand in the fact that we are so isolated geographically as a country. That has meant that certain things have not spread to New Zealand and we want to keep them out. There are a whole lot of pests and diseases and so on that we have managed to avoid having here in New Zealand and we want to keep them out. That is where our biosecurity at the border is vitally vitally important.So I am concerned. I share my colleague Damien O’Connor’s concern about the cuts to biosecurity funding because as we have seen just recently New Zealand relies so much on our clean green 100 percent pure image. Any biosecurity incursion could do significant harm to that. If you take many of our primary producing exporters and the potential for significant economic harm to them from a biosecurity threat or a biosecurity risk it is really really important that we do not scrimp in this area in order to save a few dollars which ultimately would be so detrimental and so expensive to the New Zealand economy should something happen and should things go badly wrong. I think this is an area where we need to be very careful.But turning now to the bill that we are debating the Labour Party supports this bill through its first reading and we are looking forward to the select committee process on the bill. I am sure my colleagues Damien O’Connor Shane Jones and various others who have a real interest in this area will be getting into the detail at the select committee. We think that the front-line agencies the border security agencies do an absolutely amazing job. The Joint Border Management System initiatives were actually conceived when Labour was last in Government. One of the things I guess that I always find interesting is that 5 years into my time in Parliament it is heartening to see how many initiatives simply span across all Governments regardless of who the Government is.In an area like biosecurity where I think there is quite a lot of bipartisan agreement this initiative has obviously been going on for some time and we continue to support it. A single trade window will create a hub for exchanging information. In areas like border security and biosecurity the exchange of information is vitally vitally important. It will introduce the first wave of a major information technology overhaul to replace existing outdated systems and modernise and integrate border clearance processes for persons goods and crafts. This is people going through the airport but it is also all the ships coming in. It covers quite a variety of things coming into the country which is very very important.We need to make sure that we get this right. I think Phil Goff made a comment before about the fact that the IT systems that will have to be put in place in order to make this work should not turn out to be anotherNovopay or another ACC debacle. We have got to make sure with these information and communications technology projects that we get them right. I am not convinced yet that the Government has sufficiently robust mechanisms in place to ensure that the significant investments in information and communications technology and information sharing are actually going to run smoothly and efficiently.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Yeah thanks Chris.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am pleased that the Attorney-General has been listening very closely to every contribution and I look forward to seeing the passage of this through its first reading.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): I moveThat the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. New Zealand has a welfare system we can be proud of. It is a safety net that is there for those in need. Although we might debate the details of our system we are all proud that as a society we look out for each other. The overwhelming majority of people receiving welfare assistance do the right thing and follow the rules. Unfortunately a tiny few see our welfare system as a target. They put their own greed first. They take money they are not entitled to and in doing so undermine the entire welfare system. As a Government we have a responsibility to the taxpayer whose money funds the welfare system. That is why this Government has taken action against welfare fraud. This bill is part of a package of measures that this Government is putting in place to prevent and detect welfare fraud and hold offenders to account.This bill deals with one particularly troubling aspect of welfare fraud which we refer to as relationship fraud. Relationship fraud is when someone is receiving a benefit that is dependent on them being single such as a sole parent support—the old DPB—yet they are in a marriage-type relationship. In this case their relationship is not simply part of their private life; they are being given money by the taxpayer based on that fact. By failing in their obligations to tell the Ministry of Social Development or even lying to hide their relationship they continue to receive money that they are not entitled to. The reality of this offending is that it can occur only when the partner is present but it takes two to tango. The current law means that the beneficiary usually the woman is held accountable for her fraud while the partner often gets off scot-free. We say this is wrong. This bill will create a new offence to hold those partners to account.These changes strike a careful balance. They recognise that new relationships are never simple. When a partner is genuinely unaware of the fraud they will not be liable. But if the partner knew about the fraud or turned a blind eye to it they will be held to account for their part in the crime. I want to make it clear that these changes will not disadvantage women in a violent relationship. Ministry of Social Development investigators are extensively trained to deal sensitively with violent relationships and the law on this point is clear that violence in a relationship will often mean it is not for welfare purposes a relationship in the nature of marriage. The last thing we want to do is to remove the financial lifeline that might help a battered woman extract herself from that situation. These changes will not remove this protection.Welfare fraud is not a small deal. Last year over 950 people were convicted of fraud with debt totalling over $26 million established. A further $22 million of overpayments was established from investigations. Relationship fraud accounted for more than half of this $48 million debt. It made up approximately one-third of all welfare fraud prosecutions. These numbers are rising. Our reforms are delivering real results as we catch fraud that we might never have caught before. Even more encouraging is the increase in prospective savings—money that would have been taken illegitimately that we were able to stop before it went out the door. Our more proactive measures have pushed this saving from $84 million in the 2011-12 year to $109 million in the 2012-13 year.Yet there has been criticism from some that we should not be focusing on welfare fraud. They attempt to draw misleading comparisons with tax fraud and evasion to distract from the very real drain on the taxpayer. The tax and welfare systems work indifferent ways with different clients for different purposes. To portray them as apples with apples comparisons is deceptive so let us get a few things on the record. It is a big Government. We can do more than one thing at a time. Tax fraud is a bigger problem than welfare fraud and no one is disputing that. That is why we put far more effort into combating tax fraud than welfare fraud. Any suggestion to the contrary is shown by the numbers to be patently false. The Government spends more than four times as much pursuing tax debt than it does pursuing welfare debt. Over the past 4 years we have invested almost $200 million of new funding into the Inland Revenue Department’s compliance activities. None of this needs to distract from taking responsible sensible steps to protect our welfare system from those who would take advantage of it.This bill makes a few other changes to the way the Ministry of Social Development manages debt. Prosecuted fraud—debt owed to the ministry—stands at over $120 million. Yet a series of recent High Court cases have provided different views on the Ministry of Social Development’s power to recover debt. Not unreasonably New Zealanders expect that that debt owed to the Crown will be recovered. The law needs to be clear about this. The bill imposes a duty on the Ministry of Social Development to take all reasonable and practical steps to recover debt. There remains discretion to determine on a case by case basis the method and rate of recovery. In exceptional circumstances debt recovery may temporarily be deferred. Decisions about the method and rate of recovery and deferral will be subject to ministerial direction. This will allow us to ensure we recover money owed without placing people in undue hardship.We know that the vast majority of people receiving welfare support are honest. It is wrong of a dishonest few to hide amongst them. This bill will help us bring those dishonest few to account and it will protect the welfare system from those who really need it. I want to congratulate those officials from the Ministry of Social Development who assisted in the preparation of this bill formulating the policy into the bill as it finds itself today. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise and follow on from the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill which has been brought before the House. I want to say up front that I appreciate the time that the Minister gave to me personally to give me some extra breakdown details on the bill and how he foresees it working. We have already said that Labour will support this bill to the Social Services Committee but we said at the very beginning that we feel like there are some inconsistencies with different forms of treatment of fraud and we wanted to see whether or not this was an opportunity for us to even up that playing field. That is something we will pursue through the select committee process.I think with debates like this that it is always important to set up from the outset the general principles and values that you want to apply before then setting out the way that you are going to anticipate the policy working. First and foremost we would like to get on the record that fraud wherever it exists is wrong—bottom line. There is no dispute. Fraud wherever it exists is wrong. As the Minister has said and I agree fraud within the benefit system is also particularly destabilising because fraud in that system undermines the entire system for those who need it most and that is why it does need to be weeded out. Equally it then tars other clients with a very unfair brush as does an individual who does not fulfil their obligations to try to seek work. That then tars other people with an unfair brush as does a Minister characterising people in the system in an unfair way. I think it would be disingenuous not to imply that there are times in this House when people who access Government support through a genuine need and legitimate reasons are unfairly portrayed. So that is why we treat these issues with a lotof caution and we seek that members treat fraud across the board in an even-handed way. It is for that principle which I have already outlined that we see it as important.In that regard fraud where it exists in our tax system must always be pursued because just as fraud within social security undermines the system for everyone else fraud and tax evasion undermines the principle that we all have a collective responsibility to contribute to the ability to run this nation to build the roads to build the schools to build the housing system—all of those universals that we consider so important. But not all fraud is treated equally. Why should it not be? If we are saying that in principle they both undermine a system then surely we should be treating them equally. There are provisions in this bill that will not apply across the board and yet they are lowering a threshold the test for prosecution. That is why we want to ask the question: why are we not treating them the same?There are some differences. Scale is one of them. As I said fraud everywhere should be pursued but there is certainly a gap in the amount that is being pursued or at least in our success in prosecuting and reacquiring money that is lost through tax evasion and fraud. Just a comparison: $39 million in the benefit system and it is more like $1 billion as an estimate within our tax system. So that is certainly an area on which we would like to hear a bit more of a public conversation from the Government in terms of how we can do better in that area. Do not drop either. That is not what we are saying. But why when we have had two debates now on fraud within the benefit system have we not had one on this other area where there is so much more work to be done? That is something we implore the Government to do.I have heard it argued though that it is unfair to compare benefit fraud with tax fraud and tax evasion because tax evasion is evasion and it is not fair to strictly label that as fraud. But it is fair to say that that exact thing has been happening with some of the announcements that the Minister has been trumpeting. Not so long ago we heard him point out that great swathes of fraud had been uncovered as a consequence of the Inland Revenue Department sharing information with the Ministry of Social Development. The issue is that not all of that necessarily was fraud. Some of it indeed will be but some of it is just highlighting the blatant inefficiency of our system. It is highlighting where there had been overpayment. Why was that? Well because a large number of people who are getting Government support are actually in work. They are just not earning enough to survive week to week so their earnings are topped up with a benefit of some description.In order to make sure that someone who is working different hours every single week is not being topped up by too much or too little they are required to call Work and Income at the end of each week usually a Friday and state the hours that they have worked. The issue as anyone will know who has worked somewhere like a supermarket or a fish and chip shop like I have in the past is this: I did not always get my payslip at the end of the week telling me the hours I had worked. I would carefully take down what I thought I had done but they were not always necessarily the same thing and that is what is happening with our Work and Income clients. They are calling based on what they know but sometimes they are in precarious seasonal work with fluctuating hours and fluctuating overtime and changing rates and they are not always giving the correct details to Work and Income.When Work and Income staff then go and do that data match they find that sometimes there are discrepancies. At various points we had up to 20 percent of our sole parents in part-time work. We are not talking about a small group of people where this potential error can take place. So all I ask from the Minister is that the next time he does a data-matching exercise rather than standing up and trumpeting the amount of fraud he has weeded out perhaps we could talk about the fact that not all fraud is deliberate;some of it is the inefficiency of our system. Can we address that? Can we address the fact that I have Work and Income clients who come and tell me that Work and Income found it so difficult to manage their—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mean to interrupt the member but she is clearly getting away from the context of this bill. You allow her to go a little bit away but for 2 minutes now—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet. All contributions will be heard and the member is making some valid points and it is a debatable issue. This is a wide-ranging debate. It is the first reading.JACINDA ARDERN: That intervention just demonstrates that the chair of the Social Services Committee does not understand the driving forces between overpayment and what has been characterised by his Government as fraud. If we want to fix the amount of time that is wasted by the Ministry of Social Development pursuing overpayment which is sometimes confused as fraud then these are the issues we need to deal with. So I would hope that we would have a little more enlightenment by that side of the House during this debate. Otherwise we are going to miss that actually in some cases we are targeting the wrong issue. It is a very valid point to raise in the context of this bill. I am sure that the officials will talk about the fact that they spend a lot of time trying to filter between overpayment and fraud and that is the issue I was speaking to.So getting back to it once the Ministry of Social Development has gone through that process of it trying to once it has seen the discrepancies filter out which is which it then needs to go and pursue them. It is an issue around the amount of effort that it then goes into relative to some of the other areas of fraud that we have within our system.One of the things we do want to accept on this side of the House though is that relationship fraud probably represents a significant chunk. It is fair to say that there will be cases and we are certainly aware of them from the side of advocates that some women in particular are left carrying debt from relationship fraud that actually should be apportioned across to individuals who knowingly partook in that fraud. We also must acknowledge that some women are in relationships with a particular power dynamic as well and we need to be mindful of that. Some women also have threats made against them that if they do not fraudulently claim these benefits then their well-being is at risk. All of these things we have to take into consideration when we consider that this bill will amend the Social Security Act 1964 and enable a lower threshold for prosecution of partners when they have been involved in relationship fraud by saying that they can be prosecuted when they ought to have known that fraud was taking place. So the test has been lowered. Our question is—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: It’s still a high test.JACINDA ARDERN: It is very difficult to prove whether someone ought to have known something versus whether they did. It is. We are going to test that out at the select committee; it is something we need to look into in more detail. But our question is that if you are willing to say that someone who committed relationship fraud ought to have known that fraud took place because they benefited from it because there was more money coming into the household why could you not say the same for white-collar fraud? If someone is benefiting from white-collar fraud because more money is coming into the household why is it that a spouse in that case will not be liable for prosecution? That is the kind of question I had when I talked about the principles of treating fraud even-handedly. Those are the kinds of questions we will be raising at the select committee and I hope the Government will take those queries seriously.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Talofa lava and good afternoon to you and all those across the country who are listening in on this debate orwatching it on TV. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. The last member Jacinda Ardern might have used a lot of superlatives but she did not actually talk much about the bill. The bill puts in place new tools to prevent detect and catch welfare fraud. That is what we are talking about here today. It is not about business fraud it is not about tax fraud; it is about welfare fraud. I want to thank the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows for the hard work that he has done on this bill along with the officials to bring about a bill that I think is measured informative and certainly will be workable going forward. As the chair of the Social Services Committee I look forward to debating and examining some of the issues that are within this bill and hearing from submitters from around the country about what they see as legitimate in terms of prosecuting and enforcing welfare fraud.The Ministry of Social Development is owed a significant amount of money—a significant amount of money—from fraud-related debt overpayments and recoverable assistance. This is $128 million on convicted fraud alone—$128 million. So I think we have to take this issue seriously. I know Ms Ardern mentioned that it should be even-handed and that we should look at comparisons between the various pieces of legislation but one of the issues that she did not raise is that recent High Court decisions have questioned how the Ministry of Social Development applies discretion to recover welfare debts. Those decisions have created uncertainty about its powers and duties when recovering welfare debt. This bill addresses that. Our Government has decided to act and I encourage parties across this House and I encourage all New Zealanders to get behind the bill because the bill addresses the effect that those High Court decisions have on the ability of the ministry to prosecute fraud.This bill amends the Social Security Act so that it imposes a duty on the Ministry of Social Development to take all reasonable practicable steps to recover debt. I think that is reasonable and I believe most New Zealanders would say it is reasonable. Secondly the ministry has the discretion to determine case by case the method and the rate of recovery. Again it is quite objective and I believe quite simplistic and realistic in terms of what we are trying to achieve. In exceptional circumstances the ministry may defer temporarily that recovery of debt so it has a social and empathetic element to it. The Minister is required to issue directions identifying those exceptional circumstances in which recovery may be deferred. But the bill also identifies as the Minister has pointed out the considerations to which the ministry must have regard in setting the rate and methods of recovery for those debts and that is really important.We know that the vast majority of beneficiaries are honest and do the right thing and I do not think anyone has mentioned that in the House today. The vast majority of beneficiaries actually have needs and have those needs met but a small minority take advantage of the system. The Associate Minister has outlined the elements of the relationship fraud which is a big part of that. Welfare fraud is a crime welfare fraud is committed by criminals and welfare fraud is done for their own benefit against the wishes and needs of New Zealanders so we treat this fraud as a crime without excuses. The bill introduces a new criminal offence for spouses and partners who benefit from welfare fraud. Those spouses must know or are reckless as to whether those payments are obtained by fraud. I put it to the member opposite Jacinda Ardern—I know she is not present in the Chamber—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will be seated. It is not proper that members refer to the absence of another because in this place all of us at one time or another have to leave the Chamber for whatever reason. That is out of order.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We know that the evidentiary burden is a high-threshold test. She stated in this House that it is low; I beg to differ. I beg to differ because it requires amensrea—a criminal mind—and the evidentiary burden is clear. They need to know or ought to have known. I do not believe that is unreasonable in the circumstances because an objective set of facts can be presented where you can assess whether that person ought to have known that the fraud had been committed. Partners could face a fine of up to $5000 or 12 months in jail. We will debate whether that sentence is appropriate but I think that in the circumstances that is reasonable.In 2013 relationship offending cost the taxpayer $26 million. That $26 million could have been spent on our most vulnerable families who are in genuine need of assistance. It is important that the public has every confidence in the welfare system and these measures will give the ministry the tools to achieve this.I conclude by saying that welfare will always be there to support people who are in need in our communities. That is a basic tenet of our nation’s social fabric. Equally anyone who can work should be in work or looking for a job should do so. Our reform of the welfare system in the last 2 years will bring into the 21st century what we believe has been an outdated system. Labour—Ms Ardern and her mates—might have turned a blind eye to fraud in welfare but National has promised to clamp down on welfare fraud and with this bill we are delivering on that promise.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Namaste Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Bill. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern has already said we will support this bill to the Social Services Committee but I personally will want to be convinced at the select committee that what is being proposed here will achieve the goals that the bill has set out and will not do more damage to our vulnerable families. The way this bill was presented the genesis of the bill and the way these ideas were announced were very cynical. It was at a time when National’s dodgySkycity deal was getting a rough time in the media. Right in the middle of that the Hon Chester Borrows announced this notion of major fraud amongst beneficiaries mainly former domestic purposes beneficiaries—so it was cynical. It was a cynical way of introducing that. This is not part of a programme to really address this issue; this was something that was whipped out of the air.The way in which the chairperson of the Social Services Committee Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga has articulated the provisions here really shows that he has become a poster boy for this Government’s punitive provisions around the most vulnerable. This is just another step in a long line of steps that this Government since 2009 has taken by heaping obligation after obligation on the most vulnerable. It is not really designed to achieve the best out of the most vulnerable although that is the language the Minister uses but it is designed to pander to the members of that particular party who are really hostile to benefits generally. All of the language is fine saying that welfare will always be there and we will always support those who are most vulnerable but the way that this Government has gone after the most vulnerable in reform after reform really demonstrates its true intent and this one is no different.Jacinda Ardern identified very very clearly that clearly this Government is not worried about the amount of money because if it was it would go after the $1 billion to $6 billion tax problems we have in this country. It would go after that or it would go harder after those who are tax dodgers at the present time but it does not do that. It does not do that. It goes for the most vulnerable. The rate of taxation fraud is 150 times more than the rate of welfare fraud so here it is not convincing that there is a major problem because the major problem here is actually a moralistic one. There is something about the morals. We question the morals of those who seemingly take advantage of thewelfare system and this side of the House has no sympathy for those who abuse the welfare system—we have no sympathy for those people—but the way in which it comes about also needs to be reflected on.The way in which Sam Lou-Iiga talked just then about welfare fraud amongst domestic purposes beneficiaries which is the former title really shows very little understanding of how this actually works. Anybody who has worked in this area or who knows this community well knows how quickly it is possible to give to a person—maybe a mother looking after two or three children who is dependent on a benefit—going about normal life and how quickly others can malign that as an abuse of the welfare system because that person might be wearing good clothes might be having a drink might have a colour television etc. Anything that person does that gives the impression there is a relationship that that person has creates this notion of setting family against family. We begin to attack those who are trying to get on with their lives as sole parents dependent on a benefit doing the best they can and doing those things that most people in this House would consider normal such as forming relationships.The Minister did say in his preliminary remarks that he was particularly worried about relationship fraud. That essentially means that if you a person who is dependent on a benefit and have children you virtually have no right to have relationships. That is what it comes down to and what is the morality of that? Would we not want our sole parents bringing up children to have the normal relationships that any adult would have? How does it work? We can just think our way through this. If a person is a sole parent who has children and who is doing their best forms a friendship with somebody they might see that person a few times a week and then that may develop over a 4 or 5-month period into something a little bit more than that—maybe visits to the home. In another 3 or 4 months’ time there may even be a night that that person might spend at the home of the person who is on a benefit.At what point does that become a relationship for which the other person—the person not on a benefit—is then responsible financially? At what point does that happen? This happens in the glare of public life. If you live in a neighbourhood that is hawkish about others and if you have people who are hawkish about a particular person then this creates an environment in which those bringing up our children in vulnerable environments vulnerable situations and who are dependent on limited State funding are really made more vulnerable by these kinds of provisions.It is not as if there are no other ways of doing this. Every person on a benefit has a case manager. There are many many opportunities for conversations there are many many opportunities for asking questions and yet the way in which these provisions have been brought to the House—the way in which the notion of relationship fraud is talked about in this particular bill—is something that I personally find objectionable. I personally find it divisive and I personally believe that it will set our families against each other. This happens Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. You know the environment in which people in your electorate survive where there are many more people in these kinds of situations. That being so we do know what happens. So I believe that the provisions are awful. I believe that they are not well-thought-through.What is more it has gone on to criminalise the activity so that the other person the person whom the beneficiary is having a friendship with or a growing relationship with is now accountable. If he or she carries on in that particular situation for any period of time and if the amount of payment grows that person is liable to a fine of $5000 or liable to imprisonment. When you compare that with the way in which tax dodgers are fined there are any number of cases that show that for similar crimes the vulnerable are sent to jail and the rich get home detention and that will be for defrauding amounts of money to the tune of three times more. A welfare beneficiary with a $70000 crime ifyou like will be sent to jail for a year or two—18 months I think is the case that I am thinking about—whereas somebody owing $200000 to $300000 gets sent home on home detention. Where is the fairness in that? When is this Government going to address those kinds of things as well?This is part of the Government’s programme of welfare bashing and in the select committee we will want to see what the evidence for this measure is. I would have expected some of the members of the select committee to be much more aware of this. I cannot imagine how Alfred Ngaro can support something like this because he knows from his own work in the community about many of these families and about how these processes develop. I hope to see robust discussion. I personally am not supporting this bill after the next stage unless I am convinced that the safeguards are in place because I personally find this absolutely abhorrent. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party has a long tradition in this House of advocating for employment law and a social security system that provides everyone with enough income to fully participate in their community and to live safe healthy lives. We support policies that are sufficient to ensure this simple to understand and access universal in their application and equitable within a wider social context. We will be opposing the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill today as it is not consistent with these values or this vision. This bill will we believe further stigmatise the most marginalised people in this country. It will remove some of the leniency that exists within the system which will result in less money in the hands of the poorest New Zealanders. It will treat debtors to the Ministry of Social Development more harshly than debtors in other parts of our system and our society are treated.I would like though to acknowledge the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows who has brought this bill to the House for taking the time to talk with me through this bill and for allowing us access to officials as well in order to discuss our concerns and check out our position properly.This bill makes a range of changes to accountability and culpability for benefit fraud and debt recovery by the Ministry of Social Development including imposing a new obligation on the ministry to take all reasonable practical steps to recover debt. That is a very important point. And it allows the Minister for Social Development to issue directions on when the ministry may temporarily defer debt repayment and what it can take into account when setting the rate and method of debt recovery. Currently this is the responsibility of the ministry so it is shifting that from within the agency with the knowledge and experience and moving it into the political realm. In terms of debt this will enable the ministry to hold partners of beneficiaries liable when benefit fraud is committed. It will allow the recovery of up to three times the amount paid in excess in cases of fraud and it introduces a new offence of partners knowingly or recklessly benefiting from fraud committed by their partner punishable by a fine of up to $5000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. It introduces a new system for working with people who decided to be dishonest with the ministry in the past regardless of whether they have a conviction.I really need to put those changes in context for those considering the bill and to point out that two-thirds of debt that the ministry recovers is not a result of fraud. So when we are hearing in this House that this is about fraud actually two-thirds of the system is about debt not fraud. Much of it is a result of administratively created overpayment and our Labour colleague Jacinda Ardern I think quite clearly articulated how that happens. It is the interface between beneficiaries who are working part time and reporting that work and the systems through the Inland Revenue Department. It is actually often just about a mismatch of those systems rather than any intent at all. Infact for most of these people in this situation it is absolutely not in their interests to end up with a debt or an overpayment and they would much prefer to avoid that situation. But our system does not work to enable that.Also what is recorded as debt in the system is often from advances given to people to pay for some of the absolute essentials in life including things like fridges washing machines tampons food sanitary pads. Absolute basic essentials are part of what we are talking about when we are talking about this bill and the recovery of debt. It is also I think important in the context of this to recognise that beneficiaries are routinely being denied their legal entitlements. This debt pretends that that is not the case. Auckland Action Against Poverty is seeing an emerging gatekeeper culture within Work and Income. It has reported that people are often now being told no as the first response from Work and Income staff and that at least nine out of 10 people with whom its advocates work have been incorrectly or unfairly denied assistance. This is from those people being misinformed about their entitlements whether it be a special needs grant whether it be their eligibility for a benefit to begin with or whether it be about coverage for disability costs or extra assistance for food—a huge range of things.We are hearing these reports all over the country and this raises the question of why this is happening because we have been hearing these stories for a while and they are increasing and there does seem to me to be a pattern. This Government and the one before it have focused their attention on saving money from the Budget. The latest law changes that we have seen have stigmatised beneficiaries further sending the message that they are job-avoiding drug-taking poor parents and criminals. You cannot send those messages and not have them influence staff and organisational culture.Further the legislation is far too complicated. It has been amended 131 times it includes 422 sections and 31 schedules and there are 50 policies that are at the discretion of the chief executive of the ministry rather than being enshrined in law. This makes this so hard for staff to know what people are actually entitled to. When you combine that with a loss of funding to so many of the benefits rights organisations that are able to provide advocacy for people going into the system—and the cuts to legal aid for beneficiaries wanting to appeal their lack of entitlement—we have a very dangerous system where the most vulnerable people in this country are having the food taken out of their mouths or the tampons in their trolleys illegally taken off them through a lack of entitlement. Yet the Government’s focus is to bring this bill which is focused on the recovering of the debt from the few people who have managed to get their entitlements to be able to feed their children to be able to have a fridge in their house.Mike Sabin:Well they just have to remain law abiding and it’s all good.JAN LOGIE: This is not about criminality Mr Sabin. This is about debt that is created through inefficient systems and people being ripped off by the system. And the Government chooses to focus rather on a very small group of people and not its own actions which I would suggest is where the most harm is being done.I will note that there is an aspect of this bill that the Greens do support or are interested in hearing more around in relation to fraud which is a small percentage of what we are actually talking about and that is relationship fraud. I do note Dr Rajen Prasad’s contribution. But I would note from having worked in Women’s Refuge that I have seen so many cases of women being threatened by their partners whereby their partners would threaten to dob them in to Work and Income. I do see that this provision of sharing the consequences of any dobbing in will have an impact that will be very positive for those women that this may no longer be able to be used as a tool by those abusers. That is a very positive aspect of this bill that we do support.However the fraud investigation system is still quite fraught. Officials said that evidence they are using is often unsubstantiated and we are hearing from women inviolent relationships that they are often persecuted through this system. We do not support this bill.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahnnyung ha seyo Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnā koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to rise in support of and talk about the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill in its first reading. Before I actually begin I would like to just remind members that this bill brings in new tools to prevent detect and catch welfare fraud. I know that members opposite have talked about many things including their notion of what this Government is all about in terms of welfare. Let me remind the members opposite that Labour in its 9 years of Government did nothing about welfare reform and this Government is spending more than $536 million in 3 years to reform welfare.Those members talk as if the National Party and this Government do not care about people on welfare and they talk about beneficiary bashing. Let me actually remind the members that if that was in fact the case why are we still providing welfare for the most vulnerable in this country? It is the misconception that Opposition members like to tell the public so that they will be misinformed as though we did not care about people. We on this side of the House do care about people. That is I would have thought a given considering that we are doing something and spending a lot of money on welfare. [Interruption] We are. For example welfare will always be there for people in our community who need it. It will be there for people who actually need it but anyone who can work should really go out and look for a job. That is what we are saying. We are not saying that people who cannot work should work. People who cannot work who actually need to depend on the benefit will get the benefit. There should be no misconception about that.This bill creates an offence for those spouses or partners of beneficiaries who have knowingly benefited from a beneficiary’s fraud and will allow the Ministry of Social Development to recover those debts more successfully by information sharing between Government agencies. Previously what actually happened was that if the ministry suspected there was fraud it had to tell the people whom it was investigating. The Ministry of Social Development was required to tell a person that they were being investigated for welfare fraud and that person was required to provide the necessary information. Imagine that. If I was on welfare and someone had come and told me that I was being investigated if I was an honest person—which I am—I would actually say “Welcome. Investigate me.” but often they are not. A lot of people were given the opportunity for the fraud to be covered up and evidence often destroyed. That is not how it should happen.This bill provides the ministry with the tools to investigate people who are actually offending. It is a criminal offence. They are defrauding the taxpayers of $128 million a year. That is no small sum that we should laugh at. Imagine how much more we could help people in vulnerable circumstances with that $128 million that is currently being defrauded. Partners of beneficiaries know of such fraud—and often they do. They are living in the same house often as husband and wife. They must know that their partner is on welfare. They must know that they are actually drawing from the Ministry of Social Development a sole parent benefit for example. If they are living in a relationship that is like a marriage they should not be drawing that benefit and they are committing a fraud. If they know about it they will be fined up to $5000 or given a jail term of up to 12 months.This bill also provides for review and appeal rights for spouses and partners. However the vast majority of people declare their true circumstances and comply with their obligations. I think that is actually something we should expect of everyone. I know that Opposition members have also said it is only a small percentage of peoplewho are on welfare who actually do in fact create this situation that tars everyone with the same brush. I think we need to make sure that we show them that it is not acceptable to defraud the taxpayer and that it is about time they changed. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Tālofa lavamalō lesoifua ma lelagi emamāilau afioga a lefofogafetalai.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Talofa lava.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Just before I start my speech here today I want to perhaps respond to the comments by the member who has just taken her seat Melissa Lee. The question she asked was why we are still paying benefits and welfare. Why are we still paying welfare? Well the answer is that there are no blimmin jobs. There are quite a number of low wages. We also have broken promises of course poor legislation and an incompetent Government. Is that enough to answer your question Melissa Lee?So let me now come back to the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. The bill is seeking to amend the Social Security Act 1964 to make spouses and partners including beneficiaries accountable for any fraudulent behaviour.Mike Sabin: Is the member’s microphone on? I can’t hear!Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: That is all that member can do—he is chatting away in the corner. He has not got anything better to say. That is all he is good at. At the same time the bill will allow the Ministry of Social Development to recover debts.There is no doubt that welfare fraud is a serious matter. Something definitely needs to be done. Something needs to be done to combat fraudulent behaviour and tighten measures relating to debt recovery. Over $20 million was taken in the past year—in fact to be exact it was $23.4 million—as a direct result of relationship fraud. Over $20 million is a lot of money. That is over $20 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. OK it is not as much as the $176 million that was taken by some directors of some finance companies from their stakeholders but $20 million is still a large amount of public money that could have been made available for job creation. Over $20 million would certainly buy a lot of condoms for prostitutes or recreational items like the tampons or sanitary pads that the Minister for Social Development has been trying to defend lately. It would also be fair to say that half—only half—of that $20 million would certainly help those homeowners in Christchurch who have been badly affected by the earthquakes and are being given the run-around by the Government and insurance companies.However New Zealand First is pleased to see that the National Government is perhaps trying to listen to the strong call from ordinary New Zealanders whom it has ignored for the past many years although it seems it is far too slow in addressing the issues amicably. It was Thomas Jefferson I believe who said: “Experience hathshewn that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have in time and by slow operations perverted it into tyranny.” Given recent mishaps and broken promises by the National Government I think we could afford to say to the Hon Chester Borrows that he is heading in the right direction.Our current legislation makes the person receiving assistance liable for prosecution. It ignores his or her partner or spouse which means he or she would be cleared of any wrongdoing despite potentially having knowledge relating to fraudulent behaviour. This bill will ensure that the persons receiving assistance and their partners or spouses are liable. In other words they will all be liable to be prosecuted for intentionallymisleading the Ministry of Social Development—or shall we say the welfare system—in order to benefit from inheriting what they are certainly not entitled to.Given these reasons there are questions that need to be asked. How will the debt be recovered? Are Chester Borrows’ staff now going to force them to hand over funds in order to pay for it and subject their children ortamaiti if any to poverty? How is the Government going to ensure that money being lost through benefit fraud will be returned in a reasonable time frame or a reasonable manner? If this bill is to pass the member in charge needs to be more transparent as to how it will be implemented and what the appropriate steps will be just like the Labour MP Jacinda Ardern was referring to earlier on about different earnings different times part-time work and so on.Just last week a caregiver pleaded guilty to defrauding the benefit system by almost $274000—54-year-old BeverleyMalzard evaded disclosing information relating to her employment and was able to obtain a benefit in the process. Cases like this paint a very bad picture. That picture unfairly reflects on honest Kiwis out there who have genuine reasons for receiving benefits and who have taken reasonable steps towards employment.Benefit fraud is something New Zealand First does not take lightly. Benefit fraud is completely—completely—unacceptable. We want to ensure that the intentions of this bill will be implemented appropriately and with suitable mechanisms in place to ensure that they are carried out properly. This bill aims to make spouses or partners of benefit frauds criminally liable. We accept that that is fair. It will lead to a fine not exceeding $5000 or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. Ordinary Kiwis out there would like to see the penalties contained in this bill sufficient to deter potential fraudsters from committing benefit fraud.The concerns that we do have over this bill include first of all how it will be rolled out; two whether the proposed measures will be enough to deter fraudulent behaviour; three whether it could potentially conflict with privacy laws; and four whether it could foster a discriminatory environment on certain groups of people. Attempts definitely need to be taken so that public faith can be restored in the welfare system.There is also a need to acknowledge that there are countless reasons behind benefit fraud. We need to ensure that we understand the possible circumstances that people are in when they contemplate fraudulent behaviour. Some of the reasons may include sudden redundancy or the inability to secure employment; changes to family circumstances—for example death or relationship breakdown; unstable relationships; and perhaps huge debts poor financial literacy and lack of experience in management and looking after their budgets. Let us face it: there are a few out there like that and I do wonder whether Winston Churchill should be blamed for saying that perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right than to be responsible and wrong. In some cases serious alcohol and drug abuse—or shall we say addiction—could also be contributing factors while on the other hand there may be mental illnesses to be considered.Mike Sabin: Go on. Get off the fence!Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I was discussing this bill with some of our community leaders and Mike Sabin will actually learn something if he listens. They believe that it is timely that the law was reviewed to address benefit fraud. It is also fair to say that not everyone who is committing this kind of crime comes from low-income circumstances as well.For these possible scenarios I believe that it is important that the Social Services Committee be given the opportunity to examine the bill carefully. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee so that the public of New Zealand can be given the opportunity to submit on it because they deserve the opportunity to beheard and they deserve to see democracy being given a fair go in this House. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise in support of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Social Services Committee which Sam Lotu-Iiga chairs. It has been a worthwhile exercise looking at this whole issue and I would like to congratulate Chester Borrows on all the work that he and his department have done in actually tracking down cases in point where benefit fraud has occurred.It is true that the New Zealand First Party can identify the odd case where fraud has occurred or I should say some sort of overpayment of benefit amount has occurred and it has been unfair that those people were pursued for fraud because it was accidental or for reasons outside common dishonesty. However $128 million is what was recently recovered through the efforts of Chester Borrows and his department. I know that in State housing it is not tens of houses that have been freed up for those genuinely in need because those inside were illegally in the State house but hundreds of State houses have been freed up for families genuinely in need because those hundreds of houses were found to be occupied by fraudsters and others who were involved in illegal behaviour. So it is worth pursuing this particular matter.It has to be noted that yes the High Court has questioned how the Ministry of Social Development applies discretion to recover welfare debts. Some of them are racked up by fraud or the improper obtaining of benefits. But to ensure that there is effective debt recovery we have made it clear in this bill that it imposes a duty on the Ministry of Social Development to take all reasonable practical steps to recover the debt. There is discretion to determine on a case by case basis the method of recovery so that we can take into account people’s circumstances as outlined by the Green Party and called for by New Zealand First and in exceptional circumstances the Ministry of Social Development may defer temporarily the recovery of debt. So there is a whole lot of heart as well as good financial management and good financial responsibility that is going to be undertaken under this legislation.Again I look forward to the bill hitting the select committee our looking at it in detail and taking submissions from those who receive the benefit those who administer the benefit and those who work with those who are in need of such benefit support. Thank you.Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a maioe?Su’aWILLIAM SIO:Manuiafa’afetai.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson):Fa’afetai lava.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Thank you. I found the earlier remarks by two of the Government backbenchers quite upsetting. They made wild and unsubstantiated claims about the welfare reforms which to me revealed too much about themselves. It revealed their disconnection with the wider community. It also revealed that they have not read their own regulatory impact statement on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill which says that their reforms have gutted the welfare system. I would ask them to take some lessons from their own Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows. He is a Minister who knows what this is all about. I agree with the Minister when he says that the New Zealand social security system has largely been a system that most Kiwis are proud of. I think for our country we have this view that we work we pay our taxes and through those taxes there is a safety net so that when someone is unemployed when someone is sick when someone is disabled or when someone reaches a certain age where they are too old or weak to work—like some of the members of this House without mentioning names—at leastthere is a safety net. That has been the legacy of our social security system. I accept that it is only then natural that when someone rips off our system absolutely we get upset absolutely it is the wrong thing. So I think people need to understand the context of why some of us do not agree necessarily with the arguments that that Government has put up.Let us make it quite clear. Labour will support this bill in its first reading so that the appropriate committee the Social Services Committee can then do its work and call for submissions and have the advantage of at least listening to the organisations and people who are working on the ground who are having to deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis. But in saying that we support this to the select committee we do have some very very strong reservations.I think people need to understand the context as we debate this bill. For the past 5 years we in the Opposition have been attempting to hold this Government accountable for the current economic and social woes the country has been experiencing. We have asked questions of this Government about critical areas where there is a need for significant action by this Government to address things such as the need to create more jobs to address high unemployment and the need to have higher incomes to address the needs of our communities who are struggling. There are needs around housing where many families are paying a huge chunk of their income on rent and homeownership is becoming a distant dream for the majority of New Zealanders. That is the context. So when a Government which is clearly failing to reduce the growing inequality comes up with these particular proposals and when a Government continues to use the excuses that it is unable to do anything about the growing inequality because of the global financial crisis or the Christchurch earthquake then really that causes problems for the public who are listening to this debate. It becomes harder for people to accept that there is a genuine need for this Government to make the amendments that it is proposing considering the context that I have just outlined. Most people then start thinking about whether this is genuine or whether this is really just a cynical move by this Government to take the heat off itself when it is failing to address the more pertinent issues that the people of New Zealand are facing.Let me just give some views on some of the areas that people are discussing and that I think it is important for the select committee to consider. A few weeks ago a Victoria University associate law professor released her research and her research showed that the Inland Revenue Department was more likely to write off unpaid tax whereas the Ministry of Social Development would often keep welfare debt on its books sometimes until people died or retired. I want to raise that research because the regulatory impact statement on this bill makes reference that the group of people that is being targeted through this particular bill is very very small. Here are some numbers that I got out of the regulatory impact statement for the 2011-12 financial year. The number of cases of fraud that the ministry investigated was 10735. The number of cases in which the ministry was able to establish that overpayment was made was 2139 but the number of cases that it could substantiate and prosecute for fraud was 714.The regulatory impact statement also identifies that the overpayments were not the fault of the beneficiaries but the fault of the department. So I would hope that the Social Services Committee when it is deliberating this digs deep into the causes and whether the money that we are going to spend as a Parliament in attempting to find fraud is worth the effort that is being put into it. I am not saying that we deviate from prosecuting those who have committed fraud. I said at the beginning that we do not like that sort of thing. Anybody ripping off the system is wrong. But I am suggesting that based on the report the research by Victoria University this Government is failing to look at fraud generally on an equal basis. Again here is what the research says: tax debttotalled nearly $6 billion while welfare debt was about $1 billion. There appears to be no basis for treating debtors to the two Government agencies differently. The study indicated that tax debtors got off more lightly. The researcher said that the Inland Revenue Department was more likely to negotiate with debtors collect core tax and write off penalties and interest. Between 1 July 2011 and June 2012 the Inland Revenue Department wrote off nearly 50 percent of interest and penalties applied to overdue tax amounting to $374 million. This study showed that it wrote off $435 million in core debt reflecting 11.6 percent of collectable debt. The Ministry of Social Development on the other hand wrote off $8.7 million in core debt or 2.1 percent of collectable debt.The study also showed that in the same period the average value of outstanding tax debt was $14479 per taxpayer in debt while the average value of outstanding welfare debt was $2523 per beneficiary in debt. What the research noted was that more resources were applied to collecting welfare debt than tax debt. The Ministry of Social Development would collect debt from beneficiaries’ payments. The point of the whole research that has been highlighted is that there is a difference in treatment by this particular Government or by the two agencies towards those who owe debt to the Inland Revenue Department and those who owe debt to the Ministry of Social Development. The other difference is that there are much bigger sums or amounts of money involved in Inland Revenue Department debt as opposed to a smaller amount of debt in social development and welfare. That also is substantiated by the Government’s own regulatory impact statement. That is why I am asking the question.I would hope that the select committee looks deeply into this. The argument has been put forward that in creating this new offence to punish the spouse or partner of the person who committed the offence surely the spouse or partner would have known about it. Well I have doubts. Only 2 weeks ago the court found somebody who defrauded the department guilty as charged. It also charged his wife and after charging her she was not prosecuted at all. This causes the problem of charging people without having evidence and then having egg on your face. I would hope that the select committee looks seriously at all those angles. Lastly the appeals rights need to be looked at.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take a call this afternoon on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill in its first reading. The speeches this afternoon on this bill have truly been a good western—a combination of the good the bad and the truly ugly. In saying that I want to make a comment about New Zealand First memberLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor who quoted Winston Churchill. This is what she said: sometimes it is better to be irresponsible and right than be responsible and wrong. I find it very interesting that that member worked in the prison system with prisoners in rehabilitation knowing very clearly that the system was that those who were punished for doing wrong need to be in that right place. If you do the crime you do the time. I find that very interesting and very confusing. That is probably something that confuses the member herself. She probably has not read the bill or the regulatory impact statement either.The previous speakerSu’a William Sio was talking about the whole aspect of this bill and the importance of the bill. The bill brings new tools to prevent detect and catch welfare fraud. It is pleasing to hear that members on the other side as Jacinda Ardern said support the intent of the bill. I think that there is common support for the intent of the bill which is that those who are defrauding the system should be held to account. As one who has really read the regulatory impact statement I say that the consultation has been wide. All Crown entities have been consulted which is the reason why it is going to the Social Services Committee. Then there will be further public consultation to hearthe proposals at the select committee consideration of the bill as well. This becomes very important.The vast majority of people who are on welfare—we want to say this—do declare their true circumstances. There is only a small minority who choose and have the intent to defraud the system. In the regulatory impact statement it is really quite clear that in 2011-12 there were 10735 cases that were investigated resulting in 2139 cases of overpayment being established. That is significant because that is a figure of $18.4 million of debt that was established. What we are trying to say is that those who have caused this offence should be held to account.We are also being careful because there have been some concerns about those who are vulnerable in the system especially in regard to domestic violence. There is a stronger focus on ensuring that we protect them. The law is very clear that for welfare purposes a violent relationship is not treated as a relationship when assessing their entitlement to a benefit. This will be good news to those who work in refuges and to those women who have through no fault of their own been in a relationship where there clearly is domestic violence. It is also important as we do not want to remove financial support that might help a woman who has extracted herself from an abusive relationship. This is an important bill.I want to address some of the issues in this debate around the comparison of welfare fraud with tax fraud. There has been a lot made of this. In fact the concern raised on the other side is that the Government treats welfare fraudsters in a way that is more punitive than it treats tax fraudsters. That is far from the truth. Our key message as a Government is this: the welfare and tax systems operate in different ways and it is misleading to attempt to compare them. The Government has a duty to ensure that our taxpayer money is not being taken illegitimately. To suggest we turn a blind eye is irresponsible. No one is disputing that tax fraud is a bigger issue than welfare fraud and the Government’s priorities reflect this.Over the last four Budgets the Government has invested almost $200 million of new funding into tackling tax fraud but it has put no new money into fighting welfare fraud. The Inland Revenue Department has an enforcement budget of $142 million while the Ministry of Social Development’s enforcement budget is simply $30 million. There is concern that welfare reform costs are $23 million a year while tax fraud is at $1 billion but the response that we want to form—so that there is some clarity here—is that no one is denying that tax fraud is a bigger problem but this comparison is definitely misleading. It intends to compare welfare fraud that we caught and that we could prove beyond reasonable doubt and prosecute with an academic estimate of what tax fraud may exist.It is also important that we declare that the tools that are also here allow there to be joint accountability. We have heard the Greens talking about this and reporting the facts—the one thing that they do agree with. No longer can it be used just for a spouse in a violent relationship to then dob in the other spouse. This time there will be shared accountability and responsibility for those who are found in this situation.I want to wrap up my speech. There was a comment that was made that we on this side are benefit bashing. In fact we have never used those words. You can check all of theHansard. On this side of the House we have never used those words. We have never used those words. In fact what was also of concern is that the Opposition members were appealing to us to look at our experiences of working in communities. I can honestly say that I have had a constituent who has come to my office over inMāngere and sat down with me. Through no fault of their own they were in a circumstance where they were being investigated. We sat down together we worked through the issues and I am pleased to say that we are coming to a resolution in thissituation. What that proves is this: the system that we are seeking to reform is one where those who are in circumstances through no fault of their own can be given a way of mitigating their circumstances. We are doing that. The system allows for that because this is what has been set up.Finally I just want to say that this system of checking out and catching out those who have defrauded the system is part of this Government’s way of looking at welfare. We will always be there to support our people in our community—those who need it—but anyone who can work should be in work or looking for work and employment opportunities. It is a comprehensive reform of the whole of the welfare system. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to support the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill but I do so with a very heavy heart and significant reservations. When I was on my first campaign in 1999 in New Lynn I was door knocking onNorthall Road. It is a small street just off Titirangi Road. Not far down that street I happened to knock on the door of a home where a young mother was bringing three small boys home after school. We got talking and it turned out that one of those kids had just come back from the doctor and was calcium deficient. Talking to me about it the young mum broke down in tears. I said: “What on earth is the matter? Are you worried about your son?”. She said: “I can’t afford him milk. I can’t afford him milk.” I have never forgotten that moment and the despair in the eyes of that young mother.Here we have the National Party’s best pitch to solve the problems of welfare dependency: beat up on the beneficiaries—beat up on the beneficiaries. The Rev. Dr Alfred Ngaro is I confess an MP whom I respect. He has earned his stripes out in the community and he should know better. From his theological training he would remember the verse about not taking the speck out of your neighbour’s eye or your brother’s eye when there is a mote in your own—that is a big log of wood right? I do not know whether the folks on TV can see but I have a graph here that has two bars. There is a big long bar here for the amount of tax debt and there is a tiny little speck here. That is benefit debt right? Here we have the National Party—not wrongly which is why we are supporting the bill—picking first on beneficiaries and going after $39 million worth of debt.But there is $1000 million of debt in white-collar evasion and back taxes that the Government is leaving. The Rev. Dr Ngaro has said: “OK we’ve juiced up the IRD to chase some of it down.” That is good as far as it goes but the Inland Revenue Department told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that it gets a return on investment of $6 back for every extra dollar that it spends chasing white-collar tax debt—$6 back for every $1 invested. Why has the Government not gone after the rest of it? There is $1 billion there which is 150-odd times more debt than there is in beneficiary fraud. So why is it not doing 150 bills on white-collar criminals and fraudsters before it does this one? The answer is that it knows where its bread is buttered. It does not want to shake the foundations of the white-collar community. It is protecting its big business mates—sorry not “protecting” because I know it is illegal. It is not prioritising the crackdown on its own.Kiwis are sick and tired and sick and tired of hearing about the better future and finding more of the same. They are so disappointed in this visionless lacklustre John Key - led National Government.I am very interested in an article on Stuff when the bill was introduced entitled “Fraud investigation measures raise concerns”. It says in response to the announcements of the changes by the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows: “Concerns have been raised about the plans to investigate people without theirknowledge as the Government introduces measures to prosecute the partners of benefit fraudsters.” This is part of an ongoing trend. The Government does not like local democracy in the Auckland Unitary Plan so it passes the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which steamrolls over the top of it. It does not like the Ombudsman interfering in the privileges of executive Government so it starves it of decent funding increases. It does not like Kiwis having the privacy of communications so it passes in a tick a Government Communications Security Bureau bill that means that it can read every email that every New Zealander has ever sent and intercept any phone call at the drop of a hat. And now it is investigating the partners of beneficiaries with criminal charges and criminal powers because those beneficiaries are a few steps behind in their payments.All right fair is fair—here is the Labour Party’s position: go after fraud wherever it is. One law for all fair day’s work fair day’s pay fair suck of thesav—OK. OK. It is not wrong to collect beneficiary fraud. That is the right thing to do. But it is 150 times more right to chase down white-collar tax debt—150 times more right. Even if it did this in the middle and it just chased down 75 tax bills before it did this one that would be a fair thing. We see the National Party’s true colours. It is so blue that it is black. Kiwis are getting dark on National and we will find out next year.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I am honoured to speak for the Green Party and to be voting against the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is very important that the Green Party stands here today and votes against this bill. I would like to honour all the people who struggle on the benefit because the benefit itself has now become a fraud. The benefit once was truly a safety net but now people cannot live on it. We can live on our comfortable wages but many many people out there cannot live on what they are receiving on the benefit. If they could get a job they would because who wants to be stigmatised? Who wants to be investigated? Who wants to be humiliated? It is no fun to stand at a Work and Income office and receive that treatment.I would like to acknowledge the beneficiary advocates a group of people who are dwindling in the recession. They have pointed out to me that what happens in a recession every time—many of them are veterans of the system—is that there are bills passed through this Parliament to increase the pressure on and the scapegoating of the vulnerable. It is a great system. Of course the Government is not going to go after tax dodgers. That is hard work. They have got lawyers. Well I tell you what—sorry Mr Assistant Speaker not you. I will tell the House my own experience of working with the benefit fraud team.There is already a system of investigating benefit fraud and it is not very pleasant because what it does is it picks on the large percentage of people who either did not realise they had created a debt or are in trouble for various reasons with the department and it now investigates them secretly. It creates an incredibly punitive regime.I have sat at meetings with young parents who did not know that they had to prove they were the parents. The department decided that they were not really with their child enough and they were going to go to court and possibly go to jail. A lot of young women who are in prison are young women who have been done for benefit fraud so their kids are really benefiting from this punitive system now! And this bill is going to make it worse.We do salute the part of the bill that will require more responsibility from partners though I think some of it is going to be an enormous waste of money. Some people will get work out of it. There may be some more jobs in the benefit fraud unit but I cannot actually see it being very effective to try to squeeze more blood out of the vulnerable stones at the bottom of our society which is what this bill is about.So how does the ministry collect a $5000 fine from people who already do not have any money and from people for whom English is a second language and who have come to the benefit support agencies I have been part of saying that they do not know what Work and Income is telling them and they are not sure what they are entitled to? We often then find out that they have not got their basic entitlement but they are being accused of fraud for various reasons beyond their control. So there is the super-vulnerable people at the bottom and we are increasingly seeing mental health survivors become part of the investigation of fraud which is what this bill will target. So let us get on to those mental health survivors let us put them through the system let us investigate them let us threaten them with fraud and let us see how much money we can squeeze out of them! We will get not very much money not very much human dignity and not too much respect.I sat with a benefit fraud investigator one day and she said to a woman: “How many times have you had sex with your neighbour? Don’t you diary your sex life?”. There was no shame in talking to beneficiaries like that—no shame whatsoever. I said to the benefit fraud investigator: “Do you diary your sex life?”. And guess what? She did not but it is OK to talk to those people like that because they are at the bottom and they have got issues and because they are not justified like the tax people! They are the bad people and we can treat them like dirt because dirt is how we treat them! But that does not work. It does not work for recovering money it does not work for inspiring people to do better it does not create jobs and it does not protect human rights.One of the reasons this is a bad bill is the fact that it does not acknowledge that out there in the community some people are trying to get our human right to a decent income and food for our kids even if they are in debt. It does not allow that. The ministry will decide what is reasonable and the ministry will fail because the ministry is failing now. We need to go back to the first principles of the Social Security Act. Much like ACC where we have abandoned the Woodhouse principles we should go back to the fundamental principles about protecting people. Wasting money like this on creating more and more squads of people to investigate more and more other people when it is a small percentage of genuine rip-off merchants is a shame and a disgrace. Let us review the system. Let us do it properly rather than base it on punishment. We are very proud to oppose this bill.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am pleased to take the last call on another very good piece of legislation from the Hon Chester Borrows. He is doing some very good work in this space and working very well with the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett. Has this Government not made a huge impact in the welfare space and a very positive impact for New Zealanders? The question I would have for the pervious speaker Catherine Delahunty is this: is it not the Government’s first obligation to ensure that the taxpayers of New Zealand are well supported in the provisions by which they pay their tax to serve this country and that we meet those provisions and that we meet the obligations of those individuals? And where it is clear that citizens who are reliant on the goodwill of the State and the finances of the State by virtue of those taxpayers are taking advantage of that and are defrauding their fellow neighbours and taxpayers and community the Government should do all that it can to respond to that on behalf of those taxpaying New Zealanders. First and foremost that is what the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill is doing. It is saying that we take those responsibilities very seriously.Although I know the Greens are very proud to oppose something like this they will never be a party in Government as long as they maintain that attitude. Although they can dilly-dally around some fringe sort of watermelon patch ideas and ideologies and disguise themselves as a party that is there for the environment but is really there tosocially engineer in a Marxist fashion New Zealanders actually can peel back the layers—Hon David Cunliffe: Ah you Friedmanite.MIKE SABIN: Well Mr Cunliffe may want to be very careful about the comments that he makes about the Green Party because if he goes on to be successful in his leadership bid against Tweedledum and Tweedledee there of course that party the Green Party is the very party that he is going to have to be cuddling up to if he ever fulfils aspirations of being the Prime Minister. Mr Cunliffe is an intelligent political operator. He is intelligent enough to know that cuddling up to the Green Party is akin to cuddling up to a cactus because there are a lot thorns and there are lot of prickles with that particular party.Hon David Cunliffe: It’s not going to work—no we’re a Government in waiting.MIKE SABIN: If it is not going to work Mr Cunliffe then the member will never be the leader—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are actually on a different debate so I would ask the member to come back.MIKE SABIN: Certainly.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave for the member who is on his feet to yield the balance of his time—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No you cannot do that. [Interruption] You cannot do that. The member will sit. You cannot do that.MIKE SABIN: With this particular bill I will just reflect on some of my previous life before coming in here as a police officer. Although everyone in this House knows—and certainly this Government which has to make responsible decisions knows—that it is not a case of everyone on welfare committing welfare fraud what I saw as a police officer—Hon David Cunliffe: Stranger in the House.MIKE SABIN: Listen up Mr Cunliffe. The member might learn a little bit about his constituents and the lives they are living out there in the big wide world. What was very clear to me is that there are unfortunately a significant number of individuals who do pair up in domestic relationships and who are profiting from the fact that they are living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage or a relationship that would see them ineligible for the additional support and they take that quite knowingly. They certainly do it in a manner that is reckless as to whether or not that would be the case. Time and time and time again I saw a situation where that was occurring. The frustration that I felt not only as a police officer but as a member of the community was that it was not good enough that the people who were reliant on their neighbours for support were actually taking those neighbours for a ride in doing so. Although there will always be some genuine cases of confusion or misunderstanding it is not a case that this Parliament should be making legislation that is targeted simply at that tiniest nuance. It must be accommodated for but ultimately the legislation that we should be looking to pass is to send the right message that the community the taxpayer and the Government says what is acceptable and what is not.At its heart that is exactly what this legislation is doing. It is saying that to the $26 million worth of welfare fraud committed by beneficiaries in relationships in 2013. That is one-third of all prosecutions. It is saying that that $26 million is not theirs. Taxpayers are not paying that money simply so that those beneficiaries can benefit by pulling a swindle. This legislation will in fact tackle that.I just want to touch briefly on before my time expires overpayments and the recovery of debt. In terms of people who have committed fraud $128 million is languishing. That money has not been recovered. A recent High Court decision made itvery clear that there was some confusion and clarity is needed. This legislation brings that clarity on a legislative footing so that it will improve the duty and role of the Ministry of Social Development to take all reasonably practicable steps to recover that debt. It also gives the Ministry of Social Development the discretion to determine on a case by case method how that recovery occurs and in some exceptional circumstances it could be deferred. Giving that legislative clarity sending that message and providing the Ministry of Social Development with those tools is an integral part of readjusting what is a significant amount of welfare fraud. I believe that the taxpayers of New Zealand deserve that. This Government gets on and does what needs to be done. I note the challenges of the Opposition—the Labour Party and the Greens. Although the Labour Party is supporting it it is a David Shearer support. It is the old “Oh yes we certainly support it but actually behind the scenes we are supporting and thinking about something else and steering down a different course.” That is what members opposite do. They say: “We support it but we don’t like it. We’re going to throw it under the bus anyway.” because they want a dollar each way. New Zealanders do not want a dollar each way. They want clear legislation a good Minister and a good portfolio where a lot of good work has been done.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes103New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes17Green Party 14;Māori Party 2; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Social Services Committee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Government has indicated that it does not wish to progress further business under urgency. The House therefore stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 3 September.The House adjourned at 5.01 p.m. (Thursday)