Volume 697 Week 67 - Wednesday 12 March 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 697 Week 67 - Wednesday 12 March 2014[Sitting date: 12 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16545. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 12 March 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsSolomon Islands—Prime MinisterMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands led by the Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s Gallery be welcomed.The Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Interest Rates Housing Affordability and Power Prices1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Minister of Finance: How will the expected increases in the Official Cash Rate over the coming year affect New Zealand families and businesses?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):That will depend somewhat on the circumstances of those families and businesses. For instance for those who have some of the over $100 billion on deposit in New Zealand banks it will mean slightly higher incomes. For others with mortgages it will mean slightly higher costs. We would need to remember though that this is against a background where interest rates have been at near 50-year lows for the past 3 years and they are likely to be on a gradual return to more normal levels. For all households and businesses any rise in interest rates signals growing momentum in the economy and therefore the prospect of more jobs and higher incomes.Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen the research conducted by Reserve Bank officials that found that when the official cash rate increases by 1 percent the unemployment rate increases by around 1.2 percent above what it would otherwise be which means 30000 fewer jobs in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I have not seen that particular piece of research although I am sure that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has seen it. He has a job of targeting inflation and in the next few days he will tell us about just how he intends to do that in the context of a growing economy. He will also be publishing forecasts about unemployment and employment growth. If they are consistent with other market forecasts and Treasury forecasts they will show that even if interest rates rise somewhat there will continue to be strong growth in employment—as indicated by information from SEEK today showing record job ads—and also continued reductions in unemployment.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the relevant Reserve Bank paper from August 2011—An estimated small open economy model—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been adequately described. Leave is sought to table that particular publication from the Reserve Bank. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: Does he understand that if interest rates rise this year then families will pay more for mortgages businesses will pay more to borrow and the exchange rate will rise above its already record level hurting our exporters all of which adds up to fewer jobs for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible that some or none of those things might happen. But the member seems to be in a roundabout way at least questioning the current monetary policy framework. New Zealand has learnt some hard lessons in the last 30 or 40 years. If there is one thing that erodes confidence erodes household wealth and erodes jobs it is high and persistent inflation. That is why there has been until recently a bipartisan consensus on a Reserve Bank framework that targets keeping inflation relatively low because we have learnt from experience that in the long run that is the best setting to promote growth.Tim Macindoe: How has the Government’s economic programme since 2008 helped to keep interest rates lower for longer for New Zealand families and businesses?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Looking back to 2008 it has not been that difficult to help keep interest rates lower for longer because we have had a recession and very low interest rates. But looking ahead it is quite a challenge. What we know is that as interest rates begin rising if the Government starts spending more rapidly and house prices continue to grow rapidly then interest rates could end up over 10 percent as they did as recently as 2008 under the stewardship of the previous Labour Government.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s responsibility rather than the Reserve Bank’s responsibility is he aware that house prices rents and power prices accounted for a third of inflation in the past year so if the Government had stabilised the housing market and tackled rising power prices there would be no need for the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has tackled those issues and I must say without the support of the Green Party. We have had a couple of years of hard work getting on top of the regulation of our housing market. The Greens like a few other people in New Zealand do not like any new houses anywhere. That is one of the problems behind the fast-rising housing market. We have also worked hard on a more competitive electricity market but again the Greens have not supported that.Tim Macindoe: What policy prescriptions would push up interest rates and put pressure on New Zealand families and businesses?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Two in particular. One is the expensive emissions trading scheme supported by the Opposition parties. The emissions trading scheme which they have stopped talking about would add $500 a year to household electricity bills and that is before we get to the NZ Power proposal which would almost certainly push up power prices.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s success in controlling house prices and electricity prices given that there has been a 44 percent increase in Auckland house prices during this Government and a 20 percent increase in power prices over the course of this Government does he consider that his policies have been successful in controlling inflationary pressures coming out of the housing market and the so-called electricity market?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first point is that the rate of increase in both housing and electricity prices has been much lower than it was under the previous Labour-Green Government. Secondly yes we do believe our policies will have an effect. Of course particularly in respect of housing markets it takes some time to change the mind-set promoted by the Greens that all housing development is bad. The price of that approach is that New Zealanders pay far too much for their houses. Against the opposition of the Greens we are trying to change it.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government policy—which is what question time is about— of skyrocketing housing prices which have gone up by 44 percent over the last 5 years and with regard to the Government policy of skyrocketing power prices which have gone up 20 percent is it not the Government’s failure to control inflation coming out of housing and electricity that is driving the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates which all New Zealanders will have to bear the brunt of?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not believe that is the case. The Government has been working for several years to ensure a more competitive electricity market and to ensure a more flexible market in housing supply so that as demand grows prices do not go up. It is notable that Labour and the Greens have opposed every measure the Government took in that respect. If there is one thing that would certainly push up inflation and interest rates it is a big-spending Government with an expensive emissions trading scheme that would put power bills up by $500 per household per year.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister realise that ordinary New Zealand families are being hit three different ways by the Government’s policies: firstly they are paying too much for housing and for electricity because of the Government’s policies; secondly they are about to see their mortgage payments rise as a result of the failure of the Government to control house prices and electricity prices; and thirdly on top of that there will be 30000 fewer jobs as a result of the interest rate rises?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not accept any of that. The Government has had to work very hard to undo the damage the previous Government did to electricity prices—Hon Simon Bridges: 72 percent.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —which went up 72 percent in 9 years and undo the damage that the Greens and their fellow travellers have done to the housing market where they have forced regulation that ensures house prices go up. I admit that we could have perhaps unilaterally taken over local council planning functions but we have not quite done that. Instead we have worked with local councils to fix the damage done by the Greens and others who are opposed to all new housing development which is why we have one of the most expensive housing markets in the developed world.Dr Russel Norman: Aside from spreading misinformation about the Greens does the Government have any actual policy given that over the last 5 years—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask his question. I cannot hear it. It would be helpful if the member would just address the question without the initial comments.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every question during this question time you have allowed the Minister to attack Green Party policy when the questions were nothing about that. The one time I introduce it into my question you tell me that I am not allowed to say it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member carries on like that we will move immediately to question No. 2. I did not rule the member’s question out of order; I simply pointed out that he had a right to have his question heard. I could not hear it. I believe the member was himself struggling to get his question out. I pointed out to the member that the way he started his question led to the disorder. I invite the member now to ask his question; otherwise we will proceed to question No. 2.Dr Russel Norman: Aside from spreading misinformation about the Greens’ policy does the Government have any actual policy to control inflation coming out of the housing market and the electricity market given that over 5 years house prices in Auckland have gone up by 44 percent and electricity prices have gone up by 20 percent as a result of the policies of this Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the last point the member made is the one where he is most obviously wrong. The Government has worked very hard to undo the damage done by the previous Labour Government to the electricity market and we have slowed the rate of increase considerably. The Opposition policy of a single buyer and an emissions trading system would certainly force prices up fast. In respect of the housing market I welcome the Greens’ new-found support for the idea of building more new houses because up until now like the Labour Party it has opposed all policy measures designed to enable New Zealanders to get better-priced houses.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the Deputy Prime Minister has done throughout all of his answers today he has breached the Standing Orders. He is misrepresenting policies of parties that he has no responsibility for.Mr SPEAKER: That is very much a debating matter. The answers have been addressing the question. As I warned the member as he rose to ask his question the way he asked the question meant that he was likely to get a very robust reply.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether it is fair to sit Russel Norman down and criticise the form of his question right at the start of a question retaliating to similar jibes from the National Party three or four times and then for you to not stand up and stop the Deputy Prime Minister doing exactly the same in reverse.Mr SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully to the answers. I think they have fairly addressed the question. If I thought for one minute they did not I would address the matter. My job here is to attempt to be as fair as possible to all members in this House and I will continue to attempt to do that.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Minister’s claim that the NZ Power policy would push up prices has the Minister seen the report from Infometrics commissioned by Business New Zealand which says that the Green Party’s and Labour Party’s NZ Power proposals would cut power prices for families by 13 percent and add $200 million a year to the economy which means it would create at least 2000 jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with it. There is one place that this policy has been tried. That is in the province of Ontario and it has led to the utterly predictable result of blackouts and higher prices. That is why we will not be adopting that policy. Secondly the emissions trading system which the Greens have stopped talking about will add $500 per household per year to their power bills.Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister stand up tomorrow and explain to New Zealanders why his policies have pushed up housing prices and power prices which have put pressure on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates and why it is that ordinary New Zealand families will have to pay more for their mortgages and more for their power prices because of his failed Government policy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. If I had the opportunity I would explain to them how Government policy has enabled interest rates to stay lower for longer—in fact at 50-year lows for longer—and I would also explain to them the risks of a big-spending Labour-Green Government which would certainly push up interest rates much further than it needed to like it did last time when first mortgage rates reached 10-plus percent in 2008.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus2.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa)to the Minister of Finance: How will the Government’s economic and fiscal policies ensure its accounts return to surplus in 2014/15 and help keep interest rates lower than during the previous economic cycle?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The Government will continue to focus its Government spending on programmes that make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders such as investing to help people get off welfare and into work and investing to reduce crime. What we have learnt in recent years is that often the solution to the problems that the taxpayers pay us to fix lies with finding better more effective answers not with spending more money. By remaining on top of its spending the Government will help avoid a repeat of the sharp interest rate rises during the last cycle up to 2008 when floating mortgage rates actually reached almost 11 percent.John Hayes: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s finances and what trends are emerging in both spending and revenue?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s financial statements for the 7 months to 31 January were released yesterday. They showed that Government expenses are around $140 million below forecast at $40.1 billion for the 7 months indicating that the Public Service is doing a good job of containing expenditure but achieving better results for our communities. However despite stronger economic growth tax revenue continues to track below forecast. Although we have spending under control Government revenue is inherently more difficult to forecast. We are yet to see just how much of that shortfall of around $800 million flows through to the end of the year. In any case the Government is on track to deliver a surplus for the 2014-15 year and that of course will raise questions for New Zealanders about big-spending promises in election year and what damage they might do not just to the Government’s books but also to pushing up interest rates further.John Hayes: How does the Government’s current financial position and outlook compare with the position inherited by the incoming National-led Government in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have learnt some lessons from the period particularly of about 2005-08 because by 2008 despite a decade of good economic conditions the New Zealand economy was in recession and floating mortgage rates were nearly 11 percent. This Government is determined not to make the same mistakes—that is to go on a spending spree just when times are better and secondly to allow the housing market to grow at very high rates putting pressure on our exporters.Hon David Parker: How can he claim to be a good economic manager when despite record dairy prices and the Christchurch rebuild boosting construction the Government accounts have still come in well under forecast for the third month in a row?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The commentary around the accounts points out some of the reasons for that. I am very pleased to see that this Labour Party spokesman unlike the rest of its spokesmen is so devoted to achieving a surplus. We look forward to pre-election policies that indicate that he is going to be as prudent in his fiscal management as he says the current Government should be.John Hayes: With the Government on track to surplus next year what policy prescriptions would put that return to surplus at risk and fuel sharp interest rate increases?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is increasingly obvious that policies for instance that promise large amounts of cash to New Zealand households mean that not only is the Government unlikely to make a surplus but also it would be a pretty clear signal to the Reserve Bank that it should put interest rates up. Other policies such as an expensive emissions—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will be very apparent to you that seeing as the Minister is not talking about anything within his portfolio or Government administration or Government policies he should not be talking about it at all.Mr SPEAKER: No I cannot accept the point the member raises. Members have the right to ask a question. The question effectively was what policy prescriptions would put at risk a return to economic surplus etc. That is a legitimate question; it is allowed a legitimate answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was just going to finish by referring to the emissions trading system policy that certainly is Green policy and may be Labour policy. An expensive emissions trading system would push up electricity prices and inflation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again the Minister of Finance is not responsible for any other political party’s policy—the Greens’ the Labour Party’s or anyone else’s—so why is he being allowed to persist with his answer?Mr SPEAKER: He is certainly able in response to that question to talk about the potential that he considers would be aligned with an emissions trading scheme. It is unhelpful for the Minister in giving the answer to refer to the policy being adopted by any other party in this House.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With reference to your last ruling my simple question would be—and I agree with you—why he was not pulled up and why some action was not taken against him. He has done it before time and time again.Mr SPEAKER: It was. If the member had listened he would have heard me make a comment.Justice Minister—Investigation into Compliance with Cabinet Manual3.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he tell the New Zealand public on Monday that “Yes they”—the Cabinet Office—“looked at the translation.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believed it to be correct and actually the Cabinet Office has written to me to say that the information it provided to me could well have left me with that impression. It apologised for that.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister personally or through directing his office specifically ask the Cabinet Office to look at the English translation of Oravida’s Chinese website when this issue first came to light last week; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all the details of who contacted the Cabinet Office but my understanding was they looked at all the information required.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. These are deliberately very straight and simple factual questions and a supplementary to—Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to repeat his question.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister personally or through personally directing his office specifically ask the Cabinet Office to look at the English translation of Oravida’s Chinese website when this issue first came to light last week; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is the same answer. I do not have the information with me of what was asked for but—[Interruption]Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon David Cunliffe: The question asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the question.Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the question. You have put it twice. The Prime Minister has chosen to answer it by saying he does not have that information.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the question went to his own personal knowledge or direction and not to the actions of any other party how is it possible for him to not have the information about his own personal actions?Mr SPEAKER: Well I can easily answer that before I accept—Hon Member: He’s covering up.Mr SPEAKER: No it could be that the Prime Minister on this occasion feels he does not have the information because he cannot recall it accurately enough. It is in his hands; it is for him to decide how he is going to answer the questions. [Interruption] Order! If members want to stay for the balance of question time then when I am on my feet I expect them to be silent. I have attempted to assist the member to get an answer that is more helpful. The Prime Minister has chosen how he is to answer that question and that is his responsibility. The member then has further supplementary questions and who knows—he may get an additional supplementary question to help elucidate the answer he may require.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. By the nature of Mr Cunliffe’s question it may be that Prime Minister can seek a defence in not being prepared but if you look at question No. 7 where he is asked whether he gave honest answers to questions asked on this matter he has had now 4 hours to be prepared so he should be down here today ready to go and not be hiding behind the points he—Mr SPEAKER: And that is for this House and the public of New Zealand to judge.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On previous occasions when there has been an apparent or possible obfuscation by a Minister to a direct question you have given members on this side of the House three opportunities to ask the supplementary question and the Minister concerned three opportunities to give a direct answer.Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled. I have given it—what two goes? I have determined that that is enough. The member has further supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister understand that the statement by his office that the deletion of the Chinese version of the website means there is no longer a conflict of interest means that there must have been an actual conflict of interest to start with; if not what does he understand by that statement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No the member is not correct.Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Prime Minister seen the Chief Ombudsman’s report from October 2012 that states: “if a Minister refers to Cabinet Office advice publicly in a way that is misleading or exaggerated the countervailing public interest in disclosure is likely to outweigh the need for confidentiality.” and will he therefore table the Cabinet Office advice now for members of this House?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I do actively encourage the member to take the matter up with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will then look at all of the advice I have seen and the Ombudsman will—guess what—not release it because they will know that I am correct.Hon David Cunliffe: The underfunded Ombudsman. On what day—Rt Hon John Key: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition as he got to his feet impugned the reputation of the Ombudsman of New Zealand. I think that is a very serious matter and the member might want to reflect on that.Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the remark. If the member made a comment that he thinks is unparliamentary—[Interruption] I will hear from the member.Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking to the point of order if the Speaker did not hear it the words I said were “The underfunded Ombudsman.” That was going to the point—Rt Hon John Key: No you said “Government funded”.Hon David Cunliffe: If I may that goes to the point that the Prime Minister is hiding behind an officer of Parliament whom he has insufficiently funded in the full knowledge that there will be a long delay before an answer can be given. That is impugning himself—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will accept what the member has said and therefore we will move forward.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that there is a conflict of interest arising from revelations this morning that Judith Collins had a previously undeclared dinner with her “close personal friends” which included the chairman of Oravida and a senior Chinese border control official while on a taxpayer-funded trip to China in which she also visited Oravida and endorsed or promoted its products?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe that the accumulation of meetings that the Minister of Justice held in China could lead to the perception of a conflict of interest and that is why I believe that transparency is very important. I believe for instance that if you get secret donations through a trust you should make those known. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Does he consider it merely a perception of a conflict of interest that all this occurred with a company of which the Minister’s husband is one of only three directors which is supplied by a company substantially owned by the president of the National Party and from which his party has received $56000 in political donations?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think it can lead to a perception of a conflict of interest. Secondly what is important here is that we actually do know what has taken place. We do not when it comes to the trust funds of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has answered the question.Hon David Cunliffe: If Mrs Collins does not understand that this combination of circumstances reflects a serious conflict of interest is she fit to be a Minister in his Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes she is quite fit to be a Minister. My own view is that Judith Collins is an outstanding Minister but I think that on this particular occasion she has got this wrong. All I can say to Mrs Collins is this: thank goodness you did not grant him citizenship in the Labour Party caucus—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Electricity Market—Performance Prices and Alternative Approaches4.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What has the Government done to improve the performance of the electricity market in New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):When this Government took office in 2008 it was clear that significant changes needed to be made. Power prices were rising at record levels there had been four dry-year emergencies where consumers had been asked to switch off their lights and conserve power there had been serious under-investment in transmission and we got too much of our power from non-renewables. This Government’s reforms of 2010 have halved power price increases and promoted the ability of consumers to shop around for the best deal. Security of supply is simply no longer an issue despite the fact that the first 6 months of 2012 were the driest on record. There has been much-needed investment in infrastructure with Transpower spending set to total $5 billion. Renewables have gone from 65 percent to 75 percent. The Government backs its record on electricity against the left’s any day of the week.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How have consumers benefited from these changes?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The market reforms have seen an expansion in the number of retailers with a wide range of innovative offerings available to consumers. Substantial savings are available from special deals for consumers who shop around. Discounts of up to $300 are available effectively reducing a power bill by up to 14 percent for the average consumer. Consumers in their hundreds of thousands are increasingly taking the opportunity to switch providers. The What’s My Number campaign goes from strength to strength with record numbers switching last year. This is all evidence of exactly how a competitive market can and should work.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has he seen on an alternative approach to the electricity market?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh I have seen many many reports commenting on a vastly different approach to organising the electricity market. Former Labour Minister of Energy David Butcher said that it “would largely destroy the renewables industry”. An independent report by Sapere Research Group concluded “There is a very real risk that the proposals would result in higher electricity prices”—[Interruption] Mr Speaker I would like to be heard. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is appealing for some chance to finish his answer. The Hon Simon Bridges—if he could with haste complete his answer.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I appreciate that these answers are embarrassing for the Opposition—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just get on with it.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Gareth Morgan called it “classic politicking; a solution in search of a problem.” Professor Frank Wolak once loved by the Opposition said it was “largely just window dressing.” They were all commenting on the half-baked NZ Power policy that the Labour—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know that in the Standing Orders answers are meant to be succinct. We have had three speeches from the Minister. This is question time not speech time.Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a reasonable point and that is why I stood on my feet and concluded the answer.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member seeking a point—Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am happy to give a more succinct answer to that question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That would not be helpful at all to the House.Brendan Horan: What has the Minister done to lower power prices in his electorate of Tauranga which currently pays 15 percent above the national average?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Simon Bridges in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I refer the member to all of my succinct answers previously but I have already made clear that we have a system in New Zealand where power prices have gone from a 72 percent increase when Labour left office to half of that where security of supply is no longer an issue despite four near-blackouts when Labour was in Government where from under-investment we have gone to $5 billion of investment in transmission—Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer now has got nothing to do with the specificity of the question.Brendan Horan: That was what I was going to ask.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those matters all go to power prices in Tauranga.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister ought to go back to his office study the Standing Orders and in future give more concise answers to the questions he is asked.Justice Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: Did she seek advice from the Cabinet Office regarding any conflict of interest arising from her husband’s directorship of Oravida Ltd; if so when and why?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I wrote to the Cabinet Office on 31 January 2013 advising that my husband had been appointed to a number of directorships including Oravida Ltd. This letter was in addition to the annual review of Ministers’ interests.Grant Robertson: Does she believe that her actions in China while on a taxpayer-funded visit including visiting Oravida’s office and having dinner with the chairman of Oravida and a Chinese Government official gave rise to a conflict of interest?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. However I do believe that there is a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest and that is important.Grant Robertson: What has changed between today and yesterday when she did not think there was a perception of a conflict of interest?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well that particular issue was not raised with me yesterday by that member.Grant Robertson: Did she consider the conflict of interest implications before the dinner of having dinner in China with the chairman of the company that her husband is a director of and a Chinese Government official; if so what did she do about that?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No I really did not because I viewed it as—Grant Robertson: Really?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No I really did not because I viewed it as that I was having dinner with two close personal friends. My adviser who is also a close personal friend was with us as well as another friend. Actually in the fullness of time and in hindsight I can see why there might look like there is something there. But I am sorry I just did not even think of it.Grant Robertson: What issues were discussed at the dinner with the Chinese Government official and the chair of Oravida?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not an awful lot because of English language issues. Having said that—Hon Annette King: Oh so none of our negotiations—Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No no negotiations. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the Minister to complete her answer.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually we talked mostly about me saying how it would be really good if more people came to visit New Zealand because it is the best little country in the world.Grant Robertson: Is the Minister telling the House that at the dinner that she held with the Chinese Government official and the chair of Oravida Ltd there was no discussion about Oravida’s business activity?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes.Grant Robertson: Did she hold any other meetings with business contacts during her trip to China that she has not yet declared?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have declared meetings with business contacts in China already.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not the question; the question was whether there were any other meetings.Mr SPEAKER: In the normal course of events if the member who asked the question is unsatisfied with the answer he may appeal to me.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member so I will ask him to repeat the question.Grant Robertson: Thank you. Did she hold any other meetings with business contacts during her visit to China that have not been declared?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: They have all been declared either by way of the Official Information Act or in the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave—can you tell that guy on the camera to get there faster.Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear the member’s point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well he has finally got the microphone to me. Through you can I ask him to get there faster. Right?Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just raise his point of order if he wishes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have now finally ascertained that this is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an article from the Oravida website and its English translation.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information from the website and its translation. Is there any objection to that being done? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Better Public Services Targets—Businesses and Interaction with Government6.Dr JIAN YANG (National)to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government making it easier quicker and less complicated for businesses to deal with the Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Mr Speaker—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! In a minute a member from this immediate quarter of the House will be leaving the Chamber. I rose to my feet. I called for order. The barracking that continued from a number of members is completely unacceptable.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and I formally launched the New Zealand Business Number. Businesses have been requesting a universal identifier for business for many years. Similar approaches are used in other developed countries including Australia and Singapore. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now require this answer to be heard in silence. If any member interrupts this answer that member will be leaving this Chamber.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: From the top Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: Yes.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and I formally launched the New Zealand Business Number. Businesses have been requesting a universal identifier for many years. Similar approaches are used in other developed countries including Australia and Singapore. Having a single business number means that by 2016 businesses will have to provide Government with their information only once and it will be shared across Government agencies. The New Zealand Business Number is a core initiative of the Government’s Better Public Services programme for business which is working towards making it easier for business to work with Government agencies.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just so that we get absolute clarity because I am sure none of us want to leave was the requirement for silence for all of the answers to the supplementary questions or just to the primary question?Mr SPEAKER: That is a very good example of why the member would be better to keep his interjections to a minimum level and to listen. The requirement was for that particular answer but I still do not want to hear or have to listen to a return to the unruly barracking that I was hearing earlier.Dr Jian Yang: What are the benefits of a New Zealand Business Number?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Rather than having a range of numbers and identifiers for businesses to deal with the New Zealand Business Number is a single identifying number for all businesses and commercial entities in this country. Initially the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the Ministry for Primary Industries the Customs Service Statistics New Zealand the Inland Revenue Department ACC Callaghan Innovation and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are committed to the New Zealand Business Number and more Government agencies will follow as it is rolled out. The New Zealand Business Number will also help simplify business-to-business transactions making it easier for businesses to invoice out and pay bills apply for credit and authenticate other businesses. Software providers are already integrating the New Zealand Business Number into their software packages.Dr Jian Yang: How will businesses obtain a New Zealand Business Number?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Registered companies were allocated a New Zealand Business Number in December last year. We are now consulting on how and when to allocate a New Zealand Business Number to the other half of all New Zealand businesses that are not companies. Business representative groups have told us that they want it to be as easy as possible to access their New Zealand Business Number and we are investigating how they can be allocated automatically. Ultimately the New Zealand Business Number is about ensuring businesses can spend more time on their business and less time with compliance costs for the Government. We are keen to hear from businesses on whom should be allocated a number what information should be linked the rules around using it and how to ensure information is protected.Hon David Cunliffe: Was Judith Collins making it “easier quicker and less complicated” for Oravida its directors or the National Party to make money?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand Government Ministers work all the time to enhance the prospects of New Zealand companies operating in international markets. This Government is proud of that approach. It is building exports and growing business for New Zealand companies offshore. I appreciate that the Labour Party is a thin veneer—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was specific about Minister Collins—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been addressed. It was a marginal question as to whether it had ministerial responsibility.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask why you say that the question was marginal. The question was in order so why did you say it was a marginal question?Mr SPEAKER: Because I considered that it was. Otherwise I would not have said anything else. I let the question go through and I advised the Minister when answering it to address it in so far as he had ministerial responsibility. The member is free to disagree with my opinion but he still must accept it.Justice Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual and Prime Minister’s Response7.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Were all his answers to questions relating to the Hon Judith Collins and Oravida checked to ensure they were true; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. It is the standard practice of my office to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to check proposed answers to both written and oral questions I might give this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When Judith Collins had secret meetings with a Chinese border official her policy adviser and the Chinese managing director of her husband’s company Oravida and a New Zealand diplomat and New Zealand consul; did not merely stop for a cup of tea on the way to the airport but had lunch and dinner with the company; as the Minister of Justice and the Minister for ACC held meetings on trade matters well outside her portfolios; and facilitated access for products obtained by Oravida from Sanford a company owned in part by the National Party president’s family how can he now not sack her?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier I think that Judith Collins has been an outstanding Minister. I think that she has got a big contribution to make for New Zealand. I think that in this particular case she put herself in the place of being accused of a perception of having a conflict of interest. I think that that is unwise but I am sure that the Minister has learnt from that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.” when page 5 of the Judith Collins Cabinet travel report was blanked out entirely when the travel report was released to me?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not responsible for the blanking out of that. That comes from her office. But here is the important point: that looks awfully like the number of donors that we know gave David Cunliffe—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about the number of donors in the Waitematā club if that is an issue?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure where the question is. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking a supplementary question but he decided to put that issue on to the last answer.Mr SPEAKER: And I heard that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say as Prime Minister “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.” when he refuses to release the Cabinet advice on this matter when that advice was never checked against the Chinese translation when he totally misled questioners when he claimed the advice was checked against the Chinese translation and when the Minister herself has so grossly failed to tell the truth over the real extent and import of her meetings involving Oravida?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute many of the assertions in that question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I am entitled to some accountability in this House and so is the country. I have asked a serious question.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that the question was excessively long and the Prime Minister has chosen to answer it the way he has just saying he does not agree with the assertions. If the member wants specific answers he should ask a specific question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will give you an example. When he admitted last night—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member just come to his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am raising a point of order and it is this.Mr SPEAKER: And would he come to his point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say he does not agree with the assertions when at the beginning of the week he said that the translation was checked and last night he said to the public on TV that it was not?Mr SPEAKER: Because the member started his question with the words “How can he say” and then went on with a whole lot of things. The Prime Minister got to his feet and said he did not agree with the assertions. That is an answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No I did not begin it in that way. I began with his quote so how can he dispute that?Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that the question has been addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know what your ruling is. With respect—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. My patience with the member will not last much longer. If the member wants to leave the Chamber I can ask him to do so. If he wants to conclude his questions he should move to his supplementary question otherwise we will immediately go to the next question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.” when he refuses to release the Cabinet advice the advice was never checked against the Chinese translation then he claimed that it was and the Minister has so grossly failed to tell the truth over the full extent and import of her meetings?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I stand by the view that transparency is a good thing. Successive Governments have followed the same position that advice from the Cabinet Office is not released.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that he sacked Richard Worth as a precedent over a clear conflict of interest much less than this one what has the Minister of Justice got on the Prime Minister that he will not sack her in circumstances and for reasons far more serious than he has used to sack others?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to pay attention. Richard Worth was not sacked for that. If he goes back and looks at the records in 2009 when there was a potential conflict of interest I took the same approach and said that I thought the Minister was being very unwise.Transpower—Dividends Debt and Investment in National Grid8.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: What is the total amount of dividends that the Government has taken out of Transpower since 2011 and what is the current debt gearing ratio of Transpower?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Dividends paid since 2011 total $610 million. The debt gearing ratio is 70 percent.Hon David Parker: Did he write to the chair of Transpower in 2008 and 2009 demanding that the company increase its debt so as to pay out larger dividends?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to go back and check the records but it is likely that that is the case.Jami-Lee Ross: How much has Transpower invested in the national grid since 2008 and why has it made this investment?Hon Trevor Mallard: Because the Labour Government told it to.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually I agree with the interjection. Under a programme initiated by the previous Labour Government and its last competent Minister Trevor Mallard Transpower invested over 10 years from 2008 to 2018. Its investment will total $5 billion. This represented at the start of the programme and does still now a much-needed and overdue investment in transmission assets. It has increased reliability particularly in the upper North Island and enabled growing demand in Auckland to be met from mainly renewable generation south of Auckland. These investments are being made under the independent oversight of the Commerce Commission which requires investments to be made only in the long-term interests of consumers. Although the costs of this investment pass to consumers so do the benefits in terms of an improved network fewer blackouts greater competition between generators and more use of renewable energy.Hon David Parker: Did he receive a letter from the chair of Transpower dated 19 February 2010 that stated: “A target gearing ratio of 40 to 60 percent was appropriate for a business of our type and consistent with our peer group.” and “To go above this range would be imprudent.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall the letter but I think the member can be assured that the Government would have taken the best commercial advice available in setting the levels of debt applicable to Transpower.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the letter of 19 February 2010 from Transpower to the Hon Bill English which says—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described well enough. Leave is sought to table that particular letter dated 19 February 2010. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jami-Lee Ross: What is the process for setting Transpower prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Transpower is now independently regulated by the Commerce Commission which sets the prices Transpower can charge. It does so under the Commerce Act. The Commerce Commission’s price-setting process does not refer to Transpower’s dividends or debt—that is it does not matter what Transpower’s level of dividends or debt is the Commerce Commission applies its own criteria regardless. So the dividends paid by Transpower do not change the prices charged by Transpower. The Commerce Commission also determines whether investments over $50 million are in the long-term interests of consumers. Overall consumers are facing increases of an average of 2.6 percent in their electricity bills to pay for Transpower and lines company investment to improve the network.Hon David Parker: Is he aware that after the Government forced Transpower to borrow more money to pay higher dividends taking it over the debt gearing ratio that the chair had warned was imprudent Moody’s downgraded Transpower’s credit rating saying that it was because of “the company’s willingness to weaken credit metrics in favour of shareholder distributions”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that that occurred. Shareholders have the rights of owners. The point I would have thought of the Government owning Transpower is that it can set those policies. We do not rely entirely on what the chairman or the rating agency thinks. Of course that is taken into account along with other advice and also the needs of the shareholder.Hon David Parker: Has the effect of increased indebtedness and interest bills been to increase Transpower’s costs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is arguable. The fact—Iain Lees-Galloway: That would be a yes.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It can be argued because if it had less debt it would pay fewer dividends and higher interest—exactly a point that Opposition parties have made when arguing against the sale of the other electricity generators. It is not obvious exactly what impact it would have. What the member needs to be clear about is that the Commerce Commission does not take account of those issues or Transpower costs in determining prices. The prices are set independently by the Commerce Commission.Better Public Services Targets—Reduction in Crime and Reoffending9.JOANNE HAYES (National)to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has she received on Justice sector results?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Today the justice sector Ministers have released the 2013 justice sector annual report. The sector has achieved fantastic results reducing crime and reoffending. Crime in New Zealand is at a 30-year low and the justice sector is on track to meet if not exceed all its Better Public Services targets by 2017. From June 2011 to September 2013 the total crime rate has fallen by 13 percent. The violent crime rate is down by 9 percent youth crime has fallen by a whopping 22 percent and reoffending rates are down by 11.4 percent. In real terms this means over 50000 fewer crimes have been committed against victims in this period. These are great results and speak of the great teamwork across the justice sector.Joanne Hayes: What new process has been developed for accessing the justice sector statistics?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Ministry of Justice has today launched its new online Justice Datalab tool which will enable better understanding and communication of crime statistics and safety information across the sector. There is a lot of information publicly available online but it is not easily accessible or easily understood. The Justice Datalab will be a useful tool for students journalists and members of the public generally to research crime statistics based on many variables such as region or type of offence and create graphics showing results and trends. The launch of the Justice Datalab is part of the justice sector’s desire to make justice sector information more widely available to the public and especially the Opposition.Joanne Hayes: What is one of the key initiatives that has contributed to these excellent results?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The justice sector’s annual report highlights the success of the Hutt Valley Innovation Project as a prime example of what can be achieved when agencies work together across the sector and bring together supporting agencies and networks. During 2013 while the project was in its trial period crime nationally dropped by 3 percent but in the Hutt Valley it dropped by a remarkable 10 percent. Since June 2011 total crime in the area has dropped by nearly 25 percent with violent crime down 20 percent and youth crime down by more than 33 percent. These are fantastic results and I want to congratulate the team responsible for this project.Child Poverty—School Food Programmes10.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana)to the Deputy Prime Minister: What more is the Government planning to do to ensure all New Zealand children have food to eat each school day in light of the recent Treasury finding that the number of children living in poverty has increased to 285000?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):First I would disagree with the member’s assertion about the number of children. Treasury recently announced that it had discovered an error in its high-level statistics. No one’s actual circumstances in the real world have changed one bit as a result of its statistical error. Secondly the Government believes that parents have the primary responsibility for feeding their children and I think most New Zealanders would agree with that. But we do know that some children go to school hungry through no fault of their own so the Government co-funds a breakfast in schools programme with Fonterra and Sanitarium in any school in New Zealand that wants to run it.Hone Harawira: With the Ministry of Health figures showing that an estimated 100000 kids are going to school hungry each day and the KickStart Breakfast and KidsCan websites showing that they are feeding about 20000 kids on a good day meaning that 80000 kids are still going to school hungry every day will the Government now do what 70 percent of New Zealanders are calling for and that is to initiate a comprehensive Government-funded food in schools programme in all low-decile schools?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No we will not do that and there are a couple of reasons why. One is that although the Government does set out to support those schools that believe they need a breakfast in schools programme—and as I have said it is open to any school in New Zealand that wants to run it—we do not believe that the Government should take the place of parents in feeding children. We are happy to assist where there is need and we have in place a joint venture with Fonterra and Sanitarium to achieve that. Some schools have taken that up. Some schools feel that they do not need to.Hone Harawira: With child poverty now at record levels and students from Naenae College asking “Why can’t John Key make a smart decision and feed the kids?” can you please tell the House what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the tonnes of fish being dumped regularly by Countdown will be made available to feed the tens of thousands of New Zealand kids still going to school hungry every day?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave and that is that the Government believes it has struck about the right balance for assisting those children where there is genuine hardship and an inability by parents to feed them without instituting some nationwide programme which would be quite likely to undermine the sense of responsibility that families have for feeding their own children. Of course in the longer run these children are best served by the other measures the Government is taking alongside the breakfast in schools programme to ensure that when they get to school they actually achieve something and that we do not tolerate a system that says that because they are poor and hungry they cannot learn.Brendan Horan: What would the Deputy Prime Minister say if he was asked by the parents students and staff of Naenae College whether he would commit to ensuring that New Zealand’s next cohort of children receive the best possible start in their first years as recommended by the Health Committee’s unanimous report and will he commit to policies to ensure that every child has adequate nutrition at school consistent with that unanimous report?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say to the students of Naenae College that the Government is committed to the best start for children and is working alongside those people who care for children every single day which is actually not the Government; it is the teachers and the parents. Where those children do come to school hungry the school already now has the option of going into the breakfast in schools programme. But just as important for those children is that when they get to school they get taught under policies from a Government that has aspirations for those young New Zealanders and that believes that every single one of them can learn and a Government that is willing to hold the public education system and itself to account for assisting those young children to achieve.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very long answer but I did ask whether he would commit—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. I listened to the question. I listened to the answer. It has been addressed.Power Prices—Increases and Prepay Schemes11.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Further to his reply to Oral Question No 9 yesterday will he now tell me what is his Ministry’s best estimate for the percentage increase in retail electricity prices for the period 1 February to 1 August this year for a household of four persons averaged across New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):It is 2.4 percent.David Shearer: Given his answer yesterday that the Prime Minister’s statements not Transpower’s were correct with regard to what has driven up electricity prices has he now gone back to Transpower to ask it why it is making misleading statements in the media?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yesterday I said I agreed with the Prime Minister. I still do but it is also equally possible that Transpower is right as well. They could both be right.David Shearer: Does he believe it is fair that Kiwi families who are forced to go on to plans where they are required to pay for their electricity in advance should pay up to 60 percent more or about $1500 on a standard plan given that their electricity company has already pocketed the money?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think it is important that there are different options and flexibility for consumers and I think that is what the prepay option should be seen as. I certainly know of at least one prepay scheme that is not charging more than that company pays for power.David Shearer: Given that he agrees with the statement that New Zealanders are not paying too much for electricity will the increases he is forecasting over the next few months force him to reconsider that statement?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No because as I have said in earlier questions we have halved the rampant increases we saw in 2008. And all the while we have seen an unprecedented investment from transmission operator Transpower of some $5 billion. We have seen the share of renewables go up. We have seen excellent security of supply. So I think all in all we have a very strong system that we should not take for granted and that could be put at risk if Labour and the Greens were in power.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Bowel Cancer Screening—Waitematā District Health Board Pilot12.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National)to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made on the Waitemata bowel screening pilot?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):The screening pilot at Waitematā is detecting cancers at an earlier stage than expected and we know that bowel cancers found and treated early can often be cured. Figures show that more than 129 people of the 58000 people who have completed a bowel screening test have been found to have cancer. Many of these people had no symptoms at all. The $24 million pilot will run in the Waitematā District Health Board area certainly until at least 2015.Claudette Hauiti: What are the challenges involved in extending bowel screening across New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: That is a very good question. The single-biggest constraint to a larger roll-out of bowel cancer screening is having the workforce to do the colonoscopies. At the moment we simply do not have the professionals to do the procedures. Colonoscopies are performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons and I am advised that to roll out national screening would mean that we need around an extra 100 of these professionals. So we do need to consider a new approach. A symposium will be held in Wellington next month to look at ways of increasing New Zealand’s colonoscopy workforce capacity and efficiency and we need to look to countries like the UK that are now using highly trained nurse endoscopists as part of their endoscopy teams.Urgent DebatesJustice Minister—Compliance with Cabinet ManualMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the statements made by the Hon Judith Collins about her involvement with the company Oravida. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility in which there is public interest. It is very important that the public have confidence in the conduct of Ministers and to this end that any conflicts of interest that they may have are well managed. A senior Minister is involved and there is not a general debate today. Having carefully considered the application I have decided to allow the debate.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The reason we have conflict of interest provisions in the Cabinet Manual is so that there is something to prevent personal gain—gain by family gain by friends or gain by a political party—from the actions of a Minister. And it is quite clear to all New Zealanders that Judith Collins in her actions in visiting the offices of Oravida in China and in holding a dinner with the chair of Oravida and a Chinese Government official has a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest. And it is a failure of leadership from the Prime Minister that today he stood in this House and defended Judith Collins. He stood in this House and the most he could say was that there was a perception of a conflict of interest. There has never in my time in this House been a clearer conflict of interest than Judith Collins’ role with Oravida.Let us work through the time line of this situation with the National Party and Oravida. Let us be absolutely clear. Judith Collins’ husband was appointed to the board of Oravida in October 2012—October 2012. Not long after Oravida announced its partnership with Sanford for exporting seafood to China—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who owns Sanford?GRANT ROBERTSON: —Sanford being more than 50 percent owned by Peter Goodfellow President of the National Party. Interestingly some months before that in July 2012 a delegation was brought to New Zealand from China at Oravida’s behest. They met with Peter Goodfellow and described him on the Oravida website as the chairman of the National Party. Those are the beginning signs of the links between Oravida and the National Party being used to ensure that Oravida benefits.But we have to take one important step back and that is to the 2 days either side of the 2011 election because on the day before the 2011 election Oravida New Zealand Ltd donated $1600 to the National Party. Then curiously a couple of days after the general election in 2011 Oravida New Zealand Ltd donated $55000 to the National Party. That was $56600 in political donations from Oravida New Zealand Ltd to the National Party. That happened at the end of 2011. The delegation came in 2012 and met Peter Goodfellow and Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung joined the board of Oravida at the end of 2012. Early in 2013 John Key was reported to have played golf with the chair of Oravida Mr Stone Shi. There is a little flurry of activity and we found out in just the last couple of days that Stone Shi and John Key have played golf on a number of occasions. So that link is in there as well.Judith Collins who had already made a trip to China in 2012 a trip where she did meet some businesses talked in her trip reports to Cabinet about the businesses that she met which was something she did not do after the 2013 visit. But in 2013 Judith Collins sought approval from John Key to go to China in October 2013. She did that in August 2013. Interestingly at that time she sought approval for her husband to also travel to China on that trip in October 2013. We will come back to that in a moment.Not long after in October 2013 but before she went to China Judith Collins officiated at the official opening of Oravida’s offices in Auckland. That is attended by—let us list them—Dame Jenny Shipley Sir Don McKinnon Peter Goodfellow Melissa Lee Paul Goldsmith John Banks Anne Tolley and of course Judith Collins who got the opportunity to cut the ribbon. She cut the ribbon of the offices of a company that her husband is a director of. And let us be absolutely clear here. There are only three directors of this company: Stone Shi Julia Xu and David Wong-Tung Judith Collins’ husband. There are only three directors of this company.So Judith Collins officiated at the opening of the Auckland offices. Three days later she received an invitation to visit the Shanghai offices of Oravida Ltd. In that invitation the company said: “We would be honoured for you to visit us in Shanghai on 23 October 2013 during your official trip to Shanghai.” So let us be absolutely clear. Oravida knew whom it was inviting. It was inviting a Minister of the Crown to come and visit it. At that moment if she had not done it at any point up to then Judith Collins should have declared her conflict of interest—at that moment then. She should have known frankly that she should go nowhere near the Shanghai offices of Oravida. She should have known straight away that that would give rise to a conflict of interest if she visited the Shanghai office of a company that her husband is a director of and that has donated $56000 to the National Party. That was 9 October but then on 15 October mysteriously David Wong-Tung withdrew from the trip to China. All of a sudden he was not going any more. But as we now know when Judith Collins did go to China and did go to Shanghai she took up that invitation to visit the Shanghai offices.Let us deal with a couple of the misleading statements Judith Collins has made about that. She “popped in for a cup of tea or a glass of milk”. Like some sort of “Countess Homogenised” she shows up at this office and says: “All I’m here for is a glass of milk.” That is not true. That is clearly not true. Anyone who has seen the photos on the Oravida website can be absolutely clear. There is a huge line of people who are there to meet Judith Collins. There is a very formal setting on the table. Anyone who has done business in China will tell you that these things do not happen by accident. These things do not happen on the hoof. This was a pre-planned well-organised photo opportunity for Oravida that Judith Collins participated in.She was invited on 9 October. The meeting occurred on 23 October. There is no doubt that that represented two clear breaches of the Cabinet Manual. It represented a breach in terms of a Minister’s job of not endorsing products and it represented a breach because the Minister’s husband is a director of the company. The Cabinet Office could not be clearer about the need for Ministers to avoid conflicts of interest of that sort and in that moment Judith Collins clearly breached both of those. She was there in China on a $36000 taxpayer trip—Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?GRANT ROBERTSON: Thirty-six thousand dollars for that taxpayer trip. There are families in New Zealand who have to live for a year on $36000 and Judith Collins spends that going to China to promote the business that her husband is a director of. But what we learnt today is that that was not the extent of it. Judith Collins has spent the last week minimising everything about this arrogantly dismissing the concerns of anyone who would raise them and saying that there was nothing wrong with what she did. And today we learnt that in addition to visiting that company which her husband is a director of she met with and had dinner with the chair of the company Stone Shi and a senior Chinese border control official. Let us just pause on that for a minute. Let us ask the meat exporters of New Zealand just how difficult it is to get products into China. Let us ask any New Zealand company that exports into China how difficult it can be. So what benefit might there be for Oravida to have a meeting where a Chinese official from the border control agency meets a Minister—a Minister? Stone Shi can say: “Look this is how influential I am. I have got a Minister of the Crown here.” I do not think there is much more serious in this story than Judith Collins holding that dinner. Today in this House Judith Collins told us that there were not any discussions at that dinner about the business activities of Oravida. I do not believe that and I think Judith Collins will have to come back to this House to correct that statement.So when we put all of those things together what we have is a tale of a Minister who has quite clearly breached Cabinet Office rules a Minister who does not think that the rules apply to her. Sadly that is typical of the National Party which works in the interest of its wealthy friends rather than in the interests of all New Zealanders. That is what a Minister travelling overseas is there to do. Judith Collins said it herself: “I’m there to work for ‘New Zealand Inc’.” No she was not. She was there working in the interests of her family’s company and the interests of the National Party’s donors. It is the wealthy few in this country who benefit from the National Party.But then we had the reaction of John Key. We had John Key’s response to this—a man who told us that he would lift the standards of behaviour by Ministers. Well that is not what we have seen. What we have seen is a continuous run under his leadership of poor behaviour by Ministers. But today—not like Nick Smith who had to resign over a letterhead not like Richard Worth not like Pansy Wong—Judith Collins gets away with it. That is because Judith Collins is too powerful in the National Party caucus for John Key to deal with.Today is the low point in John Key’s leadership. Today is the day that he failed his own test by not getting rid of Judith Collins. If she does not understand that this was a conflict of interest she is not fit to be a Minister. This visit and the endorsement that happened at it benefited Oravida. This visit and the endorsement benefited the directors of Oravida one of whom is Judith Collins’ husband. This visit and the endorsement benefited the National Party via donations. That is where we have reached with this National Government. It is cronyism. This Minister should resign and this Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):That is a bit rich coming from a man who has been white-anting David Cunliffe around Wellington because of his leader’s appalling misjudgment over the donations to his leadership campaign. I will give Grant Robertson credit for consistency. The things he is saying about Judith Collins he is also saying about David Cunliffe. I will give him credit for that.Hon Anne Tolley: And David Shearer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well no he did not say those really nasty things about David Shearer. He just said David Shearer was hopeless. He did not say he was untrustworthy or had bad judgment; he just said he was hopeless. Therein lies the contrast between the way that this issue with Ms Collins has been dealt with and the way that David Cunliffe as potentially the leader of another Government has dealt with his personal issues around the trust that he has set up.Another thing I take issue with in regards to Grant Robertson is that Mrs Collins has worked assiduously in the interests of every New Zealander and the best measure of that is the lowest crime rates that New Zealand has seen in 30 years—the lowest crime rates we have seen in 30 years—and 25 percent fewer young people going through our courts. The member is simply wrong—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have granted an urgent debate on a specific matter. The fact that room is being freed up in the cells for people involved in this is I think irrelevant.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a valid point of order.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Let us be clear about the difference between the handling of this issue and the handling by David Cunliffe. Mrs Collins has made full disclosure and has accepted that her actions demonstrated some poor judgment. That has been underlined by the Prime Minister and his view that these actions were unwise because they gave rise to a perception of a conflict of interest. Mrs Collins was working as a Minister of the New Zealand Government and as we expect all Ministers to do being supportive of New Zealand businesses doing business in a difficult market a challenging market in China.What is very clear though is that she has made full disclosure and accepted that a misjudgment was made. That has all been dealt with quite transparently. Let us contrast that with the actions of the leader of the Labour Party. First he did not declare his trust. How did that come out? Well we do not know. We think it came out because fellow members of the Labour Party caucus or organisation leaked it to the media. Certainly unlike Mrs Collins the leader of the Labour Party did not reveal the actions that he took. Mrs Collins’ actions are clear both from the response to the Official Information Act request and from her public statements made today. David Cunliffe never brought to public light that he had set up a secret trust. We found that out by virtue of leaks from the Labour Party. Then David Cunliffe said—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have granted an urgent debate for the House on a matter that is of significant public interest related to Minister Judith Collins. It has nothing to do with David Cunliffe or any members of the Labour Party and yet the majority—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. That is a repeat of an earlier point of order that was not a valid point of order. I am listening very carefully to the debate. The Minister is attempting to respond to the challenge outlaid to him by Grant Robertson and he is within the rules. I do not want to have another interrupting point of order that is invalid from this side of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to put it on the record that I resent your suggestion that my point of order was invalid. You might have ruled against it but it does not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have ruled.Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve ruled wrong.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Trevor Mallard will stand withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] Order! Stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the actions of Mrs Collins are clear from the public record. David Cunliffe failed to reveal as he is required to by the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament the existence of his secret trust—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from the Opposition side of the House is totally unacceptable. It will inevitably be a robust debate; that I expect. But when the level of noise and interjection gets to the level it has got to now I will have no choice but to ask somebody to leave this House.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is pretty clear that the Labour Party does not want to hear the contrasting behaviour of David Cunliffe when he made a severe misjudgment. He did not reveal publicly his secret trust. Judith Collins through an Official Information Act request and her public statements has revealed all the actions relevant to the potential conflict of interest. We know about David Cunliffe’s trust only because of leaks from the Labour Party—from the “Anyone But Cunliffe” brigade led by Grant Robertson trying to white-ant their leader. That is how we know.We do know that Oravida as a company used the appropriate legal procedures to donate money to the National Party. That is on the public record. We do not know who donated to David Cunliffe because he devised the mechanism to keep it secret. He asked the donors whether they would reveal their identity. Some of them did; two of them did not. How do we know it was not Kim Dotcom? We do not know because the Labour leader unlike Mrs Collins has kept in place an arrangement designed to deceive the public—designed to deceive. As of today he still will not reveal those donors. So I challenge David Cunliffe to meet the standards Mrs Collins has met and go out to the front steps and reveal those donors. He said he did not know who they were and then said he would give them the money back. How does he know who to give it back to if he does not know who they are? So I want to see David Cunliffe meet the same standards as Judith Collins—go out to the front steps of Parliament and declare who the secret donors are. Until he does that the Labour Party has no credibility criticising a Minister who has revealed all the relevant actions and all the relevant participants in dealing with this perception of a conflict of interests.It is a bit rich but typical of the Labour Party to over-egg this situation and typical of it to apply to others standards it will not apply to its own leader. David Cunliffe’s trust issue remains unresolved. He set out deliberately to create a device to deceive the public by hiding the trust and actually he hid it from Parliament. He did not declare it in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament. So now he can rise to the challenge put by his deputy leader Grant Robertson because after all those two are meant to be working together not separately as everyone else believes they are. When Grant Robertson says everything should be revealed well I believe that David Cunliffe should reveal everything. Until he does no one will take any notice of what the Labour Party is saying on this issue.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. You can tell that Judith Collins is in trouble when all that the National Party can do is talk about the Labour Party. I did not hear any sort of cognisant defence of her any explanation or any rationalisation. All I heard was the National Party throwing mud. All I saw was a party that could say only “But but but but Labour …”. That is why Judith Collins is in trouble—because the party cannot even defend her. All it can do is throw mud.I want to speak to the people of New Zealand because what we saw in question time today was three parties throwing mud at each other. This is why young New Zealanders and many other New Zealanders are turning off from our politics. They are sick of the scandals. They are sick of Ministers not taking responsibility. They are sick of the conflicts of interest that we have seen numerous times. They want a different type of politics. We need to change the climate of politics. We need a good Parliament that takes responsibility and acts transparently and that is what the Green Party is going to champion.When you look at the Judith Collins case which we are debating today it is all over milk. The Minister early on last week had a cup of milk and said: “I drink milk. What’s the scandal?”. But like a cup of milk left out in the sun every day it has started to smell a little bit more. Every day that sour rancid smell has continued and what we see is something smelly. It does not pass the sniff test. In fact what we see is something rancid when it comes to this case.Hon Trevor Mallard: It stinks.GARETH HUGHES: It stinks. This debate is around the Minister’s actions in China. This was a $36600 taxpayer-funded trip. This is a Minister who was invited. This was not a casual popping in to the airport. This is a Minister who was formally invited to visit a company in which her partner has a directorship—a clear and demonstrable business relationship with the Minister and her spouse. We also saw this company Oravida on its website post what could be translated as an endorsement of its product.This is about perceptions and realities in a conflict of interest. The Minister’s husband is a director. This is a company that donated $56000 to the National Party. This is a company whose chief executive plays golf with the Prime Minister. This is a Minister who this week as that cup of milk started to smell more and more has revealed that she also had dinner with Stone Shi.Hon Annette King: The dance of the seven veils it was.GARETH HUGHES: The dance of the seven veils Ms King says. What we know is that as more detail has come out it has got smellier and smellier.John Key today said of Ms Collins that he was “very disappointed” in her. He said she had handled the situation “very poorly”. And she says that she got it wrong. We have seen a conflict of interest. The National Party is saying that it is only a perception. I believe that it is a clear conflict of interest which the Minister should have disclosed.One of the questions for the Government has to be why it will not release the Cabinet advice. If it wants to clear this up if it wants to clear the air it should be releasing the advice. Why did the Minister who had sought approval for her husband to travel with her decide not to take him? Was advice offered to her and her husband? These are the critical questions this Government has to answer.What we have here is a senior very experienced Minister with obvious legal training who has breached Cabinet rules—clearly breached Cabinet rules with a conflict of interest. It is critically important that particularly Ministers of the Crown are held to a high standard. When it comes to business interests we do not want our Ministers out advertising promoting and shilling for corporate brands. We want integrity in our politics. We want conflicts of interest where they arise disclosed and managed responsibly.Other New Zealand businesses rightfully feel that they are not on a level playing field that they are not getting a fair go because of this Government’s relationships with certain corporates. It is not just Oravida or the Prime Minister playing golf with Stone Shi. You can see it in the Bathurst Resources case. You can see it with the secret meetings over Skycity. You can see it with the Prime Minister taking time out the day before the last general election to have a meeting with Anadarko—big oil—which has just left the country. What this country needs is a Government that is going to focus on real people and real Kiwi businesses not just the Choruses the Tīwai Points the Anadarkos—real people and real Kiwi businesses.But although this debate is about Judith Collins the buck stops with John Key. He is the Prime Minister. He is the one who defended her initially but is now backtracking. The buck stops with Key. Remember when Key before he became Prime Minister said he would bring a higher standard for Ministers and politics? Do you remember when he said that? Do you also remember when he forgot that when it came to the discredited ACT leader John Banks and when it came to Peter Dunne who still will not give a categorical assurance that he was not the leaker? You see it with the dance of the seven veils when it comes to Colin Craig and some of his far-out views.What we need is transparency. What we need is better management of conflicts of interest when they arise. What we need also is a Prime Minister who is going to take responsibility who is not going to pass the buck and who is going to stand up and demand that the Minister is held accountable. I recall that early on when Key was still talking about a higher standard we saw the Pansy Wong case which has some parallels with what we see here. What we need are answers and responsibility because what we are talking about is taxpayers’ money and the status the role and the responsibilities of Ministers. What I want to see are Ministers no matter what political affiliation they hark to who can handle conflicts of interest who can stand on the New Zealand and world stages with integrity and who are not putting special corporate business interests first. I want every New Zealander and New Zealand company to know that they are going to get the same hearing from the Minister because they are individuals not because they donate to a particular party not because they are married to a particular person and not because they play golf with the Prime Minister. Every New Zealander and every New Zealand company are going to get a fair go—that is what I believe that New Zealanders want and that is what I believe we should feel proud of. We are one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We cannot just stand by while this type of activity happens. We need to keep fighting for higher standards and holding Ministers to account when they breach those rules.I want to finish with two solutions. Hopefully we can learn from this. What we need is a better lobbying disclosure regime. This is something the Green Party has championed. It is something we are now pushing through the Standing Orders review. What we need is a better regime when business lobbyists are lobbying Ministers and MPs.Secondly although there has been some reform around electoral donations there is more that needs to be done. We need greater transparency so that the public when they see us in this House can feel confident knowing who has contributed to each party or to their election campaign. Every New Zealander has the right to have confidence in their elected officials to serve in the country’s interest not in the corporate interest or a particular company’s interest. Something is smelly and rancid when it comes to this and I just hope the Government can show some responsibility take responsibility and answer the critical questions we have before us. Kia ora.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):There is a raw irony about the events surrounding Judith Collins because on 31 October last year she was in China to give a speech to the China Executive Leadership Academy in Pudong. There she gave a very lofty speech about a matter that is dear to all of our hearts and hitherto had been to hers. She said in that speech that she was there to contribute to a culture of openness and transparency. She went on to say: “[The] law provides mechanisms for the public to find out what different branches of the Government are doing. We believe that this builds trust and confidence in our system.” She was talking about the glory of New Zealand’s political system and no doubt her role in it. Then what do we then find on the Oravida website? The translation is as clear as daylight that here is a Minister who is over there not on a justice and ACC trip which are her portfolios—no she is on a trade trip engaged in a family operation and she was not merely as she tried to blithely say having a cup of tea on the way to the airport.Hon Members: With milk.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With milk. And she said: “What’s wrong with milk? I like milk.” Apparently she likes scampi as well. She left that part out. That was the Sanford connection. Sanford is owned by whom? Why the National Party president’s family. Just like Skycity it is tawdry and ugly. It is terrible venal behaviour. [Interruption] I know Gerry loves it because Gerry was once for about 5 weeks a director with Goodfellow on the new Christchurch casino. Yes Gerry wants us to forget that but there was Gerry taking a job as a director—he and Goodfellow—on the new Christchurch casino proposal. How venal is that?Andrew Williams: Donkey-deep.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Donkey-deep is the word for it. It is John Key - deep in fact. Can I just say that this is what Mr Key said—earlier this week he said that the Collins case differed from that of his former Minister Richard Worth because there was no personal gain involved in Judith Collins’ visit to Oravida. That is demonstrably false. There was every personal benefit involved and that is why she had the Ambassador to China the consul-general from New Zealand in Shanghai border officials and taxpayers’ money all involved in promoting her husband’s business. If you read that website and the Chinese translation into English you will see how much she was involved. In fact it went on to say that she tasted Oravida’s fresh milk and the New Zealand scampi and could not stop praising these products.Judith Collins instructed that she is expecting to continue the cooperation exchange between Oravida and New Zealand. She is on a trade trip now is she not? And based on this that is to develop bi-mutual relationships further. She is in there donkey-deep and yet the National Party members have of course got their heads down. They should be ashamed of themselves. How glad I am that I left that party. How glad I am that I left that party because I can go to bed at night feeling good about myself and not have to walk down the street and be ashamed and when the voters talk to me cough and splutter and change the subject like Gerry does. No siree.Then John Key said this: he made it clear that if the Cabinet Office advice suggested a problem he would take action. That is what he said. The Cabinet Office advice was given not with knowledge of the Chinese translated into English. No it was with just a few sentences of English. Do not tell me that Cabinet officials are so bad now that when asked to investigate something they did not walk downtown to get a Chinese interpreter to find out what they were investigating. Mr Key is now caught red-handed—totally red-handed. Look here we go—here we go. He refuses to release the Cabinet Office advice on this matter when the advice was never checked against the Chinese translation. Then he went out and told all the journalists that it was. He simply failed to tell the truth and so did Judith Collins.Here is the real issue though—there is a smell growing on this and it will intensify each day. The thing is there is more to come. There always is. There always is.Hon Annette King: There’s more.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is always more. The public has now lost confidence in the Minister of Justice because more and more is being revealed of her business connections and associates. By the way his name is Wong-Tung—Wong-Tung. It is Wong-Tung not Wung-Tong as other people have been saying it. It seems like Wong-Tung did “wong”. The reality is there is an old saying that Caesar’s wife must be above reproach—Paul Foster-Bell: Disgusting.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No it is not disgusting sunshine. That member there was a former foreign affairs official and he knows full well that you cannot as a foreign affairs official be involving yourself in trying to advance a venal politician’s interest. No Mr Foster-Bell I can see why Whangarei did not want you because they have got some standards up there. I know because I come from there. He stood there and he got beaten as a sitting MP in Parliament.Denis O’Rourke: Tell him Winston.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am telling him. The meaning is very clear about Caesar’s wife. Of those who are granted the privileges of power and position we also require accountability. Judith Collins has twisted and turned as the whole sorry sordid saga has emerged. As each layer has been peeled back the more rotten ugly and disgraceful the whole business looks. Imagine if any of us over here had done that. National members would be screaming blue murder. In fact I recall when we did not do that and they were still lying and screaming blue murder. As Mike Williams pointed out over the weekend in one of the Sunday papers—and I am very grateful to him for finally telling the truth—we have had plenty of this dodgy stuff from this National Government.Hon Trevor Mallard: We voted the right way.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You did and I am very grateful to the Labour Party for actually seeing the truth. Mike Williams is probably the reason why and I am grateful to him. But there are the National Party members over there prepared to malign defame and traduce someone else’s reputation without facts. They are sitting there using their majority. Today one of theirs was found to be worsening in her attitude towards honesty and they want to cover it up. There is plenty of dodgy stuff like that—Skycity for example. There is also the Antoine’s Restaurant meal. National has got the effrontery to attack other members of Parliament in this House and it raised $105000 at a restaurant in Auckland where Mr Key spoke and charged each attendee $5000.Andrew Williams: Just up the street from his house.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just up the street from his house.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the Electoral Act.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Pardon?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the Electoral Act.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have read the Electoral Act and so has the National Party. It is just a deceitful device where sometimes—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh the law is a device?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no Mr Brownlee. I know that you sold $5000-plate dinners and never even turned up to eat the dinner. It is just a device—we know that. It is like the Waitematā Trust. Again that is a heinous device that National used for darn years and then it has the effrontery to challenge other parties on their trusts. What a disgrace National is. The members look in the mirror every time they make an allegation.The Prime Minister is on record as having stood in this House and saying this. I asked him about decision-making responsibility and he said: “As Prime Minister I have responsibility for protecting the integrity of the decision-making process of executive Government and maintaining public trust in the executive. I have always expected and demanded that my Ministers act lawfully and in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.” Well Mr Key here is the day of truth. This is the moment when New Zealand gets to see whether he stands by his words or whether they are just hot air—empty and meaningless. He says: “Personally I’ve been of the view that transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I’ve tried to lead that charge.” When he was asked about that he said: “Yes I stand by that statement which was made in the context of discussing reform of MPs’ remuneration travel privileges and transparency around expenses.” Here is the expense account of $36000-plus associated in part with a familial connection with a business and the National Party has the effrontery and audacity to think it can get away with it.Well the campaign has started and National is off to a shocking start. I want to say to those backbenchers in the National Party hiding now and probably watching TV—all those backbenchers whose knees are starting to knock—that you could stop the rot now by saying that you will not put up with this. There has to be the same accountability that was demanded of Pansy Wong and Richard Worth. They were far more innocent in this context than this senior Minister who used to be in the Law Society and who was one of the first to go out and give her views about other MPs’ behaviour from a legal point of view. Now she has been hoisted with her own legal haughty petard. This is a day of reckoning for Mr Key and hitherto he has dramatically failed.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):Can I first put on record my absolute disgust at the comments made by the previous speaker the Rt Hon Winston Peters—not only bringing members’ families into this but making fun of a partner’s name. Mr Peters to make fun of a name simply because it is not a European name is I think absolutely racist. I think it is racist and I want to put on record my disgust at those sorts of comments in this debate. I have to say that it is a bit rich to sit and listen to a number of members in this House talking about honesty openness and transparency. Actually that member who has just resumed his seat could not even answer questions; he had to put a notice up that said “No” rather than answering questions quite simple questions about openness and transparency. Mr Peters what happened when you were on the end of it?Well I want to speak today about my colleague the Minister of Justice Judith Collins because she has proven that she fronts up and she is the one who gives the media full disclosure of what happened. She is the one who fronted the media on the steps of Parliament and disclosed the dinner. She did not wait for the media to dig it out like they had with Winston Peters. It was not coming from the media like David Cunliffe’s trust. It did not come from them. It came from her fronting the media and saying that this was what had happened. She answered the questions last week. She answered the questions that were put to her.But right at the heart of all of this is the fact that from the day that this John Key - led Government came into Government we have been fighting to increase the exports from this country after 9 years of a Labour Government that drove this country’s exports into the ground. This is a country that makes its money that supports its people by selling our goods around the world and 9 years of a Labour Government saw internal consumption at an all-time high and exports at an all-time low. We have worked assiduously to support and promote the exporters of this country. Every Minister every time they travel overseas has a responsibility to be promoting New Zealand to be promoting New Zealand goods and to be promoting all that is good about New Zealand exporters and this Government has a proud record of doing that. As a consequence we have seen a growth in the export market.Through the deepest darkest days of a recession we as a country were thankful that the previous Labour Government had negotiated a free-trade agreement with China because the growth in exports to China helped this country earn dollars in order to support us through that recession. In fact the exports to China have made it our most important market. So the growth in exports from New Zealand companies has seen this country help itself through the recession. So there has been a responsibility on us all and I have no doubt that any Minister in any portfolio any time they have the opportunity overseas on any sort of official trip would do their very best to support New Zealand and promote New Zealand.The Prime Minister talked about a higher standard for Ministers and that has been quoted here. Yes we have had no drunk-driving convictions on this side of the House. We have not had any people convicted of corruption and we have had no one whom the media have had to dig out and find had hidden donations in trusts. Mr Cunliffe used a device that he knew would hide who his donors were. We do not know today who two of those donors are. The media are still working on it. Why does David Cunliffe not take a leaf out of Judith Collins’ book and stand and talk to the media and disclose fully who those donors were and how much money they gave to his leadership campaign? If we are talking seriously in this House about double standards then it is about time that the Labour Party came to the party too.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Trevor Mallard—5 minutes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):We have now had 25 minutes available to National members taken by senior Ministers and neither of them has been prepared to defend Judith Collins. Why? Because you cannot defend the indefensible. Mr Assistant Speaker I remember what it felt like being attacked by one of your predecessors over Taito Phillip Field. It got to the point where you could not defend the indefensible and that is the situation that the National Party is in with Judith Collins.Those members should not be surprised and Bill English I am sure is not surprised because what did he say about Judith Collins? He said that she was a member pushed beyond her capacity. That is what he said about her. He said that she had an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence. Who said that?Hon Members: Bill English.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Bill English said that about Judith Collins. He said that she spent too much time cultivating the media herself and then believing the resulting publicity. Bill English said that about Judith Collins and I think that what we know now is that Bill English was absolutely right.What we have is a Minister who is prepared to help line the pockets of her family while she is on a trip paid for by the taxpayer—someone who is prepared to take the officials of the New Zealand Government in to support a company that is paying her husband in order to do that. I frankly thought that Pansy Wong was the limit. I thought that Pansy Wong was the limit but Judith Collins has gone well beyond that. She must have known at some stage that she had done wrong because she did not put it in her report. Unlike previous visits on previous trips to China she did not write it up and she did not admit that it happened. She was not transparent. Why was she not transparent? Because she knew then that it was wrong. She knew that it was wrong last week when she was tackled about it and said first of all that she dropped in for a cup of tea and that it was not planned. That was not true—that was not true. She knew before she left New Zealand that she was going there. She had dinner with the person and possibly lunch as well. We are yet to find out whether that is the case.The idea that it was a minor diversion as she told the New Zealand public was just a lie. We should not have in this Parliament Ministers who lie to the public because our ethical standards—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have made mistakes in my time as a Minister. But what you do when you make a mistake is you fess up. I want to make it clear. I have never been corrupt. I have never got my family income boosted using my Government funding. But the mistakes I have made I have admitted to the Prime Minister I have admitted publicly and I have not lied about in the way that Judith Collins has.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Gerry Brownlee—5 minutes.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):I think it is healthy for our democracy that we have a debate about perceptions of conflict of interest in the dealings that we all have as elected members of this House. But what this debate also proves is that when it comes to a debate like this hypocrisy does not apparently limit the way in which people offer their thoughts in the context of the debate. There is no one better in this House than the Hon Trevor Mallard at outlining all sorts of spurious facts joining them together in a loud tub-thumping way and making them seem more than they really are. It is truly a skill that he has and I want to acknowledge him for it.If the Labour Opposition is so outraged by finding out from public sources exactly what Judith Collins was up to on her trip to China why is it not outraged that its own leader is using—as Mr Peters his potential coalition partner said—the law as a device for deception? That is what Mr Cunliffe is doing by not telling the public of New Zealand who tipped the money into his leadership campaign. We know that it is the Unite union that is causing the most problem—we know that—but the member David Cunliffe needs to stand up and admit it and as the Hon Bill English said get out on to the steps of Parliament and tell us who put the money into the trust that he used and is now saying that he does not have to tell anyone about because he is giving it back. Well I think there is a huge lapse on the part of the Opposition here when it comes to effectively waving out a flag and saying: “Oh look here’s what we can publicly see. That’s an outrage. By the way put your head in the sand pretend you are an ostrich and don’t look at the mess that we have got into over on our side of the House.”Ms Collins has said that in hindsight she feels that she could have been more open about what she was doing but in the context of a whole lot of things that Ministers do and the public disclosures—which are clear because we are having this debate—I think that it is a mock debate that the Opposition is trying to mount this afternoon. I think that it would also be useful for us to perhaps recite all sorts of other situations where members on both sides of the House have got into difficult situations and then try to line them up and judge them. But that does not take us anywhere. What is really important here is that this debate would not be happening if it were not for the demands for transparency that the Rt Hon John Key has put on his Ministers. And it is only because there is transparency that the Opposition has a basis for a debate. So I think that what we are seeing here this afternoon is a whole lot of outrage from the Labour Party that has very little basis to it.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):I want to echo the comments that were made by my colleague Anne Tolley because I was quite disturbed by some of the comments and behaviour that I have seen in the House this afternoon that were of a racist nature which I do not think I have ever witnessed before. That is not just the example that Anne Tolley gave of the comments that the Rt Hon Winston Peters made but the comments and the mocking of one of the National members of the House earlier in question time that were very clearly racially motivated which I found quite disgusting.In terms of this urgent debate you know members opposite are looking for an argument. They are trying to find something to argue about. It is somewhat ironic that we are having this debate on this day because if you look at Minister Judith Collins clearly we have had a situation today where she has reflected on a couple of the issues she has had a discussion with the Prime Minister and she has fronted up to the public. She has fronted up to the public on one minor issue—one minor issue. On this very day—this same day—that same Minister has gone out into the public and said what a stunning result that she and the justice team have achieved in crime in this country. I am a bit saddened actually that on this day all of those people whom she has led in those organisations have not had their contributions recognised today. Instead there are these kinds of nasty personal racist attacks that come from the Opposition. So it is kind of a sad day for me that we have to stoop to that level and take the time of the House on this sort of issue.If you look at the facts the Prime Minister has acknowledged in this very House today the enormous contribution that the Minister of Justice has made and will continue to make on behalf of hard-working New Zealanders.Andrew Williams: $55000 to the National Party.LOUISE UPSTON: There is a conversation or somebody is bickering and interjecting about donations. I am really happy to talk about donations. They are on the public record unlike some that the Opposition will not disclose. So it is the pot calling the kettle black. Get your story straight. The reality is that if you want to talk about donations get David Cunliffe out there. Get him out there this afternoon on the steps—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who is on her feet just offered to table information about donations. I wonder whether she would be so kind as to table—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. [Interruption] Order! That is not a point of order.LOUISE UPSTON: The very point I was making and I am happy to repeat it is that we have a Leader of the Opposition currently who clearly knows who the two parties are that made donations to a trust that he had set up to hide that fact. They are supposedly anonymous and yet he knows them well enough to know whom to return the funds to which is somewhat interesting in a conversation around inappropriate behaviour. So I would be really happy to see your leader out on the steps of Parliament today to talk about disclosure about openness and about transparency around having a situation where clearly he is quite comfortable. But no we are talking about “Tricky David”—“Tricky David” who will not disclose the facts.I want to conclude by saying that the Hon Judith Collins has done extraordinary work in this country. The results have come out just today. Hard-working New Zealanders are proud of the fact that we have the lowest crime rate in 33 years but that side of the House cannot cope with the facts.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour):The previous speaker Louise Upston said that we should feel sorry for the staff of the Ministry of Justice. Yes we should because they will be ashamed to have a Minister of Justice who allows conflicts of interest to put her own and her family’s interests ahead of the country’s interests and who uses her position to benefit her family and to benefit the National Party. That is what has happened here. That is why this is a conflict of interest. That is why the Prime Minister is wrong to continually pretend that it might be only the perception of a conflict of interest because it is a conflict of interest. The Cabinet Office prohibits conflicts of interest that benefit Ministers or their family members or close associates. That is what conflict of interest rules are meant to prevent. They are meant to prevent the private benefit going to a Minister or their family or close associates.We had the Minister of Police Anne Tolley another person in charge of the justice system and she said that the Minister of Justice has been open. What the Minister of Justice said was that she had a short cup of tea on the way to the airport. What the Minister did not do was put reference to that meeting which was not a short cup of tea on the way to the airport in her report back to Cabinet and she hid the fact that she had an additional evening meeting with Oravida representatives and customs officials—Hon Annette King: And dinner.Hon DAVID PARKER: —and dinner. She hid that. This conflict of interest is one in which the Minister has enriched her family through using her contacts for the benefit of Oravida. The first visit an endorsement of Oravida benefited it. It was used by Oravida to increase its sales—to make more money. That was a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest was for the benefit of Judith Collins’ family. A director of the company is her husband. That is a conflict of interest.This conflict of interest also arises from the donations that the National Party accepted from Oravida in return for the favours that it gave Oravida. The favours included turning up for dinner and meeting with customs officials and Oravida in China. There are the benefits which no doubt Oravida claims from the photographs of the Prime Minister having a round of golf with the main owner of Oravida.Hon Annette King: Not one.Hon DAVID PARKER: A number of games of golf. These are actual conflicts of interest. What other things do we not believe here? Judith Collins said today in the House that there were no matters of business discussed at that dinner. I do not believe that. It is incredible that you would have customs officials there against the background of melamine scandals and tainted milk coming from New Zealand and that those sorts of issues would not be discussed at that meeting. I bet you that Judith Collins was there saying: “You can trust New Zealand milk that’s coming from Oravida because we’ve got good systems.” Does anyone in this House really think that those discussions did not take place? I bet they did. These are real conflicts of interest.Then we have got the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said: “The Cabinet Office didn’t consider that to be an endorsement.” But he will not release its advice. I bet that the Prime Minister is misrepresenting the Cabinet Office. I cannot believe that the Cabinet Office would tell the Prime Minister that even the first bit that was known to him was legitimate. The Cabinet Office would have been saying that it is wrong for a Cabinet Minister to be endorsing products in China from a company that her husband is a director of. The Cabinet Office would be saying that it is wrong to be out promoting a company that the National Party has taken donations from. I do not believe that the Cabinet Office said it was all kosher. I certainly now know that the Prime Minister said he was wrong when he said that the Cabinet Office had seen the translation from the Oravida website. He has since been forced to say that that is not the case and that the Cabinet Office had not seen it.This is an actual conflict of interest and if the Prime Minister says it is not then he is effectively saying to New Zealand that the only conflict of interest in this matter is a bribe and anything else is not a conflict of interest. There has got to be a bribe because there has been cash going to the National Party and favours back to Oravida. There have been appointments of directors that put money into the family of Judith Collins and that is a conflict of interest. But the Prime Minister says: “No it’s not because it’s not a direct bribe.” Well I am sorry Mr Prime Minister. It might not be convenient to him but conflicts of interest go further than just bribes and this is plainly one. To have the Minister of Police stand up and defend it the Prime Minister defend it and Bill English refuse to address it is disgraceful because this is a disgrace. It is an actual conflict of interest and this Minister should be forced to resign. Why is she not? Because this is business as usual for the National Party.This is the tip of the iceberg. We know that there is this cronyism rife within the National Party. Its members get these secret donations from their mates at the big end of town and they deal them back favours. This time they have been caught. But it is the thin end of the wedge the tip of the iceberg because this is business as usual under this Government where the rich get richer and everyone else gets a stagnant position. This is why inequality and fairness are the issues for this election. The electorate knows that that is what is happening in New Zealand. This Government serves the big end of town and everyone else can worry about themselves. Under Labour this will not happen. Everyone will get a fair deal and conflicts of interest will be called conflicts of interest.I have one final point. Why has Judith Collins not taken a call? I have been in a similar situation. In fact I resigned. I took a call. I was willing to come here and defend myself and put the truth out there. Judith Collins is not to be seen Bill English will not address the issues and the Minister of Police is defending Judith Collins saying that she has been open. What a disgrace—what a disgrace.I cannot understand that the Prime Minister will not concede that this is an actual conflict of interest not some perception of a conflict of interest. This is a situation where the Minister’s family benefits from Oravida doing better—it benefits from Oravida doing better. That is what the endorsement was about. That is what the meeting with customs officials was about. That is why they are conflicts of interest. It is truly that simple. This is improper behaviour by the Minister for the benefit of her family that she tried to cover up. The Prime Minister then tried to cover it up and the Prime Minister even now says it is only an alleged conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest and not an actual conflict of interest.There would not be any clearer case than this. I cannot think of a clearer case. The Prime Minister is saying that effectively there has to be a bribe before there is any conflict of interest. That is effectively the standard he is saying. I cannot think of a more clear case of a conflict of interest than doing something that benefits a company of which your husband is a director. As a Minister she went to China. She had these meetings. She did not put them in her report to Cabinet. That is quite in contrast to her earlier reports to Cabinet. She said: “Oh it’s because it was only a little cup of tea.” What about the dinner at night with the customs officials and her own ministerial staff whom she said were there as friends not as ministerial representatives? What a nonsense.This is a bit like Peter Dunne saying when he leaked the report that he was acting as a member not as a Minister and therefore the emails between him and others are not able to be disclosed under the Official Information Act. We have all this dissembling on behalf of the other side but the truth is that this is dirty. This is a conflict of interest. The Minister acted for the benefit of her family and for the benefit of the National Party. The National Party does not even think it is wrong because it is business as usual according to its standards.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):When you cannot win a game of rugby through strategy through skill through talent and through putting points on the scoreboard you resort to dirty tactics. You resort to punching people in the ruck and kicking them while they are on the ground. I will say it again. When you cannot win a game of rugby by putting points on the scoreboard and through talent and through teamwork you resort to kicking people in the guts. What we are seeing today is Labour Party members wallowing at the bottom of the ruck and my goodness they are good at it. They love the bottom of the ruck. They love to put the punch in and to scream at the ref and say that it is not fair. They are truly excellent at this style of politics.Labour Party members are not winning the game. They have not got the talent and they are not putting the points on the scoreboard. It is pretty clear. If you look at the points on the scoreboard right now in the polls National is at 48 49 or 50 percent and Labour is wallowing in the late 20s and maybe the early 30s if they are lucky. There is no new talent coming in to the party. Those members are at the bottom of the ruck punching kicking and fighting. There is not any new policy out there—nothing that it can win this election with that is gaining any momentum on the scoreboard for Labour.I stand here proudly today to speak on behalf of one of my team members in the National Party and that is Judith Collins. I am proud to have been a junior member working under Minister Judith Collins for the last year. This is a woman a strong woman who has come in here into what has been a man’s world in Parliament over the last thirty or forty decades and has stood up and answered the challenge. She has climbed to the top of politics and has delivered for this country like few other women have. She has done an outstanding job.I just want to go through some of the things that she has done.Andrew Williams: How many cars did she crush?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Andrew Williams do not talk to me about what you have achieved mate. People who piddle under lemon trees should just shut up.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is unparliamentary and I will ask the member just to be very mindful of those sorts of comments.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The Minister whom I proudly speak of today has made huge achievements in Parliament. She has put significant points on the scoreboard for us. She has successfully led the justice sector. She has achieved the lowest crime rate in 33 years. She has overseen the modernisation of the courts system. She has introduced alcohol law reforms. She has introduced tougher sentencing and parole. These are things that the Labour Party talked about but never delivered. Minister Judith Collins has delivered them. She has delivered tougher bail laws for this country and she has had a huge focus on improving victims’ rights.I am proud to have been part of the team here that has had Judith Collins in it. She has done a wonderful job for this country and also when she has been overseas representing the country taking this country forward. That is one of the reasons we see growth now in this country which is taking this country to new heights. So I am proud to have been a member working with Judith Collins. She has done a great job. She does not need to be wallowing at the bottom of the ruck like members of the Labour Party and New Zealand First who cannot get points on the scoreboard. They now see this as their opportunity to see some daylight. Bad luck guys; it is not going to happen.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Debate on Budget Policy StatementPAUL GOLDSMITH (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee):I move That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committeeon the Budget Policy Statement 2014. The John Key - led Government heads to the 20 September general election firmly focused on the issues that matter to our community to all Kiwis: a stronger economy and more jobs better front-line health and education services a safer New Zealand and rebuilding Christchurch. That is what I want to talk about today and that is what most New Zealanders are concerned about.The National-led Government’s programme to build a faster-growing economy with more jobs and rising incomes is delivering positive results for all New Zealanders. Updated forecasts in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement issued in December show a relatively strong upturn with expected economic growth reaching 3.6 percent in 2015 and the unemployment rate falling. Although the recovery is gathering momentum the global environment still remains uncertain. We have only to look at the events in Ukraine and Russia over the past few weeks to see how fragile the world is. Markets have largely shrugged off those geopolitical scares so far but we do not know how things will pan out in the next few months so we do need to take all care. In this environment it is important to maintain clear and credible economic and fiscal settings. This is the best way to create new jobs raise incomes and help families to get ahead.The latest forecasts show the Government posting a modest operating surplus before gains and losses of $86 million in 2014-15 similar to the $75 million surplus forecast in Budget 2013. Surpluses are then forecast to increase over the next 2 years debt is forecast to fall and net core Crown debt is expected to peak at 26 percent of GDP in 2014-15 before falling to 16.9 percent in 2019-20. The National-led Government remains committed to responsible long-term fiscal management and that is why I fully support all the figures that are outlined in the Budget Policy Statement.By the way I just wanted to talk about some comments I came across in the Australian Financial Review yesterday in its review of the New Zealand situation. There was a quote from the Australian Financial Review that said speaking of New Zealand: “A new Labour government if it kept its promises (NZ Power NZ Assure Kiwibuild) would likely be the most interventionist Labour government since well before the Roger Douglas led pro-market reforms of the 1980’s”—i.e. if Labour followed the policies that it has announced so far it would be heading back to Bill Rowling’s days or worse than that.Funnily enough—I was doing some digging around—the Labour Party when it was formed in 1916 was all about nationalising the means of production distribution and exchange. The party got around to dropping that in 1954. I took the time to have a look at the Labour policy platform that was signed off at the November 2013 conference last year. David Parker’s introduction to that policy platform said that it is binding: “The Platform is binding on the Party including the Caucus. It will guide the creation of the manifesto …” for next year. So what does that include? On the question of equality it says: “Our vision of a just society is founded on equality and fairness. Labour believes that social justice means that all people should have equal access to social economic cultural political and legal spheres regardless of wealth gender ethnicity or social position.” Well I think most people could basically agree with that.It continues: “Labour says that no matter the circumstances of our birth we are each accorded equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in life.” Again I think most people would agree with that. But that is not where it ends because in the Labour Party policy platform it says: “We believe in more than just equal opportunities—we believe in equality of outcomes.” Equality of outcomes—Labour has not learnt the most basic lesson of history that the equality of outcomes can be achieved only through extreme force and by massively increasing the power of bureaucrats and the State and that the outcome generally universally in those situations has been disastrous. Some people work hard; some do not. Some are lucky; some are not. Some are talented in music and sport and science; others have talents elsewhere. Some make wise choices in their personal lives; some do not. Some people smoke; some do not. Some have five kids with five different partners; some do not. They all lead to very different outcomes so how can the State alter the natural outcomes of the diversity of life—that is something that the Labour Party is very keen on diversity—so that all the outcomes are the same?By outcomes I am not quite sure what the Labour Party means. Does it mean that all are as wealthy as each other or all have the same incomes or all are as happy as each other or live as long as each other? I am not sure where it is all heading but I would be very interested to hear from Mr Cunliffe as to what he means by “achieving equality of outcomes” in New Zealand. The only way you get there historically is by using massive amounts of force. I am sure that that is not what Labour is proposing but I would like to know what it is proposing. That is the problem we face here today. New Zealanders up and down the country are scratching their heads and trying to work out what it is that Labour actually stands for. Talk is cheap—fine words and sentiments but there is no basis to them. What is Labour really saying? What is David Cunliffe really saying? What is he really? Is he a raging left-wing union reformer or is he a more moderate business-friendly man? Nobody really knows.So if we just run through a few of the contradictions in what they are saying we hear Labour members talking about power prices going up and being very concerned about power prices going up—notwithstanding the fact that they went up twice as fast when Labour was last in power—and yet they champion an emissions trading scheme on steroids that would inevitably lead to higher power prices. So which one is it? Are they concerned about it or are they quite happy to increase power prices? It is the same with housing affordability. They say that they are very deeply concerned about housing affordability particularly in Auckland yet the single most important thing with housing affordability is interest rates. This Government by constraining new spending on government to $1 billion a year and being highly disciplined in Government spending and fiscal policy has kept a lid on interest rates. It has kept them lower than they would otherwise have been. But when the Labour Government was in power it was splurging around $3 billion a year in new spending stoking the fire of inflation and stimulating the economy like nobody’s business. The result was that interest rates were nearly 11 percent. So Labour members go on about housing affordability yet Labour’s record was to greatly increase interest rates. They talk nobly but their actions achieve the exact opposite.In the meantime the Greens go on about housing affordability but they support promote and push for at every opportunity highly restrictive planning policies that artificially increase the value of land. Labour goes along saying: “Me too.” in that area. It is the same on the question of poverty. We know that the best way out of poverty is work and yet Labour and the Greens oppose every aspect of our welfare policies which are designed on the principle that everybody can do something and should do something and that the best thing they can do is get back to work.Iain Lees-Galloway: Where are the jobs?PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is where we have the contradictions that we have to make our way through in this Government.We have had a good start to the year in terms of the economy. Things are going very well but a successful rebalancing will require consistent and positive change over the next few years. The New Zealand economy has continued to expand through 2013 growing at 3.5 percent a year into September despite the severe drought that we have had and significantly reduced growth in the first half of 2013. This was amongst one of the higher rates in the developed world.Iain Lees-Galloway: Where are the pay rises?PAUL GOLDSMITH: Let us not forget when we talk about where the jobs are which I heard from over on the other side that there have been more and more jobs. There are 66000 more people employed now than a year ago and the unemployment rate is at 6 percent. It is still too high but it is dropping as the economy gathers strength in contrast to what is happening in Australia. Budget 2014-15 will continue this.It is the consistency of the way that the Government has been approaching the situation over the past 5 years that has given the confidence that businesses have needed in order to invest and to create jobs. It is the consistency about the four priorities that we have had: responsibly managing the finances and getting back to surplus pushing ahead with a wide range of microeconomic reforms to increase the productivity and competitiveness of the economy driving better results through Better Public Services and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch. People know where they stand with National. They do not know where they stand with Labour. On that basis I affirm this Budget Policy Statement. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition):In this Budget Policy Statement National will say: “We are the party of business.” The truth as we can all see laid bare is that to National politics is a business. It is a business where the coinage of the day is its relationships with the rich and the powerful—the interests of the few which it defends. It is seen in the big things like Warner Bros and Skycity and MediaWorks. It is seen in what might initially have looked like littler things like a Minister’s visit to China where she happened to endorse the products of a company of which her husband is a director and that gave her party a tidy $56000 donation. But then it gets more complicated because as usual it is not the initial pitfall that takes National out; it is the way it deals with it. The way it has dealt with this is to hide from the public to obfuscate and to delineate between what the public should know and what it has been prepared to say. The Prime Minister has got to the point where No. 1 he has told untruths to the country—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We have just had an hour and a half’s debate an urgent debate on the matters that you are talking about. I just ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to this debate. It is on the Budget Policy Statement 2014. So this is what we are actually debating and I ask the member to come back to that.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The numbers contained in the Budget Policy Statement are the outcome of economic and commercial processes that respond to the rules set by this Government. They have been set by this Government in the interests of some of the most powerful members of the business community not in the interests of all New Zealanders. I will not go on for the whole of this speech about the mishaps that the Minister of Justice has faced or committed. I will not go on about the fact that the Prime Minister has misled the country or that he should have sacked the Minister today but he could not summon the courage to do so. I will not go on about that. But I will conclude this part of my remarks by making clear that this is not the first time that this National Government has fallen for the interests of the powerful and it will not be the last.This is the tip of an iceberg known as crony capitalism and it is wrong. It is wrong in its effect. It is wrong for its victims and their names are everywhere. They are the one in four children in this country growing up in poverty. One in four of our children is growing up in poverty while this Government protects the interests of the wealthiest few from the normal processes of business or the normal conventions of good governance. It has got to stop and it will stop. It is going to stop on 20 September 2014 when New Zealanders get a new beginning and a new start and a new Government.The Government crows that it might finally for the first time in 5 long years get the books in the black. Well we remain to be convinced because for the last 3 months the actual numbers have been nowhere near the projections. They are $600 million short so far this year. But even if the Government does get the books in the black we ask the question: who would not? It has a 20-year high of dairy prices and a $30 billion insurance payout for Christchurch. Frankly a trained monkey could balance this Budget because it ought not to be hard. But I have forgotten—Labour ran nine surpluses in a row; National has run four deficits. National members would not know a surplus if they tripped over one.But the worst of the Government’s problems are actually not what it has done and that takes some beating—those tax cuts for the rich remember and the GST for everybody else. The worst of this Government’s problems embedded in this Budget Policy Statement are what it has not done. Business people say to me that even if you give the Government credit for taking the ship through some rough waters in the global financial crisis it has no plan for the future. The Government has no strategy. It has no vision. It does not know where it is going so the rest of the country does not know either.Where does the Government need to be going? It needs a plan for better jobs and higher wages. It needs a plan to take New Zealand from thinking about volume to thinking about value and to work with our primary sectors to increase investment to increase innovation to increase skills and to increase productivity so that we can increase returns and increase wages. That is the strategic approach that the incoming Labour-led Government will take.What are the core elements of that approach? Firstly let us recognise that we live in an economy that is starved of capital and is year upon year building up net international debt to a point where it is now around the whole of New Zealand’s GDP—75 percent. It is a shocker. And what it is made up of is roughly 85 percent private debt and only 15 percent Government debt. So even if National manages to fluke its way to a Government surplus that would not change the answer—the economy is still going backwards. The only way to save that is with a savings system that increases our savings rate with a superannuation system that is sustainable and with a tax system that encourages innovation not speculation. That means a capital gains tax an essential platform for taking New Zealand forward because it backs out of distortion that favours property investment at the expense of business investment.Hon David Parker: Why won’t they do that?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well maybe Oravida will not let it or maybe it is people like Oravida or the property speculators who are driving this Government. We have to get this economy moving on its stalled journey from volume to value.Maggie Barry: Secret trusts—“No Credibility Cunliffe”.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Oh well there is a member who is conveniently turning a blind eye to the fact that there were apparently 21 donors at an Antoine’s Restaurant dinner. While this member says to any donors: “Open up and be frank with the public or you have your money back.” John Key says: “No I won’t reveal a single donor. I won’t give a single dollar back.” Why would he? He has got his Ministers scouring the world doing favours for companies and taking money on the backhander. That is a shocker—that is a shocker. If that member cannot recognise a conflict of interest when it walks like one talks like one and stinks like one well she just needs to watch the 6 o’clock news tonight because it will be writ large for everybody in New Zealand to see.New Zealanders demand better standards from Ministers than John Key does and they demand better standards from a Prime Minister than he is delivering. If he is so out of touch with New Zealanders that he thinks he can get away with a blind eye and a wet bus ticket to a Minister of Justice who is neither ministerial nor just then he has got another think coming.Hon David Parker: An economy which works for everyone.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: We want an economy that works as my excellent finance spokesperson and deputy leader has said for everyone not just for the few. That has to be an economy with fairness and opportunity for all—for the kids growing up in poverty as well as for the kids growing up at the top end of town. That is opportunity and fairness for every New Zealander. It means a good school. It means a warm dry roof over their homes. It means an affordable house. It means a health system people can count on. And it means opportunities for training and above all for good jobs—for good jobs that lead to better wages.New Zealanders are sick of this Government’s dead-end economy. This is a Government that cares more about its own books than New Zealanders’ books. It is a Government that is feathering its own nest—those of its friends its families and its party—not New Zealanders’. This Labour-led Government will be a Government for change a Government for social justice and a Government for development. It is time we had a long hard look at the New Zealand economy if we want the next Budget Policy Statement to be better than this one.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):The only thing going backwards in this House is that member’s popularity. “Mr Tricky David Cunliffe” is an individual who rants and raves and stampedes and makes very loud statements about everything. What has he actually achieved as the leader of the Labour Party this year? Very little. He has gone backwards. His own party does not trust him. This is a guy who trumpeted in this House for such a long time that we needed to reform legislation in relation to donations that effectively precluded the use of trusts. So what did he do? He established a trust for his leadership battle. The other contenders were honest enough about their trusts but he was not. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.As we head towards the 20 September election it is time to put aside the distracting antics of the relentlessly negative Opposition parties—the uneasy and motley alliance of tired old Labour which is really bereft of ideas and energy. It wants to borrow more. It wants to spend more than we can afford. And then it wants to raise taxes through the roof. Then there is the increasingly rancid Greens who do not represent the environmental and conservation concerns that their name might suggest. I will talk a little bit about that later in my call.Let us focus at the moment on the issue that really does matter to our communities and to this country and that is a stronger economy. As others have said we are on track for getting the books back into surplus. There are more jobs now because of the strong economy—66000 more people are employed now than there were a year ago. There are more of them. There are better front-line health and education services and we have a much safer New Zealand. I intend for my call here today to examine the good progress that this John Key - led National Government has achieved. We have a very busy legislative agenda which we are sticking to and a very clear plan that we are also sticking to.In the area I represent on Auckland’s North Shore we are very well aware of the advantages of building a stronger economy. We appreciate that unemployment is down to 6 percent and is trending in the right direction—downwards—and that is because of the more competitive and more productive economy. It all traces back to that. Those are the sorts of issues that New Zealanders are most concerned about. They are not distracted by the antics and the sideshow pony tricks of the Opposition forces such as they are.Interest rates as we know are at a 50-year low. Government spending is well under control. Inflation is currently running at 1.6 percent and that is much better than it was when we inherited the Treasury benches back in 2008 when it was over 5 percent. On a day-to-day level we know that we are living in safer communities with the lowest reported crime in 33 years. Some trends are on the up and up even going through the roof. Business confidence is at its highest level in 20 years. The economy grew at 3.5 percent in the past year and we do not want to put that at risk. The economy is doing well but it is a fragile recovery and this Government is committed to ensuring that it continues.Let us look at a specific group: the seniors. This Government is making sure that older New Zealanders have the security the well-being and the overall respect that they deserve—our seniors who have worked hard and really do deserve to enjoy their retirement. We have recognised that in many tangible ways over the past 5 years.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY: Yes that is quite all right Chris Auchinvole. You do appreciate it as a man over 65 in your prime. The net rate of superannuation for married couples is up 25 percent in the past 5 years. That is up by an extra $183 a fortnight and the single living alone payment has increased by more than $125 a fortnight. Since the last Labour Government in 2008 the Consumer Price Index has increased by 12 percent. With the net rate for superannuation up by 25 percent that does represent a much faster rate of increase for seniors than for any other beneficiaries in New Zealand. New Zealand’s faster economic growth has certainly benefited our seniors and they deserve it.This year we are investing $1.55 million on aged care. That is an increase of more than 60 percent on what Labour spent back in 2008. We are spending more on people in aged care—on respite care on carer support and on new clinical assessment tools for older New Zealanders. That is really going to make a difference to the quality of life of our older people. I feel in particular that it is commendable what we have done around Alzheimer’s with the amount of money that we have put into that. My own mother had a long journey with dementia and I was very upset to see the lack of advocacy for many of those older people who did not have friends and family to keep an eye on them. For 12 years I was patron of the organisation Alzheimers Wellington and I know very well how difficult it has been to raise public awareness as well as to raise necessary funds. So I am very proud indeed that we have put more money into this important area.At the moment in New Zealand there are 48000 New Zealanders who suffer from some form of dementia to some degree. By 2050 that will have tripled to 150000 New Zealanders. It is increasing at a rate of 4 percent a year. We have labelled dementia as a priority. We have put $100 million specifically towards services like home support so that people with dementia-related conditions can stay in their homes for longer and so that the people who care for them can have more support and better training to be able to do well the jobs that they do and to do them even better. To me it is not just a matter of clinical care; it is also a matter of having people attracted to that profession who have compassion because that is one of the many qualities that is required.Dementia bed subsidies have increased by 25 percent over the past 5 years. We have allocated $3.2 million in the last Budget to something I have been very involved in for a very long time which is the early diagnosis of dementia. Unless you realise and know and understand what to look for it is quite easy to miss those initial signs of dementia and not see it until it is too late and to perhaps misunderstand the symptoms and misunderstand the behaviour changes that do occur. So there is a need to put money into raising awareness and making people aware of how they can get support and what they need to tap into from an early stage. There is a thing called Cuppa for a Cause which Alzheimer’s New Zealand has just relaunched. When I was part of it back in 1993 we were jumping out of planes with parachutes and people strapped to our backs to raise awareness of dementia. It is something that has gradually been occurring over the years. I commend Alzheimer’s New Zealand for coming together and trying very hard to make mainstream New Zealanders whose lives have perhaps not been touched by this yet more aware of what is required. Fund-raising is needed—that is true—but to me raising awareness is the thing that needs to happen.There are other initiatives as well that are helping older New Zealanders get quality of life. The SuperGold card from very humble beginnings has certainly been improved on. Since 2010 this National Government has invested more than $68 million in this scheme and as of last week there are now more than 11000 businesses involved including transport retail dentists pharmacy and utilities services. For those seniors who can afford to and who have a mind to go overseas reciprocal arrangements are now in place so that our over-65s can also receive a range of commercial discounts that the Australian seniors receive there.When I look at environment and conservation I see as well a Government that has really put its money where its mouth is and that has also endeavoured to make sure that the regulations the controls and the penalties are in place so that our environment is protected. It would be foolish not to explore what our potential is when it comes to oil and gas. We need to see what is there. Anadarko has not had much success in Taranaki. There may or may not be oil reserves off Canterbury and Otago. Indeed we do hope so but it is prudent to find out. If they do find that there are oil reserves that are worth doing there will be full public hearings to ascertain what needs to be done before those permits are actually granted. That is an enormous improvement on what Labour did. There were more than 35 grants given through just the signature of a Minister to ensure that wells could be dug and drilled. There were not any provisions there were not any safeguards and there were no penalties and fines put in place. Labour compounded that problem along with its cronies in the Green Party by not supporting the exclusive economic zone legislation. We have now put in place very good measures and provisions—$10 million fines and so forth—for people who do not do what they are supposed to do.I would hope that when you look at us on balance as a Government and see what we are doing with marine reserves you would see that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has certainly made huge gains here. We are effectively expanding our protected territorial sea from 7 percent to 9.5 percent which is very close to New Zealand’s target of 10 percent. That is part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. There is our Coastal Policy Statement our benchmarks for water and how we need to maintain water treatment and to clean up the waterways which have really over a very long period of time degraded and deteriorated so it is important that we ensure that these things continue.When it comes to the war on 1080 I think once again we have led the charge there. The battle for our birds ensures that we will be able to cut through some of the more emotive arguments that have surrounded this space in the 20 to 30 years that I have been involved and interested in horticulture and conservation. The 1080 aerial drops are the weapon that we need to ensure that our New Zealand native birds do not perish—2.5 million of them die annually and we do not want that to continue. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour):There is a rumour going around Auckland that the seat that the National Party is going to throw to Colin Craig is North Shore—North Shore—Maggie Barry: Yeah right!Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah right! Well we will see. That is the rumour. They do not want to protect you Maggie. Colin Craig is coming for your seat they say. Devonport has had enough of Maggie and it is going to go to Colin Craig. Well time will tell.That is another example of how the National Party manipulates things for the benefit of the few. It is manipulating MMP for its own benefit and also we see it manipulating the way the New Zealand economy is run for the 2 or 3 percent at the top of society. That is going to be an essential issue at this next election. Do voters want to continue with the National Party and see the rewards going disproportionately to the top 2 or 3 percent or do they want to have a Labour Party under which everyone will get their fair share? Everybody will be expected to do their share of the work but everyone will get their fair share of the rewards under a Labour Government.Under National and under the policies that it has pursued this is clearly not the case. The list is such a long one it proves the point and people know it. We had National doing the special deal for Skycity. We had the special deal for Rio Tinto down at the smelter where it was bailed out for 30 million bucks and the Government did not even get a jobs guarantee. Why did it do that? It did that in order to sell the State-owned enterprises the power companies that used to be owned by all New Zealanders to less than 2 percent of the population and in the process privatise the value of New Zealand’s rivers which drive all our cheap hydro that we pay ever-increasing amounts for because it privatised them to less than 2 percent of New Zealand and to some overseas shareholders.What else has National done? Well crony capitalism does not come any clearer than it has this week with what has been going down with the National Party and Judith Collins and Oravida. There is $56000 of donations to the National Party Judith Collins’ husband being appointed a director off to China promoting while you are a Minister—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have had an urgent debate on this matter. This is the Budget Policy Statement debate and we are not going to regress to a subject that we have dealt with. The member can—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not notice when you came to the Chair but I was listening to Maggie Barry—Maggie Barry: That makes a nice change.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well I do occasionally but I was listening to Maggie Barry who devoted a large proportion of her speech to the matter of trusts and where money came from. That was also a matter that was transgressed in the previous debate and for you to rule that money that we are currently allocating as part of a process for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to give Cabinet advice to the Prime Minister—whether that can be debated or not as part of this policy statement—cannot be debated would be a very radical decision.My view is that we are debating the process which includes the money for the Prime Minister’s advice and therefore we should be able to refer to the quality of that advice and what the Prime Minister does with it.Maggie Barry: Speaking to the point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance. Well I can just assure the member I have been paying attention to the entire proceedings this afternoon and of course any comparative situations can be raised if they are pertinent to the current debate. What I am saying is that we are not going to transgress or shift back into material generally around a subject that we have debated. It needs to be pertinent.Hon DAVID PARKER: As I was saying under this Government we have an economy run for the top 2 or 3 percent. We have crony capitalism that is rife and I have instanced a number of examples that overwhelmingly prove the case. If you want more proof what about housing? There are decreasing rates of homeownership because a few people own a lot of houses and fewer young people can afford to buy one. That is another example of how this Government is running the economy in the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Under Labour it will be different. We have got a housing plan that will substantially change that.Why will the National Government in the face of rampant house price inflation not tax capital gains excluding the owner-occupied home like just about everywhere else does in the world? It is because it is protecting the top 2 or 3 percent whom it so plainly acts for who own multiple houses. So while the top 2 or 3 percent do disproportionately well we have got flat-lining wages for most workers. The Government comes along and uses an average. What that average hides is the fact that most of the gains are going to the people at the top. Indeed if you look at the amount that is paid differently from year to year for 1 hour of work it did not go up any more than the rate of inflation—it went up 1.6 percent for that same hour’s work for 1 year compared with when we had inflation at 1.6 percent.Look at power prices. Having privatised these State-owned enterprises having transferred what was previously owned by all New Zealanders to that small section of New Zealanders we have got power price increases and we have got the rewards of cheap generation from our hydro rivers being captured by the 3 percent who have bought shares. We have got rents going up we have got widening gaps between the rich and the poor we have got increasing rates of child poverty and the Government has not got a plan to change that.Well in the Labour Party we have. It is a very significant plan that will bring about a fair economy that works for everyone. David Cunliffe has already spoken of it. It will improve the amount of capital that we have got to invest in our businesses by having a compulsory KiwiSaver scheme so that there is more money saved in the New Zealand economy and we are less reliant on imported capital. That does not suit the National Party members. Their end of town is quite suited to more imported capital coming in. They like the concentration of wealth that happens from year to year in New Zealand. We do not. We want to save more in New Zealand.It was us in the Labour Party who created KiwiSaver with the support of Winston Peters and others with the support of the Greens—I hope—and with the opposition of the National Party. So in addition to building more capital growing New Zealand savings through a universal KiwiSaver we are going to make sure it is spent in the right part—not in the speculative part of the economy where National’s cronies hang out not in the area where disproportionately the top 2 or 3 percent who own multiple houses hang out—[Interruption]—or own big farms like David Bennett who is interjecting on me but does not want to pay capital gains tax.No National will not bring about a capital gains tax because it does not suit its members or the interest groups that back it. Nevertheless we will because we know that that will direct capital into the higher incomes and jobs that we need as a country in order to lift productivity and lift the wages and salaries of those people who work there.This means that we need to invest more in the further processing of for example our forestry exports. Why is it that we are sending so many logs offshore unprocessed? The answer in large part is because of the poor Government policy. Who suffers in respect of that? It is the New Zealanders who do not have well-paid jobs working in the forest-processing industry. Who benefits from the current settings? It is the small proportion of wealthy New Zealanders particularly the overseas corporates that now own our forests that is sending our logs off overseas.Who also benefits from these settings are the likes of Oravida. You do not like me talking about this Mr Speaker but I am afraid I have got to because Oravida’s interests are being pursued by the National Government and on behalf of the National Government by Judith Collins as a Minister going overseas and promoting the interests of Oravida which will make Oravida a wealthier company because it will improve its sales. That is why Oravida wanted Judith Collins to endorse its products and that is why Oravida skited about the fact that a Minister in the New Zealand Government endorsed its products. That was for the benefit of the big end of town. There can never be a clearer example. It was for the benefit of Oravida it was for the benefit of the National Party which got a $56000 donation and it was for the benefit of Judith Collins’ own family—her husband being a director of the company. Under the current Government you get it acting for the big end of town while everyone else is flat-lining or going backwards. Under the Labour Government you will get an economy that works for everyone and everyone will get their fair share.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party. I think it is important—just to frame this debate around the Government’s economic management and fiscal management—that we are coming up to an election on 20 September. Of course the Green Party will be putting up an alternative to the Government’s economic and fiscal strategy at that election that could be summarised as being that we need a smarter greener more compassionate Government than the one we have.I think that when you look at the economic and fiscal policies of this Government you get a sense of how badly it is doing. I wanted to talk about one way in which National has been consistent over all of these years because I think consistency is an important value and that is with regard to debt reduction. From 1999 to 2004 the National Party consistently opposed debt reduction at every opportunity. At every Budget from 1999 to 2008 when it was in Opposition it opposed debt reduction. It said that the surpluses the Government had should be given away as tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders. National from 1999 to 2008 when it was in Opposition said that surpluses should be given away as tax cuts rather than being used to pay debt. John Key and Bill English put out press releases saying that the surpluses should be given away as tax cuts rather than being used to pay down Government debt.Fortunately the parties that had the dominant position in the House during those years—which I think probably were New Zealand First the Greens and Labour—were able to vote for Budgets that reduced debt. That meant that when there was the global financial crisis the Government of the day was in a position and had some fiscal headroom to deal with the challenges it faced. We would not have had that had we taken the advice of Bill English John Key and the National Party because they consistently said from 1999 to 2008: “Don’t use the surpluses to pay down debt; use the surpluses to give tax cuts to the wealthy.” Fortunately everyone ignored the National Party.Then there was a change of Government. Since the change of Government National has consistently advocated for increased debt. So every Budget since National took over has been a deficit Budget which has increased the Government’s debt—every Budget. Throughout the entire period of 1999 to 2014 a 15-year period National has consistently opposed every effort to reduce debt. That is quite an achievement in terms of consistency—it has consistently opposed it. Since National has been in Government since it took over the Government benches it has borrowed $50 billion to $60 billion.So you think well there was a global financial crisis and there was a Christchurch earthquake so there was reason to borrow money and there is certainly some truth in that but it was borrowing money for other things as well. Let me give you an example. National is borrowing $1.1 billion a year—that is $1100 million per year—to pay for the tax cuts for the top 10 percent of income earners which are the tax cuts that National introduced right in the middle of the crisis in 2010. When National became the Government after advocating for all those years to increase not reduce debt it immediately threw the Budget into a big hole by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country at an ongoing cost—we are still paying for this—of $1.1 billion every year which is a big hole in the Budget. You would have to say National has been entirely consistent over this 15-year period in increasing debt and advocating for increases in Government debt. Then when it got an opportunity to be in the Government it actually managed to do it—a $52 billion increase in debt since it has taken over the Government benches. So it is a very consistent position from National.I also wanted to talk more broadly about costs of living for people. We know that tomorrow the Reserve Bank may well increase interest rates—the official cash rate. We will find out in the morning. The two major drivers of inflation in the New Zealand economy at the moment are coming out of the housing market and coming out of the electricity market or so-called market—it is not actually a market; it is a jack-up. But they are the two key drivers of increases in the CPI at the moment. It is the increase in inflation coming out of electricity and housing that is putting pressure on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates.The Government has persistently and consistently refused to take action to reduce increasing prices in housing and the increased prices in electricity. For example in Auckland since John Key became Prime Minister house prices have gone up 44 percent.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: There has been a 44 percent increase in house prices since John Key became Prime Minister. This is just after the global financial crisis. So in terms of electricity since John Key became Prime Minister prices have gone up 20 percent. What we have seen is very significant increases in the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders. The National members opposite are laughing about this because they could not give a damn about ordinary New Zealanders. They are laughing about the fact that ordinary people are getting priced out of the housing market. Ordinary people are struggling to pay their electricity bills and National thinks it is funny and says there is nothing it can do about it.National has made no efforts to deal with the inflationary pressures coming out of housing and electricity. The effect of that is that the Reserve Bank is very likely to put up interest rates tomorrow. Think about what that means for ordinary families. Not only can they thank National for the fact that house price inflation is out of control; they can thank National for electricity price inflation and their big bills in electricity which are out of control. Also their mortgage payments will go up because the National Government has failed to control inflationary pressure coming out of housing and electricity.Instead National has been defending the big electricity companies the vertically integrated generator retailers which have been pushing up the price of power. During the whole privatisation debate the Green Party was saying if you go ahead with privatisation the electricity companies will push to increase prices. Now what has happened? The National Government proceeded with privatisation and all around the country people are getting bills in the mail telling them that the price of electricity is going to go up because National forced through privatisation on a single vote opposed by most New Zealanders. Since privatisation the price of electricity is rapidly escalating.On top of that National refuses to actually make sure there is competition in the electricity sector that could actually put competitive pressure on prices. The result of that is that ordinary New Zealand families are facing very significant pressures in terms of electricity bills very significant pressures in terms of housing costs and rents and soon-to-be-increased mortgage costs because the National Government has failed to deal with these problems because National protects the big electricity companies rather than protecting New Zealand households. That is the fundamental reality of our economy right now.I want to now step back a little bit. We have talked about the fiscal performance of the National Party which has been to consistently support increases in debt over a 15-year period. I have talked a little bit about the pressures that are coming on households as a result of National’s agenda and policy—increased electricity prices increased housing prices and soon-to-be-increased mortgage costs. I want to talk now about some of the macroeconomic indicators for the New Zealand economy. The Government has made a lot of the macroeconomic indicators of the economy. So let us put together two basic numbers. We are looking at the best terms of trade for the New Zealand economy in about 40 years—our best terms of trade. The terms of trade are not determined by the Government of the day; they are simply the prices for what we sell to the rest of the world so they are controlled by the global economy. So the Government cannot take credit for the fact that we have the best terms of trade in 40 years. However at the same time we have a current account deficit that is one of the highest in the OECD. It is over 4 percent of GDP—one of the worst current account deficits in the developed world—at the same time that we have some of the best export prices in several generations.What does that tell you? Is this an economy that is performing well when even at the best point when prices are the highest we are still running very significant current account deficits? How do you pay for a current account deficit? I have asked Ministers of Finance from National about this before; they do not know. The answer is there are two ways to pay for a current account deficit. Firstly you borrow more—well we have seen that the Government is doing quite a lot of that—or secondly you sell assets and well we have seen quite a lot of the Government doing that.Across the New Zealand economy more and more large corporations are falling into foreign ownership to pay for the current account deficit. So when you look at it at a macro level—that is what is going on on the big scale for the New Zealand economy—we see that actually it is performing extremely poorly. Let me give you some other macro indicators—for example the number of unemployed. There are 50000 more unemployed than when John Key became Prime Minister. So in spite of all the talk from the Government about how well things are going there are in fact more people unemployed than when John Key became Prime Minister—50000 more unemployed.Let us talk about manufacturing. Manufacturing exports are in decline in real terms both simply transformed manufactures and elaborately transformed manufactures. That is the macro picture of a failure in fiscal and economic policy by this Government and that is why we need a smarter greener and more compassionate Government. On 20 September we are going to get one.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Bennett.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):Thank you Mr Speaker.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh no.DAVID BENNETT: Have you got something to say? No he has got nothing to say. He has got the next 10 minutes but he will not have anything to say. This is economic policy. I would like to hear what Winston Peters’ economic policy is. Do you know how Winston Peters’ speech will go? He will stand up and he will wait for someone to interrupt him—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you will know there is a procedure in this House and there has been for a long time that a member can request that the other member yield so the challenge he is making out can be met. He wants to hear me speak so I am asking him to yield.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well that is not a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it is.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No it is not a point of order. It is up to the member on his feet to decide whether he wants to yield.DAVID BENNETT: You see the other part of his speech process is to do a point of order because he cannot handle someone actually attacking him in this House and so he has to raise a point of order to try to break it up. He is an old dog with some new tricks but it is good to see him back. He has been here only 5 minutes but—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Call his bluff.DAVID BENNETT: Yeah nah that is right. We will be interested to see his economic policy. I will tell you what his economic policy will be. It will be squat it will be zero it will be nothing. He has never had an economic policy. He never will and never could get one together. It is such a shame to see a politician of such longevity sit there in pain and not understand what he has got to do for the next 10 minutes. He will just try to abuse people personally instead of actually doing anything of any consequence.Tracey Martin: Come on Mr Bennett. Say something about the actual topic. Come on.DAVID BENNETT: OK I will. OK let us have a look at the Green Party. The Green Party just spoke. It was Russel Norman the economic guru who said it was going to print money. Where has the printing money idea gone? The Green Party soon got rid of the idea of printing money. Or does it still secretly want to print money—is that what it really wants? Russel Norman came into this House year after year after year saying the Green Party would print money to solve New Zealand’s problems. Then suddenly Russel Norman worked out that it was a dumb move and he stopped saying what he had said he would want to do which was print money. Now he comes back in here with the next level of his agenda. He always talks about macroeconomic policy as if he were some economic guru who studied and got a doctorate in economics when he has no idea of what is going on in the world economy or in the New Zealand economy. When he talks about debt reduction and inflation let us look at the reality of what has gone on.New Zealand has had to deal with the biggest recession since the 1930s and we did not have this country go into depression. New Zealand has had to rebuild our second-biggest city. We have done all that at the same time as keeping our country’s economic finances under control and delivering a strong future going forward. We now have growth rates above 3 percent—the second-best in the Western World. That is the kind of economic management that New Zealanders wanted and got from this Government. It is not the kind of economic management that the Green Party and the Labour Party would deliver.The Green Party talks about housing and electricity as the two big expenses that are causing inflation. Let us have a look at both of them. I will come back to housing when we talk about the Labour Party policy around capital gains tax but let us talk about electricity first. The Green Party wants to bring in a carbon tax on New Zealanders—that $500 a year on everybody’s power bills that it wants to bring in around emissions trading. It has said that time and time again. What does that do to your power price? It puts your power price up. If it puts your power price up under the Greens’ logic that means you have got higher inflation. That means you have got higher interest rates. The Green Party is saying that power prices have gone up 20 percent in the term of this Government; yes they have. That is nothing compared with the 70 percent they went up under the previous Government. The Green Party would want to hike them up 70 percent in 3 years if it ever got near the Treasury benches because it would do that for its emissions trading scheme. Get ready New Zealanders: if you had a Labour-Greens Government you would have much higher power prices. That is the reality of the Greens’ economic policy.Then we look at the Labour Party. It has talked about a capital gains tax.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Look at them.DAVID BENNETT: Look at them—yes what is left of the Labour Party there. A capital gains tax—if you go and talk to any international organisation like the IMF it will talk about capital gains taxes but it will talk about them as capital gains taxes across all assets not just what the Labour Party is talking about which is putting capital gains taxes just on the productive side of the New Zealand economy. Why would you want to tax the side of the New Zealand economy that produces the most income? Why would you want to tax businesses? Why would you want to tax the companies which pay for jobs and provide the income for this country going forward and exempt family homes? You exempt family homes under the Labour one but you tax the productive part of the economy. That does not make a lot of sense.When you go overseas you look at countries that have a capital gains tax. Have they got lower house price inflation than New Zealand? No. In San Francisco last year the price went up 30 percent in 1 year. That is what you are dealing with. Sydney has got a large increase in the prices of homes as well. They have both got a capital gains tax. It does not stop increases. It does not stop them.Phil Twyford: We wouldn’t expect you to support a CGT.DAVID BENNETT: That is Phil Twyford over there—the housing person for the Labour Party. He would have no idea. He is just doing what David Cunliffe told him to do. So if we look at it the Green Party wants to put up power prices. It wants to put up power prices through its emissions trading scheme. The Labour Party wants to attack the productive part of New Zealand and that is still not going to stop New Zealand property prices going up. That does not work in the economic sense.Before I finish I just want to talk about one local issue that is dear to my heart and dear to the hearts of the people of Waikato.Hon Todd McClay: What’s that?DAVID BENNETT: That is the Waikato Expressway. This country has got the ability to grow and grow successfully and we need the infrastructure to do that. When you look at the roads of national significance the Waikato Expressway has got two contracts that come up in 2015 for two parts of that road both of them around $600 million to $700 million: the Huntly and Hamilton bypasses. They need to be contracted in 2015 which is next year. The Labour Party and the Green Party mark my words will not commit to funding those projects. The people of Hamilton and the people of Waikato have the most to lose from this election. They have the most to lose from the National Government not being re-elected. If National does not get back in those roads will not happen—those roads will not happen. There will be no economic growth plan for Hamilton going forward.I see Nanaia Mahuta there. I bet you she will go back to Tainui and they will say they need that road for their inland port. Do they not? They do need it at Ruakura. I do not know how you can sit through those meetings with Tainui and say to them that you will not build the road that makes the biggest capital investment for that tribe going forward. That is the truth of what happens and that is the truth of what will happen after this election if you get a Labour-Greens Government. The people of Hamilton and the Waikato will miss out. They will miss out on the golden opportunity they have in front of them to leap with Auckland into Tauranga. That will happen because Labour and the Greens will not build the roads. You say: “How do you know that Dave? How do you know that they will not build them?”. Well the Green Party has already pulled the plug on two that are signed up now so it is certainly going to pull the plug on anything that is in the process of being signed up next year is it not? The Labour Party does exactly what the Green Party wants to do when it comes to these things because the Labour Party is under the hand and the fist of the Green Party when it comes to transport.So I say to the members of the public out there that this is an important election. This is an important election because it is about the economic future of New Zealand. This is what the Budget Policy Statement is about. Are we willing to back a growing strong economy? Or are we willing to vote for a Green Party that is going to put power prices up? Are we going to vote for a Labour Party that is going to put a capital gains tax in which is its trump economic policy and that will not actually achieve anything? Are you going to vote for a Labour-Greens Government that is going to hurt the people of Hamilton and the Waikato and deny them the future that they could have had under a National Government? That is why people will not vote for them.Then there is a red herring. There is New Zealand First over there which does not actually know what it will get if anyone votes for it. Its members would have no idea about economic policy. I bet you that Winston Peters is trying to look up what the Waikato Expressway is. He would not understand. That is the road to the future of Hamilton. If you ever visit you will see how important it is. This is an election that is going to be about economic policy. The choice is clear. We have had good economic management we have delivered good economic growth we have reduced unemployment and we have managed our finances in the most difficult of times. On the other side of the House you have weird and wonderful platforms that will actually increase the cost of living and that will not achieve the purpose that the Opposition says they will achieve. And the third party does not even have a platform. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):There is no better demonstration of how desperate and hopeless the National Party is than in the address of the last speaker David Bennett. First of all David Bennett from Hamilton East of course purchased farm after farm on tax avoidance. That is why he does not like—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request that he withdraw and apologise for those comments. I take offence at that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: On tax avoidance?David Bennett: Yes.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order first of all—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to explain why—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot speak to the point of order when it is one of those comments.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will determine that.David Bennett: You know it is against the Standing Orders for him to raise a point of order in his speech.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member is speaking to the point of order—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes I am.David Bennett: But it’s against—he can’t.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well the Speaker says I can. The reality is that tax evasion is illegal—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No tax evasion is illegal—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —but taking steps to avoid taxation is not.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am asking you to sit. A point of order has been raised. The manner in which the member used the term is implying that the member is not an honourable member.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn’t say that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I am ruling so the member will—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No you are not. No you were not. I have no—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Do not respond to me when I am on my feet. The member will desist from using terms that imply that the member is not an honourable member.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am remembered for taking on the wine-box conspirators. The issue there was not avoidance; it was evasion. I know the difference and far more clearly than you do. I am not going to be ramrodded in this House on the basis of your lack of understanding.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member casts an aspersion on the Speaker like that his speech will be terminated. I have made a ruling. The member is not to imply issues that count against the honourableness of any member of this House. He may continue.David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken offence. To the member I say that it does not matter whether it is evasion or avoidance. He needs to withdraw and apologise. That is the nature of the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence so the member Winston Peters will withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No the member will withdraw—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you now writing the tax laws for this country and saying that tax avoidance is illegal? That is what I am telling you and that is what the wine-box inquiry was all about. Having spent 7 years on it I am entitled to make that assertion.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have got to a situation where the apology has been accepted. The member may continue.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One of the reasons why Mr Bennett likes the Waikato Expressway is that of course it goes past one of his farms.The Budget Policy Statement is a whitewash. It is a snow job. It fails utterly as a realistic description of New Zealand’s true economic and fiscal position. It has to be asked whether the Budget Policy Statement is designed to inform the public in an objective and disinterested way on economic policy or whether it is just outright Government propaganda. The Budget Policy Statement is very sanguine—indeed complacent—about the economic and fiscal outlook for our country.This is all part and parcel of National’s orchestrated campaign to create a false sense of confidence and well-being about the economy prior to this year’s election. Well New Zealand First is sorry to spoil the make-believe but we prefer facts and they tell another story. First of all after 5 years of a National Government New Zealand’s economic fundamentals are still woeful. The structural weaknesses remain. Despite having the advantage of the best terms of trade in 40 years as mentioned by members of the Opposition ordinary New Zealanders are struggling to find decent jobs. There are almost 150000 unemployed and then there are tens and tens of thousands who simply have not got enough work. Our current account deficit is one of the worst in the OECD with New Zealand’s net international debt a staggering $150 billion.I want every National Party person over on that side of the House to explain to me how they can get up and say things are right when the net debt is a staggering $150 billion. In the Budget Policy Statement itself the current account deficit is predicted to get worse. That statement has the current account deficit getting worse. It is going to grow to—listen to this—6.3 percent of GDP by 2016.Tracey Martin: How much?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To 6.3 percent of GDP by 2016. All of that is debt building up in this country. Nearly half of all Kiwi workers got no pay increase last year. Ordinary New Zealanders are being hit by rising costs and stagnant incomes. The result is that 70 percent of workers do not even get the average wage—70 percent of the workforce do not even get the average wage. They are being told: “Just trust National. We know what we’re doing.” The result is that homeownership is no longer a prospect for thousands of young Kiwis. In the Budget Policy Statement real wage growth is forecast to average—listen to this—1 percent a year. What is the inflationary growth? Well it is closer to 3 percent than 2 percent. So wage growth is forecast at 1 percent a year and forecast inflation is closer to 3 percent than 2 percent. That is why the Governor of the Reserve Bank is going to slap on an interest rate hike tomorrow morning. That is what he is going to do.We have a Government that is lax on immigration policy. That is having a huge effect on the inflation of house prices in Auckland and the Government will not do a thing about it. There is someone from offshore buying 77 homes in Auckland and the Government does not want to know. That person is an offshore landlord now. The people in New Zealand are now paying this money into a foreign economy.What is significant in this Budget Policy Statement is what it does not say. There is very little attention paid to taking action on tax challenges arising from the rapidly growing digital economy and the threat posed to the tax base. The Government is happy to get all Draconian against Kiwi offenders and overdue student loan scheme repayments but seems content to let the hikes and the likes of Google and Facebook take millions in profit from New Zealand and pay almost no tax at all.On foreign ownership and its consequences there is a deafening silence. It does not want to know. The Government will not go around the Waikato Southland and the West Coast and tell the people that it is selling out the country left right and centre because the Government does not want to know. Only a National Government could be so wilfully blind to the fact that the housing bubble in Auckland is being fed by foreign speculators. Just recently Waste Management has been sold to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Beijing Capital Group for $950 million subject of course to the usual rubber-stamp approval of the Overseas Investment Office.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is that like Huka Lodge?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So now Chinese interests will own almost all of New Zealand’s waste collection and landfill businesses—and for the benefit of the member from the North Shore no that is like quisling. That is like treachery in an economic sense. That is what it is like and that is what the people are going to think when they front up at the election in 2014. And I might say what a bumbling stumbling start the National Party has had to this campaign. First of all John Key makes the announcement that the election is going to be on 20 September. In the next breath he demands that New Zealand First says what it is going to do. I thought it was about what National was going to do.Nicky Wagner: Otherwise people don’t know who you’re going for.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh I know you would love to know that but you want to know this. What the member from Christchurch should be listening to apart from ignoring all the people there about the terribly slow rebuild is what New Zealand First is saying about policy. I know those National members are mere cannon fodder. [Interruption] Those members can shout hysterically but they are not going to be here for long. For goodness’ sake by the time I finish my career I will have been here 10 times longer than both of them. That is how short their careers are going to be. Listen and learn. You might learn something.This will be the biggest Chinese acquisition of a local business in New Zealand since Haier electronics took full control of Fisher and Paykel Appliances in 2012—under which Government? Why it was the National Government. Ownership matters. These things are not just interesting little details on the business pages. Along with all the prime agricultural land that continues to be sold to overseas interests it means that New Zealanders are increasingly working to enrich other people in other countries. But the National Government just looks the other way—head stuck firmly in the sand. It will not even keep any accurate data on what is being sold to whom and for how much. Ignorance in National’s world is total bliss.There is very little acknowledgment in the Budget Policy Statement of growing regional disparities and the need to overcome market failure—this is a bit long so I am trying to speed it up and I think I have slowed down. The result is that regional economies are being neglected. The Government would not even find $4 million for the Napier-Gisborne line—not a lousy $4 million—although mind you it is heading towards $45 million for the bungle on Novopay. No doubt about that—$44 million for a bungle. The poor people cannot even get $4 million for the Napier-Gisborne line.On the West Coast—Solid Energy and Bathurst Resources—there is no real Government support whatsoever. The fact is that the Government’s attempts to rebalance the economy have failed miserably.Jacqui Dean: Who wrote this rubbish?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike that member I am able to write my own speeches.Jacqui Dean: Oh really?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike that member I do not have to go to the research unit to be told what to do. Unlike that member I do not just parrot what the financial markets paid into the National Party’s coffers. No. New Zealand First is a party with members who know what they are talking about because they are experienced and they have been through it all before. National in over 5 years has done nothing to address the structural weakness of the economy.But here is the point. Here comes the sale of Genesis Energy. I want to ask those National members over there: does the Government intend to make any structural changes to the State-owned enterprise companies that the Government has in the mixed-ownership programme this year? Does it for example intend to retain the chairperson of Genesis Energy whose only experience as a chair of a listed company was with Mainzeal Property and Construction which went bust? Are those members over there aware of the growing resistance from the market to having Jenny Shipley as chairperson of Genesis Energy? Do they believe that having Jenny Shipley as chairperson will affect the price of Genesis Energy?I picked up an article in the weekend from a guy called Tim Hunter and he said that downtown the market is not too keen on this product. Even more important he said that if she is there it will take some real sweeteners indeed to sell Genesis Energy. How much will this cost the country because of the Government’s cronyism and the appointment of its own when they are not competent to do the job? And Mainzeal is all the evidence I know of that. How much did Mainzeal owe when it went down? Well it owed a staggering figure of $130 million and there is a stack of subcontractors who have lost everything. They have been sent bankrupt by Mainzeal’s collapse. And the person who headed Mainzeal of course was Jenny Shipley. What on earth is she doing heading Genesis when we are trying to sell it?Grant Robertson: She’s busy at the Oravida opening.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I know of Oravida and she also was a director of China’s second-biggest bank. I mean this is astonishing stuff. If Holyoake and Muldoon and Holland and people like that were alive they would be turning in their nightcaps at what these people are doing. They would be turning in their nightcaps at what this new bunch of novices is doing. For the sake of that member over there who is pointing to her head and I know why—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know. I’m moving for an extension—this is so good.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not happening today.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):Oh what a blessed relief when that bell rang and it was only 2 minutes to go and then Winston Peters had to sit down. That was very good. The House is much relieved at that turn of events. In an election year it is a really good opportunity for the National Government to reflect on what our priorities have been and with the Budget coming up on 15 May to really put our stake in the sand about what we want for New Zealand and what we want for this country. I am very proud to say that the National Government has been focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders from the moment that we came into Government in 2008. Leading up to the election on 20 September and of course Budget day on 15 May here we are putting our stake in the sand and telling New Zealanders what we plan for the future and in fact what we stand for.This Government has had four key priorities in the time that it has been in Government. Firstly we are responsibly managing the Government’s finances just like New Zealanders expect us to do just like New Zealanders voted National for us to do and just like we are doing. The economy is growing by 3.5 percent with a similar forecast of growth again for this year. On average wages are growing faster than inflation. Business confidence is at the highest point it has been since 1999 and the terms of trade are expected to remain just as high. The Government will produce a Budget surplus next year and that is in the context of other countries that will still be in deficit and indeed building up debt.Secondly we are building a more competitive and productive economy. That is our second major focus. Why? Because that means creating more jobs. It means increasing wages. The average weekly wage has gone up by 2.8 percent in the last year compared with inflation that went up by 1.6 percent. Through our Business Growth Agenda the Government has been investing heavily in education and training to lift skills and match the needs of employers. I was interested to hear the comments of the previous speaker who quite mistakenly contended that this Government is ignoring the provinces. Quite the opposite is true. If I talk about my own province and I think about the huge amounts of investment that have gone into the province of Greater Otago and if I have a look at some of the ups and downs that all businesses have and have a look at Summit Wool Spinners which was sold to Canterbury Spinners—so the company changed hands and there was a loss of employment in the town. For those who wish to talk down the economy and say it was all doom and gloom well here is the good news. Most of those workers have been either re-engaged or have found other work because they are skilled and they are valued and I for one will not hear of those skilled workers being talked down in much the same way as the Opposition is fond of doing.If I have a look at Macraes Mine it is the same scenario—the ups and downs of business. Macraes Mine is suffering because the gold price is currently at a low and it has had to lay off a number of staff. It is doom and gloom in some quarters of the House—mostly on the left-hand side it is fair to say. Well here is the good news. Most of those workers either have found work in and around North Otago or in fact have been re-engaged. There is work out there. There is opportunity out there. Why? Because this Government has got such a strong focus on building the economy. In fact as I go around the Central Otago portion of the province of Otago there are some pretty severe skills shortages to the point where I am attending meetings with people who are saying: “Well what are we going to do about this? We have got work but we cannot find the workers.” That is the situation that we find ourselves in because this Government has had such a strong focus on building the economy building wages and finding real jobs for people.Thirdly I am so proud that we have got a strong focus on rebuilding Christchurch. We said that we would. During those awful dark days of the earthquakes we said that we would. My colleague and friend Nicky Wagner MP for Christchurch Central has I believe spent probably the last 2½ years living breathing and sleeping Christchurch people and their needs and how we as a Government can work with those communities to rebuild Christchurch and make it strong again. It is the work of people like Nicky Wagner on the ground proactively and positively working with the people of Christchurch together with Government Ministers that is proving to make such a difference to the people of Christchurch.Finally our fourth strong priority in the past now and in the future as we go to the Budget is delivering Better Public Services within tight budgets. We know that there has been a global financial crisis. We know that we have had to get Government spending under control. Bill English is another Minister who has worked ceaselessly to bring our Government spending under control and to get good-value money for spending on public services because we over on this side of the House know that it is public money it is taxpayer money and we have a duty to spend it wisely.I want to talk about the Better Public Services targets within the justice sector. That is the sector that is led by the Hon Judith Collins who is providing outstanding leadership in the justice sector and whose work together with that of Anne Tolley the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections and Chester Borrows the Minister for Courts is making a difference to the lives of New Zealanders. Target: reduce overall crime rates by 15 percent by 2017 reduce violent crime by 20 percent by 2017 and reduce youth crime by 25 percent by 2017. What is the result so far? Total crime is down. Total crime is down by 12 percent violent crime is down by 8 percent and youth crime is down by 19 percent. That is a success and that is making New Zealand safer. Those are excellent results already and huge credit must also go to the police for their unrelenting focus on making New Zealanders safer in their homes.There is some pretty smart policing out there with the Prevention First strategy and a strong focus on preventing crime. We visited Auckland. We visited the Mount Roskill police station. We had a look at the crime reporting line. Phil Goff is forever bemoaning the fact that the front desk at the Mount Roskill police station has been closed. He sees that as a bad thing. Well if we talk to the police themselves who work within that station they say that they could not be more happy that they are providing good service to the New Zealand public. People are using the crime reporting line. So instead of having to go down to this old police station stand in line and make a report they now lift up the phone and make a crime report to a person who is a dedicated taker of those calls. They are getting good service.Finally I just want to talk about our corrections system and say that the target for the Department of Corrections is to reduce prisoner reoffending by 25 percent with a result already of a 12 percent reduction. But please do not take just my word for it. Today the Law and Order Committee considered an independent report from the Office of the Auditor-General entitled Department of Corrections: Managing offenders to reduce reoffending. Here is what it said: “Summary of our findings. 2.2 The Department has a clear strategic priority to reduce reoffending which staff understand well and support. The reducing reoffending programme is based on sound intervention logic that targets the groups and behaviours that contribute disproportionately to rates of offending. The Department now offers programmes to prisoners on remand or short sentences who had high reoffending rates but who were previously ineligible for rehabilitation.”Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JACQUI DEAN: The programme is expanding. The programme is showing results. Independent evaluation by the—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JACQUI DEAN: —Controller and Auditor-General is showing what this Government—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):I thought for a minute Mr Deputy Speaker that you were going to give the member Jacqui Dean an extension of time but we are all gratified that you managed to stop her in her tracks.Phil Twyford: On humanitarian grounds.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes it was a humanitarian gesture on your part Mr Deputy Speaker and I thank you for that. That was the member of course who did not know what H2O was. She comes from a province that needs a lot of that substance but she did not quite know what it was when she was written to.The Budget Policy Statement deals as it says with allocations of funds to a variety of Government departments including—as you are aware Mr Deputy Speaker because Mr Parker and Mr Mallard alluded to it—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is interesting that the previous member referenced Judith Collins because we have had a couple of very very serious days in this Parliament. Nothing cuts to the heart of a democracy more than questions over the credibility and integrity of a Minister questions over the credibility and integrity of the Prime Minister and questions over the credibility and integrity of statements and advice that is provided from the Cabinet Office. This all goes Mr Deputy Speaker to moneys allocated of course to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and moneys allocated to Ministerial Services including of course the Minister of Justice’s own office.Judith Collins has made a bit of history today. I think that she could be labelled the “Minister of Cronies”. We know that cronyism is rife in this Government. It gets extremely dangerous and extremely serious when Ministers and others put themselves either deliberately or through a lack of judgment and through negligence in positions where not only their own credibility and integrity can be questioned but also that of a Government.These questions cannot be answered because of course the Prime Minister who has slipped and slid all over this issue day after day will not release Cabinet advice. We found out today and I know there is a quote from the Minister of Justice’s stand-up today where she effectively said when asked why she did not provide this information to the media when she was questioned in previous days: “Oh because I answered the questions I was asked.”—“I answered the questions I was asked.”That might be sort of tricky stuff of course because you have got the Prime Minister—well funded of course by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who has continual brain fades continual amnesia and who came down to the House today had all this advice and then said: “I can’t remember what I did because I don’t have the advice.” Then of course we have Judith Collins who said: “I answered only the questions I was asked.” That might be—might be; it probably is not—a pretty low standard even for question time in this place but when journalists and others are asking you direct questions and you answer only the questions that you are asked there is a word for that. I will not use it in this place but it shows an absolute lack of integrity on behalf of that politician and that Minister—absolute lack of integrity.Even with all the money that is allocated to that Minister’s office and to the press secretary who stood behind her taping every word so that she can go back and check what she said she cannot get her story straight. She is the “Minister of Cronies” and she is not the only one. When you look around this Government you have John Banks—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the debate.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes well all these things are funded through the Budget Policy Statement. John Banks may well end up looking through striped sunshine and the allocation ironically—ironically—through the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Corrections programme may well put him there. It may well put him there because the allocation to the High Court judges of course comes through the Ministry of Justice via this document and others and it may well be that John Banks on his third potential conviction—he has already got two of course—may end up looking through striped sunshine.That is the first rotten foundation followed by Peter Dunne who cannot tell us whether he leaked a document or not. Again that document and the ramifications around it were funded through a Government allocation of funds as represented in the Budget Policy Statement. Then of course we have Judith Collins. She did not look so happy today did she? She did not look so arrogant and full of herself today did she? She has been found out and found out in the worst possible way because she has slipped and slid and would not answer questions.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):It is a shame that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is unable or unwilling to take the rest of his call.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is out of order to refer to the absence of a member.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit—sit. The member did not refer to the absence of the member.JAMI-LEE ROSS: I said that Mr Cosgrove was unwilling or unable to take the remainder of his call. He would have been welcome to give it a go. Actually I think the Minister of Health should be looking at more hearing checks for people like Iain Lees-Galloway because he needs to listen a bit more.I am disappointed that Clayton Cosgrove is unwilling or unable to take the rest of his call because we would have got a 5-minute diatribe from him about how much Labour wants to tax and spend more and how much damage it was doing to the economy when it was last in office. I say “damage” because we know that after some difficult periods of time that this country has been through we are now one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. What we know about the Labour Party when it was last in office is that it ramped up spending. It had a huge debt track that was going to lead us towards having debt of about 60 percent of GDP. We have turned that round.When the Budget comes out later this year it will reflect pretty much the debt track that the last Budget had which would see debt track down to about 20 percent of GDP by the mid-2020s and we know that that is completely the opposite of the direction that debt was going under Labour. We know it would get worse again under Labour because Labour is the party of taxes. Labour is the party of opposing innovation in the economy. It is the party of opposing growth in the economy. It is the party that would see fewer jobs being created in this economy. We know we would see fewer jobs being created in this economy because Labour would take more money out of the economy. It would ramp up the minimum wage which would see more people unemployed. It would also make changes to the youth wage the starting-out wage. We know that would hurt young people because the last time Labour made changes to the starting-out wage it led to 9000 young people losing their jobs. This side of the House cares about young people.Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s another lie.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JAMI-LEE ROSS: I do not care what he says Mr Deputy Speaker. He can prattle on. No one else is listening to him. I do not care what he says because he is wrong. He is wrong because 9000 young people lost their jobs. This side cares about young people getting into employment. This side cares about jobs being created in the economy. This side of the House cares about a growing economy. This side of the House cares about New Zealanders investing in our economy. This side of the House is seeing results. The other side of the House would have a recipe to see fewer jobs less investment more debt more spending and more taxation. New Zealanders have rejected that in the past two elections and I am hopeful they will reject that again.I want to give the House a few facts about where we were in 2008 and where Budgets under Bill English and led also by John Key have seen this country move. When we came into office in 2008 this party saw an economy that had a current account deficit of almost 9 percent of GDP. The current account deficit is now 4.3 percent of GDP—a very big turn-round. When we came into office the economy we inherited had net external debt that had blown out to 84 percent of GDP. Net external debt is now down to 71 percent of GDP. Inflation was running at 5.1 percent. Inflation is now at 1.6 percent. New Zealanders do not see an economy and a situation where the wealth in their pockets is decreasing as much as it was under the Labour Party—inflation at 5.1 percent versus inflation now at 1.6 percent.When we came into office in 2008 mortgage interest rates averaged 10.9 percent. Mortgage interest rates now average 5.9 percent. If members on the other side of the House ever get out into the community and talk to people about what impacts on their back pocket the most it is mortgage rates. Mortgage rates under this Government are considerably lower than they ever were under Labour. They are considerably lower. More money is in people’s pockets because they are paying less in interest. More money is in people’s pockets because they are paying less in tax as well. New Zealanders have had across-the-board tax cuts. Also wages have been going up faster than the rate of inflation. These are all success stories that the Labour Party likes to deny but under Bill English and John Key these are success stories that New Zealanders are feeling.I am acutely aware that I have the Minister for Food Safety sitting next to me. Food prices in 2008—in Labour’s last year in office—went up 11 percent. Food prices have gone up 1.5 percent in the last year under this Government. Labour members like to cry about food and how much it is costing. They like to complain about prices going up. But they forget about the fact that in Labour’s last year in office food prices went up 11 percent. They have gone up by 1.5 percent in the last year. Government spending under Labour went up by 50 percent in its last 5 years—50 percent. One of the problems that we saw in European countries where they had big economic problems was that their Governments had borrowed too much money and they spent too much money.Iain Lees-Galloway: How much money is this Government borrowing?JAMI-LEE ROSS: I am happy to mention the borrowing rates because the track that Labour had us on had us on borrowings of 60 percent of GDP in the 2020s. It is going to start going down. It is being turned round under this Government. In the last 5 years under Labour Government spending went up 50 percent. We have now got spending well under control. Despite the fact that we have had a global financial crisis and despite the fact that we have had the Christchurch earthquakes spending is well under control under this National Government. We are doing exceptionally well in this economy.I want to turn a little bit to the Better Public Services programme. We have focused very clearly on ensuring that better public services are provided to New Zealanders. A report on the justice sector was released earlier today. There are some exceptional changes that have been taking place in the justice sector that are seeing more New Zealanders safer and that are seeing more New Zealanders enjoying a justice sector that is working for them. We are enjoying a country that has less reoffending. The costs to the taxpayer long term are also going down.Crime rates in this country are at 33-year lows. Youth crime is going down and violent crime is going down as well. We have changed the bail system to make it tougher for people to get bail. We have also spent more money on ensuring that there are people getting alcohol and drug assistance while they are in prison to reduce reoffending. There are also more measures to assist people to turn their lives round once they get out of prison.If Opposition members want a bit of bedtime reading—if Iain Lees-Galloway wants to do something tonight rather than wasting his time doing whatever he likes to do; another sleepless night wondering about the next leadership change Labour will have later this year—I would encourage them to read this justice sector report. This report highlights very well the good changes we are seeing under this Government in the Better Public Services programme that we have.More kids are coming out of the education system with better results in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. More people are getting elective surgery under Budgets that we have passed. The crime rate is down. The economy is turning itself round. We are going to reach surplus this year. We are going to start paying debt. We are turning round the debt track that Labour left us on. More jobs are growing in this economy. The economy is one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world. We have got an excellent Budget. I know Bill English will do very well when he delivers his next Budget in May. New Zealanders will get to decide that later this year.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call—Jacinda Ardern.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):Just because you say it does not make it true. To have to sit through a speech from that member of the House Jami-Lee Ross claiming that Labour when it left office left an economy that was damaged is an absolutely outrageous statement unless of course you deem damage to be nine continuous Budget surpluses unless you consider damage to be zero net Crown debt or unless you consider damage to be the highest continuous economic growth since World War II.It seems incredible to me that that side of the House has tried to completely rewrite history when it comes to the economic management of New Zealand under a Labour Government. It is outrageous. It speaks to the lack of trust you can have in the way that that Government describes what is going on in the New Zealand economy today. What is not in doubt at all is that this is not an economy that is working for everyone. Everything that that member just said about the current economic status we are living under in New Zealand ignored what most New Zealanders are experiencing day to day. What he described was an environment where very few are doing well but a lot are doing a lot worse.What I want to speak to is how this Budget this debate this Budget Policy Statement could have been different; how instead of using just economic markers—as the last member did around GDP Crown debt net deficits—a Budget should ultimately be about people. A Budget should be about the outcomes for people. What is the most consistent measure that you get groups like the OECD or even Unicef talking about these days? They talk about how the true marker of a decent society is not those economic indicators but how your young and your old fare in a society. Those are the kinds of markers that we as a nation should be focused on.And how are they faring? Well even before Treasury corrected its miscount recently we now know that our older citizens—the ones for instance who are renting but are in their retirement—have a poverty rate amongst that group of 50 percent. Of our oldest citizens 50 percent who are in rental accommodation are living in poverty. That is a marker of our society. There are 285000 children living in poverty—27 percent. That is a marker of our society. Fourteen percent of children are living below 50 percent of the median income. That increased after we found out about Treasury’s significant error. Those children are living in severe poverty—not just poverty; severe poverty. A large number of them are in their most vulnerable years zero to 4 years. That is the period when those children are spending the longest—that is a marker.And how are those children faring under this economy? Rising power prices are impacting on those children. Rising housing costs—the average house price has gone up 24 percent under this Government. As much as that member talked about interest rates these are families that do not have the luxury of owning a home and who are suffering significantly under increasing rents. High food prices are impacting on those vulnerable children. These are the measures of a society but that is not what this Government is interested in. If it was it would measure poverty. It would show leadership on it. It would have a plan. It would target to reduce it. It would report on it. That is what the Labour Party would do.Labour has a bill that says when it comes round to speaking on the Budget we will put into the Public Finance Act that the Minister of Finance will have to report on how much progress they have made on child poverty. That is the marker that we are going to put up next to the current account deficits and GDP—how are our children in poverty faring? We will set a target to reduce poverty. We will build on our Best Start plan which helps every single child under the age of 3 in poverty. They will benefit from Best Start the weekly payment that we would introduce.Those are the kinds of measures of a society: whether you look out for your young and whether you look out for your old. Therefore that should be what Budget Policy Statements are focused on.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is quite interesting—I cannot remember the last time I followed both Jacinda Ardern and Jami-Lee Ross. It is great to see the three youngest members of Parliament I think all taking a call in this Budget Policy Statement debate because the budgetary and fiscal issues social issues and environmental issues facing our country are pressing enormous challenges.In this debate tonight I am reflecting on the differences—sure there are asset sales and deep-sea drilling—but also on what unites us. I believe that every member in this House and every party in this Parliament wants to see a richer New Zealand. They want to see those kids out of poverty. In a country that exports food that feeds 20 million people I am sure that we can all agree that kids should not be going to school hungry. We all grew up camping on the beach and swimming in rivers. We all love and I believe want to protect our environment. We also want to see Kiwis in jobs. We have all seen experiences of chronic joblessness. I believe there are a lot of things that unite us in this Parliament.It is a question however of the plan. Where is the plan to deliver those outcomes we can all agree on? I think what is clear when you read the Budget documents is that we are absolutely unsustainable. I do mean in an environmental sense—a sustainability sense—but also I mean in a fiscal sense. The debt outlook facing our country is huge. At the moment our current account deficit of 3.6 percent is the second-largest owing in the OECD just behind Turkey. It is absolutely unsustainable for us to carry this much international debt. The only recourse for a small country like ours is to keep selling off the assets keep selling off productive assets like farmland.It is time to take control back. This Budget paints a very dark picture in terms of debt the cost of living inflation and also the simplification of our economy—the reliance on only a few raw commodity exports. What we also know from the Budget documents is that this country is borrowing $1.1 billion a year—$1.1 billion a year—to pay for those tax cuts. As someone of above-average income in this country who has benefited from those tax cuts I have seriously got to question the wisdom when the country is paying for those tax cuts for the wealthy—they are paid for by everyone paid for by previous generations who have had their assets sold off. We are seeing debt spiral out of control. We are seeing an economy increasingly reliant. We are seeing our tradables sector fall behind the non-tradables sector. What we are seeing is the real income earners at a national level the exporters actually struggling versus the non-tradable sector. What we are seeing is the cost of living increase.For a country that is working its hardest—so many New Zealanders are working two jobs; they are working 60 hours a week—this is a country where the cost of living is amongst the highest and we work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages in the OECD. That is why our households are struggling in debt. When you look at the inflation announcement we are expecting tomorrow what we are seeing are rampant house price and energy price rises leading to inflation. We see housing prices are up 44 percent in the last 5 years. Electricity prices are up 20 percent in the last 5 years. An unknown story I think the public should be more aware of is that the drivers of that are leading to inflation which will bring a real cost to New Zealanders.So it is about choice because we all want to see Kiwis in work swimmable rivers and kids out of poverty—but it is about choice. Who is going to focus on that? Who is going to prioritise that? To be frank what I see from that side of the House is a Government that is focusing on the Choruses the Tīwai Points and the Anadarkos not on the real people who live in real streets in real Kiwi businesses—the small and medium enterprises doing it hard in the current environment.What we need is a fiscal balance with a capital gains tax broader capital markets and a broader mandate for the Reserve Bank. We need to strengthen Kiwibank. We need to embrace the opportunities in clean energy where we know there are four times more jobs. We need to support our thriving IT sector.Today we have seen a massive plank in the Government’s economic agenda fall out entirely. It was the Government pouring literally tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money down Anadarko’s deep-sea oil well. You know what? It looks like Anadarko did not find anything. And you know what? It was never going to be a credible economic strategy—hoping that someone finds something down in the depths of the ocean and that they do not leave too much of a mess.That plan to embrace the past has fallen over. It is time for New Zealand to embrace the future and put real people and real kids and their parents first; to be a country that looks to the future with confidence and entrepreneurialism and innovation and embraces new sectors like clean energy and IT. That is the richer New Zealand a cleaner smarter future for New Zealand and that is what we will be taking to the country this election. Kia ora.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this Budget Policy Statement debate this evening. I think I am going to be the last speaker. It is always interesting to follow Green MPs like Gareth Hughes because they often talk about the planet and their place on it but we are just as often not sure which planet that is.I know that in my own electorate of the Coromandel where we have had a very good summer—in fact the farmers on the Hauraki Plains will be saying about now that summer is just about ready to be over because we are ready for some rain; hopefully we will get some this weekend. But we have had a very good summer in the Coromandel and the good people of Coromandel are looking forward to the next Bill English Budget which will be read in May of this year because they know that this will be a Budget that will continue the careful prudent fiscal management of Bill English and this John Key - led Government. They know that when we go to the polls on 20 September the general election policy of the National Party and this Government will remain absolutely firmly focused on the issues that matter to all New Zealanders. Those issues matter to our communities and to all Kiwis: a stronger economy more jobs better front-line health and education services a safer New Zealand and of course the continued rebuild of Christchurch.My colleague Jami-Lee Ross spoke only a few minutes ago about where we were when National came to the Government benches in 2008 and what a dreadful chaotic mess the country was in at that point. Jami-Lee Ross talked about the situation that confronted the Government. We were already in recession ahead of the global financial crisis ahead of the worst economic situation to face our nation and the world since the 1930s. So ours was a Government that actually took a prudent careful and managed approach to that crisis and indeed we did borrow. We borrowed to maintain the social services and the support for all New Zealanders that was required at a time of crisis—a time of crisis when many other countries were slashing freezing and cutting costs and cutting services to their public and their State services. So I am very proud that in fact the Government that I am a member of did not do that and we did a very good job.What I want to focus on tonight is health. I have the pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee and I want to talk a little bit about the progress that this Government has made in the health sector since it came to power in 2008. Over the last 5 years the Government has been working assiduously to improve the patient journey through our hospital system. We have increased elective surgery we have reduced waiting times and we have found new ways to maximise our health care services. Tony Ryall has done an absolutely outstanding job as Minister of Health. He has been described by others—and I would also be one who would do so—as the country’s finest health Minister in the entire history of our parliamentary system. I think he deserves that accolade. I think he has earned it. I think that anyone who has needed to go through our health system would probably endorse that.There have been some very significant improvements made within the health and disability service sector. We have been focused on delivering better sooner and more convenient health care to New Zealanders. This is a Government that continues to invest in elective surgery and has done so even during those darkest days of the global financial crisis. Back in 2010 $51.5 million was invested over 4 years to fund more elective surgeries. That was followed in 2011 by a further $68 million and then in 2012 and also in 2013 $48 million in each of those subsequent years as well. So this strong investment has led to a decrease in waiting times and an increase in surgery volumes and the number of surgical procedures being done.Waiting times are internationally regarded as a measure of quality and performance and so to have reduced waiting times during that period of time when other countries were cutting and slashing their health spending is I think an indication of the careful prudent and responsible management of Tony Ryall and this John Key - led Government. Since 2008 when we came to power the average number of days that patients spend in hospitals has fallen consistently. This is important because spending longer in hospital can reduce a patient’s well-being completely and of course it increases the cost of care using more of our already stretched and valuable health dollars.But it is not just patients in hospitals and those in need of surgery that the health focus has been on. A person’s first contact with our health system is more often than not with their general practitioner. The Government has been working to strengthen and support primary care to provide the best possible care for all New Zealanders at every stage. District health boards are now working more closely with primary-care providers to achieve clinical integration and care closer to patients’ homes or preferably in their own homes. Integrated family health centres provide a more diverse range of health professionals and enable a more coordinated approach to patient care in primary-care settings. This is to be applauded and lauded. I want to again congratulate the Hon Tony Ryall on making sure that in the tough times we have had the focus has been on maintaining that spend and yes we have borrowed to make sure that that occurs.Just one example of how that has occurred is in agencies such as the Health Quality and Safety Commission. Some people may not know much about the Health Quality and Safety Commission but it is a special commission whose work is entirely focused on the reduction of falls and the harm from falls that occur in New Zealand homes in places of work and in our community. Since 2010 the Health Quality and Safety Commission has been building a culture of constant examination and improvement in the health and disability sector. This is a small but very important step and provides further indication of the focus that the Government has been placing on this important sector.Let us not forget just how bad things were after the 9 long years of a high-spending high-borrowing high-handed Labour-Green Government. Remember back in 2002 when Annette King said in the Evening Post that “New Zealand is not rich enough to have the kind of health system found in Australia Canada Britain or the USA.” That was an incredibly pessimistic indictment of our health service and the future of our health services from the then Labour health Minister.It surprises me that a person who entered this House campaigning against Robert Muldoon is now being pushed forward as Labour’s great new young hope in health. Our health system was chaos after Annette King’s stewardship under 9 long years of the Labour Government and we do not want to return to that chaos again. Waiting lists were absolutely out of control and Labour was spending like a drunken sailor but the results were all heading south. So the spending was going up but the results were going down. We all remember those stories in the newspapers and on our television screens of patients who were lying on trolleys in hospital corridors under bright florescent lights for sometimes days on end awaiting basic surgery and treatment. We also remember the cancer patients who were shipped offshore—flown across the Tasman to Australia for basic cancer treatment.It has taken nearly 6 years for Tony Ryall and the John Key - led Government to put it all right and to sort it out. While many developed countries were freezing and reducing their health spending we were increasing ours. So we have got less waiting more operations and more doctors and nurses and we have moved health spending from the back office to the front line. When we go to the polls on 20 September New Zealanders will have a stark decision to make. They will say: “Am I prepared to put it all at risk or will I stay with the careful prudent managed approach of John Key and Bill English?” and I know which way they are going to vote. It has been a pleasure to participate in this debate.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2014.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) BillIn CommitteePreambleJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I rise to speak on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee gave this local bill in the name of Damien O’Connor pretty good consideration in its time at the committee. The committee listened very carefully to a number of submitters who were affected by this bill. It was really sympathetic to the submissions of the people who cared enough to put a lot of time in to coming to Wellington or perhaps giving us a videoconference in support of this bill or indeed in opposition to the bill.There was the desire to delete clause 9. We decided that this would be outside the scope of the bill so the technical amendments were made for consistency to clauses 5(a) 6 and 9 to replace “declared to have been” with “declared to be and to always have been”. Without validation of this setting of the rates the council would be required to undergo a good deal of work that was retrospective in nature around things like determining which ratepayers had actually paid the 2006-07 rates and the amount they had paid. That time 2006-07 was 8 years ago. It was a long time ago in the council’s record and also in the ratepayers’ records. Of course they are not required to keep those records for that long. The council would also have to ascertain whether the current ratepayers were the same ratepayers who occupied those properties in 2006-07 and that is a nightmare in itself.It is something we did consider. The council would be required to apportion rates if there are or were multiple owners of properties. Again the nature of ownership of properties can change substantially over time. Then the council would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment. So it was decided by the committee under the leadership of Nicky Wagner who I know is waiting to take a call—Scott Simpson: A very good chair.JACQUI DEAN: Actually Nicky is an excellent chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and she runs a very collegial environment in the committee which enables the committee to discuss some quite thorny issues. I am happy to say that on this particular one the committee was pretty united in its care for this bill. The committee also determined that any merit of setting a stormwater rate was we decided outside the scope of the bill and that that is a matter that the local authority would have to deal with separately.In essence this bill is about validating certain rates that were set incorrectly during the period of 2003-04 and 2008-09. The Tasman District Council is not alone in having made a mistake of this nature—not exactly the same perhaps. But this kind of critical decision-making by its very nature is critical because if it is not set correctly then we are faced with a retrospective validation bill like this and Parliament I believe is not of the mind to really support this kind of bill. It is a situation that has been brought to us on behalf of the local council and its community so we have got to deal with it. So we are dealing with it.Maggie Barry: Yeah.JACQUI DEAN: Well where does the buck stop you know? The council has been charged with some important decision-making. It has made errors in that so it falls to Parliament to correct them. Damien O’Connor has done a very good job in keeping the lines of communication open between the council its ratepayers and the committee under the chairmanship of Nicky Wagner.Without doing the validation the council will always be vulnerable to challenge from ratepayers over their incorrectly set rates. If it were me—I am a ratepayer—and my rates were incorrectly set I would be ropeable about it. I would be ropeable about it because every 3 years I do vote for my councillors who then select a mayor and I would like to think that they run a pretty tight ship. I would like to say that this Government’s Better Local Government reforms have a very strong push towards enhancing the decision-making capability of councils. I would also like to say that Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers share that desire. I am sure that the Committee would agree that we do not need too many more of these bills but having said that I believe that we have got this one in pretty good shape and I commend it to the Committee.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):Let me just acknowledge my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor for ushering through an issue that is obviously very important to the people of his particular electorate. It is also an issue where nobody wins at the end. Sure we are validating this bill the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill to allow the Tasman District Council to rectify a mistake it made. If we did not do that however the council would still need to find the money somehow and the council would still need to depend on ratepayers.In saying that I have to say that from what I have heard from colleagues in this Chamber most of us are reluctant participants in this affair. Most of us support the bill with a great deal of reluctance particularly when we are validating a mistake made by a council. I can imagine how the ratepayers who brought this mistake to the attention of the council and to this House must be feeling at this particular point in time. I would just say to the council that despite the authority and the power that it will be able to wield with this particular piece of legislation it is still charged with the care of and responding with some responsibility to the people who brought this wrong before the council.I am not going to try to dictate to councils what they ought to be doing but they do need to recognise that their ratepayers the people in that city in that town area who are dedicated to their council—if they were not dedicated to it they would not have brought this to their attention—will have a right to feel some sense of grievance about the wrong that has been done here. I think that the council needs to not be just holding up this piece of legislation once we sign off on it and say that this is what it is going to do but has a responsibility to meet with the ratepayers concerned and try to accommodate the circumstances they face.Despite my name being on the committee report I unfortunately did not get the opportunity to hear a lot of the submissions that were presented there. I did not get an opportunity either to meet the ratepayers who had brought this to our attention. So I simply say to my colleague and the council listening that I think they still have a responsibility to meet with the ratepayers concerned and to attempt to find some accommodation in the concerns or issues that they have raised as a result of the mistake made by the council.I want to turn to the technical amendments and ask my colleague this. The technical amendments suggest that the committee looked at clauses 5(a) 6 and 9. However I would like to know whether my colleague and the council—which is his council—are OK with clause 9. The committee did consider it and it was advised that that was outside the scope of the bill but I am wondering why it was raised in the first instance anyway.I want to respond briefly to the comments made by the previous speaker Jacqui Dean about Better Local Government. This is not the time to be promoting a policy—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I apologise. I got a little bit confused as to where I was and I gave the member a 1-minute bell. It was my mistake. I have been under pressure lately. I apologise. You have 1 minute.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I accept your apology Chair and thank you for giving me that 1 minute’s notice. I would say to the previous speaker that I would be very careful about promoting Better Local Government because as I go around the country and meet up with mayors what they are saying to me is something very very different from what the previous speaker said. In fact some have said to me that the Better Local Government policy is really quite deceptive because it is more about removing democracy from local government. At a period of time when local government is under attack these kinds of bills just do not help the cause of local government. Just briefly this is a period of time when local government is under constant attack by the reform that this Government is driving. It was only the other day that mayors felt that they had to meet in secret to try to force the Minister of Local Government to come and listen to their concerns. That is not a good sign. It is not a good sign when local government mayors have to try to force the Minister of Local Government. It is her job to be listening to mayors and I understand that she did not bother.Hon Ruth Dyson: Who is the Minister?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: The Minister of Local Government now is Paula Bennett but I think she is just the face of local government. I think there are probably others behind the scenes who are trying to drive this undemocratic what they call Better Local Government.Coming back to the bill though these kinds of bills do not bode well for this House and for local government in particular particularly at this time because I suspect that members of this Government would probably be going around the country holding up these bills as examples of why they feel vindicated by not trusting local government more and more.Anyway I commend my colleague again the Hon Damien O’Connor. What a wonderful member of Parliament he is championing the cause of ratepayers and recognising his duty to those voters in the district of Tasman and may I wish him all the best in the coming election on 20 September.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):Back by popular demand I would like to thank the Hon Damien O’Connor for bringing this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill to the House on behalf of his constituents. As I spoke about in the first and second readings it is very important that we put to bed this particular issue and the issue around the rates payments in the Tasman District from 2003 through to 2008. Of course the preamble neatly summarises the mistakes—what ought to have happened in council meetings in that period what actually did happen and where the faults are. So essentially this piece of legislation and preamble talk about the 2003-04 years right through to the 2008-09 years when the council passed rates attached to the annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually which needs to be done under the Local Government (Rating) Act and setting rates before the council had actually adopted the annual plan. That was the second big mistake; it was also in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.The rating Act provides an avenue for councils to amend and correctly set rates but the window for that has now passed. Whether that was because the errors were not picked up quickly or because they were set aside as unimportant or were in fact ignored we do not know. What we do know is that this House reluctantly now needs to pass this retrospective legislation to ensure that what is unlawful in that rates setting is now lawful. So the bill is needed to validate certain rates set incorrectly during that period. Without validation the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers and validation is also required to allow the council to collect or recover unpaid rates and penalties for expenditure that it has undertaken during that period.Looking at the preamble here I think that by way of example it is worth working through the errors that were made in that 2003-04 rating year. I am not going to go through the 2004-05 year or the 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 and 2008-09 years but I think that by way of example the 2003-04 year is a good one to start at and to examine. In that particular year a special council meeting was undertaken. It was held on 26 June 2003—the birthday of many New Zealanders I am sure.The Tasman District Council resolved amongst a whole bunch of things first of all that the general rate including the utilities rate be adopted as proposed in the council’s draft annual plan. So that was the first thing. It proposed that that general rate be adopted. Secondly there was this Motueka business rate which the council voted to be approved for that particular financial year. There was the Richmond business rate which it wished and in fact voted to be increased in that particular year and the council also voted to adopt a community facilities rate. So there you have just four actions in that particular year: to adopt a general rate to approve the Motueka business rate to increase the Richmond business rate and to adopt a community facilities rate. And I am sure the council meant well. I am sure there was some consultation about that. I am sure there was much debate in the council chambers before it voted.Unfortunately the funding impact statement provided that rates be paid by instalments. It set out the penalties and it set out all those rates that the council had proposed. However the resolutions did not in fact comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because the council failed in several ways. First of all the council failed to state clearly that it was setting rates as required by that section. So the vote on the floor should have relayed the setting of those rates as associated with that section under the Act. Secondly it failed to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set when the resolutions referred only to the adoption of some of the rates. So it referred to a few of the rates not all of them. It should have individually set out each of the rates that it wished to be set for that financial year.The council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the council had resolved to adopt the annual plan. It should have adopted the annual plan and then set the rates so there was an issue of order. The council failed to state the financial year to which the rates applied—a simple thing we might think in hindsight. It did not actually state in its resolution as to which year these rates would apply. It failed to say that the rates could be paid by instalments. Lastly it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to the rates if they were not paid by a due date. So I think those are quite simple things that the council overlooked to do—say what year the rates related to say that they could be paid in instalments and actually say that in fact there were penalties that could be added to the rates if they remained unpaid.So there we have it. Many years after the 2003-04 financial year we are now reluctantly having to pass legislation because of the oversight of that council at that time. Of course those oversights ran into the 2004-05 financial year the 2005-06 financial year the 2006-07 financial year the 2007-08 financial year and lastly the 2008-09 financial year which we are dealing with this evening. As I say I will not go forward and explain in detail the errors made in those subsequent financial years. Members can be assured that I know what they are and that I know here and here what they are. I encourage members to read for themselves the preamble in the legislation to get a good understanding and grasp of what those errors were.What I can say is that National is comfortable with passing this legislation to validate in law what should already be lawful had it been done properly and had due process been undertaken properly in the council chambers when those motions were debated voted for and passed. We are going to pass this legislation through the House. It is our intention in National to make lawful what should have been lawful. We do it reluctantly because it is retrospective legislation. We understand there are still aggrieved ratepayers in the Tasman District. We know that Damien O’Connor in a sense was reluctant also to bring this bill to the House but we feel that it is the right thing to do.I do support this preamble. I challenge other speakers to perhaps go through the 2004-05 year and explain to members and to colleagues the errors that were made there. Perhaps Damien O’Connor could do that off the cuff for the 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 and 2008-09 years. I will leave him to make that choice. I have highlighted the difficulties. I have highlighted what are quite difficult errors to make. Those things should simply have been passed by resolution. They were not. That is why we are here today.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):I commend Mr Heatley for his detailed reading of the preamble of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. There are eight and half pages that set out the errors that the Tasman District Council made in its rating resolutions in relation to the urban drainage areas in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay. I will not go through any more of them because I think we would be here all night. The Green Party is supporting this bill which the Hon Damien O’Connor has reluctantly brought to the House as retrospective legislation because stormwater infrastructure is important. The council was trying to ensure that those growing settlements in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach had an adequate stormwater infrastructure. It made a number of mistakes which are itemised in some detail in the preamble in failing to ensure that the rating resolutions were separate from the annual plan and in failing to include a map of the area that the rates would apply to. It was the detective work of Mr Schmuke and other residents of those communities who brought this to the council’s attention.As the Hon Damien O’Connor said the council really failed “Rating 101” in terms of the stormwater infrastructure and the rates but there was a very concerning and quite dismissive attitude by the former chief executive officer of the council whom Maryan Street quoted in her second reading speech that it was cheaper to come to Parliament to get these errors fixed than it was to be involved in legal action. I think subsequently the council has realised—with a number of trips to appear in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee a lot of meetings with the affected ratepayers and the time that this House has had to spend on the legislation—that this is not a cheaper way of doing things. Certainly the council has promised that it will improve and it has improved its processes so that it will not be guilty of making errors in the form and content of rating resolutions again and will ensure that they are in the correct form.Stormwater infrastructure is essential for healthy communities and the stormwater club approach that the council operates in all 16 communities in the Tasman District where it spreads the cost of providing and maintaining this infrastructure over everyone and rates against the capital value of properties is a fair system so it is really unfortunate that the council made these errors in the way the rates were levied or resolved. We certainly agree with the National member for Waitaki Jacqui Dean that we do not want to see many more bills like this one because they are retrospective. But we disagree with her claims that the Government’s changes to the Local Government Act will improve the way councils operate and enhance their decision-making capability because the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill is also considering the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) and that legislation will make councils much less democratic and much more reliant on rates to fund community infrastructure as well as three waters infrastructure which this bill largely deals with and it will reduce the opportunities for public participation which tends to then alienate ratepayers from their councils. It was only last week that we had quite a prominent National Party supporter and former Christchurch councillor Margaret Murray telling the select committee that the Government’s changes were tearing the very heart out of local government for no good reason.This bill is something that the Green Party supports—reluctantly like everyone else—but the changes to the local government legislation are anti-democratic in rolling out the Auckland super-city model of a big unitary council with local boards with quite limited powers. So we support this bill but we will certainly be strongly opposing the major changes to the Local Government Act unless the select committee is able to recommend changes there. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. For those of you who suffer from insomnia which I do at times I recommend that you get a copy of the Hansard of Phil Heatley’s speech and take it. I am certainly going to take it home tonight. [Interruption] No it was an interesting speech but I say to the Hon Phil Heatley my goodness it was full of all sorts of facts and information that probably we did not need. At the end of the day this council made a simple—Hon Phil Heatley: That just hurts.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —mistake Phil. It made a simple mistake. It omitted basically to include a map with the information that was sent out with its annual plan. That map would have had it been included designated where these particular rates were going to apply. Therefore the people in this particular area of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay were not fully aware that it applied to them. As a result this all blew up.The mayor of Tasman District Council Richard Kempthorne sent a letter on 27 August to the Hon Damien O’Connor who is sponsoring this bill—and congratulations to that member of Parliament on bringing this through. The mayor summarised it very well. He said that the council “fully acknowledges that we made an error in setting the 2006-7 rate for the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater urban drainage area. We regret that the error was made.” He went on to say: “We also note that if we had included the required map the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have payable. Therefore passing the bill in its current form would validate a rate that would have been made lawfully if the map had been included.” He said: “We are not asking to validate something that council could not have done lawfully if we hadn’t made that mistake. The extent of and amounts of the rate was clear in the 2006 long-term community plan (LTCCP). When we discovered the error we undertook a review of the inclusion of Tata Beach in the stormwater urban drainage areas (UDA) and consulted the ratepayers in Tata Beach on the options of being included in or excluded from the stormwater UDA. More people preferred the option of staying in the UDA otherwise the status quo than any of the other options.”He said: We’ve explained to you”—this was to the MPs and to the select committee—“that Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers receive a service from the stormwater infrastructure provided in their communities and they pay for this through our club approach. In our view not only is there no legislative power to remit the rates but it would also be not equitable to remit the rates to the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers. A reason for this is that it would mean other ratepayers in the district would then have to pay for stormwater services including those in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay while the ratepayers in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay do no pay for any.There is a heavy demand for stormwater infrastructure across the district following recent flooding events. This is particularly prevalent in Ligar Bay following the devastating flood flow in December 2011. In the end council came to the clear view that remitting rates over 1 or more years with these ratepayers was not a lawful or practical solution.”So in terms of that the Local Government and Environment Committee had no alternative but to accept this information and acknowledge the fact that if there was going to be any form of remittance of rates it would have been a burden on the rest of the ratepayers in the Tasman district which would have been unfair. Secondly if you then have to go and try to find ratepayers over a period of several years—and properties change ownership; they change in terms of their titles and all that sort of thing—it would be a nightmare trying to refund rates or return rates or pay out rates to whoever owned the properties at the time and all that sort of thing. It becomes a nightmare simply because of the fact that a map was not included. It was an administrative error.Mistakes happen. Mistakes happen in central government and mistakes happen in local government. This is a very minor mistake a very small one. Again as some other speakers have said we would hope that this National Government does not again use this as an example of local government in terms of wanting to try to highlight inadequacies in local government when in actual fact like any organisation there will always be human error. This was a case of human error and we would hope that we do not for the next 6 months while we are going through the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) hear these sorts of excuses as justification for the National Party and the National Government kneecapping and undermining local government in this country.We have two tiers of government. We have central government and we have local government. We do not have three like they have in Australia or the United States or many other countries; we have only two. Our local government is very much the grassroots delivery agent for what the Government needs to roll out around this country. If this Government continues to undermine local government as it is doing in the latest local government amendment bill then all we will see is simply a breakdown of much of the infrastructure of New Zealand and the support infrastructure of New Zealand which is so vital to making New Zealand a success.In terms of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) which is very much in line with what we are seeing in this situation we have to support local government to do its very best because at the end of the day there is $100 billion of assets out there in local government and the assets in the Tasman district are just part of that. They are vital to ensuring the future success of this country and we cannot have central government undermining the efficient delivery of service by local government throughout New Zealand.We are hearing more and more feedback from around the provinces around the rural areas—and these are in National Party electorates—that mayors who you would think were National Party mayors are saying enough is enough. They are getting tired of the National Party and the National Government undermining the good work that local authorities are doing throughout the country. I think it is time the National Government looked at itself seriously and asked whether it wants to bring local government to its knees and whether it wants to end up in a situation where New Zealand communities are broken up where communities of interest are destroyed and where it is all about the dollar and about making money out of local government rather than making good communities and good communities of interest.It seems to be that at the present time this National Government is wanting to drive down the council-controlled organisations route to have decisions made behind closed doors to have decisions made by unelected people and to have decisions made that are in the interests of its mates big business and people with interests in commercialising local government rather than ensuring that local government is there to deliver on behalf of the people.So New Zealand First supports this bill for the Tasman District Council. This is a very very minor blip in terms of the significant work the Tasman District Council does. It is in an area that has suffered significant storms and significant flooding. There have been all sorts of significant events in the Tasman district in the last decade and this is a very minor aberration in terms of the council’s overall work. We commend the Tasman District Council for its ongoing good work and we support this bill.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):As we have heard in the Committee tonight the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is about validating the Tasman District Council rates from the period of 2003-04 through to 2008-09. That is when the council just did not follow correct procedure in setting its rates. It also validates the rates and the penalties paid during those periods. Then—perhaps most controversial of all—it ratifies the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate. As you have also heard in the Committee tonight Parliament and parliamentarians do not like validation bills. We would much rather that councils got it right that they used correct procedures the first time. But every now and then just as the member Andrew Williams has spoken about a bit of logic and a bit of common sense demand that we pass a validation bill. These bills always come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we work really hard to get a good result for ratepayers.The test we apply when we are looking at these breaches is whether the rates would have been valid if the processes were followed correctly. In other words is this a technical breach? Maybe the council used the wrong words maybe it did not consult properly maybe it left out a map or maybe there was incorrect timing. Is this a technical breach rather than something that could not have been valid even if the council had done everything right? In this case these rates could all have been levied correctly. The errors were technical and hence the Local Government and Environment Committee—because this test was passed—supported the bill.But the committee was very sympathetic to the arguments from the ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay drainage area. There had been debate around what rating category was correct for the area and why the stormwater levies were necessary when some of the houses along the beach were sitting on free-draining sandy soils and did not get affected by the severe flooding. There was also debate about where the levy money would be spent and the quality of previously installed drainage work. This had been a long and bitter debate between local ratepayers and the council and so the committee did encourage them to try to find a negotiated solution outside the bill. We wanted them to see whether they could sort this out at a local level. In fact we had two attempts to get some agreement between the parties but we were unsuccessful. We considered deleting the relevant clause which was clause 9 but that was outside the scope of this bill. So the committee decided that the time the efforts and the cost to the council—and so in turn those are the costs to the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council—far outweighed the benefits to a small number of ratepayers.The philosophy we used when thinking about this was the fact that we all live in communities. We all pay our rates for a suite of services from local government. Individuals and neighbourhoods use more or less of those services but by sticking together we get the best outcome for everyone. So although some of those properties of those ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay area are less prone to flooding and were not flooded during the last flooding event the roads that led to that area and that they drive on the community facilities that they use and their neighbour’s properties still need to be protected from stormwater and everyone needs to contribute to the community’s solution.We also note that this bill has required a large amount of work effort and expense for the Tasman District Council. We hope—and we have heard from it—that it has improved its processes and that it will be able to manage its rating decisions more efficiently. We do expect it to lift its game because we hope that it will never again require further legislation in this House. Therefore despite our dislike of validation legislation the Local Government and Environment Committee—after much thought much debate—supports this legislation. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):I will just take the opportunity to perhaps summarise a few things. I appreciate the help of the Local Government and Environment Committee members and those who have spoken before to outline—some of them in much detail—what is in this legislation the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I would like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner and all the members of the committee who were so cooperative. They really did try to do their best for the ratepayers of the Tasman district.I hope that each and every councillor is actually listening to this debate. It may seem long and difficult but they should learn from it. We do not like retrospective legislation and I have to acknowledge that the House has committed quite an amount of time to sort out a problem that was basically developed because the Tasman District Council made basic mistakes—both by the staff and in the oversight by the councillors. I would just like to say that in the preamble to the bill here the wording is pretty much perfect except for one word that I would like to change. It does say here in recital 37 of the preamble that it is “desirable” that the irregularities relating to all the rates be fixed—no actually it is necessary. I do not think it is desirable that the Committee should have to commit to fix this.I think we would be sending a message quite clearly to the councillors at the Tasman District Council and to the staff in particular that they pay attention to detail. I would like to send a clearer message to some of the staff that in their dealings with the ratepayers who are ultimately the people who carry the cost of these mistakes they should be more cooperative. From time to time I hear stories where forms that might not have the right signature or something are rejected and sent back and not in a helpful way but in a rather hindering way. In the spirit of the passage of this legislation I hope that the staff at every level of the Tasman District Council acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that they are there to help people not to hinder them.I will just go through a couple of other things. The Tata Beach situation has been mentioned of course. The maps were mentioned. Yes it is true that that particular incident was incorrect and that the determination and the tenacity of Bob Schmuke and a few of those ratepayers saw them take that issue that they claim was incorrect to the Tasman District Council which rejected them out of hand in a rather arrogant fashion. They then took that through to the Ombudsman who ruled in their favour. In looking at this case the Ombudsman then found fault in other areas of rate setting. Again there is a lesson for councils. Sometimes the ratepayers—although they might seem a little obnoxious and they might seem difficult and persistent—are right. In the spirit of democracy we have to respect those people who put time and effort into trying to keep democracy open transparent and accountable.In summary I will just once again thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. There is a message here. The staff and the councillors of the Tasman District Council have to show a little more attention to detail around things like as I have said speed limits around schools where they again have an attitude that in my view may not be correct. There are community facilities that they are not supporting because of various issues. They have got water management they have got support for information centres and they have got internal processes that are sometimes not helpful. What I am saying is that the consideration of Parliament and the passage of this legislation—and I thank members for their support for me and the bill—should be acknowledged by consideration right through every area of the Tasman District Council for their ratepayers and that should flow on to the rest of the country for people who pay hard-earned dollars to support infrastructure to support their communities and sometimes to invest in areas where councils may have some unease about that. So on this particular first part in the preamble I guess that I have summarised some of the points that I would like to make.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I rise to speak about the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. This is of course a piece of legislation that should never have happened. Other speakers before me have alluded to the fact that it is a series of mistakes incompetence and silliness and that is generally a darn good reason why these local government reforms that we are putting through ought to be put through in extreme haste. What we had here was a council that was in the words of the sponsoring member of the bill Damien O’Connor arrogant and it was not treating its ratepayers well. I commend also Bob Schmuke for his tenacity. I think that he is an individual who decided he would make this something that he would not let go of and I commend his tenacity and the rigour that he brought to this particular case. Had he not persevered—as Damien O’Connor said—taking it through to the Ombudsman and really persisting when he was given the cold shoulder and every discouragement possible then we would not be here today.On some levels of course we regret being here today because we have lived through the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill and it is a bit like the Jaws movie is it not—just when you thought it was safe to come back into the Chamber another validation bill comes its way. I guess none of us want that. As other members have pointed out not only has the council’s and ratepayers’ money and everybody’s time been wasted over a long period of years but now taxpayers are also bearing the burden of this having to come to the House of the waste of the House’s time and of the waste of effort that all the advisers and everyone else—let alone the sponsoring member—have had to put into this.I have to say that it is a little ironic when we hear the “Winston First Party” member Andrew Williams who has a former association with the North Shore trying to teach us—Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I object to the term “Winston First”. That is not the correct name of the member.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members must refer to honourable members of this House by their correct name. So in future that will be abided by.MAGGIE BARRY: As I was saying for someone like Andrew Williams who failed so spectacularly on the North Shore to attempt to give us lessons—for the North Shore’s most famous irrigator to dare to try to hand down a few lessons from or hand up a few lessons—Scott Simpson: What was he called?MAGGIE BARRY: North Shore’s most famous irrigator. Surely you have heard the stories. Everybody on the North Shore has an Andrew Williams story and most of them could not be repeated here in the Chamber. I would not waste the Committee’s time going through them yet again. They have been well-tracked through. It is interesting to see that he talks about his insomnia. I think his treatments for it were the traditional ones which had then enlivened his late-night texting and caused him the sort of infamy that even he will never live down. But it is ridiculous to—Tim Macindoe: Probably just lemons.MAGGIE BARRY: Lemonade—well whatever it was—who knows? You do not want to go to into those dark thoughts of what he might have had. I guess that—Tim Macindoe: Aiding the lemon.MAGGIE BARRY: Aiding the lemon. Yes he would have had something to go with the lemons—you are quite right. There is some very helpful advice coming through.When Andrew Williams talks about people making mistakes at the local government level he is after all the expert in that matter because you know mistakes he has made a few and they continue to haunt him to this day. So there are layers and layers of irony that such a failed individual who has so conspicuously not delivered in his own area—the lowest-polling candidate and the guy who never made it back as mayor—did not even get back on one of the local boards. This is the kind of individual whom we will not be taking notice of and we will certainly not be following any advice that he gives. In fact I am surprised that we did not have a “North Shore Council Validation Bill”—from mistakes that that man would have made when he was the mayor. [Interruption] No no. That has all been abolished now partly because of people like himself.As I have said the local government reforms that this Government is putting through at the moment are of course absolutely essential when we look at what has happened with Kaipara and with the Tasman District Council. I think that when you do look at incompetence and slack councils the ratepayers are in a position where they really do need central government to step in and lead the way. It is disappointing—very disappointing—that it has to happen but this is a Government that does not shirk from its responsibilities. We will absolutely ensure that the legislation goes through with due consultation and through due process unlike what happened with the Tasman District Council.I look at some of the submissions that we had—Lindsay McKenzie the chief executive came to us. This was the council that was actually part of the problem. Perhaps the sponsoring member might like to clarify this point for us but in terms of the people who were in positions of responsibility when this mistake with the map was made it would be interesting to know just how many of them were still involved or did the ratepayers get their way ultimately and do what all people need to do when they do not like people in public office and vote them out? We have seen that of course with Labour which had I think its lowest polling ever. Would it have been in the last elections or was that in 2008? Anyway voters whether they are paying their rates or paying their taxes are absolutely within their rights to exercise their democratic right to vote people out. So I am assuming that most of the people who caused the problems at the Tasman District Council were thrown out on their ears.The background of this bill is indeed interesting. I think when you look at the options that the council left itself there were not too many. Three in fact were outlined to us by the chief executive of the now Tasman District Council. An Order in Council was one of the things that the council could have been given according to its legal advice. A replacement rate was the other option. Then there was a local bill and that is when Damien O’Connor took up the challenge of putting this bill through. The council had no choice. It had boxed itself into a corner and that is why the bill is here today.I think the other standout submission for me was from the office of the Mayor of the Tasman district Richard Kempthorne. He wrote us a submission of course and then he came and saw us as well and talked about the fact that the council did admit and acknowledge that it had made an error in setting those 2006-07 rates for the Tata Beach - Ligar Bay stormwater urban drainage area. The council regretted that that error was made and it fessed up to it but it also noted—and I think this is an important point—that if it had included that map the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have been payable. Therefore passing the bill in its current form would validate a rate that would have been made lawful if the map had been included. It was not asking the select committee to validate something the council could not have done lawfully if it had not made the mistake. So when we look at the facts of the matter as they were outlined and as admitted by the mayor the facts were very clear and very straightforward. The enduring miracle—Andrew Williams: Nice compliment to repeat.MAGGIE BARRY: —apart from the fact that the person who is trying to interject at the moment was ever elected mayor let alone thrown out on his ear after one term. Apart from that miracle of silliness from the ratepayers—a momentary aberration—the fact that this council did actually get up and admit that it had done wrong and admitted and supported what Damien O’Connor has done is ultimately a commendable thing.I think when we look at this bill it is pretty straightforward. There are a number of things that need to be learnt. And I must say when the Local Government and Environment Committee was presented with some of those laminated photographs of the beach area and we looked at the Ligar Bay area in particular we could see that it was a pretty straightforward sort of solution. Ultimately I guess there are silver linings to this particular cloud and one of them is that basically this will not happen again—certainly not in this neck of the woods in Tasman and hopefully not in Kaipara either. I think that once we look at what we can do as a Government to continue on with local government reforms we can ensure that ratepayers are protected from the sorts of silliness that we have seen in both of these places around New Zealand that have resulted in members’ bills which are expensive time-consuming and ultimately things that we would rather not have to go through. But we are here.There was unanimity across the select committee.Scott Simpson: The price of democracy.MAGGIE BARRY: It is the price of democracy and it is what we need to do really to ensure—as Alan Martin used to say—that it is the putting right that counts. And that is what is happening so I commend Damien O’Connor for putting this bill through.I would be very interested in the sponsoring member’s response to the question I put to him about how many of the councillors remain and whether there is still a residue of bitterness and anger in that community or whether by putting this validation through it will put things right for a community that has suffered. For someone like Bob Schmuke I hope that the slurs on his reputation the put-downs and the arrogance that he had to endure have been worth it. I have not heard back from Mr Schmuke at all but I did commend him on his tenacity at the time and welcomed that he had come through to us and I hope that Mr O’Conner will pass that on.We do need more Mr Schmukes. We could have used them on the North Shore a few years ago but we have come right now and it is all working terrifically well. I think that they are very well represented by Jonathan Coleman on one side at Northcote. Once again a Labour seat briefly but people saw the light and Jonathan Coleman was then introduced.I will have to leave it there—all choked up. Thank you very much.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I stand to take a call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. Like my colleagues here I would like to reiterate that the bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period from 2003-04 to 2008-09. I think that it is really important to reiterate that because it is just for that one period of time. As we heard this is retrospective legislation. The member Damien O’Connor brought it here. He was supportive of the legislation but not overly enthusiastic and I think that we have got a sense of that here from the debate this evening.The council did not follow correct process in setting the rates and we have also heard that this was a mistake. However we would hope that being retrospective it will not happen again. Therefore we are going to ensure that with this legislation going forward these kinds of things will be put in place. In respect of the local councils National’s Better Local Government reforms will help make local government more efficient responsive and well focused which is another reason why we have given support to this bill and it deserves to be given its due diligence. Better Local Government reforms include a work stream to monitor and improve council performance to help prevent future procedural errors. Again this is not the only council where this has happened so we are hoping that the council going forward will ensure that these types of mistakes do not occur again.This bill will highlight to other councils as I have said the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates. For the sake of consistency a technical amendment will be made to clauses 5(a) 6 and 9 to replace the words “declared to have been” with “declared to be and to always have been”. The Local Government and Environment Committee was sympathetic to proposals to delete clause 9 but found that this course of action would be outside the scope of the bill. As such the committee recommended only the technical amendments discussed in its report. Clause 9 seeks to validate targeted rates set by the council for the 2006-07 financial year for the purposes of stormwater works in the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach urban drainage areas.The committee noted that there would be many practical implications of deleting clause 9. That time has passed since the rates were set compounds this issue. Without validation the council would be required to determine which ratepayers had paid their rates in 2006-07 and the amounts that they had paid; to ascertain whether the current ratepayers were the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07—and I think some of my colleagues have already talked about that too—to apportion rates if there are or were multiple owners; and to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of their refund and requesting bank details for those repayments. The merits of setting the stormwater rate were found to be outside the scope of this bill as well.In 2003-04 and in 2008-09 the council passed rates attached to the annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually and it set rates before the council had adopted the annual plan. This was in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. That Act provides avenues for councils to amend incorrectly set rates but the window of time has now passed. So this bill is needed in order to validate certain rates set incorrectly during that period and without validation the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates. Validation is also required to allow the council to recover unpaid rates and penalties and I think again that my colleagues across the Committee have already talked about that.Some residents objected to details of the stormwater rate and they said that they were not properly consulted on the urban drainage area—that was a really big concern for the select committee—and that they were being charged for stormwater services that they were not using. The committee has noted that aspects of the council’s consultation were not ideal but steps have been taken by the council to improve the way the rates are set so that similar errors are not made in the future. A key part of National’s Better Local Government reforms is monitoring and improving council performance. Publicity about the bill will show other councils that their own processes may come under greater scrutiny.I just want to reflect on the whakapapa of that area and to put it into some kind of context historically in terms of its whakapapa. In respect of Tata Beach that is also part of an area next to Pōhara. The area of Golden Bay that we know now as Golden Bay was identified as the area where first Pākehā-Māori contact was had by crew members of the ship of the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. Unfortunately for those crew members the local Māori there killed them. So I think that was just something that was very much an aside so that there might be some kind of historical context regarding Pōhara in that area. I commend the bill to the Committee.Preamble agreed to.Part 1 Preliminary provisionsJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):Having had a pretty good go at the preamble of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—Maggie Barry: Oh only getting started.JACQUI DEAN: Well we are only getting started because the preamble has a good deal of the description of the bill but really this bill comes right back to council processes and decision-making processes within the council. I think that the Committee understands what has happened here that brings this bill to the House which is that back in 2003-04 rates were incorrectly set and now need to be put right because if they are not put right then in fact those rates would be deemed to be unlawful and the council would be open to challenge.I just want to take a moment to reflect on the decision-making responsibilities of any local authority in New Zealand and on how important it is that those requirements under the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act are adhered to closely and carefully because if they are not then you are going to end up in the kind of state that the Tasman District Council and others—mercifully few—have found themselves in. So it is really incumbent on the chief executive of the local authority to make sure that the calculations and the information put in front of elected members are correct so that when members do go to vote on the rating declaration there are the maps attached that describe the rating boundaries for the purpose of targeted rates and that sort of thing.So although I am absolutely sure that the elected members of the Tasman District Council have taken quite a bit of heat over this how much liability do you place on them? You know as an elected member—and I was an elected local authority member—I ask how much is it your responsibility for making sure that the resolutions that are placed in front of you for voting on are correct and how much of that lies with the council officers. Well I have a view on that. I reckon that although councillors need to make good robust decisions they have got to be made based on good evidence and good information and clearly in this case those councillors made a decision a number of years ago that was not based on good information and good evidence.I think that that is exactly what underpins the purpose of the Better Local Government reforms brought in by this Government. This kind of example just absolutely underlines exactly why we need local authorities that are capable that are proficient and that are focused on what matters. Around rates-setting time what matters is putting good information in front of the elected members so that they can have a good debate about what they are about to vote on because the voting that takes place in every local authority has an impact on rates and is taking money out of ratepayers’ pockets to provide them with services.Part 1 of this bill which is the preliminary provisions describes in detail the purpose of this bill which is to “validate specified rates set and assessed by the Council and the penalties added to those rates;” and it is the penalties where things get quite tricky for the—Chris Hipkins: This is possibly the most boring speech I’ve ever heard.JACQUI DEAN: You see the member over the other side of the Chamber has just said that this is possibly the most boring speech he has ever heard in this Chamber and I think that that is really unfortunate because this matter is quite important to the people of Tasman District. I think that those ratepayers of the Tasman District—which electorate is it? Which electorate is the Tasman District in? It is in West Coast - Tasman and maybe a little bit of Nelson. So let those ratepayers listen to what just happened from the members of the Labour caucus. They are finding this debate which is about providing good governance on behalf of their local authority boring. So I do hope that those people who are listening and watching this on television clearly understand that if they are looking for any sympathy from the Labour caucus for local government then they need not look to Labour. Clearly the member from the other side of the Chamber who has no knowledge about local government and clearly no love for local government has just absolutely displayed to everyone here that those members have no sympathy they have no empathy and they have no liking for local government.I think that that is a shame because local government underpins our communities and the provision and the setting of rates if done correctly is absolutely critical for every single community. It does not matter whether it is Wellington or the West Coast - Tasman—it does not matter where it is. It does not matter how boring that little process is that the councillors have to sit down and make the resolutions on just as we do sometimes. It is about as dry as a chip occasionally. It does not matter how dry and boring it might seem to those Labour members; actually it matters. It matters to those ratepayers because it is their money that is being taken out of their pockets by their council to pay for services that they need.I reckon that Labour has just laid its intentions bare. Those members do not care. They think it is boring. Well I tell you what: the National Government does not think that it is boring. Through our Better Local Government reforms we are putting a huge amount of focus on providing good services in local government. You see over on this side of the Chamber we want to provide—it might be boring and it might be as dry as a chip—Maggie Barry: That’s democracy.JACQUI DEAN: —good service and as Maggie Barry says that is democracy. Sometimes it is a little bit dry and not that exciting sitting down and reading lots and lots of papers and I can understand why the Labour members would not like that—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Now I would actually like to hear something about Part 1. We are actually on the parts of the bill now and the parts are quite limited. I am asking the member to talk about Part 1 of this bill.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much Mr Chairperson because this comes right back to the purpose of this bill which is to correct the deficiency with the Tasman District Council. I think it would be fair to say that correcting mistakes made in the past is exactly what this Government is focused on doing through its Better Local Government reforms. I acknowledge that members on the other side of the Chamber Labour members in particular find that a bit boring but I can assure the Committee that we do not.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I would like to take just a short call on Part 1 of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill because it is a short part of the bill. We have talked about the preamble which covers most of the issues that we are dealing with. Part 1 actually outlines the purposes of the bill which to recap are to validate the specified rates and the penalties added to those rates to collect any rates or penalties that have remained unpaid and also to validate the more controversial part of this bill the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rate for 2006 and 2007. Part 1 also lists the definitions used in the bill and they show us the large number of rates that have been set incorrectly. Yes they are technical breaches and they are procedural errors but it has required a lot of time a lot of energy and a lot of money to bring this bill to Parliament so that those rates can be validated. Yes it is a necessary process but it is wasteful of council resources and when you talk about council resources what you really are talking about are ratepayers’ resources.The member who sponsored this bill the Hon Damien O’Connor in his previous speech to the Committee made a very important point to the Tasman District Council. Local councils should be responsive to the ratepayers whom they serve. They should avoid disputes with those people whom they are set to look after. They should try to deliver what the communities want when the communities want it. This validation bill would probably never have come to the House if it were not for the dispute between the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers and the Tasman District Council. Perhaps that could have been dealt with in a more cost-effective way if everybody had been on the same side. But this was a dispute that escalated and in actual fact everybody from that escalation—the council the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach ratepayers the ratepayers for the wider district and Parliament—were all the losers in this process.Let us hope that this council and others can view this bill as a bit of a cautionary tale. Councils should remember that it is their responsibility to provide efficient effective and affordable services to their ratepayers and so they need to treat their ratepayers with respect and work with their communities. The members of this Committee have reluctantly supported this validation bill. They are supporting it because it is a pragmatic and sensible decision and it will benefit the ratepayers of the greater Tasman district area.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):It is my pleasure to speak on Part 1 of this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Tasman district is a wonderful part of the country. I have not spent a hang of a lot of time there being based in Auckland—Kris Faafoi: Whereabouts?PAUL GOLDSMITH: —based in Epsom—but I have had the opportunity to spend a little bit of time there and it is a wonderful part of the country.I just want to go through some of the preliminary provisions and the purposes of this bill particularly: “to—(a) validate specified rates set and assessed by the Council and the penalties added to those rates; and (b) treat all money received by the Council in payment of the specified rates or penalties added to those rates” in order to fix what was a mistake made when certain rates were incorrectly set during the 2003-04 period through to 2008-09. As you would have heard Mr Chair in previous speeches without validation the council does remain vulnerable to legal challenges from ratepayers over the incorrectly set rates. This part is focused on trying to fix that problem.Certainly my experience in Epsom as in most areas is that rates are a subject that a lot of people get very concerned about because they are not linked necessarily to an ability to pay. They are based on capital value and older people on a fixed income in particular find it very difficult to cope with that. People have a very keen interest in making sure that the rates are as low as possible but they also obviously have a very keen interest in the fact that they are set lawfully and properly. Unfortunately in this instance in the Tasman District Council under the oversight of Damien O’Connor as the local MP things did not quite go right. This bill is aimed at trying to sort that out. National wants to give affected residents the opportunity to engage and is therefore supporting the bill and we have made good progress.I just want to go through the interpretation clause because this really drills down to the meat and drink of this bill. We are talking about clause 4 “Interpretation” which states that in this bill unless otherwise required—we are coming up with a definition for the 2003 rates. Let us look at 2003. Of course that was really the start of the second term of the former Labour Government when it was basically maintaining a reasonably disciplined approach to spending but was about to start increasing Government spending which was to lead to the very significant increase in Government spending overall. I accept I am moving a bit away from this bill but it was a period I think when New Zealand was doing extremely well. We did not really make the most of that opportunity because the Government just expanded its own spending rather than leaving money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders in order to grow their own businesses and make jobs.If we move through to the 2004 rates which is on the next line here it means “the rates set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2004/2005 financial year”. Again if we look at 2004 that definitely was one of the years that the locusts consumed because New Zealand was doing very well but in Auckland in particular we saw house prices really start to rocket based on—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry I will move back to 2004. If we go on to—[Interruption] Sorry did you want me to start again?If we go on to 2005 we will be looking at “the rates as set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2005/2006 financial year”. Again 2005 was when the Tasman District Council started to get into serious problems because the rating information that it laid down was incorrect.Further on if we look at the 2006 rates it means “the rates as set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2006/2007 financial year;”. The problem with that was it was in this particular period that the technical mistakes were made which are being fixed by clause 9 which we dealt with previously. But it was there that the technical mistakes were made and the rates were levied incorrectly and that led to this legislation really which is all about trying to get the right form of words and get it done officially so that the people of Tasman can move on and have some certainty around this area.There are no particular winners out of this legislation because nobody is happy about having to do retrospective legislation in this way. But in the end if the council is tied up in endless litigation then that costs everybody. If for some reason the people whose rates were levied incorrectly do not pay their rates that just means that everybody else in the district has to pay those rates and that is unfair to them. And so the correct thing is to ask whether if it were not for the technical mistakes that were made those rates would have been properly levied and therefore this legislation really just recreates that situation.I will just move on to 2007 and 2008. Those two years were also in error and this bill is trying to correct those problems. It is interesting that this piece of legislation interprets the term “Council” to mean the Tasman District Council. That is a reminder of specifically which council we are dealing with in this legislation. The funding impact statement has the meaning given by section 5 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. These two places are Ligar Bay and Tata Beach neither of which sadly I have ever been to. I have been to Golden Bay if that is in the same district. I think it is. But those two bays Ligar Bay and Tata Beach are the two particular areas that we are talking about and that is what this part relates to.Overall I just want to say finally that National’s Better Local Government reforms are aimed at helping make local government more efficient responsive and well focused. This legislation and this part are not what you would describe as a critical part of that overall framework but it is a bill that highlights to other councils the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates. On that basis I think I have said enough so thank you very much.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Validation and recovery of certain ratesMAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):If you thought that Part 1 and the preamble were fascinating I am delighted to be able to take a lengthy call now analysing clauses 5 6 7 and 8 and then the exciting culmination clause 9. There were no changes recommended to those but the process of how that conclusion was arrived at is indeed fascinating. I am of course hoping that the sponsoring member Damien O’Connor will be able to shine a little light on how the community has responded to the progress of his member’s bill the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill so far but I see he is deeply engaged in conversation. Perhaps at a later moment he might be able to sort of elucidate and come to it. I could ask him again really—now that you are paying attention—to talk about the community and how it feels about this validation and whether it will in fact smooth over some of the hurt feelings and problems that have happened.When we look at clauses 5 6 7 and 8 they are specifically concerned with the validation of the specified rates the validation of penalties the payment of specified rates that have been declared lawful and then clause 8 itself the “Recovery of unpaid specified rates or penalties declared lawful”. A number of submitters opposed clauses 6 to 8 in relation to the penalties in particular. One submitter’s view that was particularly interesting was that the council should be limited to being able to collect only the base rate but not the penalties for late payment on the base amount. This is the logic around it: the ratepayers who had delayed paying the rates because they were invalid should not be penalised. This was considered unjustified because it would mean that the council would then be benefiting from its own errors which is of course something that we need to take into account. After all as every good parent knows you cannot reward bad behaviour. By benefiting from its own errors the council would indeed be in a difficult situation. Well in fact it would be in a good situation but that would send a very bad signal to other councils.One submitter on those clauses 5 through to 7 suggested that penalties should apply only to amounts that remain unpaid after some specified period after the Act comes into force. So you will appreciate that there were a number of submitters who had given this a great deal of thought time and energy. The officials for their part also devoted a lot of time and energy to this. As I said in my earlier call on the preamble it is a shame that something like this has got to the stage that it has and that it has wasted so much of the House’s time and the taxpayers’ money. But there it is—that is the nature of democracy. We know that the Labour members’ short concentration span on the whole cannot really tolerate it but we will go through it—Jacqui Dean: They find it boring.MAGGIE BARRY: Yes they find it boring. That is a very very telling observation. I think that they seem to find most things boring which is probably why the local government reforms will go through and they will go through without too much in the way of rigorous opposition because Labour members just cannot marshal the intellectual rigour to be able to counter any of the excellent arguments that we put forward. So there you go—they are indeed wallowing in their short concentration spans and their problematic moments.I would like to go now to the recommendations of the Department of Internal Affairs on the clauses. It did consider them to be appropriate for purpose. The department recommended no changes to clauses 5 to 8. When we come to clause 9 Mr Chair—and I know you will be interested in this—it makes explicit the nub of the problem which is the 2006-07 Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. It made them valid and declared them lawful despite the category of rateable land not being identified in that earlier impact statement. You know floods occur occasionally in this area and that was explained to us in detail by a couple of submitters—in particular Mr Schmuke who had gone to a lot of trouble to laminate several large photographs and had as I said in my earlier call and as others have referred to just taken it that step further.Nine submitters opposed the validation of the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. They were very much opposed to the initial levying of the stormwater rates on the grounds that no stormwater drainage services were provided by the council and that there was no need for them; therefore why should they pay for them? Further there was no initial consultation on the inclusion of Ligar Bay so those ratepayers felt themselves disenfranchised not involved in the process and were obviously therefore very unhappy at what they were expected to pay. Submitters also opposed the validation of the invalid stormwater rates on the basis of the Ombudsman’s opinion back in 2009 that supported the position that levying a stormwater rate for Tata Beach was based wholly or partly on the mistake of law and fact. Really was that natural justice? No it was not.So the officials had commented—Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):I thought I would just take the opportunity to answer a couple of questions I have been asked. On the one of accountability for mistakes and whether that has run far and wide I can say that there were a number of councillors who lost their positions in the last election and a number of staff have been shifted around. So I think that that has occurred and hopefully the rest of them will have had the message.On this particular part Part 2 I would just like to mention on clause 9 that it was the request of the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach residents to have it removed so that in fact they would then have to go back through a full process of consultation as to whether the rates should be struck or not. The Local Government and Environment Committee I have to acknowledge brought the parties back twice—they were at the committee twice—to try to reach a common position on this. It could not be reached. On balance the committee thought that it was essential that this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill proceed for the good of all the ratepayers and that there should perhaps at some point be some acknowledgment of the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay residents. That is yet to be seen but hopefully is to be committed to and honoured by the Tasman District Council. I am not quite sure how that might occur but I think they probably deserve it.Clause 9 remains in the bill and it proceeds and it is up to the council now to ensure that fairness and harmony exist among as many ratepayers as possible. So once again I would just like to acknowledge the work of the select committee in giving it a fair go but arriving at what I think is a pragmatic solution.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):I would like to take the time to focus in on clauses 5 to 9 of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and on the details that for many members are hidden behind these words. A once-over-lightly reading might suggest that we are making some sweeping changes here but it is important to note that clauses 5 6 and 7 in particular are a summary of what we saw in the preamble. For example in clause 5 here it talks about the “Validation of specified rates” and says that “Despite the failure of the Council to comply with section 23 or 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002—(a) the specified rates are valid …” and on it goes. Well sections 23 and 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act in terms of what we are having to validate in terms of section 23 by way of an example the council in 2003 and 2004 as stated in recital (3) did not “state clearly that the Council was setting rates as required by that section” which occurred in 2003-04. So there was the unlawful action covered by section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. It also failed “to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set” so when the resolutions were made the council in effect did not detail all the rates to be set. It sort of cherry-picked which ones it described in detail and it should have actually resolved to set them all individually and presumably voted on each of them.Also the council did not comply with section 23 of the Act as described in recital (4) of this bill. It did not “set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the annual plan …” and that is an important matter. It should have adopted the annual plan and then the rates setting falls out of that adoption rather than the other way round. Recital (5) of the preamble also talks about the breaches of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act and in this case section 24 was breached because the council failed to state that all the rates were purported to be set in that particular year “that the rates could be paid by instalments”—it never made that clear—and that in fact penalties could be added to the rates. It should have done that all under section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. So in fact when you look at recitals 5 to 7 of the preamble where it talks about those breaches of section 23 and section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act those are the specific breaches we are talking about. Of course that is just in the 2003 to 2004 year.So here we have a change that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended to these particular clauses of Part 2. For a start for the sake of consistency we are recommending a technical amendment be made to clauses 5(a) 6 and 9 to replace the term “declared to have been”—and we are talking about “declared to have been” made valid. We are saying that what we should better say for the sake of consistency is “declared to be and to always have been” and that is much more thorough all-encompassing and clear. It leaves little room for any doubt in any courtroom across New Zealand particularly in the courtrooms of the Tasman district that we are talking about validating rates. They are “declared to be and to always have been” valid. So where this works out in clause 5(a) we are saying that “the specified rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set by the Council”.In clause 6 we are saying that “those rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully imposed by the Council.” In clause 9 we are saying that “the Tata Beach stormwater rate for the 2006/2007 financial year are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set”. So there you have in clause 5(a) “always have been lawfully set by the Council”; in clause 6 “always have been lawfully imposed by the Council”; and again with Tata Beach in clause 9 “set and assessed by the Council”. So it is very very important to note that we have made that technical change. I would encourage parliaments moving forward—so for the rest of this year and I guess if most of the country feels this way hopefully with a National-led Government for the next 3 years—to include the consistency that we have included tonight. That is not to simply say “declared to have been” but to say “declared to be and to always have been”.I do want to touch a bit more deeply on clause 9 of Part 2 as well and that is the validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. The committee was tempted—and many members of the committee are more open to temptation than others. Some of us try to lead more pure lives than others but some are tempted. We were all tempted to a degree by this issue of actually wiping clause 9 off the record books. Given the historic nature of the rating errors in question and being a very open Government and honest about what we do this would be difficult because without such validation a council would then be required to do a whole bunch of things regarding Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. It would have to determine which ratepayers had paid the rates in 2006-07 and the amounts they had paid and ascertain whether the current ratepayers are the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07. What an onerous task. It would have to apportion the rates if there were multiple owners of a residence—so if there were two owners over that time period it would have to apportion the rates presumably pro rata. If there were three owners it would have to apportion them three ways four ways and so on depending on the turnover of that property. It would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment.It is a difficult task tracking those people down getting their consent getting their bank account details—finding out all those details—and in the end having the permission to do so from the individual. So it is a difficult task indeed. We decided that we would in fact retain clause 9 albeit in an amended form. So that is a pragmatic solution to the issue of validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):I would like to reiterate that the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill will validate the rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09 during which time the council did not follow correct process in setting rates. The bill will also validate rates and penalties paid over that period authorise the council to recover any unpaid rates and ratify the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rates. This bill is as we have heard this evening retrospective legislation but it is very necessary legislation in order to set the foundations for better local government going forward.This National Government is about Better Local Government reforms. It is about allowing those councils to make those very hard decisions especially under increasing pressure. However mistakes like this do occur and we are hopeful that this legislation will minimise the risk going forward and will ensure that other councils learn from this mistake. Better Local Government reforms include work streams to monitor and improve council performance. This legislation will reinforce to those councils that they will be monitored and that compliance must be met. Although those viewers at home may find that this is very technical and rather dour and boring it is absolutely necessary that we get this right for the sake of the Tasman District Council and all other councils going forward. I say again that this is retrospective legislation but it is necessary. Of course it is being supported across the Committee albeit not overly enthusiastically but again the bill has got to be given its due diligence.For the sake of consistency technical amendments will be made as we have heard this evening. The Local Government and Environment Committee was sympathetic to the proposals that were brought forward by members of the Tasman District community to delete clause 9. However it must be reinforced that the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is absolutely necessary for the Tasman District Council to go forward in a robust fashion. The committee noted that there would be many practical implications of deleting clause 9 which is actually quite important. It needs to be reiterated and reinforced that the time that had passed since those rates were set compounds this. Without validation of the stormwater rates the council would be required to determine which ratepayers had paid the rate in 2006-07 and the amount that they paid. I am repeating this because although this bill may seem to be technically very detailed it is absolutely crucial that clarification around these technical details is had. The merits of setting a stormwater rate were found to be outside this bill and I think that that needs to be reiterated as well given the submissions that wanted that to be done.From 2003-04 to 2008-09 the council passed rates attached to the annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually and that is something that this council will need to do going forward. To ensure that this does not occur again the council will need to implement procedures to ensure it meets compliance with the legislation. This was in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.The Local Government (Rating) Act provides an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates but the window of time had passed. The bill as we have heard is needed to validate certain rates that were set incorrectly during that period. Without the validation the council remains vulnerable to legal challenges from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates. Validation is also required to allow the council to recover unpaid rates and penalties.Some residents have objected to details of the stormwater rate. They were not properly consulted on the urban drainage area and they are being charged for stormwater services that are not being used. The committee noted that aspects of the council’s consultation were not ideal but steps taken—PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):We are dealing with clauses 1 and 2 I believe of this bill. The title which is the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill could I suppose just as easily be the “Tasman District Council (Recovery and Validation of Certain Rates) Bill” but I think the word “validation” probably should come first followed by the word “recovery”. If we were to have the word “recovery” before the word “validation” we would get ourselves into a terrible pickle. So I agree in essence with the title as it is laid out. It has to be the Tasman District Council because that is the council that is affected by this bill. It cannot be any other council. What puzzles me however is that the bill says “2013” because as we all know it is 2014 at the moment. But I presume that that is part of how it is operated.So we are dealing here with the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and that I suppose in essence is the problem that we had with the legislation—that the rates were not certain at all because they had been incorrectly rated. So this bill here is indeed attempting to validate what had been made uncertain by the poor process. If we can make those rates more certain then we can give certainty back to the people of the Tasman District who have been going through a difficult time because of this bill.The second clause relates to when the bill comes into force. Again the suggestion is that it would be the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Again that makes perfect sense because you certainly would not want it to take force the day before it received the Royal assent because that would not be appropriate. It could have been considerably later at any particular given time and indeed a number of people considered various options. It could have been 1 January 2015 for example but in essence the Local Government and Environment Committee was persuaded that it did not make any sense necessarily to stick with 1 January but rather to go with the date as suggested so as to come into force exactly on the day after the date on which this bill receives its Royal assent. On that basis I think I will leave it. I just wanted to make a short call on these clauses 1 and 2. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Sullivan Birth Registration BillIn CommitteePreambleCHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):It is a pleasure to stand to discuss and debate the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill during this Committee stage of the bill. It has been equally interesting listening to the previous speakers on the previous item on tonight’s agenda. The opportunity for private bills or local bills to come through is a very significant part of parliamentary work even if it affects a small number of people. Most of our legislation of course is designed to embrace populations or large parts of populations or certain sections of them whereas these bills this one in particular affects one individual. It does so in a very particular way because it provides an identity for a person an identity that was in fact lost and has now been restored—or will be restored by the passing of this bill as it completes its various stages.I was reflecting earlier on what I might contribute to this bill to assist the understanding of people who are not familiar with the technicalities of it—and it is a very technical bill. But to give it personal reflection I thought this evening of how fortunate I have been to travel earlier in my life to large parts of the South Pacific basin in particular Papua New Guinea which is a country I spent a lot of time in and fell in love with. But I was constantly reminded of the fragility of personal identification because in that country—and in plenty of other countries in the world probably but fewer and fewer all the time—people do not carry personal identification in the form of passports driving licences or that sort of thing. Their identity is within their own family within their wantok within their groups of people. They are identified because they are known as individuals. And that is very very fragile especially when rural comes in to urban community.In this particular case this bill would require the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her birth certificate. Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 same-sex couples are able to marry and therefore to apply to jointly adopt children. If Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother had been able to marry her long-term partner this situation would not have arisen. Ultimately this bill will make what is a matter of fact—that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen Sullivan’s parents—a matter of law.I would suggest to anyone who asks why we are doing this through Parliament—that this seems to be a lot of time being spent on an individual—to just try not having these things right in their life. I would suggest it is a breakfast lunch and dinner job. It is going to be affecting you all the time.To give listeners and people who are in the Chamber the detail of how this happened I will just go through a list of the events. Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan—that is her birth mother—and Diane Sullivan’s female partner Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan died in 2010 when Rowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields chose not to adopt Rowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this believe it or not would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan—that is the birth mother—Preamble agreed to.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Clauses 1 to 4LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Government Administration Committee for the wonderful work that it has done on behalf of Rowen Sullivan Doreen Shields and the late Diane Sullivan. The work that the committee has done has ensured that the integrity of this family has remained intact. I particularly want to thank the Hon Ruth Dyson who has chaired this process Chris Auchinvole Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the Hon Trevor Mallard Mojo Mathers Eric Roy and Jan Logie.I as the sponsor of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill would like to support the recommendations of the select committee and there are two. The first is that the title of the bill be changed to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”. The intention of this piece of legislation is to ensure that Rowen Sullivan has a birth certificate that names both of her parents. In fact that outcome or that output will be available by virtue of the registration of her parents so I support 100 percent what the select committee has done. In addition the select committee recommends the insertion of a new clause 4 which provides that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are for all purposes the parents” of Rowen Sullivan.I would like to thank again the select committee for its wonderful work. I look forward to the third reading debate on this bill. I thank the Committee and all members for their support. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):As has been mentioned the mover of this bill the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill is Louisa Wall. Can I thank you Louisa for introducing and sponsoring this bill because it is very important for the Sullivan family and they have been waiting for it for a long time. I would like to acknowledge the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson my colleagues Chris Auchinvole and Eric Roy and the other members of the Government Administration Committee who have supported this bill all the way. The Sullivan family and particularly Diane have got a special place in Rowen’s life and she wanted her parents’ names on her birth certificate. Thank you.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill without amendment the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill without amendment and no progress on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from9.56 p.m.to9 a.m.(Thursday)