Volume 701 Week 3 - Wednesday 5 November 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 701 Week 3 - Wednesday 5 November 2014[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:609. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 5 November 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Ministerial StatementsIslamic State Conflict—Government ResponseRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I wish to make a ministerial statement. The Government takes its national security obligations very seriously. As Prime Minister I have overarching responsibility for national security and today I gave a speech on the topic. I outlined how our risk and threat profile is changing the challenges we face and how the Government is responding. Much of that is due to the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Over the last 2 years it has seized substantial territory in northern Iraq and Syria. New Zealanders will have seen the brutal and distressing methods ISIL uses including beheading displays and mass killings. ISIL’s ability to motivate Islamic radicals as well as its growth ambitions resources and methods make it a brutal threat to stability not only in the Middle East but regionally and locally too. It is estimated ISIL has around 12000 to 15000 foreign terrorist fighters of whom as many as 3000 hold Western passports from a range of countries.The rise of such a well-resourced globally focused terrorist entity highly skilled in recruitment techniques using social media is a game-changer for New Zealand. ISIL exposes us to a type of threat that we lack the legislative tools and resources to combat. As in other Western countries ISIL has been successful in recruiting New Zealanders to the cause. Government agencies have a watch-list of between 30 and 40 people of concern in the foreign fighter context. These are people in or from New Zealand who are in various ways participating in extremist behaviour. Some of those on the watch-list have travelled to Syria to engage in fighting and remain there. Others are ISIL supporters who have tried to travel to Syria or to Iraq to fight and have been prevented from leaving by cancellation of their passports.Although I am limited in what I can say it is important to note there are individuals here in New Zealand who are attracted to carrying out domestic attacks of the type that we have seen prevented in Australia and that took place in Canada. I want to stress that none of these people is a representative of the New Zealand Muslim community and I know that the vast majority of Muslims here are as distressed by ISIL’s actions and violent message as anybody is. As a Government we are doing what we can to prevent New Zealanders from going off to fight for ISIL and brutally killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria. Should they return to New Zealand fully radicalised and skilled in fighting they will represent a significant threat to the safety of New Zealanders so we have been cancelling people’s passports where necessary. But even those radicalised New Zealanders who have been prevented from travelling are a threat to our safety and security. In addition to those on the watch-list there are another 30 to 40 people on a list of people requiring further investigation. These people could well be added to the watch-list or given the all-clear. We will not know that until those investigations can be properly carried out.I announced today that Cabinet has agreed to a proposal for law changes in the short term—ones that cannot wait for the broader intelligence review required by law next year. I intend to seek broad political support to pass this very limited legislation which I trust that other parties will see as narrow and responsible. The first change is to give the Minister of Internal Affairs the ability to cancel a passport on the grounds of national security for to up to 3 years. At the moment the Minister can do that for only up to 1 year. Secondly I intend to allow the Minister to suspend a passport or travel document for a temporary period of no more than 10 working days. This would be used where urgent action is required but time is not available to prepare a full package of information to support a cancellation. Thirdly the SIS will be given a $7 million funding injection across the current and next financial years to increase the number of staff it has to monitor and investigate foreign terrorist fighters.Finally I want to update one aspect of the SIS surveillance powers. The SIS cannot generally undertake visual surveillance in a private setting or which would involve trespass on to private property. This means for example that the service cannot install a video camera in private premises even if it was to observe activities of a security concern like people training with weapons. This issue was dealt with on the police’s behalf in the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012. I am proposing that the SIS be given the power under warrant and with additional safeguards modelled on the Search and Surveillance Act. I am also proposing that the SIS be given an emergency surveillance power for a period not exceeding 48 hours to conduct surveillance before a warrant can be issued.The second aspect of our response to ISIL relates to our contribution to the international coalition fighting this entity. To manage a threat like this we need to be well informed and share information with our partners which is the role of the intelligence agencies. We will be stepping up our contribution to intelligence operations that offer opportunities to further understand and potentially disrupt ISIL. We will also be building capability to monitor threats from any offshoots of ISIL that threaten us at home.ISIL is not a short-term threat. Defeating it will mean winning the hearts and minds of those vulnerable to its destructive message. New Zealand as a good international citizen and as a country now elected to serve on the United Nations Security Council needs to play its part in ensuring that the longstanding and some would say intractable problems of the Middle East are addressed. Over the next 2 years we have the opportunity to attempt to ensure that the council designed to address these major issues of stability and security lifts its game.The situation in Syria and Iraq is an extreme humanitarian emergency with millions displaced by conflict. New Zealand has provided $13.5 million in aid to the region since the start of the Syrian crisis in 2011 and I am pleased to announce a further $1 million contribution today to help refugees and the internally displaced. We will also be looking at further assistance to meet the needs of Syrian and Iraqi refugees.Moving on to assisting in building a disciplined and efficient military in Iraq New Zealand cannot and should not fight Iraqis’ battles for them. In the speech today I ruled out sending SAS or any troops into combat roles in Iraq. Our military can and may well play a part in building the capability and capacity of the Iraqi forces. Should military personnel be deployed in Iraq they would be behind the wire and limited to training local forces in order to counter ISIL and legitimately protect innocent people. Cabinet has asked for further advice on this training option which will be filled by regular forces. That advice will take some time to be completed and will involve assessing how safe and secure a training location is and whether our security requirements can be met. We are talking to our longstanding partner Australia about what it is doing to help train the Iraqi forces and how we might help. New Zealand military planners will travel to the Middle East to assess the training option and then provide further information to Cabinet.We are also looking at where our military could make a contribution outside Iraq by supporting more longstanding operations where our partners have relocated resources to address ISIL. All of this will be carefully thought through before final decisions are made. As I said in the speech today New Zealand has long been portrayed as having a benign threat environment. It gives me no pleasure to say that this is changing. New Zealanders can be sure that we are taking careful and responsible steps to protect their safety and security.Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour):First of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity for the House to respond to his ministerial statement. It is at times like this that Parliament can be at its best. It is a time when politicians can show New Zealanders that reasoned and constructive debate is possible on issues of national and international importance.The speech given by the Prime Minister this morning and the statement we have just heard in the House today regarding his Government’s legislative response aid and diplomatic efforts to combat the atrocities occurring in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warrant our serious consideration and full debate. Security at home and protection of New Zealand citizens must always be a top priority for any Government—security on our streets security in our homes in our workplaces in our schools and so on. New Zealanders expect Governments to take necessary measures to protect them and their families from preventable danger within the bounds of reason and within our obligations under international and domestic law—human rights law international refugee law and international humanitarian law.New Zealand does have a proud record in upholding fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. We have as a country managed to balance the need for security and respect for human rights. At times it can be difficult to have that balance. Hindsight is often used to look at the decisions made after the event. Today people are expecting Parliament to get the balance right—to arrive at a response to the growing unrest and violence by ISIS in a calm and proportionate way.The legislation that has been outlined by the Prime Minister today seeks to extend the powers of the SIS to investigate and monitor people who may be a threat to our security. Our role as the Opposition is to question the balance and to be vigilant in terms of the legislation on behalf of New Zealanders. The provisions in the legislation are to be parallel to those currently available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act which would enable visual surveillance in private places. The powers of the SIS are also to be extended to authorise surveillance activities to be undertaken in an emergency situation without warrant for the duration of no more than 48 hours.There must be safeguards Prime Minister to prevent abuse and appropriate warrants should be issued as quickly as possible in these very rare circumstances. We would not want to see the 48 hours become the minimum or the standard operating procedure which we have actually seen from the Government in terms of Official Information Act requests waiting until the legal time is up before releasing information. So we are saying: “Do not let the 48 hours become the norm.” If it can be done faster it ought to be done faster. If the Prime Minister is not available within 48 hours to approve the warrant then there should be an alternative available.We will examine the provisions very carefully at the select committee to ensure safeguards are in place to minimise potential abuse of the extended power. We will also require that when reporting on the number of warrants issued under this provision the Prime Minister report on how long it took before approval was given. I think that will give us a pretty good idea of how fast warrants like this can be regularised. The legislation also provides powers to disrupt and restrict travel by those seeking to fight alongside designated terrorist groups. The right to free travel by New Zealanders is a precious one and we are keen international travellers. But clearly there are grounds where restrictions can be justified. A person intent on engaging in terrorist acts or seeking to join with organisations that are committing crimes against humanity are such grounds.The United Nations Security Council in Resolution 2178 on 24 September this year expressed grave concern about the acute and growing threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters those who attempt to travel to become foreign terrorist fighters and the recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters. As a member of the United Nations Security Council and as good international members New Zealand needs to heed those grave concerns and put in place appropriate measures. However the cancellation of a passport while a New Zealander is overseas cannot be undertaken lightly. It will be important that any New Zealand citizen when this happens is issued with travel documents so that they can return to New Zealand immediately. It would not make sense to render a person stateless and increase their potential to re-engage with a terrorist group.Labour broadly supports the provisions as outlined today and we believe that they appear to be justified to ensure safety at home as well as meeting our international obligations. As I said our role ought to be vigilant to closely examine the bill at the select committee and to ensure the measures are workable are necessary and are framed appropriately. We are glad that it is going to the select committee to enable New Zealanders to have a say. I thought at one stage that there was some doubt that that might happen but I am pleased that it is going to a select committee even if the process is truncated. The Australians managed to send their legislation to the Senate and to the Lower House.After what has felt like decisions made on the drip-feed—a snippet here a clue there and a hint dropped over there—we are finally seeing the Government’s contribution to the conflict caused by ISIS. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced humanitarian support for refugees from Syria and Iraq and has ramped up diplomatic efforts to address the rise of ISIS. We support such measures. It is clear to us that New Zealanders support an approach like this rather than front-line troops or even SAS troops fighting on the front line.If Prime Minister the next step by the Government is to involve New Zealanders in some sort of military involvement we think it is also clear that the majority of New Zealanders would like such a decision to be backed by the United Nations. We urge the Government to use the mandate it now has as a member of the Security Council to speak up on behalf of a mandated approach to those countries to use the influence that we have over the next 2 years.Bill English was the leader of the National Party in 2003 when Labour decided not to go into the war in Iraq. At that time he said he wanted openness and honesty. That is what he got then and that is what this Parliament is asking for now. Nobody wants to see the spread of war or the atrocities that have been perpetrated on innocent people not least the people who live in those countries or the families who are in New Zealand. Christopher Finlayson and I recently met with some of those families who are so fearful for what is happening to their families in those countries. What we can do in terms of helping refugees fleeing from those countries is to back and support them.Can I conclude by saying that I have always liked the quotes of Mahatma Gandhi and this is one I think is appropriate today. He said: “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Thank you.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party stands for peace and for freedom. Peace is the best weapon that we have in achieving personal security. It is a simple fact that New Zealanders are safest in a peaceful world. Our democracy is only as strong as our personal freedoms. When personal freedoms are eroded our democracy is weakened.Today John Key has eroded our quest for peace both at home and abroad and has eroded New Zealanders’ personal freedoms. By offering support to the US-led war with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) he leads us into part of a strategy that reduces the prospects of enduring peace in the Middle East and in the process we are also being told we have to give up freedoms here at home. That is a lose-lose strategy.We believe that reduced international and national security the erosion of civil liberties in New Zealand and the introduction of the politics of fear into our national debate is much too high a price to pay for involvement in the US-led efforts against ISIS. The Green Party stands for an entirely different approach. We believe there is a better alternative. Rather than yet again pursuing the tried and failed approach of military incursion into the Middle East resulting in increased radicalism and surges in terrorist activity we should instead lead efforts that result in genuine peace and security.This is the test that we would apply to our Government’s actions. Does our course of action lead to peace abroad and greater security at home and does our course of action strengthen or weaken personal liberties? It is our view that the approach set out by John Key today takes us further from peace and weakens our democracy. We stand for peace overseas that delivers freedom at home.New Zealand has a rightfully proud record of trying to do the right thing in the world. The value of our independent and principled foreign policy was recently highlighted by the trust placed in us by those countries that supported us in the United Nations Security Council bid. When needed and when right we have not been afraid to roll up our sleeves and work with others to achieve lasting peace in the world. Sometimes this has meant dying alongside other countries. But ever since the war in Viet Nam we have learnt to question our involvement in the wars that our traditional allies have entered into around the globe. We have been better off for this questioning approach. The 10-year war that followed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 we wisely stayed out of. It was the right thing to do. That war ended inconclusively at great cost to both the US and Iraq and played a big part perversely in the rise of ISIS.Supporting war whether directly with boots on the ground or through other actions is one of the most important decisions that we as a nation can ever make. It is our view that through our intelligence-gathering activities and support for US-led efforts New Zealand is part of the American war effort. What John Key has set out is New Zealand’s clear support for those fighting the war with ISIS.Today the Green Party is clear in its position. We do not support any form of military engagement with the war effort. This includes training support for the Iraqi army. Regardless of how the Government seeks to frame it the reality is that any military assistance is a contribution to the war effort. It is our view that the war effort will not result in peace. It is a strategy without an end point and has a low chance of success. It is a myth that Western intervention can destroy ISIS. A war will not solve what is at heart sectarianism in Iraq.Ten years of war waged by America could not solve the tensions that divide Sunni and Shi’a Iraqis or divide extremists from the moderates so how will this time be any different? Even an intensive decades-long American ground effort something that is politically not on the table might only make the problem worse. ISIS’s presence in Iraq and Syria is fundamentally a political problem not a military one. Doug Ollivant national security adviser for Iraq from 2005 to 2009 told Vox Media: “I take the somewhat modest position that the actions of 6 million Iraqis may be more important than those of 30000 troops and one very talented general”.The world can defeat ISIS and build a lasting peace. We in the Greens are committed to this outcome but there are better ways to achieve it. There are better ways to achieve it than through military Western intervention.The Green Party strongly supports a commitment to additional humanitarian aid in the region and a commitment to finding an enduring political solution to the war in the Middle East especially now that we are in the key position to do so on the Security Council. By contributing humanitarian aid New Zealand can demonstrate that our primary concern is for the needs of the victims particularly children. By contributing our independent foreign diplomacy at the UN New Zealand can demonstrate our commitment to collective peace and security the only real long-term solution to the horror of war and terrorism. If New Zealand wants to make a difference on the Security Council by going in clean we will be more credible advocates for finding a political solution in the Middle East.Any military deployment in the Middle East will undermine our peace and security here at home. Although this is not a compelling reason on its own to avoid engaging in conflicts around the world where it is just and the outcome will be lasting this US-led war against ISIS does not justify those costs that we will bear here at home.Rather than eroding our civil liberties it is now time to strengthen our tolerant and free democratic society. Rather than shutting down it is now time to open up. Let us look at what enlightened leaders are doing to reduce the risk posed by foreign fighters rather than rely on the failed policies of the Abbott Government in Australia. Joining the US-led war in the Middle East is already increasing the climate of fear back here at home. We saw it in the Prime Minister’s speech today and in his recent statements. Fear pervades the drip-feeding of allegations that raise suspicions about our neighbours and others who share our community. Fear is the tried and true playbook of those who seek to build artificial walls between us.The Green Party rejects becoming a nation of fear. Fear is the breeding ground for intolerance violence and the slow sure erosion of our own hard-fought-for rights freedoms and duties to one another.Today John Key announced the erosion of a few more of our rights as citizens. There will be $7 million of funding for our secret services increased scope for the State to cancel New Zealanders’ passports and most problematically the expansion of video surveillance by the SIS without the prior need for a warrant. The continual encroachment of the surveillance State here in our home is part and parcel of the commitment to the war on terror abroad. War abroad and spying here at home are two sides of the same coin. Our police already have extensive and sufficient powers to pre-empt an investigation into crime that is being planned here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We have no clear evidence for more. We will not stand by and watch New Zealand become another paranoid society—one where our secret services have even greater powers to spy on us one where our freedoms are progressively withdrawn and one where spending on security becomes a higher priority than the crisis of New Zealand’s child poverty.Today I speak on behalf of a truly independent foreign policy that works for peace as the best form of security—a foreign policy that aligns foreign and domestic interests. I speak on behalf of our personal freedoms. I put them on a pedestal to be eroded only in the most extreme of cases. I speak on behalf of those New Zealanders who believe in alternatives to war and fear and those who aspire to genuine peace and freedom. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):New Zealand First welcomes the chance to debate the Prime Minister’s statement today on the Government’s response to the threat of the Islamic State movement and the proposed new legislative powers to counter the threat of international terrorism. We share the view that the threat posed by the Islamic State is indeed very serious and there are no grounds for complacency.Welcome as it is we do consider the Prime Minister’s statement to be seriously overdue and lacking chronological detail. There has been enough delay. There has been far too much prevarication. New Zealanders have seen events unfolding internationally and have had only a vague and indefinite comment from time to time from the Prime Minister. In the area of national security the public must take so much on trust alone. That is because understandably nearly all the work has to be done behind closed doors but a Government has a duty to keep the public as informed as it can be on what commitments and undertakings are being given in the area of international security. Ultimately it is the public who will pay the price of those commitments.In our view up until now the Prime Minister has been less than forthright. We do note that the briefings given to journalists such as David Fisher in today’s New Zealand Herald on page A15 are far more substantial than the briefings that were given to us. Why that would be the case and we should be expected to go along with the Government is beyond us but there it is. That briefing is more comprehensive I believe than that given to other parliamentary parties.The result has been that the public’s confidence that the Prime Minister will act with the highest integrity in relation to security issues has been eroded. But today the Prime Minister has finally set out his Government’s response in terms of changes to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation and how New Zealand can contribute to the wider international effort to combat the Islamic State.At this juncture it is important that New Zealanders know where New Zealand First stands on these important issues. The changing context is important. New Zealand enjoys a great geographical advantage in our distance from the world’s troubled regions. To an extent that the distance is in an era of global terror threats an illusion. But what is evident is that we are part of the global community. Events in the Middle East matter to New Zealand. The Islamic State movement is a deeply disturbing development that has unleashed a form of barbarism that no responsible country can ignore.On the issue of New Zealand’s national security matters New Zealand First stands with some basic principles. First our national security is ultimately our most important national interest. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and protection of its citizens. New Zealand First has always taken the view that this is the primary responsibility of the Government but equally that Opposition parties must also display responsibility. Second New Zealand has a great stake in a stable international order. We are a small and essentially defenceless nation. The last thing we want is international disorder and chaos. Third New Zealand’s capacity to contribute to international efforts against terrorism is small. We must make careful and considered decisions. There is nothing to be gained from pretending otherwise.But this is a time when we can reflect on what Edmund Burke the great British political thinker observed: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” Accordingly we do support some of the measures the Prime Minister has mentioned today as ways New Zealand can contribute to the international effort against the Islamic State such as intelligence cooperation and diplomatic and humanitarian support. On the issue of audio-surveillance if the laws are transposed from audio surveillance to visual surveillance then they cannot really be an expansion—it is just an inclusion of better technology.But the Prime Minister must be clear and unequivocal on the issue of committing New Zealand to a combat role. Any New Zealand military forces sent to the Middle East will be construed by the Islamic State as in effect combat-related. Yesterday the Prime Minister denied Cabinet had made a decision. That denial was patently false. The people who briefed us had already told us that Cabinet had made a decision so why the Prime Minister rose in the House yesterday and denied it is beyond me. Second as those denials were being sounded there were military planners who had already left New Zealand to act on behalf of this country suggesting that a Cabinet decision had already been made.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Already there.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well if they are already there why was there the denial in the House yesterday on such a serious matter? Cooperation with Australia is also going to be construed by the Middle East in the same way as we would construe it if we were being neutral.We cannot slip into combat by stealth. We cannot support policy when we are not being told the full truth open and honestly on the related issue of strengthening some legislation in the areas of passport controls and as I said visual surveillance and providing extra funding for the SIS. We will need to see the full details before reaching a final position. But in our view it is right that the Government should seek as wide a degree of cross-party support as possible for national security issues and matters. That means taking other parties into its confidence and not giving preference to journalists in terms of information as is so clearly demonstrated in evidence on page A15 of the New Zealand Herald today.We will consider the proposed legislative package carefully and responsibly. Our evaluation will be informed by the principle that on questions of national security New Zealand First takes a realistic stance. We live in the real world and in this regard we are highly critical of the Government’s open-door immigration policy. If people over there are so concerned about this matter then why has there been such a loose immigration policy for so long? Who is here who should not be here? What checks have been made? We are not satisfied that the level of scrutiny and checking that immigrants are given is adequate given the nature of modern terrorism. We cannot put our heads in the sand in a world of extremists and terrorists such as the Islamic State that stand opposed to everything we value as a democratic and free society.To ignore the threat posed by the Islamic State would be irresponsible and recent events graphically illustrate that terrorism can now be home grown and it also does not respect international borders. Yet New Zealanders enjoy civil liberties that must not be abandoned lightly or casually in a rush to be seen to be doing something.Coming back to the point if we are going to carry on with our open-door immigration policy with so little scrutiny then there cannot be people over there who are seriously being genuine in their concerns. For this reason New Zealand First will assist the Government to meet legitimate national security goals as long as we are satisfied that the extra legislation as outlined by the Prime Minister today is fully needed and justified. On national security or on any other issue New Zealand First will not be rubber-stamping legislation.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I stand to follow on from other speakers in respect of the opportunity given by the Prime Minister to make a statement today.Today’s announcement about the possibility of New Zealand entering into a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is set against in some senses some uncanny circumstances. Today Māoridom at least and those of Taranaki think about the cost and the casualties of Parihaka and also of course tonight is an acknowledgment of the works of Mr Guy Fawkes a ritual that has no cultural relevance to Aotearoa.It was 133 years ago early in the morning of 5 November 1881 that a small New Zealand settlement was the scene of one of the worst infringements of civil and human rights ever committed and witnessed in this country. A gentle rural community was invaded by 150 militia and armed members of the constabulary. As innocent children welcomed the army within their midst over 2000 locals watched on in silence. This was not an invasion by foreign troops on our own soil. Amongst the military forces in attack were politicians driven by their hunger for the rich fertile prime lands of Taranaki. The forces were led in fact by two members of Parliament both Cabinet Ministers.In respect of Mr Guy Fawkes it is my suggestion that today although there might be sparklers and rockets throughout the country tonight most New Zealanders will not be aware of the history that comes from that event—namely a plot to blow up Westminster Palace and to take the life of the then monarch King James I.I pay particular reference to Parihaka on this historical day because it provides a glimpse into war in our own nation. It gives some sense of harm caused to generations of families through the military action. The people of Parihaka commonly refer to that as Te Pāhuatanga o Parihaka the invasion of Parihaka. It is still even today spoken about.The Māori Party is strongly opposed to New Zealand taking up military involvement in Iraq in a civil war not of our making. During the 2003 to 2013 deployment in Afghanistan Aotearoa lost 10 New Zealand soldiers. As a nation we suffered the loss of lives through military presence in Afghanistan at a great and enduring cost to the well-being of families and communities living here.There is another reason why I wanted to refer to Parihaka. Parihaka was also the birthplace of course of the unique movement of passive resistance associated with the visionary leadership of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. Both men were committed to non-violent action drawing on ancestral wisdom to offer both spiritual and political leadership while war broke out all around them.There are other options that we could explore. We welcome the emphasis that the Prime Minister gave in his statement today towards humanitarian aid. The expression of manaakitanga in a global context is demonstrated by the commitment to increased support for refugees from Syria and Iraq who have fled their homes in terror as the result of the ongoing violence. This is a responsibility for peacemaking at an international level which we absolutely support. It is a responsibility that is consistent with other members who have held my office such as Sir Apirana Ngata who soon after war was announced in 1939 put into words the sacrifice our whānau were prepared to make. He said: “We are participants in a great Commonwealth to the defence of which we cannot hesitate to contribute our blood and our lives. … We are of one house and if our Pakeha brothers fall we fall with them. How can we ever hold up our heads when the struggle is over to the question: ‘Where were you when New Zealand was at war?’ ”.Our participation in serving the nation in such a way came as a result of our commitment to honouring the obligations and duties which we believe came out of the covenant we signed in the Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We commend that generosity of spirit that incredible sacrifice of life and limb that has caused enduring harm to the spirit of the generations who follow.I want to take us back to the last decade of deployment to Afghanistan. Those 10 fallen soldiers killed in attacks in the Bamian Province or Kabul were aged between 21 and 41. Seven were in their 20s—young New Zealanders starting off in life their lives brutally cut short. We cannot forget their sacrifice and indeed the sacrifices of the Second World War of the Korean War of the Malayan emergency and so on. The New Zealand Army Ngāti Tūmatauenga has served with distinction in the major conflicts in the 20th century; it has given so much to fight for for the honour of our country overseas. But when do we get around to having the national discussion around military contribution?Although the statement today—thankfully—rules out sending the SAS or any other troops into the combat roles in Iraq it does state that the military can and may well help with building the capacity and capability of Iraqi forces. It also indicates a willingness to help train the Iraqi forces to deploy military planners to the Middle East to determine whether New Zealand can play a role in helping Iraqi defence forces. We understand the importance of diplomatic and intelligence measures in order to engage but the Māori Party asks: “What makes the training work any different to being in the front line firing the guns?”. Although there is a clear statement that there will be no combat role in Iraq we are not convinced that helping to train the Iraqi forces is sufficiently removed from the combat zones.Throughout the wars of the 1860s the Parihaka leaders forbade the use of arms and condemned violence and greed and in doing so they modelled the art of passive resistance as a template for healing a nation for responding to conflict through peacemaking and dialogue. We have a proud history of protecting communities through different means through peace building. This is an opportunity we say surely to ensure that our distinctive legacy of peaceful action might be useful.There is one other area that I want to touch on and that is the increased authority and intervention by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to carry out video surveillance on private properties for the purpose of observing activities. The Māori Party will stand on record as stating our absolute opposition to any such actions that would see a repeat of Operation Eight in which the innocent lives of the whole communities of Ruātoki were trampled on traumatised and for ever changed as a result of the heavy hand of the State.We stand alongside the Tūhoe nation who have only just received the formal acknowledgment by the Crown in the last few months or at least by the police as well of those injuries that occurred on 15 October 2007. This incident was disproportionate surveillance under the guise of national security. What the Independent Police Conduct Authority has concluded is that the police failed to meet expected standards when carrying out the Ruātoki and Tāneatua road blocks and five of the 41 property searches. Tūhoe Ruātoki Tāneatua—let us not forget that we have raised these concerns at the highest levels and we expect this action to never occur again.We do support the need for citizens in their areas to have the ability to look after themselves to be self-determining and to be able to care for themselves against the atrocities of war but we will never ever support any contribution of a military nature that seeks to strengthen the potency of Iraqi forces to fight others. Our focus will always be on being a good international citizen promoting models of peace and supporting the well-being of families to care for themselves but we can do that in a peacemaking and humanitarian mode not in the context of civil war. We have a great international reputation of providing humanitarian support. Let us stay where we are strong. Nō reira kia ora tātou katoa.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Government’s response to the Islamic State conflict. I think it is a good step for this House to be following. But I think the next step is for such statements in future to be made directly to Parliament and not to an interested audience of notables and worthies outside Parliament in advance of this important occasion.From the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 through to the most recent American intervention in Iraq the history of Western intervention in the Middle East has not always led to peaceable outcomes. We have certainly seen more confusion more upheaval and more bitterness created by some of those interventions over the years and that is why I think the Government has taken a prudent course in ruling out any form of military involvement by New Zealand in the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). I think that that is not just recognition of our particular strength or lack thereof but it is also correct in terms of the course of history and I must say in passing that the sending of military advisers to Iraq is in my view at the outer limit of acceptability.But the issue really now comes down to a humanitarian one. No one anywhere can tolerate the barbarity the brutality the exhibitionism and the crudity of the ISIS terrorists. What we have seen in the media and social media is unacceptable by any norm but we need to be very careful that we do not transfer our abhorrence of this behaviour into a lack of understanding or a preparedness to even consider the political views that lie behind that most brutal expression. That is why it is appropriate for countries like New Zealand to work through humanitarian assistance to the affected parties and as the Prime Minister’s speech earlier today made reference to assist with the construction of sound institutions of State and forms of governance to promote democratic ideals—to promote the sorts of values that we might regard as important in a free society—rather than a brutal suppression of those ideas because we abhor the methods that the proponents use. Just as we might later today celebrate—although some of us might commiserate with—the demise of Guy Fawkes 500 years ago because of the methods that he used we cannot get into the same risk with regard to our treatment of the ISIS terrorists.There are a number of measures contained in the Prime Minister’s announcement that I want to comment on specifically. If I can put on my hat as the Minister of Internal Affairs for just a moment I think that the changes proposed to the passports legislation are appropriate. The current legislation has been shown to have some deficiencies particularly in terms of the duration of a suspension but also in the definition used which at the moment is specific to the interests of New Zealand. The question that then arises is how those interests might be interpreted. Are they New Zealand’s domestic interests or wider interests or a combination of both? So I think that the changes proposed in that respect are positive and there are safeguards contained within those proposals that mean that we will not get a ridiculous or rampant use of those provisions.I think the same can be said for the changes regarding surveillance by the SIS although I have some misgivings about aspects of that but broadly speaking they line up with the provisions that the police already have. They will be subject to a warrant and that warrant under the legislation changes last year is much more accountable publicly than was the case previously. In an ideal world these changes would have awaited the outcome of the review of the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau due to occur after 30 June next year but I accept that that may not be a practical step even though it might be a preferable one and I think that the idea of therefore having some sunset clauses about those particular provisions is a good one. But I echo a comment that was made by an earlier speaker. I want to ensure that the sunset clause is exercised not at the last minute but as soon as the changes that arise from the review next year are put in place.I must say that I do have some concerns about the additional funding of $7 million being advanced to the SIS. I think that that is a matter that requires more scrutiny in terms of the direction of that expenditure—the purposes to which it is being put—and I am sure that that is something the Intelligence and Security Committee will turn its mind to in due course. Beyond that there was a comment in the Prime Minister’s statement regarding greater international intelligence cooperation. I have some very real misgivings about that because I have lingering concerns about the capacity of our Government Communications Security Bureau to contribute effectively to that process. It seems to me that what we are reliant on in a lot of cases is external intelligence coming into New Zealand to assist us in the decisions we might make. In that context I therefore worry about what we might be doing in terms of greater cooperation. I would hate to think we are in a position where the particular circumstances we are properly concerned about with regard to the rise of ISIS are being used as a cover or an excuse for a more broadening extension of intelligence powers and practices than might otherwise have been the case. I have not heard that suggested and I hope it is not in fact the reality.I think that for many people what they have seen in recent weeks has really jolted their attention in terms of the march of international terrorism and it has given us a new sense of how small and vulnerable our world is. The romantic notions that perhaps our grandparents might have told us about the troops that marched off to be part of the international battalion during the Spanish Civil War and the fight against Franco and fascism do not apply today. Communication is more instant. Communication is more sinister. Planning is more devious. It is not some romantic march for freedom as those fighters in the international battalion might have been on in the 1930s. So it is appropriate for States to do things to protect themselves and their citizenry from the threat of such attacks. The numbers for New Zealand may well be small but those people have contacts. Those people are a relatively fluid group and we know they do not simply sit around and talk just to each other; they talk to a range of other people.I think that that is where we as citizens have a right to be both concerned and then assured that the appropriate steps are being taken to protect our safety as individuals and also our safety as a nation. We have seen examples in other countries of quite random and quite significant—in the sense of particular—attacks on individuals. It is not so much a case of the grand attack any more it seems to me but a much more immediate random attack that cuts at the very core of the confidence of a society. Be it plans for moves in Australia that have been thwarted or be it the assassination of innocent citizens in Canada or in the United Kingdom the risk is none the less the same. So the issue for New Zealand is what we can do to protect our citizens in that respect. The safeguard we have is that the measures that have been announced are in my view prudent and will also be examined by a select committee before they are passed by this House.I want to say this to the Prime Minister. I think it was a good step to make the statement in the way he did this morning. I think that if there are to be future iterations of this process they should be made in the same way to this Parliament where they can be debated and a consensus secured for the measures that we might be about to take because the best way of securing our freedom for the future is to ensure that we have all bought into the concept of what it is we are trying to secure right from the outset. Frankly a divided House or a divided country in these sorts of situations leaves us nowhere. So I think that today is a useful start. There is a lot of ground yet to cover and I look forward to further discussions and debate as the tides continue to flow.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the proposals announced this morning. My party believes that the first and most important role of the State is to protect citizens against thugs. This duty applies whether the thugs reside overseas or within our borders. Given this extraordinary power however the State does have a tendency to overreach. Over the past century much of classical liberals’ attention has been rightly focused on resisting the overreach of the State. That was right I say because those Governments did suppress freedom of movement and freedom of contract. Many of my remarks are directed at civil libertarians of whom I count myself as one unlike some of the more ostentatious appeals to that constituency made earlier.Actually I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the acting deputy leader of the Labour Party on very fine speeches. I began to appreciate some of the opponents of MMP until I saw that Peter Dunne made a very fine speech too.We support the intention to ensure that proper parliamentary processes are followed even while we are for very good reason speeding them up a little. We support the moves to tidy up inconsistencies between the powers of the police and the SIS inconsistencies that unduly hamper justified monitoring of internal threats. The other moves—the funding boost to the SIS the changes in respect of passports the narrow changes to emergency surveillance and the sunset clauses—all appear to be measured and restrained in scope.But the issues being considered today go well beyond those internal matters and they do so because it is not always the State that is a threat to liberty or even other States that are the threat. The contest in the Middle East and the threats of global terrorism in recent decades have come from stateless entities—or at least currently stateless entities as their ambition is to create their own State. We need hardly debate whether there is a contest of values at stake in respect of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). That entity represents the antithesis of civilised values—the values of liberty the rule of law freedom of association freedom of religion and democratic institutions.But the question is whether we should get involved at all. As a country we have throughout our history played our part in defending not just borders but also the values of free and democratic societies and of modern civilisation. It is true that the military contest in the Middle East is not our fight in so far as they are not our borders but the contest about the kind of society that will prevail in that region is of profound interest and concern to free societies everywhere. Here the issue is very much a contest of values the spread of those values around the world and the threat those values are to free and open societies.We do not need to document or list the brutalities of ISIL. We have seen them on the news most nights. ISIL does pose a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East. Its current operational threats are in the Middle East and North Africa but its declared threats are global and specifically directed at Western liberal democracies. They are not just theoretical threats. As we have seen in Australia and Canada recently ISIL’s adherents and supporters are capable of random acts of violence. The scale may so far be small but their aspirations are not.One option might be to sit back and wait to see what else ISIL is capable of. We could wait until its capability either wanes or others more directly affected work to ensure ISIL is defeated or wait until it succeeds in a violent provocation of sufficient scale that a military response becomes the only option. It is not at all clear whether for free societies generally a purely defensive posture is possible at least not if we wish to maintain a free and open society in our world. A purely defensive posture would be a garrison State the wagons circled a wall put up with extensive and intrusive surveillance within. That is not the free and open society so painfully built and fought for through the past century and before. And that is simply the case for playing our part and contributing.We would all much rather that none of this was necessary. New Zealand is a small country well away from the immediate theatre of struggle in the Middle East. In a direct sense this is not our fight. They are not our borders at threat. But the values at stake are our values. Although the aspirations of ISIL do not reach our shores they affect our way of life. So the case for playing our part however small that might be is a strong one. Is helping those directly at threat from ISIL a worthy goal the morally right thing to do? Yes it is unambiguously so. Is stopping ISIL achievable? With a broad international contribution the answer must surely be yes because it has to be. To allow a stateless gang one utterly pitted against our freedoms and way of life to dominate a large swath of territory in the Middle East as a launching pad for broader aspirations is unthinkable. In that sense the situation in Iraq and Syria has direct relevance for our domestic security our values and our economy as a small trading nation dependent on international trade and the rule of law internationally.For New Zealand to make a small contribution to international efforts to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening and to support the capabilities of those directly in the firing line seems a justifiable and proportionate response entirely in keeping with our traditional values. We must of course be aware of unintended consequences—of mission creep as they say. From what the Prime Minister has said no more is being contemplated than humanitarian aid and capacity building for crucial Iraqi institutions including the army. The ACT Party can support these limited and proportionate measures. They signal a willingness by New Zealand to play our part. The question that matters is whether this is a struggle that is warranted. From what we know so far it is thus we support the limited moves announced today and the intention to seek broad political support for them and to pursue due process in implementing them. Thank you.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):This debate this afternoon is somewhat unusual in so much as it is usually the case in a ministerial statement that only the leaders of parties of more than six members are able to make a contribution. The Business Committee made a decision yesterday that it should be a broad debate because of its nature. That was a decision made unanimously by all members of the Business Committee. I do want to make that statement so that those who might be observing the debate realise that all of Parliament recognises the gravity of the announcement made by the Prime Minister today.We are having this debate because the Government is responding to a threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I think what is missing a little bit in some of the commentary this afternoon is that this is an organisation that respects no boundaries. This is an organisation that has declared a caliphate and that has a big reach into countries throughout the world calling on disaffected people who would want to somehow support it to engage in terrorist activities. The numbers that were given by the Prime Minister in his speech today—somewhat unusually I might add—indicate that its reach has reached our shores as well as the shores of many other countries. So for us to turn a blind eye and say that we are a country that respects freedom and we are a peace-loving country that respects people’s abilities to do whatever they like would be to put at risk the lives of New Zealanders without recognising that those whom we seek to protect—in the case of the contributions made by one party here today—would be the very people who would seek to destroy the freedoms that we have.I just have to make a comment about the headline that is currently running on the Fairfax website. It says that we are at war. I think that is an extremely irresponsible headline to have run. I think that the four journalists who have attached their names to it need to reconsider the offering that they are putting in front of the public in light of the full speech that they listened to given by the Prime Minister. This is not a war in a conventional sense at all. This is about New Zealand taking some steps to protect New Zealanders here in our own country. When it comes to the objections that people might want to raise about military personnel looking at what we might do in regard to capacity-building in Iraq let us be clear that legitimate Governments in all countries around the world contribute to our general security. New Zealanders travel a lot. New Zealanders are in many countries throughout the world and in all of those places if this organisation is allowed to run rampant then their security is compromised.There have been suggestions today that some of the information that has come out has been in the form of a hint. I think Annette King said it was a drip-feed with a small amount of humanitarian aid and the Rt Hon Winston Peters suggested that it was lacking detail yet at the same time called for caution. That was also the theme from Annette King. In a way they are both right because this has been an evolving situation. If you went back 12 months this is an organisation that no one had really heard of. Yet in that short period of time the reign of terror that it has inflicted upon the world is such that has never been seen before.I wonder how anyone can promote the idea that there can be an organisation in the world that respects no boundaries that encourages domestic terrorism at large that videos and promulgates its activities—killing and beheading innocent people etc.—and that can somehow not be considered a threat to us here in New Zealand.I do though want to thank the Labour Party the New Zealand First Party the Māori Party the ACT Party and United Future for saying that they will support those extra moves for us to deal with the intelligence community throughout the world. My colleague will speak further on that. We will also engage in diplomacy whenever possible to try to make a difference. But in the end it is going to be the countries that are most affected by this and initially Iraq that need to stand up and do the business of putting this group of people—I hesitate to use the terms “ISIL” or even “Islamic State” because it implies that all those who are followers of Islam are somehow marked by this. That is not something I believe or that anyone in this Parliament I am sure would believe.This terrorist organisation does need to be stopped and a first port of call it would seem would be for Iraq itself to be able to have the strength to overcome the oppression of these people. We do have some people in the Middle East who are looking at what we might be able to do to assist with that. I reject the statement by Winston Peters that a decision has been made. It has not but without good information without on-the-ground intelligence and without a decent assessment of what is possible we could not make a decision. It would be I think remiss of us to simply rely on information that we got from others. Yes we have some people who are going to make some inquiries on our behalf and I think that that is totally appropriate.I just make the point that we do have to be a great deal more vigilant given what we now all know from the Prime Minister’s speech this morning. We will have to make some law changes but we do have to be incredibly careful that the caution we now start to take in expanding that vigilance does not start to impinge upon the freedoms of law-abiding New Zealanders. I think conversely law-abiding New Zealanders would expect us to keep their lives free and safe from this sort of threat.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):I join with others in thanking the Government for opening up this opportunity to discuss this very important issue. We do face an uncertain world and the brutality and the atrocities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is part of that but obviously not the only issue. There are threats to New Zealand and we have to acknowledge that. We have said as Annette King said before that we will adopt a bipartisan approach to strengthening where necessary New Zealand SIS. We appreciate again the opportunity to be briefed on that. But we will also reserve our final comment until we actually see that legislation before us. Where there are gaps obviously we will need to plug them but we also need to be vigilant because this is ultimately about the balancing of our security with our human rights. Select committee consideration as we have insisted upon is a critical issue. The option of urgency is not acceptable. I was also pleased to see the sunset clause which means that this legislation will ultimately fade out as the review of the legislation goes ahead.I want to make the point that we have to be very very careful here that we do not overstate the issue of the threat that is before us. We have just heard Gerry Brownlee talk about this as being the worst terrorist organisation in history. John Key said last week that ISIS will “rain carnage on the world”. Make no mistake it is a nasty brutish organisation that violates human rights in an awful way. But is ISIS about to bring mayhem and terror into our neighbourhoods? The answer is no. It is brutal. It does commit atrocities and it uses those as a weapon to dominate two countries—Syria and Iraq—and it is sophisticated in the way that it uses local people to take up arms.We need to be very careful—very careful—about what we do to our local Muslim population which is a productive and peace-loving part of our community. We are in some ways radicalising those people—in ways that we do not know how they could be radicalised—by the actions we take. I am mindful of a study by the Royal United Services Institute in the UK which was looking at the UK’s role in the Iraq war. It said that that role increased the radicalisation of young Muslims. It said that far from reducing international terrorism the 2003 invasion had the effect of promoting it. If the cause is right then we accept whatever risk we take but we should understand that whatever we get into will affect the security of us back here in New Zealand.The Prime Minister also argues that this is an international a regional and a local problem. I do not agree. This is a conflict that should be contained locally and regionally but it is actually we who are internationalising it by our presence in that local and regional area. If we contrast the Islamic State with al-Qaeda for example al-Qaeda actually started the other way. It internationalised a Muslim or an Islamic issue rather than doing it locally. Arguably in 2001 it posed a much greater risk than the Islamic State does today. The Islamic State is not threatening the world. Again I am mindful looking back in history to 2002 of when Tony Blair and his Cabinet said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to Britain. That is fairly laughable today but it was the rhetoric at the time that was used to justify the Iraq war. We should take real care that we do not exaggerate the threat of ISIS to justify the action that we are taking in New Zealand.Let us look at the broader contribution to Iraq. On the issue of Iraq this Government appears to be driven by the desire to do something alongside our “Five Eyes” partners. The rhetoric was somewhat dialled back immediately after the election when John Key was talking about deploying the SAS. So New Zealand’s possible military contribution as announced is a sort of balance between doing something to be there and on the other hand not upsetting the New Zealand public. The Prime Minister has probably looked at some of the polling data that has been coming through. If he has he would realise that New Zealanders actually see sending our young people off to war when there is little understanding of what they are there to do or what they are there to achieve as folly. They might be right to ask those questions and have those doubts about what the reasons would be. If you look at what military analysts are saying about the current tactic of airstrikes they are saying that those will not work without boots on the ground.We should remember actually that the forerunner of ISIS was what we called al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was actually defeated by the surge it was called of tens of thousands of American soldiers alongside the arming of local Iraqi tribesmen—the same sort of tribesmen who fought valiantly but were defeated and then brutally murdered just this week by ISIS when they were trying to stand up for their freedoms but were not given the weaponry and the support that they needed. That points to the problems within Iraq rather than the problems of outsiders trying to do the job.If we are going to go into Iraq then we need to make a contribution and a sensible one. We appear today to be emphasising a more military solution. There was talk about sending nine people into Iraq. We already know that three have gone so we have made this decision despite the fact that we have made no decisions! We have made this decision already in terms of who we are sending off to Baghdad. I can be pretty emphatic that those people coming back will not be saying there is nothing for us to do there. They will be coming back with a job for the military. We have to balance that off with the risk that we face by becoming involved in even the most benign form of contribution militarily—that we then slide further into additional deployments that we up the risk of our own insecurity. Most of all we have to be looking at what we will achieve. I do not believe that the contribution of some military trainers frankly will achieve very much. Let us remember that the US spent 10 years in Iraq and spent billions of dollars training an entire Iraqi army only to have it collapse in the first assault that it faced. This is not something I believe that we are going to contribute meaningfully in and around. The army itself was not the problem; it was the way Prime Minister al-Maliki at the time favoured his Shi’a group and in a sense undermined the very confidence that the Sunnis had in the work of the Shia. That was commented on today by the Prime Minister in passing.In terms of the diplomatic role that we can play I believe we can play a much more positive role in strengthening the Government the judiciary and the political framework that is operating in Iraq. We should seek a United Nations Security Council resolution for a mandate to have forces on the ground and we should be able to up our humanitarian contribution from the $1 million announcement today. We should be focusing on those areas of ISIS where there is vulnerability. It is paying thousands and thousands of military and administrators at the moment. It needs money. It needs oil revenues. We should be shutting off those possibilities of that revenue—oil coming out and armed shipments going in. We should be looking at the difference we can make to Iraq.New Zealand has never hesitated to go into conflicts where we believed the cause was right or where we were standing up for human rights or humanitarian law—Afghanistan and Timor-Leste being the two most recent. But we have to question the contribution that we make and whether it might be effective. There are consequences that might flow from our actions that we cannot see or perceive today. We need to be operating under a clear mandate. Our position on the United Nations Security Council and the confidence that the world has shown in us in voting us on give us ample opportunity to be able to do that.Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):About 2 weeks ago from today I received a message at about 5 o’clock in the morning to tell me about the attack by a gunman in the House of Parliament in Canada. A short time later I rang our High Commissioner Simon Tucker who was in the New Zealand High Commission about two blocks from the Canadian Parliament which was part of the lockdown that was in place at that time. When I asked him about the scene there he said to me: “Well just imagine this was happening in the New Zealand Parliament because the layout is about the same.” He said it was like someone had taken out a guard at the Supreme Court—just down that way—hijacked a car to the front steps of Parliament and with a gun burst in the front door. He said that was pretty much the scene that was taking place in Canada that day. The air of disbelief that was present in Canada on that day was about the same as the air of disbelief you would expect if it had happened in this country.Members do not need me to tell them that the threat that we are here to discuss today is a new and very dangerous one for countries like ours. Nor should I need to remind members that the individual responsible for that act in Canada was a person who had been newly radicalised and who had been denied the opportunity to commit jihad in the Middle East and had instead turned his mind to steps of violence that could be undertaken where he was.The advent of a well-resourced globally focused internet-savvy terrorist group skilled at preying on the vulnerabilities of the disturbed and disenfranchised is a new and very dangerous phenomenon for countries like ours. As we have heard today we now live in a country where there are individuals who have access to these websites—no doubt many of them are disturbed and disenfranchised—who have become radicalised and have planned to go to the Middle East and commit acts of violence there. Some have gone as the Prime Minister has told us today to Syria. We know that there are others who have been denied the opportunity to go to the Middle East and who remain here. No doubt some of them like that person in Canada are reflecting on acts of violence that can be undertaken here instead of those they had intended to undertake in the Middle East.I want to support the words of the Hon Annette King in relation to the UN Security Council resolution on foreign fighters. In fact I attended the beginning of that debate in New York and I believe that we should listen carefully to what was said there and heed the instructions from the Security Council. It is important that New Zealand plays its part by identifying the individuals who might export violence from here to places where there is already rather too much of it preventing them from going and then turning our minds to how we can make New Zealanders safe in a situation where those people will then turn their minds to acts of violence in this country. The reminder we have seen in Canada is one that we should heed in this country. I accept what Mr David Shearer said to the Parliament. We should not over-egg the situation. We do not need to try to read more into it than exists. But we do need to understand that there is a challenge here for our society to deal with. We need to be careful that we confront it in a way that does not make it worse by making those who are targeted who are identified feel more marginalised and therefore more a prospect of being radicalised.I want to commend the balanced way in which most parties have received the address from the Prime Minister today and the way in which other parties have undertaken to consider constructively the recommendations that have been made. There are always challenges when trying to find the right balance between the responsibility to respect human rights and civil liberties on the one hand and the need to protect the public on the other. Finding that balance can only benefit from the scrutiny of members of Parliament in the select committee and on the floor of the House.I want to pick up the sentiment that has been raised by some members about the need for New Zealand to do more on the humanitarian front. As the Prime Minister has told us today we have committed about $13.5 million—add to that another $1 million today—to a range of initiatives to try to alleviate the suffering of those who have been displaced and disadvantaged in the Middle East. We have worked and will continue to work with a range of organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Unicef the Red Cross the World Food Programme and UN relief works agencies as well as a range of NGOs. Anyone who has been to any of the refugee camps as I have will know the scale of the challenge that confronts the people there. We need to do our part on an ongoing basis.In Turkey we have taken a rather different approach. We have engaged in bilateral programmes with the Government of Turkey to construct schools in the refugee camps of that country. Increasingly we need to look for bilateral options to work with countries facing this challenge. The region I mention particularly is Jordan the smallest of those countries with I think a million and a half refugees now to contend with. This is a country that is at risk of being truly swamped by the challenge that now confronts it.I heard the words of the co-leader of the Green Party suggesting that there was no role for military action in relation to Iraq. I simply say to her that those words will give no comfort to the people in towns like Kobani or any of the other towns across Iraq where we have seen cold-blooded killers and people engaged in torture engaged in the destruction of a very large piece of territory across Iraq and Syria. Once there is a space created through military action—and I believe that the actions that have been undertaken by other countries in that respect do need to be seen in a positive light given the risk confronting some of the communities there—there will be a need to look at areas for capacity-building and support in Iraq in particular. We need to remind ourselves that the seeds of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were sown when we saw the Maliki Government in Iraq turn on too many of its own people showing a lack of respect for their human rights and engaging in acts—Hon Phil Goff: Sown in 2003.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Well there is a long history there as Mr Goff reminds us and I say simply that we need to be ready to do some work in the capacity-building area. I agree with what Mr Shearer said about the need to look at law and justice agencies and areas of that sort once we do see the opportunity to move beyond the current conflict.I just want finally to recognise the words of those who have referred to New Zealand’s role on the UN Security Council from 1 January 2015. It is not until 1 January that we take up the new seat on the UN Security Council but like others I was delighted to see three-quarters of the countries in the world support New Zealand for a seat on the council. But with that support goes a very great sense of responsibility.If you look at the key conflicts in the Middle East the UN Security Council has been a bystander for far too many years. If you look at what happened in Syria in recent times the UN Security Council was a bystander by reason of the veto used by more than one of the permanent members of the council. As we have seen in relation to the Iran nuclear file the UN Security Council has very largely been a bystander on that issue as we have seen the P5+1 process take place outside the UN environment. And of course in relation to the Middle East peace process as a whole we have seen a very good resolution passed I think some 47 years ago but no real action to breathe life into that resolution to create a longstanding basis for peace in the Middle East.So I say to members of the House taking the longer-term view that New Zealand as a new member of the UN Security Council must commit itself to working with other countries to create a Security Council environment where these challenges are no longer ignored and where the big countries in the world confront their responsibilities.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I have listened closely to the Prime Minister’s statement this morning and to this debate on New Zealand’s engagement towards the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In my contribution I want to focus on the broader aspect of the ISIL situation—namely the international action there and New Zealand’s policy on that. We note the Government’s decision not to send SAS troops to Iraq and we support that but in answering questions after his speech the Prime Minister said his Government supported the coalition’s military action against ISIL—and that is the elephant in the Chamber. So this House must address the question of the legal validity and the political merit—or not—of military action against ISIL. Should there be an international armed force against ISIL and should New Zealand support it? Our answer with respect is no. Let me convey our reasoning.We have asked ourselves five questions and they are these. Does ISIL comprise a threat to peace and security that warrants responsive action of some kind by the international community? If so should that response include military action? If so is New Zealand obliged to join that military action? If not should it decide to do so on a discretionary basis? If not what other action might New Zealand take that is substantive and constructive?The Greens agree that ISIL poses a threat to peace and security. This is established in Security Council Resolution 2170 of 15 August adopted under article 39. It is based on a judgment that ISIL is a terrorist organisation which on 2 July declared itself to be the Islamic State with universal jurisdiction over all Muslims everywhere. It has said that: “The legality of all emirates groups states and organisations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph’s authority …”. ISIL has also launched genocidal campaigns against the Yezidi and Kurdish peoples. Its preferred method of political contestation is the beheading of journalists in the desert. These actions warrant prosecution by the International Criminal Court and a response under the responsibility to protect doctrine. So an appropriate response by the international community is required.Should that response include military action? Resolution 2170 called upon UN member States to take all measures necessary and appropriate against ISIL in accordance with international law. The resolution was adopted unanimously under chapter 7 but Russia stated that the resolution did not constitute authority for military action. In situations of crisis Security Council resolutions contain what is diplomatically termed “constructive ambiguity” which enables those preferring military action to claim authorisation and those opposing it to deny such authorisation.Of course military action has in fact been undertaken by eight Western and four Arab States. The United States leading the military coalition is claiming Iraq’s formal request for collective self-defence under article 51 which is an inherent right that does not require council authorisation anyway. That self-defence claim however covers Iraq but not Syria which has not made such a request. So with Syria is the coalition claiming resolution 2170 or the responsibility to protect doctrine as a justification? The coalition owes a formal explanation to the world as to the legal basis of their actions.Is New Zealand obliged to join any military action even if it were legally valid? The short answer is no. Under the charter we have an obligation to respect binding decisions of the council and not work against them but without any formal agreements concluded under article 43 we are not obliged to participate in any military actions even those authorised by the council. That requires a separate and sovereign decision on our own part. Should New Zealand then participate in such military action? That is a political judgment and our answer is no.The use of force by New Zealand can be justified in three ways. The first is narrow nationalism—to defend our country our own territory and nothing else. The second is broad nationalism—to defend our national security by deploying troops overseas to avert a domestic threat back home. The third is internationalism—to participate in collective force and to maintain peace and security even if the threat to ourselves down here is distant. In supporting the coalition action the Prime Minister is advancing a justification based on the second and third of these. He is effectively saying that Islamic radicalisation including some Kiwis returned from jihad poses an unacceptable threat of violence here and that to avert that we must assist in stopping and eradicating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) over there. But this broad nationalism is mixed with a call to support allies. There is not a word about UN authorisation.The Greens’ view is different again. We apply the political criteria for the use of force under the responsibility to protect doctrine endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. These questions have to be answered. Is the causal threshold for action against ISIL met? If so is the intention of the coalition States right? If so are we at the stage where the last resort of military action has genuinely arrived? If so are air strikes proportional to the threat posed by ISIL? If so is there a reasonable prospect of success in halting the suffering inflicted by ISIL or are the consequences of military action there likely to be worse than inaction? A genuine application of these criteria makes it clear to us that the use of force against ISIL is not justifiable. Reasonable people may differ over these questions. I acknowledge that those arguing against military action must advance credible alternative strategies to eliminate the threat of ISIL but that applies to all forms of terrorism. We look to the 2006 UN global counter-terrorism strategy which says to look first at the causes of the problem and work on them.So equally where is the reasoning process by which the coalition States have come to the conclusions they have? Where is the debate in the Security Council that explores these issues transparently? I have scrutinised the council debate behind Resolutions 2170 and 2178 which were adopted within the last 3 months. The debate does not reflect this degree of transparency. Where is the written opinion from our own Attorney-General tabled before this House affirming the legality of such military action? Where is the accompanying paper tabled by the Prime Minister setting out the political case essentially meeting the above criteria I mentioned? There will be a Cabinet paper. Why not release the Cabinet paper so that members of the legislature can explore and debate the considerations entertained?I am no stranger to crises. I worked as a Kiwi diplomat on the Thailand-Cambodia border in the early 1980s. I took parliamentarian missions into Haiti and Burundi during the height of their domestic crises. I have visited Gaza and the West Bank and witnessed house demolitions. I have travelled in the Syrian eastern desert as the clouds of war of 2003 were forming. I have experienced riots in Jordan during the days of 9/11. I have recently visited the refugee camps on the Jordan border with Syria. I know how emotion and rationality wage war in the human psyche when we are under severe strain both individually and collectively. Nothing in my personal experience persuades me that military action is the politically wise response. It requires diplomatic negotiation towards a durable political settlement supported by humanitarian aid. We should not support any military action against ISIS.DARROCH BALL (NZ First):As the New Zealand First leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters has outlined we welcome the statement from the Prime Minister today on New Zealand’s response to the serious threat from Islamic State (IS). We do believe that the Prime Minister has been less than forthright. Now—finally—we have a statement in which we are told that 10 military planners will be going to Iraq. As soon as one of those military professionals arrives in Iraq there can be no doubt that New Zealand has committed to being involved in a new conflict. Some may already be there. We understand that three left yesterday though the PM claimed on the same day that no decisions about Iraq had been made. With our foot in the door there is no going back. It is quite clear which side we are on. From the Islamic State point of view that means we are the enemy. To suggest that we are not part of this conflict because we are not putting in combat forces is double-speak.The Prime Minister is trying to disguise his intentions. What is the point about not being clear? We are going to be represented in Iraq. We will be in an active campaign to defeat IS. The Prime Minister does acknowledge that IS will be difficult to get rid of. This might be a long campaign. The Government must then put New Zealanders at ease about the state of our Defence Force. Is it up to scratch? Is it up to the job we are giving the armed forces to do? Because if there is a long conflict we may become further involved if not in Iraq then somewhere else. Are our forces well-equipped? Can they meet the challenges of deploying in another country with quite different terrain and climate from ours? We have had too many reports about the failure of armed forces vehicles and equipment. We want assurances that our Defence Force is in a state where the men and women who will serve for us will not be let down by failing equipment.As a former member of the New Zealand Army I know about the great effort that our servicemen and servicewomen put into all of their duties. Today we are discussing matters of high national importance and security. There is a perspective that must not be overlooked—that is the situation of the men and women in the armed forces whom we rely on to represent New Zealand in whatever capacity we call on them. It is all very well to talk about grand principles and broad diplomatic ideals but ultimately countering terrorism is about capability—personnel and resources. Our armed forces are small but they must be professional and well-equipped. That is an essential condition that must underpin New Zealand’s response to global terrorism.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service):I am taking a call in this House as Minister responsible for the GCSB and Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. The Prime Minister today gave a very important speech. He has said more than has ever been said in this country about some of the security threats facing this nation. Although there are very good reasons that we cannot talk about everything our security agencies do the Prime Minister has made the remarks he has made today because within the limits on what we can say we intend to say and explain whatever we can whenever we can. The threat to New Zealand from foreign fighters and would-be foreign fighters to which the Prime Minister has referred today should not be a cause for alarm. It should however serve as a reminder that the view that New Zealand exists in a benign strategic environment is misguided. As Mr McCully has said let us not think we are immune to the threats posed to other Western countries. We have all seen the increase in parliamentary security around these precincts over the past 2 weeks and a number of people in this place will have visited the Canadian Parliament. The shock felt in Ottawa 2 weeks ago attests to the completely unexpected nature of the violence. The threats we and our friends face are new threats and we have to respond in a considered manner but we must respond.First I want to endorse what other honourable members have said about humanitarian assistance. I think Mrs King put it very well when she explained the meeting that she and I had with members of the Iraqi community in Wellington just a couple of weeks ago. Their relatives are suffering greatly in places like Mosul and on the Nineveh Plain and desperately need our help and the help of other nations. In deciding to look at this area the Government has been very mindful not only of the realities that face New Zealand but of our international obligations. Mrs King—rightly in my opinion—referred specifically to UN Security Council Resolution 2178 adopted unanimously on 24 September 2014 under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. Among other things the Security Council called on all member States in accordance with their obligations under international law to cooperate in efforts to address the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters including preventing foreign terrorist fighters from crossing their borders. The Security Council also emphasised the importance of States ensuring that their domestic laws and regulations are fit for purpose in relation to their nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a State “other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration planning or preparation of or participation in terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training”.The Greens have singularly failed to acknowledge the substance of this resolution this afternoon—hardly surprising but very disappointing. I am disappointed in Kennedy Graham who pretty well knows off by heart every United Nations Security Council resolution when it suits him. But he did not address key issues raised by this resolution. New Zealand has legislation that on paper at least addresses these issues but the legislation is not perfect. It has gaps. It does not contain all the tools that we require. Our actions to date are in accordance with our international obligations but the problems we confront are not ours alone. They span countries and they span borders. We would be neglecting our responsibilities not to address them.The Prime Minister has this morning announced a very measured set of legislative changes that will enable the security services more effectively to carry out their work. He has also announced a $7 million financial boost for the SIS which will ensure that it can carry out the work we need it to do. For all the hyperbole we have heard from the usual suspects this afternoon the changes announced are very measured. No new criminal offences are being introduced. Several changes are being made to the law relating to passport cancellation. Several changes will make it easier for the New Zealand SIS to carry out operational activities that most New Zealanders would probably already think it is able to carry out.I want to mention the proposal to give the SIS an emergency surveillance power to conduct for no longer than 48 hours urgent surveillance before a warrant can be issued. Some people will contend this change is a sweeping one but it is not. They are wrong. It is important to put the proposal in context. The proposal echoes the power already given to certain authorities under section 48 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 which provides that a “device warrant need not be obtained for use of surveillance device in some situations of emergency or urgency”. That Act has been in force for over 2 years and the sky has not fallen in. It is not envisaged that this power will be used often by the SIS but it is important that the SIS has the ability to investigate an emergency situation where the circumstances require it. In order to use the power the SIS director will have to be satisfied that the threshold for issuing a warrant would be met. The Prime Minister has also made clear this morning his expectation that the SIS will report publicly on an annual basis outlining how many times it has used the power.So take this hypothetical: an emergency situation arises. I am the Minister responsible for the SIS. I am unavailable because I am in another part of the country. I am not back in Wellington for say 20 hours. If the matter is not addressed within 20 hours the consequences are very serious. The urgent surveillance is undertaken and then I return to Wellington to consider along with the Commissioner of Security Warrants a warrant. If we do not agree that the surveillance was urgent or warranted a warrant will not be signed. The material must then be destroyed. There is a disincentive to use the power for anything other than truly urgent situations.I look forward to the important debate the House will have when the legislation is introduced and in debating the legislation it should also be borne in mind that Parliament will need to consider all our security legislation over the coming months. As part of the extensive oversight measures introduced last year—and I acknowledge Mr Dunne for his work on that matter—section 21 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act requires a “review of the intelligence and security agencies the legislation governing them and their oversight legislation … [to] be commenced before 30 June 2015;”. That means a comprehensive review of all relevant legislation. So there will be a lot of work for this House to do in this area in the next 12 to 18 months. As I said last week there has to be robust debate. No proposition should go unchallenged. Dissent can be a very good thing. It is in the public interest that members from all sides work together to ensure the law both substantive and procedural is fit for purpose and serves the interests of this country. That is why I hope the House will engage with the detail of these proposals with an eye on ensuring a quality legislative product rather than scoring political points.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):In some ways this is the sort of debate that is the most important debate that we ever have in the House of Representatives and that is because we deal with fundamental responsibilities that we in this place have: first to safeguard our citizens against real or potential risks and second to make a decision about how a nation like New Zealand should respond to the risks and the threats created by the wider situation in the Middle East. I say the wider situation in the Middle East because you cannot differentiate the threat that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses from the factors that have led to its creation which are the appalling humanitarian conditions that emanated from the oppression by Bashar al-Assad in Syria on the one hand and the appalling things that were happening in Iraq not only Sunni against Shi’a but also Shi’a against Sunni.So when we start to talk about the threats and the appalling brutality in the Middle East let us not pretend for a moment that we are talking about only one organisation ISIS. Yes it is brutal. Yes it is disgusting. Yes it poses a potential threat. But I have to say that it has killed nothing like the 200000 people in Syria who have died because of the actions of Bashar al-Assad. Equally if you look at the problem in Iraq it is not as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated before simply something that resulted from the al-Maliki prime ministership. It is something that goes back to the misguided decision in 2003 to invade Iraq without proper preparation and without any examination of the unintended consequences of that action.I want to come back and divide my comments up into two parts. One is the question of what threat might exist in New Zealand and how we respond to it and the second is how we should respond to that broader situation in the Middle East. The first thing I have to say is that I welcome the fact that the Government has been more forthcoming in terms of its proposals and sharing them with other political parties but I do express my regret that this legislation will be passed in the 2 weeks after we come back to the House. That in my view is insufficient time for this House to give proper scrutiny to the fundamental issues that are involved whenever you extend the powers of a security intelligence organisation. I think that offsetting that is the fact that there will be a sunset clause so the Government has limited what it intends to put into that legislation and that at the insistence of the Labour Party there will be a truncated select committee process at least so we can allow public and specialist input into the legislation.I want to say that it is important that we are vigilant about the threats posed by terrorism but that we should also be proportionate and balanced. I lived in the United Kingdom at the time of the IRA terrorist attacks. That threat was far more extensive than anything that we have seen from ISIS. That is just a fact. I was working in the Parliament buildings in the House of Commons and there was a real and present threat to the lives of people living in the United Kingdom because of the actions of the IRA. We did not however brand it with an ideology such as calling it Islamic and the British Government dealt with it.I have to say to the Prime Minister as well that I read his speech carefully and there were things that I agreed with in the speech and things that I disagreed with. One was the impression given that the international environment has become much less benign over time. I was Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of 9/11. I can tell you that when we had a synchronised and coordinated attack that killed thousands of people in the United States it was bigger than anything I have felt from ISIS in New Zealand and internationally. When the biggest country in the world closes its borders it is not benign. So let us see this in context. Yes we should take ISIS seriously but no we should not blow it out of proportion into something that it is not. I am also old enough to remember the dark days of the Cold War when we had multiple nuclear weapons on high alert and civilisation as we know it could have come to an end at any particular occasion. So yes let us take the threats seriously but let us keep it proportionate.It is also important domestically not to go too far in the legislation because we know that what causes radicalising of a minority part of the population is when you create conditions where they feel alienated and where they feel that they are being discriminated against. I have got a significant Muslim population in my electorate of Mt Roskill. I have known them for years. I have worked with them for years. I can say that this is a group in my community that is hard working peaceful and law abiding. But if we start to create the impression that Islamic equals terrorism and we start to see New Zealanders being abusive of Muslim people in this country then we will create the very conditions that we are setting out to avoid.I have to say from talking to many of my Muslim friends that they are subject in the street to increasing abuse because of their appearance or their dress. So more important than this legislation might be dealing with that situation. I acknowledge that John Key said in his speech that our Muslim community is overwhelmingly positive and law abiding. More important might be how we ensure that that community does not feel so alienated from the community that it is part of that we create the conditions for action by people with personality disorders.I think that the moves that are made in the proposed legislation are not extreme moves. We have the Search and Surveillance Act and I cannot see why powers that are available to the police might not be available to the SIS when confronting similar situations but naturally we want to be clear about the safeguards to prevent the abuse of that power. The reason we do not have visual surveillance provisions in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act is that I think it dates back to 1969.I acknowledge that there might be some occasions when Attorney-General is not available to sign a warrant but we do live in the 21st century and I do not think it ever takes 48 hours to get in touch with the Attorney-General. If it does we would have to wonder what he was up to and why. I think that in the select committee we need to say yes there may be a provision where in an emergency situation the action takes place but no we are not going to leave it for 48 hours before we regularise that warrant. That is something that I hope we can look at in good faith in the select committee consideration.I want to come finally to the question of passports. The right to travel freely is a precious right but it is not an absolute right. If we know somebody in New Zealand is about to head off and join an organisation that the UN regards as committing crimes against humanity and war crimes—and it does not matter whether it is for ISIS or for any other UN-designated terrorist organisation—then of course we have a responsibility to stop that person. We should not however render people stateless who are currently travelling on passports. It is critical that if a person overseas loses their passport—if it is taken away from them—then we have an immediate availability of travel documents to allow them to return to New Zealand. I hope that is what the Government is proposing.What I want to say finally about the contribution of the campaign against ISIS is that there is a lot we can do on a humanitarian basis. We can make a difference. There are millions of refugees. That is where we should be focusing. We can make a difference in our role on the United Nations Security Council. When we sit down in Washington with other countries like Saudi Arabia Qatar and Turkey who are part of the coalition of the willing and find out that the resources that ISIS is receiving—the money the people and the weapons—are coming from those very countries then that is the place to start to isolate ISIS and to defeat it. I am not at all convinced that military action is appropriate in these circumstances. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes there might have been good intentions to remove Saddam or to remove Gaddafi but as a result of misguided efforts by the West hundreds of thousands of innocent people lost their lives and we ended up with a situation much worse than it was even under those oppressive regimes. We should be very wary of entering in a military capacity in any sense into that conflict in the Middle East.Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Allow me to take just a couple of moments firstly to thank the House for what I think was a very constructive debate. I think the situation that we face and the threats that we face from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warrant the careful consideration that the House has given it this afternoon and the mature and intelligent debate that people have added.Let me give parties an absolute assurance that the select committee debate will literally be that—an opportunity to test out the proposed changes that the Government is making. As we have said they will be narrowly focused and as I think a number of speakers have pointed out they are appropriately set. We acknowledge that the 48-hour issue is something that needs to be carefully considered and carefully monitored.The point really around the 48 hours—if I can make this point—is simply that it does take a little longer to raise a warrant not because the Attorney-General is not available to sign it in his capacity as the Minister responsible; it is because the commissioner takes a very long period of time and rightfully so to very thoughtfully go through a warrant. So when the commissioner turns up he—as has been the case with Sir John Jeffries and now Sir Bruce Robertson—actually spends an appropriate period of time making absolutely sure that that warrant should be raised. So the only point here really is that sometimes that process—if by chance of the way of information that came to us we were to hear something that we felt we needed to act on very very quickly that is the rare and exceptional circumstance. And really unless the SIS were absolutely convinced that warrant could be raised it would be ridiculous for the SIS to actually go on an exercise of gathering information because they would have to destroy it. They would not be able to use it. Actually I think it would damage their reputation if we started having the SIS going out and saying that they had constantly been undertaking this 48-hour surveillance. But look I think it is one of those things Parliament should kick around and we will take those discussions in good faith. So that is really the main issue there.In terms of the final point I would simply make this point in relation to the Government’s suggestion of what we should be doing on the ground in Iraq. I share the view with those who say that in the end the situation in Iraq has to be resolved with the Iraqis. It actually has to be resolved with a Government that recognises not a secular response to this but an inclusive response. Ultimately unless the Sunnis the Shi’as and the Kurds are listened to and they feel as if they are included a long-term solution in Iraq will never be found. It will not matter how much military effort you put in it will not resolve it.So the Iraqis have to fight their own battles and actually they have to find a diplomatic way through. But it will be necessary ultimately to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and that is clearly on display. We saw that yesterday when ISIL essentially executed 322 people—women and children. We cannot let that happen unanswered. The Government is trying to take a careful but measured response. But I think putting our SAS in on the ground as some sort of killing machine would not work as a long-term solution. I think in the end Iraq has to be the owner of its own long-term problems. We are here to help but I do not think we can fight its battles for it.Questions to MinistersWage Rates—Inequality1.Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Hon Annette King: In the Speech from the Throne he stated that his Government’s plan includes higher incomes for New Zealanders. What percentage wage movement does he envisage would be fair for hard-working Kiwis over the next 3 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One that is in excess of the inflation rate.Hon Annette King: In light of that does he think an increase of 70 percent a year would be fair because pay rises of this magnitude have recently been described by the Minister of Finance as just market corrections?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I assume the member is talking about some of the pay increases that chief executives at mixed-ownership model companies have received. I do not know the composition and make-up of their pay but I suspect that in fact what has really happened is they have not had a 70 percent increase in their salary; they have probably had a combination of stock options and other parts of their payment and also an incentive payment reflecting the performance of the company. Actually you do get those kinds of moves—both up and down—with chief executives but that is not something that goes in terms of just their straight salary increase.Hon Annette King: How does the Government justify a pay increase of 70 percent or $900000 for the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power as just a market correction but a $2 an hour increase of the minimum wage paid to the lowest-paid New Zealanders as unaffordable?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government does not justify it because the justification is required by the board of directors and the chairman of the company. Actually I have not done this exercise but if members opposite want me to I will go away and have a look at the incentive payments made to other chief executives under the previous Labour Government. I am pretty sure you will find that when Meridian Energy was run by Keith Turner 16 percent of the company was sold in the form of Southern Hydro and there were proceeds of $1.5 billion and a $600000 million profit. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that Keith Turner got a tidy little bonus for doing that.Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement: “We’d prefer that we were a more equal society with less inequality.”? If he stands by that what will he do to ensure that the 43 percent of workers who did not receive a pay increase in the last year get even a fraction of a 70 percent pay increase that the Mighty River Power chief executive officer got last year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and I honestly thought we had dispatched that ridiculous argument when we dispatched David Cunliffe. If we want to go back and have that argument again the member will know that what she is talking about—unless she is just reading out what the research unit gave her—is the labour cost index. She will know the labour cost index is not a measurement of the way the salaries are adjusted. She will know because I am sure she researched it then that it was absolutely identical under the 9 years of the Labour Government and that 40-odd percent of people under the labour cost index did not get a change in their salary.Hon Annette King: Well answer this Prime Minister: how will a home-care worker on $15.20 an hour go about getting a market correction in their pay packet when it is the Government that provides the funding through Vote Health and has refused to increase the health budget to meet cost pressures as outlined in the Treasury papers released recently?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is defeating her own argument because this Government has increased the health budget every single year we have been in office.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table Treasury papers showing that it only made a contribution towards cost pressures in health.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to let the House decide. I am not sure it will add great information to members but the House can decide. Leave has been sought to table some Treasury papers. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Child Poverty—School Food Programmes2.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 22 October that about 15 percent of kids in decile 1 to 4 schools were “clearly in need” of breakfast at school for a variety of reasons including “they are unsure if they are going to get a lot of lunch or dinner”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes but if the member was to quote me from the entire interview she will also acknowledge that what I said was that was a very anecdotal number.Metiria Turei: What do principals tell him are the reasons why children come to school without breakfast or lunch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Truthfully there is a wide variety of reasons but it is not for me to analyse them. What it is for me to do is to show leadership and that is exactly what the Government did in partnering with Fonterra and Sanitarium to provide breakfast in schools for every child who wanted it.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister believe that the State should also provide lunch at school for the 15 percent of children in decile 1 to 4 schools whom he has said are clearly in need if their parents cannot for whatever reason provide them with that lunch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that the number of children who go to decile 1 to 4 schools who do not have lunch is 15 percent. I have asked extensively at the decile 1 2 3 and 4 schools I have been to. Quite a number of principals actually even reject the notion that they need breakfast in schools. Those who do take breakfasts in schools tell me that for the odd child who does not have lunch they either give them some more breakfast or provide them with lunch. But what they have said to me is that the number of children in those schools who actually require lunch is the odd one or two.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister believe that the State has a responsibility to provide food—breakfast and lunch—for hungry children in schools when their parents cannot for whatever reason provide it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe that parents have a responsibility to provide lunch. What I do acknowledge is that sometimes schools will provide a lunch if one is not provided. As I said to the member just before the evidence I see from the principals I ask—I go to a lot of schools and I ask every principal that question and I ask every teacher I can that question—is that the number of children who turn up without lunch is extremely few.Metiria Turei: If the parents cannot provide lunch and schools are unable to provide lunch and he will not have his Government provide lunch then who will feed these hungry kids?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not found a single principal who will not provide lunch for a child who is actually hungry.Economy—Reports3.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) on behalf ofALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on whether recent economic growth is creating capacity and inflation pressures within the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Treasury’s latest monthly report notes that although the economy is growing near capacity inflation is running below expected levels. This can be partly explained by falling prices in the tradable sector due to a strong New Zealand dollar and weak international inflation. They also note that the housing market is cooling. Increases in house prices are slowing with the annual increase in the year to September down to 4.1 percent and the number of sales lower than a year ago. All of this indicates that cost of living increases will remain in check while the economy continues to grow and support more jobs and higher incomes.David Bennett: How is the current low inflation environment combined with continued high levels of business and consumer confidence influencing the outlook for employment and investment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Positively. We have reported today that the unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent in September down from 5.6 percent in June. There were 18000 more people employed in the September quarter and the labour force participation rate—that is the number of people available for work which is already at historical highs and higher than most other countries in the developed world—actually increased fractionally to 69 percent. Statistics New Zealand noted that rising employment is more than keeping up with growing population at a time when the population is growing at a record level. Although business and consumer confidence have come off their highs they remain at elevated levels. There are strong employment intentions among businesses. For example the quarterly survey of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research reported that a net 18 percent of firms expect to increase staff numbers and the ANZ job advertisement series shows that job ads are at their highest levels since 2006. All of this is promising for more new jobs in addition to the decreasing unemployment rate we have seen today.David Bennett: How does the Minister expect the current positive economic outlook will benefit New Zealand households and families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has always been the Government’s view that the figures from month to month or quarter to quarter are not that important. What matters is the longer-term trend. We have an opportunity to lock in sustainable growth with relatively low interest rates and relatively low inflation at a time when the economy continues to grow. In its pre-election fiscal update Treasury forecast around 150000 extra jobs by mid-2018. It also predicted the annual average wage to increase by around $6600 to $62000 over that period. This will have a positive impact for households if cost of living increases remain low and we can continue to support good conditions for best business investment and new jobs. All of this will help household budgets.Export Sector—Performance4.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)to the Minister of Finance: Why did he claim yesterday that exports as a percentage of GDP were 33 percent and rising when Hon Steven Joyce reportedly stated on 20 October that there has been a lack of progress in the past three years?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):In regard to progress both Mr Joyce and I have both said this is a challenging target. I made the comment yesterday because real exports as a percentage of real GDP which are the basis of the Government’s target were 33 percent in 2013 up from 31.9 percent in 2009. The member might not like it but this is according to the Statistics New Zealand expenditure on gross GDP series. According to Statistics New Zealand real exports have eased to 32.7 percent of GDP in the year to March 2014 but they are still above the 31.9 percent level of 2009 and that has been in the face of quite challenging conditions for exporters. They have handled them very well showing that they are becoming globally competitive and increasing their productivity.Dr David Clark: Why did Steven Joyce contradict the Minister’s claim that exports were 33 percent of GDP by saying on 20 October that exports were actually 30 percent of GDP?Hon Steven Joyce: Point of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order—[Interruption] Well I hope it is but either way it will be heard in silence.Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that when this question was being verified earlier today no reference could be made of the quotation in that regard that Dr Clark has just suggested. For him to bring it up as a supplementary question after he could not actually make any reference to it in trying to get his primary question through today I think is trifling with the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the point the member is making. I believe that the member’s question is still in order. It is going to give some licence to the Minister as he answers it. I will invite the member to ask his question again.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he changed the question?Dr David Clark: No no.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am inviting the member Dr Clark to re-ask the question for continuity purposes.Dr David Clark: Why did Steven Joyce contradict the Minister’s claim that exports were 33 percent of GDP by saying on 20 October that exports were actually 30 percent of GDP?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He did not say that.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document where it is reported—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the document please. If it is a media report it will not be—Dr David Clark: Yes it is.Mr SPEAKER: Do not bother.Dr David Clark: Why did the Minister say in the Building Export Markets report that exports were 30 percent of GDP?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out the basis of the Government target is real exports as a proportion of real GDP and those are rising. I cannot comment directly on the reference the member is making because I have not seen it recently. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The level of interjection I am receiving from the Labour corner here is unacceptable. I certainly do not want to be asking any members to leave but unless it settles down I will be doing so.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a copy of a report signed by Bill English and Steven Joyce where both state that exports are 30 percent of GDP.Mr SPEAKER: I just need the source of the document.Dr David Clark: It is the Building Export Markets report from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it may not be freely available the House can determine that. Leave is sought to table this particular Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment report. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr David Clark: It’s because the Minister has not read it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the supplementary question.Dr David Clark: Why is the Minister attempting a statistical stitch up by changing the measurement of exports to volume given that he used a different value-based metric of exports in the foreword to the Building Export Markets report when he set out the goal and did so again as recently as July this year in Parliament?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again I cannot comment on that because I have not seen it recently but I can say to the member that I want to thank the member for helping to clarify the basis of the Government target. I know he is disappointed that despite difficult conditions our export sector has made considerable progress in improving its real contribution to our economy and under current Government policy we would hope to see that exports become an even larger proportion of the real economy.Dr David Clark: Will the Minister now concede that his new volume-based measuring statistic would place more importance on the volume of possession held by the USA Eagles in the first half of a recent test match than on the value of the All Blacks’ 43 points on the scoreboard?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Where the member does have a technical point is that it is not strictly volume; it is deflated prices which is slightly different in an economist’s mind but not that different. Either way the deflated value of our exports as a proportion of the real economy has been growing and will continue to do so I would hope.Dr David Clark: Is the Minister aware that his newly adopted volume-based measure has not dipped to 30 percent at any time this century?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually I did not hear the assertion that the member made but given his determination to try to prove that our exporters are hopeless—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I can anticipate the point of order but I will hear it.Chris Hipkins: If the Minister did not hear the question the right thing to do would be to ask for it to be repeated—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member Dr David Clark to ask the question again.Dr David Clark: Is the Minister aware that his newly adopted volume-based measure has not dipped to 30 percent at any time this century?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I was not aware of that. But given the member’s determination to try to talk down our export sector despite—Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to see how that in any way addressed my question which is a very straight question.Mr SPEAKER: A number of the questions that have been asked have been politically loaded talking about statistical stitch ups etc. This one is in the same vein—maybe not to the same extent but I do not think the member can expect to ask relatively robust questions and then ask for an almost sanitised answer from the Minister.Property—Records of Foreign Ownership5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Is his Government committed to evidence-based policy-making?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well if that is the case why does his Government not demonstrate its commitment to evidence-based policy-making by collecting comprehensive information on the extent of foreign ownership of New Zealand land and housing? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has the right to ask the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry could I just ask the member to repeat it? It was very muffled—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case—that the answer is in the affirmative—why does his Government not demonstrate its commitment to evidence-based policy-making by collecting comprehensive information on the extent of foreign ownership of New Zealand land and housing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well we do collect information. We collect it through both the Inland Revenue Department which has a register of foreigners who are required to file a return because they own a rental property in New Zealand and we do record it in relation to the Overseas Investment Office when it approves sales of land above the threshold which is—whatever it is—4.5 hectares or 5 hectares. So we do gather quite a lot of information.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Government be collecting “quite a lot of information” when in the answer nothing referred to housing whatsoever and why does the Government not have a proper house and land register like other countries have?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I hate to burst the member’s bubble but when someone files an Inland Revenue Department tax return because they own a rental property in New Zealand that is a house.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that that is only a rental? What about the other forms of ownership and what steps will the Government take over the next 3 years to limit the transfer of New Zealand land and housing into foreign ownership—even though the trader over there likes it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well the Government has policies in place through the Overseas Investment Act that we believe are set broadly in about the right place. Although we acknowledge that there are some foreigners who come to New Zealand and purchase land and assets we believe that is in the best interests of New Zealand’s economic growth. That is why land sales to foreigners and house sales to foreigners merrily and happily continued every single time he was on this side of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not true.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes it is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Chinese Government’s priority—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask the question so that I can hear it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Chinese Government’s priority and crackdown on corruption what precautions is his Government making to ensure the proceeds of corruption from that country do not go into New Zealand land and housing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well the Overseas Investment Office goes through a thorough process when it assesses the merits of a purchaser but we are not responsible for any illegal activity that might take place in another country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Government consider that selling even more of New Zealand’s productive capacity to foreigners is a path to prosperity?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well that is because if one looks at the history of foreign investment in New Zealand we can point to many examples actually where foreign investment in New Zealand in even land has been very important for New Zealand. Take the wine industry. We all know that the member has quite an interest in the racing industry. Well the racing sector has quite a lot of investment from overseas and last time I looked the member when he was the Minister for Racing was slapping those people on the back and congratulating them on what they were doing for this country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister give us one example that he just claimed happened when I was the Minister for Racing—just one?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all the snaps and happy pictures taken of him when he was the Minister for Racing and wandering around but I am sure if he wants to open up his holiday snaps to me I will be able to find an example of him patting some foreign owner who was in New Zealand who also owned a bit of bloodstock here and happily shaking hands.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister think he can get away with an answer like that when he has not got one shred of evidence to make the assertion and is it his view that everybody should be running around getting photo opportunities like he does?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is some prime ministerial responsibility I will leave it to the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am happy with my photo opportunities. If the member is not happy with his well he has to live with himself.Pharmac—Subsidised Medicines and Medical Devices6.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country)to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on access to medicines?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):Yes. Pharmac’s annual report was tabled on 4 November. It shows that last year the Pharmaceutical Management Agency funded 26 new medicines and widened access to a further 35 benefiting an estimated 42885 additional patients in that year. This is part of the $795 million that Pharmac spent on medicines for New Zealanders last year.Barbara Kuriger: How has Pharmac helped address the costs of health care in New Zealand?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In its first year of managing the nationally consistent list of hospital medicines Pharmac has secured savings to district health board hospitals of $3.65 million. I am advised that that figure is expected to double in the coming year. Moreover I am advised that as of 1 November 2014 Pharmac’s medical devices programme has listed more than 5000 possible medical devices across a range of categories including wound care laparoscopy and interventional cardiology. This activity will deliver savings to district health boards worth a minimum of $9.7 million over 5 years.State and Social Housing—Housing Stock and Initiatives7.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she agree with the Dominion Post that “The Government’s social-housing plan is unclear not only in its details but in its fundamental aims”; if not what are the Government’s plans and fundamental aims?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of theMinister for Social Housing: No I disagree with it. Our aims are first to make it easier for more people to get into social housing; secondly to provide a better pipeline that enables them to move on from social housing when they cease to need it; and thirdly to ensure that the Government’s large landholdings in our metropolitan areas can contribute to the longer-term problem of limited supply of affordable housing for all New Zealanders not just those who need social housing.Phil Twyford: Who is correct on how many they will sell: Bill English and Nick Smith when they have talked about up to 20 percent of the stock—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We said that a year ago.Phil Twyford: —John Key—are you missing me Nick?Hon Dr Nick Smith: We said that a year ago.Phil Twyford: I will get back to you. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not helpful for interjections to come from my right-hand side as Mr Twyford is asking his question. He can start his question again.Phil Twyford: Thank you. Who is correct on how many they will sell: Bill English and Nick Smith when they have talked about up to 20 percent of the stock; John Key when he said: “less than the numbers that have been bandied around”; herself when she said it could be thousands; or David Zussman from the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust who says: “We’re told 25 percent seems on the high side and the next breath it’s ‘a few houses’ or is it a thousand or thousands? We’ve no idea … There’s too many gaps too many guesses.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait and see because as we have all pointed out the Government is yet to make decisions about that particular number. But that is going to be much less important than the other number which will be the number of income-related rent subsidies available and they will be increasing. So for instance if we want to house 1000 extra people under Labour’s model it costs roughly half a billion and takes 5 years because you have got to build the State houses. Under our model it will cost around $12 million to $14 million and if the houses are available we can do it within a matter of months. So the number of income-related rent subsidies available will matter more than the number of houses owned by the Government.Phil Twyford: Who is correct on whether the money will be reinvested in social housing: Bill English when he said: “there’s not much point in rebuilding stock with it … it could go into the consolidated account.”; Bill English when he said: “Certainly for the foreseeable future as much as we can.”; or John Key when he said: “The better question to ask is: ‘Will it be used to develop new social housing?’ and the answer to that is ‘maybe’.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member has pointed out there are a lot of opportunities to use any money from sales but I would say to the member that the most important piece of money is going to be what is available to provide for more people in serious housing need. I know that Labour is having trouble understanding this but it will no longer be dictated by the number of State houses owned by the Government. We will be able to determine independently of the number of State houses owned by the Government how many people we are willing to assist. And of course any money we can apply from the sale of State houses to housing affordability and social housing improvement we will.Phil Twyford: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that the Government’s social housing reforms will not amount to subsidising private landlords because “the only people who can get income-related rents are community housing providers or Housing New Zealand.”; if so why has the social housing unit left the criteria open to for-profit community housing providers and for community housing providers to utilise private landlords rather than owning their own social houses?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Housing New Zealand does it now.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes as the former Minister of Housing said Housing New Zealand Corporation does that now. It uses so-called private landlords and of course the member may not be aware but the Government spends $1.2 billion a year on a thing called the accommodation supplement. I do not know whether the Labour Party knows about that but that is all paid pretty much without exception to private landlords. I know that the Labour Party is against that but I can tell you that the 300000 families who receive it are somewhat in support of it.Schools—Internet Access8.Dr JIAN YANG (National)to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving internet access in schools?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education)on behalf of theMinister of Education: This morning the Government announced $5.4 million of new funding to enable access to upgrades for improved wireless connectivity for more than 400 schools. Many of these are small schools and the investment will be a significant boost for students and teachers. These schools will now have access to better-quality connections and more flexible learning environments. This retrofitting of 400 schools is another investment on top of the $700 million already provided by this National-led Government to enable fast reliable internet connections to improve learning.Dr Jian Yang: Which schools will benefit from this announcement?Hon NIKKI KAYE: The schools that will benefit are located right across New Zealand including Northland. From Clifton Terrace School in central Wellington which the Associate Minister visited this morning to Ngataki School in Kaitaia the list of schools is now available on the ministry website. The ministry will be contacting schools across New Zealand to offer them access to this upgrade. This is another great initiative by this National-led Government. Our Government is focused on ensuring that New Zealand children no matter where they live have access to quality online learning.Health Promotion Agency Board—Potential Conflict of Interest9.KEVIN HAGUE (Green)to the Minister of Health: Has he asked Health Promotion Agency Board member Katherine Rich whether she ever used the services of public relations adviser Carrick Graham to write attacks on public health advocates and researchers which were published on the Whale Oil blog; if not why not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):No; because as the Minister of Health I am focusing on the things that matter to New Zealanders.Kevin Hague: Will he investigate the serious allegations that Katherine Rich hired public relations adviser Carrick Graham to write attacks on public health experts which were published on the Whale Oil blog?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have asked my office to have a look at the Whale Oil blog to see whether they can find any evidence of ex or current members of Parliament using that blog to attack others. The only document they were able to come up with is a guest editorial dated 2 March 2013 written by one Kevin Hague MP.Kevin Hague: Supplementary—Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table a guest editorial written by Kevin Hague MP.Mr SPEAKER: If it is available on a blog it is available to all members.Kevin Hague: How serious would an allegation against Katherine Rich have to be before he asked her whether it was true or not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look I think it would be very serious if an ex or current member of Parliament was using the Whale Oil blog to attack others and that is why I would like to table this guest editorial—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have already been through that.Kevin Hague: Does he agree that the important work of the Health Promotion Agency in reducing harm to New Zealanders from tobacco alcohol and unhealthy foods would be undermined if a board member wearing another hat were to be involved in attacks on public health experts in these areas?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is always undermining when ex or current members of Parliament use blogs to attack others and I think we have all had enough of dirty politics. It is not nice to have that reminder today of Mr Hague’s previous involvement in just such a practice.Kevin Hague: Does he agree that if the allegations against Katherine Rich are true then this would be incompatible with her continuing to serve as a member of the board of the Health Promotion Agency?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I do agree with is that it is incompatible for Mr Hague to ask these questions with him being the author of a guest editorial on the Whale Oil blog—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questions that I have asked have been ones that have not been politically loaded in any way at all and they deserve some answers. This Minister has failed to provide any at all. Every answer has just been a swipe at me.Mr SPEAKER: I cannot accept that the questions asked have not been politically loaded. I think that in the case of the last question asked there is a reasonable point that the question was not addressed by the Minister. I am going to invite Kevin Hague to ask the last question again. As for the others I think they have been answered satisfactorily—they have been addressed—but I will allow the member the benefit of the doubt with regard to the last question.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree that if the allegations against Katherine Rich are true then this would be incompatible with her continuing to serve on the board of the Health Promotion Agency?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I disagree with the assertions in his question.Dr Megan Woods: Why did he wait until 23 October 2014 the date he had to answer his first oral question on the topic in the House to check with the chair of the Health Promotion Agency as to whether Katherine Rich had conducted herself as an ethical member of the board?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because I was too busy getting around the health sector focusing on the issues that matter to New Zealanders rather than wallowing in this trivia.Dr Megan Woods: When did he or his predecessor first have concerns raised with them about a potential conflict of interest or allegations of misconduct by Katherine Rich?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I recall it was on 23 October when Kevin Hague asked the first of his 32 questions on this topic and he has not asked a question on anything else to do with health in this Parliament.Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation10.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise with regards to the families of the Pike River tragedy to do “everything we practically could to get the bodies of the victims out”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the report by international underground mine experts Bob Stevenson and Dave Creedy who concluded that “Major hazards can be eliminated or satisfactorily controlled to ensure risks are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable using best-industry practices.” and another report by WorkSafe and Mines Rescue that there are no technical or safety barriers standing in the way to re-enter the Pike River mine drift and therefore does he consider that any decision by Solid Energy to abandon plans to re-enter and recover the drift to the Pike River mine makes a lie of his assurances to the families?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister; any of those questions.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware that there is a wide range of views about the practicality and safety of re-entry of the drift into Pike River mine.Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did the Solid Energy representative who was in charge of the Pike River mine and the Chief Inspector of Mines lead the families to believe in September 2013 that a credible and feasible plan had been agreed to and that work on the re-entry would start and what has changed their minds?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I cannot speak for the company but what I can say is that they embarked on that process because they believed it to be the appropriate course of action.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Prime Minister received a briefing from Solid Energy on whether it will progress the plans to re-enter the Pike River mine and if it has indicated that it will not what will he do about it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Personally I have not.Border Control SmartGate System—Passengers Processed and Eligibility11.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei)to the Minister of Customs: What reports has she received regarding the number of people using the border clearing technology SmartGate?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs):I receive regular updates on the uptake of SmartGate which the National-led Government introduced in 2009 and I am very pleased to report that 10 million people have now used the technology. We have a new 1-week record of 76000 people which was set last week and we are rapidly approaching the record of 1 million people every 3 months. SmartGate is making a great contribution to Better Public Services and it is allowing the Customs Service to deploy its officers where they are needed most.Dr Shane Reti: What is the Government doing to further improve border processing for travellers?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Four nationalities can currently use SmartGate and I am hoping to announce a fifth before Christmas. Over time more countries will be able to use the technology. Recently the age of eligibility was lowered from 16 years to 12 years allowing more passengers to use SmartGate. The Customs Service is investigating options for further gates and a new-generation technology which has been trialled successfully.Climate Change Policy—Government Position12.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti)to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by his statement on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report “We will use the findings from these reports to help develop policies and to take action to mitigate our greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the effects of climate change”?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Minister for Climate Change Issues):Yes.Meka Whaitiri: What action will he take to realise the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the world will need to nearly totally phase out fossil fuel use by 2100?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are taking many actions. Of course we are one of the only countries outside the EU to have a comprehensive emissions trading scheme. Then there is a broader range of complementary measures designed to reduce our emissions and also to adapt to climate change. I would be happy to go through many of those measures but it would take some time.Meka Whaitiri: Based on that reply what will he do to prevent New Zealand’s climate-friendly businesses continuing to close or relocate overseas like LanzaTech or the numerous biofuel companies that left when his Government repealed the biofuels obligation?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am glad the member asked because as announced earlier this week I am delighted about a renewables initiative in Southland about other initiatives in other parts of the country including heavy-vehicle fuel initiatives that the Government through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has been sponsoring. Of course there is a wide array of other things going on like a solar firm that has been helped by our Government to export solar into Pacific Island nations as part of a $100 million programme exporting renewables around the Pacific that we have put in place.Meka Whaitiri: How can New Zealanders have confidence his Government will take action to implement policies that will seriously tackle climate change when it has weakened the emissions trading scheme twice since taking Government refused to restrict the flood of international carbon units and repealed the restriction on new fossil fuel - powered electricity generation?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I disagree with the member. Take the electricity example for a start—we are now at 79 percent renewables for the year to date in our electricity system. That is the highest in a very very long time making us well on target to reach our 90 percent goal by 2025. In relation to the emissions trading scheme of course we have done a number of things recently to make it a very workable system including transitioning the emissions trading scheme to effectively a domestic-only scheme from May 2015. In May this year of course we closed an arbitrage loophole that threatened the integrity of the emissions trading scheme.Questions to MembersParental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Amendment1.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East)to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: Why did she draft the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):I drafted the bill in response to research and evidence showing that bonding and attachment between a parent and baby in the early months improved that child’s life outcomes that supporting breastfeeding to 26 weeks improved that child’s health and that supporting women to retain their connection to paid work increased their economic independence and workplace productivity. Work subsequently undertaken by the Government Administration Committee confirmed that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks is a cost-efficient way to promote great outcomes for families and New Zealand society.Poto Williams: Are you planning any other amendments?Mr SPEAKER: It is a marginal question but I will let it go. [Interruption] Order! It relates to the bill. Bringing the Speaker into the question was not useful. I am going to allow the member to answer it.SUE MORONEY: Despite the sound social and economic arguments for 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all in its current form the bill will be defeated by National so I am proposing an amendment that I expect all parties can support. It extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks for parents of newborn twins or triplets parents of babies born prematurely or parents of babies born with a disability. These parents face the greatest financial pressures to return to work before it may be in the best interests of their families to do so. My new proposal reduces the cost to just $6 million in the next financial year.General DebateHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What a great time to be a member of the National-led Government—back in Parliament for a third term with Prime Minister John Key showing strong leadership on the matters that make the most difference to New Zealand. Strong leadership was today demonstrated on security matters. Strong leadership on the economy on health on law and order and on education. It was what New Zealanders voted for and they are going to get it in spades this term.Meanwhile on the other side of the House you have got this gaggle of unemployable ne’er-do-wells. If any one of them could get a job I am sure they would not be here. They have not mounted one single successful attack on the Government in 4 weeks. Can anyone remember one question that we have been asked by that crowd—Jami-Lee Ross: Kevin Hague.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —apart from Kevin Hague’s question? None at all. They are totally lost because they are immersed in a re-run of “Labour Survivor 2013”. You will remember that series from last year. Well the one good guy in that got voted on to the island by us one of them got voted out of the caucus by them and then I think there is one left. Grant Robertson was skipping merrily down the aisle with political girlfriend Jacinda Ardern seeing the victory tape in sight when out of the blue came Andrew Little the angry man from Taranaki just fresh from increasing Jonathan Young’s majority to record levels twice in a row. He now thinks he is the man to the lead the Labour Party to victory. Then of course you have got Nanaia Mahuta providing the light-hearted comedy moments in the background. It is all bad over there.Then you turn to the other side there. You have got the Green Party. Well you have seen what those members are making in terms of a contribution to the House. Kevin Hague—32 questions on Katherine Rich; none on any health matters that make a difference to New Zealanders. The only thing the Green Party has done in health is suggest that we send homeopaths to West Africa to cure Ebola. Those people are off the planet and completely bonkers and the people of New Zealand notice it. Meanwhile we are getting on with the job.I can tell you that with my new responsibilities as Minister of Health it has been very interesting going around those 20 district health boards. This is fundamentally a different health system from when Mrs King was running it. When Mrs King was in charge they had patients lying on trolleys under harsh fluorescent lighting for 24 hours without getting their operations and without getting their treatment. Mrs King was sending patients to Australia for cancer care. Under Mrs King and then the man from Dunedin Mr Hodgson they were kicking people off waiting lists. But the one thing I can tell you about Mrs King is watch where she is sitting because she is always sitting beside the leader in waiting. If you look way back to when they rolled Mike Moore she was there. When they had the barbecue at Phil Goff’s house she was there. When they put Shearer in she was there. She was there with Phil Goff as well. So I am very interested to see who she is going to be backing because where Annette King goes that is where the Labour leadership ends up.But what I can also tell you about the health system is you go around the doctors the nurses and the lab technicians and they are energised. They are up for the challenge. They are thrilled that we are delivering 44000 extra operations every year. They are thrilled that actually we have set those health targets. Under Labour there were no targets; there were just strategies for Africa. No one was doing anything. All the doctors were going to Australia. No one was getting their operations. Under us we have raised the immunisation rates. We are tackling rheumatic fever. We are really focusing on those matters that make a difference to access to quality health care for New Zealanders and it is working. The morbidity and mortality statistics are improving. We are getting more care out into primary care. We are actually doing a great job in improving our children’s health. We go around our electorates and people are telling us they are happy with the health system. My predecessor did an excellent job but we are going to build on that.In this election just gone we put another $50 million into joint and bone pain. We are going to be rolling out free GP visits for under-13s. That is a massive achievement. It cuts the ground out from under Labour. Labour will never match that. People are saying: “Look we used to vote for Labour but you guys understand what we’re on about. We want our kids to be able to get the care they need. We want our kids to be in decent schools where we get decent reporting on how they’re doing. We want to know the streets are safe.” There is record low crime—the lowest since 1978. And do you know what we heard yesterday? Unemployment is down to 5.4 percent. This is a National Government delivering for New Zealanders. It is all good.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):What a riveting speech from the cigar-smoking Minister of Health from Northcote the greatest friend this Parliament has ever delivered to the tobacco industry. In fact I am worried on behalf of Jonathan Coleman about where he is going to get his supply of cigars now that the National Party has recruited half of the New Zealand tobacco industry into this Parliament. I am worried that his supply of free cigars is about to dry up.I want to talk about National’s great State house sell-off because this has been an utter shambles for the last 4 weeks. It is a shambles. Let me count the ways that the Government’s social housing policy has been a shambles. First how many State houses does National intend to sell off? How many? John Key said: “Well a few State houses.” Paula Bennett told Patrick Gower when he asked whether it was as many as 22000: “Logically maybe.” She said: “Well it could be thousands.” Rawdon Christie asked John Key: “Is 20000 homes an accurate figure?”. John Key said: “I don’t think so no.”Well the other big question that New Zealanders are wondering about is where will the money be invested the billions of dollars that will be generated from the sale of State homes? Bill English said: “Well um we’re not going to rebuild houses with it. It could go into the consolidated account.” On another occasion he said: “Well if we want less housing stock there is no point in rebuilding houses with it.” Will the homes be sold to private landlords? Well Bill English said: “We could sell them to anybody.” Bill English said: “We’ll just go to the market and see who turns up basically. Generally financiers and developers are not interested in social housing because it is too hard. What drives their interest is wanting to do a better job with tenants.” So it is a shambles. They are looking at privatising up to a third of an $18 billion public asset that has been putting a roof over the heads of vulnerable Kiwi families for 80 years now. I think New Zealanders deserve a bit more clarity.But what is clear behind the bland Crosby/Textor assurances that trip so easily from the tongue of Paula Bennett—“wraparound services” “We’re working with the community.” “We’re all about the people.”—is that nothing could be further from the truth. What is clear here is that Bill English has had a back to the 1990s moment. He and Treasury are on an ideological crusade to end State housing as we know it. Bill English’s answer to the housing crisis his answer to a shortage of affordable housing is to blame the councils blame the Resource Management Act and flog off what State houses the Government does own. He has basically said to the New Zealand Herald that he just wants to get the $18 billion State housing asset off the Crown’s balance sheet. He wants to get the Government out of the business of actually owning houses and simply pay a subsidy to landlords.There are three reasons why this is a really dumb idea. First shifting tens of thousands of New Zealand families out of State housing and into a voucher system as Paula Bennett describes it—effectively putting money directly into the pockets of landlords—will undoubtedly drive up rents. You do not increase supply but you fuel demand by pumping subsidies in just as National announced before the election by subsiding first-home buyers in an overheated market. It will drive rents up. Second social housing tenants under this system will inevitably end up competing with first-home buyers and other renters making an already difficult housing market much worse. The third reason is that owning houses and having them earmarked for the express purpose of social housing means that even when the market gets tight as it is now at least you can be sure that there is a pool of housing there for the people who need it most. Under Paula Bennett’s voucher system you do not get that kind of security. If private landlords and profit providers are in the mix as Bill English has said they will be they will naturally go to where the best profits can be made.There is some kind of bizarre determination by this Government to somehow build an artificial market in social housing. But the market has never ever delivered affordable decent housing to the people who need it most.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):It is always a pleasure following the member Phil Stoner Twyford although I must say I get disappointed with him. I thought he was one of the nice guys but to hear the ad hominem attacks from that member and having a series of Opposition questioners on the other side asking questions about personalities rather than policies shows parties in this Parliament are bereft of ideas. Well that is not the case on this side of the House.I do want to say this though.Phil Twyford: Don’t forget Simon you’ve been told to be nice not arrogant and conceited.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is right. I do want to say this though. Today it is a privilege to speak a day when we have had a serious debate and a series of speeches on a very significant set of issues for New Zealand and the world. Of course I think we can all agree that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a barbarous organisation that is having its effect in the Middle East and in Islamic countries but also in Western countries including New Zealand. We are not immune and we know—the Prime Minister gave a speech today on this matter—that ISIL has been successfully recruiting and working in New Zealand to further its evil aims.I just want to say while the Hon Annette King is in the House that I agree with her and what I thought was a very good speech from the Opposition there. She is absolutely right. This is a question of balance. It is a question of acting calmly and proportionally and that is exactly what the Prime Minister and this National-led Government have done. We have not overreacted. We do of course have a duty of responsibility to New Zealanders and that is why we are making proportionate law changes that will be in this House a little later this year—discreet legal changes to protect New Zealanders in a proportionate way.We are also then acting internationally. The only other speech I have given so far in this House since the election was on the day after we had been elected to the United Nations Security Council and I was actually really proud. The flag debate was kicking off and I was really proud to be part of a Government part of a country that is outward-looking that is confident and that is a responsible global corporate citizen in this world that we live in. The quid pro quo of that of course is that on occasions like this we have to step up and act in the interests of New Zealanders and also be good global corporate citizens.Because the question was asked in the House today I also want to talk about another serious issue facing this world of ours—climate change. I want to say quite clearly to the member that this is a party this is a Government that has a strategy and a plan and it is working hard on what is a serious issue in this country. We have a comprehensive emissions trading scheme. We accept—we all accept—that it is at a low price at the moment because of global conditions but there is a broad range of actions and initiatives that this Government is taking to deal with this issue not least in the portfolios I am privileged to hold. The point I really make to the members is that climate change is about much more—and climate change policy is about much more—than a price signal in the emissions trading scheme. That is why if we go through the things we are doing and we look at where the emissions are 47 or 48 percent—Phil Twyford: The price of carbon matters.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Phil Stoner Twyford—come from agriculture. That is an area where it is disruptive technology that will make the difference and that is why we in this country lead the Global Research Alliance on agricultural emissions to find a step change in that area.The rest of the emissions—nearly half of them—come from energy. That is why in the area of transport where I am Minister we are doing a lot of thinking about what we can do with our fleet and electric vehicles in some of these issues. That is why we have got a Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency programme being rolled out which is making a difference. That is why we have increased that programme. That is also why in the energy sector we make sure that our policies—and this is a perverse thing about the left; their policies would actually set this back—are increasing renewables in this country year on year and why to the year to date we have 79 percent of renewables from our electricity system. We are third or fourth at the moment in the world and we will make 90 percent by 2025. I think that is something we should be very proud of.We have rolled out a number of other initiatives in that wider energy area—[Bell rung]—such as the renewable heat hub that I have been talking about—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Just to remind members in the general debate that the bell goes after 5 minutes and they sit down.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):In this year’s election only one party addressed the widespread concerns that New Zealanders have with the current immigration policy and that was New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be making immigration a major theme of our role in this parliamentary term too and we will probably be the only party to do so. This Government has a completely irresponsible and irrational immigration policy that is causing great damage to the interests of New Zealand. The Government has been boasting of net immigration at uncontrolled record levels. It is actually telling the public that uncontrolled record net immigration is some kind of measure of success. It claims that this massive unplanned immigration is an achievement. In fact the record numbers of migrants show that New Zealand has a slack uncontrolled immigration policy—in effect an open-door policy. The numbers of migrants are nothing short of an indictment on this Government’s incompetence on immigration.For a start what record numbers of immigrants show is that no consideration is given to the relationship between immigration and housing policy while every day brings new horror stories about the housing crisis especially in Auckland and Christchurch. In Auckland there are soaring house prices as desperate people scramble to get a home. Hundreds of families are left to squat in caravans and garages. The Government is full of empty rhetoric about the housing crisis. Its failure to address the crisis for over 6 years continues. This Government does not have any genuine concern about the desperate housing situation faced by thousands of New Zealanders because the one meaningful action it could take today if it was serious about housing would be to turn off the tap to new migrants.Of course we cannot stop New Zealanders returning to New Zealand and neither would we want to but we do not have to let the rest of the world in. All the Government’s talk about housing is bogus. It is a total smokescreen. It is looking at only one side of the supply and demand equation for housing because it stupidly refuses to deal with the demand for housing generated by high immigration. Cut immigration now—that is what we say. That is the quickest and most effective way to relieve pressure on the housing market immediately. It is utterly astonishing if not bizarre that the Government cannot make the connection between immigration and housing.But the Government’s immigration policy is deeply flawed for a whole range of reasons not just housing. Take jobs. We have over 140000 unemployed. Tens of thousands more have given up on finding any sort of job at all. Yet migrants are flooding in on a temporary work visa basis. The wages and conditions of most New Zealanders are hardly moving leaving tens of thousands of families in severe financial stress and it is no wonder. Massive immigration is undermining the pay of ordinary New Zealanders.The truth is that the Government is only too happy to see that happening. Cheap labour is what its corporate cronies want and it fits with National’s commitment to globalisation. And then there is the foreign student visa racket and a racket it is. Why are we allowing foreign students to work in New Zealand? In case the Government has not noticed there are thousands of very able young New Zealand school-leavers and graduates who cannot find a job. Why should they have to compete with hordes of foreign students? It does not make sense. Of course if New Zealanders are displaced in the job market they may well end up on the unemployment benefit.Thanks to wildly excessive immigration New Zealand now has one of the fastest-growing populations in the OECD. That is causing great stress on housing the labour market and our infrastructure generally and there is no follow-up to see just how well these migrants have settled in New Zealand. What checking is being done to ensure migrants have not become a burden on the taxpayer? We certainly have a lot more taxi drivers and some on benefits so just what skills are we actually getting? There is no genuine attempt to really verify that at all. This is now an open-door land. [Bell rung] It is the usual—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! This is the second member I have had to remind and the third member who has breached the rule. When the bell goes in the general debate people sit. About two or three words are OK but not the next couple of sentences.JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura):Today has been a very important day for New Zealand. The Prime Minister has made an announcement that I think should give people cause to think about what dangers New Zealand actually has particularly in terms of our security around people who might see themselves as wanting to go off to Syria Iraq and other places like that to become jihadists or terrorist fighters. We have seen acts of terrorism in countries such as Australia and Canada. The UK has become well used to being the subject of terrorism. The United States many other countries like Indonesia and obviously Syria and Iraq have had tremendous terrorism.Terrorism is something where there is normally a public display that is there for large audiences. It is now put on YouTube and it is used to create a sense of fear amongst as many people as possible. It is actually after this announcement that we as a country need to react to that and the best way for us to do that is not to go immigrant-bashing and not to revert to religious bigotry but to remember that terrorism comes in all forms and at the moment there is this one called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is one that is absolutely dedicated to the most extreme acts of violence against people such as aid workers and truckdrivers who give up their jobs to go to help deliver food in places like Syria. That is the level of the people who are having those people’s heads cut off with knives videoing it and then distributing the images around the world. Those are the sorts of people whom we are talking about.So today when I heard the Green Party’s contribution from Metiria Turei I like many other people in this House wondered what planet she was on. I thought: “A family group conference isn’t going to help this one.” Appeasement never really does when you are dealing with people who do not want to have a solution. But I did agree with her on a couple of points. The first is the right to free speech. It is not one that I have always seen the Greens exercise in practice but I certainly agreed with her right to say whatever she wanted to say today. But the other thing that I did agree with her on—and I think it is really important—is that brute force alone does not solve this problem. Also however I think it is very foolish to think that this is just an isolated group of disenchanted people who want to be made important. I think about someone like the late—thankfully—Osama bin Laden. He was hardly a disenfranchised poor person from Saudi Arabia but the son of a multibillionaire. These are the sorts of people who have funded terrorism and they still do now and there are Governments I am sure that are involved in that.It is really important though that we look at these changes that the Prime Minister has discussed today and that we consider them carefully. I thought the Labour Party under Annette King’s leadership had a very sensible response. I would not suggest for a moment—because I quite like her—that she should put her hand forward to be the next leader of the Labour Party but I do think it was a very reasonable and sensible response and certainly significantly better than the response when the Search and Surveillance Bill came through when the only parties that did vote for it were National ACT and United Future. But of course all that is forgotten now except by me.I think it is really important though that we think about the fact that when we have got 30 to 40 people as we were told by the Prime Minister who are of real concern to the New Zealand SIS and that there are 30 to 40 other people whom it needs to check it is actually a significant number for a country like us. I would also say to those who want to spend today attacking immigrants that most of these people I suggest are not necessarily immigrants. There are quite a lot of home-grown people involved in this and I think many of us will have seen those who have been publicised—people who have decided to convert to a religion in its most extreme form as an excuse for extreme violence. That is actually what you are dealing with—not necessarily people who are religious but people who are violent and who want an excuse to be able to perpetrate that violence with impunity. Those are the people whom I think we should be very concerned about—never frightened but concerned. We heard today about Canada and about its Parliament being so closely aligned to ours. I mean what terrible act was the poor soldier guarding the war memorial doing when he was gunned down and killed—murdered? That is what we are dealing with.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):Thank you for the opportunity. I do agree with the earlier speaker that there were some serious issues debated earlier at the beginning of this parliamentary session. However the public listening in to this debate would not have known that it was serious given the way the backbenchers of the National Party chatted grumbled and tried to interfere when Opposition members were making contributions.There is another serious matter that I want to raise and it has to do with the great house sale—the State house sale by this particular Government. Only the other week I heard Dr Shane Reti during his maiden speech make a comment that resonated with me. He made reference to the fact that he grew up in a State house. The point that I thought was important and I am not sure whether the rest of the House noted it was that he talked about the need for us to take responsibility for those following behind us. Unlike Dr Shane Reti there are members of this House who do not feel that way—who have a similar experience who had the advantage of being supported through a State house but who now in the positions they are in do not want to pass on that support to the rest of the population. I also heard Dr Lance O’Sullivan another Northlander say that when his parents could not provide for him his country supported him and now as a result of that he spends all of his days giving back to the community.That is unlike what I have heard from the Prime Minister who is somebody who grew up in a State house; the Minister Paula Bennett who grew up in a State house; Alfred Ngaro who I have no doubt grew up in a State house; and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who grew up in a State house. It seems they have now taken a stance that it was OK for our country to support them but they have taken another stance that they do not want—[Interruption] Well that is probably because he is named Ngaro which is Pukapukan for somebody who is lost somebody who is forgotten. He has forgotten that the rest of New Zealand supported him and he has now forgotten that he has a duty to support those of us coming through who are less fortunate.There is a waiting list of 6000—more than 6000 people who are waiting to get into a State house because they cannot afford to pay the market rent and because they are currently living in someone’s garage sharing a relative’s living room in a boarding house in an emergency house or as we saw the other day living in a car or in a caravan park. These people shower at the public toilets. They use sports club facilities to get dressed and prepare their children to go to school. They do not have regular incomes because one week they will have a 40-hour week which they are paid for and another week they will not have any hours because of the casualisation of the work they are in.That is the reality. We currently have a housing crisis that this Government refuses to acknowledge. It refuses to acknowledge that there is child poverty. We do not hear Government members using that particular word any more. They continue to say something else to try to cover the situation the crisis we are in.Prior to the election a young woman came to my office. Her mother had passed away. There were three of them—she and her two young siblings. She was 18 years of age with a young sibling aged 6 and another one of 3 years of age. Housing New Zealand was determined to evict them because the house was in their mother’s name. These three young people could not live with a relative because the auntie already had a full house. Prior to the election we managed to convince Housing New Zealand to find sustainable accommodation for them. After the election guess what? Instead of giving them the proper notice Housing New Zealand then said that they had to move out to the private sector. They had to find—and this is a quote from the official’s mouth—“sustainable accommodation”. I could not convince those officials that these three young children needed a house to live in. In fact what they said to me was that it is against Government policy to house this group of young people who could not live on their own because their parent had died. So guess what? The Government knows there is a housing crisis but it does not care. It does not care one iota.ALFRED NGARO (National):It is a pleasure to rise and speak after the member Su’a William Sio. I would say that that speech was like the speech of a white knight on a white horse but in his case it is a brown knight on a brown donkey.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!ALFRED NGARO: This is it—this is what has become of this speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No no. I think the member will just change his tone a bit. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO: This is what has become of the speech. It is the classic speech the socialist speech that keeps coming out and by the way the assumption that I grew up in a State house is not true. This is the thing—all these assumptions about who we are as Polynesian people growing up the assumptions in his speech that talked about the knight coming in to save our communities and save our people. In other words they cannot save themselves. Well this is what happens. Labour Party members keep saying: “We are here as the Labour Party to save you.” Well guess what? Here is some news—our community does not need you to save it. Why? Because we can save ourselves. That is right. But this is what has happened—those sorts of speeches have become a one-trick pony. It is the same thing over and over again hence the reason that over a million New Zealanders did not vote for the Labour Party. Labour has had the poorest result in the history of the Labour Party—in 92 years. So it is going to have to take some lessons from that.Carmel Sepuloni: Not as bad as the National Party in 2002. Don’t forget that.ALFRED NGARO: You can shout all you like but here is the reason why we are making a difference. Why? Because when we talk about poverty hardship and difficulty it is not about saying: “Here are the things we are going to do for you.” Our communities do not need to be told that we are here to save them. All they want and all they need is opportunity and a fair go. So here is the reality.Out there in west Auckland in Te Atatū where I went and campaigned for 2½ months here is the difference it made. In 2½ months the people of Te Atatū turned round and said they halved the majority for a Labour seat that had been Labour for some time.Carmel Sepuloni: Turned around and said they wanted Phil Twyford not Alfred Ngaro.ALFRED NGARO: That is right. The majority of the party vote was increased from 700 in 2011 to nearly 2000. That is what actually happened in 2½ months. Here is a telling sign. When I was at Rutherford College Will Flavell came out and said this to me: “Geez you’re going hard aren’t you?”. I asked him how long he had been out in the west and he said: “Maybe some 10 years.” So here is a lesson from the wise about how it rolls out in the west. You either go hard or you go home.Our communities want to hear the messages that make a difference so you talk about housing and how that makes a difference. Our communities heard about KiwiBuild—100000 homes 10000 per year—but here is the telling thing in the debate. Down at McLaren Park when Phil Stoner Twyford was asked this question: “So you’re saying you’ve got 10000 per year?” he said that was correct. But on Q+A on Sunday he said he could build 400 in the first year 8000 in the second and 12000 in the next. That is right—it is accumulative over a period of time. People began to see through the lies and realised that is not what makes a difference. Our housing policies are making a difference.Here is the other thing. The issues around a capital gains tax did not make a difference. That is right. [Interruption] Wahine you can keep talking and crying all the time—here is what made a difference. All of a sudden it was a failed policy. You no longer talk about it. Why? Because it became an inheritance tax.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard: Order!ALFRED NGARO: So here is the thing that becomes important. Time and time again our communities are saying that the policies are weak the implementation does not happen and the reality is there is nothing new. You are going to have to change your message because it is not getting through.Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether it is appropriate for that member to say that you need to change.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes and if the member had been listening she would have heard me correct him at the time.ALFRED NGARO: Here is the other bit in the issues around poverty that we believe is making a difference. Just this afternoon for instance we were down here looking at the Big Picture art exhibition. Over there the young children from Pukehamoamoa School had won the prize and why? Because they showed a picture that showed that poverty is a very complex issue in our communities. We know that there is hardship in our communities. We know that there are difficulties. So how are we solving this? We are dealing with the issues in hardship for instance with free GP visits for children under 13 ensuring that they get access to health services that are there. What are we also doing for instance? We are ensuring that we are engaging into communities so that they enrol into early childhood education. We know the difference that that makes to our communities—and it is making a difference. We know how that is engaging our communities as well.I also want to talk about the fact that our Pasifika communities are changing and moving towards a value-based National-led Government and the things that we are doing. We are seeing it happen constantly over and over again. Why? Because those values of opportunity are constantly coming through for our people as well. Here is the difference that we know that it is making. The economy is growing by 3.9 percent.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):At last. Health promotion is the discipline of improving health by addressing not only the individual factors that drive illness but also the risk environments that drive illness. Health promotion involves going beyond education and social marketing and trying to address and change those environments. Health promotion funding over the past 6 years has more than halved. That is one of the reasons why we supported the creation of the Health Promotion Agency. We felt it could make a difference. But our eyebrows were certainly raised—and those of many health promoters were raised—by the appointment of Katherine Rich to the board of the Health Promotion Agency. That is because Mrs Rich appears to have a pretty deep conflict of interest and it was very hard to see how that was going to be managed. The main causes of preventable illness and death in this country are tobacco alcohol and unhealthy food and drink. Mrs Rich’s day job is in fact to maximise the consumption of and profit from those very products which conflicts with the role that she would have as a member of the Health Promotion Agency board to minimise the consumption of and harm from those products. It is a fundamental conflict of interest. It was hard to see how she was going to be able to manage it.Managing conflicts of interest is not as the Minister of Health would have us believe a trivial matter. It goes beyond an ethical duty—it is a legal duty. The Crown Entities Act sets out specific legal duties that members of the Health Promotion Agency board have got and there are three levels. The first is to complete and maintain a register of interests—professional interests personal interests; a general register. The second level is that when a potential conflict of interest arises in relation to a specific agenda item that is being considered by the board the member of the board must declare that potential conflict of interest. The third level is that in relation to that matter—in relation to that potential conflict—the member must withdraw from discussion and decision making in relation to that matter.I have to say that Katherine Rich has been very diligent in her completion of that first duty. She has maintained a register of interests but she has completely failed in both of those other duties. She has never ever—not even once—declared a conflict of interest with any item being considered by the Health Promotion Agency board and that is despite every single meeting that she has attended including discussion by the Health Promotion Agency of strategy on at least one of and usually more alcohol tobacco or food and drink. She has failed in that legal duty. She has never ever—not even once—withdrawn from any discussion of or decision making in relation to any matter being considered by the board. She has failed absolutely to meet her ethical and legal obligations. That is not just some technical or theoretical duty that she has slipped up on; it is a fundamental thing.So for example the Health Promotion Agency has submitted in favour of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Katherine Rich submitted against it. Over the past several weeks questions in this House have been exploring the very serious allegations made against Mrs Rich in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics—that she engaged Carrick Graham to commission and write blog posts for the Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog attacking public health experts. I do not know whether that allegation is correct or not. If it is not I would be very interested to know what the initials “KR” stand for. That is a very serious allegation and what we have heard from Minister Coleman today and in the House over the past several weeks is that he has not even bothered to ask Katherine Rich whether the allegations are true. She has not denied it in public. She has not issued a defamation action against Nicky Hager. The Minister has not even commenced an investigation as to whether the allegations are true. This is a Government that has been mired by allegations of cronyism and Minister Coleman appears intent on continuing that.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I felt fortunate to be given a general debate spot today by the Hon Gerry Brownlee especially in relation to the announcement that was made today by the Prime Minister as to what we are planning or looking at doing to help with the threat that the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) presents not just in the Middle East but as a growing global threat. There are just a few facts that I want to remind everyone in the House of because I have listened to the contributions and it is good to see that there is general support and consensus around what our Prime Minister is doing.Iraq is a sovereign country. I was lucky enough to be there and help to deliver the first elections after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. It is a sovereign country. It does have a democracy and its people have voted in a democratically elected Government. They have asked for help because they are having a tough time of it there at the moment. They have got a terror group that has grown and that is operating across two borders. It is well-organised. It is well resourced. Never before have we seen these groups have access to the types of funds that they currently have access to. The Hon Gerry Brownlee made a very good point that they are not just operating in the Middle East; they are operating in places like Somalia Yemen and Nigeria and their tactics are changing.The one thing that I was very pleased and relieved to see as a member of the National caucus was how carefully our leadership group is approaching this. I do not feel like we could have a stronger team leading our country into this than our Prime Minister; the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Minister of Defence; and the Hon Murray McCully our Minister of Foreign Affairs and who is probably at the moment in this country—in fact he would be in this country—the one person who has got more knowledge than anyone in terms of what is happening globally with the work that he has put in and the fantastic result that he and his team delivered in our securing a seat on the United Nations Security Council; and of course Chris Finlayson the top legal mind in the country in terms of making sure that we remain compliant.I was lucky enough back in 2002-03 to be responsible for overseeing the training of the newly formed security forces inside Iraq which included the Iraqi Police Service the Iraqi National Guard the Facilities Protection Service the border and customs police and the tactical support unit. As part of that role I oversaw the training that was delivered by Kiwis Brits and also Americans. I can tell you now that it made a huge fundamental difference in the way that the Iraqi security services were able to deploy and operate. So I was very pleased to hear that the Prime Minister is considering this as an option—for us to make a contribution—because it would make a real tangible contribution to helping Iraq out in its struggle against ISIL.I just want to acknowledge the Peshmerga fighters who are really taking the fight to ISIL at the moment. I was lucky enough to work with them also. They are certainly a group that are not short on courage and they are passionate about their homeland and they are showing that they are putting up a stiff resistance. I acknowledge the Iraqi forces as well which are doing the best that they can within the environment that they have to operate in.I will just say a little bit about that environment and some of the risks that they face. We do not hear about it and we do not really talk about it too much but you have to remember—and I think the Prime Minister alluded to it today—that a big part of how these terror groups operate is through kidnapping. Actually families of members of the armed forces are targeted. That of course puts them in a very difficult situation. What would any of us do if we were faced with a situation where our family our children or our wife has been taken and there are demands put on you in terms of whether or not you will actually turn up the next day and deploy with your colleagues? So this is one of the challenges that they really face.In terms of their tactics I think David Shearer made a very good point and the Prime Minister backed it up. We are not being alarmist. No one wants to be alarmist. Every single night we go to bed and probably most of us are unaware that the police are out there dealing with all types of crimes that we will never see that will never touch us but that are happening. But they are trained and they understand how to deal with those.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):The big State house sell-off is real and it is amongst us and it is the result of this Government and its plans to abdicate its responsibility in the State housing space.I want to stand and bring up a very localised situation that I am experiencing in the Hastings and Napier area when it comes to a real lack of State housing stock. I have got numerous reports in the papers that go back months and months saying that the situation is getting worse. I am having meetings on a regular basis. It was quite hurtful to hear the honourable Alfred Ngaro talking about people having to look after themselves because I am proud to say our first family home was achieved through the capitalisation of my sister’s family benefit. That allowed my family—my parents and five siblings—to get on the homeownership ladder. I acknowledge that and we are proud. She keeps reminding us that she actually owns the family home even though she is 55 now.But in all seriousness there have been some great policies in the past that kept our obligations as a State as a Crown to help those who do want to get into homeownership. I just want to remind this House that those policies in the past did actually work and we did get people into homeownership. I want to stand and say there is nothing that makes you more proud than to know that you own your own home. But the reality for a lot of the communities and constituents we on the Opposition side represent is that just getting a decent roof over their heads for themselves and their family is a basic right for every New Zealander.Like I said I want to put a spotlight on three areas. When I spoke earlier addressing the Speech from the Throne I highlighted some amazing people—local champions who are working in the advocacy role of their own will and through their own commitment because they see the hardships many many families are facing in the Hastings and Napier area. I want to acknowledge them for what they do on behalf of those on the long waiting list.Kiri Swindell is a wonderful lady from Napier who every Friday at 6 p.m. is in the Clive Square soup kitchen feeding between 15 and 40 homeless people mainly men—15 to 20 in Napier who come to her soup kitchen which she provides with her husband. She does not work for any agency. She does not receive any funding. She does it because she sees a need. So I want to acknowledge what Kiri says. She along with the other advocates who I know in the Hawke’s Bay are meeting on a regular basis so that we can bring the issues on homelessness and the struggles of people in both Napier and Hastings to the public’s attention. A lot of it is getting led by this Government saying that everything is kei te pai when really we all know that at the end of it it is not. So I want to acknowledge Kiri and her husband for the work they do in Napier.I want to also acknowledge Florence Karaitiana who is another local housing advocate who works in the Raureka Camberley and Flaxmere areas. These women have taken it upon themselves to be informed about the housing situation. Florence has aerial photographs of all the State homes of Raureka of Camberley and of Flaxmere—all the State homes. Her question is: why are they vacant when we have so many on the waiting list? It is a pretty simply question. In fact they were in my electorate office and we literally counted each State home from these area maps and we got up to at least 100 in those three suburbs.It baffles me that we hear from the Government that it has got a housing plan when in reality when I go back to my electorate office in Hastings and Napier I have people coming in daily who are waiting for State houses. It is just not fair. In Maraenui we have over 100 vacant State homes boarded up. I want to acknowledge that we have had some new two-bedroom futureproofed homes built in Maraenui but the supply is not keeping up with the demand. Thank you.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):It is my pleasure to speak in this general debate tonight because it is my turn to highlight the fantastic work that this John Key - National Government is doing to enhance and strengthen our community across New Zealand but also in Invercargill and Southland. All throughout the campaign the Opposition cried how rubbish New Zealand was how terrible it was to live here and how the sky was falling. Well New Zealand did not agree and I certainly do not agree.As such I am extremely proud of the achievements that this Government has made in these difficult economic times to grow our economy to deliver better public services and to support our families. This is a Government that is not afraid to think outside the box. We have initiatives novel to the Opposition such as a Business Growth Agenda implementing strategies to keep New Zealand open for business and negotiating essential free-trade agreements which are especially important for areas such as Southland that have an export-driven economy. New Zealand simply does not have enough people to sell our wares to and we must treat the rest of the world as our business partners.This Government is also investing in infrastructure. We are investing in ultra-fast fibre to connect even our most isolated businesses with the rest of the world and Southland is a prime example. Even though we live at the bottom of the world and our hair is swept with the winds off the polar ice caps our businesses are thriving. They are producing more they are hiring more staff and they are generating higher incomes for our people.Jami-Lee Ross: Some pretty good MPs too.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you. In fact unemployment figures released today in the household labour force survey say that the South Island unemployment rate is 3.4 percent. That is fantastic.Unlike the Labour Party this Government is a dynamic one. We are not one-trick ponies. Not only do we care about building a strong economy but we care about our families getting ahead too. Take health care for example. We introduced free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 6 and now we are extending it to children under 13 years of age. This means that cost is not a barrier to our children getting the medical attention that they need and early intervention including immunisation programmes to keep our kids healthy. I am so pleased that another doctor’s surgery in Invercargill has signed up to that scheme to keep our Southland kids healthy. This year our public health care budget will reach a record $15.6 billion.Scott Simpson: How much?SARAH DOWIE: $15.6 billion. We are making each dollar go further and we are focused on front-line results. There are more elective surgeries to reduce pain restore independence and improve quality of life. Since 2008 there are 1600 more doctors and 3200 more nurses in district health boards. We care about New Zealanders’ health and their lifestyles.I want to pay tribute to the Southland Institute of Technology. Yesterday it signed a memorandum of understanding with an Indonesian polytechnic LP3i Polytechnic to develop an exchange programme not only to enrich obviously Invercargill’s cultural diversity but to bring students over for a staircase option to allow them to study after they have completed their diplomas to complete a degree in commerce applied management or hotel management. This is indicative of the standard and the quality of the courses offered by the Southland Institute of Technology. This John Key - National Government has a goal of doubling the total value of international education to $5 billion by 2025 as set out in our Business Growth Agenda. The polytech and Invercargill are contributing to this through such alliances and I look forward to meeting the first students taking part in this exchange soon.There is much still to be achieved but New Zealand Invercargill and Southland are coming out of one of the worst financial crises since the Great Depression and we are well on the way to a more prosperous and meaningful position. I look forward to being part of this positive and pragmatic Government now and in the future.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):This Government is embarking upon the most significant change in State and social housing that this country has seen in 80 years. It is going to be a disaster. It is going to be an absolute disaster. When we look at the housing issues in this country the spectrum of need goes from homelessness—people living in cars garages and tents—right through to the other end where only those with the most wealth can actually afford a home these days. It is shameful what this Government is attempting to do to those most vulnerable those most in need of housing.We are talking about State housing—our housing; housing that is owned by the New Zealand taxpayer housing that we are proud of that we should be proud of and that we should continue to invest in. It is State housing which this Government wants to morph into the terminology of social housing. Let us get it right. State housing is housing that we own as a nation. It supports our beneficiaries supports our low-income families supports people who are unwell supports young parents supports our older people and supports our community organisations. When I ran a refuge I had the privilege of having community support through State housing to support women and children who were trying to escape violence. That is what State housing is about. It serves people who cannot access affordable housing through the private rental market.Let us look at what the Minister of Finance Bill English said today about the Government’s changes to State housing—the proposed sell-off of some of the State houses. Some of them will go to social housing providers but not all. Some of them will be retained by Housing New Zealand and others—the rest of them—will be sold. Who to? To private landlords that is who. What will they do with them? There are two pathways of thought around this. What is the justification for selling State houses? The Minister Bill English said that they needed to be fit for purpose so they needed to be the right type in the right place in the right condition and of the right size. OK so he is probably talking about three-bedroom homes which are not the right size for families in need and for some people in need.There are 6000 people on the Housing New Zealand priority A waiting list. About 1400 to 2000 of those people are waiting for transfers from one type of house to another. There would be more than 4000—nearly 4500—people alone waiting for a type of house. There are some real difficulties that I have with reviewable tenancies which will move people from their current State houses and into other types of housing. It means that we are putting vulnerable people out into the private housing market and letting them drift. We are divesting ourselves of housing with no plans to invest that funding back into the housing market. If the Government does have plans tell us about them. Where is the transparency? What are your plans? What are you going to do? What is the Government planning to do?My second area of concern is around the accommodation supplement. There has not been a lot of discussion about what is going to happen around the accommodation supplement. There has been really limited discussion around this. Who does the accommodation supplement support? It supports the private landlords—the private landlords—who are likely to pick up some of these State houses that we are selling. Will the Government actually tell us what it is budgeting what it is committing to in terms of the accommodation supplement? Minister English said today that the changes to social housing State housing was going to provide more money to be available for people and their housing needs—not more housing; more money. This signals to me that there is going to be more money available for private landlords for the accommodation supplement and that is a shame. It is a tragedy. We need to build houses not provide more money for private landlords—Hon Ruth Dyson: To put rents up.POTO WILLIAMS: —to put rents up to live off the poor low-income folk who actually want decent housing and deserve decent housing.What has this Government committed to pay directly into the pockets of private landlords?The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Sittings of the HouseCARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour):I seek leave for the House to be suspended from now until after the dinner break.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course? There is no objection.Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 July.Clause 4 PurposeJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to give another contribution on Sue Moroney’s bill on paid parental leave and employment protection which would if it were able to take effect as was originally intended extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Over the course of this debate we have had an opportunity to talk at great length about all of the rationale and evidence that sits behind a paid parental leave extension. I will just canvass those very briefly again before I go on to my substantive contribution around clause 4.As the member in the chair who has taken this bill through has continually highlighted all of the evidence from the World Health Organization and beyond points to the fact that in order to form a strong attachment between mother and baby and in order to encourage breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life 26 weeks of paid parental leave is essentially best practice. The kind of indication we have that that is indeed the case is really just the OECD. If you were to compare where New Zealand ranks Australia introduced its 18-week payment Britain has 39 weeks and Sweden—obviously always outdoing everyone else—has 16 months. That means that on average the paid parental leave entitlement in OECD countries is close to a year and New Zealand lags significantly behind. Of course when this bill first came forward we were looking at 14 weeks. The Government has since made some paltry changes in that regard but even then New Zealand ranks around 24 out of 25 OECD nations when it comes to—I do not want to use the word “generosity” because it is not about generosity; it is actually just about doing what is best for mother and baby and that is where we rank.That also points to the fact that New Zealand when you look at how much we spend as a nation on the first 5 years of a child’s life tends to spend about half of what other comparable OECD nations do. We start to pick up beyond those first 5 years. One of the significant reasons for that initial spend is our lack of universal child payments and also our relatively small amount of paid parental leave. That points to the way that other nations treat paid parental leave which is based on international evidence and we are lagging behind. That speaks directly to the purpose of this bill the clause that we are debating now which is the purpose clause. The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.” All the way through this debate we have been very very clear that we had stuck with 26 weeks because firstly it was best practice and secondly we knew it was affordable.I really want to pay respect to my colleague Sue Moroney who has taken the step of putting in a substantive Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 15 which acknowledges that we have a Government that despite the best arguments in the world is going to veto this bill. So in light of that Sue Moroney has put forward amendments that basically try to salvage something for families whom we know—if we are not going to extend 26 weeks to everyone—are the ones who desperately need it the most. When you narrow that down Sue Moroney looks at families who have multiple births which we know is a very small percentage of families—I come from a multiple-birth family; my father is an identical twin—to families who have premature births or to families who have a child with a significant disability. Sue Moroney has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 which at least allows those families to have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I want to acknowledge that it is hard to make such substantive changes to a bill when you believe in that bill so much but I absolutely believe that Sue Moroney is trying to do right by those families by making that substantive amendment.Sue Moroney has also set out in question time today the relative cost of those changes when compared with other costs that we have had for the substantive extension. We are looking with those revised changes in the first year at an estimate of around $6 million. It is $4 million in years 2016-17. Then we go on to $8 million $9 million and then as we project out we are looking at around $10 million in cost. When you compare that with some of the things we have spent money on under this Government it is a very small amount of money for the benefit that those families would gain. Obviously it is significantly less than what the Government was going to veto had we had the 26-week extension which again we have argued to the hilt that in the long term saves money. Having a decent attachment and having a child get the best start in life absolutely saves money. I believe that we have made that case substantively. We only need to look at the children who are getting a poor start in life who are estimated to cost this country $6 billion. So extending paid parental leave is an investment rather than a cost.But even then given that we are facing a financial veto putting forward an estimate that is only around $10 million which is half of a referendum to change a flag—half; less than half—we could extend paid parental leave to families with multiple births premature births or children with disabilities. Chris Bishop how could you argue against that? If you would like to have a go though you would be most welcome. I would like to hear the arguments against supporting families with premature babies multiple births or children with disabilities. I am sure there is some measly argument that you will stretch out in there somewhere. Though just to give some clarity around where those figures for the estimates we have come from they are a guideline only. They are based on the fact that around 7 percent of births are estimated to be premature. We know that a percentage of those are due to poor oral health in pregnant women and a lack of access to decent health care. While we are at it I would not mind having a debate about whether or not the Government would like to adopt Labour’s policy of free dental health care for pregnant women because that would reduce the number of premature births thus reducing the cost of this bill and the cost that we experience as a nation generally. It is just an extra idea that we are happy to gift to the Government if it were reasonable enough to adopt it—sorry 7 percent is both premature and/or multiple births.I believe it is Multiple Birth Awareness Week this week. I believe it is this week. I am sure one of my colleagues would like to speak to Multiple Birth Awareness Week. I am sure there is at least 5 minutes in Multiple Birth Awareness Week. Part of the purpose of this bill now is to extend it to 26 weeks for those multiple births so it is definitely relevant. It is roughly I think from memory more like only a couple of percent of births in any year that are multiple births. If we then look at the number of births with disabilities we are looking at around 4 percent. That is a total of 11 percent of total births. We have roughly 60000 births in New Zealand each year so that is where we have taken that from. If anything we have probably overestimated the cost but we wanted to make sure we were generous in our costings for the Government. It cannot claim that we have pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes. As we have said we have spent $9.2 million—and that is probably close actually to what we are proposing to spend on this legislation here—on the failed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change process. There was $9.2 million spent on that and in the first year we are proposing a spend of $6 million.I think Sue Moroney’s changes are not only pragmatic but generous to the Government. They are giving an opportunity for the Government to actually support something that is really positive. However we will forever maintain the principle that an extension to 26 weeks is absolutely critical. As I have already outlined in my speech the reason it is in this purpose clause the reason for that original extension to 26 weeks is that every OECD nation that we like to compare ourselves with has already taken that step if not gone beyond that. We often compare ourselves with the likes of Sweden in terms of the good social outcomes that it is able to maintain. Why is it that we will not look to the foundation policies that help it to generate those positive outcomes? That is why we will maintain that principle. In fact Labour generally has an aspiration for a year’s paid parental leave. We can at least make these gains in this round.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a good time to be talking about this bill because—indeed my colleague Jacinda Ardern is correct—it is Multiple Birth Awareness week this week. They say that timing is everything and I hope that that will certainly be something that the Government will take into account when it considers this bill because the member Jacinda Ardern is absolutely right. Clause 4 is the purpose clause of this bill so this is the really meaty part of the bill I guess. I know that there has been an adjournment in this debate and people might not recall it but I think that last time round there was a lot happening in the discussion around this clause. There was a lot of talking from the Government benches about what they thought about paid parental leave and I hope that will continue tonight—Chris Bishop: Very important issue.SUE MORONEY: —because it is a very important issue Mr Bishop and I am looking forward to the many contributions from the Government benches again tonight on this issue. Yes it is the Labour Party’s firm view and my firm view as the promoter of this bill that 26 weeks for all families that are eligible for paid parental leave is absolutely what we should have in this country. And we know that because other OECD countries have at least that and as we stand at the moment we are languishing at the bottom of the OECD when it comes to duration of paid parental leave. If you combine that also with the level of payment that is afforded in other countries the weekly payment for paid parental leave then we are looking even worse on that front. This clause in this bill does not attempt to address the payment part of it but it does attempt to address the duration part.The purpose—and I outlined a little bit of this at question time today—is simply this: the research and evidence is overwhelming about what we would gain as a society if we were to invest in those early months of a child’s life not see it as a cost. That is where the smart money is. That is what internationally we now know: that if we invest a little bit in ways such as extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks we can make a huge difference in the outcome of those children’s lives. That is because the research and evidence tell us that getting the bonding and attachment right between parent and child in those early months is critical to that child’s brain development and critical to the course of the rest of its life. So there is evidence that supports that and tells us that if we get it right at the beginning that child is less likely to need taxpayer money spent on remedial education for example. They are much less likely to have anything to do with our youth justice system. They are much less likely to have the sorts of costs that our society bears when things go wrong and that is what this is really about. This is about building a society where we have children who are well supported from day one.We also know—and again the research and evidence is overwhelming on this issue—that if we can support exclusive breastfeeding through to 6 months of age that child is much less likely to end up with health problems. That is a good outcome—that they do not suffer the health problems. It is a good outcome for them and their family but it is actually a good outcome for the rest of us as well because we do not end up putting taxpayer funding into hospital and health services to support issues that we did not get right in those early months. That is what this is about. This is a forward-looking bill that is actually progressive in terms of saying that a little bit of investment at the beginning would save ourselves not only a lot of heartache but a lot of cost as a country further on down the track. And do we not all want to live beside well-nurtured well-rounded productive citizens? Because all the research and evidence says that if we can extend paid parental leave ideally to 12 months—but we in the Labour Party believe that right now it is affordable to in a staggered way get to 26 weeks and that is what should be afforded to all families. But it has become clear over the course of I would say 2 years—Hon Ruth Dyson: Two years 3 months.SUE MORONEY: For 2 years and 3 months—thank you—we have been debating this issue because this bill was drawn from the ballot in Easter 2012 and here we are in the Committee stage. This is where the rubber starts to hit the road. It has become absolutely apparent in those 2 years and 3 months that the Government just has no interest in supporting families in this way and that it has no interest in supporting and actually prioritising families in order to get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.Yes this brave little bill has actually had some success because it has forced the Government to extend paid parental leave initially to 16 weeks—which we are yet to see but it should be happening next year—and then to 18 weeks but what the Government did was have a political solution to what is a human problem. It has found what it thinks is a political solution to it but that political solution does not address the research and evidence that I have already alluded to. It does not support exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. It does not work to make sure that that bonding and attachment is well developed in that critical first 6 months. It does not do those things that we know make the critical difference. So I am acknowledging that. I am acknowledging that the Government now has the numbers to completely kill this bill and kill off the hopes and aspirations and dreams of those who are parents now those who are pregnant now and about to become parents and those who will become parents in the future. It is not only that group of people though. It is the grandparents who I actually find are often the most passionate about this issue because they want to see their grandchildren get this benefit and grow up in this way.I have acknowledged that and I have brought forward a new proposal because I said right from the outset that I would be determined to do the very best that we could for families. My idea is this. Families where there is a multiple birth families where there is a premature birth families where there is a child born with a disability—those are the families most in need. My proposal is that the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave be made available to those families in two staggered stages because it is those families I think who suffer the largest amount of financial pressure. They therefore suffer the most pressure to get back to work and earn money in order to support their families at a time when it may not be the best thing for them. That is the proposal that I have brought to the Committee for the Government to consider today.I want to thank all the support parties who have already indicated to me that they will support that course of action because for the parties who have supported this bill all the way through its passage this is not their ideal outcome and I think we all know that but we want to try to secure something that will make a difference for families—families who are in high levels of need. I became convinced of this upon hearing the many many submissions that we heard through the Government Administration Committee. I think we had just under 4000 submissions. Not all of them were oral but 99.6 percent of those submissions were in favour of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all not just for this narrower albeit very well deserving group that I am now proposing this bill cover.One of the submissions that really sticks in my mind—it stayed in my mind throughout this journey—has been the submission made in Auckland by a woman by the name of Danielle Ballinger Taylor who told us her story about having her twins. I am probably going to run out of time to tell her story so I am going to share that with you a little bit later on but let me say this because I think this probably says it all. When I looked around the room that day when she made her submission I am pretty sure there was not a dry eye in the room—and I believe that included the officials and that takes some doing. Her story is indicative of about 2800 families every year who face the same scenario. So that is what my amendment is aiming to do. I hope that the Government will think about this seriously because it is a genuine attempt to make better the lives of a group of people in our society who really do need that support. We will all benefit when they benefit and I hope the Government will take heed of that.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I want to first congratulate Sue Moroney on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—I do not think I have spoken on it yet during its passage through the House—and on her persistence over nearly 2½ years of ushering it through the House. I do strongly urge the National Party to support this bill because it goes to the fundamental premise of what is the purpose of this Parliament and what is the purpose of government. One of the core purposes is to take the best possible care of our most vulnerable citizens and there is nobody in this House who would disagree that children—particularly the youngest babies the newborn babies—are our most vulnerable citizens and that they deserve our full attention.Interestingly enough just today Alfred Ngaro from the National Party and I hosted the Big Picture Competition art exhibition which is currently open on level 1 of Bowen House I say for members who have not seen it yet. It is a series of artworks creative works by children talking about issues like poverty issues like housing and the income issues that they and their families face. You know we are talking tonight about how to support children and families better. Well these children have got some very clear views about what is needed to make sure that they and other children whom they know and their families including their little brothers and sisters have a better life. It is a great challenge for parliamentarians to go and have a look at that exhibition read the stories that the children have prepared as part of their artworks and come back to this House with a renewed sense of commitment to protecting our must vulnerable citizens especially our littlest babies. It is distressing that National is not committed to that—and I do invite those members to go and engage with that Big Picture exhibition.As much as the Government talks about prudent financial management and is looking to exercise its financial veto the fact is that it knows as we all do that investment in families when babies are very little—newborn babies—is a sound investment in our future. It is a sound social investment; it is a sound financial investment. That is what Sue Moroney’s bill is asking us to make—a sound financial and social investment in our most vulnerable citizens so that they have the best chance of having the best possible life—and surely that is what our job is here. It is about putting kids and in this case as I said the littlest babies first and it will cost a little bit of money. Some have said it would be half of the cost of the flag referendum. It is not that expensive in the context of a Government Budget but it will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of those littlest babies and frankly it will make returns to us in significant numbers. We know that child poverty for example costs this country around $8 billion a year in catch-up costs. Well just what is it a $6 million—I understand Sue Moroney or something like that—Sue Moroney: Yes.METIRIA TUREI: —investment in families now could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. So why would you not consider that to be prudent financial management?Clause 4 in Sue Moroney’s bill really does set out very clearly not just the purpose of the bill in a technical sense but the principle behind the bill which as I have been talking about is about how we best protect our most vulnerable citizens—our littlest babies—and frankly I do not think we can afford not to take this action. We need to make sure that families have the best possible chance when their babies are young and when the families themselves are most vulnerable. Those of you who have looked at the Children’s Commissioner’s report on solutions to child poverty will see its recommendation for a form of child payment. It changes the focus from what people generally consider is the high cost of older kids and the cheaper cost of little kids and we have a Working for Families kind of structure that gives more money as children get older. But its analysis based on significant research and very credible research is that young families face the highest costs when their babies are little and that is because they have the least capacity to be able to maximise their financial circumstances. This is when they most need access to decent paid parental leave so that they can take the best possible care of their children at a time when they are the most constrained. So even the Solutions to Child Poverty report from the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty described in a very detailed and very analytical way why it is important that we invest more at the time when babies are littlest. It is suggesting a child payment of various kinds that is universal at first instance when babies are little and then becomes more targeted as the children grow. That was one model of providing financial assistance to these families. Sue Moroney’s bill is another excellent model that does the same thing. So it does leave us with a whole range of options on how we can best support families and their babies at the time of their highest vulnerability which is why the Green Party supports this legislation from Sue Moroney.I would say that National actually agrees with the principle. National clearly agrees with the principle that investing in families when babies are little is a good idea. It has demonstrated that by continuing with paid parental leave when it came into Government and of course with its intention to extend by just a few weeks paid parental leave over the next few years. So the principle we are talking about which is in the purpose clause of this legislation is supported across the House. Everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea. Everybody agrees that these families need some kind of financial support when their babies are very little. But for some reason National simply will not invest what is needed to improve the lives of these families especially those ones who miss out.I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the ones who miss out. One of the issues that we have with paid parental leave both in terms of the extension of time and also in terms of the amount of money that families are able to access is that those families who are on the lowest incomes—working families on the lowest incomes—who would be eligible for paid parental leave find it very difficult to take because they cannot afford the reduction in income. If they can afford to take it all they certainly cannot take it for very long because the amounts are simply too low. There is a whole other group of families who are completely excluded from the alternative which is the parental tax credit—because that is the alternative for some of these working families—but there is a whole number of working families who are excluded from the parental tax credit because they are also in part dependent on a welfare benefit. So there is a significant group of families who are working who are in paid employment and who are also in receipt of a welfare payment for whatever reason and they are not able to afford to take paid parental leave and they are not entitled to the parental tax credit. Those families tend to be the ones who are on the very lowest incomes.There yet again is another group of families—that is beneficiary families who are not in paid work—who do not have access to either and who are completely bereft of support. It does beg the question why it is that these babies over here are entitled to some form of largesse that National supports. It is quite happy for them to have paid parental leave to some extent. These babies over here are entitled to a bit of additional support from the State when they are young and vulnerable and their families are most in need but these families over here are not. There is a gap—Hon Member: Good babies bad babies.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you! There is a principle and a logical gap in which a whole range of families who are at the very lowest incomes who have the most need of help whose babies are the most likely to suffer from the effects of poverty miss out in some form from the range of services like paid parental leave and the parental tax credit that we have available.There is some commitment from National to some parts of the principle that says our most vulnerable citizens deserve our greatest commitment but there are too many gaps that mean that too many of our children are falling through them. We know that one baby a week dies in this country from poverty-related conditions. One baby a week dies from poverty-related conditions in this country. So to the extent that this bill deals with one part of the principle around paid parental leave and its extension that is a good thing. That at least provides some additional assistance to the families who are vulnerable. But we need to make sure that when we are investing in the principle which is that vulnerable children deserve our greatest commitment we are committing to that principle without judgment—without judgment of the kind of work that a family is undertaking.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I am pleased to stand tonight and talk to this bill and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that affects the purpose of this bill and narrows the scope of this bill. I have to say as I start that I do not think there is any doubt that everyone in this Chamber wants every single New Zealand child to be able to live a full and successful life and have all the things that all of us want for our children but we do come to this Committee with different expectations and different understandings about what is going to make a difference to many of those children we are hearing about tonight. I have to say that I am delighted that in fact there has been some concession from the promoter of this bill that the Government’s Budget 2014 package a considerable package—$500 million focused on children—has been reasonably successful. That is a concession that the Opposition has made and we accept that. That was a very comprehensive package. I do not have to go into the details of it because we all know and we have talked about it through the campaign. It was a big piece of work that involved healthcare early childhood education and Children’s Teams focused on protecting our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. The parental tax credit increased substantially from $70 a week to $220 a week and was extended out from 2 weeks to 10 weeks and of course we extended paid parental leave. So that is a big comprehensive package and that really is what this is all about.If we are determined as we all seem to be to make such a difference to those young New Zealanders then it is not just one thing and focusing on paid parental leave might at the edges make a difference but actually most of those children are in really complex situations and it will take a very complex solution to address their problems. So the narrowing of the bill now to those children who are born with a disability or those families where the baby is premature or where there are multiple births as I say is a concession but actually you have got to look at what is already being done in this area. I am sorry but I think that the promoter of the bill in conceding that the National Government is doing a really good job in addressing those issues has missed the mark.If we just take a moment to go through what is in fact happening already for families which this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing we think we have got the balance right. So if you are a family and you have a multiple birth if you have twins and you already have another child under 5 or you have triplets or quadruplets the Work and Income multiple birth Home Help payments kick in. They are not means tested. They are available for all those people and that gives real down-to-earth practical help in the home with all those bits and pieces that all of us who have had children know can be so overwhelming in those early days especially if you have more than one baby. So that is the first thing that the Government currently provides.There is the Working for Families tax credit again through the Inland Revenue Department. The department provides four types of payments for families with dependent children who are 18 years or younger and a family with multiple births may well be entitled to those payments depending on the age of other dependent children the family income and where that income comes from. So already there are two major streams of assistance to those families. Plus of course Work and Income has a whole range of extra financial support for those families in special circumstances and multiple births of course are always special circumstances. So there is help with accommodation there is help with childcare and there is a range of other grants. There is already a great deal of assistance for parents of multiple-birth children—twins triplets etc.From the disability angle for families who find themselves with a brand new baby who has a disability we have our Disability Support Services of course which puts wraparound services around those families and there is a whole range of initiatives that the Government provides to give assistance to those families. Time does not allow for me go into the details of that but suffice it to say that there is considerable assistance for those families. Disability Support Services is in the process of putting in a new national specialist behaviour support service for children with challenging behaviour. This is something that I have heard called for consistently in this House. That sort of initiative is under way and is providing assistance and of course the work that is being done around autism spectrum disorder which seems to be expanding as we speak means that a great deal of help and assistance is going into helping those families who find themselves in those circumstances with a newborn who is suffering from some of those disorders.Then the final group that this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing is the premature births. Of course the maternity quality and safety programme has been implemented to make sure that women and their babies get that same standard high-quality care right throughout New Zealand. It was rolled out to all district health boards in 2012 and is funded at $2.8 million a year for 4 years. That is showing signs of local clinical improvement particularly around those women with premature births and we know the extra care and attention that they need.So what I am saying is that as well intentioned as this Supplementary Order Paper is conceding that all that other very specialist wraparound comprehensive care is being provided National unfortunately cannot support this given that there is already considerable help going into these families. We think we have got the balance about right and we will continue to evaluate and monitor the structures that are being put throughout New Zealand with the social sector trials now going from nought to 18 and the Children’s Teams being rolled out. We think we are getting a very good picture of what is actually happening on the ground and so unfortunately we cannot support this bill.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to take a call on this bill. I firstly want to acknowledge Sue Moroney for the work she has put into this. I also want to acknowledge all of the many credible and important organisations that made submissions on this bill. Listening to Minister Tolley I could not help but listen to her say we have different views on what will make a difference. I am sitting here thinking that our views on what will make a difference should be based on evidence and I have a number of submissions here from the Children’s Commissioner the Human Rights Commission different parenting groups the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Business New Zealand—submissions from a whole range of organisations saying that this is the right thing to do.Like many people in this Parliament I have children and like many people in this Parliament I have a very comfortable middle-class working situation. I was very fortunate for the first 6 months after having my own baby a year and a half ago to be able to take that baby to work to be able to continue to breastfeed and to be able to take that baby into board meetings. That breastfeeding was very important. We know through all the evidence that breastfeeding for at least 6 months is what is recommended not only by the World Health Organization but by our own Ministry of Health. Our own Ministry of Health advises that we should be breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months.In my little middle-class existence I was able to do that because of my own working environment and support from my employer. But so many of our people out there—our women out there—are working in jobs where that is not possible. They actually do need some assistance from the State to be able to do what is recommended by the State which is to be able to stay with their child and exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months.Yet here we are listening to the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley tell us that we all have different views on what will make a difference. Well actually there may be different views on that side of the Chamber but the rest of New Zealand including very credible organisations have a very clear view that 26 weeks of paid parental leave as a bare minimum should be something that those Government members over there should be supporting. Again I acknowledge Sue Moroney for pushing this bill forward.We have heard arguments in the lead-up to this bill being discussed in the Chamber about how that side of the Chamber perceives it as being fiscally irresponsible. But when we go through the submissions we see very clearly that actually it is fiscally irresponsible not to support this bill because of the consequences of not supporting parents to be able to stay home and look after their children if it is in their best interests and their child’s best interests and if it is what they want to do. Instead what we had when Sue Moroney announced her 26-weeks’ paid parental leave bill was that the Government tried to compromise an evidence-based position around 26 weeks by saying that it would give 18 weeks instead knowing that the bill is actually popular with the public and not only popular with the public but also based on evidence.I am really disappointed with the National Party. I am really disappointed because there has to come a time when we can actually look at legislation and provisions that need to be put in place and surely use our common sense—not quoting New Zealand First there—and make a decision that is based on the well-being of New Zealanders. There are so many repercussions for parents not being given the opportunity to stay home with their children in that first 6 months in particular. We see evidence from places like the Brainwave Trust in terms of how important that bonding is. There is all of the evidence that comes with breastfeeding and the fact that in the long term it actually has a positive influence on a number of different health areas for the child including things like protecting them from allergies. The longer you breastfeed the less likely children are to get things like eczema and asthma and a whole lot of other respiratory things. In the long term it actually saves us money if we are ensuring that right from the start in those very first 6 months we are looking after—DARROCH BALL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. When looking specifically at clause 4 one needs to look at and understand the intent and purpose of the original bill and in turn see just how important it is. The amendment bill is popular with the public—I think 99.6 percent of all submissions were positive—because the public knows the importance of stable loving nurturing and long-term parental investment in the first 6 months and more of a child’s life. Looking at Supplementary Order Paper 15 and in particular to the first-noted amendment to clause 4 and focusing on clause 4 it is important because it lists the limitations that now need to be placed on the intent of the original bill and shows the focusing of the bill down to specific classifications—those three obviously being that the paid parental leave is extended and that only those giving birth to two or more children to one or more surviving children before 37 weeks and to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a Government-funded disability support service are eligible.The background note of the original bill also states that the bill particularly promotes the ability of parents to choose to care for newborn babies and that it is an essential part of supporting families to develop nurturing relationships. It also promotes the fact that the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months. The only way that we as a society can listen to this advice and to these facts and to expect our people to do such things is to ensure we give them the opportunity to do so. New Zealand First does support the bill because we support the provision of the most important environment and the essential elements involved in that environment in a child and a parent’s life being time. It is unfortunate that the situation has arisen that the original amendment bill will need to be modified and further focused as is manifested in what clause 4 now states.It seems counter-intuitive for anyone with an ounce of common sense to deny the opportunity for such a common-sense bill to be enacted and at such a comparatively small financial investment. This is a simple bill with a simple change to a few words and numbers but it will change the future for a generation of our children and their families. The positive consequences should not be underestimated. It would create stability for a child; a long-term learning environment; healthy nutritious environments; a bonding and caring environment; and most important an environment that sets our future generations up with positive pathways.We are now looking at the modification of the bill now applying to just parents with two or more children premature births or a child with a disability. Although the bill is now unfortunately limiting this important opportunity New Zealand First supports it because it focuses on the neediest of parents. That is why New Zealand First supports this bill.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am really pleased to be able to take a call in this Committee stage. I think it is my first substantive call right through the Committee process so thank you. After having gone through the 3809 submissions that were presented on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the 2 years and 3-month journey it has been to get to this discussion of the purpose of this bill which is to provide 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to parents in this country it feels as if it is something this Committee should spend some time talking about and really discussing. I have got to say that the Green Party policy is to support 13 months’ paid parental leave. For us ideally the purpose of this bill would have been to extend the duration of parental leave payments to a maximum of 13 months. I know that in the current context of the debate—where the member Sue Moroney who has brought to the country this offering that has been so well supported by the population has had to reduce it down with Supplementary Order Paper 15 to provide leave only to families who have had a premature baby or multiple births or a child born with disabilities—it just feels really sad because we know what a difference 26 weeks makes.The country knows what a difference 26 weeks makes. When the Government members and the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley stood up before and said that there is no doubting that everyone in this Chamber is committed to the well-being of children but we just have different ideas around how to get there 99.6 percent of submissions said 26 weeks. So when the Government is saying that its view is different it is the view of the 0.4 percent; it is not even the view of the 1 percent. It is the view of the 0.4 percent. Come on! Our country can do better than this. It is not really a matter of just weighing it up. If we weighed it up there is the evidence and there is the National Party up in its ivory tower in a position of privilege ignoring all of the evidence and all of the people. Come to the party people! It is not good enough.The Minister said that she agreed with the Green Party that 13 months was the best thing like the member sitting in the chair Sue Moroney agreed that what National is offering is the best thing for the country—she is nodding vigorously in disbelief of the statement. She also listed all of the things that the Government is offering to families with children with disabilities families who have multiple births and families who have premature children. They get extraordinary largesse from this Government. It really beggars belief that there is poverty in this country. Really when you heard all of those things the Government is providing it is like: “What? What are these people complaining about? Where is the problem in this country?”. Well the problem was detailed to us through almost 4000 submissions through heart-rending stories of what is happening in the struggle of families in New Zealand. The existing supports Minister are not enough. They are not serving our families and they are not serving our society and our children. We keep on saying this and most New Zealanders believe it: if we invest in our children we invest in our future. We invest in our well-being into the future. This is not about the cents now; it is about our future.I would like to go to the specific story that Sue Moroney mentioned of one submission from a woman with twins who presented in front of the Government Administration Committee. She had to go back to work when her twins were just 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed during that time all while her babies were both still waking at different times every night to breastfeed. Can you imagine that? That meant having no sleep going to work and breastfeeding while trying to work. That is not in the best interests of those children. That was a recipe for disaster for that mother and that is not sensible or constructive for that workplace. Without any surprise that was something that she did not manage to continue so she left her job. She resigned after 5 weeks of trying to juggle that because 5 months after the births was just too early.Three years on when she submitted to the committee she was still working part-time outside of the IT industry in which she had trained and contributed significantly to before the birth of her children. She estimated that going back so early and not being able to sustain that employment had cost her family about $70000 a year and it had cost the IT industry a skilled worker. We have a shortage of skilled staff in the IT industry. So this is something that—by crazy short-term thinking or blind political dogma of not wanting to be beaten by the Opposition putting forward a good idea which is the only reason I can see why you would not be supporting this bill—is costing our businesses our families and our babies.All of the research tells us that a minimum of 6 months’ paid parental leave really benefits bonding and attachment and we have heard other speakers talking about that. You cannot repeat that too much. We know that that attachment in those early years has consequences right throughout people’s lives. It has consequences for their mental health. It has consequences for their ability to focus and therefore their ability to contribute to the workforce. It has huge consequences. We can help that bonding by providing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It also improves health outcomes for mothers and babies which reduces the burden on our health services which are straining to the point of breaking as they are at the moment. It reaches the World Health Organization’s guidelines for exclusive breastfeeding. We can see in that example of the mother with the twins just how really difficult it can be to try to maintain that guideline of 6 months while you have already gone back to work. I think it is asking too much to be honest.Another thing that we have not really talked about so much in this is that through the submission process there was a lot of support from employers for the paid parental leave period being 6 months. Where it has been at 14 weeks and even at the 16 and 18 weeks it is really difficult for them to manage because it is too short a period of time to get in a replacement staff member. So mostly they are just filling in over that time with other people doing extra work and having work not done and it is reducing the productivity of workplaces. It is also putting extra strain on other colleagues in workplaces. So employers are finding it more difficult to manage and they said that 6 months is the kind of period of time when you can go through that recruitment process and get somebody in for a short term and it would work for them. It is a win for business. It is a win for society. It is a win for babies. It is a win for women. But the Government is siding with the 0.4 percent. What is that about—really?The other aspect of this which I think is really important to mention is around the importance of maintaining women’s attachment to the workplace. We saw that in the example of the woman with her twins—going back to work not being able to manage and having to lose that job. That has now affected her entire career path. Rather than being able to go back and manage in a job and to keep on the same career trajectory—STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):There are a couple of things that the Minister for Social Development said and one in particular I agree with actually. She said that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill will not solve child poverty that it is not the panacea to solve all the ills that are facing our children today and she is right. But that is not what this bill is about. There is no magic bullet to actually solve child poverty but this is a start. This is all it is. This is a start. The Minister actually said that she thought the Government had it about right in what it was doing. But the interesting thing is that Professor Gluckman Unicef the Human Rights Commission the Commissioner for Children—I could go on and on—actually do not agree with the Minister. The thing is that these people are experts in their field. These people know what they are talking about. In their evidence base they have massive budgets to investigate this sort of thing and they understand what they are talking about. With all due respect to the Minister these are the experts in this area and they say that the National Government has not got this right and that Sue Moroney has.The world has changed. I was very lucky. I was born a long time ago but when I was growing up it was in an era when it was almost expected that the man of the house the father would go out and earn money and the mother would stay at home and look after the children. That is what happened in my family and that is what happened with all my friends. When we got home from school our mothers were there. But as society has changed over the last 41 years since I was born—OK 43 years since I was born—we really have not changed with it. The Labour Government brought in paid parental leave in 2004 and goodness me did we get hell from the National Opposition but it was necessary. Since 2004 the world has changed even more. Ten years on out of economic necessity what we are finding is that actually a lot of women have to go back to work after giving birth. It is not their choice; they have to because if they did not they just could not provide. That is a completely different situation from what it was a generation ago. So what we have to do as a Government as a Parliament is accept that the world has changed and deal with the reality.The interesting thing is that in question time today Mr English made a very interesting point. I cannot remember who asked him the question but someone did and he said that this Government makes policy based on the evidence. Well this is not a political bill. This is not a bill Sue Moroney dreamt up because she thought she could get some votes for it. This is a bill that should be bipartisan. It should be one of these things where we come together as a Parliament and really work hard because we know it is the right thing to do. Sometimes I firmly believe that as a Parliament we actually have to look and ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do then we do it. There is a cost to this. I acknowledge this. There is an expense and it is an expense at a time when the Government has limited money and the Government has a responsibility to allocate that money in a way that best meets the outcomes of the citizens it represents. But let me give you one example—and I am unsure how Peter Dunne is voting on this. I am not too sure. But he took a bill to the select committee on income splitting that was going to cost $500 million—on income splitting. We turned that down at the Finance and Expenditure Committee because it was unsustainable but what it did was benefit those who really did not need it. That did not benefit those at the lower end but this actually does. I sincerely hope that Peter Dunne does support this because remember that he was the man who set up the Commissioner for Children. This is vitally important to actually moving forward as a society. It is evidence-based.The other thing is that it is about helping those who live in poverty. Those are the ones who are actually going to benefit from this. We have been criticised by none other than Unicef. Most of us hold up the United Nations as an agency that is actually there to represent everyone across the globe. We sign up to nearly every single UN charter. We are huge supporters of the UN. But can I just quote what Unicef has said its mission is. It says: “We believe that nurturing and caring for children are the cornerstones of human progress.” It was created with this in mind. Let me quote what its mission is. “UNICEF was created with this purpose in mind—to work with others”—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Sorry to interrupt the member—his call is finished and so is the bell.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Sue Moroney on the tenacity she has shown to actually put children and parents at the heart of a piece of legislation.This bill is all about making sure that every child in New Zealand has the opportunity to grow up in the first 6 months of their life with their parents. We know how important it is for children to have that attachment to a primary caregiver. All the research tells us this—the research from Brainwave Trust the research from Families Commission the research from Sir Peter Gluckman. Why is it relevant? It is relevant because if we do not get good attachment it actually has ongoing long-term consequences for the health and well-being and the development of children. We know for example that paid parental leave reduces infant mortality. We know for example that children have fewer behavioural problems social problems or emotional problems later in life. So the value of paid parental leave is actually about setting the framework the context for our children so that they can grow up healthy strong good New Zealanders and fulfil their potential.What I want to contribute to the debate tonight is a Treasury report dated 20 September 2012. It is really interesting because this Treasury report was given to the Minister of Finance and it was very clear that the evidence around paid parental leave exists. In fact that is what drove the National Government to respond to Sue Moroney’s member’s bill and put its own paid parental leave increases in place. On 1 April 2015 paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks. On 1 April 2016 it will increase by another 2 weeks to 18 weeks. So the National Government knows that paid parental leave is good for our families. There is no argument about that. I guess what we are arguing about is the length of time.What is interesting in that Treasury report is that it did not commit to a length of time but the National Government did commit to a length of time—but from where? If it is an evidence-based Government where did the 18 weeks come from? We on this side of the Chamber say that it should be 26 weeks and in fact the Green Party wants it to be—Jan Logie: 13 months.LOUISA WALL: —13 months. What do other countries do? Well we know that in Britain it is 39 weeks and in Sweden it is 16 months. So everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good thing to do but then we quibble about how long it should be.So I want to commend Sue Moroney the member in charge of this bill for being pragmatic and putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 which maintains the integrity of her bill. For us it is about 26 weeks—that is our bottom line—but because of the fiscal constraints and because the National Government do not want to give all parents 26 weeks what we have decided to do is prioritise and target some families that we think are most in need. Those families are ones that have two or more children the families of children who are born prematurely and the families of children born with a disability. We all know that within that context those families are most in need. They are most under stress. They are most under pressure. I want to emphasise our commitment to parents who have a child with a disability.For me this bill provides an opportunity for us to do a little bit of targeting. So let us target those families most in need. If you are a parent and you have a child who is born with a disability I would have thought—I have not been blessed; I have not had any children. I have got brothers who have got children and I know what a child means to a family. But I imagine that if a child is born into a family and that child has a disability it is an incredibly overwhelming stressful uncertain time for those parents. They need support. I guess they need to know that they have got support from each other from their families from the medical system from the social system and also from the Government which is why we are targeting families whose children are born with a disability. We recognise actually that having paid parental leave for 26 weeks in some way may take a bit of that stress away. It may enable them to prepare—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Mr Chairman can I say first of all that I wish I had not spoken in the Address in Reply debate because I could have used this as the opportunity to warmly congratulate you on your elevation and to also acknowledge the huge amount of work you did as the Associate Minister of Justice particularly in the youth justice area. I hope that you continue to make a contribution from a different position.We are speaking on clause 4 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I see that there are several amendments that have been tabled as Supplementary Order Papers that have yet to be discussed and I look forward to some discussion on them. This is the most important part of the debate this evening because it is about the purpose of the bill. Clause 4 is pretty straightforward. It just says that the point of this bill is to extend the provisions of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.Some people might ask why that would be the case—why 26 weeks? Why not 20? Why not 18 as the Government has decided is the magic number? Why would we go to that? The reason is that this is based on evidence of best practice—best practice for the newborn citizens of our country. I cannot imagine how the National members can say that they know better than the World Health Organization in terms of making sure our newborn babies have the best start in life. What gives the National Party members more evidence than the World Health Organization has? I do not think it is true. I think they are making it up. I know that the members who have been sitting in the Chamber for this period of the debate have not made a contribution. We had one contribution from the Hon Anne Tolley who talked about other benefits—benefits—that families get if they have multiple births if they have a child born with an impairment or if the child is born prematurely. I think she entirely missed the point.Actually the Hon Anne Tolley did quite a vitriolic speech in opposition to paid parental leave when it was originally introduced. I can recall it very clearly along with others. Nick Smith and Katherine Rich were others who contributed in that debate. It was pretty awful. They adamantly opposed the introduction of paid parental leave at the time. The National Party is on the record opposing the introduction of paid parental leave so when we are debating clause 4 in this legislation amending paid parental leave to 26 weeks which every country in the developed world thinks is a good idea I am not surprised the National Party is opposed to it.I want to commend the member who has this bill in her name Sue Moroney. This is a fine bit of work and it has been a very important debate for the Government Administration Committee to have but also for Parliament to have. The fact that it has taken 2 years 2 months and 3 weeks to get to this stage is probably the fault of the select committee actually. I think that it probably looked at the bill pretty rigorously during its investigation. I happen to know because I was sitting on the committee during that time and the clause that we are debating now was at the heart of a lot of the deliberations at the committee but so too was the cost and the number of parents who are not currently eligible for paid parental leave. We looked at international comparisons. We looked at all the evidence that we could.I do not know whether other members of the Committee recall but when this bill was first introduced Bill English threatened to use a financial veto to block it which is quite extraordinary particularly on a member’s bill. He got over that thank goodness. I am pleased that we got to this stage of the debate and hopefully we will get to a third reading and to the conclusion of it because what we heard about the purpose of this bill was that every single piece of evidence has said that this is best practice. This is the next big step that New Zealand should take to better support families.I have looked again at the submissions we heard. There were 3809 submissions which is quite a lot. We are just considering a fireworks petition and I would predict that we get a fair number on that but I do not think it will be anything like 3809. Of the submissions that the select committee heard 99.6 percent supported the purpose of this bill and the detail of it and said that this is the way to go. We had all sorts of organisations from employer groups to church groups and community organisations. We had individual parents. Both Jan Logie and Sue Moroney have spoken of—CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this bill. As a grandmother it is very close to my heart. I know there are many parents uncles aunties and others in the Chamber tonight who understand the importance of what we are doing. Just as important as talking about war is talking about babies—just as important.I would like to start by just acknowledging in terms of clause 4 that the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its mothers and children and so tonight should be the greatest opportunity we have had in a long time. I would like to thank Sue Moroney for her commitment to this bill. It has been a difficult and arduous journey championing this member’s bill but I think many of us have appreciated it. What is more many people outside this House no matter what happens to this bill will remember that Sue Moroney her party and others of us have consistently supported the importance of paid parental leave at a reasonable and evidence-based level. Good on Sue and good on all who are supporting the bill tonight.I know that in our contributions some of us have looked to logic. People have wondered what the logic of the National Party position is. Well I would not want to waste time on that. There is not any logic to the position because basically there is no way to refute the evidence that has been presented to the Government Administration Committee. There is no way to refute the economic investment argument to refute the health argument or to refute the common civilisation argument. There just is not. So basically do not look for logic. You will be disappointed.National knows that this bill is a good idea but it is just too mean to do it. Sometimes meanness overwhelms everything and tonight unfortunately—including in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 15 which is a big compromise on behalf of the promoter of the bill—there is just too much meanness on one side of the Chamber to be able to see it through. And it will be remembered. It will be recalled by people in this country who see this as an opportunity. We have taken opportunities in this House in my time here that we have been proud of—all of us. Marriage equality was a great moment in this House but this could be of equal importance—a great moment for our children which some of us are prepared to support and others not. So it is pretty disappointing.I would just like to talk briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper because I can understand why the promoter of the bill has supported it. It is kind of difficult though to pick the most vulnerable in this situation and I think the promoter of the bill Sue Moroney has done a good job of that. But actually sometimes it is the first baby that is the hardest. I am not saying twins or multiple births would ever be easy. I would never say that having a child with a disability was easy. I have family members who have that experience.I would always support the idea that money when you have got newborn children and little babies makes a difference. We can romanticise it all we like but the reality is we need money when we have got little children because we need somebody to commit to those children and we need somebody to be able to afford to do that in the whānau and in the family. We have great literature and art around the world about the Madonna and child—great romanticism. Every Mother’s Day there are cards full of saccharine lyrics about the wonders of motherhood but what we really need is paid parental leave so that mothers or fathers—but particularly mothers at the beginning—can do the job. The job is to be there to feed that baby and to give that baby an opportunity to get the best start in life. So it is really ironic that the mean-spirited Government will not support this because we do not need the cards so much on Mother’s Day. We do not need motherhood and apple pie. We need paid parental leave. If this Parliament was prepared to support that and if the Government would support the rest of us we would be demonstrating the respect that parents are due and that children are due.Culturally it is interesting because historically around the world many societies regard the time when the child is born and is little as a sacred time. Having been through that myself I understand what this is like. It is a unique time in the life of a family. It is the precious time that you want to give time to and you need to give time to. It is also a fragile time. I really want to acknowledge Metiria Turei for pointing out that even with this bill we would not be meeting the needs of the poorest people on benefits because they would not be recipients of paid parental leave and to remember the consequences for all of us when we do not look after everybody every whānau at this most fragile time. In some cultures the woman does not leave the house for 40 days. Wise women come to the house with food. The woman is regarded as being in a sacred space where she is learning to bond with her child. In other cultures there are only certain foods that she is allowed to eat. The point is that in those cultures—BRETT HUDSON (National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes1United Future 1.Noes120New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am happy to take a call—Joanne Hayes: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to change our vote for National to 60 votes in favour.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have declared the result and I have called the next speaker. I think we will continue. It does not stop you having another go again soon.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am happy to take a brief call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I thank the Chair for the opportunity. I thank the National Government for voting down its own closure motion and giving me this opportunity to speak on this bill—one that I think is very important to this House. I certainly congratulate the Government on having the foresight to allow us to continue this debate for a little longer because I think it is an important debate. On a day when the House set aside several hours to debate international matters I think it is only right that we set aside a few hours to debate the welfare of children living in this country. Therefore I am very pleased that the Government has seen the error of its ways and decided to continue this debate. We are on clause 4 of the bill which is the purpose clause. The purpose of this bill is to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is I think a very worthy goal and I congratulate the member Sue Moroney on her persistence. One of the things about members’ bills is they take an awfully long time to drag through the House’s processes. One of the sad ironies of this bill of course is when we first started the debate on this we were in a position where the bill may well have been successful.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I now ask the member to speak to clause 4 and the amendments.CHRIS HIPKINS: Absolutely Mr Chair. Clause 4 of the bill which basically says: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.” is one that I think we will agree on. It is disappointing of course but I suspect the Committee is no longer going to have a majority to pass that. Many members of the Committee feel that is a very worthy purpose. One of the things that was raised by many members or that many members will have had raised with them on the campaign trail is what the Government is doing what the Parliament is doing and what the respective political parties are doing to ensure that children get the best possible start in life. It was one of the themes of the election campaign. Ensuring that parents have time to spend with their children when they are first born we know will have a significant flow-on positive effect on those children throughout the rest of their lives.I can say as the Labour Party’s education spokesperson that this is an issue I looked at quite a lot during the election campaign because there is a correlation. It has been well established with regard to attachment theory for newborn children with their parents—or actually with anybody but parents obviously being the logical people in most situations—that if the attachment between the parent and the newborn child is well formed and there is very good physical research and other research to demonstrate this is the case then the child is more likely to be successful later on in life. In fact there were some very good studies that came out from other countries that showed that where attachment was not properly formed in the early part of a child’s life in those first critical months and years then that child was more likely to have difficulties with their education and more likely to become an offender at a young age. We know that attachment at a young age is important. That is why extending paid parental leave can be a hugely beneficial thing because it gives parents more time to spend with their children when they are first born.I want to be clear here. This is not just about mothers either. Paid parental leave can apply to fathers too. Fathers often get left out of the debate on this but I think they are very important. Families will arrange the way they use their paid parental leave in different ways depending on the needs of their family and their family’s individual circumstances. I think that is both an important thing and a very welcome thing.I acknowledge the amendment that is being put forward by Sue Moroney to change effectively the purpose of the bill. Instead of extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks for all families it would significantly reduce the number of families that would qualify. Although I understand the reasons for doing that and I again congratulate Sue Moroney on trying to reach a compromise so that the Committee can make some progress on this matter I would like to put on record my principled position that actually 26 weeks is not too much to ask. When we look at international comparisons New Zealand is by no means a generous country in this regard.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in her name to clause 4 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 4 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 4 not agreed to.Clause 5 Section 71J amended (Duration of parental leave payment)SUE MORONEY (Labour):Well is it not interesting? After all of that debate before the election on this very bill when the Government members wanted to talk and talk and talk now they want to close the debate down. Well I think New Zealand families will be able to see exactly what is going on there.Hon Ruth Dyson: There’s a word for that that you’re not allowed to use.SUE MORONEY: Ha ha! There is a word for that; we are not quite allowed to use it in this context.Clause 5 is the part of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that does need extensive debate because this is where the duration is actually spelt out in this bill. This is the contentious part of the bill because this is the specific point of disagreement between the people who are voting for this bill and the people who are voting against this bill—the duration.What clause 5 does is it actually stages the implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave into stages. People might recall that this was a part of the bill that caught the public’s imagination. When my bill was first drawn from the ballot at Easter 2012 the then Minister of Finance Bill English—he is still the same Minister of Finance today—said: “Oh you know it’s just completely unaffordable—completely unaffordable.” So the idea of staging the implementation of this became an incredibly important part in the public debate because people could see that I as a member and the Labour Party actually were taking a very responsible approach to this. Actually the Labour Party’s policy was to get to 12 months’ paid parental leave. We did not believe that that was immediately affordable in the fiscal environment of 2012 and so we decided that the next best stage that we should aim for was 26 weeks.But again as an acknowledgment of the global financial crisis which was really at full throttle at that period of time we wanted to do it in a staged way and this is the clause—clause 5—in the bill that actually does that. It does it by bringing 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in as of 1 July next year. And because of the amendment that I have to clause 5 as well this would mean if the Government was not so mean-spirited that families in the categories that we have been outlining in the previous debate could have been enjoying 22 weeks’ paid parental leave from 1 July next year. Then in clause 5 it says that they could have been taking part in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by 1 July 2017. And that is the impact of clause 5.I want to take some time to debunk the flimsy small contribution that the National Party members have made to the debate this evening about their reasons for voting against those families. What they have said is that families who have multiple births according to the current Government already get well supported by the Government. But here is the truth of the matter: the home help that the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley referred to is available for 3 months. It is available only for 3 months and that is the period of time that people currently get for paid parental leave. That is the reason why paid parental leave needs to be extended for people who have had a multiple birth. It is because their home help support runs out after 3 months and that is the very reason why it needs to be extended to them.But also it is not available to all of those families who have a multiple birth. It is available to them only if they also have another child under the age of 5. So the statement from the Minister was completely misleading about the level of support that these families already enjoy. That is why we actually had the woman Donnelle Belanger-Taylor come before our select committee and tell us about her saga. I know that Jan Logie spoke about it earlier but I want to read from the written submission that Donnelle Belanger-Taylor put to our committee because I think it really catches it.She said to the select committee: “We did all the right things before we decided to have a second child. We saved budgeted and accrued annual leave. And then an ultrasound showed two little black blobs. Suddenly our plans looked inadequate. We needed more equipment more money and a bigger car yet I had to stop work a lot sooner.” Her obstetrician made her stop work at 28 weeks so her paid parental leave ran out when the twins were 6 weeks old. So at 6 weeks old they were in a growth spurt that saw her feeding the babies for 16 hours straight they were using nearly 100 nappies a week and she could not imagine going back to work but their budget was already hurting. She said: “We managed to cope until the twins were 5 months old but they were still waking three or more times a night each.”But financially she had to go back to work. She said: “We were away from home 13 hours a day commuting on the train. Every break I got I rushed over to the day care to feed them. It just about killed me. I had to resign after 2 months on the verge of a complete mental breakdown. Three more months of paid parental leave would have made a big difference. If we had been able to wait until they were 8 months I could have coped with going back to full-time work. They were sleeping better. Breastfeeding would have been less frequent so my workdays would have been shorter. I would have been paying proper taxes for the past 2 years I would have been putting money onto my student loan and into KiwiSaver and we wouldn’t be getting Working for Families. Parents of multiples in particular need more paid parental leave. Nobody plans on having twins. We have to stop work earlier we have greater risk of pre-term infants and we have higher expenses. If extended paid parental leave can’t be fully funded maybe it could be targeted at the families of multiples.”That was her plea to the select committee and the inspiration behind the Supplementary Order Paper that I have brought to this Parliament today. Colleagues who have spoken are absolutely right. That is not what we aimed to achieve with this. But I have taken the step in good faith to try to get an agreement across this Parliament that would benefit families and the Government tonight has snubbed exactly those families with its response.But it is no surprise actually. I do not know why we were expecting that it might have done something that is common sense because the Government has shown time and time again that this is not its priority that families are not its priority and that paid parental leave in particular is not its priority. It has spent more money moving the Treaty of Waitangi one block than what this bill asked it to spend in the next financial year supporting around 2800 families who desperately need the support. I am a great fan of preserving the Treaty of Waitangi but that is the amount of money that we are asking to be spent on the future of those children’s lives and there is no comparison that should be able to be made on that. That figure is less than half—it is about a quarter—of what John Key wants to spend on his referendums about a New Zealand flag that we do not even know most of the country might not even want and yet the Government would rather spend money on that sort of folly than address the issues that are actually affecting us as a society.Clause 5 is the provision that would make the difference to those families. It would bring in 22 weeks on 1 July next year. Think about what that means. It means that families who have possibly just had their first ultrasound and possibly just found out that there is more than one black blob in the ultrasound would if this bill was passed tonight have extended paid parental leave of 22 weeks for their newborn children. It means that the families who will not know at this point in time that their baby is going to be a premature birth which is before 37 weeks’ gestation would be entitled to it as well.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Anne Tolley but before I ask the member to proceed I would like to remind members that when dealing with clause 4 of the bill we dealt with a number of amendments and have therefore taken some decisions as to the general direction of the bill. Therefore the discussion from now is quite likely to be quite narrow.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I just want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said. First of all she talked about good faith and trying to get agreement with the Government. I would have thought that if you are talking good faith and getting agreement from the Government the first thing you would do is come and talk to us but no one talked to me. So actually where is that good faith?Sue Moroney: You’re not the responsible Minister.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes well—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I am certainly not.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No Mr Chair—I do beg your pardon. The previous speaker could have come and talked beforehand in time for the Government to have the opportunity to discuss it because that is my understanding of good faith. It is not just about saying: “This is what we are going to do what do you think?”. It is about a genuine conversation taking place and people having time to consider it and make the appropriate decisions. So that is just to put that on the table.But also when we are talking about paid parental leave as we are in clause 5 and the duration of that leave I just think that this Committee before we get carried away with all the arguments should focus on what exactly this Government has done. This Government has pledged and budgeted for an extra $171.8 million over the next 4 years for paid parental leave enhancements.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret to interrupt the honourable Minister but I think I warned at the beginning that we are now on a quite narrow debate. Although I understand that the Minister is responding to the comments of the member in the chair which I probably should have pulled up I fear that if I let her go on I am going to have to let everyone else get well away from it.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding looking at clause 5 of the bill is we are talking about the duration of paid parental leave being extended to a maximum of 18 weeks a maximum of 22 weeks and then a maximum of 26 weeks. We are talking about a progression of the rollout of paid parental leave. That is what I want to address because in fact this Government has already agreed to that and as I say that is a considerable amount of money that this Government has committed to extending paid parental leave. What we are saying is that rather than spending all the money on paid parental leave at the same time we are doing other things as well. Indeed around paid parental leave as well as extending the time as proposed in clause 5 we are also extending the reach of it. In an area like the one that I represent East Coast where there is a lot of seasonal work that is just as important as the length of time of the paid parental leave. This Government has said that it is not just about how long you get that paid parental leave; it is about who is eligible for it. That is just as important.I appreciate it is a narrow discussion but it is an important concept. The Government is being accused of not wanting to spend this money on protecting our children and giving them a good start in life. The Government’s position is that we are saying yes of course we are but we are doing it in another way around paid parental leave a way that is not focused on just the length of time that you give it to a certain group of women. We are saying that yes that is important and we are agreeing and extending the time but we are also extending the scope of paid parental leave which is just as important. So another group of women are eligible for that paid parental leave which is indeed what the member tried to do in the previous clause. That is an important fact about clause 5. This Government realises and does accept that we do need to extend the paid parental leave. We have set out a process to do that but we are not dancing to the tune of this particular clause in this particular bill.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I understand the narrowness of the debate on clause 5 but I did not get an opportunity to address the amendment that Sue Moroney had put forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 in her attempt to find a way to get this bill through with a more narrow approach to the extension of paid parental leave. I just want to refer particularly to the issue of children with disabilities the cost for parents and the additional supports that parents with children with disabilities often need particularly at that very early stage but also throughout their life. I would also be very interested actually if the Hon Ruth Dyson had experiences to share as well because if I remember rightly the Hon Ruth Dyson ushered the Government through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She may have a unique perspective to bring to this debate as well.The Children’s Commissioner’s report by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty directly addressed the issues faced by families with children with disabilities and children with parents with disabilities when it comes to issues of poverty. I just want to highlight a few of the things that were said there. It noted that there was not yet enough information about the effects of poverty on children with disabilities in New Zealand and that the Government was intending to gather more information about that. If the Government is still doing that that would be wise because those families are particularly vulnerable and they are families who have been identified by Sue Moroney as being particularly vulnerable for the purposes of this bill.The expert advisory group had a paper dedicated especially to this topic. The group referred to some research that it could access from the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK. The research there showed that there is a two-way relationship between disability and poverty in childhood. Disabled children are among the most likely to experience poverty and poor children are more likely to become disabled than those who are better off. It went on to say that there needs to be a transformation in the quality and accessibility of services for disabled children and young people and their families. The research from the UK talked very clearly about the particular difficulties in terms of poverty that families with children with disabilities face part of which can be well addressed through extending paid parental leave to these families.The report from the Children’s Commissioner went on to describe child disability in the context of poverty as meaning that children and families must cope not only with the disability but with the added challenges of poverty-related health disparities social disadvantage and extra direct costs of time money and resources associated with a child’s disability. I understand that Sue Moroney’s attempt to narrow the scope of this bill was because she had identified the particular need that young families or new families with a child with a disability face and that the ability then to have access to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave would help to address exactly those costs that this UK research and the Children’s Commissioner’s report have identified: the direct costs of time money and resources that are needed to address the whole family as well as the child who has the disability.The report went on to say that the Institute for Public Policy Research published findings from a study in the UK to inform policy makers on what the priorities should be to maximise the opportunities for people with disabilities through to 2020. So this is an extended piece of research. The report states that children with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled children to live in poverty and that children with a disabled parent are also more likely to experience poverty. The report concluded that in order to meet the UK Government’s poverty reduction targets tackling the poverty of children with disabilities must be a top Government priority. This report very clearly describes the particular challenges that families with a child with disabilities face in terms of the social disadvantage the economic disadvantage and the stress and pressure that manoeuvring through a range of services creates for that family. Any family with a child with a disability will understand what it means when you are trying to negotiate through a whole range of services.The report went on to say that in order to protect the interests of those children with disabilities—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take another call in this debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection) Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Although I was very interested to hear the discussion from Metiria Turei on clause 5 I want to speak to one of the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 18 which would add an additional clause after clause 5 around the parental tax credit or—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before you go on—because otherwise I will have to terminate your speech—I understand that the Greens have withdrawn their Supplementary Order Papers and therefore you cannot talk to those Supplementary Order Papers.JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy then to simply talk to section 71J in clause 5 of this bill but with some regret that we are not able to lament of course the opportunity that the bill did raise and papering over the fact that despite the Government’s rhetoric around issues of child poverty and child deprivation there has been some reluctance to put any meat on the bones as it were in terms of policy.This bill provided the Government an opportunity to give additional support to families with newborns. In particular it would have made a very big difference by extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks as clause 5 does to those families who are living in the most deprivation in this country. The reason I wanted to highlight that is because the Prime Minister himself in his state of the nation address said that child poverty was an issue that he specifically wanted to focus on that this was going to be a key focus of this Government. This bill and the extension of paid parental leave generally is one manner in which we can do that. Sure it is a universal way but there has been a bit of a trend for us in the past to move away from universalism in support of children. That is a trend we need to start reversing. In fact we saw that trend even further entrenched with the last Budget initiatives around the parental tax credit.This is relevant because we are talking about universal extension around the duration of paid parental leave versus other mechanisms that have previously been proposed. Those other mechanisms like for instance the parental tax credit as we have seen are flawed. When you start narrowing and moving away from generalised provisions of support rather than just saying: “Look anyone who is eligible for paid parental leave should receive it regardless of income test.”—the amount yes sure is income tested. A universal provision means that we do not get the fraught issues we got at the last Budget when we started looking at filling in gaps with things like parental tax credits. The Government when it had that opportunity with the parental tax credit continued to allow an exclusion zone for those families who are in the most poverty in New Zealand. If the Government was as serious about child poverty as it claimed it was that would have been a prime opportunity to remove an exclusion zone and allow families who are for instance on benefits to receive that support. Of course unlike this clause which talks about an extension beyond 18 weeks that was not for a full 26 weeks. That again was a very narrow range of support. But it does prove the general principle that if we want to improve child well-being generally we should be moving to more universal provisions as this bill tried to do for families in work rather than moving away from that and to the kind of targeted support that this Government has favoured instead.I have heard the idea reiterated in this House again—by Anne Tolley in particular; it almost sounded like actually she wanted to support the general notion of paid parental leave—that somehow we do not have the money to prioritise this now. It is something that we pushed back strongly on this side of the House. We have provided ample evidence of other priorities that we could have moved away from in order to allow this to happen. She also tried to claim that the decision of Sue Moroney the member in the chair to try to at least eke out something from this Government for premature babies for multiple births for children with disabilities was somehow a concession that this Government has done enough for families with newborns. That is an absolute stretch. It is not only a stretch it is actually making a mockery of what everyone who has pushed so hard for this bill said. The points that they have made the principle that they have stood on—none of that shifts. The fact that the member in the chair has been willing to make the amendments that we have seen today is an example I think of just really principled pragmatism. It is saying that we have gone as far as we can but if this Government is absolutely determined to veto what we have put forward in this bill generally—if it is that determined to do that—then we will make a compromise.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Given that I have some experience in this matter I have been quite eager to talk about it. I have as has been widely reported nine children and have worked with all of them. So the duration of parental leave payment the narrow scope that we are sticking to is something that I am very keen to talk about and support.Metiria Turei: 500 kids.MARAMA FOX: Yes the 500 children I have had. Sorry no. It is nine. Just for the Hansard let us get that right. So as a new mum we all know how difficult it is to bring a child into this world and then have to deal with all of the drama. Nobody knows exactly what it means to go sleepless nights until you really have to go sleepless nights. Nobody knows exactly what it means to try to get a baby to latch on to something that should be—I was going to say used for other purposes but in fact no—used for the purpose that it is given to feed that child. And there is stress and there is drama to high heavens and I can tell you some explicit stories about that. In fact I might tell you a couple.Jan Logie: Go on.MARAMA FOX: I will. With No. 1 child—and I have come to numbering them now because it is just easier—I took that child to kōhanga reo when that child was 2 months old simply to get out of the house. It cried for China that baby. That baby had enough tears for the whole of the Yangtze River—is that the one?Jan Logie: Yep.MARAMA FOX: That is right. I would hold that baby for 3 hours just so that child would sleep because every time I put him down bless his little heart he would start crying. Do you know what sort of pressure that is what sort of stress that is on a new mother who does not know what she is doing? Let us fast forward a few years to when I have five children and I bring a new baby home to that house. One morning I remember waking up when that child was about 3 months old realising I had slept a whole night. Then I tried to think how long it had been since I had slept a whole night. I counted back 5 years—5 years since I had slept a whole night. Yes I have had to do this I have chosen to do it and I make no bones about it but if I knew that at some point I could get some leave so that I would not have to work—because I worked with all of these babies. I went back straight back to work with a child feeding in my arms because there was no provision at that time. So I am taking a baby with me getting four other little children ready for school for kōhanga for kura and I am caring for another 10 children in the kōhanga reo while I am feeding while I am changing and while I am doing all of those things because I cannot afford to take time off and stay home.When paid parental leave finally came in and I could take 12 weeks I tried to get back-pay but that was not written into the legislation and so no that was not coming. What a revelation it was to have 12 weeks at home with a baby and not have to worry about trying to earn enough money and going back to work with a feeding child in my arms. If you are a feeding mother 3 months is a pretty standard time but 6 months is the recommended time. I fed all of those children all nine of them except for one until they were 6 months old on nothing else but me. Do you know what that does to a mother? Do you know how much all the goodness that you are taking into you—every bit of food every bit of water every bit of thing that you are eating and consuming in you—is all going to this child? You have just spent 9 months bringing all of the goodness that you have into that child to produce that baby to be a healthy-born child and then for the next 6 months as you eat and drink to produce milk to feed that child do you know what that does to you? I have lost one tooth per child. It is a true story. That is nine teeth gone because of the lack of calcium. The grey hair that I keep trying to dye over which is still here now early—all of those things happen. The thing is you are tired you are bereft and you have a family at home to look after.If we could just have 18 weeks or 26 weeks then you can spend the time—[Bell rung]. No no no. I am not finished and this is very important. I would like to speak again thank you Mr Chairperson and considering it was the first call I would appreciate your diligence.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand that but there are two other members calling.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):To be honest I would never be able to give a speech like that because I do not know what it is like to have nine children—quite celebratory.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No but the challenge to the member is to be relevant to the clause.STUART NASH: But what I would like to talk about is clause 5(3) which adds new section 71J(c). There are some words in here that we have to be aware of.There are a couple of questions I would like to ask the member in the chair and the first one is why is this staggered in the way that it is—why is it staggered at 18 weeks why is it staggered at 22 weeks and why is it staggered at 26 weeks?But the one word here that I think we have got to be aware of is that it says a “maximum of 18 weeks” it says a “maximum of 22 weeks” and it says a “maximum of 26 weeks”. The thing about this is that that does not mean that everyone who gives birth to a child is going to take that maximum. In fact there are around about 60000 babies born every year give or take one or two and there are about 26000 parents taking parental leave so at this point only about 43 percent of parents take paid parental leave anyway.So when we look at the financials of this and when the bill says at “26 weeks” that does not mean that every single mother is going to take 26 weeks’ leave. Obviously when this bill goes through the dates are going to have to be adjusted. Well I assume I say to the member in the chair that you are going to adjust them or if we are going to go straight to 26 weeks in 2014—I am not too sure; maybe you could help me with that one.Hon Ruth Dyson: It’d be hard to do in April 2014.STUART NASH: I know. It would be hard to do in April 2014 because it would be retrospective. But you know the cost of this is actually not as large as it looks from new section 71J(c) in clause 5(3). At a staggered amount at 18 weeks it adds only $6 million and that is assuming that nearly every single mother takes—well I suppose this is paid parental leave so it could be paternity leave as well as maternity leave. The other thing is that at 22 weeks it adds only an extra $40 million and again you are not going to get—not you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Certainly not me.STUART NASH: Not at this stage—well you never know.Chris Hipkins: Amazing what biology can do.STUART NASH: Ha ha! I have lost my train of thought. My wife and I have found this ourselves; we have got two very young children—a mother or a father gets only about 80 percent of their salary anyway so often what happens is that mothers or fathers have to return to work earlier than this out of economic necessity.So I think when we look at this and say that the cost is going to be an extra $63.9 million because every mother is now going to take 26 weeks’ leave we are not dealing with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in in 21st century New Zealand. I suspect that the reason why a lot of mothers do not take 26 weeks’ leave and the reason why it is a maximum—you know we are not going to impose 26 weeks’ leave—is that some mothers have to return to work out of economic necessity.So what this is actually doing is giving parents choice. If a parent wants to stay at home for 26 weeks they have the choice to be able to do that but it does not mean they have to and it does not mean that every single parent is going to cost society that much. So that is actually quite an important word. If we look at the other subclauses subclauses (1) and (2) it is pretty difficult to know what they are because they are just sort of stuck in there so that is all I really wanted to say.But I do have a couple of questions for the member in the chair: why has it been staggered out this way and is there an amendment to actually change the dates because it has been so long? Thank you very much.CHRIS BISHOP (National):I move That the question be now put.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I think it is important that I do respond to the questions that were asked by the member Stuart Nash who has just resumed his seat. I know that the member was not actually in the Chamber when we debated some of the earlier clauses during the Committee stage because the previous clauses in this Committee stage were debated before the election. So when we debated clause 2 there was an amendment moved to clause 2 that brought the commencement date in as being 1 July 2015. This relates to clause 5 in the way that the part that comes into being on 1 July 2015 is the 22 weeks’ duration that is described in clause 5.So I can see what the member has done. He has looked at the bill as it was presented to the Government Administration Committee and because it was at the select committee for rather a long time—this bill had a very long gestation we might say—we went past the date that had originally been put in by me as the member. I think it was the right consideration from the select committee that paid parental leave is a great thing but getting it paid retrospectively probably is not a goer.Stuart Nash: Why was it staggered as well?SUE MORONEY: It was staggered because there was a recognition that in order to make this affordable for the country at the time when the bill was written—we were at the height of the global financial crisis—this was a way to make sure that it would not be harmful to the Government’s books.It was a way to make it affordable and it was done in conjunction—in consultation actually—with a group that was set up around advocating for this very issue called 26 for Babies. In amongst that group a group of wonderful community organisations are networking around this particular issue including Plunket Barnardos Every Child Counts the New Zealand Breastfeeding Authority organisations that represent women in their workplaces unions—a collection of organisations that agreed with the approach that is taken in clause 5.This approach is to make sure that this is done in a way that is fiscally responsible quite frankly—fiscally responsible—because that is what we have all wanted in this House. We have wanted this to be done in a fiscally responsible way because we know that if we can get that investment put in place and have the public support it in that way it will be successful. So those are the reasons—Chris Hipkins: What are the dates now?SUE MORONEY: The dates now are that the leave would be extended to 22 weeks’ paid parental leave on 1 July 2015 and then on 1 July 2017 the final 4 weeks’ additional leave would be brought into place so that it becomes a total of 26 weeks.The importance of getting to 26 weeks was well rehearsed when we debated the last clause but one of the matters that was not debated at that point and which is relevant to clause 5 is around where we sit when we compare ourselves with other comparable countries—the OECD countries. Actually where we sit at the moment is second to last in the OECD countries.I frequently have women write to me who immigrate to this country thinking they are coming to a place where we are progressive around women’s rights around children’s rights and around families’ rights. They leave their homeland places like Canada or the UK thinking they are coming to a country that is going to better support them in raising their children. But they find they are leaving countries like Canada which has 12 months’ paid parental leave and coming to New Zealand which has just 14 weeks. Quite frankly they tell me that they find that backwards and barbaric from a country they thought was a progressive country they were immigrating to.So clause 5 is the opportunity for our country to regain the position that we should rightly have. Our reputation has been that we are a progressive child-friendly place. We used to say that New Zealand is the best county in the world to raise children and it can be and it should be but the Government needs to wake up and start supporting these measures. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that 16 weeks is OK. No one else agrees with that.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are not going to dispute my ruling are you?CHRIS HIPKINS: No I am not going to dispute your ruling. What I am going to ask Mr Chair is for you to reflect on any instances in the past where a closure motion has been accepted after a member in charge of a bill has spoken.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am happy to reflect on that Mr Hipkins. I am also saying that the member in charge of the bill is bound by the same rules of relevance as other members.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 472 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 5 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 5 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 5 not agreed to.New clause 6 Consequential amendmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to clause 6 of the bill and probably even more so than the last warning that I gave with clauses 4 and 5 not standing part of the bill there is a temptation to rule out clauses 6 and 7 because of previous decisions the Committee has made. I am not doing that but it is going to be an exceptional challenge for people to speak relevantly to clauses 6 and 7 when we get to it because of the previous decisions that have been made.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am very pleased to speak to new clause 6 and I want to commend and congratulate you on the consistency of your rulings in relation to relevancy. New clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill is outlined in two places. One is in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and another is in Supplementary Order Paper 472. The one in Supplementary Order Paper 15 proposes new clause 6 and it says in subclause (1) that the term “16 weeks” should be replaced with “22 weeks” in respect of a person who has given birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—so just to be clear about that we are talking about a person who has had a multiple birth. That is a good thing to talk about this week because the House has already had a discussion on the fact that this is actually Multiple Birth Awareness Week and we are debating that very point. The person as outlined in this new clause has to assume or intend to assume the care of those children.The second provision is where one or more children is born before 37 weeks of gestation—so a premature birth—and where the child or children survive the birth for the duration of the parental leave payment.The third provision in this new clause 6 is where a child is born with an impairment and that impairment would entitle the child or the carer to a Government-funded disability support service. That is the first part of new clause 6—that is part one.The second part is in subclause (2) which replaces the 22 weeks’ paid parental leave provision with 26 weeks. Again it links those criteria in the same way as subclause (1) with multiple births a premature birth or a disabled child who is entitled to Government-funded disability support services.The difference between subclauses (1) and (2) is the length of time. In the first one subclause (1) we have replaced the 16-week provision with a 22-week provision and in subclause (2) we are replacing 22 weeks with 26 weeks. That would then of course be the path of the progressive extension of our current paid parental leave provisions to the outcome that is intended as the primary purpose of this bill which is to have New Zealand parents who are entitled to receive paid parental leave be in receipt of 26 weeks. So that is the point of subclauses (1) and (2). In this same amendment subclauses (3) and (4) are deleted.There is another amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 472 also relating to clause 6 and they are all consequential amendments. I am confident that no prior decisions of the Committee have ruled out any of those consequential amendments. I am not sure whether you would like to tell us that before you put the vote or whether you are going to allow for debate. I am assuming that you would not allow debate on clauses that have been—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): I probably should not offer you—are you inviting me to rule it out?Hon RUTH DYSON: Well actually what I was inviting you to do is just give us a hint as to whether you were going to tell us or not not actually ruling on it. It is quite an interesting situation that the Committee would find itself in where we would be debating presumably for some time because there are how many—if we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (1) then we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (2) and then there are subclauses (3) (4) and (5) all with different amendments. So I am assuming we can debate these until we in fact get the opportunity to vote in which case you might say that because of prior decisions of the Committee that particular amendment is ruled out.The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No it is not my intention to do that although it would be a bit of a nonsense to pass it having made the previous decision.Hon RUTH DYSON: Do I have to sit down when you are making a contribution like that? I was not quite sure whether you were interrupting or just having a—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No I am an old-fashioned member—back and forth in the Committee is all right.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am really encouraging of this open style of debating. I will go back to Supplementary Order Paper 472 which is new clause 6. What it does in subclauses (1) and (2) is replace the term “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in each of section 1A(c) section 9(1) and (3) section 19A(3) section 19B(2)(a) section 26(2) section 27(2)(c) section 32(d)(i) section 45(4)(a) and (c)(i) section 71A section 71L and section 71LA(1)(a). Those sections are sections of the primary Act which as we know is not a paid parental leave and employment protection Act. They are in fact sections of the 1987 Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. I want to just briefly draw the attention of the Committee to that point because many members have assumed that we have had paid parental leave in New Zealand for a long time and when they have noted that this is legislation affecting the principal Act—for example the sections referred to in subclause (1) which I have just been through are all consequential amendments to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. That was not legislation that gave New Zealand’s new parents entitlement to any payment. It was for employment protection only. That is the point of the primary legislation which clause 6(1) in paragraphs (a) though to (k) amends.I will now go on—again in Supplementary Order Paper 472—to subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k). In paragraph (a) we have a replacement of words in section 1A(c). In paragraph (b) we have a replacement of words in sections 9(1) and (3). In paragraph (c) we have a replacement of words in section 19A(3). In paragraph (d) we have a replacement of words in section 19B(2)(a). In paragraph (e) we have a replacement of words in section 26(2). In paragraph (f) we have a replacement of words in section 27(2)(c). In paragraph (g) we have a replacement of words in section 32(d)(i). In paragraph (h) we have a replacement of words in sections 45(4)(a) and (c)(i). In paragraph (i) we have a replacement of words in section 71A. In paragraph (j) we have a replacement of words in section 71L. And as in subclause (1) paragraph (k) we have a replacement of words in section 71LA(l)(a) in paragraph (k) of subclause (2). In subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k) the phrase “22 weeks” is replaced with “26 weeks”. And that would be the celebration. That would be when we move our legislation to what is accepted best practice by the World Health Organization and by 99.6 percent of the submitters to the committee on this legislation. They would move paid parental leave to 26 weeks.There are three further subclauses in this new clause 6. One is subclause (3) which replaces the words “10 weeks” with “16 weeks” in section 9(2) of the original legislation. Subclause (4) of this new clause 6 replaces in section 9(2) again the words “16 weeks” with “20 weeks”. Subclause (5) has a replacement of an entire part Part 2 in schedule 1AA. I assume that other colleagues are going to talk to that because it is actually quite substantial in that it covers all the transitional provisions.Part of the rigour of a Committee consideration is looking not just at the point of the legislation not just at the social financial or whatever impact it might have on citizens or communities but at the actual detail. We all know that the devil of legislation is in the detail and in this legislation there is quite a substantial amount. This bill has been around for a long time it has had a lot of changes and it is a member’s bill which means that the member has had to do a lot of this work on her own. When you are looking at three-quarters of a page of quite detailed and specific amendments inserting an entire new clause to the original legislation then it is my view that it is the responsibility of this Committee whether members are voting for or against the legislation in the end to make sure that the bill receives proper scrutiny and that all those details are correct.The final point that I would like to make is to seek the indulgence of the member in whose name this bill is to ask her to explain exactly where the previous date changes were made whether they were made in the Committee discussion prior to the House. Was it earlier this evening? I have not been able to find the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and I am keen to make sure that before we reach the end of this debate that if those details have not been covered off—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member because the time has come for me to report progress if that is not misleading.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.