Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. It's a delight and a privilege to be here at this third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill and to indicate to the House as we have right from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this.I want to congratulate Minister Sepuloni for bringing this legislation through. It's a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has campaigned on I think ever since the Rt Hon Winston Peters did the most sensible thing and left the National Party formed New Zealand First and set out his policy goals and objectives for a better New Zealand. I think a couple of things that stood out very clearly given the rather interesting speeches tonight coming from the Opposition benches is that this proposition was put up first in the coalition negotiations with National in 1996. They rejected it. This proposition I have to say was also put up during other coalition negotiations with another party and Mr Michael Cullen couldn't see his way forward either. I have to say that we campaigned on advancing such a piece of legislation over many election campaigns only to be told time and time again It's unaffordable unnecessary." and yet here tonight I rejoice in listening to the Hon Alfred Ngaro's speech where he gave all the compelling reasons as to why this legislation should be supported and indicated that he is very grateful and pleased to be supporting his whanaunga in particular in the Cook Islands.I'm very happy that the National Party has finally fallen in. I detected reading between the lines of what he actually said that he as a Minister in the last Government actually wanted this legislation passed. He did say that one of the reasons that it wasn't put forward was because of the huge cost which he then said in his speech—and I was watching him on the TV there tonight—was costed at $5 million. Then he said that subsequent to this bill being tabled by this very good Government and the select committee process it was ascertained that the costs never reached that—that the costs were only $1 million. So it now begs the very interesting question in the light of all the other wonderful things that have been said by the National Party Opposition who were the Government who rejected the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper on 29 April 2015 to do this very thing—in fact Mr Alfred Ngaro voted it down—what is the price of their value in the Realm States? Because now we know that the Realm States are not worth $5 million. We know that because Mr Ngaro said that the legislation—and he gave all the great reasons as to why it should have been supported but despite all of that they rejected it because it was going to cost $5 million.Well there was a flag referendum ladies and gentlemen touted by that Government of the day around the country that cost $27 million as far as we can ascertain—because the full and direct costs have never come out. So on the one hand we stand here tonight and applaud ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for passing—Mark Patterson: What about the sheep in Saudi Arabia?Hon RON MARK: I haven't even mentioned the sheep farm in Saudi Arabia. They saw more value in a sheikh with sheep than they did in the citizens of the Realm States like the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau who he said gave disproportionately in blood to the freedom of the world through their contribution in World War I. I detect the smell of a certain word that I will never utter in this House. But it actually says to me that the National Party put a price on the value of the Realm States and it was $5 million. And it tells me something else: see in this Government we get advice.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to talk to the bill.Hon RON MARK: Narrowing down to the bill—this has happened to me before. One of the things that this Government did in making this decision—and Mr Ngaro is absolutely correct to point out that in the select committee process the costings were looked at. It turned out that the costings were nothing like those that were given to the National Government of the day. And I detect that he regrets listening to that advice but that's the difference between Minister Sepuloni and that Government.Minister Sepuloni looked at the legislation took the advice from officials and had enough wisdom and judgment to see through advice to see exactly what it really would mean. That is the level of governance and the quality of Ministers one needs if one is to govern responsibly. And I really felt sorry for Mr Ngaro as he sat there in that select committee and heard evidence that totally contradicted the evidence that he received on this very same matter on something that he actually wanted to do as a Minister but was prevented from doing. So I'm going to congratulate the Hon Alfred Ngaro for his speech tonight—for its honesty and for opening a window and allowing us to see inside of what actually happened in that administration with respect to section 8(c) of this Act.The National Opposition—and I would say led by the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has come to exactly the right position on this piece of legislation and on New Zealand First's side we thank him for that. We genuinely thank them. We regret that it took three years. I know that the cost they predicted was huge. From 2015 to 2018 on their projections on the advice they took it stood to cost what $15 million? But I would propose—New Zealand First would propose—that even $15 million is a cheap price to pay for the loyalty and for the people of Tokelau Niue and the Cook Islands.Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the House on this bill. We support the legislation and look forward to hearing the votes on this the third reading and I finish by once again congratulating Minister Sepuloni for a wonderful piece of outstanding work. Thank you."