Volume 707 Week 22 - Tuesday 21 July 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 707 Week 22 - Tuesday 21 July 2015[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 21 July 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsAustralia—Delegation Victorian Legislative AssemblyMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Victorian Legislative Assembly led by the Hon Matthew Guy Leader of the Opposition who are present in the gallery.Authority to Administer OathMr SPEAKER: Members the following authorisations have been received by the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk of the House from His Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. The authorisations read:Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986 I Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae Governor-General of New Zealand hereby authorise youThe Honourable Kerry James (Chester) BorrowsDeputy Speaker of the House of RepresentativesandDavid Martin WilsonClerk of the House of Representativesto administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.BILL ENGLISH Acting Prime MinisterAuthorisedJerry Mateparae Governor-General16 July 2015Questions to MinistersHousing Market—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement in 2010 that “Looking four five ten years into the future I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country …”; if so why after almost 7 years has his Government failed to collect specific information on foreign buying of land and homes in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that both Beijing and Shanghai for example have laws preventing non-residents from inflating demand and buying houses in those cities and does he consider that such measures would be racist if applied here?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well every country has different rules but what I would say is the current rules around foreign investment were actually passed by the Labour Government in 2005. They are actually in line with the vast majority of developed countries. For example in the UK the US Canada France Germany Ireland Italy Japan Sweden and many other OECD countries there are no or very few restrictions on foreigners buying residential property. When it comes to Australia which theoretically has a restriction in relation to second-hand properties it has been spectacularly unsuccessful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why will his Government not in his own words “get some guts” and introduce restrictions on foreign buyers of our homes and land like for example in China Hong Kong and Singapore or are they too racist and xenophobic?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well for a start I am proud to lead a Government where if we were to make changes around foreign investment it would be to every country and every ethnicity and we would not just cook things up and single people out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that his opposition to New Zealand First’s foreign ownership of land and homes register bill is because he is scared of Kiwis finding out under his watch just how much land and housing have been flogged off to overseas buyers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No in our view it was poorly drafted.Economy—International Conditions and Performance2.CHRIS BISHOP (National)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the international economy and its effect on the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I have seen a number of reports including Treasury’s Monthly Economic Indicators. As members will be aware there have been continued drops in the international dairy price recently. It is now 40 percent lower than the recent peak in early March. For the dairy sector times are turning out to be tougher and they may be for longer than industry experts expected. However New Zealand’s automatic stabilisers in the form of flat to falling interest rates and a reducing exchange rate against the US and Australian dollar will help cushion the effects of a dairy price decline and increase the profits of other export sectors where prices are holding up.Chris Bishop: What matters of economic relevance for New Zealand did he observe on his recent visit to China?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both political leaders and business operators in China remain reasonably positive about the economic outlook. China’s growth does appear to be slowing more so probably in investment in infrastructure than in consumer demand where rising wages and a continued demand for high-quality food products would tend to underpin more growth in New Zealand rather than less. It is good news for New Zealand to see China officially moving from an investment-driven economy to more emphasis on consumption driving growth.Chris Bishop: How does New Zealand’s current economic performance compare with other developed economies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand faces some of the same headwinds as other developed economies—2.6 percent GDP growth in the year to March compares with an average of about 2 percent growth across the OECD. Tourism for instance is growing reasonably strongly because the New Zealand dollar has dropped relative to the US dollar and this last year we have had 3 million visitors a 7 percent increase on the previous year indicating there is sufficient economic growth and confidence in other developed economies to supply more tourists to New Zealand.Chris Bishop: How well placed is the New Zealand economy to deal with any potential slow-down in the rate of economic growth should international conditions worsen?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the light of recent commentary on the economy that is a very good question. The Reserve Bank’s latest forecast just 6 weeks ago incorporated reductions in dairy prices and at the same time forecast growth of over 3 percent in the next few years. Recent data indicates that those forecasts may come back a little but we remain on track for sustained moderate growth. As I have indicated the exchange rate has dropped considerably cushioning the effect of lower dairy prices and interest rates are now flat to falling rather than rising as was expected just 3 or 4 months ago. That will help households that may face some headwinds from lower dairy prices.Housing Market—Auckland and Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to affordability of homes in Auckland that “there’s a general view that housing prices are not overvalued” given that the homeownership rate has fallen to its lowest level in 64 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):This is a very misleading piece of selective quoting and in fact was not made in relation to the affordability of homes in Auckland at all. I stand by the full statement I made. When asked to comment on the fact that New Zealand has not had a housing correction in 45 years I said “One of the reasons why you probably haven’t had a significant correction is because over the last 45 years there’s probably been a general view that houses are not overvalued relative to a whole lot of different factors. My point is that the market in the end assesses when housing is massively overvalued compared to fundamentals not politicians.”Andrew Little: Does he still think that the typical Auckland house is affordable for the typical Auckland family when prices have risen five times faster than incomes under his watch and the median house now costs 10 times the median household income?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a variety of different measures around affordability but what I do know is that house prices doubled under the previous Labour Government and interest rates are considerably lower than they were under the previous Labour Government. If one even looks at homeownership rates our homeownership rate at 64.8 percent is highly comparable with other OECD countries.Andrew Little: Is he aware that in the past year the number of owner-occupied homes fell by 2400 while the number of rentals rose by 19800 and does that not show that his policies are favouring investors while taking the Kiwi dream of homeownership away from families?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. There are a variety of different reasons why people may move into rental properties. For one thing Auckland actually has been growing in size and many people move to a city and rent a property as the starting thing that they do.Andrew Little: Why is it the policy of this Government—of his Government—to allow overseas speculators to profit off New Zealand homes contributing nothing to our economy while pushing prices out of the reach of more and more families?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I reject that but secondly we have the policies that were introduced actually by the Labour Government. It passed the foreign investment rules in 2005. Apparently Winston was part of it happily praising it and voting for it. They were good enough for Labour in Government but they are not good enough for Labour in Opposition. Mind you it is a very different Labour Party these days is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am calling for less interjection from my right-hand side.Andrew Little: Can he guarantee that the Inland Revenue Department database will be public and will clearly reveal the number of non-residents buying New Zealand houses?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member knows there is a process that we are going through at the moment. There is a bill in the House and we will be looking at that data. But what I do know is our information will not be cooked up and when someone asks me a question about it I will not lose my rag at TV3 like that member did before.Andrew Little: Why did he give offshore speculators 4-months’ notice of the upcoming change of rules giving them time to game the old system when he cancelled the KiwiSaver kick-start on the day of the Budget so that parents could not sign their kids up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member ever gets into Government then he may realise that tax law is a very complicated and complex thing. If we had not actually had a period of time where there was an opportunity for tax specialists and others to give input into the process then you may have got unintended consequences. Secondly nothing changes under tax law in New Zealand as a result of the brightline test. If someone buys on revenue account then they will still be subject to paying tax. You can be sure as I said at my post-Cabinet press conference yesterday afternoon that the Inland Revenue Department will be looking very closely at people who buy houses at the moment like it does all the time and it will be collecting tax revenue off people who owe it.Andrew Little: If he has done all he can on housing why are Auckland house prices accelerating rather than stabilising why are the number of homes owned by people who live in them falling and why are so many offshore websites urging speculators to keep on buying in Auckland?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As we know we really have to question any piece of data or information the Labour Party puts out there these days in whatever language it introduces it. I actually stand by the Government’s record on what we have done: 118 special housing areas on which we expect 50000 new dwellings the vast bulk of which are in Auckland; the brightline test that is there; the $50 million that is set aside for residential housing development; the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme which as I saw the other day in the paper is doing exceedingly well; and the other rules that we have changed around the cost of imported materials. This Government has done a great deal when it comes to housing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is quite long enough.Prime Minister—Flag Referendum and Climate Change4.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I’d bet my bottom dollar that there would be considerable debate and discussion in New Zealand about whether the flag should change”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes I do. I made that comment when the flag consideration project had received about 2300 different flag designs. I am delighted to inform the member that at the last count the panel had received 10291 flag designs. My bottom dollar is pretty safe I think.James Shaw: Does he accept that only 25 percent of New Zealanders want to change the flag whereas 87 percent of New Zealanders are concerned about climate change?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think you actually can make that prediction until we go through the referendum process. As the member knows there will be two referenda in relation to the flag change. I think we are ultimately going to have to wait until that final referendum takes place in early 2016 to see whether New Zealanders want to change the flag or not. I hope they do because I believe passionately that a new flag can be used as part of a way of showing how proud we are of our country and of how we unify a multicultural society.James Shaw: Given that climate change submissions outnumbered flag submissions by 15000 to 2300 does he think that changing the flag was the right priority for him to personally champion?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I would say—and I have said this on numerous occasions—that the flag is just one of a great many issues as Prime Minister that I have a hand on. I have never argued that it is the most important one. In fact back in 2010 when that issue was raised significantly with me I made the point there that there were much bigger and more important issues to deal with at the time. But over time I think we can actually consider a whole range of different factors. When it comes to climate change the member is right. There were 17023 submissions received by the Government but actually most of those were stock standard ones. They were pro forma and they were prompted by the Green Party. In fact there were only 1485 submissions that were unique. If we go to the flag—something of interest because it was the member’s primary question—he may be interested to know that there were 146000 views of the New Zealand flag history video that 6000 people visited workshops and information stands and that there were more than 850000 online visits and about 2.7 million views of the flag gallery. I need to tell the member that every single night when I am in my office I am signing letters thanking the young people of New Zealand who are writing to me I have got to say in their hundreds—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now I have heard enough.James Shaw: I thank the Prime Minister for his acknowledgment of how successful the Green Party was at galvanising public opinion.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the supplementary question.James Shaw: If he plans to listen to the public on changing the flag why did his Government not listen to the 99 percent of submitters who argued for a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because in the end of course we undertake consultation but consultation does not always mean agreement with a specific point of view. The target that we have come up with—minus 30 percent off a 2005 base—we believe is actually a balanced and fair target to take in. It is just one of the things that we do think is about right given the cost to our economy and the challenges that we have with half of our emissions coming from agriculture. The other point that we have made with the target is that we are quite happy to increase that target over time if we can get some of the scientific solutions we need for agriculture. I am actually very confident as I am sure the member himself will be that over the next 10 to 15 years there will be a significant breakthrough when it comes to agriculture.Andrew Little: In light of the increase in economic hardship especially in the regions does he now accept that there are better uses for $26 million of taxpayers’ money than a flag referendum that the public does not want?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly we do not know what the final cost of the referendum process will be. I simply say that because Labour and the Greens actually pushed along a referendum on the mixed-ownership model after we had had a general election that we won with a landslide on this very topic. In the end the estimates were $9 million and the actual costs were $6.7 million. But here is the point: this is a major constitutional issue and this party believes in democracy in the same way that this party believes in a multicultural society and being fair and decent to people and not cooking things up. That is what the National—Mr SPEAKER: Order!James Shaw: Given his answer about costs to the New Zealand economy of strong action on climate change would he say that the majority of the 520 businesses surveyed by Waikato University were wrong to think that when it comes to climate change “There is a risk that weak Government inaction will still incur most of the costs without capturing the potential benefits.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I did not see the survey and I do not know the companies that have been asked the question. I do not think that that is actually right though because if we look at the emissions trading scheme that in fact actually sheets ultimately the costs home to businesses that need to change their practices—but ultimately those businesses will pass those costs on to consumers—or they go directly to consumers. The issue we have got here is that we get about 80 percent of our energy from renewable sources. We have about half of our emissions coming from agriculture and the Treasury advice to the Government as I recall it was that the cost of our making the sorts of reductions that say for instance the European Union promised are much much higher in this country. I think we have just got to get that balance about fair and I think we have. This is just one of the varied tools that we are using around climate change. There will be others over time. I accept actually that it is an important issue. The Government is taking it seriously.James Shaw: So if he does not believe that those businesses were correct or that the 99 percent of submitters were correct does he also believe that the 24 percent of National Party voters polled by UMR who think that New Zealand should take stronger action on climate change are also wrong?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not say that the member was wrong and that those businesses were wrong. I was quite clear when I said that I did not see the survey and I do not know the particular companies that it asked. Each will have a different perspective. But there are hundreds of thousands of companies I suspect in New Zealand; the 500 are just a snapshot of what is there. I accept the view actually that climate change is an important issue and I accept the view that New Zealand needs to do its fair share and I accept the view that there is a strong case that New Zealand might over time be able to do more. But I am just simply making the point that if we ask our farmers to do that and we cannot give them any scientific solutions we are simply putting a cost on them without their being able to actually change their behaviour. That is just called a tax and I do not think that actually helps the consumers of the world who will have to pay for those products.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that only one party when asked by him to join the cross-party parliamentary committee on his flag change would not join and it told him that it was a $26 million waste of taxpayers’ money and to shove his Benedict Arnold idea where the sun does not shine?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I do not recall the letter saying to shove it where the sun don’t shine but I do remember the dinosaurs party saying that it did not want to take part.James Shaw: Given the strong public preference for greater action on climate change than on flag change is he willing to work with other political parties to come up with a more ambitious emissions reduction target?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No the Government has got its position when it comes to climate change targets. It is quite a legitimate thing for every political party to have its own target and its own set of policies but we take those to a general election.B4 School Checks—Reports5.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the number of B4 School free health and development checks completed in the last financial year and what do they show?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):I have received a report that 58600 children received B4 School Checks in primary care in the year to June and that this is a record 92 percent of eligible children. B4 School Checks test a child’s hearing vision and oral health. Behaviour development and growth are all assessed and immunisations are also checked. The Government invests $10 million each year to provide these free primary care B4 School Checks which have now benefited more than 300000 children and which ensure that Kiwi kids start school in the best possible health.Simon O’Connor: Has he had to do any checking of the numbers in recent reports relating to checks on children?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes I have. My office had to spend a lot of time last week following up a claim that 22 out of 26 GP practices in central Auckland had opted out of free visits for under-13s but several hours later the Labour Party apologised to journalists conceding that their figures—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will have the first one.Chris Hipkins: The first one is that it is actually a real stretch to get the supplementary question related to the primary question. The second point of order is that the Speakers’ rulings and your rulings in fact are very clear that supplementary questions from the Government on Government questions should not be used to attack the Opposition.Mr SPEAKER: On the first—and I think it then relates to the second point of order—the supplementary question in my mind was in order. There was no way I was to know what figures the Minister had had to take time to correct. So the question was definitely in order. As the answer has progressed it is getting to a stage now when I could conclude that it has been designed for no other purpose than to attack the Labour Opposition. I would be grateful if the Minister if he wants to conclude his answer would do so without further reference to Labour.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sure. In actual fact of 10 practices in central Auckland nine are offering free doctors visits for under-13s. I accept Mrs King’s apology. I would like to table the transcript of a radio article entitled—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Such transcripts are freely available to all members if they so want them.Dairy Price—Impact on Wider Economy6.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that bad news about the New Zealand economy is overblown and that while dairy prices are down “95 percent of our economy is not involved in that”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes.Grant Robertson: How does he reconcile his support for the Prime Minister’s statement with the following statement also made by the Prime Minister: “When things are going well on our farms this flows through into the small towns the provincial cities and ultimately into our big cities. Conversely when the primary sector sneezes the New Zealand economy catches a cold.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Pretty easily actually. There is no doubt that significantly lower dairy prices for longer than expected will have some dampening effect on the economy. But unfortunately for the member who gives the impression that the dairy industry is about half of the New Zealand economy he should listen to the Prime Minister who points out that it is around 5 percent of GDP.Grant Robertson: Does he agree with former National agriculture Minister David Carter who said: “South Africa has diamonds Australia has minerals Saudi Arabia has oil and in New Zealand we have farms based on pasture.”; if so how does that fit with the 95 percent of New Zealanders not being affected by plummeting dairy prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I agree with the former National Party agriculture Minister. He is very well-informed and very well-travelled and has great insight into the world economy. But even that former Minister will be aware of the facts which are that the dairy industry is around 5 percent of GDP and eventually the finance spokesman for the Labour Party will avail himself of the facts.Grant Robertson: How can he claim that 95 percent of New Zealand is not affected by the plummeting dairy price when the 2014-15 payout means for example $150 million less in the Whakatāne and Kawerau economy $190 million less in the Ōtorohanga community and $150 million less in the Waimate community or are concerns in those communities just overblown?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and those communities and others like Southland and mid Canterbury where there is a concentration of dairy production of course are going to be affected by a payout that is likely to be lower than people expected and may stay lower for longer. That is pretty obvious. But at the same time each of those regions for instance will benefit from a stronger tourism industry where the drop in the value of the New Zealand dollar means that tourism is actually doing pretty well. The member when he goes to those regions needs to make sure that he understands the breadth of their economies and not focus just on the dairy industry.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he is saying to the people of Whakatāne and Kawerau that they will get around $150 million from tourists flocking to their region to make up for the loss in dairy profits?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I did not say that. I am simply pointing out to the member that when the dairy industry is less than 20 percent of exports and you go to any region of New Zealand that prides itself—as those regions do—on their exporting capacity he will find that there are other industries that may be balancing off some of the negative impacts of the dairy industry. For instance in the Bay of Plenty kiwifruit is going pretty well. But of course I agree with the member that the lower dairy price will have a significant impact on the dairy farmers and on the servicing industries related to that farming.Grant Robertson: Is he really dismissing as overblown a 40 percent drop in dairy prices since March; a forecast of a $3.75 payout for 2015-16; a 20 percent decline in commodity prices in the year to June; sharply declining public confidence consumer confidence business confidence and employment confidence; or we do have to rely just on his and the Prime Minister’s post-holiday vibe to get us through?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I can see that the member has learnt not to use the word “crisis” because when Labour says something is a crisis it always comes right—if it has not already. So look there are certainly risks to the economy from the global economy but the point we are making I suppose is that although some prices are low others are high or have not gone down and the automatic stabilisers—a lower exchange rate and flat-to-falling interest rates—are coming into play. So we would expect that New Zealand remains on track for moderate sustainable growth of 2 to 3 percent.Grant Robertson: Is it really correct that the Government’s Pollyanna position on the economy is a result of his—as the Prime Minister said—“feeling better” after his trip to China; and are we now going to make economic policy based on what he is feeling in his waters?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—with a fair bit of licence.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am certainly not going to make it on what that member might be feeling in his waters. It is just a matter of keeping in context the breadth of the New Zealand economy. The member would like to think it is entirely focused on exporting one product to one country but that is not in fact the case. It has a broad base much of which is succeeding at the moment—a 14 percent growth in IT year on year big increases in kiwifruit record tourist numbers highest sustained migration flows for quite some time a wine industry with exports roughly three times what they were 10 years ago—and a dairy industry that is really struggling. That is the breadth of the New Zealand economy and we are sufficiently resilient to absorb the shock from lower dairy prices and sustain moderate growth of 2 to 3 percent.Information and Communications Technology Industry—Graduate Schools7.JOANNE HAYES (National)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How is the Government delivering more of the skilled ICT graduates that New Zealand needs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):As the member will know the information and communications technology industry is growing rapidly and last week I announced the successful host of the first two new information and communications technology graduate schools in Auckland and Christchurch. These schools will help to link our fast-moving information and communications technology sector with students and education providers and will shape the information and communications technology talent. The Government has committed $28.6 million to the development and delivery of three schools and once fully established they are expected to train in excess of 350 additional students annually on top of the 1600 to 1900 students currently graduating with degree-level or above information and communications technology qualifications.Joanne Hayes: What is the focus of the newly announced schools?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Auckland school will be hosted by the universities of Auckland and Waikato with satellite locations in Hamilton and Tauranga. It will be focused on developing industry-focused postgrad information and communications technology students with the communication critical thinking business and enterprise skills that employers need. The southern school will be focused on issues relevant to regional economies hosted by the South Island Tertiary Alliance which is a group of South Island tertiary institutions with a campus in the Christchurch innovation precinct and a satellite site in Dunedin. A third graduate school will also be opened in Wellington with an announcement about that provider later this year.Joanne Hayes: Why has the Government established the information and communications technology graduate schools?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Highlighting the ongoing diversification of the New Zealand economy New Zealand’s IT services and software industry is growing rapidly with more than 10000 domestic IT businesses now employing over 26700 people and with employment growing in this sector at 12 percent in 2014. Exports from this sector have also doubled in the past 5 years from $400 million to $930 million with a compound annual growth rate of 14 percent. The schools will add more information and communications technology graduates with work-relevant business-focused skills to help assist the information and communications technology industry’s continued growth.Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance8.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement that Mount Eden Corrections Facility is “the highest performing prison” for measures of core security rehabilitation and reintegration?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):Yes I stand by all my statements in the context in which they were given.Kelvin Davis: Why has his department taken more than a year to act on a report alleging an organised fight club at Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That report had a number of conclusions and statements that were unsubstantiated.Kelvin Davis: Why have the terms of reference for the investigation into fight clubs been narrowed down to paying attention to the past 3 months thereby conveniently excluding the findings of the report accepted by the Department of Corrections on 9 July 2014 which by all accounts “does not make nice reading”?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is not an investigation; it is a review and that review is not inclusive of just the past 3 months. It is an all-encompassing review that can go back as far as it needs to go.Kelvin Davis: How many of the YouTube videos showing fights at Mt Eden Corrections Facility have corresponding incident reports from Serco and if he does not know how can he have any confidence in Serco’s claimed assault rate at Mt Eden?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have that information to hand but what I can say is that assaults are an issue not only at Mt Eden prison but also right across the prison estates. We are dealing with some of the most difficult and violent people in our society. For example in the last financial year five serious prisoner-on-prisoner assaults were made at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That compares with five at Christchurch Men’s Prison six at Spring Hill Corrections Facility and seven at Rimutaka Prison. When we look at prisoner-on-staff assaults in the last financial year Mt Eden had one assault compared with Waikeria Prison which had three.Child Poverty—KickStart Breakfast Programme and Other Government Initiatives9.ALFRED NGARO (National)to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on how the KickStart Breakfast initiative is supporting vulnerable children?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):As students head back to school this week the 5-millionth KickStart Breakfast since the Government expanded the programme in 2013 will be served. An investment of $9.5 million over 5 years has seen the programme expanded from two to five mornings per week and to include all primary and secondary schools that want or need it regardless of decile. In fact the majority of schools are reporting improvements in general health and well-being at 85 percent concentration at 78 percent and behaviour at 66 percent. This is another fantastic example of the Government communities and the private sector working together to ensure that children have the best possible start that we can give them.Alfred Ngaro: What other steps is the Government taking to ensure vulnerable children are well supported?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2015 provides for a $790 million child hardship package that includes a $25-a-week increase in benefit rates for families with children which is the first increase above inflation in 43 years; an increase in Working for Families payments to low-income families not on a benefit; more childcare support for low-income families; and increased work obligations for sole parents on a benefit as part of our plan to support people back into work which provides their children with the best chance of living successful lives.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties10.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to the Minister of Trade: Does the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement purport to restrict a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of existing New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Trade)on behalf of theMinister of Trade: As Trans-Pacific Partnership provisions are still under negotiation and are not finalised we cannot comment on what may or may not be included at this time.Hon David Parker: Why did the lead New Zealand Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiator brief MPs from all parties that although the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership does allow for existing categories of investment controls to continue it does not allow for the introduction of new categories like a ban on the purchase of housing?Hon TODD McCLAY: I am not sure that that is entirely what he said or meant but what I would say is that this issue hinges on the specific facts and measures and their application. The current operation of the Overseas Investment Act is not impacted by existing free-trade agreements including the requirements consents and acquisition of land or sensitive land. But I would state again that I cannot comment on what provisions might be in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation or whether or not it will be concluded.Hon David Parker: Is he aware that the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement allows for restrictions on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes including Chinese buyers so long as subsequent agreements with other countries are no more generous?Hon TODD McCLAY: I am aware that there are a number of conditions in all of our free-trade agreements. What I would also say though is that under the last Labour Government around conditions for the purchase of—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was—Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to repeat the question.Hon David Parker: Is he aware that the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement allows for restrictions on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes including Chinese buyers so long as subsequent agreements with other countries are no more generous?Hon TODD McCLAY: I am aware that our free-trade agreements have a number of conditions in them and many of them are different. But what I would say is that there are a number of ways to address the policy issue that the member has announced one of which is to use the Overseas Investment Act and make that more restrictive. The previous Labour Government did that. Most certainly in negotiating our free-trade agreements the Government is mindful of getting the balance right and of ensuring that the agreements are in the best interests of New Zealand.Hon David Parker: Given that he will not say what the draft text says will he say whether his position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is that it should allow for restrictions on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes just as the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement does?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Minister’s position is the same as that of the Government. Most certainly what I would say to you is that we as a Government are very keen to make sure that our agreements are balanced that they are good for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy and that they are fair to all nations. You will not see this party on this side of the House singling out any one group of individuals. We believe they should be treated—[Interruption] We are not Hobbit-haters. We do not mind the Koreans. We are not against the Chinese. And as far as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is concerned I say to that member that we are not opposed to Americans playing either.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although there was some interjection during the latter part of the Minister’s answer he continued to go down a line of attack on the Opposition which earlier you ruled as out of order.Mr SPEAKER: No it was a long answer. To be absolutely honest I could not hear the end of it because there was so much interjection but this is a robust debating chamber and there will be occasions when Ministers will include some political statements in their answers.Hon David Parker: Will he guarantee that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will not restrict his Government or a subsequent Government from banning the purchase of New Zealand homes by foreigners from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?Hon TODD McCLAY: I state again that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is currently under negotiation. Indeed the Minister is overseas negotiating right now. What I will give an assurance of absolutely is that for the Government to decide to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement overall it will be good for New Zealanders and the New Zealand economy. We are a trading nation; we do not become richer by selling things to ourselves. We must ensure that we have good access to other markets—competitive access—and that is what the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation is about.Corrections Minister—Confidence11.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes; because they are competent and hard-working.Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Corrections given that he believes the Serco-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility “… in terms of their core security in terms of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and a whole range of factors … still perform in a way that exceeds other prisons.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure that in the context that those statements were made they were correct. What the Minister has also done is ensure that there is now a wide-ranging review of what has taken place at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. In the fullness of time we will get a sense of any issues that might have presented themselves there.Ron Mark: Does it not concern him that a previous report into a fight club in a prison which was done over a year ago was ignored by his Minister of Corrections; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I do not have details on that report. If the member wants to ask detailed questions about it he really needs to ask the Minister of Corrections. But I am not even actually sure that he was the Minister of Corrections at the time that that report was issued.Ron Mark: Does he believe that the new standard of Government that he sought to establish in 2008 is best served by his Minister of Corrections addressing Serco’s failure with financial penalties when the public’s perception is that gross breaches of this nature should have resulted in the termination of its contract?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is a long way ahead of himself. We do not actually know the details yet. We do not know what and how and why and how widespread the issue is. But what we do know in the case of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility as run by Serco is that we do have the capacity there to have penalties because of the nature of that contract which is more than we would have if there was a fight club of any sort operating in any other prison around New Zealand.Benefits—Adequacy12.JAN LOGIE (Green)to the Minister for Social Development: Will she be raising benefit levels given official advice that shows that a family of four living on a benefit has $72 less per week than what they need to provide the “core essential items”; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):Yes the Government has committed to increasing benefit levels by $25 a week for families with children from April 2016 the first increase in core benefit levels in 43 years other than for inflation. Plus we are increasing support to our most vulnerable communities like free GP visits and prescriptions for all children under 13. I have just announced in this House the 5-millionth breakfast under the Government’s expanded KickStart Breakfast programme. We have funded KidsCan half a million dollars to provide raincoats and footwear. We have put extra Social Workers in Schools in low-decile schools. We are rolling out Children’s Teams to work with at-risk children and their families and we have insulated every State house that could be insulated.Jan Logie: Given that after that additional $25 if they are lucky enough to get the full amount these families will still be $47 a week short what essentials does the Minister advise these families go without: food power transport or rent?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member is quoting from one of the three scenarios that were laid out as part of the initial work in developing the child hardship package. That very same family scenario under which a lot of assumptions have been made shows very clearly that if we can support that family into either full-time work for one and part time for the other or part-time work for both of those parents their circumstances and that of their families are significantly changed. That is the focus of this Government and will continue to be the focus of this Government because we know that work is the best way out of poverty for those families.Jan Logie: Is the Minister concerned that even when this family does manage to find some work their pay and ability to look after their children will be significantly reduced as a result of ongoing debt repayments because of insufficient benefits?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. In fact the scenario that the member is continuing to quote from shows that by having one adult in the family—this is a scenario that shows a family with two children aged 10 and 8—working 40 hours a week and the other adult working 20 hours a week they will have in excess of those basics of living $207 every week extra.Jan Logie: When the Minister references that scenario which does not include a landline or access to a computer or newspapers or personal allowances or access to holidays or alcohol or assuming there is any debt repayment to Work and Income to cover basic food—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want the supplementary question please.Jan Logie: —how does the Minister expect the families to pay for things like when their car breaks down or their washing machine breaks down or somebody gets sick and has to go to the hospital which are not even in that scenario?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The scenario that the member is quoting from does actually include a landline; it does not include a mobile phone. We all know that that is probably the incorrect assumption. However I come back to the fact that this Government made a decision that no other Government in 43 years has made and that is to increase the amount paid to people on a benefit by $25 a week. That is to alleviate some of the hardship that these scenarios show but its main focus is in supporting people to be independent of the Government because that gives them the option and the choice to live full and successful lives and the lives of their children are considerably improved as well.Urgent DebatesMt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s PerformanceMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the allegations about organised fighting the taking of drugs and access to contraband by prisoners at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Mt Eden Corrections Facility is managed by a private provider but the prisoners remain the ultimate responsibility of the State. The Minister of Corrections has announced an investigation into the allegations of organised fighting and possession of contraband. It is absolutely critical that the public has confidence in our corrections system. Having carefully considered this application I have decided to allow a debate. I call on Kelvin Davis to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Let me say that the Serco fight club situation is an absolute debacle. It is a fiasco. It is a shambles. And it is an embarrassment not only for this Minister but also for the Government. It has been 3 years now that prisoners have been getting their lights punched out almost on a daily basis and this has gone on under the watch of Serco. There are so many issues wrong with Serco that it is actually difficult to know where to start but let us start with this: from the start Serco should never ever have been given the contract to run prisons in New Zealand. We believe that both the act of taking away someone’s liberty and their rehabilitation should always be the responsibility of the State.Not only that let us look at Serco’s record. Just in November-December 2013 that company was made to repay the United Kingdom Government £68 million because it was charging for work that it was not actually doing and that work was the watching over of inmates when they are rehabilitated into the community. What happened? I mean £68 million—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask members who are leaving the Chamber to do so expeditiously. [Interruption] Order! For those please quieten down; it is difficult to hear the speaker.KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. That is not chicken feed £68 million. Over in the UK Serco was charging for work that it was not doing. It was charging for the monitoring of people who had been released into the community and the reality was that many of those people had actually been returned to prison. Secondly it was monitoring people who had actually passed away. This is not a company that can be relied upon. On top of that Serco was considered to be so unethical that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund refused to have it as part of its portfolio and that is because it owned a third of the shares in a company that makes nuclear warheads.Eighteen months ago Beven Hanlon of the Corrections Association raised issues around the fight club situation and in that time what has the Department of Corrections done about it? It has done absolutely nothing. It has sat on its hands. In fact it goes back beyond 18 months. It goes back to September 2012 at least when 3 News reported about Martin Lyttelton who was an inmate of Serco. He said that violence was rife especially in Auckland Central Remand Prison. “They were running fight clubs in the mainstream units”—this is in September 2012 and is a reference to the running of fight clubs in mainstream units at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. He goes on to say: “a lot of people were getting bashed up in that fight club-type scenario. In some cases the guards were actually sanctioning assaults by inmates on other inmates.” And what has happened in that time? They were waiting for some hard evidence. They sat on their hands until videos emerged on YouTube sent out via contraband smuggled into Serco. That shows that this company has been negligent at best.Then there is a report that was tabled on 9 July last year which actually covered all of these issues. It spoke about the fight club. Apparently this report is so bad that it makes for terrible reading. High-ranking corrections officials received that report and I ask the Minister to table that report which was tabled on 9 July last year and also the minutes of the meeting at which it was tabled so that we can see who the corrections officials were who received the copy so that we know who got it when they got it and what they did about it. Well we actually know what they did about it. They did absolutely nothing to the extent that we have seen in the fight club videos. Ray Smith the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections has admitted to hearing about the fight club but he said that he wanted hard evidence. He has got the evidence now in those YouTube videos but it makes me wonder: what about the black eyes? What about the bruises? What about the missing teeth? Were those not evidence of something going on at Mt Eden Corrections Facility? Why did he have to wait for the release of these videos?This raises the issue of whether those injuries sustained by prisoners were ever reported. You see in prisons if there is an incident guards will rush in and they will stop things and then they all write up their incident reports which go to make a combined report about the incident. Yet I can almost guarantee that there will not be any incident reports from Serco but that there will be medical records that have been kept of the injuries sustained by prisoners. It makes me wonder what the correlation is between the medical records and the incident reports. I would like to know whether the Minister can table the correlation between the medical records. We do not need to know the prisoners’ names; we just need to know the numbers. We need to know the injuries and we need to see whether the medical records that have been collected at Mt Eden Corrections Facility correlate with the number of incident reports. I can almost guarantee that that is not going to happen. A spokeswoman for Serco said on 24 November 2014: “we report every incident no matter how minor.” Well if that is the case there should be those incident reports that I have just spoken about and I would love to know—love to know—whether the number of incident reports and the number of medical reports actually correlate.There are allegations that prisoners with severe injuries have been transported out of Mt Eden Corrections Facility to other facilities such as Ngāwhā prison Manawatū Prison and Whanganui Prison. Why would anybody transfer an inmate with severe injuries? Let me tell you the story about one prisoner—prisoner Evans—who arrived at Ngāwhā prison the prison up in Northland with a punctured lung. He was in such bad shape that the guards at Ngāwhā prison transferred him almost immediately to Whangarei Hospital where he subsequently passed away—sorry it was not a punctured lung; it was a ruptured lung and there is a difference. A puncture is when something goes into you; a rupture is when it bursts from the outside. If you ask any doctor or nurse—anybody who is involved in medicine—how you get a rupture they will tell you that it often occurs in something like a high-speed accident such as a car crash. We have all heard of people rupturing their spleens in a car crash. Well this guy had a ruptured lung.I am told on good authority that there is a practice in Mt Eden Corrections Facility that is called “dropping” where prisoners—new prisoners usually—who walk into Mt Eden Corrections Facility are sized up by gangs are bashed up and for good measure are dropped off the balconies on to the concrete below. That is what happened to prisoner Evans. He was dropped off the balcony his lung was ruptured and then he was transferred out of Mt Eden Corrections Facility and sent north to Ngāwhā prison. I want to know at which prison Mt Eden or Ngāwhā that injury was recorded because I suspect that prisoners with injuries are being transported out of the Serco-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility so that the statistics do not reflect on Serco. Unfortunately prisoner Evans passed away. So people are dying because of Serco. We cannot underestimate the damage and the danger that is going on.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: That’s untrue.KELVIN DAVIS: I hear the Minister say “That’s untrue.” Well it would be great to hear what he has got to say and it would be great to hear how he is going to stand up and justify how a prisoner can be transferred out of Mt Eden Corrections Facility with a ruptured lung only to arrive at Ngāwhā prison only to be transferred to Whangarei Hospital and then die within a couple of weeks. I know what he will say. He will say: “Oh the drugs didn’t work—the bacteria-resistant drugs.” Well how does that correlate with a ruptured lung? He should not have got a ruptured lung in the first place.At the end of May last year a prisoner arrived at Whanganui Prison. He was limping. Why was he limping? Because he had two broken legs—two broken legs. He was transferred out of Mt Eden Corrections Facility and he had been dropped off a landing as well. It was written up as a medical report but not reported as an incident report. We have people who are telling us these things and I know that this Government does not want to hear it. It does not want to know what is really going on because it reflects badly on the decision that it made to give Serco the contract. And like I say people are dying. I had four parents contact me on the weekend and they said that their sons who are in prison—and we know that they have committed crimes to get into prison—are saying: “Mum if we don’t get involved in the fight clubs we will get the bash.” That is the culture that is in the Serco-run prison at Mt Eden now.A prisoner was sent from Ngāwhā to Mt Eden—and he was intact by the way when he left Ngāwhā—and he came back 3 weeks later with a broken jaw. No record of the assault was made and there was no incident report but there should be a medical report that exists.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You’re making it up. You’re making it up.KELVIN DAVIS: And the Minister says that I am making it up. Obviously he has not spoken to the people who work for Serco and he has not spoken to the people who work for corrections facilities because these are people who are really concerned about the conditions that they work in and about the understaffing that is going on at Serco. They are telling us because they are scared. They do not want to tell the Minister of Corrections because they know that their jobs will be on the line as soon as they speak out because that is what happens to whistleblowers. It is not about doing what is right; it is about doing what is going to keep the Minister off their back and what is going to keep their jobs. It is a disgraceful situation with Serco.Here is another thing that I have been told. When prisons have audits an auditor will turn up at a prison unannounced and will demand on the day the things that they need to look at. I have it on good authority that Serco gets warned in advance. They get told by a high-ranking corrections official that—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who told you that?KELVIN DAVIS: I will not tell you who told me because he will lose his job. They go in and Serco already knows what is going to be looked at and this is the very reason why Serco is getting such high rankings in the tables. It knows what is going to be audited before the auditors get there and it has everything—all the paperwork—ready. It is a disgrace.I just want to finish off with a letter from a man J B Kerwin. It was sent to me at 7 o’clock last night—7.23 p.m. It says: “Hello Mr Davis. In my circle of neighbours family etc. we don’t care what these individuals do to themselves in prison. Better there than bashing up innocent people when they’re at large. We say in general ‘Let them go for it.’ They are probably on remand for doing the same thing at home in the streets etc. Just let them be as obviously they are just doing what they are best at—violence. They’ll never likely be any different. Hopefully they’ll get put away. John Kerwin Whangarei.” I responded: “Dear John Kerwin. When they are released they’ll be even angrier and more violent. I would prefer that they were helped not to be violent. Maybe you or members of your family will be in their way one day when they get out. They will have honed their ability to hurt people but this is what you want. Good luck to you. Enjoy the community you will have helped to create. Kind regards Kelvin Davis MP for Te Tai Tokerau.”It is not just the community that the folks like John Kerwin of Whangarei have helped to create; it is the community that the people who run Serco and the people who have mismanaged corrections have helped to create because those people who are getting their lights bashed out now are going to return to our communities and we have to put up and live with the consequences of their behaviour and the culture that they have lived in while they have been at Mt Eden Corrections Facility.I would also like to know about the terms of reference for the review that is going on because the Minister says that the Ombudsman is able to look into it but the terms of reference are actually restricted to 3 months in advance. I would like to know whether or not the Ombudsman will be able to have a look at the report that was tabled on 9 July last year and see exactly what it said because we are going to request the report under the Official Information Act obviously and then it will be redacted but I want to know whether the Ombudsman is actually going to see the whole report and see the whole truth put out there. I have also got concerns about the review—that it is actually going to focus not on the behaviour of Serco but on the behaviour of the prisoners and the behaviour of Serco is going to be overshadowed by any sort of review of the prisoners’ behaviour such as the fighting and the contraband.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. What we have just heard from that member Kelvin Davis is a whole bunch of allegations—unsubstantiated allegations—with no evidence no affidavits absolutely no evidence to suggest what he is saying is true. But I do agree with one thing that that member said. I along with that member am appalled at the images that were shown in the last week that have come out of our corrections facilities. I am also appalled and I am angry about that and that is why I have instituted a two-part review to get to the bottom of this not just these incidents but other incidents that have come across social media in the last week. That review will involve Serco. Serco is doing an internal investigation. It also involves the chief inspectorate. Also members opposite have asked for an independent investigation. Well it also involves the Office of the Ombudsmen. The member asked whether that oversight will be total and I give him an undertaking that it will be. The independent Office of the Ombudsmen will be there.What we have in our prisons in this particular prison—we have seen the violence and we are going to get to the bottom of it. But as I have said in question time today that violence is not confined to just Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That member knows it but members opposite want to make this issue about an ideological battle about public versus private prisons. What I am here as the Minister of Corrections to do is to improve the well-being of New Zealanders to improve the core safety for all New Zealanders across both the private and the public estate. So that is why we have put in place this review and the review will incorporate not just what is going on in Mt Eden but we are also expanding it out to what is going on in terms of contraband—mobile phones alcohol that might be smuggled in all the different contraband—as well as violence in our prisons.But I say that with the caveat and that member knows this that we are dealing with some of the most dangerous some of the most violent and some of the hardest people in our community. That is why they are behind bars. I say to that member that I support the 8000 staff who work in corrections right across this country who get up every day and do a fine job protecting him me and all New Zealand citizens. So I say to that member: when he trashes the corrections system in this country when he trashes the people who serve us and all New Zealanders he should be careful how he puts that because he is having a go at our democracy and the institutions that protect us as New Zealanders.So let us have a look at these assaults. At Mt Eden last year in the 2014 financial year—that member was short on facts he was short on evidence but I am going to produce the evidence right here—there were five assaults at Mt Eden; six assaults at Spring Hill Corrections Facility; seven serious assaults prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at Rimutaka Prison.Kelvin Davis: What did the video show?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well that member should go and visit Rimutaka and also see how the prison estate—in terms of prisoner-on-staff assaults in the last financial year there was one at Mt Eden three at Waikeria Prison.Kelvin Davis: How can we believe that?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: How can you believe that? Because that is what is going on in our prisons. And that member may rail against all sorts of things and hearsay evidence that he brings up but I have worked with the member. Every time he has brought up an assault or an allegation I have worked with the member and I have worked with the Department of Corrections to bring about some sort of outcome and investigation into his questions. That is what I have done.Let us look at contraband because that member says again that this problem is confined to Mt Eden prison. Well clearly it is not because for the 2014 financial year Mt Eden had 79 communications devices that we found. It had 79. Christchurch Prison had 112 and Rimutaka had 237—237. And that member says there is a problem at Mt Eden. No we have got issues right across the estate.Also I have gone on record—and the member asked this afternoon—about Serco’s performance. Serco’s performance according to the latest performance table for prisons 31 March 2015—and that member can go to the website and have a look. Instead he comes in here waving all sorts of stories and we do not know whether they are substantiated or not. But I point to that survey of core security internal procedures and rehabilitation. Only one prison has an exceptional rating—one prison. That is Serco. That is Mt Eden prison. That is despite the fact that that prison has 30000 prisoner movements a year—4000 prisoners go in and out of Mt Eden. As a remand prison that makes it more dangerous that makes it more highly volatile than any other prison in New Zealand. If that member decides to go and visit Mt Eden prison—I urge him to go and have a look as I have—he will see what a dangerous set-up it is and how the nature of this prison compared with others in terms of the remand facility is dare I say it highly volatile.But let us look at staffing because the accusation from members opposite is that staffing issues have arisen. But I have got an undertaking from the Department of Corrections that it is fully staffed at Mt Eden prison—fully staffed.But I have put Serco on notice that it has got to—Jacinda Ardern: They said that 2 years ago. Talk to the staff.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have spoken to the staff Ms Ardern. I have spoken to the staff when I was there last and they are on notice that they need to improve. Clearly from the images that were transmitted across this country last week things need to improve and that is what the review is about.Can I just say about the death of Mr Evans that I just find it appalling that that member Kelvin Davis who comes in here and says that he cares about families—that family did not want their son and their grandson as part of the political debate. If he knew that family he would understand that. Instead that member comes in here and throws around the sad death of a young man. You use that for your political gain. I say to that member: shame. I say to the member: shame on him for bringing that into this House—bringing that into this House. What we need to do as politicians is we need to stay calm. We need to stay calm wait for the coroner’s inquest and wait for the chief inspectorate’s investigation which is what we need to do. But we do not come in here and throw around political footballs of people’s lives that have been lost. And I say shame on that member.I also want to point out to that member who yesterday made various defamatory statements about me—Kelvin Davis: Oh sue me!Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No I say to that member put up some evidence or shut up—put up or shut up. I say to you honestly you are a good guy Kelvin—Mr Davis—but if you do not have any evidence around some of those defamatory statements put up or shut up. That is all I have got to say all right? I received that 2014 report—I got emailed that last Saturday. I read that last night and you have got evidence to suggest otherwise? You put up or you shut up. That is all I have got to say.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You do not—[Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet there is silence. Now I just ask to calm things down and not to bring the Speaker into the debate.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: And he also talked about—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You had not resumed your seat and the constant barracking from Mr Davis—he had immediately interjected to the point where I cannot—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that. [Interruption] Order! I am the judge of that and I have asked members to tone it down. It has been a robust debate and that is fine. Interjections should be rare and reasonable and specifically on the target.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The member opposite also asked about auditing in terms of monitors and in terms of the scrutiny that goes into overseeing the contract with Serco. We know that there are two monitors in there. We know that the Office of the Ombudsmen can at any time go into Mt Eden prison and investigate and examine and ask questions and he says that there is no auditing going on. Well that is clearly untrue. What I am saying is that there is sufficient surveillance and monitoring of Serco’s contract and it is important. It is important because there are ways in which Serco has to perform to its contract.In terms of preventing the contraband that we referred to earlier there are screening methods. There is a lot that both public and private prison operators do to contain the flow of contraband into our prisons.Chris Hipkins: Everything’s fine is it?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We have got prison perimeter security and Mr Hipkins knows that. We limit the number of entry points into our prisons. We do strip-searches of prisoners. We do background checks on those who visit.Hon Member: Who’s “we”?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The Department of Corrections and public and private prisons—yes we do that. And we use scanners and X-ray machines in terms of how we monitor those who go into our prisons. So it is an ongoing problem not just here in New Zealand but across the world.I was at a conference for Ministers—Australian states and myself as the New Zealand Minister—where we discussed a number of these issues. They are not confined just to New Zealand prisons and they are not confined just to Serco prisons; they are issues that prison authorities and Governments have to deal with not just here but around the world.In summary I just want to say that there is a review going on. It is a two-part review. We need to see what went wrong at Mt Eden prison. We have got to get to the bottom of how these violent situations came about. We need to find out how contraband is being smuggled into Mt Eden prison. I have been assured by Serco that it is stepping up security—that it is stepping up to the plate in terms of the fulfilment of its contract. We have a thorough and robust review in place. It is due next month—part one of the review is due next month at the end of August and then the second part which incorporates all prisons around New Zealand will be due by the end of September.I reiterate that we are dealing with some of the most dangerous violent people in our society. It is not a difficult job but I support the 8000 men and women in our public system who work within the Department of Corrections. I support those who keep us safe every day and the work that they do and clearly sadly the member opposite does not believe that to be true. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I would like to begin my comments by complimenting our colleague Mr Davis on the work that he has done to date on this issue and on bringing this debate to the House today because it is a matter that needs to be debated. It needs the light of day to be shone on it so that people can get a better view of what is actually happening in our prisons on a day-to-day basis.The president of the Corrections Association of New Zealand Beven Hanlon is on record saying that the events around fighting and drug use and so on in the Serco prison—Mt Eden Corrections Facility—were known to the authorities at least 18 months ago. I quote Mr Hanlon: “I can tell you now that on 9 July 2014 the chief executive the national commissioner and the northern regional commissioner all received that report…”. This afternoon we have heard from the Minister of Corrections that the lack of response to that report was for the reason that these matters were unsubstantiated. That is not a compelling or a reassuring response. With all the resources available to both the Department of Corrections and Serco why were these matters not substantiated or put to rest? Why did it take the emergence of an illegal video to bring this matter to light and to bring it to this debate today?It is remarkable that we are hearing accusations that the stories emerging from within the prisons are being made up. Like Mr Davis I also have had contact in the last few days with people working within the sector who have very similar tales. So if the stories are indeed being made up then it is a very widespread conspiracy. The unfortunate fact is that these people are frightened to come out publicly and put their names to these events and describe events happening in our prisons because they fear for their jobs. That is a very unhappy situation. It reflects a very unhealthy culture within our prisons. I suggest that a select committee inquiry would be the appropriate place for these people to come forward with some safety and make statements about what they have observed and what they believe to be happening so that we can deal with it at that level.There is some irony in the fact that the appalling events that have been occurring at the Serco-managed facility have come to light via modern technology through video taken with cellphones and presumably with the phone or the SIM card being smuggled out. I say “ironic” because Serco tells us that it is in fact technology that enables it to run a very different staffing model in its prisons compared with our public sector prisons—our Department of Corrections - run institutions—particularly in terms of the staff-inmate ratio. Earlier this year we heard directly from Serco’s Asia-Pacific operations manager Scott McNairn. He confirmed that each unit at the new Wiri Prison—this is including the high-security unit—will contain 60 inmates and two officers. Even my arithmetic enables me to say that that is a staff-inmate ratio of 1:30 even for the high-security wing. In the public prisons that ratio is 1:15—double the number of prison officers. Low security in the public sector has a ratio of 1:20; still 50 percent more officers on deck watching those inmates in low security than in Serco high security.I suspect that points to a lot of the underlying reasons why these events have occurred. We simply do not have the people on the ground. We do not have the trained resourced prison officers in the wings observing what is going on being the eyes and ears of management building relationships with the inmates and making those prisons as safe as they can be. The reason why the private operators run a lower staff-inmate ratio is all about profit. Most of the costs of running a prison are embedded costs. About the only wiggle room you have to try to generate profit when running a prison is staffing and I believe that what we are seeing happening in Serco-managed facilities is a direct result of their cutting corners on staff. And this is in the first couple of years. Imagine 5 or 10 years down the track of their 25-year contract. We are going to see some very serious unhelpful and positively dangerous outcomes because we have the situation where a private company is trying to drive a commercial profit out of operating a prison and that is simply not acceptable.I would like to comment on the investigation and the terms of reference. I am slightly puzzled by the Minister’s insistence earlier today that this is actually a review not an investigation because and I quote “The terms of reference for the investigation of the circumstances surrounding organised prisoner-on-prisoner fighting (‘fight club’) access to cellphones etc. at Mt Eden Corrections Facility…”. Is this a review or is it an investigation? I sincerely hope that it is the latter. A review to me indicates that you have a once-over-lightly; a quick look at what went on. This needs to be an in-depth review in order to get right to the bottom of what has been going on and of what is continuing to occur on a daily basis to ensure that we are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that we do not see this sort of activity going on in our prisons.My challenge to the Minister of Corrections would be that the primary investigating agency in this investigation should be the Office of the Ombudsmen. I would argue that the Department of Corrections and most certainly Serco—whatever investigative mechanism it has—are hopelessly compromised in this matter. It should be the Ombudsman that is the lead agency. It has the investigative power. It has the authority. It has the confidence of this Parliament to be objective and to be disinterested. And that is where the responsibility should sit. There are experienced people within the Office of the Ombudsmen who understand how our prisons operate. There is a lot of experience there. The Department of Corrections’ investigation by default must be hopelessly compromised given that it has sat on this information for at least a year and arguably for 18 months. How can the public have any confidence? You can take it as a given that there will be a significant response rightly or wrongly that anything that the Department of Corrections produces can simply be written off as a whitewash. There is too much self-interest for the department too much egg on its face and too much potential political embarrassment for it—and there is too much commercial risk for Serco—to allow that form of investigation to take place.I would also like to reflect on the issue that Mr Davis raised earlier. I quote again from the terms of reference: “The investigation will pay particular attention to the last 3-month period to determine: [a number of matters]”. Actually the last 3-month period is not necessarily where the problem lies. The “particular attention” phrase does not say that there will not be a longer time horizon for the investigation. Why would you focus on the last 3 months of the period? I hope it is not because the Mt Eden facility did actually have at that time a much higher staff count than it would normally run with because it had officers who had completed their training but were not being transferred to the Wiri facility until it opened. Is it not interesting that the attempt to narrow the investigation in terms of time will overlap with the period when that Serco facility did have significant staff numbers on deck on the ground observing prison behaviour and actually seeing what was going on there?I am also seriously concerned about the matter of health services. Part of the terms of reference is to get information from the health service within the prison. I also have heard entirely credible people telling me that the practice has been to export the walking wounded from Mt Eden Corrections Facility to other prisons. The most extreme example which we heard about from Mr Davis was one that resulted in a death that may well have occurred as a result of one of these fight clubs. There has been a compelling and a credible series of comments from people to the effect that the people injured in these fights must have reasonably serious injuries. There are large fit men going at each other with some enthusiasm so there must at least be cuts bruises and visible injuries. Is it not unusual to say the least that people are arriving in other prisons with evidence of having been in fights and nothing has been reported about this? One would hope that in the health service which is unfortunately also delivered by the Department of Corrections—in our view health services in prisons should be delivered by a stand-alone health agency that is not concerned or allied with corrections—that those health incident reports would help to reveal what is or is not going on here. There is no question that violence has been under-reported at this prison unless there is a massive conspiracy between inmates prison officers management and NGOs working within the prisons. This investigation should be comprehensive and it should be led by the Office of the Ombudsmen.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):I expected that the Government might actually have an interest in this matter because it is a very serious matter. The contracting-out of State functions has been fashionable for some time but it has always been problematic. It has been the stock-in-trade of this Government in so many areas and in so many respects and it comes from the point of view—at least of this Government—that those with a profit motive can serve the public interest. That is why this Government thinks that it can contract out wholesale very important State functions now including one of the social support functions and if it cannot contract them out hand them over to private investors would you believe for a return on their investment. This Government applies that principle of contracting out to the private sector indiscriminately. But there are some State functions particularly those involving the deprivation of liberty—the custody of those detained to serve penal terms—which in my view fall into a completely different category and should not be the subject of contracting-out. That is the Labour view and we have stood aside and watched what has happened—in this case in this part of the prison service: Mt Eden Corrections Facility—noting that the contractor that is running it is now responsible also for the guarding and detention responsibilities at the new Wiri Prison. There are hundreds of prisoners under its charge; hundreds of prisoners its responsibility.We do not deprive people of their liberty very easily in our society and we should not. When we do so we do it according to the rule of law. People know what the charge is when they are facing something that can result in the community taking their freedom away from them. They have a right to see evidence of the wrongful behaviour that justifies the removal of their liberty. They have a right to be heard in court and to be adjudicated by an independent judge free of the strictures of ministerial or other State or Crown interference. That is our judicial system. We take it very seriously when people act in such a way that they offend against the mores of our community of our society and when they do so in such a bad way that we find it necessary to take their freedom away from them. That is why we have a criminal justice system. That is why we have a system that we invest a great deal of authority in and give extraordinary powers to to deprive people of their liberty. That is an important part of our constitution and it is an important part of our community and our society.The badness of the actions of somebody whose liberty we are depriving must justify their removal from the community. It must be proportionate to their actions. So we do all that right up through the police investigation through management through the judicial system and the criminal justice system and yet we now have this slow erosion of those important public service constitutional responsibilities at the corrections end of the process. It is vital that public confidence be maintained throughout the process from the time that we send in a publicly funded police force to investigate and from the time that we put in publicly funded judges and a judicial system to rule upon what has happened to cast a judgment and to sentence and send people to prison and deprive them of their liberty—we invest a considerable amount in it. The question then is whether we should continue to maintain that responsibility as a State as the Crown while the person is being detained and their freedom denied them.We suspend prisoners’ many citizens’ rights but they do not stop being a citizen and I see no reason why when we do that we should hand over their custody and their care to private organisations whose basic motive is to make a profit. In pursuing that motive and in making a profit they have an interest in cutting costs and in doing the bare minimum so that the owners of that private business get to benefit. That is what is happening here and as I said before we should note that Serco the company responsible for managing Mt Eden Corrections Facility is also responsible for managing the Wiri Prison. So when we look at these events of course we need to ask how on earth it is that events such as a fight club involving many prisoners at a time can be allowed to continue. Clearly it had been organised. Space and time had been set aside. And the prisoners were allowed to assault each other freely in a way that no one would ever expect to be allowed to happen in any prison in any civilised country anywhere.Then we have the issue of those fights being recorded on smartphones or cellphones or whatever means were used which means that contraband is getting through the prison gates and into the hands of prisoners and is being used to record these events. Then there is the act of uploading the footage shot on those cameras or phones to Facebook or elsewhere on the internet. So how does that happen in a prison environment in which prisoners are meant to have their access to things like the internet if not totally denied at least heavily restricted or conducted under supervision. Those are legitimate questions. And why does what happened at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility not appear to have happened anywhere else?So the Minister of Corrections has now launched these investigations which will focus on the conduct of the management of Serco and as Kelvin Davis has rightly speculated most likely on the conduct of the prisoners themselves. But the prisoners are only responding to the environment around them. Typically that is what happens in highly controlled environments. It goes back to the responsibility of the management and ultimately to where the authority—the real authority of Serco—lies and that is the contract between the Department of Corrections and Serco itself. But that contract is not the subject of any investigation or inquiry. The Minister claims proudly: “We are broadening the inquiry.” Well he is broadening the inquiry into areas where questions do not arise—into the public prison system. No one has raised a question about that. There is no evidence of this conduct happening in the public prison system; it is what is happening in that privately managed prison facility Mt Eden Corrections Facility that is the issue. If the Minister was serious about broadening the inquiry in a way that is helpful to the public of New Zealand and in a way that is designed to give confidence to the public of New Zealand then he would broaden the inquiry into that very agreement and into the very policy of contracting out custodial services to private operators who are doing it for a profit. That is the real question but it goes against of course the DNA of this Government to do anything like that; to challenge or question the ability of those motivated by private profit to act in the public interest and to take on a public service of such importance as depriving the liberty of those sentenced by a properly mandated and authorised court in order to serve penal time in the interests of the community.That is what must be investigated. That is what must be examined. It is not just what has happened on these occasions which has been recorded and uploaded to the internet and is there for all the world to see and is now being broadcast on TV; at the heart of this is this Government’s policy—this Government’s arrangements—and the agreements it has entered into with the likes of Serco whether for this facility or for any other corrections facility that it has contracted out. The public must have confidence at all times that our corrections facilities our prisons are operated to the highest possible standards that the greatest possible security is maintained and that the citizens—innocent citizens; law-abiding citizens—are protected. Of course there will be gradations of security but for those who are prone to fighting to committing assaults to committing offences in the way we have now seen recorded in would you believe a prison facility something has gone seriously wrong. If the Minister is serious about getting to the bottom of it he will look at his own department’s actions in a truly independent investigation not just with Ombudsman oversight but also involving a Queen’s Counsel or a District or High Court judge looking at the total arrangement the total policy—nothing less is required. The failure of this Government and this Minister to do that means that they are not taking this issue seriously. Once again the citizens of New Zealand are being treated as if they just do not matter.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First):The images from Mt Eden Corrections Facility were indeed shocking. They were scary to the extent that people switched on their TVs again to see whether they were for real. As a former senior corrections officer I am in the rare position of speaking with some expertise which the Minister clearly does not have. I started at the old Mt Eden prison building which was called a “real jail in the country”. That prison was from the colonial era and it reminded me because of its uncanny similarity of the old Mumbai central jail on Arthur Road. When managed by the Department of Corrections this Mt Eden prison worked. The systems worked. All the systems were very old but the system and the reintegration initiatives taken there did work. The security worked to the point that it was faultless. We did not have any of these things. There were hardly any cameras in those days. The prisoners were observed and monitored by prison officers themselves not by cameras. And obviously those cameras have failed except for the prisoners’ cameras which have really worked as is evident from the Facebook and YouTube videos.Prisoners have been moved from various prisons like Rimutaka Prison and certain other prisons that have been closed to accommodate those prisoners into the $400 million Wiri corrections facility. That is another Serco facility that we do not currently have videos for but it would be surprising if fight clubs moonshining and drug dealings are not present there. This is consistent with other Serco facilities from here to the United Kingdom. Given the housing issues in Auckland how many houses could Wiri have accommodated? At the prisons they have lost the opportunity by not better using the prisons that we have. Also having urban prisons means that we cannot jam cellphones which we could in rural areas and now cellphones are being used for illegal activities in prisons which we have seen in recent years.As The Telegraph noted recently the big problem for companies like Serco is delivering a level of service at a fixed price for a number of years. If the costs rise faster than anticipated then that profit can be wiped out very quickly and the company can then find itself locked into a loss-making contract for years. To circumvent that these commercial companies and corporates hire a lower number of staff so that they do not have to spend much on staffing and most of the expense incurred by any prison system is mainly for staffing. So these companies compromise on staff safety they compromise on prisoner safety and they compromise on the rehabilitation programmes. So this explains perhaps why staffing was thin on the ground. It is rich of the Minister to write in defence of a private company that makes money by doing things cheaper and that will have to do it cheaper increasingly cheaper as each year goes by.Corrections is a core responsibility of any Government so this Government has actually been shirking its own responsibility and giving it away to Serco for profits. Serco is all for profits and not for the reintegration or safety of prisoners and staff. They do not want overseas-owned publicly listed companies and corporates to make huge margins off their taxes while Kiwis get laid off in the regions to pay for it. New Zealand First says that Serco’s prison contracts should be terminated on the basis of gross non-performance. It is simply unacceptable for prisoners to have been able to start and run a fight club at Mt Eden Corrections Facility and it is even more unacceptable for that footage to actually be posted on social media. The Minister of Corrections has to be accountable for this latest incident. We have said it before: he needs to shape up or ship out.What clause of the Serco contract is preventing the Minister from terminating this contract permanently? Sadly this is what happens when prisons are outsourced to private operators. Profits are always put before prisoner and staff safety. Serco-run prisons do not have the right staffing levels. The Minister should put all the corrections facilities back into State hands properly resource them and give staff the tools to do their jobs. That is what a real Minister would be doing instead of being the “Minister for Serco”. Time and again we have asked the Minister whether he has confidence in the functioning of Serco and time and again he has said yes. The Minister has gone to the extent of singing Serco’s praises regarding Mt Eden Corrections Facility. I quote him: “It is a top prison performer on the prison performance table which measures core security internal procedures and rehabilitation.” He has continued that line even today.We must ask why the country needs to stick like glue to Serco despite so many stuff-ups. If this latest incident is anything to go by top prison performance can be counted only in Third World terms by the quality of its fight club the quality of its illegal alcohol and the quantity of its drug dealings. This Minister needs either to take up a job at Serco in the public relations department or to initiate an independent transparent and thorough investigation by the Law and Order Committee. Thank you.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland):I was just consulting with one of my learned colleagues about the prison system and about his wider perspective on the situation that we have got to hand here. Personally I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for his contribution. This is clearly an emotive issue for a lot of people because public safety and the safety of prisoners and staff are paramount and I think that the level of criticism from the Opposition members targeted directly at the Minister in a personal capacity was unacceptable in light of the steps that he has taken quite immediately to come back and try to remedy the situation.None the less I think that since this is a situation of high emotion and since public safety and safety behind the gate are paramount we should still be looking at this in a calculated and measured way. Acting on emotion and on what you see through social media without the wider perspective could have a detrimental effect and actually it is insulting to the 8500 prison staff across the country who are doing a fantastic job and are putting themselves in danger each and every day for the protection not only of those behind the gate but also of those of us who are operating in general society.I think that the Minister has already articulated the response which he has been quick to implement following the reports of the incidents that took place inside Mt Eden Corrections Facility. His response is a two-part review: firstly investigating the issues and circumstances surrounding violence and contraband use in prisons more broadly—I am looking specifically at the example raised at Mt Eden Corrections Facility—and secondly the adequacy of controls designed to address prisoner violence and access to contraband. As the Minister has pointed out this is not an issue confined specifically to Mt Eden Corrections Facility; it is an issue that has come up in all of the prisons across this country from time to time.I think the main reason why that is the case is that we are not dealing with the safest and most well-meaning New Zealanders; we are dealing with the most serious and difficult New Zealanders. If you look at the criminal justice system that we have in New Zealand we go to great lengths to try to prevent people from entering into that level of punishment because we know the broader impacts on a prisoner once they enter the system and on the rest of their criminal career. So we go to great lengths to try to prevent people from finding themselves in that situation but those who are in that situation—the 8500 prisoners in this country—are the most dangerous and difficult New Zealanders.I would like to thank and acknowledge the 8500 prison staff under Ray Smith’s leadership who do a fantastic job every single day. How is this dissimilar to incidents that have happened in other parts of the public sector? From time to time we see that there have been fights taking place between schoolchildren in schools. Does that mean that we should sack the principal and the board of trustees of the school if that takes place? No it does not. It means that we should deal with the situation in a contained manner and move forward to prevent things like this from happening again. That is what the Minister is trying to do with these two reviews.Serco is implementing its own review into these matters as well. For the New Zealand First Party to say that Serco’s motivations are to cut corners and that that is how it receives its profit—in fact it is the complete opposite; Serco is incentivised by safety measures. That is why it takes so seriously its responsibilities as a provider of correctional services to the State. That it is why it is in Serco’s best interests to take the steps that it is taking by means of a review as well to prevent this from happening again in any of its facilities. Serco is actually at a financial loss if things like this happen. It is not Serco’s incentive to cut corners and to stop safety. That is the situation where we are at.I want to talk next about Better Public Services being our underlying operating premise in Government. We strive to deliver better public services safer public services and more efficient and more effective public services and best practice is a key element of that. That is why we are constantly striving for best practice examples from around the world and around this country that we can implement and impose on our public services so that we get the best value for taxpayers’ dollars and the best value for service. It is not a question of whether it is public delivery or private delivery; it is a case of best practice and generating better more efficient public services.A cornerstone of that is accountability and transparency as well. Again I want to acknowledge the Minister for the quick response that he took to taking what could have been an emotional knee-jerk reaction to a social media - driven incident. Instead he has actually taken an independent inquiry through the Office of the Ombudsmen and that is the next point. For the Opposition to say that it wants an independent inquiry I mean you cannot get any more independent than the undertaking that the Minister has given.Again I want to reiterate the great job that the vast majority of our prison officers across this country are doing. I think it is not the most desirable job. I have been to one prison in my electorate under the leadership of Jack Harrison. He takes pride in the fact that he and his 250 staff monitoring the 415 prisoners in that facility love their job. They do a great job of what they do. They take their role incredibly seriously. They know that the activities that they undertake on a day-to-day basis and how they conduct themselves have a direct impact on the rehabilitation of those prisoners. Again prisoners are not the easiest people to deal with obviously. That is why they are in the situation they are in. I think for Opposition members to direct their concerns in the way that they have they need to take a serious look at how they are directing these concerns and start being a bit more productive around how we find a solution instead of attacking personally the people who are doing a fantastic job of what they do.Hon Simon Bridges: That is shameful.TODD BARCLAY: It is indeed very shameful. One of the stories that does not get told very often and it is only until you have the opportunity to visit one of these facilities that you see it for yourself is the great lengths that the prison service is going to largely under the initiatives that have been implemented by this Government to try to bring the people in these facilities back to a more recovered position before they enter the general public again. We have extensive drug and alcohol testing in all of our facilities. There are individual education plans for each prisoner who wishes to take them up. They are available to all prisoners across the country to provide them with a skill or a qualification so that when they re-enter society which most of them will do they can be sensible participants in society in the same way that their neighbours their families and their friends are.Eventually most of these people are going to be back in society. One of the most fundamental impacts or drivers of their ability to re-enter society in a good state so that they are no longer a harm to any New Zealander is the 8500 prison staff in this country who are working with these people on a day-to-day basis. They are teaching them life skills. We have got one prisoner in Milton who has been working on an Out of Gate work programme. He has been in prison for 20 years. When he re-enters society he is going to have to learn how to use an eftpos card a computer and a phone. It is the prison guards who work with these people on a day-to-day basis who teach them these things.In closing I would just like to reiterate my appreciation of the Minister and the statements he has made and the constructive and quick approach that he has taken to remedy what is a serious situation. I would just like to acknowledge again the staff of the prison service across this country. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—5 minutes.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this urgent debate. I would like to start my contribution with an understanding of what prison is. Prison is a facility where inmates are forcibly confined and denied a variety of freedoms as a form of punishment. Individuals officially charged with or convicted of crimes are confined to prison. There are 8000 prison officers who help us to maintain these facilities and I congratulate them and thank them for the services they provide for the safety of the public staff and prisoners. It is very important that we have these safety measures so that we can feel safe in our houses and at our businesses and I would like to congratulate them on doing so.These postings that have come up on social media in the last few days are of big concern. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Corrections have both expressed their concerns about this filming of prison fights and about prisoners being in possession of contraband inside New Zealand prisons. I echo those concerns.The Department of Corrections is working very closely with Serco as the manager of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility to investigate how the video footage was posted on social media and whether those involved should face internal or police charges. I was watching a TV series recently an American series entitled Orange is the New Black. It showed similar types of problems in American prisons—how contraband is smuggled into the prisons and how the prisoners have got access to it. These are the things that are also coming in front of us in New Zealand.The Department of Corrections intelligence team will be working closely with Serco to identify the prisoners involved even if they have been moved to other prisons. It is very important that those who have got access to facilities that they have been denied should be punished because they are not allowed to have those facilities. The Minister of Corrections has ordered two reviews and terms of reference have been expressed as to how these will be dealt with in the next 2 to 3 months. The Office of the Ombudsmen will be involved in monitoring the role of this review. The police have also been advised and they may conduct their own investigation. The investigation will pay particular attention to the last 3 months to determine whether this type of activity is widespread across the site or limited to a specific unit whether the management or the staff knew about it and what they did about it. Measures have been taken to restrict the contraband.It is very important that the facilities are secure and that the staff also feel safe when they are working over there. Serco has put additional security measures in place to boost the monitoring and the search regime. Access to the exercise yards is now more limited and restricted. There are extra searches of prison cells and everyone entering the prison is searched regardless of their position or role. I visited a couple of the facilities recently: Rimutaka Prison and Wiri Prison the new prison facility. We were also thoroughly searched before we entered the facility over there. I totally agree with the procedures that have been set up to thoroughly check everyone who is entering these facilities.I would also like to say that at one of the recent visits I did to the probation office in Penrose they told us a story about a convict who was totally transformed after working in the prison and who has got a job. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jacinda Ardern—5 minutes.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):Perhaps I should not be surprised that Government members in their contributions in this House on such a critical issue as the state of our corrections service actually reference Orange is the New Black as part of their contribution to this debate. Perhaps I should not have been surprised because of course this debate has been triggered by the emergence of what appears to be organised fight clubs and not just in the corrections service but explicitly within the Serco-run prison at Mt Eden.This has been happening for some time. Fight clubs are not new. We are now learning that a report was carried out within the Department of Corrections some time ago—many many months ago—and it was not acted upon. When the Minister of Corrections was asked why he had not acted upon this report he simply said that he was not the Minister when it was first written and therefore it was not his responsibility. I mean that is almost as credible as having the Minister say: “The first rule of fight club is don’t talk about fight club.” That actually would have been just as credible a response because we have a “Don’t ask don’t tell.” response to the debacle that is occurring not in our corrections service but in Serco-run prisons—in a Serco-run prison—and it is an important distinction to raise.I cannot let the Minister’s speech go unresponded to. He laid out some particularly awful responses to Kelvin Davis’ very legitimate speech in this House. Kelvin Davis raised legitimate concerns not just about the fight clubs or the contradictions that have arisen since this issue has emerged. He raised concerns about assaults he raised concerns about unrecorded incidents within Mt Eden and he raised concerns about prisoners with significant injuries as a result of assaults being moved to other prisons to potentially stop them being recorded against Serco’s record.What was the Minister’s response to those legitimate claims of concern? What was his response to the request from the member to simply investigate as any Minister doing their job should? Well first he called it hearsay. That was probably the response the first time that fight clubs were raised as well. How do you prove that something is occurring within a prison? We are not there 24/7. We hear what we hear from staff and then we ask the Minister to do the right thing and investigate. To have it called hearsay is simply irresponsible and it is the Minister avoiding doing his job.He then claimed that Kelvin Davis should put up or shut up. Well the last time that Labour raised concerns about Serco was when we had legitimate concerns raised by staff within that facility who said that Serco was understaffing the prisons and that at times on a unit of 40 there would be one prison officer—one prison officer—in the security area and then one on the other wing. That is understaffing what is a critical part of the corrections service. We raised that and what happened as a result? Serco issued its staff with what could be considered only as a threat—that any more concerns raised in public would be clamped down on. So that is what happens when this side of the House puts up. We put up we told the Government what is happening in this prison well over a year ago and what happened? The staff got threats.So I say to that Minister that we have put up. It is now up to the Minister to respond. But what this side of the House will not do is put Department of Corrections staff under threat or at risk by exposing them. Instead it is our job to raise those issues and it is our expectation that the Minister will do something about it.Our concerns about Serco are longstanding. It is not just a moral issue for us that prisons should be run by the State. If you remove the liberties of an individual that should be the job of the State. Why should there be a profit motive in our prison system? But our response to privatisation has also been practical. Serco has an appalling record—appalling—in Australia and the UK and yet this Government’s response has been not only to hand it Mt Eden prison but to build one of the largest prisons in New Zealand and to hand it to Serco to operate. It is now closing arms of regional prisons in order to make sure that Wiri Prison is full so that it can fulfil its contract with Serco. It is appalling it is shameful and the Minister needs to do his job.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):That member Jacinda Ardern is absolutely wrong on every single count. That is the problem with this debate and that is the problem with the Labour Party members: they are all about emotions insinuations and allegations and they are not about the facts. They are not about the facts. So let us put the facts on the table. These are bad people. That is why they are in prison—because they are bad people. The first role of corrections is to keep the communities safe from them OK? It is not unusual for there to be incidents of violence in our prisons. None of us condone it none of us want to see it happen but the reality is that it does happen. And the facts are that it happens in State-run prisons as well as privately run prisons. No you would not know that from the previous speakers.That member has only to look at some of the assaults that happen. I was Minister of Corrections when there was a riot at Spring Hill Corrections Facility. Prisoners set a whole wing on fire and I did not hear the Labour Party calling then for all prisons to be put under private ownership because the State could not run a prison and keep prisoners safe. So this is hypocrisy. This is all about the absolute hatred that the Labour Party has for any private enterprise in this country. It believes absolutely that the State has to play all roles and no one else can do it. The facts just do not support that. The facts are that Serco actually had a very tough year. The first year that it was running Mt Eden it made a hang of a lot of mistakes and I think we fined it something close to $1 million. We can do that when mistakes are made in the private prison. We can penalise the prison financially and we did. When the same mistakes are made in a State-run prison we cannot have those same sanctions. We do not have the ability to pull those levers to get better behaviour and that is one of the advantages of having a private company running a prison.The previous speaker talked about Wiri Prison and about how somehow we are closing down old antiquated prison wings around New Zealand so that Serco can run a full Wiri Prison. I mean that is absolute nonsense. Again the facts are that a thousand prisoners are currently out of Auckland because there is not room to house them. The facts are that the New Plymouth Prison was built in the 1800s and it is appalling that the Labour Government locked people up in cells that were designed in 1880. I think that is shameful and that is the prison system that we inherited from Labour. This National Government cleaned up corrections and focused our prisons on rehabilitation. We are spending much more on mental health facilities. We are building a mental health facility in Pāremoremo and we built a unit out at Rimutaka for prisoners suffering from dementia. The Labour Government never did any of that. We are focused on rehabilitation. We are spending money on education to make sure that prisoners have an education and some training when they leave.The leader in this area has been Serco. If you look at that new Wiri Prison Serco has come in and shaped the whole building of that new prison around prisoners’ rehabilitation around training and around getting them jobs out in the community. If you look at the way that Serco has managed mental health in the Mt Eden prison it has changed the way the State system looks at dealing with patients with mental health issues. Now I would be happy to have the argument in this House about whether people should end up in prison when they actually have a mental health issue. Let us talk about that. That would be a worthwhile discussion to have. But at the moment they end up in prison and Serco in Mt Eden prison is dealing with them in a completely different way from how we have ever dealt with them before and having huge success. It was Serco that first introduced at Mt Eden a different way of treating the children of prisoners who had to come and visit their parents. Again that has led massive changes throughout the State sector.So yes—yes—there has been talk of fight clubs in Mt Eden since long before Serco came on the scene way before people came on the scene. We now have good evidence as to who is taking part and the fact that it is taking place. There are legitimate questions to ask and the Minister’s review will do that. But it is stupid to stand in this House and talk emotionally and talk about a philosophical view that both the Labour Party and the union have against private prison provision because the facts are that on things like rehabilitation and reoffending the privately run prison in Mt Eden is exceeding the record of our State-run prisons.Jacinda Ardern: It’s a remand prison—it’s a remand prison.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: And all of that is taken into account. If that member actually did her homework instead of flouncing around at social events she might actually be far better informed about what goes on.So I do not have to defend Serco; its record actually stands for itself. That is not to say there are not things to investigate when we do have good evidence now that these fights are taking place. They will be investigated and the Minister has done the right thing. But to stand up here and say that all private prisons are about privatising that they are not competitive in the market and that the Government should get rid of them—that is a philosophical point of view and that is just not supported by the evidence. I maintain that Mt Eden prison run by Serco has been assessed under the same criteria that every other State-run prison is assessed by as the best-performing prison. I think that we should be biding our time and waiting for the outcome of the Minister’s review. Then is the time to discuss whether you want to make any changes and what changes should be made. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.UrgencyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I move That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. The Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill removes uncertainty concerning the validity of speed limits and consequential enforcement actions dating back to 2004. It retrospectively confirms that local councils and road-controlling authorities had the unambiguous legal power to set speed limits and will continue to do so into the future.The ability to set speed limits and enforce them is essential for road safety. This is why the Government is moving swiftly to eliminate any ambiguity uncertainty or confusion around the legislation. This legislation as it was first intended is designed to protect the best interests of the motoring public.Motion agreed to.Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) BillFirst ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limits through their by-laws. The bill corrects some technical legal issues in the powers available to make some speed limit by-laws and the review process for local government by-laws. This bill ensures that these by-laws and the speed limits made under them remain valid and therefore enforceable. The ability to set speed limits and enforce them is essential to public safety. Crashes on New Zealand roads claim lives cause injuries and devastate families and communities. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear.Recent information has suggested that some road-controlling authorities may have made speed limit by-laws under powers that may not have been available to them or have omitted to comply fully with their bylaw-making powers conferred by local government Acts by not reviewing speed limit by-laws within the required time. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms they were made correctly under appropriate legislation—either local government or land transport legislation. Although this bill addresses a potential problem with some speed limits set as far back as 2004 it is an urgent matter. Simply put we cannot run the risk that some speed limits might be invalid while others are not. Passing this bill under urgency will prevent anyone from taking advantage of the speed limit validity question.The bill will make minor amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 removing any doubt that road-controlling authorities can make speed limit by-laws under land transport legislation. This bill does not impact on speed limit by-laws made by airport authorities or Ministers of the Crown under legislation specific to them. Part 1 of the bill sets out what by-laws are covered by this amendment. Part 2 of the bill validates any by-laws and the speed limits made under them and the enforcement actions taken in relation to them.The bill also continues existing procedural requirements for certain by-law makers such as airport authorities which are subject to separate legislation concerning their bylaw-making process. The bill also deems existing by-laws to have been made under the Land Transport Act 1998. This will mean those by-laws originally made under local government legislation cease to be Local Government Act by-laws and will not be subject to the review requirements in the Local Government Act 2002.The bill by validating speed limit by-laws is retrospective. Retrospective legislation is rare but in this case I believe it is necessary. I have inquired as to what other options exist to correct these matters. I can advise the House that there are no valid options. Although road-controlling authorities could make new speed limit by-laws this would take some months to complete—a period during which many roads could have no valid speed limits other than 100 kilometres per hour. This creates clearly a public safety risk. I would not want police to be unable to enforce anything other than a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on our local streets. In addition a road-controlling authority could not validate a previous by-law. This creates uncertainty as to the legality of enforcement actions. Therefore we must move swiftly to protect public safety and provide certainty in this matter.This bill makes it clear that local councils will continue to be responsible for local decisions about speed limits which should reflect consultation and discussions with local communities. Local councils play an important role in road safety and are expected to work closely with other agencies such as Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Setting by-laws is therefore a function of local councils.We need to move swiftly to eliminate confusion. This bill makes it clear that these by-laws were as generally understood and were intended to be valid at all times and that they remain so. No matter what causes a crash speed directly affects the force of impact and sometimes of course whether there is any impact at all. This means we cannot tolerate any ambiguity or uncertainty in the validity of speed limits. I commend this bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Labour is supporting the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill at this first reading. I think there is nobody in this House who likes the idea of voting for retrospective legislation. It is undesirable but in this case we believe that this is a necessary bill and we will talk about some of the reasons why that is the case.The Minister has given us a bit of a thumbnail sketch of how this situation arose. The basic facts I think are these. Under Local Government Act 2002 councils were given the powers to set local speed limits in built-up areas and outside schools and so on and along with that power councils were required to review those by-laws. I think if my memory serves me correctly the by-laws must be reviewed after 5 years and then every 10 years thereafter. What has happened in this case is that the Kāpiti Coast District Council discovered in May this year that its speed limit by-law had been inadvertently revoked in 2012. That has obviously led to quite a bit of scurrying around by officials looking at how this happened and it appears we are advised that there is a significant number of other councils who may find themselves in a similar situation. The upshot of all this is that it seems that there are tens of thousands—I do not think it is known exactly how many but there could be tens of thousands—of speeding infringements that are technically invalid because of the failure of an unknown number of councils to follow the prescribed rules set down in the Local Government Act 2002. So that puts the Government in a very tricky position and there are a whole lot of consequences that have to be considered as a result of that.Our view is that although retrospective legislation is undesirable mistakes do happen and this is a pretty good example of mistakes happening on a fairly large scale. We believe that for reasons of public safety for reasons of public confidence in our road safety system of which speed limits are obviously an essential part and for fiscal and other practical reasons it is important that these mistakes are put right and that the laws and the speed limits that everybody has assumed have been in place over these years and all of the infringements that were issued under these laws are not overturned. That I believe would be untenable. It would be untenable for the communities that are protected by our road safety system and by speed limits. It would be untenable I think for the thousands of New Zealanders who committed speeding infringements that they and everybody else assumed were valid.So let us talk a little bit more about some of the detail. The background to this is that there is the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 otherwise known as the speed limits rule. It basically sets a default 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit for all roads unless this has been reduced by the relevant authority like a council. Then under that local councils all around the country have the power to set local speed limits and I think that that is as it should be. It is an entirely appropriate thing for local communities to have that power. But the Local Government Act 2002 does require that the by-laws setting those speed limits are reviewed—first after 5 years and then every 10 years after that.What the solution that this bill brings to the House does is it sets out to validate speed limits that have been created since 2004 regardless of whether they were promulgated under potentially invalid by-laws. I repeat: as far as I have been advised it is unclear about the possible scale of this problem. I think we know with certainty that the Kāpiti Coast District Council has put its hand up and said that that is the case but there may well be potentially quite a large number of others. It also validates enforcement actions that have been carried out in relation to those by-laws since 2004.What the bill does is it removes any ambiguity or it attempts to clarify the powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 for road-controlling authorities like the councils to make a speed limit by-law and then it clarifies the procedural requirements for those authorities around that power to make by-laws. My understanding of the bill—I have not had a chance to go through the bill in detail yet—is that although it leaves those powers and those responsibilities with the councils it removes the requirement to review them every 5 years and 10 years which is the thing that has got councils into this mess in the first place.What is the case for urgency? Why should this legislation be pushed through all stages this afternoon? Let me just touch on those. There is clearly a risk to road safety to the safety of communities throughout the country if there is any kind of confusion or perception that the speed limits that everyone has thought are in place are suddenly thought to not apply or are unenforceable. Where the New Zealand Police has enforced invalid speed limits over the last few years that obviously sets off a whole chain of consequences: demerit points fines other sanctions licences lost and so on. If this bill was not passed with urgency the people who experienced those sanctions could then argue that they have unlawfully suffered the consequences. I think that it would create a situation of real confusion including significant financial risk to the Government if all of those infringements and the penalties that followed from them were called into question not to mention the possibility of individuals seeking compensation for loss of employment disqualification or even in some cases imprisonment.The fourth point that I would raise is that it would put our police force which is out there every day on the roads around New Zealand trying to keep the roads safe protecting people and enforcing the speed limits in a very very invidious position. It would undermine confidence in the police but also in the entire road safety system.I want to make the point that although again I think none of us feels great about passing retrospective legislation the Legislation Advisory Committee has noted that retrospective legislation can be justified in some circumstances. It quotes for example bills to “validate matters that were generally understood and intended to be lawful but were in fact unlawful as a result of a technical error;” or secondly to “address a matter that is essential to public safety;”. I think it is fair to say that this bill ticks both the boxes in the guidelines that are set out by the Legislation Advisory Committee.I am going to leave it there. We are going to have more time to discuss the bill including during the Committee stage when we will be able to hopefully tease out more detail about this bill. Thank you.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak here on the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Yes it is regretful that we do have to do some retrospective legislation but of course every amendment bill is retrospective legislation in some respects. We are reaching back to repair a glitch in the system that came through since 5 April 2004 so that is in a period of time in the previous Government’s regime. However it has happened and it is important that we do—for the sake of certainty and the sake of safety when it comes to New Zealanders using our roads—ensure that we have a comprehensive complete system of regulation around speed limits.I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I notice that there are four reasons given for urgency on this matter. One relates to the risk to road safety. Obviously people if they believe that the speed limits posted are not valid may decide to speed but it is not just that; it is the fact that people will be uncertain about what in fact the speed limits are if they have not been reviewed as required. Secondly it has been said that there would be risks to people’s individual rights and that is true too but the real truth here is that it would compromise the whole demerit system if this defect is not rectified.The third reason given is the financial risks to the Crown and the fact that it would cost a lot of money to undo what has been done. But then in addition to that of course is the fact that there would be a requirement for the refund I think of a huge number of fines and there is a lot of money involved in that as well. Fourthly and lastly we are told that there would be a reputational risk to the New Zealand Police. But in fact there is a much greater reputational risk to the New Zealand Government for not maintaining an adequate piece of legislation under which these by-laws are made in the first place. The legislation suffers completely from uncertainty and that is the root of the problem.This Government has been in power for the best part of 7 years and it has made many changes to the road transport legislation during that time. So how could it be that it has persevered with the provisions in the Land Transport Act that do not contain a clear and unequivocal system for road-controlling authorities to set speed limits? It is amazing to me that it should have taken this long for this Government to see that there is a problem and to move to solve it. We are told it is urgent and yet it has been years in fact since this problem was understood to be there. So the Government has persevered with procedures for road-controlling authorities to make speed limits for by-laws that are so confusing we are told that for example the Kāpiti Coast District Council has inadvertently got it wrong and told the Government so. That apparently has been the ignition point for this particular piece of so-called urgent legislation—urgent however for some years. Other councils of course might have also used inappropriate procedures. We just do not know how far really this problem has gone.How is it also possible that legislation could have been so badly drafted that if a 5-yearly review of speed limits is not done now then it results in an automatic default to the 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit? It could and should have provided for continuation of the by-law at least until the review is completed. It is an absolutely awful situation that the default position is the way it is instead of allowing for a continuation of the by-law until a review is done. That is what people would expect to happen and that is what the legislation should have provided for. I am flabbergasted that that has been allowed to last all these years and has not been rectified.The Government does need to take responsibility for this. It is not the councils’ responsibility and it is not the other road-controlling authorities’ responsibility; it is the Government’s through its inadequate legislation and possibly not even just this Government either. I think it looks as though the problem has gone right back to the previous Labour Government as well. So neither Government can be very proud of this situation—very badly drafted legislation that should not have been allowed to go on as long as it has. The primary role of the Government in maintaining appropriate legislation is in fact to ensure legal certainty and that is the one thing that this legislation does not do. Uncertain law is in fact virtually no law at all. So the fault for this shameful situation is the Government’s.If it is the Government’s fault then it is the fault of the Minister of Transport as well. He is responsible for the maintenance of that legislation and for the supervision of it and for its certainty and for the cause in this case of invalid by-laws resulting in speed limits that cannot be enforced. This particular Minister of Transport is too often responsible for a long list of transport cock-ups including running down KiwiRail’s Cook Strait ferries; the 10 bridges proposal of which only three are going to be done apparently; closing railway lines that should not be closed; and so on. This is just one more demonstration of how badly this particular Minister is administering his transport portfolio. He must take direct responsibility for this situation. It is a Government responsibility and it is that Minister’s responsibility.The truth behind this is that the new legislation needed for this revision was first signalled as far back as 2007 under the previous Labour Government when it was decided that there was a need to consolidate and clarify the legislation so that road-controlling authorities could make by-laws to set speed limits with certainty. That was confirmed under this current Government in 2010. So what we can see is this matter should have been acted upon years ago. We are told now that it is urgent but it has been urgent for all of those years and nothing was done. That is a shameful situation; it is one that the current Government should hang its head in shame for.New Zealand First will support the bill. It will do so out of sheer necessity and the fact that it is in the public interest to do so but it does so very reluctantly. We do so very reluctantly because we do not like being put in a position where we have to vote for legislation to clean up muck-ups that should have been cleaned up years ago. That is a sad situation but we will support it simply because there is really no alternative to doing so. However we do deplore the gross delay in rectifying the situation and we do deplore the very bad lawmaking that has been maintained over all of those years and the knowing maintenance of a system that was faulty and has resulted in goodness knows how many invalid by-laws. So this is a really poor situation that should never have happened. We will vote for the bill but we deplore the fact that it has had to happen at all.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. This bill is a bill being introduced under urgency and it has retrospective application. Both of those elements are a cause for some concern for the Green Party but none the less we will be supporting the legislation because there appears to be no alternative.This bill retrospectively validates speed limits that have been set incorrectly or probably unlawfully or enforced unlawfully previously. It retrospectively validates enforcement action that had been taken with regard to these speed limits it clears up the existing legal confusion as to how councils can set speed limits and it exempts speed limits set under by-laws from the requirement that they must be reviewed every 5 years—that is they do not have to be reviewed every 5 years once they are set.Having been involved on various occasions in attempts to have lower speed limits it has always been quite a struggle. The New Zealand Transport Agency was never very happy about the idea of lowering speed limits and there have certainly been many struggles to lower speed limits in different areas but we have managed to do it. In Wellington we have got some lower speed limits. On Waiheke Island where I used to live we lowered the speed limit there from 100 to 80 on the main straight—it was incredible that it was ever 100 kilometres an hour on such a small island. In the process by lowering those speed limits we have undoubtedly saved many lives and many injuries—the lives of not only motorists who may have been going fast and if they had an accident then they would have got hurt more severely if they had been going faster but also of pedestrians and cyclists.We have also made our urban environments a lot safer and a lot more human-friendly. The 40-kilometre speed limits and 30-kilometre speed limits that have been introduced in Wellington for example have meant that our urban environments are a lot more livable than they would be with 50-kilometre speed limits or in some places higher speed limits again. So they are a really important tool for local governments in order to be able to control the speed of vehicles in the urban environment. What this legislation does effectively is validate the work local governments have been doing to set all of those speed limits because otherwise—they are meant to be reviewed every 5 years and clearly some of them have not been—all of those lower speed limits less than 100 would have been unenforceable and the tickets that have been issued under them up until now would almost certainly be challengeable in court. So it is essential that we introduce this legislation.Of course there are a lot of things that you could do under urgency in the transport sector. There are a lot of things that we need to do. I mean if I was to think of some urgent transport projects one might be the City Rail Link in Auckland. I mean one does hope that when you hear that the Government is about to introduce urgent transport legislation it may have finally realised the folly of opposing the City Rail Link in Auckland the train link that is essential to make the city’s transport system work better. But it is of course not one of those things but none the less we are supporting the bill because it is none the less essential.As a general rule we do not support retrospective legislation because clearly if you are going to live in a society that is governed by the rule of law you need to know what the law is so that when you go about your daily business you can say: “Well this is the law and if I follow the rules I can’t be prosecuted by the State.” So the danger of retrospective legislation is that it changes the rules after you have already been through. But in this case of course we all assume that the speed limits were the rules and that they were lawfully enforceable.So what this retrospective legislation does effectively is make sure that the rules that we thought were the rules with regard to speed limits really were legally enforceable rules. So in that respect the bill is different from other kinds of retrospective legislation because it does not change the rules after the fact; it simply makes the rules that we thought were the rules at the time legally enforceable today. It means that all those enforcement actions—speeding tickets that were issued during that period—do not suddenly become challengeable in a court. So although generally we do not support retrospective legislation on this occasion I think everyone would agree that it is a matter of common sense and public safety that we support it. So for that reason we will be supporting this legislation tonight.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Can I endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman. I do not think there is much to add to that really. We are not creating new offences through this retrospective legislation. We should always take care in this House as a general rule to not pass retrospective legislation. But there are always exceptions to the general rule and the Labour Party has formed the view that this is a suitable exception to that normal rule that we should not have legislation pass with retrospective effect.In terms of the issue of urgency when these sorts of issues do arise as they seem to every 3 or 4 years—I can remember a prior change to one of the police Acts about 3 years ago where we had to retrospectively validate what had been happening—when there is a need to do it retrospectively it sometimes goes with the need to do it promptly which we achieve through urgency. As Russel Norman has said and I am sure other speakers have said as a consequence we are willing to say that we will retrospectively validate what these by-laws have already purported to do but in some cases have not done legally.So the change that Parliament is proposing to endorse through the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill is to validate the speed limits that have been set by councils in a way that they thought was legal but in a way which we are now being advised by the Government it is clear that in some situations it has not been legal. And in the process for the future we are trying to fix the process to remove the automatic obligation to review these speed limits every 5 years. That is not to say that speed limits cannot be reviewed. Indeed they could still be reviewed every 5 years by councils if they wanted to but they do not have to review them every 5 years in order for them to remain valid. So with those brief comments I support the bill.Bill read a first time.Second ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time. This bill corrects technical legal issues and the processes used to make and review by-laws setting speed limits. These processes are contained in a variety of laws local government Acts the Government Roading Powers Act and the Land Transport Act. The bill ensures that posted speed limits remain enforceable. I want to acknowledge the contributions by various parties to the first reading and I appreciate their support for this retrospective legislation. I also want to add my support to the intervention by Dr Norman in respect of how this matter differs from other retrospective and validating legislation that occasionally comes before this House in the sense that this is simply a verification of what was believed to be the law in any event.Mr O’Rourke described the gross delay in rectifying the situation. I think I understand what the member was intending to say but one could infer from that comment that there had been a gross delay in rectifying a situation that the Government had become aware of. As the Minister of Police I want to make it very clear that New Zealand Police had no knowledge that the speed limits that it was enforcing may have had some problems in respect of the law and indeed it could not have continued to enforce those speed limits had it been aware of that. I think it is very important to make that distinction; that only very recently did this come to the attention of the New Zealand Government and that it did so upon advice from the Horowhenua-Kāpiti district.Horowhenua-Kāpiti is an area where there has been in the past a significant challenge with road safety and an unacceptably high rate of death and injury on some of the roads within its control. The Government has invested very heavily in improving the quality of the roading network in that region and as a consequence it is seeing marked reductions in the accident rate on many of those stretches of road. I think members would agree that that is something that we want to continue to enforce and that any uncertainty about the enforcement of speed limits in that area and indeed in any other part of the country would be an unfortunate thing. So in order to rectify that immediately we have come here under urgency.Road crashes do have a terrible impact on individuals families and communities and no matter what causes a crash speed is a crucial factor in whether someone is killed or badly injured or even whether there is a crash at all. To help ensure safety on our roads for everyone it is important that there is no ambiguity about the validity of speed limits. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a second time.In CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Having said that we support this bill being passed under urgency I think it is important that we have an assurance from the Minister of Transport that the detail of every clause has been thoroughly checked by him and that the Minister is assuring the House that there are no more errors or ambiguities being created by this legislation which is being fixed under urgency.The reason I think it is proper that we seek that assurance from the Minister is that the Minister is asking the House to pass this under urgency without the normal protections that flow from a longer process. The protections that flow from a longer process are that persons who are in society who are interested in these matters get the chance to pore over the legislation and with the time to properly consider it reflect on whether it is clear and whether mistakes are being made.In this sort of legislation we would expect that the Automobile Association and various membership parts of the Automobile Association throughout the country would be poring over it. We would expect that the medical groups that are interested in accident safety would be looking at it. We would expect that someone in the Accident Compensation Corporation would perhaps be looking at it and checking it. We would expect that someone who practised law in these areas or who was already looking at defending a charge that had been brought in respect of these speed limits and thought that it was invalid would no doubt come along—or they might come along—and point out to the select committee why this was being done in an improper way or why this was being done in an improper way that was not correct in detail.So for those reasons—because those normal checks and balances are not there because the select committee does not have the time to read through the legislation properly and because political parties do not have the time to hear from concerned constituents and concerned members—it is all the more important that we can rely upon an assurance from the Minister that the Minister is satisfied that every clause in this bill is proper that every clause in this bill is necessary for the stated purpose in the legislation and that no further powers are being conferred by this legislation than are necessary to cure this defect in the speed limits which should have been put through a renewal process after 5 years but have not been. I might leave this particular contribution at that and let the Minister respond to that.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):With regard to Part 1 I would like to address clause 3 the purpose of the bill. The bill says that the purposes are threefold. First of all they are to “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits set by road controlling authorities” and so on but the truth is that there has not ever really been any doubt about this. The real situation is that the law as it was stated in the legislation was quite certain especially with regard to the review provisions which seem to be one of the main reasons for this bill.The law was quite clear: the review had to take place and in some cases it did not take place. Where is the doubt about that? There is not. So the purpose in clause 3(a) really is not quite true. The fact is that there was no doubt about that; it is just that some agencies—some councils—did not do as they should have done. Unfortunately as I said in my earlier speech today the result of that was a default to the 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit which was bad law and it should never have been drafted in that way but it was. These things are not a matter of doubt and the purpose clause should not say so so I object to that in the first place.In clause 3(b) it refers to: “protect enforcement action taken under those bylaws;”. What that really means—and I disagree with Mr David Parker about this too—is that there has been a muck-up and the law that was in force was actually unenforceable and now we want to make new laws that are enforceable. So actually it was not a case of a genuine mistake; it is a case of just plain ineptitude. The fact is that the old law did not do what was required of it and people did not follow the procedures under it and now the Government wishes to rectify that situation by actually making new law out of bad old law. So this situation is not actually in the way that Mr Parker stated it I believe. When it says that the purpose is to protect enforcement action that is really not very true either. The truth is that it is to rectify a cock-up and it cannot say it in those words but there would be words available to say it in a more decorous way.Thirdly it says in clause 3(c) that its purpose is to “provide clear authority for the setting of speed limits by road controlling authorities in the future.” What it should have said is to provide new authority because that is what is actually what was always required and that is what this bill does but it does it unfortunately in a way that has a retrospective effect. I agreed with Dr Russel Norman when he said that we should never adopt retrospective legislation especially where it relates to criminal sanctions. That is the worst possible kind of retrospective legislation. People who have already paid fines that they were not liable to pay should actually have those fines refunded and so on. But I understand that it would be very difficult and impracticable to undo all that so that is why New Zealand First is in fact supporting the bill.But we should be more honest—this is the point I am making about the purpose clause clause 3—instead of using these weasel words. So I actually object to the whole drafting of clause 3. We should simply call a spade a spade and do what we have to do but tell the truth about it and that is not what the purpose clause does in this case. It is in fact new legislation and it should not be dressed up as some kind of save-the-world move by the Government. It is actually a cock-up by the Government—and probably the previous one as well—and new legislation has been needed to redress the situation. It is not pretty; it is not good. It does have to be done but let us tell the truth about it. This clause does not and I object to it.Unfortunately New Zealand First will still have to vote for it because to fail to do so would be wrong given the whole circumstances of the case. But I just wish that we were more careful about the way that some of this legislation was drafted in those respects. I will have some more similar comments to make when we come to Part 2.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I just want to deal—hopefully very briefly—with the points made regarding of course the phrase in clause 3 “remove any doubt”. I understand the points that are being made—in one sense you could say quite strongly and persuasively—by the member for New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke. I think that if experience and certainly legal experience in interpretation teaches us anything—and I am not in any way casting aspersions on the member—it is that there is a requirement and say so for a certain amount of humility in these matters because laws made by Parliaments do have mistakes. I think that in a situation like this where there is one—albeit a most important piece of legislation but other ones following that therefore add some complexity—we need to deal in the realm of best legal arguments and most persuasive legal arguments. There will always be doubts and indeed good lawyers in this traffic law area can create them believe you me. But we felt on the basis of robust pored-over legal positioning on this matter which we took very seriously indeed that the Government—and I am grateful—and I think Parliament needed to act to ensure public certainty. That speaks to the retrospective nature of this bill which I will come to but also to public safety in this area.The crux of the issue is—I think as both David Parker and Denis O’Rourke have made clear in this Committee—the 2002 Local Government Act. Then post that there really is a cascade of laws that effectively sets up a by-law regime for councils. At one level and this is where I go some way with Denis O’Rourke the responsibility on councils had some clarity. Ultimately they were to pass by-laws for their speed limits and they were to review them in a 5-year period—actually they had a 2-year period of grace after that and in Kāpiti Coast District Council’s case we certainly know that that did not happen. But I would say as I have already said that there is a need I think for a degree of humility in these issues. We are dealing with legal arguments. They can go other ways but I do not think the Government or indeed this Parliament could leave it to hang on that when we had a body of clear views that said we would be putting public certainty and certainly public safety retrospectively and prospectively into jeopardy.I just want to deal briefly with the retrospective aspect of this legislation. I was not here for Russel Norman’s speech but I gather from other members’ contributions that he had some concern about retrospective legislation. I think we can all say whether we are legally trained or not that it is quite clear that retrospective legislation all things being equal is undesirable. Indeed it can be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and we need to take those sorts of issues very seriously indeed.There are times though when retrospective legislation is necessary and where this Parliament rightly reserves the right to pass such laws and I think here we are not dealing with just one but with a number of reasons that make it very clear that retrospective legislation is on balance and having considered all of the alternatives the right thing to do. First and foremost is public safety and there is no question that we cannot have a position where there is some doubt—we have used the words “any doubt” in clause 3—that someone today can on Kāpiti coast go at a much faster rate than the speed limit we thought was the case. That would be unsafe. It would be putting lives at risk and it would be the wrong thing for us to do and that is a strong reason to be retrospective here—to clear that up for the past and for the future.I think that the other reason is also very clear in this. This is not a matter where anyone has acted in bad faith. This is a matter where very clearly—again if we take the Kāpiti Coast District Council—the signs meant that the police and the public of that area all thought the speed limits were a certain way. Everyone thought the law was that. Not only that but I would say most reasonable people throughout New Zealand thought that that is what the laws and the speed limits should be. So it is what they thought they were and it is what they thought they should be and that is what right-thinking people would think in that regard. So we are—and this is a clear area where retrospective legislation is appropriate—going back and fixing technically what might otherwise be not correct and unsafe but in a position of good faith.JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I seek leave to have Part 1 and Part 2 taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts?JOANNE HAYES: All parts.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts including clauses 1 and 2?JOANNE HAYES: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is seeking leave for the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one debate but for the votes to be taken individually.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify what that means in respect of members’ ability to take calls.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have given some thought to this and it would be my intention that we would start our count again. People will not be retrospectively disadvantaged and that would mean that members could have up to four calls if they so wish on the Committee stage. Is there any objection to this process? The Committee is agreed so we are now in Committee on all parts and the initial clauses of the bill.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued) Part 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson and can I thank you for your ruling in respect of calls which I think is important because with the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill being rushed as it is it is important that members have the time to get their heads around it and ask the questions that need to be asked of the Minister of Transport. Having heard Denis O’Rourke’s contribution I actually agree with him about the description in the purpose clause. I encourage the Minister who I know is a very competent lawyer to consider the amendment that I have proposed which actually endorses Denis O’Rourke’s point so that rather than saying “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits” we simply say “it validates speed limits” because that is the proper description of what it does. It avoids as Denis O’Rourke said the weasel words and I think we should call it what it is. It makes clear that there is absolutely no doubt that it is validating them so I would ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Bridges to consider that. It does not change the effect of clause 3(a); it just validates it. It validates the speed limits. If there are some speed limits that do not need validating well we have not done anything wrong and if that was a valid complaint of the clause that would be a valid complaint about removing any doubt about the validity of them because they are valid anyway. So I would encourage him to adopt that clause.The other question I have in respect of Part 1 is about the drafting of clause 5(b). Clause 5 “Meaning of specified bylaw” states: “In this Act ‘specified by-law’— … (b) does not include a bylaw that was so made or purportedly made by a road controlling authority under any other Act …”. Given the way we use “this Act” which is a reference to this legislation in clause 5(a)(i) and then in clause 5(a)(ii) we list a series of Acts—the “Government Roading Powers Act 1989 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Government Act 2002 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Speed Limit Rule 2003”—I presume that we are saying that when paragraph (b) says “any other Act” it means any Act other than those listed in clause 5(a)(ii). I presume that is what it is intended to mean. I just want to check that that is the case. It might seem like a silly question and it might be a silly question but I just want that to be clarified.Now that we are talking about all parts as one I want to talk a little bit about clauses 8 and 9 because I think these are important reasons that make it easier for Parliament to agree that we should be passing legislation of retrospective effect. As I read those clauses—and the Minister can correct me if I have got this wrong—it effectively says that if an enforcement action has been taken before the commencement of the Act it is not to be treated as invalid because at the time the enforcement action was taken the by-law may have been invalid. Making it retrospective effectively means that the enforcement action is validated as well. But then we say in clause 9 of the bill which is an important exception to that general rule that “This Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)”—which is subclause (2) of clause 9 of this bill.My understanding of that Minister is that what we are effectively saying is that if someone was already defending a traffic infringement notice or some other charge—it could be a criminal charge for reckless driving or something—on the basis of the invalidity of the speed restriction that they had already noticed then that defence can stand so we are not retrospectively imposing a sanction in respect of offences or infringements where the accused person has picked up that there is an invalidity and is standing on their rights to say: “No this is invalid. I’m not guilty.” We are not changing that person’s circumstance but if it has not previously been picked up we are not letting them take advantage of the technical invalidity of the speeding notice. I would like confirmation on those matters please.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I am happy to take a short call on this bill. I agree with my colleagues that in a general sense we support the legislation despite the fact that most of us in this Chamber will feel that it is undesirable to be supporting retrospective legislation. Notwithstanding our reluctance about it the reality is based on the information that is available to us that we cannot be irresponsible and that we have to move forward in terms of passing this piece of legislation.I then want to congratulate and acknowledge Kāpiti Coast District Council for coming forward on this because I think that if it were not for its courage in stepping forward and identifying that maybe a mistake had been made we would not have been made aware of this. I then want to say to the Minister of Transport given the fact that this is another concern of many of us in this Chamber—the fact that in urgent legislation we sort of sidetrack the ability of the select committee to call on members of the public to have an input into legislation—by and large all of us agree that that unique process that we have involving the select committee enables good quality legislation to be passed. Therefore I hope the Minister does not mind because I think it is important that we spend a bit of time looking through the departmental disclosure statement as well as the regulatory impact statement.For my benefit it is noted that on 27 May the council advised the police and I would be interested to know blow by blow what exactly happened. I am sort wondering whether if this was an urgent situation and it was notified to the police at the end of May of this year we could not have brought this forward or is where we find ourselves now debating this close to the end of July simply because of the events that took place?Secondly I note also that although the bill in its second part validates related amendments in the regulatory impact statement it makes reference to legislation going back to 1974 but yet in Part 2 the bill does not refer to validating the legislation that also gave rise to it. I quote from the regulatory impact statement on page 3 where it says: “Subsequently by 2007 uncertainty had arisen concerning the extent to which territorial authorities could make use of the provisions of LGA02 to create speed limits. Recent research has revealed judicial decisions that cast doubt on the use of the Local Government Act 1974 provisions to set a speed limit.” I am not a lawyer so I am simply asking: if the matter goes back to legislation from 1974 and Part 2 which validates related amendments and legislation does not contain any reference to 1974 are we covering our t’s and i’s or not? That is simply the question I would like to ask.As I said because we are in urgency and because we are not going through the select committee process which gives us the benefit of ensuring that we have the benefit of contributions from the wider community and from Local Government New Zealand as well it would be nice for us to spend a bit of time trying to ensure that we are not coming back here in a month’s time or a year’s time again going over and validating what we failed to validate this time around. So I am hopeful that the Minister is able to respond to those questions.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Just to follow on from those comments by Su’a William Sio I want to raise a couple of questions and invite the Minister of Transport to give us an explanation based on the briefings that he has had on clauses 10 to 12 of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill.The regulatory impact statement—the section on the underlying problem—makes quite interesting reading. It explains how the councils got into such confusion really about the powers. If I can briefly summarise those comments what happened was that there was considerable confusion about the legislative framework for setting speed limits by by-law after there were significant legislative changes in 2004. Up to that point councils had had bylaw-making powers for setting speed limits under the Local Government Act 1974 and also the Local Government Act 2002. Basically confusion arose between those two powers and when legislation was drafted in 2004 it appears that there was some confusion and that the power of section 684 of the Local Government Act 1974 was in fact being relied upon by councils. In the legislation that resulted basically there was a conflict between the Local Government Act and the specific power limited to Ministers under the Land Transport Act.I suppose my question for the Minister really is to ask him to set out for us—given that we have not had the benefit of a select committee process the briefings from officials and the opportunity to tease through this–some explanation about precisely how clauses 10 to 12 resolve any of these ambiguities. In particular I would be keen to hear from the Minister about what we are advised that the bill achieves which is that while clarifying the bylaw-making powers of the local territorial authorities it removes the requirement for the regular review—first 5-yearly and then 10-yearly—of those by-laws. That is the thing that was not complied with that has led to these by-laws and all the offences and infringements and sanctions that flow from it too have been rendered technically invalid. So that is my question and I would appreciate some explanation.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I also want to ask some questions that I think would normally be asked in a select committee process but this will have to substitute. I want to particularly refer to clause 6(1) which seems to be drafted in a very broad manner. Clause 6(1) starts off saying: “Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it:” and then it gives two such circumstances. The point I am making here is that the first few words—“Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made”—before the word “and” are very broad. What that actually does is to declare such by-laws to be valid not only for those reasons that are stated but even if there were other defects in the by-laws and we do not know whether there are or not.So I would like to draw that to the Minister of Transport’s attention and to ask him whether in fact the drafting is just a little bit too wide in the way that the words have been used in clause 6(1). I myself would like to think about that some more but there will not be the time to do that. There is not a select committee process and so that cannot really be thrashed out so easily. But I think it is a valid point. If he is satisfied then maybe I will be; maybe I will not. It seems to me not good wording anyway.The second point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(b). It refers to “the bylaw was made or amended using a process that did not comply with—(i) the enactment …” and so on. In subparagraph (ii) it refers to “any other applicable enactment:”. I am a little bit unsure as I think it was David Parker or Phil Twyford—I am not sure; it was one of the two of them—pointed to those words as well and asked the same question. Is that appropriate and necessary in this bill; if it is how far does it really go? So I am worried about that provision as well. I draw that to the Minister’s attention too.The next point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(c). I just want to point out here that it says: “as far as the bylaw was made or purportedly made under the Local Government Act 1974 … the by-law—(i) was not reviewed by the relevant local authority … and (ii) has been revoked by the operation of section 160A …”. The point I want to make here is a general one. It is simply that this is a case of councils and other road-controlling authorities actually not following the law. It is unfortunate that when people do that we say: “That’s OK. We’ll just validate it for you.” That actually is a very bad precedent to set. Again I will admit that there does not seem to be any other way around it but I do not think that this situation should pass without comment in the Committee. It is not a good situation where local government and other road-controlling authorities can get away with simply not doing what they are required to do and then come cap in hand to the Government of the day to say: “Oh fix this up for us. We have cocked up.” It is not good enough. It is not good enough by a long shot.The last point I want to make actually is a positive one you will be glad to hear Mr Chairman and it relates to clause 9 “Savings for certain legal proceedings”. It says that the “Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds …” such as those that we have already spoken about before the date on which this bill was introduced. That is very important. I do not know whether there are in fact any such proceedings before the courts but if there were it is very important that that provision be there. Not to do so would completely compromise the credibility of our legal system so I am very glad to see that those savings are there and I certainly approve of that.But I would ask the Minister to think about some of the specific points I have been able to identify. I am sure that if we have the time to look at the bill in more detail there might be other points as well. But at least those stand out fairly well for me and I would appreciate an answer to them.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I feel like the junior drafting assistant of Denis O’Rourke. He is exactly right. Could I draw the Minister of Transport’s attention to the wording of clause 6(1) and clause 6(2). Denis O’Rourke has just said that he thinks that because of the insertion of the words in clause 6(1) “and to be and always have been valid” that stands alone irrespective of the list. He may or may not be right in that as to that being the effect of it but he is right that it is unnecessarily confused drafting because the same words appear in clause 6(2) which says that for the avoidance of doubt every one of these designations “is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” You do not need to say it twice.This would be better drafted as Denis O’Rourke suggested if the words the first time they appear in subclause (1) were deleted so that it then read “every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it”. Then there is the list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) and then subclause (2) still takes effect and would say: “To avoid doubt every speed limit set by a specified bylaw validated under subsection (1) and every designation of an urban traffic area is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” The way to fix that is to just delete the words “and to be and always have been valid” from the first time they appear in subclause (1). It will still have the same effect but it will not have the ambiguity that Denis O’Rourke referred to. I have put an amendment on the Table Minister and again you can consider that with your officials but I think that Mr O’Rourke is right that you do not need to say it twice and that saying it twice makes it worse than if you say it just once.I will talk for a little bit longer so that the Minister and the officials can have time to consider that before we actually move to the voting stage of the Committee stage in this rushed urgency process because unless I do I suspect that the Minister might use his votes which outnumber the Labour Party and the New Zealand First votes and he might try to push this through. Using the time that I have available to me it is hard to read clauses 10 11 and 12 or particularly clauses 11 and 12 without having the statute they amend in front of me. So I want to have it clarified by the Minister that the sections that are being amended are the mechanism by which we remove the obligation to have the 5-yearly reviews. So I would like the Minister to clarify which of the sections that we are amending and replacing with the words that are set out in clauses 11 and 12 of this bill—section 22AB(1)(d) or section 22AD(1)—is the one that specifies the 5-yearly reviews that are now being done away with.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I think that there have been some well-made points—at short notice we accept—about having this bill go through the House under urgency. I think that we would all agree it is much better if these bills can optimally go through the select committee process and have serious consideration made over weeks if not months. But we do know here as well I think that this does need to be urgent. We cannot have a situation where people having thought that the speed limits in certain areas were always such now think that they can lodge appeals and the like on the basis that it is OK to be driving that fast on those roads—to be going dangerously fast in many cases. And of course prospectively we need to ensure safety with the utmost urgency as well. I think that in this case the confidence and the safety points trump those other points.Can I say that I also go some way with Denis O’Rourke on his point that the precedent here is that we should not be validating mistakes—leave them to it. Of course we could in a sense in theory do that were it in some area where I think safety was not the case. But I think that in this situation given the seriousness of what we are dealing with—speed limits on our roads where 9½ or 10 out of 10 people travel—we do need to act in this way.Can I just say briefly that I hope I have effectively got all of the points made by Messrs Parker and O’Rourke. The analysis of clauses 8 and 9—Mr Parker’s and I think to some extent Denis O’Rourke’s—is absolutely correct so I accept what they are saying there. I think that on the point about the removal of any doubt and about the amendment that has been put forward by David Parker I understand the point that they are making. I have been in discussion with officials. We maintain that we will be sticking with the words we have because we do think that they are a more accurate summation of what the position is which is that we are not 100 percent certain that the by-law is invalid. That is what this is in relation to. That is correct—the purpose clause.In our legal arguments we believe that we are probably right but we are in a sense being belt and braces and the argument is that we want to be as accurate as we can for the courts of New Zealand which effectively interpret these laws on these points. In a sense part of me says: “Well maybe we could do what the Hon David Parker is saying here.” but I think that this is the position that I have come to in the time that we have got.If we go through clauses 11 and 12 there were comments made about those. In broad terms clause 11 is as I understand from my reading of it about putting this into land transport law where it belongs and about having it as a land transport issue and not some wider local government one. Clause 12 broadly preserves consultation provisions on by-laws which I think we all agree is the right thing to do.I accept some of what Denis O’Rourke and to some extent David Parker are saying on clause 6. I turn just quickly to that provision. I am trying to do justice to the points that they have made because as I say I am conscious that this is a bill that will not have select committee consideration.Hon Member: You’ve got to have faith in this one.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I am about to go through it. I do not accept the unduly broad point of Denis O’Rourke in the sense that I think there are the provisos the qualifying provisions of clause 6(1)(a) (b) and (c). I think there are other clauses as well. We have talked already actually about the saving of certain legal proceedings and what that is about. I think David Parker makes some very interesting points about the wording in clause 6(1)—“have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite”—and it is possible that he is right. But I am not going to go with him and I want to explain why. I think that in this bill we do need—Hon David Parker: Trust your legal instincts. Exercise your power as Minister.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Then we might be back here Mr Parker and that is not what I want. We can accept to some extent that some of this bill could be with another month more felicitously worded. Jane Austen could have been proud of it. But we have gone through it very carefully. We think that it does the job and provides the certainty and the safety that is required. We do not think that it has unintended consequences. I think that in terms of those phrases—and actually clause 6(2) which I think the member has raised—we are necessarily I think taking a belt and braces approach to this because I think we can all agree that we do not want to be back here. We do want to fix a position that has been created where by-laws have been created they have not been reviewed and on that basis have been revoked. We do want to make sure that the public of New Zealand has absolute certainty today and is absolutely safe and that the speed limits in the towns and cities that they live in are what they say on the signs.I accept the good contributions made and the spirit in which they have been made which is in good faith and I think with some learning but I think that we want to take a belt and braces approach that passes this law and keeps New Zealand safe.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I thank the Minister for that contribution. There was one point that he did not address and it was that I was seeking a detailed explanation of how clauses 10 to 12 of the bill deliver on the intent that is set out in the briefing notes that the Government has provided prior to these debates. It says that the proposed amendment is consistent with Cabinet decisions in 2007 and 2010 to consolidate traffic by-law powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 and although this would have the effect that they are no longer subject to the 2002 Act or the 2002 review provisions other disciplines would apply.It is not clear as a layperson based on the information we have in front of us how those final clauses in the bill deliver on that intent and specifically the review provisions that got us into this mess in the first place where councils are required to review after the first 5 years and then subsequently every 10 years. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to how the last three clauses—I think it is really talking about clause 11—actually achieve that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Just following on from my colleague Phil Twyford I seek that too because I have just had a look at sections 22AB(1) and 22AD(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 which I have before me. These are the sections that are amended by clauses 11 and 12 of this bill. I thought until now that it was actually those amendments that removed this obligation to review by-laws every 5 years. That is why I and other members in the Chamber have been seeking clarification that that is indeed the effect of these clauses because that is how we thought this was being done. But when I read sections 22AB(1)(d) and 22AD(1) neither of them impose the obligation to renew these by-laws every 5 years. So it is actually not those amendments that fix the problem in respect of the 5-yearly reviews of these by-laws that have not been conducted.I suspect then that we actually have to look at clause 7 of the bill to find the clause that corrects or changes for the future the obligation to review these by-laws every 5 years for the speed limits to remain valid. I am still not clear enough for this to pass to the next stage. I am not clear enough in my understanding as to what provision it is in this bill that we are considering that fixes this 5-yearly review obligation for the future. I understand how we are validating the things that have not been properly reviewed in the past but I thought we were being told in the explanatory note and in the speeches we have heard from the Government so far that we are clarifying the procedures for the future so that those 5-yearly reviews are not necessary. I have still not yet got my head around how it is that we are doing that.If it is not clauses 11 and 12 that do that–and I do not think it is from my reading of the existing legislation combined with these clauses 11 and 12—I am left with searching for what else it might be. Maybe it is clause 7 of this bill which says: “(2) To avoid doubt sections 158 to 160A of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to a bylaw to which subsection (1) applies.” Perhaps the Minister could clarify for me how in this legislation we are removing that 5-yearly obligation.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):This takes me back. I feel like I am arguing in front of Judge Harding or some such judge at the Tauranga District Court. [Interruption] No I was never that good sadly but I did win a few cases. Be that as it may I think I can help. Clause 7 makes it clear that the Local Government Act does not apply and that this is under the Land Transport Act. Clause 11 deals with the position prospectively and bylaw-making prospectively and of course—well not of course but I can assure the member that the review provisions apply only under the Local Government Act so that in clauses 7 to 11 where we are effectively making clear that everything is in the Land Transport Act there are no review provisions prospectively.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I hope I have not run out of contributions. This might be my last one. If that is intended to be the effect prospectively is it your intended effect? Just reading clause 7 of this bill it says: “(1) Every specified bylaw”—and specified by-laws are by-laws that have been made from 2004 until the date of this bill effectively—then to avoid doubt those provisions of the Local Government Act do not apply to those by-laws. But what about any by-law that is produced in the future? Are we meaning that if the council passes a new by-law under its by-law - making authority it might not be a specified by-law under clause 5 and therefore clause 7 will not apply to it? [Interruption] You hope I am wrong.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I know you are wrong. I do not want to go through a precise legal analysis. I am conscious that a court may one day read back this transcript and I do not want to be the bush lawyer that Clayton Cosgrove accuses me of being. But I assure the member that that is not our analysis.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to:in clause 3(a) replace “remove any doubt about the validity of” with “validate”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 1 stand part. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also had an amendment to clause 6.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes but that is in Part 2.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to:in clause 6(1) delete “and to be and always have been valid”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a third time. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limit by-laws. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms that they were made correctly under either the local government legislation or the land transport legislation. This also removes any concern about the validity of any enforcement action taken concerning speed limits. The bill will remove any ambiguity and amend the Land Transport Act 1998 so that there is a clear power for all road-controlling authorities to make a speed limit by-law under this Act.The bill will make it clear for all road-controlling authorities including territorial authorities that in future speed limit by-laws will be made under the Land Transport Act 1998. We intend no change to the current need for councils to use the Local Government Act 2002 public consultation requirements. The Government will review those requirements in time and if any change to that aspect is required then that issue will be brought back to the House.The Government sees a continuing role for road-controlling authorities especially councils in determining and setting speed limits. This bill confirms this and also confirms councils’ responsibilities to continue making local decisions about speed limits which includes consultation with their own communities. Swift action is required to ensure that there is no confusion over the validity of speed limits and that road-controlling authorities such as councils were always meant to have clear powers to set speed limits. I commend the bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):If there was ever any evidence needed that the process of pushing legislation through under urgency is flawed it was in that speech from the Minister Simon Bridges—and the limits of this rushed and truncated process. It does strike trepidation into the hearts of the members of this House.Having said that we on the Labour benches are supporting the passage of this bill for the reason that is laid out I think very clearly in the departmental disclosure statement which explains that consultation on the issues and solutions to do with this bill have been restricted to central government officials departments and the New Zealand Transport Agency because of—and I suppose this is the essence of the justification for this validating legislation going through under urgency this afternoon—the potential public safety risks from motorists deliberately disregarding speed limits on the basis that they may be invalid should the issue become widely known. If urgent parliamentary action is not taken on the matter it could take months for a road-controlling authority to correct speed limit by-laws. This would be due to the need to advertise and consult on any new by-laws using the Local Government Act 2002 consultative requirements.So there you have it. The House is between a rock and a hard place. Because of confusion over the legislative authorities that the councils would use going back a number of years now to create the by-laws for the setting of speed limits we have got ourselves into a real mess. It was only because the Kāpiti Coast District Council realised that its by-laws were invalid because it had failed to follow the prescription—it had passed these by-laws under the Local Government Act 2002—and it had failed to observe the requirements in that Act that it should review by-laws after 5 years and subsequently after every 10 years. The Kāpiti Coast District Council realised that its by-laws were technically invalid—or just invalid I should say—calling into question the validity of I am sure thousands of speeding infringements and the officials—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.PHIL TWYFORD: Mr Assistant Speaker—Carmel Sepuloni: Where are all the National women?PHIL TWYFORD: There does seem to be a bit of a groundswell of members asking: “Where are the National women?”. Jacqui Dean has saved the day by joining us.I just wanted to reiterate one of the things that is most interesting in the departmental disclosure statement that I began to touch on before the dinner break and that is really the reason why in the House today we are supporting the passage of this bill in spite of the distaste that I think everybody shares for retrospective legislation and in spite of the rushed truncated process that we fear may lead to further errors being made that will require consequent future validating bills to come back to the House.The nub of it is that there is a potential public safety risk from motorists deliberately disregarding speed limits on the basis that they may be invalid in the event that this issue was to become publicly known about. That is why this bill has to be dealt with under urgency. If it was not it could take months under the existing legislative powers for local authorities to pass new by-laws because of the need under the Local Government Act 2002 to consult and to advertise.The final point I wanted to make in this debate is really to ask the Government members present for this debate whether or not they have given consideration—and I would welcome the Minister making a contribution to answer this in this third reading debate—and whether or not the Minister has considered the communications to councils because it is quite possible that somewhere around New Zealand some council may have a meeting tomorrow or in the next day or two at which their officers could recommend after a 12-month process that the council formally adopt new by-laws providing for new speed limits in their area. But if it is following the process that many councils have been for the last few years it could simply repeat the error that the Minister thinks that possibly up to 25 territorial local authorities have committed that has got them into this mess.My understanding is that this bill will get its Royal assent if not tonight then tomorrow.Hon Simon Bridges: Tonight.PHIL TWYFORD: Tonight? The bill will get Royal assent today. The fastest lawmaking in the West pretty much all in one afternoon and it will have the force of law before the clock strikes midnight before the cock crows.Unless the Minister has communicated with councils around the country in the last few hours there is the possibility that some of them may compound the error. I would like to know whether or not the Minister has thought of that and whether or not this bill and its intent and its consequences have been communicated to councils around the country.Just to wrap up mistakes happen and in this case mistakes compound upon mistakes because of a lack of clarity in the legislation over a considerable number of years. As many as 25 territorial local authorities have got themselves into a real mess. That may well have resulted in tens of thousands of traffic infringements being rendered invalid because those councils did not follow the prescribed processes in the Local Government Act that would have required them to review their by-laws. It is a very significant problem for public safety and for the safety of people on the streets in terms of the importance of speed limits on the roads. It really has potential reputational damage for our police who are charged with the responsibility of implementing road safety and enforcing those speed limits. With some reluctance Labour will be supporting this validating legislation.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the very magnanimous support from members on the other side of the House for the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Indeed it is something that we need to take through the House in a timely and a speedy way can I say even though it is to do with speed limits because as the previous speaker Phil Twyford said this is an aspect around safety around certainty and around the setting of by-laws by the regional councils or the road-controlling authorities.We understand—in a few closing remarks—that in May 2015 the Kāpiti Coast District Council advised the New Zealand Police that its speed limit by-law appeared to have been inadvertently revoked in 2012 under the Local Government Act 2002. I am very sure that as we have seen on the news tonight and will see in newspapers tomorrow every district council in the country will have heard about this piece of legislation. I am sure that we are going to see some very strong attempts to not have this situation occur again. For the sake of timeliness I am very happy now to stand and support this piece of legislation. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I rise to speak on already the third reading of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. I wish to again repeat Labour’s support for this legislation even though it has been done in urgency. It is not often that we agree with the Government’s rushing legislation through but in this instance we do believe that it is warranted. That is because if we boil this down to its core root without all the technicalities involved this is about the health and safety of our community. Of course we would want to make sure that the rules and regulations that local authorities quite rightly put in around speed limits be adhered to because the reason those speed limits are put in place at the beginning is to keep people safe in our community. I particularly want to ensure that the speed limits that local authorities put in place around schools early childhood education facilities and the places where our young children are prevalent are speed limits that people do adhere to.We are here to fix up some potential technicalities. I guess my one criticism of this process and this bill would be that although we are doing it retrospectively and we are doing it with great haste and as I have said there is a legitimate reason for that it is a little odd that we have a bill that is drafted that says that actually there might not even be a problem but just in case there is we are going to pass this legislation. I would rather be satisfied that there was a problem that needed fixing up. The way this bill is drafted—in fact the purpose clause says that it is there just to “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits” rather than being quite assertive in saying that there is a problem there is a loophole that needs to be fixed and here is Parliament’s solution to it. None the less Labour is pleased to support this bill.It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity while debating legislation that keeps people safe on our roads going through in urgency to point out the many other situations that we would really want this Government to urgently deal with that would improve road safety and the safety of our communities as well. The one that is very dear to my heart—gosh people might be surprised that they may not have heard me speak on it for oh probably the best part of a month I think—is establishing a commuter train service between Hamilton and Auckland.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this debate.SUE MORONEY: Well Mr Assistant Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. It is not part of this debate.SUE MORONEY: The Government does not want to hear about it. But regarding keeping people safe on our road there are other urgent matters that I believe our Government ought to attend to and that commuter train service is just one of those.There are potentially loopholes. We on this side of the House do not want people to get the impression that there is a technicality and that that makes it OK for them to speed in their communities. That clearly is not right. We want the rule of law to be observed. There may have been some situations where local bodies local authorities have found themselves in the situation where their by-laws may have inadvertently become—well I would not say they are unlawful but they might not stand up in a court of law if they were contested. When it comes to the safety of our community we cannot be having that and so Labour is here to support the transition of this bill.We hope though that the Government has listened carefully to what we have said in the Committee stage. There was no select committee process for this bill and so there was no ability to really influence the wording in the bill. My colleagues Phil Twyford and David Parker amongst others were at pains to point out some wording changes that they thought could have improved the bill and it is disappointing that the Minister of Transport did not use his ministerial discretion to attend to those matters. I sincerely hope that we are not back here again any time soon to fix this legislation up again as a result of that inattention to detail.So it is a bill that we would rather not be here spending time debating. It is none the less important that we get this right and that we do it swiftly. This is probably one of the better uses of urgency that I have seen in this term of this Government.Bill read a third time.Estimates DebateIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The House is in Committee for consideration of the Appropriations (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the estimates. The Business Committee has determined that the estimates debate be divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2015-16.Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. The Labour Party will have two calls the Green Party will have one call New Zealand First will have one call and the Minister in the chair will have three calls in response. All calls are 5 minutes in length. Members may take unused allocated calls later in the estimates debate. In addition there are 52 5-minute supplementary calls that have been allocated to parties and those may be taken as parties see fit during the 10 sector debates. At the end of each debate the question will be put that the votes in each sector stand part of the schedules. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on parties’ use of their allocation of supplementary calls. However this debate expires after 11 hours.The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All of the votes are available for debate. The compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. The reports on Vote Labour Market and Vote Transport are not contained in the compendium but are available separately on the Table.Economic Development and Infrastructure SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members we come first to the votes in the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector—volume B.5 volume 1. The question is that Vote Business Science and Innovation Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Vote Labour Market and Vote Transport stand part of the schedules.JONATHAN YOUNG (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee):I am very pleased to stand to take this first call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. Looking at this sector the economic development and infrastructure sector it is very important for us to understand and appreciate that life development growth and economic opportunity in New Zealand rely upon many systems. Just as a human body exists through diverse systems so does our economic vitality.I want to talk about the transportation system in our country which enables economic development growth and prosperity within our communities. Transport is a critical component of daily life for all New Zealand businesses and individuals. It connects businesses to their markets and connects individuals to their jobs and to educational social and leisure activities.New Zealand has a vibrant transport sector that comprises around 5 percent of total employment and 5 percent of gross domestic product. In total the Government has $60 billion worth of transport assets including 11000 kilometres of State highways 83000 kilometres of local roads and over 4000 kilometres of rail track and New Zealand has 14 exporting ports and six international airports. If we are going to be a country that engages in the global economy all of these vital transport links are important to us.The National-led Government is working hard for all New Zealanders. We have a clear plan for this term and we are continuing to build a stronger economy that creates more jobs lifts incomes and provides the essential services and support that families need. The Business Growth Agenda which the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Steven Joyce leads includes a specific goal to raise exports to 40 percent of GDP by the mid-2020s. More generally the Business Growth Agenda is about the Government’s focus on economic growth as a key mechanism to create better opportunities for all New Zealanders but the transport system has an important supporting role in ensuring that the additional exports the associated input goods are able to move efficiently and effectively around the country and internationally to our global markets.The transport system supports economic growth by providing the domestic transport networks and international connectivity necessary for the movement of goods. To do this well the transport system needs to be efficient and effective the existing transport assets need to be well utilised and new investment needs to deliver real results for New Zealand. Otherwise the transport system is imposing additional costs on the economy and reducing the international competitiveness of our firms.Over the past 3 years National has spent nearly $11 billion on improving our transport infrastructure and we have earmarked nearly another $40 billion over the next decade. The appropriation sought in 2015-16 for Vote Transport increased by 10.3 percent to $4.27 billion from an estimated actual spending in 2014-15 of $3.87 billion. Most of the vote—some 91 percent—provides funding for roading with 6 percent for rail 3 percent for the Ministry of Transport transport Crown entities MetService and SuperGold card transport concessions.The elephant in the room is always Auckland. At the estimates hearing the Minister said to us that in Auckland central government subsidises each bus fare by $2 to $3 and each rail fare by $7 to $8. The Government has spent $1.6 billion on rail infrastructure improvements in Auckland with $500 million of that in the form of a loan.Roads of national significance are like the backbone of our transport infrastructure. Believe it or not we in Taranaki are not jealous about Auckland’s new roads. We have got a fantastic new bridge and new infrastructure being put in place north of our city. Why? Because we accept that funding motorway expansions in the Waikato and Auckland is helping businesses in Taranaki because those northern roads are as much a part of the journey to market as the road out of New Plymouth is. We depend on those northern roads for access. And arguably as all the regional State highways feed into our big export ports the roads where this freight load converges are indeed roads of national significance. Every hour less that a truck and driver sits in a gridlocked Auckland motorway—Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I get up to speak particularly about the economic development spend that we examined in the estimates hearings. What we learnt and what was affirmed for us again is that this is a Government that is failing to deliver on its central plank and that is in the economic development area to grow exports as a proportion of our economy from 30 percent up to 40 percent. The Minister for Economic Development has been forced to admit that they are dropping. They are projected next year to go from the 27 percent they are already down at down to 26 percent. This is a Government that is failing to deliver on its central objective of growing exports as a proportion of GDP. This Minister talks about the Business Growth Agenda. That is his target. He is a Minister who is failing to meet his own target. He is a Minister who is meddling in his department—meddling and creating a failing ministry.Treasury said it was always going to be an uphill battle and that the efficiency gains projected to be gained by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment would never be realised. But what it did not count on and what it did not brief on was a Minister who was meddling in the ministry: a Minister who was choosing the layout—whether portrait or landscape—of the glossy brochures that go out; a Minister who was in there wordsmithing his own previous documents and correcting them and trying to make them sound better even though they had already been in print in his name; and a Minister who was in there choosing the colour of the brochures. The front cover the back cover—what colour should they be? That is where the Minister is. There are 40-odd spin doctors in there trying to clean up after the Minister. They have got an uphill battle because this Government is failing to achieve the central target of the economic development agenda and that is to grow exports as a proportion of GDP.In the estimates hearings we looked into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s spending which we all know about now as taxpayers. We looked into the fact that it had spent $60000 on a sign out the front of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment advertising where it was. We looked into the fact that it has a $140000 TV screen in its foyer. We looked into the fact that it has a $260000 sun deck with barbecues on it. We looked into the fact that it has a $23000 fridge. We looked into the fact that it has a $74000 reception desk which is curved—a curved reception desk. It had to be curved because the $140000 TV is curved and the desk had to match it. This is the kind of spending this Minister is presiding over. He is the one who signed off the budget with all of these items in it—and hair straighteners to boot. This is a Minister failing to concentrate on the big targets he set himself and instead is focused on spending and spending and spending. This is a Minister out of touch if he thinks ordinary New Zealanders think that that is OK.Of course as the Minister he will claim his job is to set the general tone. Minister Joyce will say: “My job is to set the general tone.” Sure he signs off the budget; sure he is accountable to this Committee for the spending. Well I would say: “How many small and medium enterprises around the country have $140000 TV screens in their foyers? How many have $260000 sun decks?”.Carmel Sepuloni: Not many if any.Dr DAVID CLARK: “Not many if any.” my colleague says. That is true. I think that when the Minister said to the Commerce Committee that he did not have that information in front of him he was fudging. I bet he has looked into it. When he then answered questions in the House he conveniently did not have that information in front of him either. I think he knows that he is failing to deliver on his targets and he is failing to meet the expectations of the small and medium enterprises that need to be grown if we are going to have a diverse economy. That leaves us vulnerable as the dairy prices have tumbled. The Government beats up on the farmers but actually it is the Government’s fault for not diversifying the economy and not making sure there are others who can shoulder the burden of growing our economy. Leaving it all to the farmers and then beating them up when times are bad is not a good strategy Mr Joyce and New Zealand is not fooled by it.Of course there are plenty of other things that we canvassed in there and there are so many that it is hard to bring them into this Chamber because this Minister is failing in so many areas. The real median weekly wage—well this Minister led of course the campaign in Northland that failed so spectacularly. Since then we have had statistics out that have shown that the real weekly median wage which used to be higher in Taranaki than it is in Northland is now lower. It used to be higher and now it is the same roughly in Taranaki. In Gisborne and in Hawke’s Bay it is now lower than in Northland. These are the kinds of statistics that keep coming out and show how this Government is failing the regions around New Zealand. We cannot afford for the regions to get behind. We need everybody to be succeeding if New Zealand is going to get ahead. The forgone growth is costing us all. And of course unemployment in Northland has gone from 7 to 8 percent under this Government. In the Manawatū and Wanganui it has gone from 3 to 9 percent. Actually plenty of regions are hurting. The Government will try to pretend Northland is an isolated case but this Government is failing all around.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Well with the greatest respect to our dear friend opposite David Clark that speech made a word cloud seem coherent in its analysis of the New Zealand economy. I have never seen such a string of platitudes incoherently brought together in such a way to not achieve a single thing but that is Dr Clark.The fundamental challenge for the New Zealand economy is to grow faster than other parts of the world. Since this Government has been in office no matter what Mr Clark says this country has performed better than most developed countries in the world. Why is that? Because this Government and the agencies that support it are doing the job of encouraging businesses to grow invest have confidence and hire more people. There have been 74000 additional new jobs in the last year and actually a growth rate of 2.6 percent in the year to March—2.6 percent growth compared with 2.3 in Australia 2.4 in the UK 2.7 in the US 2.1 in Canada minus 0.1 percent in Japan and 1 percent in Germany.Fundamentally the Opposition members go on about diversification of the New Zealand economy. Well it is happening in front of their eyes and they hate it. They talk the New Zealand economy down. They cannot bring themselves to look at the information and communications technology industry which is growing flat out across New Zealand to the point where we are adding 2000 or 3000 new jobs a year. They cannot bring themselves to look at the wine industry which is growing dramatically. They cannot bring themselves to look at the kiwifruit industry which has recovered incredibly well. They cannot look at the apple industry which is also growing well. They cannot look at the beef industry.They cannot look at the high-tech manufacturing industry. The BNZ-BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index the indicator for growth in manufacturing was 55 last Friday. The services index today was 58. They cannot bring themselves to look at that. The tourism industry grew 9 percent in the last month. In June the coldest month of the year it grew 9 percent. The international education industry is growing dramatically and is now at $2.85 billion.Dr David Clark: No one believes you Steven.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The construction sector is also growing dramatically. The only person who does not believe us is Mr Clark sitting over there with his eyes firmly shut.So yes it is a challenging time for the dairy industry but the good news is that New Zealand has a strong and diverse economy as a result of the confidence that the businesses express because of such things as the management of the New Zealand economy by Bill English and the Business Growth Agenda which is the most comprehensive programme of work in the New Zealand economy in decades—350 different initiatives. Weirdly 3 years in the Opposition still has not read it but then that probably indicates the level of depth and analysis of its approach. The export sector the free-trade agreement with Korea the World Trade Organization’s Government procurement—that stuff is not going to make headlines but I tell you what it means a lot to manufacturers all over New Zealand.I talked about information and communications technology.On the tourism side there are such things as the national cycle trails which Opposition members have gone a bit quiet on because they know that regional New Zealand knows that it is working for them; things like the convention centre which they are opposed to and will still be opposed to but they will still turn up at the opening that sort of thing; and there is investment encouragement of investment encouragement of skills. We talked about the information and communications technology graduate skills today; the research and development tax losses that we have cashed out the research and development growth grant programme which is growing—that is in the innovation space. In the natural resources sector there is a lot of work going on there. There are the regional growth programmes which again they do not want to talk about.So if you forget all the industries that are doing well if you forget all the Government initiatives if you close your eyes to all the regional growth programmes and if you determinedly sit there and say that it is the worst economy in 25 years then Mr Clark may be able to convince himself that nothing has happened but he is wrong.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):The story of this National Government’s transport policy deserves to be told and it goes something like this. This Government under Steven Joyce’s leadership as a transport Minister in its early years took the transport budget which amounts to about $3.5 billion a year and decided to politicise it and treat it as a party political slush fund for the National Party. That is what it did. It was an act of supreme cynicism and it made the decision against the advice of officials against the advice of all of the best benefit-cost ratios all of the analysis to pour billions of dollars into a handful of hand-picked motorway projects that had not even been subject to the most basic economic analysis when this Government committed the money for those projects—a handful of urban motorway projects.It was pork-barrel politics on an industrial scale and that is the defining quality of this Government’s transport policy. The result of that has been that every other category of the transport budget whether it is urban public transport or local roads in regional New Zealand has been cut and squeezed and neglected for the last 7 years. This Government has been willing to run down and neglect a multibillion-dollar asset that belongs to the people of this country in the form of the local roads and State highways. It has been content to neglect the transport needs of our country’s biggest city making itself this National Government a brake on Auckland’s economic growth and prosperity.We did the figures when the Government policy statement on transport came out and then again when the National Land Transport Fund came out and what those numbers show is that for regional New Zealand outside of the main urban centres spending on roads has dropped by 13 percent in real terms between 2008 and 2013. That amounts to a real cut of $163 million. That is a reduction in the spending on local and regional roads by this National Government during its 7 years in office so far—a 13 percent cut in real terms.What is the upshot? The consequence of that cut in funding to regional New Zealand’s roads is that the roads themselves fall into disrepair and pose a threat to the safety of people using those roads in regional New Zealand and this National Government having blamed councils all around New Zealand for the last 7 years for being profligate spenders all its transport policy has done is load more and more pressure on to the ratepayers in regional New Zealand.Take Southland—about 10000 ratepayers—they have had a massive dairying boom there over the last decade or so. They have the largest roading network outside the Auckland super-city and yet they have had successive cuts to their local road funding. Eric Roy the former member for Invercargill was in the Southland Times explaining to his constituents why their road funding was cut by this National Government. He was very candid—that is what I liked about Eric Roy. He said that until we have built all the roads of national significance the roads in Southland are just going to have to wait.That is a message that he could have delivered to any town any community throughout this country because that has been the effect of this Government’s transport policy on regional New Zealand. The regions are missing out. If you look at average funding per person nationwide the average is $648 per person. In the regions it is only $566 per person. Per kilometre nationwide there is an average spend of $11430 under National. In the regions it is only $9230. The regions are getting done like a dog’s dinner under National.The second thing I wanted to say is that in the last election as we have repeatedly seen from this Government it was dragged kicking and screaming it was embarrassed publicly and then finally it threw a little bone to try to keep people quiet and it announced $212 million of regional road funding. But the following year in the Budget it allocated only $97 million for those roads although it promised $212 million. How cynical can you get? We saw this speaking of cynicism with the bridges of Northland—FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):Thanks for the opportunity. I just wanted to note the eloquence of the Minister for Economic Development who spoke so wonderfully just a few moments ago. What I have to say though is that it is a shame that that eloquence that wonderful turn of phrase could not be applied to his super ministry to get his staff in line in order to create those synergies that were promised to the people of New Zealand. In terms of eloquent messages at the moment as well it seems like National is putting out this wonderful argument that if anyone talks about how bad things are in New Zealand it is their fault. If you talk about how bad things are it is your fault. So apparently by talking about it tonight it is going to be my fault that the economy is not doing that great.Speaking about infrastructure and economic development though the regions have been short-changed in this appropriations round in the 2015-16 appropriations round. Economic development without a doubt will be more meaningful for each and every New Zealander if this Government would actually focus on our regions and more important on the people in them. Infrastructure development—we were talking today. We have just come back from meeting with our constituents. We were talking about roading in Northland funnily enough. We are encouraging cruise ships to come to the port which is wonderful and then what they are doing is they are taking them out to wonderful tourist activities out in the Millennium Kauri Forest but a lot of that road—and it was spoken about before how there has been a 13 percent cut in our regions’ roading for example—is gravel. So there is absolutely no doubt that we are undermining our tourism which the Minister spoke of how wonderful it was. We are undermining it with inappropriate and lacklustre appropriations in this round.What this Government needs to do is to be considered in its approach. What it is failing to acknowledge as well is the appropriations to the broadband roll-out for example.Brett Hudson: Two billion?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No there were no appropriations attached to the broadband roll-out because the Government has not acknowledged that there is an actual problem with the broadband roll-out in New Zealand. So what we have at the moment is again another discussion with people in rural communities in our regions telling us that not only can they not connect because of structural issues with the roll-out that were inherent from the start—the problems were there and transparent from the start—but we were having some wonderful conversations about the broadband roll-out and the fibre connections. And what businesses in our rural sector in our regions were telling us which is ridiculous was that as they were connecting and opting in to this wonderful option to grow their business their internet speeds were slowing down. They were measuring their internet speed and they were able to tell us categorically that it was slower than dial up—dial up from 10 years ago. That is how slow it has become because the infrastructure—the investment the lack of foresight of this Government in terms of these appropriations for infrastructure and for economic development—is just not there.National Ministers might not know this—they seem to go rural only when there is a by-election—but rural businesses only 10 minutes from the city are experiencing these problems. The lines have been upgraded but the infrastructure is not coping. It is ridiculous. Previously I have spoken in this House about the implications of the broadband roll-out for rural businesses. The reality is that rural businesses have fewer websites less internet connectivity and they are not bothering with this so-called online economy because they cannot take advantage of it.The electricity industry—another infrastructure and economic development issue that seems to have been left by the by by this Government. We have had conversations put to New Zealanders from the Electricity Authority asking whether regions should pay more for their electricity through line charges. They have put it that essentially it is going to be the absolute nth degree of user-pays. So we are not going to share structural costs; we cannot you know share this with New Zealanders. It is going to be the regions—Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):It is a great pleasure and a privilege to be Minister of Transport and Minister of Energy and Resources in this John Key - led National Government. That is because this is the strongest infrastructure Government in many a decade. This is the strongest party and Government for infrastructure that this fine country of ours has had for many a decade. I can tell you that that is so for many reasons and I will do. I will give one anecdote: it was a great pleasure appearing before the select committee in the areas that I have responsibility for because we have such a good story to tell. They were fireside chats that we had in those committees because the story that we have in transport and in energy is absolutely fantastic because we are delivering results in transport for this country.Let me talk a bit about that. The New Zealand Land Transport Plan—the biggest ever across every single class—was recently put out by the New Zealand Transport Agency. We are spending more where it is needed in every single class that there is in land transport whether it is in the big cities where right at the moment in Auckland we have got the biggest roading project ever coming to completion in New Zealand—the western ring route with Alice boring through and doing a tremendous job there—or whether it is Tauranga Eastern Link which very soon will be open to the public. It will be the best road in the country in New Zealand when it is opened very shortly. It is absolutely fit-for-purpose for connecting up those exporters that Steven Joyce was talking about—the kiwifruit growers the productive sector of our country—to the best and biggest port. Whether it is in rural areas in the provinces whether it is the Akarama curves in Northland the passing lanes in Gisborne the Normanby bypass in the centre or the Kawarau Falls bridge lane this year many many millions—in fact hundreds of millions of dollars—are going into regional roads to make sure that they are fit-for-purpose and are doing the job of getting exports to market efficiently and productively and also of getting our people around this country safely.We are multi-modal. I always love saying this for Julie Anne Genter’s benefit: it is this National Government that has delivered the biggest infrastructure investment in rail in many a decade—in Auckland $1.6 billion for the electrification of rail. It is good to see the mayor and the council talking about this earlier this week. It is a real step change for that city. There has been over $3 billion in capital expenditure in rail since we have been in Government. That is truly significant and yet to some it is never enough. Bus interchanges park-and-rides—there has been a significant infrastructure spend on those. Just to show the multi-modal nature of this Government’s infrastructure investment in the next 3 years there will be $333 million put into cycling on urban cycleways. It is a real step change for literally every urban area with over 30000 people in this country. Whether it is Whangarei Auckland or Wellington—you name it—they are getting very strong investment which is going to really deliver for the people of New Zealand.In Auckland which Phil Twyford talked about of course we are engaging in an engagement process because we do want to make sure that we are spending the money right on congestion and public transport. But in the meantime $1 billion a year is going into that city. We are not sitting here on our hands; we are the biggest investor in Auckland bar none. Whether it is the Victoria Park Tunnel whether it is the western ring route that I have spoken of whether it is the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative whether it is the East-West Link we are getting on with the projects that we are being told are the ones that need to be focused on in order to really deliver for that city.I am really excited about the way we are in transport across the board enabling technology and innovation to capture for transport users in New Zealand the benefits of what is happening around the world—whether it is mobility whether it is ensuring that some of the really interesting car and ride-sharing innovations that are seeing more people in fewer cars are enabled in New Zealand or whether it is the new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones that people are talking about. We are making sure we have the most fit-for-purpose enabling regulations. It is going to be a pleasure working with Craig Foss the Associate Minister of Transport and to be part of seeing those new regulations come in very shortly—in fact later this week.I am glad that Fletcher Tabuteau spoke about energy and resources because we can say with absolute clarity that today we have the most competitive and the most innovative electricity market that this country has ever seen. It is the most competitive—Hon Member: And expensive.Hon Member: It’s “Confused Mr Bridges”.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Opposition says: “Well is that really so? Where is your proof?”. Well how about this: the latest Statistics New Zealand statistics show that the CPI figures on electricity prices out today show the annual rate of change in electricity prices paid by households. What do you think that was? What do the members of this House think? In the last year there was 0 percent change in electricity prices for households.Fletcher Tabuteau: Whose electricity prices?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well let me give the members over on that side of the Chamber a little history lesson. I do not think that a 0 percent increase has ever happened this decade. I do not think that has ever happened this century. In fact I think that we would be hard-pressed to find another year when there was a 0 percent increase in electricity prices for households and that is because in this Government on getting into office Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce set up the Electricity Authority and got a competitive market going. We are seeing the most competitive most innovative market with electricity retailers that we have ever seen and the numbers there are at record levels. Off the top of my head I think it is 14 new retailers offering 25 brands. Hot competition for customers is meaning that the big players are seeing their market share squeezed over time as more and more people shop around.It is a very strong record in infrastructure that this Government has whether it is in transport across the board; whether it is more investment going where it is really needed in a multi-modal approach; or whether it is in energy and resources where we are seeing the most competitive electricity market that we have ever seen with 0 percent increases for households made clear by Statistics New Zealand today. That is why I am incredibly proud to be part of this John Key - led National Government which is making a difference in infrastructure and is the best Government in infrastructure that this country has seen in many a decade.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the labour market estimates which I had something to do with as well as my colleague Denise Roche. Just listening to the Minister of Transport the Hon Simon Bridges speaking about how fabulous everything is in terms of infrastructure it always rings harsh in my ears when I walk down Karangahape Road or Lambton Quay or all the other infrastructure lying around the country and in every second doorway there is a person lying on the ground or putting out a begging bowl which is not how it was when I grew up. This is not the Aotearoa that I grew up in. So if the labour market is going so great and infrastructure is all so wonderful why for the last few years has it got worse and worse and worse and there are more and more people whom people do not want to see who cannot survive in the labour market as it now stands with the great successful National Government of the last God knows how many years? It is very disturbing for people with a conscience to see it and it is not individual failure; it is structural failure.However there are two issues I want to address in terms of Vote Labour Market. One is a small phrase that was in one of the reports on the labour market estimates—I think it was under “Minimum employment standards”—that talked about reviewing the Equal Pay Act which put a little chill down our spine. Since Kristine Bartlett took it to the Crown and won in a number of courts of law proving that aged-care workers should be entitled to equal pay and that women-dominated occupations are unfairly paid—and we have a gender pay gap of 14.1 percent which is again another failure of the labour market which has definitely got worse in the last few years—the Government is now talking about changing the Equal Pay Act 1972. How it might change that as a result of a court decision that finally was able to show in law that women are not fairly paid is a worrying thing because the decision has real meaning and therefore there is real risk. It may mean the Government will change the law to prevent us from doing what is right.I had a bill that would have had the Equal Pay Act amended to make it more transparent which did not go far but when it got introduced it became famous due to the meltdown by the Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive officer which some people will recall with horror. But what is the Government going to do to equal pay now that it has been proven that the law is not working that women are not being paid fairly and that something has to change? So we are very concerned about that and we are very concerned to see it in the Vote Labour Market estimates.The other issue from the Vote Labour Market estimates that I want to talk about in terms of the Minister and I was at the select committee when he spoke about this is the issue of refugees. Basically our country is in a pretty shameful state. We are now on the Security Council; we are now trying to hold our head up on the international stage. Yet we have a Government that refuses to lift the quota and whenever we talk about lifting the quota it just starts talking about the rehabilitation of refugees and how much we are doing to make sure everything is fine.But in reality we are unfortunately following one of the worst role models we could possibly follow at the moment in terms of refugees and asylum seekers and that is Australia. Australia is taking a totalitarian approach towards refugees and is treating asylum seekers in a way that is pretty unbelievable and now our own Minister for labour and for refugees is refusing to say that anything is going to change when clearly everything needs to change. At the select committee I questioned him about the refugee quota and he spent a lot of time avoiding the issue of improvement in the quota.The Greens and others in this Chamber—a number of parties; virtually all of them except the Government—are asking only for the refugee quota to be improved to 1000 a year but the reality is that the Government is more influenced by the scare tactics and totalitarianism of the Australian Government’s attitude towards refugees than it is by the voices of reason from all the other parties. That is what the Minister of labour has said in the Vote Labour Market report—that there is no indication of improvement there—and only in the last few days something really disturbing has come to light about that.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the call. I was going to take a call on science and innovation in this particular part of debate but there are a couple of things I want to address that have been previously spoken about by the Minister in the chair Simon Bridges and a previous Minister.I challenge the current Minister in the chair Simon Bridges to outline for me where the northern border of the Auckland super-city is because the Minister in the chair said that inside this Budget there are some amazing transport dollars being spent in Auckland City. That may very well be true for central Auckland but I have firsthand accounts of people in Wellsford who are in the super-city of Auckland—they happen to sit in the Northland electorate; perhaps that is the problem but they are in the super-city of Auckland—who are having to fill their own potholes in their own roads with lime that they themselves have bought Minister because there is no funding from this Government for those rural roads. I challenge the Minister to outline for me where the border of the super-city of Auckland is because I am not very confident that the National Government understands exactly where it is. So that is the first thing.The second thing is that Minister Joyce stood up and talked about the wonderful things that were done in this Budget with regard to international students. It may very well be true that we have schools saying that they actually have to spend 60 percent of their operations grants on international students because the funding from this Government is so low and that is probably a topic we will get into in the next part of this debate around education. Let us talk for a moment about science and innovation which is part of this particular debate.I want to talk about the Performance-based Research Fund and the fact that this Government and Mr Joyce have said that the Performance-based Research Fund is the next big thing with regard to science research in this country and the way it is funded. That is what they say it is. The Performance-based Research Fund has $250 million and the Government is going to raise that amount to $300 million by 2017. Fantastic; the problem is the unintended consequences. What have we got going on because there is a 100 percent competitive model with regard to research in this country? There is 100 percent competitive model with regard to scientific research.This is the worst thing that has happened to science in this country since the blimming shake-up of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research which I believe was done by a National Government as well. That Minister in the chair would not know it because that member probably is not old enough to actually understand what happened in New Zealand then but some of us are and some of us learnt from the mistakes that were made. When the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research closed we lost scientist after scientist after scientist to Australia. It put us behind the mark internationally for years on end and it is one of the reasons we need the Performance-based Research Fund supposedly. We have to encourage scientists to come back.But what is happening with the fund? The unintended consequences are that staff are being persuaded to resign on the understanding that they will be rehired after the round for the Performance-based Research Fund is completed. Staff are being put on fixed-term agreements to avoid them being counted in the fund’s measurements. Staff are being offered shorter fixed-term agreements to avoid them being counting in the fund’s measurements. Potential staff are not being employed to avoid having them being counted in Performance-based Research Fund scores. Does the Minister know about this? Does Minister Joyce know about this? Yes he does. He sat at the Education and Science Committee and he said: “Yes we are aware of the rorting.” Is the Government going to change it? No not quickly. Why not? Because it is that commercial model which the Government believes is all that is important.Where is the public-good science? Where is the interest-led science that actually led to inventions that this country is now known internationally for? It has gone because this Government does not believe in funding public-good interest-led science that adds to New Zealand’s future. This Government believes in funding only those who have some sort of pre-proven economic benefit.How does that affect every business in let us just say Wellsford or let us just say Te Hana or let us just say Kerikeri? Do you know how it affects them? How it affects them is they do not even know it exists. They do not even know that dollar for dollar research investment exists. They do not even know what Callaghan Innovation does and yet they are in the super-city of Auckland. They are sitting in a city where this Government under legislation passed only 2 years ago purchased the FoodBowl in Auckland to help food manufacturers and food production go from there to there and to packaging to send it overseas. Yet inside the northern borders of the super-city of Auckland they do not know a thing about it.That is because this Government is urban-centric. This Government does not see the regions. This Government believes—Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):Supporting the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch remains one of the National-led Government’s main priorities. We want to make sure that Canterbury and Christchurch are even better places to live to work and to raise a family. Since the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 we have appropriated $12.4 billion towards the recovery the rebuild and the regeneration. In the appropriations this year 2015-16 there is $314 million for anchor projects; $60 million for red zone property acquisition and demolition costs clearance and management; and $80 million for managing the recovery and regeneration. We expect to spend $16.5 billion in the Canterbury community by 2019.The enormous amounts of money time energy and hard work that have been expended over the last 4 years in the rebuild make this one of the most expensive and ambitious undertakings in New Zealand history and 4 years on Canterbury and Christchurch are mostly in good shape. Despite the gloom and doom forecasts our population has increased and that is because we acted decisively to retain the population and employment immediately after the earthquakes. About 540000 people live in the Canterbury region now and that is up 18000 since the 2006 census. And the rebuild is going well. This March an estimated $13.4 billion worth of earthquake construction has been completed and that represents about 42 percent of the progress through the physical rebuild. Our gross domestic product has risen. It was over 10 percent in the last calendar year. The unemployment rate is 3.5 percent. We can compare that with the national rate of 5.6 percent. In the last year Canterbury has increased jobs by 15500.So our city is coming alive at the same time and I think there is real excitement about the activity in the centre city. We see the trend of Christchurch retail sales which are continuing to increase and our nightlife including the restaurants the bars and the clubs is back to about 95 percent of pre-earthquake levels. Recently the bus exchange opened office blocks and retail developments are being completed daily and by the end of 2016 1700 public sector workers will have returned to the central business district.As a central city resident myself I am delighted that the Government has signed agreements with Fletcher Living for the construction of 191 new homes on two new inner-city sites in the housing accord with the Christchurch City Council. Twenty percent of those new homes will be priced at or below $450000 so that they are eligible for the Government’s new KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers. But we are also increasing the number of houses in the city at a huge pace. There is the $800 million East and North Frame Residential Precinct which will provide about 940 townhouses and apartments and that will provide living accommodation for up to 2200 people. I think this project is fantastic for Christchurch. It will bring residents into the city centre. It will provide a mix of housing to encourage people at all stages of their lives and they will literally be able to live to work and to play within the four avenues of the city. That will provide a great community spirit and a quality of life that will help families and businesses flourish.So our rebuild is well under way but how are the people of Canterbury feeling? We have been through some very tough times as you all know and we have certainly learnt that people deal with trauma differently. Every year we undertake the CERA Wellbeing Survey and in September 2014 77 percent of the people surveyed rated their quality of life as good or very good and 20 percent of them reported an improvement over the previous 12 months. This is the first time that these results have been comparable with the quality of the surveys about Christchurch pre-earthquake so that indicates that we are getting back to where we were prior to the earthquakes.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am pleased to make a contribution in the estimates debate on Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery in this new structure of bracketing portfolios as we do. I was interested in the comments of the member Nicky Wagner who has just resumed her seat and I think she is actually not being straight with Cantabrians or with New Zealanders. I think she is demonstrating an arrogance that is surprising for someone of her background and I think she is out of touch with where we are in Canterbury.The Government members have had a big push on saying how much money they are spending in Canterbury—$16.5 billion is the figure that is often quoted. Half of that money is actually Earthquake Commission cash so immediately you can halve the contribution of the Government. It promised $6.7 billion in what it described as core Crown contributions—that is roads sewerage schools and hospitals. Well from 2011 and the first promise until the end of 2014 there has been $2 billion spent. That is all. The handbrake has been put on the Government investment in Canterbury to try to get to the surplus but that still did not happen in this year’s Budget. Another failed promise from the Government—another failed attempt at getting a surplus.Even more interestingly though when you look at the Budget and at the Canterbury earthquake recovery the Reserve Bank says that in Canterbury there will be about $35 billion of insurance money going into the region—$35 billion. So if you look at what that sort of investment does to the Canterbury economy particularly employment combined with the logical housing boom that we are experiencing as a result of replacement houses paid for by insurance then you will see an increase immediately. It is an increase in employment and a lower number of people on benefits which is an immediate increase of $10 billion per annum in Crown income.Just remember the original investment figure that the Government has been trumpeting. There are additional taxes on wages which the Reserve Bank estimates is $4 billion and additional GST which the Government might get anyway and which goes back to the business but that gives a total tax boost of $11 billion. So who is paying for the Canterbury recovery? Actually it is mostly insurance companies and the Government is likely to end up better off as a result of those insurance company investments and the growth stimulation.This is not a plan for New Zealand’s future. You cannot have a plan that is built on the back of insurance payouts as a result of natural disasters. That is not the sort of future and security that New Zealanders need.The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is—thank goodness—going out of existence in the very near future. Finally we have a transition plan that is being prepared looking at handing over the powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to relevant Government departments organisations and of course our three local authorities.In order to prepare for the winding up of its organisation the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has recently doubled its communications budget doubled the number of staff and doubled the amount of money it is spending. I find that really puzzling. When the chief executive and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery were asked: “Why are you doubling your budget when you are going out of existence in less than a year’s time?” they said: “We need to keep people informed.” Well that would be a first—that would be a first since that organisation was established. And they said: “There’s an increasing amount of work happening with the anchor projects.” Actually every single anchor project except the bus exchange where there have been 15 accidents in less than 2 months as a result of the ingoing and outgoing traffic—that is a major success—has been delayed.The Minister came to the select committee to talk about the vote. When he was asked about the delay he blamed the media and said that it was all made up. We had the Prime Minister at the annual tourism conference saying that the convention centre in Christchurch has got a budget that has blown out and that it might not go ahead and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery said: “There is no blowout in the budget.” One of them is either mistaken or not telling the truth. They cannot both be right and it is really hard to figure out. I would be backing the Prime Minister on this particular point. There are a number of other issues—BRETT HUDSON (National):Well this Government is committed to continuing New Zealand in the direction that has seen us grow faster than most of our trading partners in the OECD. Over 190000 jobs have been created over the last 4 years and another 150000 are forecast across the next 4 years. We are doing this through our Business Growth Agenda. Whether it is unlocking new markets strengthening capital markets harnessing natural resources investing in innovation investing in skilled and safer workforces or investing in infrastructure this Government is committed to keeping New Zealanders on the pathway to prosperity.Across the way there those members do not even understand business. From across there we witnessed just last week a trumpeted trumped-up policy from Labour championing small business. What was that? It was a re-announcement of the Government’s discussion paper around provisional tax payments released in May. They are bereft of ideas bereft of leadership and quite frankly bereft of talent while we here are focused on doing the things that count to keep improving the lot for New Zealanders and their families.I just want to raise the issue of infrastructure within this ambit of the Business Growth Agenda. A few speakers ago “the Professor” gave a lecture to us around the paucity of infrastructure investment particularly broadband. Well I do not know which library he consulted but clearly he did not avail himself of the services of the Parliamentary Library. If he had he would have learnt that in these appropriations the Government has made an appropriation for a further $210 million from the Future Investment Fund for ultra-fast broadband to raise coverage to 80 percent of the population. An additional $100 million from the telecommunications development levy is to further increase coverage under the rural broadband infrastructure and an additional $50 million is to take care of mobile black spots.This is a Government that is investing in infrastructure that enables Kiwis and Kiwi businesses to be better connected and to take advantage of the opportunities that are there in this increasingly more-connected world. They make a real difference. For instance in Timaru the information and communications technology sector is now the third-largest sector in that area. One example is an IT development company in Timaru that had a single employee before the ultra-fast broadband roll-out began and now has a dozen. It is able to offer its services not only around New Zealand but across the world. There is the doctor in Whangarei who now no longer needs to take his patients through an appointment system at the local hospital for retina scans but can do them in his practice and send the information on. There is the panel beater on the North Shore who can take photos of damage and transmit them electronically to the assessor in the insurance company resulting in the approval coming through quicker the customer’s car being back on the road sooner and a far better more efficient business for that panel beater. It is making a real difference.The information and communications technology industry is growing at 9 percent per annum year on year. It now contributes about 1.7 percent of GDP. That is one-third—one-third—of the dairy contribution to New Zealand in one industry. That is without counting the wine industry or the beef and lamb industry or oil and gas exports or kiwifruit exports or all of the other things we are doing across the New Zealand economy. Within that information and communications technology industry exports have been growing at 14 percent per annum over the last 6 years and have contributed approximately $930 million in exports in 2014.This is a Government that is focused on diversifying our economy creating opportunities for Kiwi businesses making investments in infrastructure and opening markets and strengthening our capital markets to ensure that investment flows in which permits businesses to grow and to hire more people. This is a Government that is focused on creating a skilled workforce to meet the needs of a diversifying and growing economy. I now mention particularly the information and communications technology postgrad academies in Christchurch and Auckland that the Minister announced recently and there is an announcement to come soon on that study in Wellington. So this Government is committed to continuing to grow New Zealand and to continuing to offer our people in our businesses brighter prospects with sound investments sound policies and sound actions.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In my short 33 years on this planet we have seen phenomenal technological economic and social change and without doubt I believe that in the next 33 years we are going to see even more. You can see some of that innovation in a warehouse next to Auckland Airport where Rocket Lab is assembling world-leading Electron rockets but with carbon fibre 3-D printed battery-powered jet engines. You can see other companies like Xero selling from the Land of the Long White Cloud through the cloud and competing globally. We have got some fantastic examples that highlight the potential of an innovative economy but we should not be deluding ourselves that a few innovative companies make an innovative economy. What we have seen this week is an economic slow-down in China. Two recent polls have come out showing that consumer confidence has dipped sharply. Dairy prices have plunged a further 10 percent and what we have seen in Treasury documents is that the tradables part of the sector has stagnated. In fact the split between the tradables and non-tradables sector is the greatest in 2000 years—concerning concerning issues.So what is the plan in National’s Budget and Budget estimates? Well when you drill past the spin what you can see is that the strategy is incredibly flawed. Under National we are working incredibly hard but our wages are in the bottom half of the developed world. Under National our costs of living are judged the highest in purchasing power. Under National our economy has simplified and will become more dependent than ever on a few raw commodities. Under National we still spend less than half of the developed world average on research and development. Basically under National we are not building those high-wage industries or sectors to compete into the future. Under National we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into an economic hole. The plan seems to be a few token policies at the margins a few more cows on paddocks—cram them on—and hoping to find some oil deep in our seas but we are finding ourselves deeper and deeper in that hole. I believe in that old saying that—to paraphrase it—if you find yourself in a hole it is time to stop digging. It should be the same in a coal shaft in a deep-sea mine. It is time to stop digging. The way we have always done things is going to get us the result that has seen us slip down those economic rankings over succeeding decades.On the science and innovation aspect of the Budget we have seen some token—token—gestures from Minister Steven Joyce. What we have seen is a funding approach that keeps us in the bottom half of the developed world. It is an approach that picks winners and that finds money for special prizes for the Government’s special friends in their special industries like film. The funding models that benefit large businesses—the whole Crown research institute sector—is built around the old-fashioned traditional economy and we are seeing emerging start-ups feel that they are missing out on the research and development that they want to do to help get our country ahead.There is a better way to support our economy and that is to build a genuinely innovative economy. My vision is one where we see Kiwis employed competing globally to come out with products and services with intellectual property. There is a limit to the amount of milk powder we can export around the world—we are seeing it in our waterways. There is no limit to the intellectual property—the software the services—we could be exporting. As Sir Paul Callaghan said we need to find those niches that are our strengths. We need to find an economy where we work smarter not just work harder because if we do not we risk what Greg Doone from PwC Digital’s strategy team argues—that if we are just a fast follower of the current speed of change we are going to be left behind following yesterday’s trends.The Green Party stands for an innovation economy an internet economy a clean-energy economy. To get there we need to adequately fund research and development to get us into that top half of the developed world. We need to support a culture of education and this starts in our schools and in our tertiary institutions. We have to make sure those students studying at universities and polytechs are getting the courses and that we are making them affordable so that they can be studying and preparing for the jobs that have not even been created yet. We need to get the settings right for the internet economy. We need to make sure we have got the right infrastructure such as an internet cable to make sure the ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative are not simply ultra-fast intranets. We need to make sure our teachers are being taught how to teach their kids digital skills. We need to support start-ups like the games sector. We need some thought leadership when it comes to areas like having a chief technology officer as argued by Rod Drury. The Green Party’s vision is a smarter higher-wage more productive economy. If we keep spending less than half of what the developed world spends we are not going to get there under National. Kia ora.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is great to get an opportunity to focus on the labour market estimates part of this debate. In particular I want to talk about—because I do not think the National Government will want to talk about it—the shambles that the ACC motor vehicle levy system that it introduced through this estimates procedure has been. It has been like watching a slow-motion car wreck because every other day there is a new problem that arises from what should have been a good-news story for the Government. It should have been a good-news story from the Government but Government members will not even ask themselves patsy questions about it at question time because it has turned out to be such a shambles for them.Why has it been a shambles? It has been a shambles because the Minister for ACC has made a fundamental error in changing the model. If the Minister had not done that what she told the select committee was that every person with a motor vehicle that was petrol-driven would have got their ACC levies for their motor vehicle registration reduced to $104 a year. So everyone would have got that reduction. If it had been a non-petrol vehicle everyone would have got a reduction to $186 per annum.But what happened instead? Actually more than a million people have ended up paying more than they needed to in ACC levies for their motor vehicle registration because of decisions that that Minister made—a decision to go to a model that is not only unfair and confusing but it turns out it has been expensive to administer and has made plenty of mistakes already. This is a system that came into being on just 1 July this year and already that Minister has had to backtrack and reclassify the vehicle registrations and the levies for 24 models and counting. I say “and counting” because in the first week alone the Minister had to backtrack on 18 classifications—18 models. That is not just 18 individual vehicles; that is 18 models of cars that had to be reclassified. A couple of days later that number had increased to 22 models and as of today it is sitting at 24 models that have had to be reclassified. That is utter chaos.But the worst thing about this is that it is simply a shift of the costs. It shifts the costs for motor vehicle registration from those who have the resources to buy the latest greatest car on to those who do not have the income resources to buy the latest flashest motor vehicle. How does it do that? Well it actually gives $41 million in savings to people at the top who can afford the better cars and it shifts $41 million on to those who can least afford it. Who are those people? They are the young—our children who are buying their first car. It is the elderly—people on fixed incomes who as they come up to their retirement ages buy the car that will last them through their retirement. They are the people who are going to be pinged by this and are paying more than they should—not because ACC made a mistake; not because the ACC system is in trouble but because that Minister made a fundamental mistake. She bought the argument that somehow if people could save a few dollars every year on their motor vehicle registration suddenly that was going to give them the thousands of dollars that they would need to upgrade their car to the latest greatest model. Well Minister that is just a folly and everyone in New Zealand knows it.So we have ended up in the situation where this should have been a good-news story for all New Zealanders and for the Government. It should have been that everyone got a reduction in their levy. For most of us it would be $104 that the levy would have been reduced to. But instead we have got this complete chaos going on with a system that is fundamentally flawed. I can guarantee the Committee that this is not the end of this story. Every day that goes by more and more vehicles are going to be reassessed. And then there is the sleight of hand—CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):Goodness me I think I might be the final speaker on the economic development and infrastructure sector in the estimates debate. There does not seem to be anybody else jumping up for this particular—Hon David Cunliffe: No no.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Oh you have got a call to go. I might not be the last one.After the delivery that we got from the Hon Simon Bridges I have to say that I had a little bit of sick in my mouth and felt a bit woozy from all the propaganda that I was hearing from that side of the Chamber. To be fair I think Mr Bridges would make a better job of writing children’s novels where there are candyfloss clouds lollypops for trees and of course the rest of the country is made of Cadbury’s chocolate.I would like to spend my time talking about two particular parts in this debate on economic development and infrastructure and one is transportation. I am not going to spend a lot of time on that. There are two parts to that. There is the rail part and the regional roading part. A lot of time has been taken up on that by a number of members in the Chamber because having good roading infrastructure and rail infrastructure is very very important for New Zealand.What I am going to spend a bit more time on is talking about the labour market. I think it is really important because we are right in the final stages of putting together our new Health and Safety Reform Bill. There has been a lot of passion with people coming in and delivering their messages. Some people have serious concerns and there are a lot of people on tenterhooks waiting to see the outcome of what the select committee has got through. Of course we were very close to delivering that last month and then it was pulled off the table by Cabinet and now we have got it back for the final stages.More important there are a couple of reports that have been written. In fact one of them I will just touch on now. It is from the Press on 19 June. The headline is “Dangers of mines and quarries were forgotten” and the article talks about mines and quarries. It said: “In the early to mid 1990s the regulations for these industries were enforced by the Mining Inspection Group (MIG). This was a group of around 10 to 12 mines and quarry inspectors who visited the sites regularly and enforced regulatory safety standards.” I think that is the key here. We all realise that there needs to be some changes with our health and safety reforms. However to throw the baby out with the bathwater as this report said previously is not the right way to go. It is not smart. It is starting from scratch and I do not think we are actually going to be teeing this off to the level that we need to tee it off to to make it absolutely pitch perfect.When we look at the current occupational safety and health legislation there are three sections that really jump out for me as being front and centre and are the things that I think really need to be considered for the future well-being of our employers. Section 15 “Duties of employers to people who are not employees” in the Health and Safety in Employment Act says: “Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee while at work harms any other person.” That comes up in sections 15 17 and 19 of the current Act.The reason why I am talking about that specifically is that when we listened to Mr English’s Budget debate speech on 21 May this year he made a very strong point with regard to his comment: “The Government is also investing $32 million over four years to increase the number of labour inspectors and strengthen enforcement of employment law.” Well I have to say I thought it was quite an ambitious comment to say that for the next 4 years the Government is going to spend $32 million because of course I think there will be a big surprise if the Government gets through to the next election in fact—that is if there is not already going to be a snap by-election.What that means is that an increase of $8 million a year is going to be spent which is around about $153000 a week. If you average that out into an hourly rate at $100000 a year that is going to provide for around about 80 enforcement staff full time on $100000 a year to go and do the job of ensuring that the enforcement of this Act is upheld. Well goodness me! If this is the delay in getting the support and the funding I say it is a little bit too late. There has been a lack of costings versus the value of investment into looking after the health and safety of our workers. If this Government had only had the foresight to put in that sort of funding 7 years ago—and let us not take it all and put all the blame on National but it was Labour as well—and if it had that sort of enforcement and those sorts of officers in place we would not have the problem that we have got currently with our health and safety situation.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):If you have been listening to this estimates debate tonight you would think that there were parallel universes being described. If you believe this Government then everything is rosy. We have never had it so good—it is like nirvana. Well it is like Government members are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is like the emperor with no clothes King Canute and Pollyanna with Road Runner running through. They are living in this parallel universe in cloud-cuckoo-land. The real story needs to be told and the real story is no fairy tale. There are too many people in this country living on Struggle Street. There are too many who are doing it really tough.This is a Government that is pretending. It is pretending that there is no housing crisis while people cannot find affordable housing let alone afford to buy. It is trying to sell off State housing while children are getting sick and frail people are getting sick and some of them are even dying because their State houses are too cold and damp. It is pretending that there are no problems with our economy while dairy prices are plummeting while our regions are suffering and while small businesses are struggling and just keeping their heads above water. It is pretending. It is not being straight with the country. It is out of touch. There is mismanagement there is waste and there is looking after its mates. “Corporate welfare” has become an everyday phrase in this country where companies are being bailed out—Skycity Rio Tinto Chorus MediaWorks Saudi sheep farms Oravida—with handouts while the everyday Kiwis get overlooked and squeezed. It is a wasteful Government—wasteful and mismanaging. There is enormous waste in spending—$26 million is spent on a flag referendum while our kids are getting sick and sometimes even dying in our State houses.The real story in our regions is one of neglect. Regional development is built on strong regional infrastructure. We have heard tonight about the mismanagement and the squeeze and neglect that is happening in regional New Zealand in our roading network. In the Clutha District there are 260 bridges and bridge culverts that Clutha District Council is struggling to keep up in order to maintain its road networks. It does not have the money to spend on repairing those bridges and those bridge culverts because there is no money to fix them because there is no money that has been allocated in the Budget to do that. They were not built for 10-tonne milk trucks. The council is struggling to get even fire engines over many of those bridges. There is a real problem in regional New Zealand with a lot of our roading and with a lot of our bridges.But the real story is the story of rural broadband which needs to be told. Some of my colleagues in the Committee tonight have touched on this issue. This is a story of absolute negligence and it is a story that is unfolding. In 2010 $300 million was promised and a quarter of a million rural households were promised faster internet. Five years later the money has been spent but who has benefited? Well it is not the people in rural New Zealand. It is not the small businesses; it is hardly any households. Vodafone and Chorus have benefited but what about the people? In a study that was done last year in rural New Zealand 70 percent of small businesses and households surveyed said they felt extremely frustrated left behind and like second-class citizens. This is a grave misuse of Government funding—$60 million spent 8500 connections to show for it and millions of dollars being handed to Chorus to upgrade cabinets. There is no accountability on improvement in connections on the copper network or new connections on fibre. Millions of dollars have gone to Vodafone to upgrade—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):It is a pleasure to take a quick call in the innovation and economic development part of this estimates debate. The model is not working and the Government is not being straight with New Zealanders. The housing market is not working particularly in Auckland but you would not hear that from the Government. The rural economy is falling in a hole and the Government is neglecting our regions. The numbers speak for themselves. In the last quarter GDP growth came in at only one-quarter of its forecast level at less than a quarter of a percent.Business confidence has gone negative for the first time since the global financial crisis recovery. Our dollar is plummeting like a rock just about as fast as business confidence—not that we want the economy to be falling in a hole; not that we want the economy to be failing. What is the Government’s reaction to this serious crisis of confidence? Well it has neglected the regions. New Zealanders are not fooled by spin—glossy publications glossy Minister Joyce. They want real projects. They want work that will create jobs in each region. They want each region’s strength to be built upon. They do not want shop fronts that are empty houses that are empty streets that are empty and polytechnics that are empty. That is not what they want.The Government has rushed out initiatives that Treasury told it were not ready. Two weeks ago Minister Joyce put out a regional investment plan that Treasury said was not ready to be funded and that it recommended be deferred. The Minister overrode that. Why? Because he knows and New Zealanders know that with dairy payouts starting with a three—as in $3-something which is a real possibility—too many farms will go close to the wall or to the wall. To bail themselves out under pressure from their banks they will take whatever cash they can get from whoever is bidding. You can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of those people will be offshore bidders—Brett Hudson: Oh here we go. Give the man a whistle.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No this is colour-blind and it is real and if the backbench members of the Government want to ignore it they will be in Opposition very shortly. New Zealanders do not want our land sold out from under us. It does not matter whether it is going to Canberra or Cambodia—they do not want that to happen. Meanwhile the system remains unfixed. Callaghan Innovation which the Minister gave a few extra dollars to is still doling out money on automatic grant criteria for its growth grants which has seen it funding potential fraudsters foreign-owned multinationals and polluters who have not had environment consents and it even funded the Oracle America’s Cup challenge not Team New Zealand. Can you believe it? What a mess.Even leaders in the sector like the Government’s Chief Science Advisor have panned that Minister’s performance. The Chief Science Advisor says that the system is too reactive and Professor Hendy from Auckland University is saying that the bias is towards the old economy. We need to be building a new economy one where we have a reasonably high level of investment in research and development; where we diversify our economy; where we strengthen the smart stuff not just the farm stuff that comes raw; where we add value to our primary commodities; where we build on our primary sector just like Denmark does; where we strengthen our manufacturing and services alongside primary agriculture so that we are adding value information and smarts; and where we are known worldwide as the highest-quality most environmentally sustainable most traceable producer of fine food products anywhere in the world so that every housewife in Britain India or America who wants to buy safe sound food for their kids knows that when you buy from New Zealand you buy quality. But we are not there because the Government is racing to the bottom.The Government does not get it. It thinks that by just reinforcing the old economy and being nice to the foreign-owned banks it will all come right. Well Mr Joyce it is not coming right. It is falling in a hole and you have only got to go around the regions to have everybody tell you that. [Bell rung] New Zealanders know the truth and it is not—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Otherwise that becomes another call.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Vote Business Science and Innovation Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Vote Labour Market and Vote Transport be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Votes agreed to.Education SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to votes in the education sector—volume B.5 volume 2. The question is that Vote Education Vote Education Review Office and Vote Tertiary Education stand part of the schedules.Dr Jian Yang (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):Education is a priority for the National Government because we understand that a key to growing a stronger economy is a skilled creative and productive workforce. A high-quality education is essential for such a workforce. That is why this Government has increased the education budget year after year. Budget 2015 will take total spending on early childhood primary and secondary education to a record $10.8 billion in 2015-16. Along with this increase of funding this Government has also spent a lot of time and effort on encouraging participation improving achievement rates and also fostering collaboration across the education sector.To have a world-class education what we need is not just money time or effort but also a vision and here I would like to congratulate the Hon Hekia Parata. Clearly the Hon Hekia Parata has a vision and has made it her mission to realise the vision. The vision is that in New Zealand every young person in every school every day will get the best possible education so that they can be successful.To achieve that this Government has set a series of education targets—for instance in 2016 98 percent of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education. In 2017 85 percent of 18-year-olds will have achieved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or an equivalent qualification. We are on the right track to meeting those targets. The national early childhood education participation rate is now over 96 percent less than 2 percent short of the 98 percent target we have set for early childhood education participation by 2016. By 2014 over 81 percent of 18-year-olds achieved at least NCEA level 2 less than 3 percent short of the 85 percent target for 2017. The targets are important because we want to see more kids starting earlier staying longer and leaving with better qualifications. Budget 2015 will consolidate what we have achieved with extra funding such as an extra $74.9 million over 4 years to cover the cost of more children attending early childhood education services than ever before.What we need to realise our vision is not just funding but also modern concepts of education. We have therefore challenged old assumptions and also developed new approaches tailoring what we do to match the needs of our kids. I once followed Minister Parata to visit a school in Christchurch. It was an eye-opening experience. What I saw was a completely new setting of the classroom environment and also a new way of teaching which was totally different from my understanding. Much of the new school environment and also the new way of teaching is based on modern technology. For instance I did not see a blackboard or a whiteboard. What I saw was a big screen in the classroom. Modern technology means more investment in modern infrastructure for schools. Budget 2015 commits a total of $373.9 million to improving our schools’ infrastructure over the next 4 years.I would like finally to say a few words about tertiary education. First of all congratulations to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment the Hon Steven Joyce on the wonderful job he has done. Budget 2015 provides a further $112.3 million to boost tertiary education and skills. Thank you.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):It is great to have the opportunity to follow the Education and Science Committee chair Dr Jian Yang and talk about this as he says very very important part of the Government’s work which is growing the skills of young New Zealanders in particular for the 21st century economy. I am going to focus my comments on the tertiary education system where the Government has been delivering very very good results in terms of increased numbers of full-time students increased levels of study at the higher levels and increased numbers of graduates over the last 5 years on—Hon David Cunliffe: What planet is the Minister on? Numbers are dropping.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government has delivered far more while maintaining its investment in tertiary education. The member opposite is now making the point that numbers are starting to drop which is of course correct. As the economy recovers there are fewer people in full-time study.But this Government has taken the decision to invest any money saved back into the system in areas such as engineering science and so on areas where we need further investment to ensure we deliver the best possible results for our students. The whole sector is working very hard on the tertiary education strategy which runs from last year through until 2019. That has half a dozen themes. I thought I would just cover them very briefly because they are important.The first one is delivering skills for industry. We have heard a lot of talk in this Chamber tonight about the importance of diversifying our economy which is absolutely correct and it is exactly what this Government is doing. In order to do so we need more people with skills in engineering in information and communications technology in the physical sciences in the agricultural sciences and so on. That is exactly what we are delivering with the increased investment in tuition subsidies in those areas. We have also done a major reorganisation of the industry training system which has streamlined and increased the efficiency of that system and is now delivering many more tradespeople who are actually achieving qualifications rather than just being on the list that the previous Government used to have. Those people are doing particularly well.The second priority is getting at-risk young people into a career. That is hugely important. We have a number of initiatives in that space—obviously the Youth Guarantee and trades academies. This Government has put more into this space than any others. It is another of the areas where we inherited a situation where there had been a lot of hand-wringing but not a lot of action and now there is very very significant action in this area.We also have action in the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative which is the latest initiative. It also coincides with priority three which is boosting the achievement of Māori and Pasifika. The Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative is an innovative concept that in some ways is back to the future in that it picks up the young Māori cadetships that we had many many years ago. It supplies whanau support. In the case of Pasifika it supplies community and Pasifika church support. That is getting a whole lot of younger people in particular into jobs into industry training and into apprenticeship training.The fourth priority is improving adult literacy and numeracy through the intensive literacy and numeracy fundings and the workplace literacy and numeracy. We are going through a process at the moment of assessing how those are going. We have increased the amount in those areas. We have put a big emphasis on mainstreaming if you like the literacy and numeracy at the lower levels of study. That has meant many many thousands of people have been properly assessed for literacy and numeracy training. That work is ongoing in terms of providing second-chance learners the opportunity for better skills of literacy and numeracy while they are in the workplace.The fifth priority is strengthening research-based institutions. I understand there have been some comments about the Performance-based Research Fund tonight. That has been hugely important in investing and increasing science funding. This Government has taken that from $250 million a year up to $300 million a year. The centres of research excellence have gone from I think six to 10. So we are putting in some big investments—things like the Marsden Fund which is another portfolio but nevertheless those are big investments. Our total science spend has gone from around $780 million a year to $1.5 billion. You will not hear that from the Opposition but actually that is what is going on.Andrew Bayly: How much was that?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Seven hundred and eighty million - odd dollars; then we came up to about $1.5 billion in the 2015-16 year. So those investments are very important.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East):This Government and its Budget may use clever politics but it has no plans to address our long-term challenges facing New Zealand. It promised a Budget surplus and on Budget day it did not deliver on that promise.We believe that every New Zealander should be entitled to access quality public education of the highest standard throughout their entire lives. Quality education ensures that every Kiwi regardless of who they are where they come from and whether or not they are rich or poor can achieve their full potential to contribute to our society and our economy.This Government claims as we have just heard from the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment that changes to tertiary education are providing results. It is great for people to get qualifications and we expect to see constant changes and improvements over the years in this particular area but what we are also seeing is universities and polytechnics being required to do so much more with much less money. National has been underfunding the tertiary education sector for far too long and the cracks are beginning to show.On Budget day it was announced—as we heard the chair of the Education and Science Committee address before—that there is $130 million worth of operating funding over the next 4 years for tertiary education. But when the tertiary education Minister was questioned about this when he came to the select committee he conceded that only $7 million of this funding was actually new money. The rest of the balance was made up of reallocations and it is not new funding at all. That is not being straight-up with New Zealanders.New Zealand now ranks close to the bottom of the OECD on tertiary education spending per student. We are behind Australia Canada Denmark Finland France Germany and a few other countries. We are well below the OECD average. Under this Government the total spending on tertiary education has fallen from $3.194 billion in 2009 to $3 billion in 2015. We need further investment in tertiary education not radical restructuring to align our universities and our polytechnics with the Government’s corporate view of the world in which it interferes with academic freedom democracy and independence.Under this Government we have around 70000 young New Zealanders who are not in employment education or training—or the “neet” numbers. This number is just way too high. It is not acceptable. Under this Government 40 percent of our total unemployed are young people. Again it is just unacceptable. This is the highest percentage of total unemployment of any youth population whatsoever in the OECD countries. I do not know about you Mr Chairperson but I think that this statistic is really quite shameful for a country like New Zealand. We have one of the best educational systems in the world and yet we have 40 percent of our total unemployed being young people. This surely is something that must be addressed. This Government is focused on the 1600 or so 16 to 17-year-olds but I think that this focus is wrong. The focus should instead be on the 70000 or so young people who are currently not in employment education or training.The safety of our children should be paramount and it should be the main objective when the Government considers funding for school buses not cutting costs. So buried in the details of this year’s Budget is $90 million worth of funding cuts for school transport. We remember the horror ride for Green Bay High School students one afternoon when they had a relief driver. The safety of our children when riding in school buses should definitely not be one of those things that the Government looks at in terms of cost-cutting. I do not know of any parent—not one—who would want their children to experience or to go through a similar traumatic experience like the one that these Green Bay students went through because of this Government’s cost-cutting measures.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. It was incredibly interesting earlier today at question time to see the Hon Anne Tolley stand and talk about the 50-millionth—or the 5-millionth or whatever it was—breakfast that the National Government is now taking credit for—Andrew Bayly: Nine million over 5 years.TRACEY MARTIN: Whatever it is she was taking 100 percent credit for it. But I went to a breakfast meeting of principals when national standards was introduced and the Hon Anne Tolley was the Minister of Education. Decile 1 and decile 2 principals said “Minister we cannot educate these children until they are fed and until they are clothed.” and that Minister said: “Don’t give me your excuses—don’t give me your excuses.” Yet today the same Minister now in a different portfolio is now taking credit for the 5-millionth—or whatever it was—breakfast and lauding the fact that those children—[Interruption]—no wait Mr Smith; wait Mr Smith—are now having better academic outcomes. It is unbelievable to see that today—unbelievable.The other thing that was incredibly interesting just then was Mr Joyce standing up and saying: “In this Budget in education funding in these appropriations we have got a focus for students on 21st century education.” Not in Northland apparently according to Hekia Parata—not in Northland. There is no digital aspiration there. There are no lawyers there are no accountants there is no higher education and there is no greater reach for these students. Hekia Parata said—today—that the schools in Northland need to be teaching those students how they can be forestry workers and fisheries operators and how to work in tourism and marine manufacturing because they need to have an education that equips them only to go and be an employee in their local area for the low-paid wages that those areas have.Where is the aspiration supposedly out of this great 21st century economic drive towards education? Not in Northland apparently—not for these students. No no no no. Apparently in Northland apart from the fact that you can travel on roads that nobody is going to fix up at the same time the Government is going to give you just enough education so that you can go and get a job on a fishing boat. There is nothing wrong with getting a job on a fishing boat but where is the aspiration from this Government for Northland? Not in this Budget—not in these appropriations.I will tell you something else that is very interesting. This Government has an underspend—and again that member over there said: “Wait for another month to get a surplus.” Wait for another month to get a surplus—they certainly will. There is $205 million worth of underspend in education from this Government. Why? Because it is desperate to get a surplus. It is desperate to get a surplus and it is going to short-change special needs children across this country—Paul Foster-Bell: That’s not true.TRACEY MARTIN: —special needs children across this country. There is a zero Budget for gifted and talented children Mr Foster-Bell—a zero Budget for gifted and talented children who are in the spectrum of special needs but you can get it if you have got behavioural problems. According to this Government if you have got behavioural problems—if you are gifted but you are naughty—the Ministry of Education will give you some money. It will give you some money. But if you are gifted and need to be extended or need to have programmes like the One Day School or other programmes such as that there is a zero Budget in here and who removed it? Who removed the Budget spend that was there? The National Government. Who took away “well above” national standards? The National Government. So you see it is very interesting for National members to stand up and say that they invest in education.Here is another thing that they invest in. They talk about the international student body they talk about these new information and communications technology schools and so on and so forth. I went to a private training establishment provider the other day. This Government has capped domestic hospitality and chef students at 300 only inside that organisation but there are 600 international students. It is a growth industry for this country and there is a skills shortage throughout the world and yet this Government caps domestic students. This Government will not put a budget around domestic students but will allow international students en masse into this country to subsidise the education that it should be providing for New Zealanders.There are 70000 students who are not in education employment or training—“neets”—and there were 70000 international work visas given out in the last year. There are 70000 New Zealand students who are “neets” and 70000 international students who got work visas in the last year from this Government. This Government does not invest in its own people this Government does not invest in its education and this Government has no aspiration for these young people unless you are in an urban area and then you can get not only some sort of spend; you can get a road to it.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education):I am very pleased to speak. That speech from Tracey Martin was a load of rubbish. I normally rate that member very highly but the facts are these: under our Government for the last 6 years we have successively increased the education budget—$10.8 billion in the most difficult financial times. Every single year we have increased the education budget. Secondly when it comes to our most vulnerable students whether that is students who have special education difficulties or whether that is those students who have had real issues in terms of numeracy and literacy this Budget is better than ever for them.Let us walk through it. If we look at early childhood education participation particularly around Māori and Pacific young people that is up. That is up by 4 to 5 percent. That is incredibly significant and that is about the future of our country. When we actually look at the facts in terms of participation around early childhood education we are absolutely on track for 98 percent. We have got more money going into early childhood education—I think there is $75 million in this Budget. That is about doing everything we can to make sure that all students in this country are successful.When it comes to special education this Budget is great in terms of special education. We have got $40 million going into ongoing resourcing scheme funding. That means that for the 500 young people who have and need that additional support whether that is teacher-aide time whether that is physiotherapy or whether that is speech language therapy we are putting the resource into them.I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata. I think this is a great Budget in terms of what she has done. She has real vision and she is investing in some of our most vulnerable students. The Budget also includes $24 million for additional class support. That is 1500—that is the first phase of another group of students who need that additional help in terms of our education system. So when that member tells us that somehow we have underfunded education well it is a 26 percent increase in special education. Under our Government there is $500 million more for some of our most vulnerable students.When it comes to trade academies there is more money than ever. So when that member says that we are not aspirational for Northland that is a complete load of rubbish. What are we doing in terms of modern learning and education environments for Northland? Well the other day I found out that we are so far ahead of schedule in terms of the roll out of Network for Learning—that is fast uncapped data paid for by the Crown; a real passport to the future for these students—that 600000 students are now connected. That is students in Northland. That is a Government that is aspirational for those people in Northland. That is real actual resources going to those students in Northland. That is on the back of $700 million of investment in both ultra-fast broadband and uncapped data ensuring that our students are equipped for the future.When it comes to school property over 60 percent of our schools were more than 40 years old: we had leaky buildings we had a whole range of design issues and we had a whole lot of relocatables. What have we done? We have invested billions of dollars in terms of upgrading these schools and major redevelopments. I can confirm in this Budget that we have got hundreds of millions of dollars as well going not only into new schools but also into ensuring that we can fix some of those really old schools. Today I announced Lepperton School in North Taranaki. We have 14 schools through our major redevelopment programme we have got more coming and this is on the back of hundreds of millions of dollars as well in terms of investing in growth.So in places like Auckland Hamilton and Queenstown this Budget is good because we are actually building those schools and we are putting those classrooms where they need to be and we are doing that ahead of the curve. From my perspective we are investing more than ever in both school property and modern learning environments but we are actually doing so much for vulnerable students. So we are a Government that is not only aspirational and focused on the future for those students but absolutely focused on some of our most vulnerable students. That is crystal clear in this Budget through the increase in terms of special education funding through the increase in early childhood participation funding and through a range of other projects from the gateway assessment programme which is about ensuring that 3800 needy children get access to early childhood and schooling services to the Year 9 Plus trial which allocates $2.2 million to educational champions.We are a Government that has a strong social conscience and that is also very focused on the economy. To hear from members opposite that we are not aspirational about students and that we are not investing in them is an absolute load of rubbish. This Government has successively increased the education budget every year since we have been in Government.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. It is great to take a call on education because I do not believe that there is anyone in the Education and Science Committee who is not interested and concerned about aspects of education. Often members of the public say to us: why do you not all put aside your differences and just work together? But I think listening to the debate tonight there are some underlying themes that make it clear why we do not always agree. One of those is the pedagogical vision of what education is for and I think we have heard very strongly from the Government that it is aspirational in its terms for education and that the purpose of education is to serve the economy.That is not the view of the Green Party. The Green Party believes that education is a whole lot more than serving the economy and that in fact the economy should serve its people. Education is about lifelong learning for all people and it is not about—with due respect to the chair of the Education and Science Committee Dr Jian Yang—getting them into education earlier for longer. It is actually about acknowledging that education needs to be of quality and that the goal of education is equity. That is a very different pedagogical goal and that is why we have problems with the Government’s obsession with targets and assessment which is an educational model that is reductionist and unsuccessful in other countries.The current education estimates and the Minister at the select committee were all about targets targets targets. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because the early childhood education sector may be about to reach 96 percent to 98 percent participation but when I asked the chief executive of the ministry about quality he said: “That will come later. We are going to get participation first and then we will find a way to figure out how to improve quality.” So what in fact we have got is a huge push including through the Work and Income system to make parents place their children under the age of 5 into early childhood education but quality has not yet been sorted out people. So how comfortable do we feel about making sure that our little children are all getting this brilliant start in life when there is no commitment to quality?Therefore we have got the whole spectrum in early childhood education from the absolutely inspiring and wonderful—often smaller in number high-ratio trained teacher centres plus the kōhanga and playcentre where they have succeeded in holding on to fantastic whānau engagement which is increasingly hard in this economy—and then we have got the opposite which are basically baby barns where people who do not have a choice because they have no public transport and no resources are forced to use the baby barn down the road the large franchise the commercial model. So the education sector is torn between a genuine commitment to learning because it enhances our humanity as well as our society as well as our economy and making sure we meet targets.This Government has pushed this right through to national standards and through to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). So national standards—again another one of those measurables that actually does not deal with the unmeasurable which is children because children all learn at different rates. We have this system with NCEA as well where we are claiming we are going to get to the target of 80 percent achieving level 2 but again questions are being asked by academics about whether we have lowered standards in order to meet the target; what the real quality is of what is happening in our secondary schools.So if we are concerned about public quality education it is not enough to spout the numbers and talk the rhetoric. It is absolutely not enough. We actually have to know whether early childhood education is of quality because the most important years that we pay lip service to are our small children. We have to know that kids are getting lunch as well as breakfast which is where the Green Party has stood strong on feeding children properly and not saying that if charities and the Government want to have a bit of a partnership and have breakfast that is OK; they do not need lunch. Well of course if we lifted wages and had a decent economy then the parents could afford it but right now as was shown in the House today in our question on inequality we have a long way to go on that so we still need to feed our children in schools. That is why we need a decent school lunch programme.Honestly there are some inspiring programmes that schools are leading but they are paying for it themselves in many instances. Sometimes teachers are paying for it sometimes communities have stepped up but there is no consistency and there is a real need for a decent State-supported lunch programme that is flexible and school and community-led.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):It is a pleasure to take a second brief call in this debate and to focus on education issues where once again we see that we have a Government that is long on promises long on rhetoric and not delivering in the reality. Let us take members opposite at their word. I think all parents care for nothing more than the well-being of their children and I believe members opposite are sincere in their wish to see our children succeed. The question is whether the programme that they are enacting is going to deliver on that promise.Let us first look at the compulsory education sector and then at the tertiary sector. The Government has been known for two great changes to compulsory education: national standards and charter schools. National standards have been panned around the world. They cause people to teach to the test. They are the exact opposite of what a modern millennial economy demands which is that you can get basic education off the internet but you need to learn to think critically. That is why teaching to the test—one-size-fits-all absolute achievement rather than relative improvement—is a road to pedagogical nowhere. In my electorate where 40 percent of my constituents were not born in New Zealand—and for many many students English is not a first language—having an English-based national standards even if it were objective even if it were specific even if it were moderated objectively which it is not would make no sense at all. The Government is taking education backwards.The second great proposal of this Government is charter schools and charter schools make no sense. More money is given per student by miles but the school does not have to teach the curriculum the teachers do not have to be licensed they are not subject to the Official Information Act and in many cases the contracts the Government has entered into are so brain-dead that the assets are not even secured. For example a Whangarei charter school has $2.5 million in taxpayer funding unaccounted for. Another Auckland charter school was guaranteed funding for 160 places but maxed out at 120 with as far as I am aware no recovery. More and more costs are being passed to parents and too many parents cannot afford them because of the rapidly growing inequalities in our society. If a kid is hungry he or she cannot learn. Let us feed our kids let us give them a decent start and let us have an education system that actually teaches what kids are going to need in this 21st century.Then we go on to tertiary education and here once again the Government is sadly not being straight with New Zealanders. From the Minister’s own lips as recorded in the report of the Education and Science Committee there was no $113 million “further funding” for education. By the Minister’s own admission there was only $7 million and that is gross of an increased tax take from the Inland Revenue Department which actually makes it negative. But even if it were $7 million that is a massive real-terms cut to tertiary education. The tertiary system is underfunded. It has a micro-managing Minister who lacks the credibility to get the funding and he lacks the plan to deliver it.The institutions in this sector are a mess. This Government removed the strategy and policy function from the Tertiary Education Commission. It now says it just operationalises things. Where has the strategy function gone? It is not found in the Ministry of Education—it is focused on the compulsory sector. In reality what there is sits in the Ministry of—wait for it—Business Innovation and Employment. That is as others have said a reductionist view of education and one that is patently not working. For the individual student pathways are not there to the jobs of the future. Why not? Because the funding cuts are biting.The Government has put an arbitrary 7-year limit on student loans—the famous “7 EFTS” policy which means that even 40 percent of medical students cannot get funding for their last 1 or 2 years of study. For other recognised long degrees—double degrees or doctoral courses—the loans run out before the degree is awarded. That might be fine if you are a silver spoon brigade kid but if you are an average kid from an average family our country and you will be the poorer.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):It is a rather intimidating prospect to follow on from that very learned and literate member one of the most distinguished alumni of not only Otago University my old university but also Harvard. Mr Cunliffe is a very literate man. Does he love words? Yes he does. Does he love the sound of his voice saying those words? Absolutely. But we here tonight are talking about Vote Education in this appropriations debate. I think that this Government is doing an excellent job in improving the educational standards offered in the New Zealand public system.Mr Cunliffe asked a couple of rhetorical questions in his contribution this evening. I will concede that he gave us the benefit of the doubt in thinking that we were motivated from a position of taking the best interests of New Zealand’s learners children and students to heart and that is the case I can assure Mr Cunliffe. But he did raise the question as to whether our policies would implement the goals of achieving what we set out to achieve and I think the added investment made in Budget 2015 in the education vote will go a long way towards providing better services and better outcomes for New Zealand learners. Take for instance the $244 million for new classrooms and schools—that is seven new schools four major expansions of existing schools and over 240 new classrooms for New Zealand schools. This will provide modern learning spaces for children in the New Zealand compulsory system.I am particularly proud of the extra $62.9 million that my colleague Minister Nikki Kaye referred to. This is for special education: those children who have the highest needs and are the most vulnerable. This will include services such as additional teacher aide support and the provision of speech and language therapy to those children who need that little bit of extra help to be able to achieve and succeed. I am pleased to see an extra $42.3 million going into school operational grants in order to help the smooth running of our local schools.The question that I guess we could also ask is: what do people in this system actually think of this? Well I want to quote from a message I recently received. It is an email and unlike the Opposition I am not going to name the gentleman but I can assure them that he is not Gene Simmons and he is not John Kerwin who was also referenced by the Opposition this evening. This is a real person—a staff member at the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association. I do not want to quote it in full because well I am a humble person—he is very complimentary. But he goes on to say: “Minister Parata has been great recently with her support for teachers and I am really pleased to see it’s a message that others in the National caucus are taking to heart. You also showed a really good understanding of the educational success programme which as you know the PPTA supports. It’s a pity that there are still people mistakenly characterising it as some form of competitive performance pay which has meant that we’ve taken flak from some of our more usual allies.” I presume that they are referring to the Labour Party and the Greens.So the post-primary teaching profession is in support of our programme which implements our targets of achieving 98 percent of early childhood education enrolment; particularly around the 85 percent of 18-year-olds who we want to graduate with NCEA level 2—that is the equivalent of the old Sixth Form Certificate—and also our target of eventually getting 60 percent of all 25 to 34-year-olds accredited with an NCEA level 4 qualification. That is a post-compulsory qualification.In the local context here in Wellington we are going to see a new information and communications technology graduate school added to the existing high-quality tertiary institutions we have: Victoria University Massey University WelTec Whitireia Community Polytechnic and other private training establishments such as the Campbell Institute which brings valuable export education dollars into Wellington and provides a useful experience both to those international students who come here and to the New Zealand students who are exposed to the opportunities of having colleagues who come from China from Viet Nam from Japan from Europe—in fact from all over the world. This Government is doing a lot in the education sector. There is a lot to be proud of. There is work remaining to do and the feedback that I am getting both in the Wellington Central electorate and around New Zealand as we visit on Education and Science Committee visits is wholly positive about the efforts this Government is making.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Vote Education Vote Education Review Office and Vote Tertiary Education be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Votes agreed to.Environment SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now come to votes in the environment sector—volume B.5 volume 3. The question is that Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stand part of the schedules.Scott Simpson (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee):It is a great pleasure to stand and rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. I chair the Local Government and Environment Committee and it was a great pleasure to have before the committee at the estimates hearings only a few weeks ago three of the most competent most able most inspired and most passionate advocates for our environment and they all happen to be Cabinet Ministers in this John Key National-led Government.We had before the committee the Minister of Conservation the Hon Maggie Barry who has spent an entire life working in the area of conservation and is dedicated to preserving our natural environment in a way that most New Zealanders understand completely because they have seen her for years on our screens. She has a reputation and a credible track record that is unimpeachable in terms of her commitment to our environment and to conservation in New Zealand.We had before us the Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith. He is another person who has dedicated his life and his parliamentary political career to ensuring that the New Zealand environment and the standards we have as a nation are constantly improved. We had before us also the Minister for Climate Change Issues the Hon Tim Groser who has brought to that portfolio a level of intellectual rigour that was never apparent when other Governments occupied the Treasury benches.Those three Cabinet Ministers provided the Local Government and Environment Committee with a very good understanding and analysis of what is essentially this Government’s blue-green agenda for our environment. It is a blue-green agenda that is based on the principles of economic growth and improving the environment hand in hand at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Those principles include an absolute understanding that good science is critical to quality environmental decision-making at every level and further that collaborative solutions developed by sectors and communities working together are far more sustainable and enduring than any kind of policy rant and cant that can occur from members opposite.There are six priority areas that the Minister has presented to the select committee and they made it clear that resource management reform is still an absolute high priority on this Government’s agenda. I am confident from the messages that we saw—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.