Volume 705 Week 15 - Tuesday 5 May 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 705 Week 15 - Tuesday 5 May 2015[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 5 May 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsJapan—2015 Prime Minister’s Fellow Vice-Minister of Health Labour and WelfareMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Gaku Hashimoto Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Health Labour and Welfare and Japanese Prime Minister’s Fellow 2015 who is present in the gallery.MotionsCongratulatory Message—Birth of Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of CambridgeRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the birth of Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is not.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move That the House put on record its congratulations to Prince William the Duke of Cambridge and Catherine Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. The birth of a second child is an exciting time for a family. It is a time of great joy and immense celebration and part of that joy is observing the reaction of the older brother or sister as they meet the new little member of the family. I am sure that the duke and duchess are cherishing this special time with both Prince George and their new daughter.The birth of Prince George was one of the most eagerly anticipated in recent history. It is moving to see that the public is just as excited at the birth of the princess. I am sure she will bring the same delight as we watch her grow. It is a pleasure to observe the strong family unit bonded by love and mutual support that the duke and duchess are creating with their children. I have joined with other leaders across the Commonwealth and the world in congratulating Prince William and the duchess on the arrival of their daughter and I am sure that the other members of this House and the public of New Zealand support the good wishes expressed to them.I would also like to note that in a few days’ time New Zealand will be welcoming His Royal Highness Prince Harry who will be visiting our country for the first time. It will be an opportunity for New Zealanders to pass on personally their best wishes to the royal family on the birth of Princess Charlotte. New Zealand’s official gift to the royal couple is a handcrafted teddy bear and a box set of woollen baby items made from wool of unique Stansborough sheep bred in the Wairarapa. The teddy will be specially made by Cheryl Eldridge of Stansborough and will have the special touches to make it unique for the princess. I might add that it is in the colour of dusky pink.On behalf of the people of New Zealand I am pleased to be able to put on the record of this House our congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and to Prince George and to welcome the newest member of the royal family into the world.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Speaking as the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition can I also join the Prime Minister and the many New Zealanders congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their second child Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Welcoming a child into the world is a very happy occasion for any family. Princess Charlotte of course arrived under the scrutiny of hundreds of media and millions more waiting in anticipation including of course the street vendors keen to get their supplies of ceramic mugs and tea towels on to the streets’ shelves.As many in this House will know I was actually in England for the days leading up to the royal birth. Despite the fact that I am a committed republican it did not stop my wife Leigh from insisting that I bring back a ceramic mug or tea towel or several of them but sadly that did not happen on this occasion.In spite of my personal views I know that the Queen and her family are held in high regard by many New Zealanders. I acknowledge the important role different generations of the family are making today around the Commonwealth as standard-bearers for comity and community. For example I note that Princess Charlotte’s grandfather Prince Charles after whom I understand Princess Charlotte has been named gave the most eloquent and touching addresses at the Gallipoli commemorations over Anzac weekend. I see that the new princess carries the name “Diana”. That will be greeted warmly by the millions who continue to hold her grandmother in high esteem for her charity work around the world.On behalf of the Labour Party I once again respectfully congratulate the Duke and Duchess on the birth of their daughter Princess Charlotte and look forward to meeting her uncle Prince Harry when he arrives this weekend.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party congratulates Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their second child Charlotte Elizabeth Diana Princess of Cambridge. The birth of a happy and healthy baby girl is always a cause for joy and the name “Charlotte” has apparently ranked first in recent years by way of choice for a girl’s name in New Zealand. But this royal baby is special for a particular reason. Charlotte will be the first female heir to the British throne to have her place in the line of succession guaranteed over younger male siblings and other male heirs. Blissfully unaware she may be but as she beams out on the world she personifies constitutional progress for the Realm of New Zealand.As we debate this motion today the New Zealand Flag Consideration Panel is starting its work. Whether changing the flag is necessary or not is a different issue but that does show that New Zealanders are interested in discussing the issues that symbolise us as a nation and tell the story of who we are. The Green Party welcomes that debate. We should not take for granted that our symbols of nationhood today will be relevant tomorrow. We take this opportunity to wish the British royal family in London well.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Speaker. New Zealand First joins with the rest of the House in extending our congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. We welcome Charlotte Elizabeth Diana and we wish both her and her family her older brother and extended family a safe and happy life. Kia ora.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Ko tāku he whaiwhai haere i ngā mihi a te Pirimia ki te uri o Irihāpeti kua puta mai ki te whaiao ki Te Ao Mārama.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Salutations to us. I am merely following up the Prime Minister’s sentiments to the descendant of Queen Elizabeth who has emerged into the world of light and understanding.]As a representative of some of Her Majesty’s Treaty partners I stand to follow on from the Prime Minister’s statement and acknowledge the birth of e kī ana te kōrero he taonga ki te ao [as it has been stated a worldly treasure].I acknowledge the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge but I probably want to pay more tribute to the grandparents being a grandfather myself on the birth of my mokopuna. In our household our mokopuna is the princess—in fact she is probably the queen to be truthful in everything that she does from the time she wakes up until the time she goes to bed. So in our household she is the queen not just the princess. I wish them all the very best in the years ahead. In particular I hope that the House thinks very much of the grandparents today as we consider this very important last couple of days for the birth of a taonga ki te ao arā noa atu ngā taonga o te ao [a worldly treasure and there are many other treasures of the world].Tēnā tātou katoa.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I would like to offer our warmest congratulations to Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Princess Catherine—Hon Members: Charlotte.DAVID SEYMOUR: —sorry Charlotte—a healthy strapping 8 pound 3 ounce baby. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Speaker’s RulingsTabling of Documents—ProcedureMr SPEAKER: Last Thursday Metiria Turei raised a point of order seeking my advice on the procedure for seeking leave to table a document. To assist members I have given this further consideration and I have also examined the rulings of previous Speakers. What I will require of members when seeking leave to table a document are three things and that the members identify these three things in this order: the source of the document when it was published or produced and to very succinctly inform the House of its nature. This way an informed decision can be made by members as to whether the document should in fact be tabled.Seeking leave to table a document is not an opportunity to make a political statement that a member wishes to be heard. It is intended for placing before the House material that informs members of matters that are not otherwise readily available to them. Briefly describing for the House the nature of the document is not an opportunity to quote passages from it. If members persist in doing so the leave will not be put to the House.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a considered ruling and I understand the point you are raising. The only challenge for members in describing the document is that I think there must be some necessity to explain the relevance for tabling a document at that point. Otherwise we can get into a situation where members can be seeking to table all sorts of things and part of the narrowing-down of the rules around tabling is to prevent that from happening. So although the description does need to be succinct it also needs to relate the nature of the document to the question or the speech in question otherwise it is simply a pointless exercise.Mr SPEAKER: I think my ruling is very clear. There is an opportunity to succinctly describe the nature of the document and on various occasions that will require more depth than on other occasions. But I repeat the point that it is not the opportunity for members to make a political statement which I see it being used for on many occasions. If I sense that that is the purpose of the member who is seeking to table the document it is likely that the leave will not be put in the first place.Questions to MinistersOverseas Investment—Agriculture and Housing1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes because I believe them to be correct at the time they were made.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that he would “hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”; if so why did his Government so avidly support Shanghai Pengxin Group’s purchase of farms in the central North Island and now 10 dairy farms south of Kaikohe in Northland?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Hon Steven Joyce: Opposing investment in Northland again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh here is “Big Ears” again. He lost in Northland pretty badly.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to invite the member to stand and ask the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has his Government encouraged China to control so much of New Zealand’s dairy infant formula from production testing through to marketing and sale of New Zealand’s premium agricultural product?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The position of the Government is not necessarily to encourage investment from anywhere but to allow a framework whereby if people want to invest they are free to do so but they have to meet the conditions set out in the Overseas Investment Act. They have to be approved by the Overseas Investment Office. Actually the Government thinks investments by Inner Mongolia YiliIndustrial Group Co. LtdYashili New Zealand Dairy and Bright and others have actually been sensible investments in the same way that we think Fonterra’s investment in Beingmate was also a sensible investment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the National Government understand the law of supply and demand which sees Auckland housing demand massively inflated by record levels of immigration into Auckland and record levels of buying Auckland homes by offshore interests and do what the Australian Federal Government has done?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I understand it in Australia what they have done is they have stopped in theory non-residents from buying existing properties but in fact the actions of the Australian Government over the weekend essentially are saying that those measures were not working and required greater enforceability—a testimony to why those things are very difficult to enforce. The second thing is that despite the steps the Australian Government has taken I am pretty sure I am right in saying that Sydney house prices have risen at the same rate as Auckland’s but I actually think they have risen at a faster rate.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do not all those answers add up to the fact that this Government whilst making dog whistles about foreign ownership before the general election has done absolutely nothing to stop it since?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is foreign investment. If one looks at a table—and funnily enough I looked at one this morning—the bulk of that foreign investment actually comes from Australia. China if the member is being specific about China is quite a small investor in New Zealand. But interestingly enough what I think is really important is that anybody who comes to New Zealand from overseas to invest follows the Overseas Investment Act. I am interested to note of course that the author of that Act was the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Answers to parliamentary questions are meant to be terse and to the point. That last statement was a demonstrable lie.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would also be grateful if the member could equally ask short and terse supplementary questions.Inflation—Crown Revenue2.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on low inflation in New Zealand and how does that benefit households and businesses?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the published figures have shown New Zealand is experiencing very low inflation—or more accurately in the last 6 months actually we have had deflation. Usually in an economy growing at 3 percent inflation is rising not falling. However it is good news for New Zealand households and businesses which can expect to see interest rates and inflation stay lower for longer than they expected and this is likely to help to reduce unemployment and sustain real wage growth.Tim Macindoe: What impact does lower than expected inflation have on Government revenue?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Very low inflation and lower interest rates and lower commodity prices mean that growth in the dollar value of what New Zealand produces each year is a bit lower than expected. Treasury now expects that the dollar value of what we produce each year over the next 4 years will be around $15 billion less than forecast in Budget 2014 even though the economy will actually grow slightly faster than we expected in Budget 2014. This poses some real challenges for Government revenue because it means less PAYE less company tax and less GST. In total Treasury expects the Government will collect $4.5 billion less tax revenue over the next 4 years than it expected at the last Budget.Grant Robertson: In light of that question and answer is it in fact correct that “lower than expected inflation” actually means lower Government expenditure as well?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As it turns out the inflation impact on Government expenditure is considerably less than the impact on spending and the impact on tax revenue. That member had better figure it out because his other members are always advocating more spending when he is advocating bigger surpluses.Tim Macindoe: How is lower revenue having an impact on the Government’s ability to return the books to surplus in 2014-15?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Back in December Treasury forecast that the deficit for the 2014-15 year would be around $570 million which is just 0.2 percent of GDP. It is fair to say that the forecast for the 2014-15 year has deteriorated a little since December so we expect the Budget to forecast a slightly bigger deficit for 2014-15 and a slightly smaller surplus for 2015-16. So while progress is slower than expected we remain on track to achieve surpluses and to start repaying debt.Tim Macindoe: What steps has the Government taken to get on top of spending and return the books to balance?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been very thoughtful about its new spending and very thoughtful about what drives existing spending. If you want a measure of that in the last six Budgets the total annual cost of new initiatives has been just under $3 billion. By comparison the last six Budgets of the previous Government totalled $20 billion of extra costs—$20 billion as opposed to $3 billion. But despite the fact that we have had very constrained spending we have been delivering better public services with better results for New Zealanders.Ministers—Conduct3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he enforce high standards of conduct on all his Ministers including himself?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. However in respect of my actions at a Parnell cafe my conduct clearly upset the staff member in question. I sincerely apologised to her at the time that I became aware of that and I have continued to do so publicly.Andrew Little: Does he accept that repeatedly pulling a woman’s hair who was just trying to do her job despite her indicating to him to stop was unworthy of any grown man let alone the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I accept I misread the situation. I have apologised for that.Andrew Little: Does he accept that through his embarrassing and weird behaviour he has now made the office of the Prime Minister of New Zealand an international laughing stock?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I do accept I have to take responsibility for my own actions.Andrew Little: Has he read the section of the Cabinet Manual that states: “incumbent Ministers should ensure that any requests they make for advice or information from their officials is for the purposes of their portfolio responsibilities and not for party political purposes.”; if so was the advice and information Simon Bridges sought from the New Zealand Transport Agency used in National’s Northland bridges policy?Hon Simon Bridges: Information.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that information was asked for—I might need to check that—and that is appropriate.Andrew Little: Why is he allowing a Minister whose portfolio conflicts with the alleged actions of his own brother to remain as Minister and why does he not follow the high standard I set in temporarily standing down Carmel Sepuloni in similar circumstances?Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very marginal call. I am going to allow the Prime Minister to deal with it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly because I took advice on the day that I became aware of it. The advice was very clear that there had been no conflict up to that point and any potential conflict could be managed. I think all members of this House appreciate that there are potential conflicts as an electorate MP right through to a Cabinet Minister and they need to be managed. In relation to the actions that he took with Carmel Sepuloni I personally think he made the wrong call.Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement made after Mike Sabin resigned that Mr Sabin could have been a Minister and what does that say about the standards he sets for ministerial office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I do stand by that statement. In the time that Mike Sabin was part of our caucus I actually found him to be a very thoughtful hard-working member of Parliament. He had good policy ideas and I think he could have made a very very good Minister.Andrew Little: Is it not true that he is allowing Ministers off the hook because he has lost his moral authority and that is why Judith Collins is sharpening her knives?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before I call the member I am waiting for a bit of assistance from my left.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this mean that his subterranean standards are so low that Judith Collins despite the appalling Oravida scandal and numerous gaffes is soon to be welcomed back into Cabinet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The great news on this side of the House is that we have a caucus full of talent and opportunity. Judith happens to be one of its members. There are many others and if one day an opportunity opens itself I am sure that Judith along with many others will be wanting to put her hand up. It is nice to have some fantastic people to choose from.New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill—Fiscal ImpactDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): My question is to the Minister for Economic Development and reads as follows—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just too much noise from my left-hand side. I will ask the member to start his question again.4.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the fiscal risks to the Crown from Tracey Martin’s New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill if any?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): If the bill was to pass—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am about to lose my patience with one member in particular. There has just been perpetual interjection from one member particularly in a very loud voice. If it happens again I will be asking that member to leave the Chamber.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the bill was to pass and the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act repealed the risks would be high. In terms of direct Crown liability to begin with the Government would be liable for half of the design costs up to a maximum of $10 million. But following the signing of a building works contract that liability would rise potentially to the value of the concessions which would be in excess of $400 million as set out in clause 22 of the agreement. Also important is the reputational risk. If a Government is to be able to contract other parties to that contract need to be able to trust that the Government will follow through. Subsequent cancellation of a contract of this magnitude would mean that other parties would be less likely to contract with the Government in the future or price in that risk. I am pleased therefore that that member and others on this side of the House will not be supporting the repeal bill.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until one he saw the polling in Northland and two he received a phone call—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No there is no ministerial responsibility for the bill in that question. If the member wishes to ask a question that relates to the ministerial responsibility I will accept it. The way it is phrased at the moment it will be ruled out of order.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase the question to meet the—Mr SPEAKER: I have given the opportunity for the member to rephrase it.Tracey Martin: Thank you very much. Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until he received a phone call from the Minister himself?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is not in order.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer he introduced the bill and said that the ACT Party member was supporting it. It is perfectly reasonable for a follow-up supplementary question to address the answer that the Minister gave.Mr SPEAKER: I will listen again to the question. The way it was phrased in my mind I have made absolutely the correct decision. There must be a ministerial responsibility. If the member can relate it to the ministerial responsibility then I will accept the question. I am trying to assist the member.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start again.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen any reports indicating Mr Seymour’s support of the bill until he received a call from the Minister himself pressuring him to change his position?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is absolutely no ministerial responsibility—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened to the question. It is a very easy question for the Minister to address. The Minister was asked whether he had seen any reports.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes I have seen reports. I am not sure that I could verify those reports exactly; they were from a media outlet. But I have seen the reports.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister explain why he and the questioner David Seymour are now asserting the sanctity of contract law around my bill in light of the fact that Skycity has already indicated that it is in breach of a core platform of this particular contract? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister did not hear the question I can get it repeated.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that that member is correct. What I can tell her though in relation to her bill is that she does say at the outset of her bill I understand through the press release that she is very keen to minimise costs to taxpayers. I agree with her that that is important but the simple reality is that the bill that she is proposing would actually dramatically increase costs to taxpayers.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that it was he who negotiated this contract which included clause 22 and whether it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer more or less than they have paid for the Novopay contract debacle he was supposed to be fixing?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I did not personally negotiate the contract with Skycity. I did sign the contract on behalf of the Government and I can confirm that the Skycity contract as constructed says quite clearly that the concessions are in response to the construction of the New Zealand International Convention Centre and as such it would be considerably cheaper than the Novopay contract signed by the previous Labour Government.David Seymour: What can we learn about the role of Governments in commercial enterprises and has the Minister seen any reports of other parties proposing such enterprises in their manifestos recently?Mr SPEAKER: I think the—[Interruption] Order! The first part of the question can be answered.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think Governments should always be careful in their involvement with commercial enterprises and be seeking to transfer the risk to for example the private sector as has been done for example in the ultra-fast broadband contract that is being supported by this Government. That has transferred the risk to the private sector and resulted in a very competitive development of ultra-fast broadband in this country as compared with for example Australia where the taxpayer took on the commercial risk and it has cost masses and masses of billions of dollars.Business Research and Development—Funding5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the Government doing to grow business-led research and development?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Recently the Prime Minister and I announced that as part of Budget 2015 the Government will invest an additional $80 million in research and development growth grants over 4 years to encourage more private sector research and development and grow New Zealand’s research and development ecosystem. Research and development growth grants are non-discretionary and meet 20 percent of the cost of an eligible firm’s research and development programme. To qualify they must commit to spending at least $300000 and at least 1.5 percent of revenue a year on research and development conducted in New Zealand. The new funding is equivalent to a 14 percent increase in Callaghan Innovation’s total research and development grants budget and contributes to the almost $1.5 billion the Government will be spending and investing in science and innovation in the coming financial year.Paul Foster-Bell: How does investing more in business-led research and development further diversify the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Research and development growth grants are a crucial part of our efforts to boost levels of private sector research and development in New Zealand and lift innovation. A strong emphasis on research and development helps to diversify and strengthen the New Zealand economy and ensure our companies maintain competitiveness internationally. This is borne out by the range of industries investing more in research and development in New Zealand these days. The top two industries by value in 2013-14 were manufacturing with 54 percent and information and communications technology with 23 percent of the research and development growth grants funding. This compares favourably with countries where research and development tax credits are in place and where the research and development tends to simply match the profile of existing industries—for example in Australia where mining and financial services are apparently the most innovative industries.Paul Foster-Bell: What examples has he recently seen of New Zealand companies growing internationally through their investment in research and development?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Hundreds of New Zealand companies are now succeeding on the world stage through their research and development in many cases supported by Callaghan Innovation. For example just last week I was privileged to be in Latin America and officially open the new Sao Paulo offices for growth grant recipient Tait Communications which is succeeding very well in Latin America. [Interruption] I also visited research and development project grant recipient ADInstruments from Dunedin which is doing a great job producing data acquisition and analysis systems for the life sciences industry and is expanding its presence in South America. The success of these and other innovative Kiwi companies around the world is lifting New Zealand’s export revenue and growing jobs and incomes for Kiwis including for people from Dunedin Mr Clark.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus6.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to achieving a surplus that it is like “landing a 747 on a pinhead”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes because history shows that fiscal forecasts and out-turn move around quite substantially. For example in Budget 2008 the then Minister of Finance was forecasting a $1.3 billion operating balance before gains and losses surplus in 2008-09. As it turned out he left the Government books in deficit by $3.9 billion that year and Treasury told us that we faced never-ending deficits under the previous Government’s policies. So yes forecasts can move around a lot but this Government is making good progress on fixing up the hash of it that Labour made.Andrew Little: Why is he trying to minimise the importance of achieving a surplus this year when he has made it a core part of his Government’s credibility for the past 4 years; why can he not just admit he has failed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not trying to minimise it. We are pointing out that there are a number of factors that make it a little bit trickier—and that is for instance that inflation is so much lower which is great for consumers and that there are a number of areas where there has been a re-evaluation by Treasury. But if we just take a step back for a moment and say that in 2011 what the deficit was the answer was $18.4 billion. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecast for this year’s deficit is $585 million. I will point out that every single attempt to either raise revenue or cut expenditure by this Government has been opposed by the Labour Opposition.Andrew Little: Does he accept that he would now likely be on track to surplus if his Government had not spent $36000 on sending Ministers to Northland had not wasted tens of millions of dollars on Novopay had not lost hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends due to the asset sales and was not blowing the Budget on everything from charter schools to Inland Revenue Department computers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I will point out that Novopay was something that came along under the previous Labour Government. When it comes to the hundreds of millions of—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the answer with that sort of noise.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars more that we might have got under the mixed-ownership model that was money that was literally blown by the reckless policies of Labour so firmly rejected by the New Zealand public.Andrew Little: Why does he say that low inflation is to blame for his failure to reach surplus when low inflation saves the Government money just as it saves the taxpayers from paying more tax; why does he always greet failure with excuses rather than fronting up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am hugely fearful that the Leader of the Opposition is getting his economic advice from Grant Robertson. He needs to go and read a decent speech on economics and he would see one from the Minister of Finance where he quite accurately pointed out that because of lower inflation over the next 4 years the Government’s revenue will be $15 billion less and the tax revenue the Crown receives will be $4.5 billion less. Low inflation is great for consumers great for business; it just ain’t great for Government revenue.Andrew Little: When will he admit that his Government acting as a bystander at the dairy auctions rather than building a more diverse economy is the real reason his economic promises are falling away as fast as the milk price?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether I misinterpreted the question from the Leader of the Opposition but he seems to be saying that the Government should be in there buying milk powder in the auction. If he is that is an interesting use of Government resources.Budget 2015—Employment Standards7.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Budget 2015 help strengthen compliance with minimum employment standards?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Today I announced that Budget 2015 will invest $32 million more over 4 years to support employment relations services to help strengthen compliance with minimum standards. It will boost the labour inspectorate strengthen education and information services and address breaches of employment law. The funding will see six new labour inspectors for Auckland building on last year’s Budget which funded six more in Christchurch. The latest boost shows that the labour inspectorate staff numbers comprise a 57 percent increase on the size of the 2008 inspectorate that this Government inherited.Sarah Dowie: How does this announcement build on other work the Government is doing in this area?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This funding will support the recently announced package of measures to strengthen the enforcement of minimum employment standards including tougher sanctions. A bill to put these measures in place is expected to be introduced mid-year. It also follows the passing last week of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) which imposes heavy penalties on employers exploiting migrant workers including 7 years’ imprisonment and a $100000 fine or deportation. This Government is committed to protecting the integrity of the labour market and ensuring fair and productive workplaces. Budget 2015 will provide an excellent example yet again of that commitment.Iain Lees-Galloway: How will the fact that he has allowed migrant workers to work in New Zealand for 6 months without the protection of New Zealand employment law and supports labour inspectors being told to “butt out” when they try to enforce the Minimum Wage Act impact the ability of the six extra labour inspectors to strengthen minimum employment standards?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows it is the Minister of Immigration who has allowed those workers to come in under special purposes but I stand by the labour inspectorate’s investigation into the welfare of those workers. Their welfare has been well supported and I accept that.Housing Market—Auckland8.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made.Kevin Hague: As the Minister is happy to have the problems of success as he told the TheNation television programme on the weekend could he tell the House whether it is a mark of this Government’s success that the homeownership rate is at its lowest since 1951 and whether he is happy about that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the Greens do not like any kind of economic success; they regard it as an attack on the environment. But we think that on balance it benefits most people so yes in answer to your first question we are happy to have the problems of success. Secondly with regard to homeownership rates the member may not be aware of the HomeStart programme launched on 1 April—I hope he is advising his constituents about it—which will assist particularly young New Zealanders into homeownership. The steady decline in homeownership since the late 1950s tells us I think a bit more about demographic change—the change in the nature of households and so on; particularly say for instance in the fast growth in the sole-parent household—and is probably a stronger explanation than some others that the member has in mind.Kevin Hague: Is it another mark of this Government’s success that the median house price in Auckland has now reached $753500 with an average sale of more than $800000 and is he happy about that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not happy about it and I am particularly unhappy with the kind of planning approach that the Greens advocate which is part of the cause of the rapid escalation in house prices. The Greens have advocated anti-growth and anti-densification policies for years. They have been far too influential and that is cutting low and middle income Aucklanders out of the possibility of decent housing or of owning their own house. I hope that the Greens will change their views and help us to change the Auckland Council’s views so that we can allow Auckland City to grow and to have affordable housing.Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of this Government’s success that its housing accord partner the Auckland Council has put the building of 2000 to 3000 supposedly fast-tracked homes on hold around Huapai because the Government refuses to properly fund much-needed transport links to this area?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that there will be ongoing discussion with the Auckland Council but my understanding is that quite independent of the Government it appears at least to have reduced its own infrastructure budget at a time when the city is under pressure to grow. That is a wee bit hard to understand and I am sure we can have further productive discussions with the city but it should be clear—as the Greens should be clear—that the long-term answer to affordable housing in Auckland is more houses on the ground faster and the Government will relentlessly focus on that objective.Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of success for this Government that the Auckland Council is actually caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to housing with Auckland ratepayers being the rock and working with this Government being the extremely hard place?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Auckland Council would not have to work with the Government if it built enough houses fast enough for the people who want to go to Auckland and pay rates. But it is also caught with dealing with community groups fostered and encouraged by the Greens to oppose new building of houses in Auckland communities when we need them.Kevin Hague: Does it make the Minister happy that he and his Government wilfully ignore the advice of organisations such as the OECD and the Reserve Bank and rule out introducing a capital gains tax to curb property speculation which is driving up house prices in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be aware that New Zealand already has tax law that taxes gains from speculation as if it is income at the marginal income tax rate. So no I am not unhappy to be considering OECD or Reserve Bank advice and not necessarily taking it because what we have discovered in this whole process is that planning law—such as that advocated by the Greens—that tries to restrict the growth of Auckland creates inequality for low and middle income households that cannot afford housing and it creates very high and volatile house prices. We will continue to work hard to undo the damage of the previous 20 years when that philosophy was put in place. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am just waiting for Mr Twyford.Kevin Hague: Is it not insulting to tell young Aucklanders who are desperately trying to buy a house and are being outbid at auctions week after week by property speculators that this Government’s policies which do absolutely nothing to address the demand side of the housing market are a success?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What would be insulting to tell young Aucklanders is the Greens saying to them that they should have cheap houses but the Greens are opposed to roads to cars to digging up the ground to creating subdivisions and to building houses. That is what is insulting to young Aucklanders. It is Labour and the Greens saying: “You should have cheap houses but you’re not allowed to do any of the things that ensure that more houses get built faster.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that that answer does not fulfil the requirements of the Standing Orders where ministerial answers are concerned. It was all about some other party’s so-called stance—totally irrelevant to the question being asked.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion when I consider the start of the question “Isn’t it insulting” the Minister I think has addressed the question. It would have been helpful if he had not used it as an opportunity to attack the Green Party to the extent he did. I accept that point.Surgery Elective—Waiting Lists for Orthopaedic Services9.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Are New Zealanders who require elective surgery receiving it in a timely manner?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes the number of elective surgeries has increased by 44000 a year in the last 6 years under this Government—a remarkable turn-round given that elective surgeries fell by 2000 between the years of 2000 and 2006. By doing more and more operations the number of New Zealanders waiting over 6 months has reduced from nearly 7000 New Zealanders in 2006 to a handful today.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer why did Dr John Cullen a highly respected clinical leader at Waitematā District Health Board tell the chief executive officer less than 1 month ago that in addition to raising the threshold at which people can get an operation that leads to clinical risk “The situation is controlled by the use of a suspended list.”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If any member reads that article in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday morning they will know that Mr Cullen then retracted his statement. Over the last 6 years at Waitematā District Health Board elective surgery has increased by 51 percent. That is a total of 6500 more operations every year 21000 extra operations for people in that district health board area in total and we have delivered more than 13000 more first appointments there. The answer to increased demand is to do more operations and nationally we have done 44000 more operations and delivered 50000 more first specialist appointments—a lot better than that person’s record when she—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr John Cullen clinical leader Waitematā District Health Board dated 10 April 2015 entitled “An impossible situation” setting out why the management of both elective and acute surgery is increasingly difficult.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. It is a letter by Dr John Cullen. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Why did Dr John Cullen send an email to the chief executive officer of Waitematā District Health Board on 10 April 2015 saying that the operations manager of orthopaedic surgery is concerned at the potential adverse publicity following the return of patients to their general practitioner even after they were given certainty for surgery?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member would have to ask Mr Cullen that but he has actually since retracted his statement. What we do know is that those people who were sent back to their general practitioner went back because there was incomplete information in the referral because more testing was needed and also very importantly because surgery was not appropriate. This member is trying to make something out of nothing but what remains is that we are doing more surgery at Waitematā District Health Board and providing more appointments whereas that member actually provided fewer.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the email from Dr John Cullen dated 10 April 2015 raising concerns about sending patients back to their general practitioner after being given certainty—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that district health boards are either raising the threshold at which patients can get surgery or introducing measures such as suspended lists and patient pathways in an effort to meet the Government’s targets which are virtually impossible to meet with the financial resources they have?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look that is completely incorrect. The information I have is that there are no hidden lists. What I can tell you is that people go back to their general practitioner because surgery is not appropriate because the referral is incomplete or because they need more testing. But we are doing 44000 more operations and 50000 more appointments so more surgery more appointments—a lot better than that member’s record.Hon Annette King: Is another way to manage the waiting lists to refer patients back to their general practitioner like the Taranaki District Health Board which has increased the number of people refused an orthopaedic first specialist assessment by 142 percent under the last 3 years of this Government?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I do know is that that data is very incomplete. But what is a fact is that there have been 1216 more electives performed in Taranaki under this Government and there has been a 5000 cumulative increase in first specialist appointments unlike when Annette King was Minister when—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has completed his answer as far as I am concerned.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act release from the Taranaki District Health Board dated 19 March 2015 showing a 142 percent increase over the last 3 years of letters refusing first specialist appointments for people wanting orthopaedic surgery.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act release. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table a document showing that we are doing 1216 more electives a year in Taranaki and delivered—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document and the date.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is current information compiled by health officials. You will not find it anywhere else so I suggest—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it very recent information?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Very recent.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave.Hon Members: What’s the date?Mr SPEAKER: It is very recent. That will do on this occasion. [Interruption] Order! The members themselves can decide. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this—[Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table this particular information from the Ministry of Health of a recent date. Is there any objection?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is compiled by health officials including advisers and the date is today.Mr SPEAKER: That is of assistance. We have now dated it to be today. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]Hon Annette King: You show yours and I’ll show mine.Mr SPEAKER: I have no intention I can assure you.Sign Language Fund—Sign Language Week10.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government’s investment in the New Zealand Sign Language Fund helping sign language users to promote and maintain the language during Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Sign Language Week is a chance to celebrate one of New Zealand’s official languages. It is a language that is spoken by over 20000 Kiwis every day. The Government has invested $350000 to raise awareness about this unique language during Sign Language Week 2015 and provide all New Zealanders with an opportunity to get involved and connect with the Deaf community. This is in addition to the $11 million the Government has invested over 4 years to support deaf children and their families by helping school-aged and preschool children learn sign language and provide more sign language support and tutors in schools.Stuart Smith: How can New Zealanders take part in New Zealand Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Hundreds of events are taking place across New Zealand this week. There are tours of galleries and museums with sign language interpreters comedy shows pop-up sign language cafes and over 745 New Zealand Sign Language taster classes being available. Raising awareness of sign language helps the Deaf community and other users of the language to connect with all New Zealanders. I encourage us Kiwis to get out and give it a go. Happy Sign Language Week.Climate Change—Native Species11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with Professor Mark Urban that New Zealand’s indigenous species are at greater risk of extinction from climate change than species in many other parts of the world; and if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yes.Eugenie Sage: Has she ever tried to convince her Cabinet colleagues to protect our native species at risk of extinction from climate change by adopting policies that reduce New Zealand’s emissions; if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I have spoken to my Cabinet colleagues and caucus and this House on many occasions about the need to preserve and protect more of our endangered species. In terms of the climate change part of your question that is best directed to the Minister for Climate Change Issues.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that if New Zealand contributes to a more than 2-degree warming of the planet by our emissions increasing by 50 percent over the next 10 years as the Ministry for the Environment predicts this will increase the extinction risk for our indigenous species?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I refute the so-called facts in that member’s question and disagree with them.Eugenie Sage: Well how can the Minister as the Minister of Conservation stand by while climate change increases the extinction risk for our threatened species to 14 percent as Mark Urban predicts?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This Government and I as the Minister of Conservation are certainly not standing by. An example I would draw the member’s attention to is the Battle for our Birds which was a direct response to what happened with a masting—that is a very extensive seeding of the beech trees. Many people understand that the reason that triggers the mast of a beech forest is to do with temperatures. Warmer temperatures mean higher seeding which means plague proportions of rats—25 million. We planned for that we analysed it and we unrolled a strategy called Battle for our Birds which resulted in the successful turn-round of the decline of at least 12 of our native species. It was a highly successful campaign.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus12.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “returning to surplus and repaying debt are among the most important things the Government can do to ensure New Zealand can withstand future shocks and build a more competitive economy based on exports and new jobs”; if so will there be a surplus for the 2014/15 year?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In answer to his questions yes I do stand by my statement and no there will not be a surplus for that year. But I want to thank our public servants for their role in the very substantial progress the Government has made on getting back to surplus. They have worked hard to provide more for less and despite the fact that for many public services there has been no new money public trust in public services is higher than it has ever been—certainly it is higher than the period when the previous Labour Government was pouring cash into every service.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer why did he make the promise to New Zealanders in September last year that No. 1 of his five fiscal priorities for the next 3 years was “Return to surplus this year and maintain surpluses over the next 3 years”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it still is our very high priority to get back to surplus. The analogy I used the other day was if you set out to lose 10 kilos and you lose 9.9 kilos you are almost there and we are almost there with the surplus.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer from the Minister if he was trying to lose 10 kilos to fit into a suit for his brother’s wedding and he lost only 9.8 kilos he still does not fit into the suit and is that not a failure?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well—Tim Macindoe: He can just borrow one of yours.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. It was my niece’s wedding and the suit was a bit tight but I wish I had borrowed the member’s.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer and as someone with some knowledge of weight loss in recent times can the Minister finally admit that he has failed to meet the promise he made to New Zealanders at the last election to get into surplus this year and will he finally ditch the excuses and front up?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are no excuses. I mean before Christmas the Government published the updated forecast which showed a deficit. The member might have only just figured that out but that was actually 6 months ago. So in 2014-15 we will not quite get to surplus. In 2015-16 and the following years the member will just have to wait for the Budget. But we are on track. Actually I have a much easier life than that member who gets up in the House every day saying the surplus should be bigger when all his caucus are saying that we should spend more money.David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm Treasury reports that this Government will be in surplus every year from the mid-2020s for decades and is that a greater priority than making surplus this year; if so what is the Government doing about it?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—any one of those three supplementary questions.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I admire the way the member makes us all look very “short termist” here. We are focusing on a surplus now but the member is quite correct to have understood that the Government is making decisions particularly around the way it is approaching long-term welfare dependency that will be having an impact on surpluses in the 2020s. For instance the number of sole parents under 20 has dropped by 40 percent in 3 years. New Zealand will be making savings because of that intervention for the next 20 or 30 years.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister guarantee a surplus for the 2015-16 year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget. But I can anticipate that in the Budget whatever the operating balance is the Government will be pointing out that these numbers move around according to economic conditions. What is under our control is Government expenditure and that is certainly on track.Questions to MembersNew Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions1.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill have asked to be heard by the committee and of those how many has she requested to attend to give evidence?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The committee has received 256 submissions on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill which includes one form submission. The committee has agreed to hear 34 oral submissions.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she before she exercised her power to decide whether to call witnesses read the submissions she has described as form submissions to ensure that all former service personnel and individuals who had made distinct and different arguments are heard; if not why not?JACQUI DEAN: It is normal established committee practice to treat large volumes of submissions that are identical or nearly identical as form submissions. A sample representing these submissions is placed on the committee record as representing the views of all those who submitted in this way. This by the way is a process that has been followed for other bills such as the marriage equality bill.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I think was quite a simple one. It asked whether she read them. I do not think that was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: If the member had made it a simple question like that it might have been easier for the matter to be addressed. It was not as simple as that but I will ask the member to simply answer whether she has read all of the form submissions.JACQUI DEAN: The committee treated some 1500—Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read them!Mr SPEAKER: Order!JACQUI DEAN: Will the member give me a chance to answer? The answer is I sampled as did the clerk of the committee a number of the form submissions. It was determined that the vast majority of those 1761-odd submissions were either similar or essentially the same. That is why they were treated as form submissions.New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions2.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters to the committee on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill requesting a yes/no vote has she requested attend to give evidence out of those who made submissions on this point?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The committee will be hearing from 34 submitters a number of whom have indicated they will be speaking on the yes/no vote and some of whom we heard from last week. We will also be hearing from that member who will be speaking on his yes/no vote petition to the bill when the committee sits on Thursday.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is there anything preventing her from exercising her power to request further submissions from the 747 individuals who have asked to be heard including former servicemen who have yet to hear from her to give evidence; if so what is it that is preventing her from doing that?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions Jacqui Dean.JACQUI DEAN: It was the committee’s decision not to hear oral evidence from those who submitted a form submission.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. A member has conveyed to the House a decision that was made by the select committee and that is in itself a question for you to consider. But she has also incorrectly conveyed that it was a decision made by the committee as a whole when that was not the case. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has raised a point of order. She knows very well the procedure if she feels an incorrect answer has been given in this House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the answer given by the chair of the committee can I ask you to consider a ruling about whether it breaches privilege to pass that answer on to the submitters who are apparently not to be heard but have not been told?Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking me to give consideration to the question that was asked and the answer that was given. I will do so.Human Rights Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 26 March.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is a privilege and an honour to take the final call in the second reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill before the House. This bill obviously amends the Human Rights Act 1993. It has two particular areas of purpose. The first is to enable the establishment of a full-time commissioner with responsibility for leadership in disability rights within the Human Rights Commission and the second is to make changes to the role and the structure of the commission to strengthen its performance.People may not know that actually this was initiated on 20 October 2010. The Minister at that time was the Hon Tariana Turia. As the Minister for Disability Issues she announced the establishment of a full-time Disability Rights Commissioner within the commission but to formally establish this role would indeed need an amendment to the Act. This provided an opportunity to review the structure of the Human Rights Commission and to explore options for change in three key areas: firstly in the composition of the commissioners who were there in place in its status quo; secondly the governance arrangements; and thirdly the functions and powers of the commission itself.There were 42 submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee and 19 oral submissions that were submitted. I would just like to take us through some of those submissions that I think are important and that also give weight to the recommendations that have been made by the Justice and Electoral Committee in particular. One of the areas was just in regard to one of the challenges of the improvements. In consultation with the commission and other Government agencies the Ministry of Justice has identified some improvements that could be made to the composition. These were in regard to improving efficiency the lack of effectiveness of the current composition of part-time commissioners the inflexibility resulting from the way that specialised commissioners roles are provided for under the Act and then lastly there sometimes being an unclear and incomplete description of the functions of the commissioners in the Act as it currently stands.There are a number of things that I think are quite important in this legislation especially for the disability community in particular. We know that New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 25 September 2008. Article 33 of the convention requires States to “maintain strengthen designate or establish within the State Party a framework including one or more independent mechanisms as appropriate to promote protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.” We believe that the review and these amendments will definitely go a way to approving that.A full-time commissioner position with responsibility for leadership and disciplinary rights will be created within the commission and we think this is quite critical. The creation of these roles requires an amendment to the Act as it currently enables commissioners formalised leadership roles in only two areas: race relations and equal employment opportunities. The changes to these roles we think are going to be quite significant. The Act currently provides for full-time and part-time commissioners. This will be changed to permit a composition of three full-time commissioners and then also up to five part-time commissioners who will be part of that composition as well. Although we are removing the statutory roles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner we are requiring commissioners to be appointed to lead the work in these areas.I just want to quote from the departmental report from which we heard submissions and again from the Chief Human Rights Commissioner himself. In 22 of those submissions they were in support indeed of having the establishment of a disabilities commissioner in particular. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner submitted that it is quite critically important to be addressing these issues for the disability community as well.Consultation with the Minister of Justice was also challenged. There was an issue in which we felt it would breach the Paris principles of independence of the Human Rights Commission. This was an issue of concern. In fact 13 submitters opposed any reference to consultation with the Minister being included in this bill. Again the Human Rights Commission actually submitted that this consultation with the Minister currently occurs at present so in effect it was not seen that there was a breach in fact in regard to the Paris principles of independence for the human rights commissioners.This bill will enable the chief commissioner to formally designate commissioners. We think this area here will then allow them to establish areas of importance that may be relevant in that current context in time for our communities. In some of the 42 submissions that were made there were references to for instance areas of the rights of women and that potentially the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner role could include looking at the rights and responsibilities for women under that as well. There was also another submission that talked about issues around the fairness in the Act around Treaty of Waitangi claims. That was another submission that was made. We feel that the amended changes will allow for the commissioner to be able—with consultation on the strategic direction of the commission—to potentially appoint part-time commissioners to this role as well.There was some concern that was expressed around the rebranding and existence of the specialised commissioners by removing the titles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner which may be perceived as lowering the profile of these particular areas of focus. We do not believe that the proposed changes will negatively impact on the commissioners’ leadership role of protecting and promoting these particular areas of importance as well. There will be identified commissioners leading the work in each area and the commissioner will be the face and the contact point in being able to negotiate these areas of importance as well.We feel the recommendations that have been made adequately address the issues of the review plus the concerns. We feel as a select committee that our recommendations approved by the Minister are appropriate but also give both the flexibility and the clarity for the commissioner to conduct his roles and responsibilities. On behalf of the Government I also do commend this bill to the House in its second reading.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Human Rights Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.Animal Welfare Amendment BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 30 April.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): When I was sort of rudely interrupted by the clock at 6 o’clock last Thursday I was indicating to the House that I thought that although Nathan Guy is a nice chap he has been pretty ineffectual in this area. He has been very ineffectual in getting the resources necessary to have a proper and independent service that focuses on animal welfare particularly in the area of primary production. I think he relies on the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals pretty heavily within domestic arrangements but what he does not have is a good force out on farms ensuring that the small minority of farmers who treat animals badly are dealt with properly.I also indicated that the Government’s approach to allow cruelty to animals to continue for another 15 years—so practices that this Minister accepts are cruel and must go do not have to go for another 15 years—in my opinion is just not good enough. As well as being cruel and wrong—cruel and wrong—those practices are not in New Zealand’s economic interests. It is in the interests of our farmers for New Zealand to have a reputation of being world leading in farming production practices. Generally most of our farmers are but there are some whose practices are awful. They are generally—but not only—centred in the pork and the poultry industries. That is where the biggest problems come from. The most obvious problems come from there but we also have some very poor examples of farmers in some other areas as well.If we want to grab hold of the opportunities especially in Europe but actually in a number of other countries as well—increasingly in the United States and even in parts of the middle class in Asia—we need to be aware that there is more and more focus on the way we treat our animals in a way that is similar to the way that we treat our environment. If we are not seen to be world leading in this area over a period of time we will go backwards. Unfortunately it is often the fact that we mistreat our pigs that will end up being a problem for our sheep. The fact that we mistreat our poultry will end up being a problem for our beef offshore because it is a country’s reputation across all of the cruelty practices that is in my opinion very important. I am holding up now a sheet of paper that is the area that will be the area available to chooks including size 18 and size 20 chooks under National’s new advanced 2022 rules. Under the rules that will come into effect then a chook will have 750 square centimetres—a tiny area. A decent chook will have trouble turning round. It might be a wee bit of progress but frankly it is not good enough.In conclusion I want to thank again Mojo Mathers for the work that she did. I thank the Government for running out of other business so it could get on with getting this bill through. I say that eventually we are going to have to look at the real question and that is to allow all farmed animals the right to go outside. If we do not let all farmed animals have the right to go outside we will be regarded as cruel and our exports will suffer. Thank you.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me no great pleasure to follow the expert on animals from Hutt South Trevor Mallard. He clearly is an expert on the life and times of the moa but knows very little about farm animals in my view. I want to make just a couple of comments on the comments he just made because I think it is grossly unfair to include all farmers in the general statements that he just made. What I do want to make the point about is that the Ministry for Primary Industries has a very strong team out in the provinces. It has a great understanding of farmers and farmers’ ability to handle livestock and I am quite sure the ministry is well aware of where the challenges are for the farmers. I certainly admit that there are farmers who are not perfect but I also want to make the point that I think they do a pretty good job on the whole and we certainly do our best to work within the rules.Now I want to get back to the topic of the day the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is critical to New Zealand’s future. I do agree with the previous speaker on that point. It is probably one of the most important bills that will come through this House along with perhaps the biosecurity bill and one or two other bills interestingly that affect the primary production sector because that is a sector that keeps this country going. They have a very strong underlying influence I guess on how New Zealand’s economy works and how the primary production sector works. The economy is driven by agriculture and it in turn is driven by these hugely important bills or Acts of Parliament that impact on a food industry that is worth some $40 billion to New Zealand and a livestock industry that contributes a large bit of that $40 billion to the food industry.We have amongst the best animal welfare codes in the world. We are very good practitioners in this field. I will talk a little bit more about the codes of animal welfare a little later but first I want to get on to a number of other issues that I guess have challenged the Primary Production Committee during the course of this bill which was in the select committee for quite some time.We dealt with household pets for example—and 70 percent of all households in New Zealand have pets. Gareth Morgan has picked on one very topical one: the cat. Most of our wild cats in New Zealand started off as household pets perhaps even in Hutt South. They have been dumped in our rural parts of New Zealand and consequently that is a large piece of what causes the major cat problem that Gareth Morgan frequently refers to. There are also obviously a large number of dogs as pets in New Zealand and many other animals. I am not saying for a minute that households do not look after their pets pretty well—I think that on the whole they do—but they certainly come under pressure. The other challenge we have with those household pets is the large large number of unregistered dogs—dogs that cause all sorts of problems in New Zealand’s communities. In fact we see some quite horrific injuries caused by those dogs when they attack children or even adults. Those are pets that have clearly not been maintained as they should be. They are also pets that come under the control of this very piece of legislation that we are talking about.I want to briefly mention the greyhound industry. The greyhound industry came in for a lot of focus in the course of discussion on this bill. Greyhound racing is I guess a sport. It also contributes to the New Zealand economy. It is challenged by the fact that when you breed an animal for performance you do not always get the performance you anticipate. We have to find other ways of dealing with those. Greyhounds are clearly dealt with under the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare. So the issues that were raised by people with relationships to the greyhound racing industry are in my view satisfactorily dealt with in the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare.The other issue that is very topical is one of pests and I guess you could put that in the same category as hunting. Pests—all introduced of course—are possums cats stoats rats etc. Mice are also a significant pest. We spend an awful lot of time keeping them out of our food chain keeping them out of places that we need to keep secure. We also have a great deal of problems with possums particularly in our native bush and forest. Cats stoats and rats likewise cause grievous damage to our native birds. There was some quite significant discussion on those topics during the course of the consideration of this bill in the select committee and I think again they are well dealt with under the relevant codes that apply to those issues.In New Zealand we farm some 45 million animals—probably a lot more in fact but we have an official count of 45 million - odd. We dealt with numerous issues in respect of them including—and I am not counting birds and things like that so I am not accounting for the poultry industry in that—microchipping tagging ear-marking horses’ teeth blacksmiths’ operations and all sorts of operations that take place on a daily basis in respect of animals. They were all dealt with in the course of the discussion on this bill. If I go to some of the things like horses’ teeth—which were I guess dealt with in the discussion around surgical procedures that are undertaken in respect of animals—for a long time very good practitioners with no qualifications have dealt with things like horses’ teeth and a number of other issues. In terms of blacksmithing in some parts of the world you have to have a ticket to enable you to shoe a horse under their welfare codes. In my view New Zealanders are a much more adaptable people. I think there are a large number of those procedures that can be undertaken extremely safely by people who have a great understanding of animals. So that came in for a lot of discussion in the course of this bill as well. I think we satisfactorily resolved that.I want to talk briefly about the live export of animals. Clearly we have an understanding that there will be no live shipments for slaughter in New Zealand. We do of course sell a large number of horses overseas both for sport—racing—and for other uses. We sell a large number of breeding animals—sheep dairy cattle—overseas for the same reason. I guess that if you look at the food trends of the world it is quite conceivable that sometime in the future there will be an opportunity to export very small numbers of very high-priced animals for slaughter—well I would not call it slaughter; I guess there will be a more practical term they will use for it. By the time they get to that point there will be a more practical term. And we did not during the course of this consideration outlaw the potential for live export of animals; it is just that we have an understanding in this country that we will not do it and I think wisely so. But there may well come a time in the future when we can in fact export for human consumption again in a smaller and I guess much more enlightened way.I want to talk about codes of welfare for a moment. I have here the Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare. Anyone who was concerned about the activities of “NAWAC” the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council which produced the codes of welfare for the Minister for Primary Industries will realise that these things are hugely comprehensive in my view. I think this is a very good document. I would have considered I suppose that as a farmer I do not need this kind of stuff but I think unfortunately we do need to set a standard. These codes of welfare set a very clear standard and I think they do a great job. There was some significant discussion around the make-up of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council. The Minister has the ability to appoint those members and I think not only are they a very broad cross-section of the New Zealand animal-industry experts but also there are some independents on the council who are very competent people. I think it is more than adequate.I just want to talk very briefly about the Minister and the select committee. Obviously as I have said this bill is a very important part of what we do. It has been around for a while. In fact four of the select committee members who dealt with this bill have left this House: Shane Ardern Eric Roy Colin King and Shane Jones. They added a whole lot of value to this bill in the course of it. And of course the current committee of which most are in this House right now were also on that committee last year with the exception of a couple of new members on our side of the House and the man sitting in the Speaker’s Chair himself Deputy Speaker Chester Borrows. We have considered 1721 submissions in the course of this bill including 12 industry groups 20 advocacy groups and eight professional bodies. It was a pretty big job. I thinkthat on the whole the committee did an outstanding job with this bill and I am very pleased to see it coming through. I congratulate the Minister on getting what will be one of New Zealand’s key pieces of legislation through the House. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I must say that despite being a longstanding member of the Primary Production Committee—of which the previous speaker Ian McKelvie is of course the chair—I did actually stand aside for the Hon Trevor Mallard who takes the role of animal welfare within our caucus. So I was not there for a number of the hearings but I have followed this very closely because as has previously been said by speakers this does go to the heart of New Zealand’s production systems. As a passionate advocate for primary industries I know the things that we need to protect starting of course with biosecurity and food safety. Animal welfare probably comes third in terms of the hierarchy of the things that we need to uphold both in a reality sense and in a reputational sense because if New Zealand is to continue to export food then the people who have to pay—or should pay—a little bit more for quality food want to know that it has been grown and produced ethically. Indeed this piece of legislation moves us forward some way in that area. So Labour will be supporting it.It is an interesting time because we have a society that is becoming further disconnected from the realities of production. They want meat but they do not want slaughter and this bill is one more realistic step to address the issues to minimise any potential harm to animals but to still leave in place the reality that animals are grown and produced for slaughter. There will be some who are vegan and who do not want to eat that. That is true and that is their right. The vast majority of people in the world need protein and we produce it. We produce it in a very sound and ethical way in a safe way and in a way that does minimum harm to the animals in the system for the most part. We want to continue with that.We are making technical changes with the bill. We are addressing some tricky issues like the use of animals in the area of experimentation and I will say a little bit more about that later. Not only is there a dilemma across society around wanting meat but not wanting it to come from a slaughter process; they also want cheap meat and cheap food—but of course they do not necessarily want to deal with the reality that we have to have commercial systems of production that some say are factory. By international standards most of New Zealand’s systems are pretty much organic. Indeed if you look at the sheep grazing out in the Mackenzie Country you would see that they are as close to the basic first step in the evolutionary process as you could imagine—freedom to roam and handled probably two or three times a year. New Zealand is blessed with systems that are as close to ideal as you can get but there are in some areas systems—particularly in the area of egg production poultry production pork and increasingly in the area of dairying—that are getting to the point of intensity where the public are asking whether there is a better way than the ways that have been conducted over recent years.The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee the organisation referred to by the previous speaker Ian McKelvie is an independent organisation set up to address these quite challenging ethical areas in an appropriate and independent way. I think it does a very very good job. We have got the issues of colonies and cages for poultry what size they should be and what the normal range of behaviours for those chickens is. What has happened over recent years is we have moved—as a country and through legislation—to expand the areas in which chooks live to give them more movement and to give them more freedom. My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard says that just about all those animals should have the right to go outside. We have some systems like that in the country but not all of them. If we were to move to those systems within a set period of 2 3 4 or 5 years then there would be a cost to the consumer and the producer and some might say that that is a perfectly reasonable cost. There is a reality of course in a low-paid economy particularly under a National Government that seems to like zero-hour contracts that people cannot afford to pay for that food.There are transitional provisions here and the exceptions and the extensions to what are deemed not ideal conditions are necessary to allow that transition to occur in a commercially realistic way. I think we have to accept that—well some of us or perhaps my colleague is more reluctant to. Some of us see that as a normal and sensible transition. But the reality for New Zealand as the producer of fine-quality food is that we will have to move in that direction—that is with eggs poultry and pork. I think those industries have accepted that.The difficult issue of dairying is one that is yet to be resolved because of some Europeans I have to say in reality who have come into this country and think they know how to show us how to milk cows. They want to put all the cows inside in an intensive housed farming system. I would suggest that they are not making money this year at the payout from Fonterra so it might clip their wings and their enthusiasm. That intensive system despite having some advantages over effluent management does move a long way from the pastoral system that we have known—and if not perfected certainly developed well—and that has been the hallmark I guess of our production systems. So dairying is heading in the other direction at a time when other sectors are moving to a less intensified system that provides the animals with a bit more scope a bit more freedom and I guess the range of natural movement as deemed. I think we have to warn the dairying industry here that when moving down that path it has to be very cautious about what that might mean to New Zealand’s brand reputation. It is not something I think we should encourage. The costs of production simply climb to the point where we are at risk of years of low payout where those farmers—and more if they get encouraged into those systems—will go broke.I come back to the legislation. It does include some good objectives. One in particular that I quite like is that there will be encouragement for the labelling of animal products that creates a commercial incentive for improved animal welfare standards. That is a value proposition for those people who are moving their production systems to a better one for animal welfare and it should be labelled it should be identified and the consumers should know if they are going to pay a bit more for the food why they are doing so. Why then does the National Government not endorse country-of-origin labelling for other foods? Why will it not buy into that? I suggest it is because the supermarkets its mates will simply bully it into avoiding that. The fact is that we have trans-Tasman standards. Australia buys into country-of-origin labelling and New Zealand does not. So although this legislation encourages labelling for better animal welfare standards which I think is a good thing there is nothing from the Government to say that they should identify where the food was produced in the first place. So it is quite a bizarre contradiction in the legislation that once this is passed we will be encouraging labelling on the one hand and in fact avoiding it on the other hand.As I said the extension that was proposed under the legislation will now be closed down. In transitioning from the current standards to better standards of animal welfare and production systems the reality is that we must allow that transition to occur. If they were chopped off that would be unrealistic uneconomic and indeed undesirable for many of the consumers across the country.All in all I think this is a good piece of legislation. The question I would like to ask at the end of this is around John Key calling in to Saudi Arabia and we are told having discussions about the renewal of the live export trade to that country. I have not heard too many people asking for that or thinking that it is a good thing other than the Prime Minister perhaps promising his Saudi counterpart that we will get this under way. So I think it is incumbent upon the Government and the Prime Minister to answer the question: are we going to resume live exports for slaughter or not? Although there was a hint from the previous speaker—Hon Nathan Guy: No.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No. Well as the Minister for Primary Industries has said no that is good. It is good to hear that because I do not think there is any benefit and I am pleased to hear him say that. So I hope he tells the Prime Minister his boss that it is no good kidding the Saudi Arabians that we might get a renewal of that trade.The last thing I would say is that we do not agree with animal testing for cosmetics. Indeed it is pleasing to see as the father of five daughters that cosmetics and make-up are kind of on the way out. I think that is great. It will save me a fortune. Out of all the women around here I do not see one who needs those cosmetics and indeed we do not need the animal testing to try to improve them. This is a wise piece of legislation but the Government has got to follow through on what it says it is doing here.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I was one of the new members to the Primary Production Committee and unfortunately did not go through any of the process with this bill so I commend the members of the select committee for the fine job that they have done. Agriculture underpins our economy—in fact it pays for our way of life. We would not enjoy the same standard of living that we enjoy now if it were not for cows and sheep in particular. So I think to a large extent we ride on their backs in terms of our economic well-being. Agriculture earns $25 billion from livestock and it contributes to our economy. So it is absolutely huge in terms of New Zealand’s gross national product. I use the term gross national product deliberately. Too often we focus on GDP. Actually “GNP” is how we pay our way in the world—and that term means “gross national product” for anyone who is not familiar with that term. I think that I would like to see a lot more focus on that term.Animal welfare is absolutely vital but I think that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are currently running a campaign in Australia that does their cause no good. In their latest campaign they claim that 25 percent of the world’s wool is grown in Australia and that it is made from 100 percent cruelty. That is just a ridiculous statement. I agree wholeheartedly with the Victorian Farmers Federation which said that the campaign denigrates offends belittles and insults every Australian’s intelligence. I think that although we care very deeply about animal welfare to take it to that level in a campaign really just runs the risk of putting everyone offside from that organisation’s particular argument. If you keep running into a crowded theatre calling “Fire!” people will not listen to you for very long after that. So I think that they are not doing themselves any good.New Zealand is in fact ranked first equal in the world for animal welfare and that is fantastic.It is great but that does not mean that we should rest on our laurels; we should always attempt to improve. I think that trade is so vital. The previous speaker Damien O’Connor mentioned that we are a trading nation we are a niche producer we sell into niche markets and we actually command a premium for our products. The fact that people who buy our products are paying a little more than they pay for those they buy from others is based around things like our animal welfare. They do care about that. It is not something that they necessarily do a lot of research on but if it comes up they certainly do care about it. Although animal welfare has not been a big issue in Asia—and the Asian market is becoming an increasingly important market for lots of our goods—over time we have seen a distinct change in values around the environment in Asia and I believe we will see the same thing withanimal welfare. So it is incumbent upon us to have really good rules around that and this bill really does go a long way towards that.Sixty-eight percent of New Zealand households own a pet. Although most of our talk and focus has been on farm animals by numbers of population most people’s contact with animals is with the family pet and we should not forget that in this discussion. As my colleague said earlier dogs not only damage humans which we often see when there is a dog attack but they also attack other dogs quite often and are often trained to be vicious.This bill deals with a lot of those issues and I commend the Primary Production Committee and the Minister for Primary Industries for dealing with it in that way. This bill seeks to amend the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It brings a higher degree of transparency to the Act and I think that is much needed. It has a much greater enforceability it increases the range of enforcement tools and in fact it brings in more appropriate penalties. I think that is really important because we too often see well-meaning Acts of Parliament with little enforceability or inappropriate penalties. If people do offend then they deserve to feel the full weight of the law and we need to make sure that it really is a deterrent.The bill provides a framework for suitable regulations and the Minister at their discretion is able to bring in regulations as things change. Over time attitudes to animal welfarechange considerably. We have just gone through the Anzac Day celebrations. One hundred years ago 10000 horses went off to the First World War. I can guarantee to you that the attitude to animal welfare 100 years ago was considerably different from what it is today. Not many of those horses came back and the way in which they were disposed of is perhaps best not focused on too much these days. Those things would not happen in the New Zealand of today under the current rules and the rules are tightened further still under the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.The issues that this bill tackles are complex and I commend the select committee for the work it did on this. It is not easy to deal with these complex issues but we are not elected to do the easy things; we are elected to make good law and do things that are sometimes a bit tough. I actually commend both the Minister in particular and also the select committee for tackling these things head-on and dealing with them in the way that they did.I think it is worth noting that not all New Zealanders—in fact very few New Zealanders—actually deal with farm animals or have any link with farms. Going back only a few generations most New Zealanders had a direct link to a farm through their family or good friends. Nowadays most people probably do not have any interaction with farms at all. Farmers deal with animals every day and the reality of dealing with animals every day is quite different from the interaction that people have with a pet. Often seeing what goes on in a farm can be upsetting for some people. A sheep being shorn for example—although the sheep does not actually relish the process it really enjoys getting the wool off its back when it gets outside.Surgical and painful procedures were covered and these were alluded to earlier in the process. I have had some feedback from veterinary surgeons in my electorate who were concerned about the docking of tails on dogs. In particular those surgeons did not want to see the law changed because they felt that some dog owners would take that procedure on themselves rather than doing it through a veterinary surgeon with adequate anaesthesia and sterile conditions. Although I have some sympathy with their position the reality is that we do not like that sort of procedure in New Zealand and it has really got to end. We do have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and I am pleased to see that that line has been drawn.There are 16 codes of animal welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act and developed by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Those codes are being strengthened by new regulations which I alluded to earlier. I think it is really important that the regulations will have some teeth rather than just being codes. I think that that is a fantastic innovation.There has been some talk about factory farming and I really just want to mention a little bit about that. If we do rush into banning so-called factory farming in terms of how we treat hens and farrowing crates etc. there will be a cost. The cost will be borne by the consumer and all we will likely see is consumers switching to cheaper products that have come in from offshore and you are simply shifting the animal welfareissue out of this country and into another country. In terms of the animals you are not really making any difference whatsoever. You may be salving your conscience but you are not helping animal welfare. I think it is sensible to have a good lead-in time. Patoa Farms which is New Zealand’s biggest pork producer processes 2000 pigs a week so it is a significant producer. It does not in fact use farrowing crates but it has taken some time for it to develop that process and it will take the rest of the industry some time to catch up with those practices. I think it is quite right and proper that we give them some time to do that.Wild animals pest management and hunting have been touched on by others but I want to speak just a little bit about those issues. As a hunter myself I know that it is easy to be a little flippant about these things. Ultimately the aim is to actually kill an animal but we should be doing it in a way that is humane. I think it behoves us as human beings at the top of the animal pyramid to treat those animals right and properly. It is with great pleasure that I commend theAnimal WelfareAmendment Bill to the House. Thank you.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by thanking previous speakers particularly Trevor Mallard and the Minister Nathan Guy for their generous affirmation of my work on this bill. At the second reading I spoke of our hope that the Government would still be prepared to support a ban on animal testing of cosmetics despite having rejected it during the Committee of the whole House stage. I am thrilled that my work has been justified. I applaud the Government for finally agreeing to a ban on these cruel tests and I thank all parties in the House for supporting this amendment.We can be proud of the fact that New Zealand is now the first country in Australasia to ban cosmetic animal testing showing leadership on an important animal welfare issue of our time. The announcement of a ban on cosmetic animal testing has met with worldwide acclaim and affirmation and has spurred renewed efforts to get these cruel tests banned in other countries. Doing our part to support a global ban on cosmetic animal testing was a major motivation for getting this change incorporated into the bill and I look forward to the day when no animal anywhere in the world is subject in these cruel tests to chemicals being dripped into their eyes or rubbed into their raw skin.I also welcome a small but important change in the bill that will require animal ethics committees to consider alternatives to animal testing when considering applications to test on animals. Alternatives to animal testing is an area that is making rapid progress at the moment but sadly it is one that New Zealand is lagging behind in. Animal testing often involves extremely high levels of pain and suffering. One of the most traumatic things that I had to do last year in the discussions on the Pyschoactive Substances Bill was actually to watch a video of what was involved in toxicology testing and it absolutely broke my heart. We should be doing everything that we can to reduce the number of animals suffering in these cruel tests and we have a moral and ethical obligation to do so.If we are to be confident that unnecessary animal tests are not being carried out it is essential that animal ethics committees are kept up to date with the latest developments in non-animal tests. For example just recently over in Australia a major company decided to use the liver chip model to test the potential cure for hepatitis B instead of using the much more painful and cruel animal test. I want to encourage the Ministry for Primary Industries to investigate ways of ensuring that this information about the latest developments in alternatives to animal testing is shared between the different animal ethics committees in order to guide their decision making. I have spoken to former and current members of animal ethics committees and they have told me that they would welcome this information because they do not actually have it.This is particularly important in light of the fact that we know that different animal ethics committees are making different decisions about controversial tests. At least one animal ethics committee has approved three applications for the controversial and outdated LD50 test whereas another says it would never have approved these because they do not meet the “Three Rs” of animal research. This inconsistency is concerning because it undermines the ministry’s claims that we can trust the decisions of animal ethics committees. In my view they have a long way to go yet.Another welcome change in the bill is the partial removal of the loophole that allows for an indefinite period of time the development of regulations that breach the purpose of the Act. This is long overdue. These loopholes are the ones that have previously allowed cruel factory farming practices such as factory cages and sow crates to remain legal. I had an amendment that removed that loophole and the Primary Production Committee heard good submissions from the public in support of my amendment. The Green Party fully agreed with Trevor Mallard that the current transitional provisions in the bill are too generous and that 7 years is sufficient time for farmers to make the change away from cruel practices such as farrowing crates. The fact is that there are successful pig farmers such as Havoc farm that do not rely on farrowing crates and it gives lie to the argument that they are needed.Many people in the House will remember the footage shown on Campbell Live last year that showed very different conditions on different pig farms. The first programme focused on exposing the awful conditions on a pig factory farm in the Waikato. That footage was horrific showing pigs that were absolutely depressed cramped in confined conditions unable to turn round and unable to express natural behaviour and that did not have anything like a normal existence. Those conditions were typical of many intensive pig farms and they amounted to legalised animal cruelty. Sadly this bill will do little to address these conditions. The second programme showed a completely different vision for how farming can be done in New Zealand. It showed Havoc farm a free-range farm in South Canterbury. It said that the mothers there are able to roam freely with the piglets and that there is access to warm shelters litter to snuggle down in and an ability to explore and interact. That is the way that farming should be done if we are going to farm for meat and these are the only kinds of conditions that the Green Party considers to be acceptable.Despite some of the really positive aspects of this bill it is our overall view that this bill still represents a missed opportunity to get it right for the millions of animals suffering on factory farms. My concern is that this bill will not only continue to sanction these kinds of cruel conditions of factory farming but that it may entrench themeven further and that is because it now elevates practicality and economic impact in the bill as explicit factors that can be considered when developing regulations. There was already the ability to take these factors into account and historically these factors—practicalityand economic impact—were precisely the arguments used to justify codes of welfare that enabled animals to be kept in factory cages and in sow crates that were in clear breach of the provisions in the Act. In our view this move sends the wrong message about which factors are important in developing codes of welfare in regulations.I also want to say that another main area of concern that has just come to light is the area of live exports. As everybody has mentioned previously there is an effective prohibition via an order under the Customs and Excise Act on live exports for slaughter and many submitters wanted an outright ban in this bill. The advice and the assurance that we had from Ministry for Primary Industries officers was that the intention is for the current prohibition to be maintained via regulation under the Act once the bill is passed. I know that many of us have felt very concerned about the recent comments by the Prime Minister when he was visiting Saudi Arabia that this was one of the areas that was being looked at. It would be absolutely shameful if we allowed our current policy to be weakened when the regulations are developed just for the sake of a trade deal. That would be horrific. Nothing could be more damaging to our international reputation than if we were to resume live exports of animals for slaughter because we know that causes significant suffering and many farmers do not want it and the public do not want it.Although we are pleased that some changes will become enforceable much will depend on which standards get lifted into the regulations. We also remain concerned about the resourcing of animal welfare monitoring and enforcement. Currently less than 1 percent of complaints result in prosecution and we still want to see significantly increased funding for monitoring and enforcement including proactive enforcement. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise to take a call in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr McKelvie made earlier and one of them was actually about pest control. He talked about the pest species of animals that we have in this country. It is quite interesting that at this time the subject of 1080 is topical because 1080 is actually an extremely inhumane form of pest control. It is curious in fact that it was not included in the ambit of this bill but perhaps that is a question for another day. It is something we can revisit.Mr McKelvie also spoke about the export of live animals for slaughter and Mr O’Connor touched on that and the Minister has said a word about it as well. I want to talk primarily about the export of live animals because it is probably the major lingering concern that New Zealand First still has with regard to this bill. During the first reading I expressed some reservations that New Zealand First held regarding the export of live animals for slaughter. Of course under the existing Act this is prohibited unless it is specifically authorised by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. We asked at the time whether or not that being the case this bill presented an opportunity to do away with that provision altogether.New Zealand used to export animals for slaughter on quite a large scale and the practice was brought to a halt by Parliament some years ago for what were very sound reasons at the time. There were and are of course other reasons as well economic reasons but the motivation at the time was primarily centred on the conditions the animals were subjected to while they were being transported to other places and the conditions that they were subjected to when they arrived at the other end.New Zealand First has got no objection to the export of live bloodstock because we understand full well just how valuable the thoroughbred industry is to this country. We know that our bloodstock is highly regarded and highly sought after internationally and that many thousands of jobs and literally hundreds of millions of dollars are generated in the economy through the export of live horses. But horses are treated in an entirely different manner from sheep and cattle intended for slaughter in the way they are transported and cared for.Horses are airfreighted to their destinations in pressurised air-conditioned comfort. They are housed in safe secure environments while on the aeroplane and they have veterinary care. And of course on arrival their fate is not to be taken to the nearest abattoir but rather to a training track or a stud farm. These are valuable animals and they are cared for accordingly. Breeding heifers are similarly afforded a better lot than the cattle and sheep that left these shores a decade or so ago destined for the slaughterhouses of distant places. New Zealand First does not believe that we should be exporting such animals either but we recognise that while it is legal there are people who will see it as good business and who will look to profit from it.We are opposed because we believe that such practices are short-sighted and as I have said in debates on other legislation notably the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act we believe that business activity of this type will come back and bite New Zealand. The reason for that is that one day the dairy bubble is going to burst. We have allowed ourselves in this country to come to the belief that because we hold such a major position in terms of global cross-border trade in dairy products we are somehow significant in terms of world milk production and we are not. New Zealand produces only around 3 percent of the world’s milk.Most dairy produce worldwide is consumed domestically in the country of origin and international trade comprises only a very small proportion of the total. At the moment there is a shortfall between supply and demand and it is this that allows New Zealand to profit from being in a position to supply from our disproportionately large dairy production relative to our population and domestic demand to buyers from overseas. But in helping to grow production overseas through joint ventures and by selling heifers to foreign dairy producers we are only hastening the arrival of the day when demand for dairy products in the countries that are presently our export markets will be met from production in those countries. For that reason we do not believe that it is sustainable or even a good idea to export live dairy cows regardless of the conditions under which they are transported.Of course New Zealand does also export other animals for breeding purposes including cattle sheep goats deer and even chickens. Our animals are very much sought after worldwide because they are known to be for the most part from very good stock lines and are for the most part free from any of the nasty diseases that are endemic in some other parts of the world. Again animals that are exported for breeding purposes are treated better and transported in far greater safety and comfort than those that are destined for the pot.The issue of live exports for slaughter has not gone away. In fact it raised its head only last week with the Prime Minister’s efforts towards securing a free-trade deal with the nations of the Middle East’s Gulf Cooperation Council. This deal has been on hold since 2009. Coincidentally one of the sticking points is the fact that New Zealand halted live sheep exports in 2004. Apparently an investor from Saudi Arabia lost quite a bit of money as a result of the cessation of exports and we are told that the Saudis are still a wee bit sore about that. But that aside these exports were put on indefinite hold at that time for very good reason.As a nation we have engaged in live export for slaughter for more than 20 years prior to that but in 2003 something like 5000 sheep died on one ship under what can be described only as quite horrific conditions while being transported from Australia to Saudi Arabia. They died from heat stress overcrowding and a lack of food water and sanitation during a sea voyage that had lasted something like 2 months longer than it should have. New Zealand First is very much concerned that such exports may be resumed and that the provision for their resumption still exists under the bill.We are concerned on a number of fronts but they all come back to animal welfare in one way or another. Obviously we are concerned that if live exports for slaughter were to be resumed we would be faced with a return to the very same conditions that led to their being curtailed in the first place. It is hard to see how that can be avoided because these things are driven by money. Sheep are crammed into overcrowded boats because the cost of transporting them has to be kept down. A live sheep being exported for slaughter is not worth very much. In fact it is probably the lowest return for both the farmer and the nation that can be received for a sheep that has been grown for consumption.We do know that things have not improved very much in that regard in the last 10 or 15 years because live exports from Australia have continued pretty much unabated since that time and the standard of transport today is much as it was then. In fact collateral losses for sheep exports from Australia to other parts of the world are running at about 7 or 8 percent—maybe a little bit less than that but it is still too much by any measure. It is the minimal value of the animal and the minimal return to the farmer and to “New Zealand Inc.” that we oppose and for the same reasons we do not wish to see any part of our primary sector reduced to a simple exporter of bulk commodities.The second concern that we have is around the conditions that might meet livestock exported for slaughter when they arrive at the other end of their journey. We know that the Director-General can grant an exemption if he or she is satisfied that the abattoir in the destination country meets the standards that we demand here but the reality is that in too many cases live animals are sought in other parts of the world for reasons of ritual slaughter in accordance with the requirements of various religious and cultural practices. These practices by their very nature are not able to meet the minimum standards of animal welfare that we demand of our own meat processes. Animals are required to be fully conscious when they are put to death which is at odds with our own requirement that they be stunned first. They are frequently transported in the boots of cars even in the back seats of cars. They are not properly restrained. They are subjected to quite brutal and stressful treatment prior to slaughter.We have an objection also to the granting of the exemption being placed in the hands of the Director-General however professional he or she might be. The practice of exporting live animals for slaughter was stopped by politicians through the parliamentary process and we believe that if it is to be resumed then that decision must be made in the same way. We do not believe that it is good enough for a Minister to be able to hide behind a bureaucrat if and when this decision ever is to be made. Governments need to take responsibility for changes of this magnitude and we believe that if a Minister wishes to restart the export of live animals for slaughter then he or she should be required to put their money where their mouth is stand behind that decision and stand up for it if and when necessary. And whether it is necessary is a salient point because over the last decade or so we have shown that exports of live sheep for slaughter from New Zealand are not necessary.The New Zealand farming sector has got on quite well without them for the last decade and it appears that customers in the Middle East have got on quite well without those exports as well. So it is simply not necessary and we ask again why it has not been removed altogether and why we did not make provision for prohibiting it in total when the bill went through. But all that said on balance this is still a very good bill which will deliver very much better and improved outcomes for animal welfare in New Zealand and New Zealand First continues to support it. I commend it to the House. Thank you.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to be speaking this afternoon on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. To begin I will make just a couple of comments about comments made by the member for Hutt South the Hon Trevor Mallard this afternoon about the Ministry for Primary Industries and about it perhaps not being out there doing its job in the field. I have to say that in my experience—prior to my becoming a member of Parliament I did substantial work with the Ministry for Primary Industries on various committees in the area of animal welfare—a lot of work has been done with industries to help them to improve the practices in which they partake in order to earn an income.Although there has been some reference today about this bill having been around for a long time—and as one of the newer members of the Primary Production CommitteeI will acknowledge those who have gone before me—that does not mean actually that nothing has been happening out there. People who farm animals are really keen to make a difference. They know what the market perceptions are. They know what people are saying about their practices. There is a lot of work constantly going on all the time to make sure that they are upholding the best practices that they possibly can.We have heard a bit today about the 16 codes of welfare that are covered under the Act and of course these codes will be strengthened by the new regulations. In recent weeks I have been lucky enough to see some good presentations from people in the likes of the poultry industry who are actually transitioning to a phase where they are looking at moving from cages into colonies. So they are looking at actually taking the animals in that process out of those cages as fast as they economically can. Sometimes it is economically difficult to do some of those things in a hurry. But I am really heartened by the attitude of that industry in terms of being able to effect some change.There was a reference today about sheep shearing. In Te Kūiti in the heart of my electorate of Taranaki - King Country we have just had the New Zealand shearing championships. I have seen some of the graphics that have been coming out of Australia as well. I have to say that I did not see any sheep in distress and there were hundreds—probably thousands—of sheep shorn over that weekend. Those people are professionals who know the technicalities of shearing a sheep. I am sure that if I got hold of a sheep and tried to shear it it would probably panic but when you watch the likes of a champion like David Fagan shearing a sheep it is very professionally and very well done.We have also heard this afternoon about animals being outside rather than inside. I think I will be really interested to see what happens there. Some of the latest requests out there in terms of getting rid of our pests in New Zealand have been calls from some people in society to keep cats inside. So it is going to be really interesting because we have got people asking to get farm animals outside but then to keep cats inside.It is surprising to me in this bill that it has taken such a long time for us to realise that animals are sentient beings. Even though we know it it is going to be nice actually to see it finally written in legislation. I would also like to commend Mojo Mathers for her clauses around banning cosmetics testing on animals.What I would really like to highlight this afternoon is the fact that we are talking about being productive and competitive—and trade is very important to this country. Yes there is a need to have high standards. We are in a transition phase with a lot of industries. Earlier this year the Government released the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy. This sets a direction. It sets a vision. I think we would be arrogant to think that we in this House are the only people who are the experts on animal welfare. Industries have the ability to debate to construct evolving standards and to work with the Ministry for Primary Industries. People who work with animals do care about animals. The proposals in this legislation have been through rigorous consultation. They are set to act at a pace that our communities can live with. I think it is really important that this legislation has made that clearer and more transparent and that we can navigate our way through this legislation much more clearly than we could before.There is also one thing that I would like to point out around trade and biosecurity and that is the move to avoid unnecessary delays in urgent national biosecurity responses. Clause 5 inserts into section 3 of the Act the new subsections (2A) (2B) and (2C) to provide for exemption from the requirement to seek approval from an ethics committee before killing an animal in such circumstances. Sometimes we just do not have time to go through big long rigorous processes that could end up being substantially more dangerous to society than to the animal or animals concerned in those situations. So I am really really pleased to see that that is changing in this bill.This bill also clarifies what constitutes a significant surgical procedure that can be carried out only by a vet without defining it so narrowly that farmers cannot do routine procedures. So that is just another clarification that means people will not be able to say: “I did it because I didn’t know.” Things are unclear in the Act and people go ahead and do things and then find out later. So it is really important that people do know exactly what is in the legislation and exactly what they are allowed to do.The other thing is that there will be greater sanctions for those who mistreat animals. I think that is really important because at the end of the day we do have laws to protect us from those people who perhaps do not see things in the same way as the rest of us. That is not only farmers; that is pet owners and a whole raft of other people. We have also included wild animals in this. It is really important that just because they were not pets or owned by somebody they were not protected under our law. I am pleased to see that there are greater sanctions for those who do mistreat animals because for those who watch not only the daily 6 o’clock news but also social media which is a classic these days there are people showing pictures of mistreated animals so it is certainly important to get on top of that one.Under this legislation the vast majority of New Zealanders who take care of their animals very well will not see any major changes in terms of the way they are expected to behave towards their animals. I think it is going to deal with those people who as I said really do not have the feeling for animals. We need to deal with those people because one thing is for certain: those people in society who have trouble respecting animals often have trouble respecting people as well. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Steffan Browning—5 minutes.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am pleased to be able to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and congratulate those involved with getting the improvements into the bill particularly my colleague Mojo Mathers. What I want to see when this legislation is fully enacted is other elements of animal welfare law that are already enacted put into practice by this Government. I am thinking particularly as I speak tonight of the hundreds of cows that died from the herbicide-tolerant swede issue in Southland the many many more that were visibly ill and the many many more with subclinical issues. So poor was the condition of some of the surviving cows that there was a question of their suitability as culled cows for processing.I have been looking at some Official Information Act material on this. There is what they call a natural toxin that seems to be the cause of the distress of these cows. This was a serious animal welfare issue. Was that product which clearly is at the base of this issue withdrawn? Was it banned? Or was there a cover-up? There was a cover-up. We still do not have a proper report on what happened last winter and into early spring to those cows in Southland. The only way we can find anything is through Official Information Act material and in that I find the very valid questions that I put to the Minister and I see how they were treated as just generalisations. It says that if the group is asked about this it should just stick to these messages and not go down the track of trying to answer any questions.There is a chemical involved here as well. It is not just the glucosinolates—we call them GSLs for short as everybody else does for good reason. A glucosinolate is natural toxin. It forms in the leaves of swedes and other brassicas. It can get to quite high levels and under certain conditions it can get to a toxic level. But what we find here is that the herbicide-tolerant swedes have way more than the non - herbicide tolerant swedes. The glucosinolate levels are 4 to 16 milligrams per kilo in the leaves—the bulbs are lower down on the ground 1 to 4 milligrams per kilo—but non - herbicide tolerant ones are just 1 milligram. Something is going on in PGG Wrightson’s Cleancrop system with swedes at least and we are not too sure about the turnips rape and other products under that system. It cheated New Zealanders and it cheated farmers by going down a system of production of those herbicide-tolerant ones and by dodging the genetic engineering route that it already had for that same product through a chemical mutagenesis thing—just as much a DNA muck up—so that it did not have to go through the Environmental Protection Authority and be open to submissions and testing for safety. PGG Wrightson dodged it and this Government has let it dodge it.This is an animal welfare issue. It is also an issue for the people who consume the products from those animals and for the other animal products in this country from animals that are fed products containing lots of herbicides whether it be glyphosate or whether it be chlorothalonil which is in these herbicide tolerant swedes and is banned in China. In here in the Official Information Act stuff I find that they are saying: “Is there enough other herbicide if we move away from these crops?”. They are so locked into PGG Wrightson’s crop. We have got to change the way we farm. We have to go down the organic route and this Government has got to help with regulation for the organic sector. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Sue Moroney—5 minutes.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill at its third reading on behalf of the Labour Party. I just want to note for regular viewers of and listeners to parliamentary debates that they will have noticed something a little different happening in the House this afternoon. It is a Government day where Government measures are going through the House and the Government members are making very fulsome contributions to this debate. It is good to see that occur but of course it is a sign that the Government is not that keen to get through all this legislation very fast because it does not have much legislation on the Order Paper at the moment. That is because the Government has run out of ideas so it has finally found its voice and is wanting to talk rather a lot about its legislation one piece of which is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and that is what is consuming our interest today for the next little while in the House.Labour is supporting this bill and we are very pleased to do so although we wish it went an awful lot further and we wish that the measures came in more quickly. Once Parliament determines as it has that certain practices are harmful and are not in the interests of animal welfare then our question is: why wait 15 years to bring in those measures? If we have determined that these practices are harmful we should act as soon as we can. I noticed that the last Government member who spoke on this bill used a phrase where she said that people were doing this “as fast as they economically can”. That is a phrase that I have not heard used a lot before but I think it is very telling in terms of where the priority lies in this regard. I would prefer and the Labour Party would prefer that the welfare of the animals was the priority and that people were urged to treat animals in a more respectful way much more quickly than taking 15 years for those harmful practices to be phased out. So that would be our criticism of this bill. However we are pleased that there is some progress being made.One of the most important reasons that personally I am pleased to see some progress made on animal welfare is the very close and now well-documented link between those who are prepared to abuse animals and be harmful towards animals and those who therefore turn out also to be abusive towards fellow human beings. There is now actually a lot of evidence that tells us this. The young men whom I think were eventually caught undertaking that heinous act of clubbing the seals to death down south—this happened about 18 months ago maybe 2 years ago now. Actually when people show a lack of empathy towards animals in that way—albeit these animals were out in the wild not someone’s pet—they almost certainly have that same lack of empathy towards others in vulnerable situations like children like other fellow human beings like women in their lives as well.So I think it is very important not only for the issues of animal welfare which in its own right is very important and for the issues that many other members have pointed out about how we are placed within the international market and how animal welfare is seen in those terms but it is also important because we know of the impact and the direct correlation and relationship between people who get a buzz out of hurting animals and how that probably means that they get the same buzz out of hurting and have the same lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. I am not going to take up too much more of Parliament’s time. This is an important measure not only for animals but for people. It is important for our place in the international market. Labour supports its passing.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I just find it absolutely amazing that when Opposition members speak in support of a Government bill they make such good sense. So I just want to commend Sue Moroney’s on some of her thoughts there and also—Sue Moroney: Oh be careful—be careful.JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes be careful. I have been warned to be careful. That is right. You will not get any more credit from me.The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a very important bill I think for most New Zealanders—well all New Zealanders—and certainly for those who have a kind consideration and thought towards animals. In fact about 70 percent of New Zealand households have a pet and I was just thinking about the pets that I have had throughout my life. I started off with tadpoles. I am sure that everybody else here might have had a tadpole in their room in a little jar with a bit of oxygen weed. Then I had guinea pigs cats and calves. I had a pet pig once called Patsy. I had lambs horses and dogs of course.All of these things I think—Sue Moroney: Horses in your bedroom?JONATHAN YOUNG: —have made me a very empathetic person. Thank you very much Ms Moroney.I think that there is some validity in the comment that the way we treat our animals is indicative of the sorts of attitudes we have towards ourselves—human beings—and it is always good to see animals treated with respect and care. I think that in our country we are horrified when we see abuse and cruelty to animals. It comes across our TV screens far too often and there is an outcry when despicable things are done. I think it is indicative of the fact that New Zealand is by and large a very decent society. So it is no wonder that we are bringing through the House this piece of legislation by and large with support right across the House wanting to improve the state and the being of animals. I am sure that there are going to be differences on some finer points—as different members have spoken about—but by and large we are together on this.One of the things that my colleague Barbara Kuriger said—she understands animals very well she being from a dairy background—was that this bill talks about the sentience of animals: their ability to feel to perceive and to experience. I think that the more science reveals this the more of an obligation there is upon humanity to deal with animals in a very humane way. I think also that the comments made by Damien O’Connor are pertinent in that we live in a world that consumes protein. So that is the other balance of it. There are some people who abhor the thought of a steak or a ham sandwich or you know sausages on a barbecue.But you would say that—Kris Faafoi: Oh!JONATHAN YOUNG: It would not be Mr Faafoi by the look of it. He is a man who would like a beautiful lamb curry no doubt and also a steak on a barbecue or a beef sandwich.But the other side of it is that we understand that animals whether they produce dairy products wool milk or meat have contributed to our way of life and to our economy here—to the point where each year around 50 percent of export earnings comes from animals and animal products. I think that is the reality. For myself whenever I go to the supermarket I always buy eggs that are free range. That is because I believe in animal welfare and also because they seem to be the biggest and the nicest eggs. I think there is something in that; that we can have not only a reputation around positive animal welfare but also products that are far superior because of it. I think people in the industry need to realise that they will not be hurt by the transition but that actually they will end up with products that are far superior. Having minimum standards is an important aspect of this.We pride ourselves on our place in the world with regard to animal welfare. There is a global charity called World Animal Protection that recently ranked 50 countries across the world on their animal welfare standards. This index placed New Zealand in first place alongside the United Kingdom Austria and Switzerland. That is good to see but we cannot afford to be complacent just because we might be top-ranking. We must always look for improvements. One of the things Mr Mallard said was that this transition away from caged hens is taking far too long—15 years. Well in the bill it is 10 years. Yes there is an opportunity for a person to apply for a one-off exemption of 5 years but for the vast majority the strong expectation is that it should take no longer than 10 years. I believe also that over that period of time you would have to have a good reason for why it was going to take that long. There is no reason why people cannot be proactive in moving ahead.It is not just legislation that controls this; it is also market appetite. It is what the market wants. Increasingly we will find not only in New Zealand but also around the world that the market is deciding its food products and the products that animals produce—milk or whatever it may be—based on ethical farming. That is the way the world is going. People are listening to that message. If they are interested in staying in business they need to listen.It has been 14 years since there was a review of the Animal Welfare Act so this bill is long overdue. It is a very important piece of legislation. This legislation will update and strengthen animal welfare in New Zealand. This bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It was found that although the principles of the existing legislation are sound the time is right to update and improve how it operates.In that regard I want to put a shout out there for my former parliamentary colleague from Taranaki - King Country Shane Ardern who was the chair of the Primary Production Committee. He did a tremendous amount of work on this bill. We are very pleased now to have Barbara Kuriger who is the member for Taranaki - King Country. That electorate starts in Taranaki and ends nearly in South Auckland. I think it is a nation-size electorate.Jacqui Dean: A townie.JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes that is right. And she is a townie in a dozen towns up and down our country. Barbara has a tremendous knowledge of and experience in animal welfare and it is great to have her in our caucus.Minimum standards are important. Sometimes it is a real shame that you have to legislate for minimum standards. You would hope that people would always all the time be seeking to be the best and to develop and promote excellence in their industry. But minimum standards of animal care do change over time as scientific views lift on what animal management practices are and on what is acceptable. An example of thisis of course what has recently captured the attention of New Zealanders through campaigns and that is the use of sow stalls and battery cages—both of which are being phased out. I think that is an important point to make.When transitioning from one type of farming practice to another we have to acknowledge that it is an expensive process. We have put into this bill a transitional period of time. The purists might be upset at that and they might say: “Do it tomorrow. Do it whatever the expense is. You just have to do it.” Not only do we need to consider the well-being of our farming and poultry industries but we also need to understand that the way of life that has been passed on to New Zealanders is something that we need to protect. These transitional measures are being put in place because we do expect a transition but we are not going to do it just tomorrow although we expect the industry to be proactive in this and make every effort to do it in a very timely way. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am pleased to make the penultimate contribution in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Even though I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee I know that this is a very very important piece of legislation that we are debating in the House today. It further enhances our reputation as a quality food-producing nation and exporter to markets around the world. It is a very important piece of legislation.We have heard in previous contributions that we as Kiwis feel very deeply about animal welfare and that is true. We have heard that two-thirds of households have pets. We have heard that our export industries are largely underpinned by our food production and our food product exports. I need not go into the detail of how important it is in terms of our way of life and our standard of living that we do have strong primary industries. We are fair-minded as Kiwis. We do like to see our animals treated well. We are horrified when we see examples of abuse conducted on animals whether it be on farms or in other situations. All of those matters are sought to be addressed through this bill. We are supporting this bill based on that underlying principle and policy.Again we have heard numerous contributions from the Government side of the House about the importance of animal welfare in terms of our primary industries but again it has failed to even mention the importance of the seafood industry to our country. I repeat that the seafood industry is very important. It is a $1.5 billion export industry and it is very important in terms of the communities that it services. I think of communities in my own electorate such as Bluff or Kaikōura or even over on the Chatham Islands. It is a very important industry.Animal welfare under the application of this bill is equally important to the seafood industry. The No. 1 export product in the seafood industry now is live lobster. The very fact that our lobster which is potted here in the waters of Aotearoa has to live in a tank in a restaurant principally in North Asia is incentive enough for the industry to ensure that the animals are absolutely treated with the highest standards of handling and transportation all the way from—dare I say it—a rock over on the Chatham Islands through to their handling on the plane to Asia.The seafood industry has come about only in the last say 15 to 20 years. It is an industry that has flourished and now the No.1 product in our seafood industry is lobster and that is principally based on animal welfare handling and the catch methods that are applied to live lobster. I am very pleased to say that the fishing industry has a very good relationship with the Ministry for Primary Industries in terms of the protocols or codes of practice that are in place for example for live lobster. I would imagine that the industry is looking forward to those codes of practice eventually being put into regulation again because the value lies in the very fact that the product has to be live. That is where the value lies and that is where the premium is paid to our exporters. Ultimately the returns flow back to our fishing industry our fishers and their families through the very fact that that lobster is handled and is received live by our customers.It does not really stop there because opportunities abound for further live exports. We know that there are small bits of trade that are happening around live pāua exports. We have significant live shellfish exports that take place. All of these are enhancing the value that we are earning as a seafood industry which ultimately benefits our country. The one area of opportunity that is yet to be developed is in the live fin fish export trade. If you go into any restaurant in North Asia in China and southern China especially live fish is a very much highly prized dish in the Chinese market. If we are able to actually export live fish that can turn a low - value species fish in New Zealand into a high-value fish just by ensuring that we look after that fish or that animal and making sure that it is delivered in good condition to the customer.It not only goes to the fact that the fish is alive but it goes further in terms of the appearance. Our customers in North Asia like colourful fish. They like stripes; they like distinctive looking and highly prized fish that will end up on their plates. Opportunities abound for our seafood industry and I know that it will be working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that there are very appropriate regulations or codes of practice put in place to ensure that we can unlock the value to generate further foreign exchange earnings which will ultimately benefit our nation.This is a very important piece of legislation. I do though want to take issue with the Minister for Primary Industries because I do believe he was being slightly disingenuous in his comments about how the Government is doing so much to support animal welfare and enforcement. The Minister mentioned that there have been extra front-line animal protection officers appointed or put on to the job to ensure that there would be on-farm inspections compliance and the like. But that is not entirely correct because a fair portion of the actual animal welfare inspectors that the Ministry for Primary Industries does engage at the moment or employ are actually fisheries officers. They are those good men and women whose job is to actually detect and investigate breaches of our fisheries legislation. Yet those fisheries officers are now being shifted into roles that require them to be animal welfare inspectors as well or biosecurity officers to investigate incursions that take place. Again the fact that the Government is sort of fudging the numbers in terms of what is actually going into the front line is slightly disingenuous.Finally can I also say that the Minister has talked about the fact that resources are going into animal inspections. Can I say that when it comes to fisheries the fishing industry pays over $35 million each year in cost-recovery compliance and $10 million of those cost-recovery levies that are imposed on and paid by the fishing industry is supposed to go on compliance. Unfortunately now we are finding that the fisheries officers are having to be animal welfare inspectors as well. It is easy to take money from an industry but the Government needs to make sure that it is actually delivering services to that industry for those costs. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very pleased to stand in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. When I was contemplating what I would say in my contribution to this third reading I went back as always to my electorate which is a large southern rural electorate that is a big producer of a number of commodity products which are duly exported overseas.This led me to think about an occasion when I was in Hong Kong. I was taken to a wet market and then to a dry market and supermarkets to have a look at primary produce particularly New Zealand beef and lamb at the time. I was very kindly chaperoned by a local gentleman who was an importer of New Zealand beef and lamb products and who was a local representative of Beef and Lamb New Zealand. Many tourists go to the wet markets because you can see chickens being slaughtered right there and there are concrete floors. People go to the market and buy each meal because of the culture and because they like the freshest of food. We went from the wet markets on to a supermarket where New Zealand beef and lamb—in this instance lambin particular—was packaged for Hong Kong consumers as it is packaged for Singaporean consumers European consumers Chinese consumers or wherever it is in the world that New Zealand exports its animal products.A couple of things struck me and I reflected on a couple of aspects that I think relate to this bill. One of them was the context around the meat product—and it was lamb in this case. It was that the offering on sale was a package maybe twice that size and there were little slithers of thinly sliced lamb that were being sold. I was thinking: “Gosh that doesn’t look like a leg of lamb.” which is what I’m used to buying or growing. But it is the form in which the Hong Kong consumer buys the lamb for the dinner that night and it might end up being a hotpot which from memory is one of the dishes that New Zealand lamb is used in. So I noted the differences in expectations of the different markets for our product and I also noticed when I was looking at the labelling that New Zealand sells itself on having not only a wonderful environment and a clean green environment—which I have to say this Government—Stuart Nash: Has destroyed.JACQUI DEAN: —is doing a lot to enhance. You see there we have the Opposition because it is the Opposition and it can only think to oppose saying “destroyed”.Let me say to that member of the Opposition that this Government has done much more to enhance the quality of our environment—and particularly of water—than any. In fact if I recollect the Labour Government in the previous term had its water plan of action. Does anybody who has been around here for a while remember Labour’s water plan of action? Well it was so bad—so bad—that officials at the Ministry for the Environment termed it in public the water plan—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am relating this to the bill because of our international reputation in terms of quality. Although we do have some parties in the House that would seek to destroy New Zealand’s international reputation this Government is working very strongly to enhance our international reputation and this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill certainly adds to our reputation.I know when speaking to some of our vets for example in and around the Waitaki districtthat they have long been concerned—particularly those who are involved in the export markets and who service the farmers farming operations and freezing works that export internationally. They are absolutely aware of and support not only New Zealand’s efforts to enhance our environmental reputation—because this is “New Zealand Inc.” after all—but also the need for us to maintain our reputation for good animal husbandry standards. And I believe we do.What I have also seen over the years particularly around the Waitaki Valley is the expansion of dairying as a result of irrigation—another wonderful initiative of this Government in supporting this development. It is not only supporting it but also providing incentive funds and research and development funds for the development of irrigation which is increasing productivity and jobs in the regions. Particularly I want to zero in on the Waitaki Valley because we now have irrigation from the top of the valley—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a third reading speech.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. What that has meant is that we now have dairy farming expansion along the main road. When you have dairy farming expansion along the main road the travelling public—both visitors and New Zealand citizens alike—get to see farming operations up close. In fact people will often stop and park their cars to take photos of dairy cows and sheep when they can find them—there are fewer sheep in my area than there used to be. One of the consequences of having dairy farming on show is that animal husbandry as of necessity needs to lift its game consequentially—not just because it can be seen from the main road and it is New Zealand’s reputation at stake but also because farming has lifted its game substantially over the past few years and that is just my observation.I did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill—I know that a number of members here did—so I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise fully this bill. But I am pleased that one of the objectives of the bill is to provide for clear and enforceable standards of animal welfare. In that I do hope that attention was paid to the growth of smallholdings and hobby farmers in New Zealand. I think that Federated Farmers have often raised the point that small farmers also need to have a high standard of animal husbandry. It may not be that they are exporting—probably not; the likelihood of small farms exporting is probably pretty low—but none the less even if those animals are being raised for home kill or on-farm killing or for sending down to the local abattoir to be killed and then dressed at the butcher and then sent home again which is what we used to do when we had a small farm the level of animal husbandry needs to be maintained by that sector as well.I did a visit to Alliance Group’s Pukeuri freezing works some years ago—probably 4 or 5 years ago. This was just as the local MP because I was interested in the export of lamb and they tried to play a trick on me at Pukeuri. We went right to the top of the chain—and it is quite a long trek from the bottom where they cut up the cuts with the saws all the way up back to the kill. This is a halal plant and so the sheep were killed very humanely. In fact they had no idea what was coming—so it was a very humane kill—and then they proceeded down the line. I could see the workers looking at me—a local sheila turning up—and thinking: “Who does she think she is—the local MP? I know we’ll get her.”As the sheep was coming down the line it came time to top the sheep’s head off. What the freezing workers did was pop it on the ground looking at me with the hope of my saying: “Oh isn’t it awful. It’s a sheep’s head.” Well little did they know that we had been involved in home killing down on the farm for 20 years or so by that stage so that did not work. But I have to say that I know a lot of the freezing workers out at Pukeuri which is probably why they played the trick on me. I have to say that I know Pukeuri freezing works very well. I also know Silver Fern Farms up at the northern end of my electorate. I have met with the management. I have met with the freezing workers. They do uphold the highest standards of animal welfare because they have to. They understand that for the animals’ sake it is important and also that in terms of our international reputation and our export markets it is critical. Thank you.Bill read a third time.Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 29 April.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Kia orana fakalofa lahi atu and taloha ni. It is a privilege to speak to this bill the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill and out of respect for our Pacific brothers and sisters to whom this bill relates I greet this House in those three languages.I want to start by contextualising this bill. Many New Zealanders are actually unaware of the unique relationship that New Zealand has with our Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan nations. Those three Island nations have a constitutional relationship with New Zealand which I am sure we are aware of but which many people outside of this House have no knowledge of. They are technically part of the Realm of New Zealand. As such they have free association with New Zealand and are New Zealand citizens by right. They can move freely between their Island homes and ours. As such we have a responsibility as a Parliament to make sure that we exercise the same duty of care to them as we do to New Zealand - based citizens.It is appropriate to recognise the service of men and women from those countries to our country—particularly in light of the recent Anzac Day commemorations. Our Pacific Realm brothers and sisters fought alongside New Zealanders during World War I and World War II—many of them under our flag the New Zealand flag. The contributions that they have made to this country whether to our economy our sports fields our workforce our academia our arts or through fighting for this country are unquestionable. The Labour Party and I think this whole Parliament value the unique relationship that we have with these countries and will do what is required to honour that relationship.In brief this bill will give effect to the Government policy on portability of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. This is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 and the Social Security Act 1964. The aim of this bill is to allow eligible people who live in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau to apply from any of those countries for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension and to be paid those benefits in those countries or in other specified Pacific countries.In August 2013 the Hon Murray McCully Minister of Foreign Affairs announced changes to the special portability arrangement that would allow eligible residents to apply for their pension or veterans pension from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. Under the current rules people wishing to retire to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65. Residents of those countries or that territory would still need to qualify for New Zealand superannuation. They must have been resident and present in New Zealand for more than 10 years since the age of 20 including 5 years since the age of 50. This legislation means that people who are entitled to New Zealand superannuation regardless of whether they are of Cook Island Niuean or Tokelauan ethnicity would be able to depart New Zealand to live in one of these three countries after the age of 55 and apply for their superannuation once they turn 65 without returning to New Zealand. Currently they would have to stay in New Zealand until turning 65 in order to qualify. The new policy would require legislation to be passed in the New Zealand Parliament and is expected to apply from 1 July 2015.We support this bill and believe it is a step in the right direction towards equal treatment of New Zealand citizens throughout the Realm. However we take on board some of the concerns that were raised by submitters about the eligibility criteria. My colleague Poto Williams actually raised this issue in a minority report and she alluded to a Supplementary Order Paper she was going to write seeking to remove the requirement to be resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years between the ages of 50 and the qualification age of 65. The purpose of that Supplementary Order Paper was to ensure that residents of the islands of the Realm would not be disadvantaged by being forced to absent themselves from family and work commitments in order to receive New Zealand superannuation.New Zealand citizens including those within the Realm of New Zealand should be treated equitably and Poto Williams’ idea which she discussed in that minority report would mean that we are more closely aligning the criteria for all applicants living in New Zealand and the countries of the Realm. I do want to say that despite the fact that Poto Williams went to great lengths to write a minority report that reflected her concern and also alluded to the fact that she would be writing this Supplementary Order Paper one of our colleagues from New Zealand First decided to go and write the Supplementary Order Paper. We are not petty; we will still support that Supplementary Order Paper but I do want to acknowledge my Cook Island colleague Poto Williams for the work that she did on the Social Services Committee for the attention that she paid to the submitters and for the fact that she has been pushing for us to actually take this point into consideration. I hope that the Government takes it seriously including the chair of our select committee who is our other Cook Island colleague in the House Mr Alfred Ngaro.I do want to share an experience I had a few years back when I was part of a group that travelled to four Pacific Islands as part of New Zealand’s inquiry into our relationship with the Pacific. One thing that came up time and time again when we were in the Cook Islands and when we went to Niue—unfortunately we did not get an opportunity to go to Tokelau—was the fact that the biggest problem they are facing is depopulation. They talked about the fact that they have lost and continue to lose their biggest resource to New Zealand. And that resource of course is their people.Sometimes I think that we take it for granted that we have people coming here living here and contributing to our economy and I want to acknowledge our three Realm countries for the contribution that their people—their biggest resource—have made to this country. I think one way in which we can honour that relationship is to ensure that yes we all support this bill in the House and also that we take into consideration the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First and that was proposed by my colleague Poto Williams. This is a bill that we think will be supported across the House and we do not think there are very many party politics involved with this—except for perhaps a little bit of debate over who may have come up with the idea of a Supplementary Order Paper. It is really about doing what is right.I hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that I have spoken about because it is the right thing to do. I think moving forward that this is just one way in which we can honour the relationship that we have with the three Realm countries and ensure that there will be other ways in which we can do that other opportunities that will present themselves to us as a Parliament to honour that relationship. I think that it is important first and foremost to continually raise awareness with general members of the public that we do have this special relationship. Any measures that we put into place to honour that relationship are unique to our relationship with those countries and may not necessarily apply to other countries. It is just part and parcel of the fact that they happen to be part of the Realm of New Zealand.We support this bill and we ask all of the other political parties in the House to support the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put up by New Zealand First but of course was proposed by my Cook Island colleague Poto Williams. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to be able to rise and take a call on the second reading on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. First of all to my Tokelauan colleague over there Kris Faafoi taloha ni. And also to my Cook Island colleague over there Poto Williams kia orana tatou katotoa. E te ora matoa o te atua. Greetings to you as well. Unfortunately there are no Niuean colleagues here but we do acknowledge Niue as well fakalofa lahi atu. Kia matolo oti because they are the three nations of the Realm of New Zealand. What people also may not know is that it has been said that when we sing the national anthem “God Defend New Zealand” and we talk about the triple star it is a particular reference to the three nations of the Realm. In the national anthem we talk about defending them from strife and war. So there absolutely is a special relationship which was signed in 1965. In fact for the Cook Islands this year is a celebration of 50 years of their independence. For those countries to be in free association and self-governing is very much an important aspect of self-dependence and self-determination. We think that is absolutely important.Also I would just like to mention that the relationship is such that we are commemorating the 100 years of conflict for New Zealand in regard to service and sacrifice. We have been working Poto Williams and myself on acknowledging the contribution that 147 Niuean soldiers made—and 500 Cook Islands soldiers as well. In fact because of that relationship Sir Māui Pomare in 1915 through to 1917 visited those nations of the Realm and through that many of them came in the Rarotongan contingent—over five contingents that came across and fought in the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion. That goes I suppose towards acknowledging the relationship of the nations of the Realm. Their contribution to New Zealand societyas well both in the past and also in the present—that becomes very important. Hence this bill becomes important to those nations and in particular to myself—I am Kiwi born and of Cook Island descent Mr Assistant Speaker.I do not know whether you have been privileged enough to go to those Pacific nations but—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have.ALFRED NGARO: You have. I am sure that you would have enjoyed it there.To my parents who are in New Zealand at the moment and are heading back home it is a proud moment to be able to ensure that this bill actually has some significance for them as well. I think this bill is quite significant in that it does allow the opportunity for those three nations to have a special arrangement. That arrangement is not afforded to all of the 22 Pacific nations under the special portability arrangement; this particular arrangement is specific to those three nations. I want to make that point—that already in particular with this bill there is recognition of that relationship.The other thing that I want to mention inside of this is the Supplementary Order Paper that was mentioned—and I will talk at a bit more length about the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through from New Zealand First. It talks about introducing a new section which is 5(2) to replace section 8(c). I think it is particular to a number of submissions. There were 13 written submissions and six that were oral. In fact we were very fortunate to actually have the Premier of Niue the Hon Toke Talagi come and also the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands the Hon Henry Puna was present. It was quite an honour to have them personally present to us their submission in the select committee.The three key objectives of the bill are firstly to improve ongoing economic and social viability for those three nations of the Realm; secondly to recognise the close constitutional relationships; and thirdly to ensure that New Zealanders have options for retirement because this actually is an option not only for those descendants who may want to return home to their nations but also for other New Zealanders. In fact there are a number of expats who are living in those countries now who have gone back and said “This is a place where I want to retire.” This gives them that opportunity as well.I want to make mention of a report and I know that Carmel Sepuloni talked about the report which was submitted in 2010. In fact I have got the report here. She was a part of the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with South Pacific countries. In that report it actually talks about Realm of New Zealand entities and responsibilities to New Zealand citizens overseas. I think it is quite important because it does talk about the challenge of depopulation. When I think about one of the key objectives which is improving ongoing economic and social viability for these countries this bill attempts to do that. In fact it talks about the statistics where in the Cook Islands alone it is depopulating by some 500 people leaving the country and that is a real concern for it. In a decade it has gone from 18000 to 12000 which is now the current population and that fluctuates during the holiday breaks. So this is becoming a real concern. This bill then is intended to ensure that it actually tries to address that issue as well.The second thing about the bill is recognising close constitutional relationships. In fact the report goes further in its recommendations and in its first recommendation acknowledges that among the Pacific Island States the priority should be given to assisting those territories with which New Zealand has a special constitutional relationship. So again what I would like to commend is the fact that the bill is actually fulfilling some of the recommendations that are in the report. In fact I want to go even further. On this it talks not only about what this bill may fulfil but also about things that under a National Government we would also be able to do like the Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum which was held in 2013. Again other Governments have talked about this but actually under a National Government we have been able to deliver that—the first it has ever had. It is the same thing again: the priority over here is to support these Realm nations and again under a National Government we have been able to deliver on that.I want to then address the issues of concern because out of the submissions probably the most telling issue of concern was around the 5 years over 50 rule. We know that as it currently stands a person may be eligible for superannuation if they after 20 years of age have served at least 10 years in New Zealand—5 of those years after turning 50 years old. I suppose Supplementary Order Paper 71 in particular has tried to challenge that—to see whether we can remove that and whether there is some opportunity for I suppose an equity of consideration in their regard. I just want to contend that under the current status that the special portability arrangement for people able to take their New Zealand superannuation or old veterans pension—well I mention the veterans pension here because it is part of that omnibus bill approach to this bill. I want to acknowledge Bill Framheim for whom and for a number of cases even the Governor-General was a strong supporter in actually ensuring that the veterans bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!ALFRED NGARO: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You just cannot bring him into the debate.ALFRED NGARO: Oh apologies. It is better not to bring him into the debate. There was a special annuity that was given for a veteran who had served faithfully. In fact there were four tours of duty. He was one of only four New Zealanders in Viet Nam to have served four tours of duty. I think the fact that this veterans pension has been part of this bill—to acknowledge that and its amendments—will go some way towards acknowledging in particular the contribution of Pacific servicemen and servicewomen who have served faithfully and who wish to retire back in their Pacific nations.Under that special portability arrangement for people to return the arrangement is that after 10 years there is 50 percent eligibility for their pension and after 20 years there is 100 percent eligibility. So the payment for special portability is more generous than for general portability. One thing about the 5 years after 50 rule aspect of the arrangement and one of the reasons why that becomes important—and I want to touch on three—is that first of all this is equitable for all New Zealanders irrespective of who has gone overseas. When you have been overseas and you have decided to come back and retire at home you are still eligible under this criterion. In other words you must still serve your 5 years. This is not discriminating against our Pacific brothers and sisters and those who are under the Realm and I think that is really important.The second thing that I think is also important to consider is the arrangement with other countries where there is a special social security agreement. There is a reciprocal arrangement financially that those countries can pay back. So there is an issue here and the reasons we considered in the committee and the advice that was given is that there is a reciprocal arrangement that can be made with those other countries. In those Pacific nations in particular they are not able to make that financial contribution or reciprocate that financially and hence the reason why we think this legislation is important. We believe that the bill is actually equitable. We believe that the bill gives consideration to the special arrangement and we believe that that is critically important for what we are doing to try to achieve that. We know that the costs are achievable for us. If we were to remove that not only would it be inequitable for other New Zealanders who still have to obey the 5 years after 50 rule but also it would mean that it opens up quite a precedent for us that could actually broaden both the cost and the ability to be able to administer that back in the Pacific as well.I round off my speech by saying that it is a privilege to be able to speak on this bill. I look forward to it going through the Committee stage. We believe that we have struck the right balance for the acknowledgment of the special arrangement with the Realm of New Zealand nations. I commend this bill to the House.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Mr Assistant Speaker with your indulgence I would like to greet the families and the people watching at home. Kia orana kotou katoatoa na roto i te aroa maata o te Atua.I rise with great pleasure to take a call on this bill. Most of my references will be due to the fact that I do have Cook Islands heritage but I was born in New Zealand as Mr Ngaro also previously stated. I feel very deeply the desire of the people of the Cooks and of Niue and Tokelau that we do the right thing by them with this piece of legislation because for me it is about nationhood. What is the quality of nationhood? We are members of the Realm of New Zealand. We have New Zealand passports.There is a reason that it is important for us to support the Realm countries because travelling on New Zealand passports has been one of the most significant reasons our home islands have become depopulated—because of that ability to travel so freely. So in that regard as the big brother in this context we have a responsibility to those home islands to support them in their initiatives to ensure that our populations can return home and contribute to those home islands.It is about the quality of our citizenship. To be a New Zealand citizen should be the same regardless of whether you were born in Rarotonga or in Auckland. The quality of the citizenship should be the same.What is it about being a New Zealander? I was born in New Zealand but I am very much a Cook Islands girl—but I am a New Zealander as well. When you travel back to the Cook Islands its people are very much part of the wider context of this nation. What they have done in terms of their contribution to this country has been extraordinary and we should recognise their full rights of citizenship. It was one of the issues that was raised by the contributors and the submitters. They were asking: what does citizenship mean and what does it mean when we allow our sons and daughters to pay the ultimate price for this country?This country has been supported throughout its primary industry by people from the Cooks and Niue and Tokelau. It is no secret that there are quite large populations of Cook Islands people in Hawke’s Bay because they helped with the picking of the fruit. There are large populations of Cook Islands people in Tokoroa because they contributed to the forestry industry. People from the Cooks and from the other Realm countries have supported the economic development of this country. They have supported and contributed to the culture of New Zealand.Auckland is the largest Pacific city in the world. Where would we be in New Zealand without such festivals as the Pasifika Festival and ASB Polyfest which really show the richness of our country and our heritage. Cook Islands people have a special kin relationship with tangata whenua. We have a shared migration history. Our history is interwoven with the people of Aotearoa New Zealand over and over and over again. Let us not forget the 500 soldiers who fought for this country in World War I under the New Zealand flag some of whom perished and the servicemen and servicewomen who currently serve for New Zealand.Labour supports this bill and the proposed changes but we believe they should go further. We are very supportive of the administrative changes which mean that when you are ready to apply for superannuation you can do so from the home islands as long as you have met the criteria. We are also very supportive of the fact that you no longer have to return to New Zealand to keep that application and those criteria alive and that that provision has now had some changes to it to make it easier for your status to remain active.We are very supportive of the other changes that have happened but there are a couple of things that we believe this Government should actually take into consideration. This piece of legislation after going through the Social Services Committee has come through literally unchanged. So although Mr Ngaro can talk about what National has done it has done nothing in terms of listening to those submitterstwo of whom were heads of State—Alfred Ngaro: Not true.POTO WILLIAMS: It has done nothing in terms of listening to them around their major concerns. The major concern is the 5 years after age 50 clause. When the officials were asked what the financial contribution was going to costif we removed that clause their answer was “$9 million to $21 million.” In terms of the value of the contribution of the people of the Realm to this country I would say that that is fairly small change—$9 million to $21 million.There is also another consideration. One of the submitters asked me whether I realised that if a person stays in the Cook Islands for 5 years that stay is part of their eligibility criteria to become a citizen of New Zealand. So if you can be resident in the Cooks for 5 years and that is part of the eligibility criteria to become a citizen of New Zealand how can you not then have the 5 years after 50 as a resident in the Cooks? That was the key consideration of all of the submitters bar about two or three.What does that mean in terms of what can happen in the home islands? This is something that I need to correct Mr Ngaro on in a couple of points you made. One of the points you made was that you only need to be resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20. That is incorrect because this bill clearly states that in order to attract 100 percent of your superannuation and have that portable to the Cooks Niue and Tokelau you actually have to be resident and present in New Zealand for 20 years. If you are here for only 10 years after that you are entitled to only 50 percent so I think you had better actually correct yourself—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!POTO WILLIAMS: Excuse me Mr Assistant Speaker—Alfred. I think you should correct that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Ngaro or Alfred Ngaro or something like that—thank you.POTO WILLIAMS: I am sorry again Mr Assistant Speaker—I am getting a little bit emotional about this.The other thing that is really important about the removal of the 5 years after 50 clause is that it would encourage people to move to the Cooks earlier. The whole reason that we want to look at removing that clause is that if you are already established in the Cooks as a person say in your mid-40s establishing a business or working there and you have got your families organised the requirement to come back to New Zealand to do the 5 years after 50 means massive disruption to you. You are already contributing to the home islands but then you are required to return. We think it makes much more sense to be encouraging people to move to the Cooks at a younger age as many of my cousins have suggested that they will do. They have done a lot of work in their careers here and are feeling like they can contribute to their home islands.I realise that I am just about to finish up my 10-minute call here but I want to just remind the House that 2 weeks ago there were crosses on the front lawn of Parliament with the names of Cook Islands men who fought and died for this country. For 3 days those crosses were on the lawn of Parliament. If that is not enough to encourage the New Zealand Parliament to support this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 71 to remove 5 years over 50 clause I do not know what else is. Thank you.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a great honour to rise for the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. Can I say kia orana taloha ni and fakalofa lahi atu. I do hope I have got that right with my southern accent. I must say that I have a connection to the Cook Islands—not in the sense of ancestry but I did propose to my wife in Rarotonga. Many people go there for weddings. I went to spend some time there for a friend’s wedding and looked at the beautiful country and I thought “Here is a good place where I would very much like to propose.” My wife is actually from a landlocked country so I thought what a great opportunity it was to propose to her on a beautiful island. I can fully understand why not only people from Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands would want to retire there but also all New Zealanders. It is great that this bill will give them the freedom and the choice to retire there without being resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65.This bill amends rules for payments for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Currently people have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65 to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions. Individuals need to have spent 10 years here since the age of 20 and 5 of them after the age of 50. The change will allow applicants who live in the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions from these places rather than from New Zealand. The effect is that people will be able to leave New Zealand and go to live in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau after the age of 55 rather than having to be in the country at 65 to qualify and collect their pension. This bill has been a longstanding request from leaders of the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue. We had over a dozen submitters to this bill all favourable. As my colleague Alfred Ngaro mentioned we had some from dignitaries as well.I want to mention one group of submitters if I may and that was the Concerned Community Collective. The Concerned Community Collective is an informal group of Christchurch community leaders who are descended from people from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau and who came together in December 2014 purely for the purpose of this bill. It was great to receive their submission. Their membership consists of approximately 30 people with the ages in the group ranging from 28 to 75 so it just shows you the appeal of this bill and the people wanting to submit. They all came from diverse background cultures and it was very important and valuable for them to be part of this process and submit on the bill. The Concerned Community Collective said that it supported the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill and the changes it makes to the existing rules for applying for superannuation.The Concerned Community Collective and some of my parliamentary colleagues this afternoon have also talked about the unique relationship with peoples of the Realm of New Zealand with the foundation of this relationship being defined by New Zealand citizenship and nationality of these countries. They were not too happy though they say here that despite this those from these countries of the Realm have been categorised as Pacific migrants and afforded the same conditions as 19 other Pacific nations whose citizens are not New Zealand nationals. But altogether they supported the bill and its intent.We also had another submitter the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association. If I can deviate slightly it is the first time I have been able to speak in the House since Anzac Day and I will just acknowledge the sacrifice of the young men from my region of Waimakariri and of course Canterbury New Zealand and these countries as well who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms and the choices that we have in New Zealand today. As a young backpacker I was very fortunate to travel to Turkey and the Gallipoli peninsula and spend some time at Anzac Cove in reflection and also spend some time up at Chunuk Bair which we held for some small amount of time. It really hit home to me the great lengths our young people went to to protect this country and the great lengths that we must go to to ensure that they are remembered for another 100 years. I was very fortunate to be part of the preparations which included the opening of the new building for the Christchurch RSA the oldest RSA in the country; and the opening of the educational wing at Rannerdale Home and Hospital. [Interruption]Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Coming back to this bill ultimately this bill reduces the need for individuals to be resident and present in New Zealand which is a requirement for this special portability bill and very much feeds into the National Party value of freedom and choice. But as Alfred Ngaro mentioned this is not just for people from these three countries but also for all New Zealanders who will be able to go out and qualify for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension at the age of 65. I am thinking very much what a great place to go and retire. It could be like the Algarve or the Benidorm of the Pacific and it is great that these people will get the freedom and choice to retire to these countries. We are not talking about a large number here. It is a small number of people involved. Tokelau and Niue each have fewer than 1500 in their population. We are looking at a number of only 650 people who are receiving New Zealand superannuation in the Pacific and 300 of these people are in the Cook Islands themselves. The forecasted numbers for this benefit are about 245 people with an increase of about 16 per year.This is acknowledgment of the constitutional arrangements and that these countries are of the Realm of New Zealand. We are removing the barrier that exists for these people who have to be resident and present in New Zealand to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions. It gives these retirees a lot more flexibility and it is also about supporting the economic and social development of these countries. We have heard this afternoon about the effects of depopulation and it is great that these individuals will be able to retire and take their income with them. We also know about the hardship that it currently causes for people who have spent their 5 years after age 50 in New Zealand and have to return to New Zealand at age 65 and the upheaval that that causes as well. This will also be about individuals taking their cash flow to Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands. They will be able to spend this and contribute to a range of local businesses and help to support employment. Also it is about skills and experience going back to these countries. We know for New Zealand that a lot of young people go and do their OE gain international skills and experience and bring those back to this country for our benefit as well.I must just challenge the minority view of New Zealand First. Really it has no shame to say “Compare this to the generosity of giving full New Zealand Superannuation entitlement to non-New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years’ residency.” I would challenge New Zealand First to stand up and show us the data for that. Normally individuals have to spend 10 years here to get 50 percent and 20 years to get 100 percent. This is just typical migrant-bashing by New Zealand First—absolutely appalling and especially so with a bill like this.If I could conclude this bill is about freedom and choice this bill is about countries of the Realm of New Zealand and this bill is about supporting the economic development and social development of these countries. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the second call for the Greens on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. We support the bill on the basis that it is a step in the right direction towards ensuring the citizens of the Realm of New Zealand countries—Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau—who are also citizens of New Zealand have better access to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. But we have the same sort of concerns that have been raised by previous speakers on this side of the House particularly Carmel Sepuloni and Poto Williams about whether this bill goes far enough. Certainly the opinion that was coming from the submitters was that this bill did not go far enough.Under the current system people wishing to access New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of applying for the payments. As well as that they must have lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years as an adult over 20—if it is 10 years they can access 50 percent of the payments later on and they must have lived here for 20 years to get the full payment of superannuation—and they must have lived in New Zealand for at least 5 years since the age of 50.For the people from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau who have lived and worked in New Zealand as adults for 10 years or 20 years this bill will still require them to live here for 5 years after the age of 50 to be eligible for the payments but what this bill does change is that they do not have to be resident and present after that. They can access superannuation and the veterans pension from their home island countries. It means that older people from these island communities can return to their homelands access those pensions—which by the way they have contributed to as residents and citizens of New Zealand—and it also means and this is a point that was made by the previous speaker Matt Doocey that other New Zealanders who meet the eligibility requirement for residency in those Realm countries can also stay in those islands and access superannuation or the veterans pension there.But the common concern from the submitters was around that 5 years after 50 rule. It was a very unusual step for the Social Services Committee to hear submissions from the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands the Hon Henry Puna and the Premier of Niue the Hon Toke Talagi and again their concern was expressed particularly around that 5 years after 50 rule. I understand—and it says this in the regulatory impact statement as well—that this bill has been the result of Government to Government discussions for quite a long time and that the Realm countries have been asking for this for a very long time. So they were very clear that they were appreciative of the effort that was being made to clear this up but again they did express their concerns.We heard from them how the current system has been a disincentive for people wishing to return to the islands of the Realm and we also heard firsthand about the issues of depopulation and the subsequent problems that it can cause for these small island economies. By enabling these citizens to live in the islands from potentially the age of 55 and still be eligible for superannuation it removes that disincentive a bit although it will mean that there may be disruption for people if they have met the criteria and have returned to their home islands before they have hit the 50-year age bracket.I just want to acknowledge as previous speakers have done the contribution that the people of the Realm countries—from the Cook Islands from Niue and from Tokelau—have made to our nation’s economy. And I take the point that Poto Williams raised earlier about the service that those citizens have also provided in terms of our armed forces. They have provided to the social and the economic well-being of our society and by allowing for this easier portability and ensuring that people can move back to their home countries and access superannuation and veterans pensions it means that we are reciprocating and that we are helping with the economic development of their countries which I think is fair enough.We will be supporting this bill. I will be interested to see what the Supplementary Order Papers are like. At this stage from reading the report from the select committee and the minority views we are fully supportive of the efforts that the Labour Party is making to extend the eligibility so that we can remove further disincentives to people returning to those depopulated islands where they really need them. Thank you.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I would firstly actually like to acknowledge some of what Carmel Sepuloni said in her opening remarks about the importance of this bill in opening New Zealand’s wider view on the special relationship that exists between New Zealand and Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Look I have to be honest and inform the House that my understanding of the special relationship is relatively limited and through this select committee process I guess I have had my own eyes widened to that. Perhaps it is because in Tauranga Boys’ College the history was very European and World War II - focused. We did not have a lot of Pacific Island history but it is certainly something that I have enjoyed being part of on the Social Services Committee.As we have heard already in the conversations around this second reading we had a number of submissions with six submissions turning up or being presented verbally and of course 13—just over 12—submissions in all. They all were broadly supportive. Some of the views that we have heard expressed here tonight around some of the areas of concern have I think been given more weight than is due relative to the perspectives that were shared certainly when I was listening on the select committee.I do think it was quite amazing actually that we had a visit from two heads of State Prime Minister Henry Puna from the Cook Islands and the Niue Premier Toke Talagi. Initially I thought that this was perhaps a symbolic gesture but certainly again that perhaps talks to my newness to this particular topic and the relationship that we have with these three countries because it was clearly far more than that. You could see it in the import that they brought to the conversation the historic ties that they wanted to reference in their submission and the importance that they saw this particular bill was going to provide for their communities.So it is in my view absolutely right that these three countries have the opportunities that are outlined in this bill particularly the opportunity to return home from the age of 55 and when they get to 65 to apply from their homeland for the superannuation—should they wish—to have it paid there and of course to take their qualifying veterans pension with them too. Freeing these people from the obligation to be resident in New Zealand at the point of application for New Zealand superannuation will I think provide significant flexibility and opportunity for these communities.We have heard already this evening as we have stepped through this conversation the feedback that we have had from a number of submitters on the opportunity that they think it will bring their communities. When you have had the population drift that has occurred from these three countries to New Zealand the opportunity to provide a mechanism to enable them to return home to their original homeland and contribute from the age of 55 when they still have so much energy and capacity it is very powerful and I believe that it will be taken up in larger numbers over time than perhaps what is initially suggested which is just under 250 initially.There was clear feedback—and we have heard about some of that already this evening—that the cut-off at 55 years should be made earlier or even removed altogether but that challenges the overarching residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions and from my perspective that would certainly be more than a step too far. It is really important though that we acknowledge that that was pretty consistent feedback from those who made the submissions.In terms of the opportunity to go back and contribute to their societies I would like to spend just a moment reflecting on a Niuean friend of mine who is currently a schoolteacher. I happened to have a conversation with him about this particular bill and what this could mean to him and his broader family. He was open with me that he has not really historically considered going back to continue his educational contribution in his home country but this particular provision is something that means he will now reflect on it. I hope that he does consider it. He is a renowned educator and the opportunity to go back to his homeland and contribute in his area of passion and to then be able to be supported in terms of New Zealand superannuation is I think a really positive step forward. We have heard that it will not just be examples like my friend that we will see; we will see a whole lot of different people—not necessarily those who were born in the islands—take up this opportunity and perhaps see a change in the course of their life to head back and spend a decent part of their lives back in those three particular countries.I would like to spend just a moment reflecting on the veterans component of this bill. They obviously spoke with some passion about the changes that they think should be considered. I think that the way we have this bill written is fair. It is consistent with the position we have taken and the changes we have made recently and I think that on balance they will see that it still is a step in the right direction. Like my colleague Matt Doocey I would like to spend just a moment acknowledging their sacrifice particularly those from the Realm countries who not only gave their lives in support of the values that underpin our collective countries but out of all of the populations for them to move from the Pacific to fight in those world theatres must have been extraordinarily daunting. Certainly the feedback that I have had as I have studied this a little bit more over the last few weeks is that they found those conditions quite appalling and really suffered tragically from it. So I do want to acknowledge that and I do want to acknowledge my own RSA in Mount Maunganui and the 10000 who turned up at the cenotaph. It was quite an extraordinary outpouring of public support.The specific submissions—if I could spend just a couple of moments reflecting on them particularly the 5 years over 50 rule I have to acknowledge that most submissions raised feedback about the application of that particular rule and extending the coverage to all Pacific countries and also improving the existing provisions of the existing veterans pension. The 5 years over 50 rule was introduced in 1990 it has been in place for 25 years and it replaced an even more stringent 7-year residency rule before that. I think it serves the right purpose which is essentially that you need to have had a recent engagement with or a contribution to New Zealand society and the community before you are eligible for that particular superannuation. I think that is appropriate and it would raise a whole lot of other equity issues if we started treating particular subsets of New Zealand superannuation applicants differently from others. In terms of the extending of the coverage issue I think it is appropriate that we hold the line there and that certainly is the feedback that we have had from a number of submitters.I do want to talk just briefly about implementation. That was raised quite a number of times by submitters. We are obviously going to pass this measure. This is going to come in. It is going to be a great change for these countries. The risk here is that those who are available—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members when we broke for the dinner break we were debating the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. Todd Muller has 55 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.TODD MULLER: Well that has changed actually. It was 29 seconds we thought just before dinner—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Grab it while you can.TODD MULLER: —but I suspect it is now down to 40.But in conclusion this is a phenomenal piece of legislation which needed to occur. We have heard from a number of speakers that it has broad support within this House. I do want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Alfred Ngaro as the chair of the Social Services Committee who has reflected and deliberated on this bill. I think there is no better person to chair this debate and to be participating in it today. I am sure as he said he will get a lot of satisfaction in seeing it ultimately pass through this House and it is a good gift for his mum and dad who are hopping on a plane tonight to head back to the Cook Islands. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie. This is a 5-minute call.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call in this the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. The Green Party is supporting this bill as well as Supplementary Order Paper 71. That has been presented I understand by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to address the concerns raised by submitters—including most notably two heads of State—regarding the requirement of 5 years of residence post the age of 50 which has also been raised by other members of this House.For people listening this bill basically improves the access of people who live in the Realm of New Zealand to superannuation. The Realm countries are Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands. This bill sits on the precipice of resolving long-outstanding concerns that I am sure many members of this House have had raised with them over many years. It will enable people from Realm States who are living in those States to access 100 percent of superannuation if they have spent 20 years in this country. It will enable them to access 50 percent if they have spent 10 to 20 years on these islands as long as—and this is our problem—5 of those years have been spent in New Zealand post the age of 50.Realm countries are part of our constitutional arrangements in this country. In Tokelau for example the New Zealand - appointed representative in Tokelau has the power to overturn rules that have been passed by their General Fono which is in effect their Parliament. The economy of Niue is funded significantly by the overseas development and aid budget from this country. They have a population of under 1600 people living on those islands whereas there are 24000-plus Niueans I understand living in this country. The Cook Islands obviously are in a different position but as with all Realm countries their past and future are inextricably linked with ours. As has been noted in this House earlier many men from the Cook Islands died in the First World War. We saw the crosses on the lawn in their remembrance recently. People from the Cook Islands contribute significantly to this House. People from all the island States have contributed to our economy and our society. Where I live in Porirua there are wonderful rare moments where we get to hear the Cook Island drums rousing us to action from the streets.The people covered by this bill have spent decades in this country providing labour wisdom and culture and paying tax. It should not be seen as an act of beneficence to ensure that they can access the fruits of those labours. The Government has skirted the real issue of justice and the long-held concerns in this bill sadly by keeping in that requirement for 5 years of residence in New Zealand post the age of 50. I think we see this most starkly in the presentations and the submissions that asked for that to be taken out including submissions from two heads of State.If we look at the example of Niue where there are fewer than 1600 people living on those islands there is a call for people to come home to be able to participate in the building and functioning of that country. This bill by requiring people to spend 5 years in New Zealand post 50 and break their participation if they have gone back earlier or just calling them out is not actually in the interests of Niue nor is it in the interests of this country and our overseas and development aid budget. There are good reasons for this but most of them I think are that people have paid and contributed through their taxes and years of work in this country. They are part of our Realm and they deserve the recognition of easy access to superannuation within the Realm countries.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jenny Salesa—5-minute call.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Kia orana. Fakalofa lahi atu. Taloha ni. It is my pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. However before I address the contents of this bill I would like to first off acknowledge and honour the thousands of New Zealanders and Māori who were joined by 500 Cook Island soldiers over 100 Niuean soldiers and a number of Tokelauan soldiers Samoan soldiers and Tongan soldiers during World War I. They committed themselves to the service of Aotearoa New Zealand and for so many of these soldiers there would be no return. They gave all that there was to give: their lives. No sacrifice could be greater. It is especially fitting to honour and remember them at this time because so many of these people who will benefit from the changes proposed by this bill or their ancestors have fought for New Zealand leaving behind their loved ones in the Pacific Islands.We support this bill because it is the right thing to do. It is indeed a step in the right direction towards equal treatment of New Zealand citizens throughout the Realm. However we should ensure that those who reside in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau are not disadvantaged by the requirement that they need to be resident in New Zealand for 5 years between the age of 50 and the qualification age of 65 or disadvantaged when they are forced to leave their families and work commitments in order to receive New Zealand’s superannuation. A number of countries are already exempt from this 5 years over 50 years of age rule—for instance the UK the Netherlands and Australia. It is only fair and equitable to allow New Zealand citizens from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau to have this same privilege.As you know the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau are Realm countries and we have a long shared history with them. We value the relationship that we have with these countries. The arrangements in this bill would make it easier for them to access superannuation and the veterans pension. It is a very important step that recognises the special relationship that we have with them. In addition to the people who have been recruited by New Zealand to fight in our Defence Force many Pacific people including residents from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau migrated to New Zealand during the economic boom and they have worked really hard in this country.Labour shares the concerns that were raised by many submitters to the Social Services Committee about the eligibility criteria requiring people to be resident in New Zealand for 5 years between the ages of 50 and 65 in order to qualify. We believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally and equitably regardless of where they are based—whether they are based here in Aotearoa based in the Cook Islands based in Niue or based in Tokelau. We in Labour support the removal of the 5-year resident and present status.From a health point of view of course it is definitely much warmer in the Pacific which means it is less likely that pensioners and retirees will be in hospital for asthma or respiratory reasons as often as they might be if they were here in Aotearoa New Zealand particularly during the winter months.Labour supports strengthening the relationship with our Pacific Realm countries. This bill will support the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. All of them are currently facing depopulation. By allowing residents in their senior years to return home and invest their time skill expertise and experience we would be helping the local economies. Let us do the honourable thing for the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Our Pacific neighbours gave wholeheartedly during both World War I and World War II and also during the time that New Zealand needed them when they came here and helped to serve.I hear so many stories in my electorate of Manukau East from Pacific people who want to return home to retire. Despite the many achievements they have gained as well as making New Zealand their home for many decades there is usually still that conversation about returning home to retire. The frequent visits that they make to the islands are an indication of how important their lands their culture and their roots are to them. Labour supports this bill because it is about people. Hard-working and deserving New Zealanders should not be denied their right to draw a pension whether they are here or in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. Thank you so much.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to support this bill the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill in its second reading. Eligible New Zealanders can receive New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau under the special portability arrangement. However under this arrangement the eligible people are required to be resident and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for those benefits. This bill is to remove that requirement of people being required to be resident and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for those benefits. This amendment will allow eligible people to apply for their New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension from any of these three island countries—the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau—at the age of 65.Currently there are around 650 people receiving New Zealand superannuation in the Pacific. Out of these 650 people around 300 are in the Cook Islands. It is estimated that with this amending legislation going through there will be around 245 people who may benefit and there will be an additional 16 people per annum. If you look at this number of 245 people becoming eligible straight away after this legislation has gone through and then the addition of 16 per annum it does not look like a big number but if we look at the population of Niue or Tokelau then it is a significant number.Some of these people from these island countries have a strong desire to go back to these island countries when they retire. What happens currently is that they live here in New Zealand until they are 65. They apply for these benefits and after that those who wish to go back return to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. They do not want to go back to these islands and once they have reached the eligibility criteria have to come here and apply at the age of 65 because that causes disruption in their lives which is understandable. If they leave New Zealand permanently to go to any of these three island countries of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau before the age of 65 then they lose their entitlement to receive New Zealand superannuation. So the thinking behind this bill is that those people who wish to return to any of these three island countries before the age of 65 in order to contribute to their island countries should be able to do so and they should not be required to wait until the age of 65. By the time they reach 65 even if they had decided originally to go back to their island countries they may be unable to do so because of so many other factors kicking in like the age factor.So this bill is actually going to fix this situation. This bill is going to remove this requirement of people having to be in New Zealand at the time of applying for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension. Currently there is a residence requirement. For people to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation they should have lived here in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20 including 5 years after the age of 50 which means that people can go back at the age of 55. That is what this bill is about. After this bill goes through it will make it possible for people to return to these three island countries at the age of 55 and they can then apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension at the age of 65 from any of these three island countries.This change will not be restricted to only citizens of these three island countries of Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Other New Zealanders who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation can also go and retire in any of these three island countries and then apply for New Zealand superannuation when they reach the age of 65. So the question that comes up is why this provision is available to only these three island countries and is not extended to other island countries. As other contributors have mentioned this is because of the special close constitutional ties with these three island countries of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because of which they enjoy shared New Zealand citizenship and unique legal arrangements. The Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling them to have self-government in free association with New Zealand. This allows Cook Islanders and Niuean people to share New Zealand citizenship while they run their own affairs whereas Tokelau is a non - self-governing territory of New Zealand.Another concern that came up was about the depopulation of these three island countries. That is again understandable because young people and people with special skills are always looking for opportunities and to get those opportunities they migrate to New Zealand but then these island countries want to get these people back because they are facing this issue of depopulation. With this amendment people will be able to return to these three island countries at the age of 55 so in a way we will be able to help these island countries with this problem as well.In the Social Services Committee we received and considered 13 submissions. Six submissions were heard orally. There were some high-profile submitters as we heard before. I am really grateful to those submitters who took time to make those submissions those who came to the select committee and made their concerns heard.One main area that was very widely discussed was this rule of 5 years after the age of 50. Today also we have heard about this. There is this Supplementary Order Paper 71 from New Zealand First and I understand that the Labour Party also has that concern about the 5 years after the age of 50 rule. This came up because these island countries would like to see these people return to these island countries of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau before the age of 55 so that they are able to effectively contribute to the economy of these three island countries. But even New Zealanders who go overseas and then come back are also required to fulfil this condition of 5 years after 50 so it would be unfair to remove this condition only for people who want to go back to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. It would be inequitable to remove this requirement for these three island countriesonly.It is hoped that these changes will benefit these three island countries. It is very difficult to quantify the benefit that these three island countries will have in dollar terms and it is also difficult to quantify the cost of this amendment to us here in New Zealand. As I said before we know that it is estimated that 245 people will be benefiting from this legislation going through. There will be this cost of paying superannuation to these 245 people. Then there is this rate of 16 people per annum who will be added to the list so there will be that additional cost to the Crown. Also it is likely that more people will be returning to these island countries because after this legislation goes through they will be able to go back at the age of 55. This money that is paid in New Zealand superannuation will not be in our economy’s circulation; it will be in the circulation of their economies so that will benefit those island countries. That is another cost to us. It is very difficult for us to calculate the exact dollar value of the benefit for these three island countries or the cost to us here in New Zealand. Overall this bill is a positive step towards our relationship with these three island countries. I support the bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to state categorically for the House how proud I am to be a New Zealander but that I am also equally proud of my Samoan heritage. I want to place that before the House tonight as we debate this bill with reference to the people of Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau.The Samoan in me would also like to say to members of this House how proud I am as a New Zealander of Samoan heritage that when it comes to things of the Pacific it seems there has been a shift over the years. You will recall Mr Deputy Speaker that as a young man in the 1970s I hated Parliament particularly the Government of the time and what occurred during that period. But over the years there has been a shift. I want to commend that shift which has also included the will of members of Parliament throughout the various political parties to come together united around supporting the people of the Pacific.With reference to this bill however although the Labour Party supports it as my colleagues who spoke earlier particularly Poto Williams said the Government could have done more. It has not done what I believe is the right thing to do with reference to the people of the Realm of New Zealand. In my earlier speech in the first reading I referred to the people of Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau as the forgotten people. I think they are the forgotten people because most New Zealanders have very little if any understanding that these people are New Zealanders. We are talking about New Zealand citizens who live on soil that is referred to as the Realm of New Zealand.One has to ask if we are limiting their rights as New Zealand citizens by placing this 5-year condition on them what the difference is between people living in Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau referred to as the Realm islands and those living on Waiheke Island and Stewart Island. What is the difference? The Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau use the New Zealand passport they use the New Zealand dollar in their economies and although they are fortunately bilingual English is the predominant language. So why is the Government wanting to continue to treat these New Zealanders as if they are not full New Zealand citizens as if they are second-class citizens? That is the argument we will continue to push this Government on becausealthough yes it is welcome that the change in this bill allows people from these Realm countries to return to the islands once they have been able to meet the criterion of 5 years after the age of 50 and to receive their pension at age 65 why must they be forced to do that when they are New Zealand citizens living on soil that is regarded as New Zealand soil?I note that the Cook Islands became a British protectorate in 1888 and Niue became a member of the New Zealand Realm in 1901. Tokelau became a protectorate of the United Kingdom and a territory of New Zealand in 1877. So it is not something that just happened overnight. The UK took over and gave the Cook Islands protection because it was afraid of what the French might do. If you look further New Zealand had a role to play in the 1800s when the United Kingdom Germany and America were trying to divvy up the Pacific. New Zealand left Samoa to the Germans and took over Fiji. Then in 1914 at the beginning of the First World War New Zealand landed on the shores of Samoa and took control of Samoa. So this is not a one-night stand if you like. It has been like this for some years now.I think that the House needs to be quite clear in its thinking that we are talking about New Zealand citizens living on New Zealand soil not on a distant island that is not part of the Realm of New Zealand. I can accept that for Samoa and Tonga despite what they might wish. But firstly these are forgotten New Zealanders who must be recognised and acknowledged as full-bloom New Zealand citizens.Only a few weeks ago the country celebrated Anzac Day. It seems like new information to many New Zealanders when we say to them that 500 Cook Islanders volunteered to fight for the empire on behalf of New Zealand. They fought in the First World War and the Second World War and 150-plus Niueans fought in the First World War. That is why they were often forgotten in the action—they were either small in numbers or were referred to as Māori because Sir Māui Pōmare was trying to raise the number of Māori for the Māori Battalion. At one time and rightly so some Māori said “Why should we go over and fight in the war when we are treated differently here?”. Therefore it was Cook Islanders and Niueans who were brought on board to fill the Māori Battalion. I have to say I also want to acknowledge the numbers although very minor—33 I think from Samoa and individuals from Tonga and Fiji—who also took part in that war.The point I am making is that I am glad Parliament this House of ours is united in terms of the Pacific. I wholeheartedly along with my colleagues in the Labour Party support this bill. I want to say to the Government that it can do more but it first needs to recognise that this is not a different group of people. They are not foreigners. They are New Zealand citizens living on the soils of New Zealand in the Realm of New Zealand. I think there was room for the Government to seriously consider the removal of the condition it had placed. There is a Supplementary Order Paper which will be introduced by New Zealand First that I look forward to debating.I think it was Poto Williams in one of the select committee sessions who asked how much it would cost if we did away with that condition. I think it was to the tune of $9 million to $21 million. I followed it up with a question. I asked the officials “How much would it save New Zealanders if we allowed that to happen?”—if we allowed people in Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands full rights to receive the full pension. They could not answer that—they could not answer. I have to ask why the Government did not do any work in terms of identifying the ongoing savings if this took place and the long-term benefits to the relationship of New Zealand and these Pacific Islands which are in the Realm of New Zealand and whose people are New Zealand citizens. I think if the Government seriously looked at that it would find that there would be savings in more people returning to retire in the islands in the same way that Aucklanders retire to Waiheke Island in the Hauraki Gulf.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I would like to start by mentioning what my colleague Su’a William Sio was just talking about across the House in regard to the only really successful landing that New Zealand did in the First World War on 29 August 1914 when we landed in Samoa without a shot being fired or a life being lost. We ran the Union flag—as it was in those days—up the pole without any resistance whatsoever. So we do have a special relationship with our Pacific Island neighbours particularly the three nations of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau that we are talking about this evening.I think we were reminded earlier this evening by Alfred Ngaro that the triple star in our national anthem actually refers to those islands which I suspect most people do not realise. I think that is something that we should actually ponder from time to time because it is quite important.Despite what is being said around Supplementary Order Paper 71 around the 5 years after 50 stipulation I think it would be quite wrong to fix an inequity by creating another one because effectively no New Zealander is allowed to come home without meeting that 5-year rule and then claim superannuation even if they want to live here. So we would be creating another inequity in order to fix one.I am getting the signal so it is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.New Zealand Business Number BillFirst ReadingHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I move That the New Zealand Business Number Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. The New Zealand Business Number will help to reduce costs that businesses face when dealing with the Government. The New Zealand Business Number is part of the Better for Business – Result 9 programme of the Government’s Better Public Services initiative which aims to reform the public sector to provide high-quality flexible and cost-effective public services in New Zealand.Currently eight key Government agencies collectively provide over 700 different services to New Zealand businesses. The quality and speed of these services makes a difference to businesses’ ability to perform grow and export. Of the about 1.3 million New Zealand businesses 90 percent of them have contact with one or more Government agencies at least once a year. An estimated 30 million interactions occur between public sector agencies and small to medium sized enterprises every year.The public sector is currently organised—as it has been for many many years—as a series of vertical agencies that operate in relative separation from each other according to their mandates and functions. This vertical structure of the public system does have its challenges. It results in duplications of transactions and therefore inefficiencies from each agency developing the same capability. It is no longer fit for purpose in this modern world. Government agencies need to perform better to secure outcomes that matter to New Zealanders.In terms of the business sector businesses find interacting with the Government to be at times confusing unproductive and time-consuming. The compliance costs of dealing with the Government can adversely affect the productivity of a business or impact on the potential for economic growth.Businesses have been telling us they want to spend more time on their business and less time on the administration of that business. Estimates suggest that repeated registration processes are estimated to cost New Zealand businesses up to $34 million a year in lost productivity alone maintaining core business data with Government agencies can cost business up to $26 million a year and between 50 and 60 percent of business details are replicated on over 250 Government forms. Although 30 percent of sole traders and nearly a quarter of companies change some of their details each year around only half of them tell the Government about the change.Businesses want joined-up Government services and more certainty and less confusion when interacting with the Government. They want an infrastructure that better enables and supports e-commerce and business innovation. In a nutshell giving businesses a New Zealand Business Number will enable service integration and innovative time-saving administration solutions between businesses their suppliers and the Government.This programme has been worked on for a period of time and it is now time to get this bill into the House to deal with some of the legislative issues around the New Zealand Business Number. In practice businesses will no longer have to keep updating their data with a myriad of agencies but will be able to start maintain and cease business activities with the Government in one place giving them more time to spend growing their businesses.The purpose of the New Zealand Business Number Bill is to enable easier and more efficient interactions for business in New Zealand. It is required to enable the allocation of New Zealand Business Numbers to eligible businesses and to individuals operating as businesses. Over time the New Zealand Business Number will replace many of the separate numerical identifiers that agencies currently use.The bill sets out that there are two types of business entities: corporate and public entities which will be governed by one set of rules and unincorporated entities such as sole traders partnerships and trustees of trusts where special rules are needed to address privacy issues. The bill establishes the statutory position of the Registrar of New Zealand Business Numbers and it establishes a New Zealand Business Number Register. The register will collect in one place a core set of data about a business. The data will be such things as the type of entity where the business is located and so on. The proposed types of data are set out in schedule 3 of the bill and in the draft regulations. The regulations will also be released so the full list is available for consideration by submitters. Some of this data will be publicly searchable and some will be public only if the business allows it. Government agencies will be able to access this data to update their own systems. In the course of time it is intended that the agency systems can be used to update the New Zealand Business Number Register. Third parties will also have access to a business’s information if the business consents or if the data is in bulk or aggregated form and no individual can be identified.One of the challenges when dealing with individuals who are in businesses is privacy issues that arise under the Privacy Act 1993. The bill will enable the allocation of a number to individuals. This requires an override of privacy principle 2. In addition the data on the register will not necessarily come directly from the individuals concerned and that requires an override of privacy principle 12.The bill puts in place various protections around the security and confidentiality of private information. The Privacy Commissioner will be able to require the registrar to prepare a report that assesses the effects that the register has on the privacy of individuals in business. The bill provides the registrar with the usual types of powers to operate the register make decisions verify identity investigate possible contraventions and take enforcement action. Certain decisions of the registrar can be appealed to the High Court.New Zealand is famous the world over for the relative ease of doing business here. Only last week I was talking on behalf of New Zealand in South America and many of the business people I met expressed great interest in our reputation in regard to the ease of doing business. But we cannot rest on our laurels. The New Zealand Business Number will take New Zealand to a new level in the ease of doing business. It is important we do that because we operate in a competitive world and of course our businesses face other challenges such as size of market and our relative isolation.This New Zealand Business Number will increase innovation in business services and the future integration of Government services to businesses will be enabled by the New Zealand Business Number Bill. I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The aims of this bill are indeed laudable. As they are outlined in the bill itself they involve an attempt to achieve the Government’s objectives as recorded in its objective No. 9 which is to reduce by 25 percent the cost of dealing with the Government. A lot of businesses do have a significant cost involved in dealing with the Government particularly those businesses that have only one or two employees. Some spend up to 20 percent of their turnover on tax compliance. Red tape is of course the No. 1 complaint that a member of Parliament comes across when asking what it is like for businesses on a day-to-day basis dealing with the Government.I think it is a sad indictment on this Government’s progress that Steven Joyce could give that speech describing a siloed Government environment and the handbrake on economic growth that that represents. He gave it unashamedly without blinking. He tried to say that this is something that needs addressing. Well it is but somewhere along the line this Government needs to stand up and own the fact that 7 years have passed and the situation has not improved.Our problem with this bill is that it is at risk of adding just another number. This number risks adding an additional burden of compliance to the systems already in place for business and the compliance costs are already quantified in the regulatory impact statement that we have sitting here on the Table. For those who are watching at home—and I have met a few people over the course of the last week who do watch Parliament TV; I am reliably informed they are out there—we have been presented with a 38-page regulatory impact statement. It is common for these to be about four or five pages long. When you get a 38-page one alarm bells start going off. The department concerned is worried that this idea has a number of fish-hooks in it that have not properly been considered by the Government. Then it has a follow-up regulatory impact statement of nine pages just in case it did not get them all in the first one. This department the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is concerned that we have a ministry here that is being forced to take up an idea of the Minister’s that is a little bit half-baked and that comes out in the regulatory impact statement we have in front of us.So what kinds of concerns do the officials have? Primarily they are concerned that there is really no evidence that this kind of approach has worked overseas so they do not have a basis upon which to make a solid judgment about whether it would be good or whether it would not be good. The second set of concerns revolves around the uptake of the number the speed of uptake and the wait-and-see approach that seems to be put in place by the Government which says: “Well maybe agencies will take it up. Maybe businesses will take it up. Let’s see what happens.” So that is the crux of the concerns of business around it. We have seen that this is a Government slow to really act to reduce red tape for business and in fact has increased red tape in many many many of the bills that it has put through the House.A couple of examples spring to mind one being the child support tax changes that now require employers to collect overdue tax arrears through their payment to their employees giving them information about their employees they may not otherwise have had potentially opening them up to disputes with their employees and so on. That kind of red tape has not been thought about when the Government has rushed through the law. Likewise the paper boy and girl tax—the compliance system there and taxation requirements that the Government pushed through. These kinds of thoughtless changes that have gone through have a very real cost for the people who risk their shirt every day in small business throughout New Zealand.The Labour Party is concerned that we should have an innovative small business sector—one that is growing and one that has the opportunity to generate wealth for New Zealand—because our future prosperity depends upon emerging industries that are not bogged down in compliance that has been put in place by the Government unnecessarily. So Labour recognises the need to support businesses by cutting red tape where possible and reducing the cost of business transactions for small businesses sole traders partnerships and trusts. If this is what the bill actually achieves we will support it right the way through the House.At this stage however we are prepared to support it only to the select committee because there is so much lack of clarity around the bill and how it will be implemented and so many fish-hooks that we want to receive the submissions at the select committee to see how business interprets the lie of the land and whether businesses when they have a good look at the law as it is proposed think that it really will make a difference for businesses.The biggest initiative of course that the Government could undertake would be tax simplification. It has been done overseas. It has been done in Australia it has been done in the UK and where you do have businesses spending up to 20 percent of their turnover on tax compliance it would be a big win if the Government undertook tax simplification. Again where small business is concerned it does not seem to have been very quick off the mark there—it seemed quicker to meet the needs and concerns of big business.Well Labour is on the side and always has been of the person who is struggling to get ahead who is trying to make their way in the world and the small-business people of this world are the ones we have in mind. That is why we are worried about the additional compliance that is proposed here and the additional compliance I have already mentioned that this Government has placed on small business throughout its time in Government.The concern about the siloed Government approach that Steven Joyce raised is raised in the paper by officials—the 38-page list of concerns that they have put in front of the House—as are the privacy concerns that the bill presents. Identity theft in the US has been a problem with similar systems and we see that this is something that concerns also the officials who are advising on the bill. I have no doubt—no doubt at all in my mind—that my colleague Clare Curran will have a little more to say about the Government’s track record on privacy issues and the risks that are presented by identity theft. That is her specialist area and I am sure she will tell us a little more about that in her contribution.The repeated registration processes at the moment in dealing with the Government cost New Zealand businesses up to $34 million in lost productivity every year says the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimate in the papers we have been supplied with. The ministry’s concern is that this unique identifier will not become a unique identifier because of the way it is implemented but that instead it will join the list of other business numbers produced by the Government that are part of this constant churn of reregistration of working out which number to deal with when you are dealing with the Government rather than being the simple system that ought to be in place. Again it says: “Maintaining core business data with government agencies costs businesses up to $26 million each year; between 50 and 60 percent of business details are replicated on over 250 government forms.” These are shocking numbers. This is the shocking reality of a Government that seems to be out of ideas. It has been very slow to move on these issues and here again is moving with a half-baked solution.I think that perhaps one of the most telling paragraphs in this regulatory impact statement is paragraph 16 in here. It states: “The NZBN has already been allocated to companies in New Zealand. Ministers would like to extend the NZBN to all businesses to enable a digitally-based economic infrastructure.” That is all well and good but then it says: “Our options are therefore constrained to consideration of the best way to extend the NZBN to all businesses.” Therein lies the rub. The officials have recognised that despite their 38 pages and further nine pages of concerns Ministers are determined to press ahead with this regardless of the consequences. They want to be seen to be doing something about making business easier and business compliance easier but the real test will be when the rubber hits the road and I am sure we will hear from businesses when they present to the select committee on whether this will really work for them.This is a Government of course that came in strong on promises but seems to be becoming stronger and stronger on excuses. It is a Government that seems to be tired and out of ideas. Now we have some half-baked ones being thrown up. We hope they can be knocked into shape in the select committee so that they really do make a difference for business in New Zealand because we do need our small business sector to prosper for the good of all New Zealand. We will support this bill to the select committee and we will see what comes of it there. Labour will be concerned to see that it really does make life simpler for those people who risk their shirt every day in order to better their own lot and to better the lot of the families around them and the people they care about—the New Zealand business people. Thank you very much.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on this first reading of the New Zealand Business Number Bill. Before I actually talk a little bit about the substance of the bill I would like to commend the member who just sat down David Clark. I look forward to working with him and his colleagues opposite in the Commerce Committee because I think we do actually work quite well together. Having said that I commend the member for saying that he does not like an extra layer of bureaucracy. I think the member came in in 2011 and does not really remember the times when the previous Labour Government was in power and there were extreme layers of bureaucracy that this Government has been spending a lot of time unravelling.This New Zealand Business Number Bill is part of the Government’s Better Public Services agenda. It aims to reduce the cost to businesses of dealing with the Government by 25 percent by 2017. I know that Dr Clark just before he sat down said that he wants this to benefit the hard-working community—people who work for their families and you know everyone. That is everyone not just businesses. He mentioned the fact that there are already 1.1 million New Zealand Business Numbers extended to companies and what this bill does is to extend it even further to those that are not necessarily companies—to those sole traders partners and trusts that also need to have this number in order to operate better and take the benefit from what we are doing.All key Government agencies that work regularly with businesses will be required to recognise and use the New Zealand Business Number by 2017. I actually have to applaud that. The New Zealand Business Number is a 13-digit number—a single unique identifier in a New Zealand - specific numerical series provided by GS1 which is a global standards organisation. Each number uniquely identifies a business and may be used in interactions with the Government and also with other businesses. The bill’s purpose is to enable certain business entities to obtain or be allocated with a New Zealand Business Number. The New Zealand Business Number will make it easier quicker and less complicated for businesses to interact with the Government.I guess it is sort of like going back to one’s country of birth. My country of birth actually has a registration number for all citizens who are born there. We are identified with a unique number for ourselves as well as the birth date and the year that we are born. We are actually identified by a number. I suppose that is how the social security number works in the United States. To make sure that your unique number actually is specifically for you Mr Deputy Speaker you and I would have a different number so that you and I would not be confused. This is exactly the kind of idea effect that this New Zealand Business Number will have on businesses so that businesses will not be confused—so that one business will not be confused with another. They will have a unique number specific to their business.This has significance because New Zealand Business Numbers will make it easier for businesses to work and interact with the Government as well. Businesses will no longer have to continuously update their data with a myriad of different Government databases as businesses currently have to use multiple numbers issued by different Government agencies. I think of when I did a company search when I was a journalist. Every time I logged on to try to find a company I was given a number. Every time I did it again I was given another number and another number. It was a constant numbers game. If I had one number identifying myself as a constant user of that website and I was identified as a specific person who was allowed to use and connect with the Government agency I think it would have made life so much easier.Also I think small businesses operating in New Zealand are often sole traders that have to do everything. Not only do they have to work the job but also they have to invoice do marketing and drive as well. Often time is of the essence and time spent dealing with office work and dealing with administration means time that is not spent on making the dollars for their families and their businesses. Anything that we can do to reduce the number that is spent on administration is something that is great I think. As working mothers even when we are doing internet banking or mobile banking when we have an app that can actually identify our payees immediately so that we do not have to punch in the numbers all the time or constantly it reduces the time that we spend on the internet doing these things. So for a business that is actually spending a lot of time on admin if we can at least do something to reduce the time that it is spending on admin I think that is something that is wonderful.I say that specifically for the ethnic migrant communities who do business admin is an added burden often because of the language barriers. This time spent on admin is extra on top of the language issues that they already face. So if we can make life easier for them I think it is a wonderful thing.The bill sets up a New Zealand Business Number Register where business information will be held publicly viewable and searchable. However it is also designed to protect the security and confidentiality of information under this bill and the privacy of individuals in business. I think that is paramount. I agree with the member Dr David Clark who actually talked about the security issue. I think we all worry about the security issue.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: You should have taken his number.MELISSA LEE: I look slightly different from him I think. I think the security issue is a very important one and nobody wants a breach and identity theft. We have had issues even before this Business Number. We have had in the past instances where people’s identities had been stolen and I think that will continue to happen. We try to put security protection in there to actually prevent people from stealing other people’s identities but when somebody purposely goes out to steal somebody else’s identity with the purpose of committing a crime I am unsure as to whether anything could actually prevent them from doing so. So it will be very interesting to hear the public submissions on this bill. I look forward to the discussions that the select committee will have on these issues. I look forward to the advice we will get on that particular aspect of the bill.In the future once the regime is fully implemented businesses will be able to update their details in one place. That has to be a good thing—to automatically update others without businesses having to go through a complicated and time-consuming process as I had earlier alluded to. This means less time and effort on Government administration and more time for business owners to focus their efforts on productivity growth and exporting their goods. Having been to Korea to sign a free-trade agreement deal I think anybody who can grow their business grow New Zealand is doing a great job and we should reduce the workload that they have in admin.This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is a fascinating bill. I am actually really looking forward to the discussion in the Commerce Committee on this because as the Minister for Economic Development said in his opening remarks it is really about modernising the way that businesses interact with the Government—Kris Faafoi: Potentially.CLARE CURRAN: —potentially—and trying to provide the best possible framework for that to happen. Labour is supporting this bill to the select committee; you have already heard that.I have mixed views on my first reading of the bill the regulatory impact statement and some of the submissions that went into the consultation around the development of this bill. On the one hand I think the modernising of that relationship is critical; on the other hand you have got to have in place the checks and balances to protect the privacy of businesses and those who sit behind the businesses. And you have got to ensure that you have got that balance right. On my first reading of the bill and the information accompanying it I am not sure that that balance is right.To put that in context with the enthusiasm of the Minister getting up and talking about how you know it is all a great new world and everyone will have a New Zealand Business Number and it is all going to make things work a lot more smoothly etc. I think you have got to look at the track record of this Government around its management of IT across the Government—or its lack of management of IT processes across the Government—and also its management of privacy and its devaluing of privacy. I am certainly looking forward to the contributions that will be made by submitters on this bill because this is where the rubber hits the road in terms of the ability of the Government to act in an efficient and modern way while ensuring that the entities that it is relating to are protected.The phrase that came to mind when I was reading this bill was that it has the potential to be a big data-grab. That is where I would be raising questions and doing a bit of flag-waving. This is the era of big data. This is the era of data analytics of the ability of entities to use their ability to get as much data as possible to give them leverage. The Government is a big entity. How it manages the data that it gets from its citizens and from businesses is a matter of trust. It is a very important relationship of trust. My concern is around where the checks and balances lie in this piece of legislation.I will use the analogy of security and privacy. In any society it is absolutely critical that you have got an equal relationship between security and privacy. At the moment—and for those who are listening to Parliament by radio I am holding up my hands in an equal way—in any society security and privacy should be equal pillars. In our society the security side has gone up in terms of the way that national security legislation has been given more of a priority and personal privacy has been given a lesser priority. Well what we are talking about in this bill is the privacy of companies of businesses and of entities and my concern is that there could be some compromising of that privacy under this bill. What we have to ensure is that there is level pegging around privacy and the ability for the Government to gather data and to use that data and around what that data is being used for.Just to illustrate that I am going to quote from the Cabinet paper that lies behind this piece of legislation. This is all about the scope of this piece of legislation. It says: “We propose: extending the NZBN to all entities trading in the New Zealand economy including sole traders non-incorporated partnerships and trading trusts and to state sector and not-for-profit entities; businesses not to be charged for allocation of an NZBN or to remain on the NZBN register; a new legal register managed by MBIE”. The most important part of that proposal is to extend the New Zealand Business Number to all entities trading in the New Zealand economy including sole traders etc. So what that means is that the scope of this bill includes the individuals who are operating as companies and there are concerns raised within the regulatory impact statement around that—around what that actually means and what the implications of that are.There are concerns raised around whether or not it is compulsory to be on this register and there are concerns raised around what sort of information is being collected. All of those things are absolutely critical. In this day and age it is time for us to have this debate. Therefore my mixed views around this bill are such that I am concerned about the track record of this Government. But I certainly think that it is time to have this discussion. As I said this is the era of big data and the ability to collect data is really important but it should be done in the most ethical manner—the manner befitting a Government in a democratic society one that is progressive and one that puts privacy at the top of its agenda. This Government does not put privacy at the top of its agenda and this is going to be the challenge in this debate.I just want to draw the House’s attention to the regulatory impact statement where it says—this is in the table below paragraph 22 of the regulatory impact statement—that “Overall privacy risks to individuals and cost to society of identity fraud are likely to outweigh benefits to business and to government”. This is actually being specified in the regulatory impact statement as being a key risk. The Privacy Commissioner did provide advice alongside other entities such as Business New Zealand. It is noted that the bill takes into account some of that advice but it certainly does not take into account all of it. So that is why the submissions from the Privacy Commissioner and anyone who cares about privacy are going to be very important.In the regulatory impact statement the Privacy Commissioner has set out a series of issues that he thinks are critical which includes that this bill should include “a clear statement of purpose for the NZBN and the register that is not overly broad or unclear; a specific limitation that restricts the use of the NZBN to business purposes only and a prohibition on its use for non-business purposes such as social service purposes; a definition of the personal information that may be collected; clear maintenance of the Privacy Act prohibition … against an agency requiring an individual to disclose a unique identifier for a purpose other than that for which it was issued; [and] an explicit prohibition against agencies using the NZBN for a purpose other than that set out in legislation”. I am not sure that that exists in this legislation. Finally the Privacy Commissioner says that “an explicit prohibition to prevent agencies from requiring an individual to provide a New Zealand Business Number in order to receive”—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the New Zealand Business Number Bill. First of all I would like to congratulate the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Steven Joyce who has initiated the process of best practice in New Zealand. This legislation allows the allocation of unique identification numbers to businesses such as sole traders partnerships and trustees of trusts. This National-led Government has done a lot of fantastic work in the past 6 years. This current legislation will further enhance the capability of providing better public services to all New Zealanders. Providing better public services of course is one of National’s key priorities.This National-led Government is in no doubt that we need to continually strive to improve New Zealand’s economic performance if we are to continue to live the enviable Kiwi lifestyle. In our economic performance as a country that will determine whether we have jobs our incomes are on the rise our standards of living continue to improve and we provide top-notch services that all Kiwis need and are truly entitled to. By way of this legislation it is estimated that the Government will reduce the cost of doing business by 25 percent by the year 2017. This will in my mind without doubt lead to a more competitive and productive economy. That is what is required.We need to create opportunities for businesses. Small businesses that are engaged in export have increased from 13 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2014. Similarly medium-sizedbusinesses that are engaged in export markets increased from 21 percent in 2007 to over 28 percent in 2014. It shows that businesses are growing and looking towards export and that is what we need. We need more jobs we need more growth and we need new markets.This Government has been focused in the past 7 years on opening up doors for businesses to the international market. The recent signing of the free-trade agreement with South Korea is an example of where we have created opportunities for other small and medium sizedbusinesses. The easier and the simpler we make it for businessesto operate the more time and energy we give to our entrepreneurs towards the expansion of their businesses and towards using innovative ideas to create products and services that put New Zealand on the world map. The chain effect of all this of course is a no-brainer. We are creating highly skilled and high-paying jobs for our current and future generations. These jobs will create products and services that will build our exports increase innovation make our workplaces and lives safer and build our natural resources and infrastructure for all of us to make use of.The effect of our pragmatic approach towards assisting Kiwi businesses and Kiwis with our economic management will ensure that the world-leading growth performances that New Zealand has shown in the past couple of years turns into a long-term sustainable future for our economy.This legislation will mean that rather than updating their data on a number of media businesses will need to use just a single medium.The New Zealand Business Number will lead to smart administration solutions for all stakeholders—businesses suppliers and Government. This will save time and effort allowing all to focus on the real work. Furthermore this information will be shared amongst Government agencies so that each time a business needs to interact with a Government agency it will need to provide its New Zealand Business Number. There will no longer be a requirement to fill out multiple forms and go through bureaucratic rigmarole. We are also working closely with our Australian counterparts towards developing mutually recognisable Australian business numbers.Even in our conservative estimate New Zealand businesses stand to save $60 million with this single piece of legislation. It is now up to businesses to take up this opportunity. The sooner all of them sign up the sooner benefits will flow to all businesses. As I said at the start of my speech this is only one of the several positive pieces of legislation that this National-led Government has presented in this House and to New Zealanders. I hope that during the select committee process we will have more interaction with businesses and see how they can benefit. With these words I commend this bill to the House.JAMES SHAW (Green): It is a pleasure to stand to speak on the New Zealand Business Number Bill. The overarching aim of the Green Party’s economic development policy is to facilitate the transition to a smart green economy and so to that end initiatives to support businesses to reduce their time and administration costs are to be welcomed. The Green Party will be supporting the New Zealand Business Number Bill.Before I get into why we are going to be supporting the bill I just want to set a little bit of context. A number of previous speakers have spoken about the intended benefits mostly to do with the efficiency gains that may be available to businesses as a result of having these unique business identifying numbers. In terms of the number of businesses out there some really useful information that came up in the regulatory impact statement is that there are 1.1 million companies already in New Zealand 500000 to 600000 of which are actively trading and that these companies already have business numbers. But in addition to that there is another entire half of trading relationships in New Zealand that are organisations that are not companies. So trusts make up 15 percent of trading relationships in New Zealand sole traders make up 19 percent partnerships make up 12 percent and 4 percent is made up of Government agencies non-Government organisations and social enterprises.So there is a significant number—as many as half of all businesses in New Zealand—that are not currently covered by the existing business numbers that are already out there. I want to pick up in particular on the sole traders and the freelancers because they obviously cover a huge portion of New Zealand’s business people and in fact of our total population. There are by some estimates 270000 or so sole traders freelancers one-person companies and so on. So for those individuals—and having spent much of the last 10 years of my life as a freelancer—the administrative burden that comes when there is only you to run your business and to interact with various agencies and so on is significant because every moment that is taken out of my day as a freelancer dealing with just data entry is an hour that I cannot spend growing my business.One of the interesting opportunities in this bill if it was to cover sole traders is the idea of an aggregator effect—being able to essentially pull together some bargaining power across all of those sole traders and freelancers around in New Zealand. If we had better access to those people and were able to identify them more clearly it is conceivable that we could actually build further services for them and maybe bring some other costs down—for example insurance costs or even energy costs and things like that.It does however raise a question of privacy which I will come to in a minute and which some other speakers have already referred to. One of the other benefits that may be available from this which is also privacy-related is the idea that consumers and employees who have been hard-done-by by some businesses may find it easier to get recourse to justice if those businesses are easier to track because there is a sector of our society in which businesses change their names or shut up shop and reopen over the road and so on in order to avoid for example court judgment costs. So one of the benefits of this approach may be that people will actually have more access to justice if they have been hard-done-by.All of those things do bring us back to this question of privacy. If there are something like a quarter of a million or more freelancers and sole traders and so on in New Zealand that is nearly one in eight people in the entire country and most of those people will be operating their businesses from home. So the question of their residential address and contact details being tied to their company does raise some privacy concerns for a very substantial portion of the New Zealand public. It becomes a sort of proxy personal identity number for a significant portion of our population. So we do have some questions about how the data will be managed what the security and integrity of that data is and so on. Of course this is not an issue that is unique to this particular initiative but as has been amply demonstrated across a number of agencies it is a real concern.The other concern that we have which was raised in the regulatory impact statement is about whether this initiative will actually achieve the stated objective—that is to increase efficiency. The Government has talked about something like up to $34 million worth of costs that could be mitigated across the entire economy. That is actually not a terribly large number of course when you consider the overall trading economy.Apparently there are no other countries that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has been able to find that have the experience of having unique identifying numbers for their businesses where they have been able to quantify the efficiency gains to businesses so there does not seem to be a clear precedent. Although we have been able to estimate that $34 million worth of benefits are available if we go down this path we are not sure whether that will actually eventuate. Other countries’ experience does seem to say that unique identifying numbers have been good for increasing e-business services. That will clearly be an increased benefit and you can see how that will be available to businesses that are using these numbers.So we do have some concerns particularly in the domain of privacy and it will be very interesting to see the submissions that come through on the bill and to see how those go and to see also the extent to which we are actually confident that having put in place this system New Zealand businesses will be able to capitalise on the savings that we think that they may be able to.As I said at the beginning of my remarks it does seem like a very sensible initiative and pretty uncontroversial generally. Any initiative that is sensible and does not carry a great deal of risk and that helps to reduce costs or facilitates the reduction of administrative time for small businesses particularly for sole traders and freelancers we would like to support. With that I commend the bill to the House.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity this evening. I would like to suggest to some of the members who spoke on behalf of the Government this evening that the prospective benefits of this bill should not be overplayed and that we should take this in full consideration and give it the due benefit of time and the input from business itself. Let us not oversell it but on the other hand after years as a sole trader myself and as a business mentor in my local community I do have to say that one of the common problems that is raised again and again is this compliance issue—this conversation with Government agencies and the repetitive nature of it.There is a lot of common sense behind this piece of legislation. On the other hand New Zealand First is worried about several points that do need to be raised this evening. This bill is necessary for the furthering of the business numbering scheme started in December 2013. In that short time there has been a huge and broad comprehensive uptake from New Zealand companies as has been mentioned several times tonight—approximately 1.1 million companies which reflects about half a million actually operating active companies at this moment.This bill would move this number beyond these registered companies and take it into the realm of small business—sole traders partnerships and trusts were mentioned. New Zealand First believes they should be active participants in this scheme. We would suggest to the business community itself that it is a commendable and necessary system. Why? Because its ultimate goal is to ensure that there is an improvement in efficiency in business. This bill and its numbering system are about improving the interface between the Government and said business. So when the goal is to make conversation between the Government and companies—and now small businesses like sole traders—that little bit easier then New Zealand First will lend its support especially if that conversation which most small businesses dread anyway does not have to happen again and again almost ad infinitum with Government department after Government department.This bill has arisen primarily from the Government’s laudable goals about meeting Better Public Services targets particularly result No. 9. This specifically means that the Government should aim to reduce the cost for businesses of having to deal directly with the Government. This Business Number initiative was one of the first initiatives arising from the Better Public Services targets which is great to see.But I tell you this: New Zealand First nearly did not support this bill even through to this stage in the House. Here we have on the one hand the Government telling businesses that the only way that this initiative will work is with rapid and broad uptake and that providing a better Public Service requires businesses to commit and then on the other hand I have here before me this document. I hope it was not the New Zealand First copy issued by the Government but this is the regulatory impact statement that I was provided with and this is an example of several of the pages provided in the regulatory impact statement. I have shown this evidence before the House and the particular page I have shown is a device used to measure the efficacy of such pieces of legislation and what is the first thing that I notice? These blacked-out pieces of paper that run all throughout the documentation with no explanation.Again I hope that this is not just the one that was given to New Zealand First but on the other hand I hope that this is not indicative of the information provided to the Opposition and to the New Zealand public. This page which is one of many is supposed to show us the building of this New Zealand Business Number system and Government agency uptake.What this actually shows us is a Government that is not transparent a Government that is not willing to engage and a Government that does not understand the meaning of arrogance. What this page shows us is a Government that is not prepared for us to see the Government agency uptake or perhaps the lack thereof. What is it exactly that we are not seeing? How can the Opposition and how can the public understand just what this legislation will achieve or hopes to achieve if this kind of information is the case? We know that business will want to have this legislation tidied up. It still needs some work and perhaps as we move forward the information provided—or not as the case may be—will become available to the Opposition and to members of the public.Despite redacted info and despite issues around its current form in terms of the bill itself New Zealand First can see that the intent of this bill is sensible and reasonable and so supporting it through its first reading is a practical step. We hope that then everyone will understand just what it is that the Government hopes to achieve but that will mean that this Government actually needs to engage and work and talk with the New Zealand public.The problem that this bill seeks to address is that Government agencies currently take a siloed approach to dealing with business. This results in duplication and inefficiencies. So legislation that seeks to remove duplication and inefficiency is to be commended. However New Zealand First would add its voice to the concerns raised around privacy and in particular the privacy of individuals whether they are sole traders or partners in a business. This Government’s recent track record around the implementation of good and sound legislation has in my opinion not been that solid. Here is another bill where getting it right from the outset is absolutely critical in order for the stated outcomes to be achieved but there also needs to be consideration and finely crafted legislation that allows the work to be done but with the privacy of the individual being paramount. So the data collected must be for business purposes only. Some of the members on this side of the House spoke in quite a lot of detail about privacy and I would support that further consideration.Businesses want joined-up Government services and certainty and less confusion when interacting with the Government. They want an economic infrastructure that better enables and supports their business. This must be foremost in the minds of the select committee members and the Minister as the bill proceeds through the House. Let this number not be just yet another number that businesses have to record and use to interface with Government department after Government department.New Zealand First also sees this piece of legislation as an opportunity—an opportunity to crack down on the abuse of the bankruptcy system in this country. There are too many examples where individuals are getting away with too much and they are not being held to account. We hope that this legislation will ensure that individuals will become accountable and we would suggest that this could be done at least initially by linking the business number to the insolvency register for example.New Zealand First will support this bill through its first reading and we ask that this Government please keep in mind its promise of open transparency and that it is also mindful of the individual and their right to privacy. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to stand to take a call on this first reading of the New Zealand Business Number Bill. I am actually quite pleased to speak after the previous speaker Fletcher Tabuteau and in fact other members who have spoken before because I think this bill is being given the due consideration already in its first reading that it deserves particularly as it moves towards the Commerce Committee.I think no one is philosophically opposed as I can hear it at the moment against the notion of having a singular number to identify a business. There are naturally some questions that are arising around privacy and how that will be handled but I think we on this side of the House are very proud of the National Party’s engagement with business be it large medium or small. I know that over many recent weeks that enthusiasm—in particular by the small and medium enterprises—has been shown by the countless questions given to the Hon Craig Foss and an attempt to continue to show the really good work that National proudly does with small to medium sized enterprises. I welcome more questions not only from this side but of course from the Opposition once it has finished reading and working out what it is all about.What I have to say as the MP for Tāmakiis that I am very fortunate to have a number of business owners in the electorate. Tāmaki is not a place of a number of businesses running per se other than the usual likes of restaurants and cafes and various activities but a lot of Auckland business owners are there—Andrew Bayly: A great place.SIMON O’CONNOR: A great place indeed. But although they are pleased with what is happening within governmental procedures around business they still want more change. One of the fundamental areas that comes up is how we can work better in a digital developing environment. I think one of the key elements of this to make it happen—I am going to use two analogies in this speech—and to make businesses more effective and efficient in a digital environment is through the likes of a single business number.The first analogy I would draw the House’s attention to is obviously in the health sector. As the chair of the Health Committee it is something that I am interested in the notion of a national health number. We have had that for a number of years. I think it is very analogous to this bill—the ability to have a single number that enables the Government and others to identify a particular person or entity and in the health context of course to provide the care that is necessary. Like anything that comes down to a singular number it often becomes very concerning how it is going to be used or misused. I think if we look at the health example those issues really have not come up.In fact in more recent weeks—and if it is slightly tangential I hope the House will forgive me—in the Health Committee we have had a series of questions raised around privacy to do with the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill and the notion of contact tracing. So if someone has an infectious disease how do you reach out and make sure that those who have been infected are well looked after and identified? Some people were very very concerned that using a single number the National Health Index (NHI) may actually breach someone’s privacy but expert after expert lobbyist after lobbyist said that actually the NHI this particular single number is an incredibly strong factor if you will enabling us to provide good and right care and that it has in the past been rightfully used.So I think in terms of the New Zealand Business Number this bill and the concerns of privacy we can turn to the health sector and see an example there of something that is working rather well. The other element—another metaphor comes in this case from the Ministry of Social Development in which I worked for a number of years. So many people come into that department again with a single number or are meant to come into the department with a single number. First and foremost you treat them as an individual. They come before you as a Mary Smith or as a Joe Jackson and you engage with them there. But as we move again into a digital environment you need a number to enable them to access the systems.I mention that because again like the health number it is a way to identify but what is also important—and I think this Government is clear on it—is that you also need the systems in the background. In the Ministry of Social Development days if someone came in through Work and Income or StudyLink you had two computer systems to deal with—the old DOS-based system called SWIFTT and simultaneously a new Windows-based system called I think UCV2. The irony of someone working on the front line was that if one single person came in even with their client number you still had to use two completely different systems to try to work out their full and correct entitlement. So I use that as a caveat around this bill that although we move quite rightly to a single number to identify businesses I think that from my experience we want to make sure that the systems in the background are appropriate because there is no point in having one New Zealand Business Number if we are going to have a multiplicity of systems in the background—it will just confuse things.When I go out into the electorate or travel around the country businesses want to work more efficiently. They want to ultimately save costs and we as consumers want to see costs saved because if the business is doing well and can produce something more cheaply then paradoxically we get it cheaper as well. Businesses have been asking for a while now for this single business number something that they can just use if they want to call up the Inland Revenue Department or if they want to call up Work and Income if they are taking a young person on say for a role through the myriad of activities we have there so the business owners can ring up and be instantly identified. They know exactly what clients are involved. If they are going to be calling up even something like the Commerce Commission—I am not exactly sure how far this Business Number will be shared across Government departments. I am looking toward the chair of the select committee Melissa Lee. I am sure that is something that we will be looking at as a select committee as this goes through and asking what Government departments will be using and accessing this number. How will they be interrelating? But it is very clear when I have talked to my constituents back in the fine seat of Tāmaki that they want something like this the ability to just call up.Some have noted already—and it is more in their personal context—that they are using the RealMe system. Without being too advertorial it is where you basically go down to the post office or the like and sign yourself up for a digital identity.Kris Faafoi: If the post office is still open.SIMON O’CONNOR: I am very happy to say that post offices are still open thriving and well loved in my electorate. I cannot speak for that honourable member’s but they are incredibly well loved. I have to actually thank New Zealand Post for the engagement that it is giving. I believe actually that it is a former member of that party who is the chair is it not? Is it Michael Cullen?Hon Craig Foss: He’s been closing more than he’s opened.SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh he has been closing more than he has opened. That is very interesting. But anyway we digress—we digress. We were talking about RealMe. Again it is an ability for individual New Zealanders to go down to establish their digital identity which means they can walk into a bank for example or certain New Zealand Post services the Inland Revenue Department and other places to actually access their services. That is exactly analogous to the New Zealand Business Number Bill that actually a range of New Zealand businesses large and small will be able to seek a number so that they too can most primarily I would suggest go online and access the services that they need.This is part of the Better Public Services agenda of this Government. It is something that the Government has been following right since it was elected in 2008 and something I have been pleased to be associated with since being elected in 2011. It is Result 9 for those boffins who are very keen to be looking at the documents and I am sure Megan Woods is on to it now. She is going to be going through that paper looking for Result 9. [Bell rung] Excellent! For whom does the bell toll? We are here to deliver better public services—Dr Megan Woods: Come on you can do ten. Keep going.SIMON O’CONNOR: We are going to do our best you see. It is all about numbers you see. Ten is important. It is around Result 9 where we are delivering better public services to business customers and one of the goals we have given to ourselves is to reduce the cost to businesses dealing with the Government by 25 percent in 2017. That is only 2 years away. It is something we are very keen on.The business number system is for a range of groups in New Zealand. As we said it is obviously a unique identifier primarily aimed at the corporate and public entities and those that are unincorporated. There is a bit of talk in the bill around natural persons. In other words if you have established a body corporate I assume or sole trade in a different name through your trust arrangements those too can obtain a Business Number. I think quite importantly too for those New Zealanders who operate multiple sole-trading corporate entities and the like they will be able to obtain several numbers for those entities. Again the whole purpose of this bill is to make things easier.We do note because it has not been picked up by other speakers that there is a whole area within this bill around offences. It is one thing obviously to put something in place but when you are making laws making changes for something as important as business you need to make sure that people are using these systems appropriately. We have seen with other legislation in the House particularly in the digital or the e-commerce space that it is a new area and it is fraught with difficulties so the bill at the moment is noting that a person who commits an offence and who knowingly uses a number that is a false New Zealand Business Number without a reasonable excuse could be subject to a maximum penalty and conviction of up to $250000. Although I can see Opposition members smiling that is incredibly serious and none of us would want to fall into this area.There are also offences for people who make or give authorised statements or documents to the registrar that are false. The integrity of a system like this is incredibly important. It is like the integrity of the Government—the people know that that is fine and secure; that is why we continue to ride high in the polls. But it is the same around the things like RealMe. It has been the same as I talked at the start around the National Health Index number and so forth. People need confidence in the system. So we are very keen—very keen—that that confidence remains. I am conscious of time. The numbers are against me. I sit down.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting the New Zealand Business Number Bill. As members of the House will know—I am sure they listen very closely to Green Party speeches—the overarching aim of the Green Party’s economic policy is to facilitate a transition to a smarter greener fairer economy—one that ensures that future generations will have all the benefits that we have and one that ensures that every person in New Zealand has every opportunity to be the best they can be and are not undermined by for example a lack of money on the part of their parents.Contrary to what our opponents claim I would say an important part of this transition is fostering strong New Zealand businesses particularly those that work to support communities and the environment. We want to ensure that they are able to do so and that they are not undermined by competition that undercuts them by increasing pollution. To that end I would say the Greens would be very supportive of any initiatives that reduce the time and costs of doing business without compromising those higher-level goals of creating a greener and fairer New Zealand.This bill on the face of it looks like a smart initiative that should make doing business easier and more efficient especially for small to medium sized enterprises—we think they are quite important. Assigning businesses one unique identifying number that can be used for a number of different purposes is a sensible way to reduce administration costs and make it more efficient. It should make it simpler for businesses themselves to interact with Government agencies as well as with each other. It could enable Government to better collect and share information that would enable targeted services and policies for business.We do of course have the same concerns that have been expressed by other members here in the House tonight about the impacts on privacy particularly as this Government the National Government has a poor record. We have seen a couple of Ministers release private information held by Government agencies just to score political points. We have some real concerns about what that could mean having this unique identifying number. Greater interaction between sharing of data means that the system becomes a little less resilient. There is this trade-off between efficiency and resilience generally and so although we will have something that is more efficient it is more susceptible to breaches of privacy and potentially hacking. I note from the regulatory impact statement that the Privacy Commissioner thought that most of the privacy concerns for example could be addressed. That is something we will be looking at very carefully and closely during the select committee process.The devil really is in the detail as to whether or not this will pay off. Obviously there have been other moves towards centralisation like for example the Auckland super-city merger which was supposed to deliver benefits but in fact has made the bureaucracy ever more unwieldy for your average citizen to deal with. So it all depends on how it is implemented and I think we will have to watch the submissions in the select committee carefully and explore the different opportunities. I am sure it will be an iterative process if the bill is passed of learning what works and what does not work.I would say that the opportunities provided by getting Government agencies to not be so siloed do not just apply to administration and the savings costs. For example in this bill according to the regulatory impact statement we might see something like $30 million to $50 million in savings. When you spread that out across the entire economy that is not really a huge impact. I would say that the Green Party is interested in finding even bigger savings for businesses and households in New Zealand. The big ones are transport buildings and energy. If we did those things smarter—and we have the ability to do that—then we know we could save billions of dollars each year for businesses and households and reduce environmental pollution. I think surely those sorts of win-wins are achievable in policy and are something that should be pursued by this Government if it genuinely believes in long-term sustainable economic development that looks after people and the environment.So although we will be supporting this bill I think that a smarter greener approach to policy across the board would deliver much greater savings to business and households here in New Zealand and ensure that we protect all the things we really love about New Zealand well into the future. Thank you.Brett Hudson: Mr Speaker.Jacinda Ardern: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Jacinda Ardern.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am sorry to disappoint the member Brett Hudson; I will be taking a call on this bill on the New Zealand Business Number Bill.I think it is important when discussing a bill like this that we keep at the top of our minds the context in which business is operating. It is with some I guess irony that we are debating this bill which is meant to be about improving the ease of doing business and improving outcomes for business when we are so close to a Budget that was trumpeted by the Government as the Budget that would return us to surplus. That therefore would demonstrate to the nation that the economy is in good heart that the books have been balanced and that all is well in never-never land. That is not going to be what this Budget delivers.We are now hearing from a Minister of Finance the one in whom the businesses are meant to hold great faith who is the same Minister who stood up in this House today and likened balancing a Budget to weight loss which I found extraordinary. So apparently if you set a goal of losing 10 kilograms but you reach only 9 kilograms that is the same as a Budget surplus not being reached. Well you cannot be a little bit pregnant and the difference for business is that if a business is not able to balance its books then it is not just good enough that it had a go at it.Melissa Lee: Business numbers. It’s an identifier.JACINDA ARDERN: So I do think it is important that the context be considered because in the Cabinet paper small businesses Melissa Lee that were asked about what they thought about the business number legislation which the Government is now passing in this debate said actually—and this is relevant—that it was not the biggest issue for them. So that is absolutely relevant. What is relevant to them is whether or not we do have a well-performing economy that means that their business is doing well within that context. That is what they want their Government to focus on. That is an important measure; it absolutely is. Minister Foss knows because his officials were the ones who prepared that document and said: “Well when we consulted with small business they weren’t convinced”—they were not convinced—“of the benefits it would bring for them.”I can see why they would say that because when you come to Part 1 of the New Zealand Business Number Bill it sets out in its preliminary provisions the main purposes of the bill which include to “ … enable businesses in New Zealand to interact more easily with government; and (b) reduce the costs of business transactions in New Zealand; and (c) establish and maintain a New Zealand business number register … ”. There is very little detail on how that will explicitly deliver some of the cost savings that the Government has been trumpeting since year dot—very little detail on that whatsoever. Yet if you directly compare that with some of the really tangible things that have been put forward by members of the business community or the Institute of Chartered Accountants they have said: “Look if you want to look for things that will enable business to interact more easily with the Government that will save them time that will save them money adopt some of the proposal that the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants put up before the election.” They included things like no more than 1 hour no more than one form making it really simple to file for the tax purposes of the Government. They have set out some of those ideas in a really simple way for the Government. That has not been picked up.So if there are things that the New Zealand Business Number is going to deliver which we can tangibly say will deliver X amount of time savings I am pretty sure small business would like to hear about that but that is not explicitly contained in this bill. There are probably already areas where we could be sharing information without having just that one number. I know Xero for instance has been putting a case to the Government over things like allowing Xero to be used as a way of channelling all the information that Statistics New Zealand wants directly from Xero—a platform that so many small businesses are using—to the Government. That would be a massive time saving. Allowing Xero and things like Mind Your Own Business for instance to speak directly to the Inland Revenue Department would make a massive difference to those small businesses.So yes we are willing to explore this. We are willing to send the bill to the select committee. You are trumpeting a big game here. Let us see what the bill is going to deliver but do not do it at the expense of some really practical ideas that the Government could be delivering on now or at the expense of the bigger picture which ultimately is an economy that is delivering for our businesses.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute joy to rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Business Number Bill in its first reading. For the benefit of the speaker who has just resumed her seat who is a bit worried that doing this to help business might come at the expense of doing something else well seemingly unlike the Labour Opposition this is a side of the House that can walk and chew gum. We look forward to doing a number of things not just one at a time. This New Zealand Business Number is really in part about the Government’s agenda of delivering Better Public Services to New Zealand. It is an absolutely measurable and concrete way of driving better value for New Zealanders reducing compliance for businesses and making it easier for people and for businesses to engage with the Government.This is a really simple concept. If you have a business whether it is small medium or large—but there is a greater compliance cost on small and medium sized businesses I think everyone would argue—that business has to interact with a number of Government agencies. We have picked just a few just off the top of our heads. Obviously there is the Inland Revenue Department and if your business perhaps is employing a very varied workforce you might have Immigration New Zealand contacts you might have department of labour contacts you will have ACC you have got the Companies Office—any number of Government agencies that even a small business or a medium sized business may be obliged to have dealings with.If you have got a situation where with every one of those agencies you have to have a unique and different identifier then it boggles the mind that anyone could suggest that you need some sort of scientific methodology rationale and proof that somehow having one identifier across all of them could be anything less than more productive and more cost saving than having a different identifier with every single one of them. This is exactly what this bill is delivering. It is delivering the one identifier that a business can use in every dealing it has with any Government agency that it chooses to or has to have dealings with.That is a simple concept to grasp. It is something that will certainly be grasped very readily by small businesses to whom I would argue the constant interaction with Government agencies is more of a bane than a boon to them. The idea that this will streamline those interactions is something that businesses will welcome and we are very very pleased to be delivering it for them.One of the things that I think is very very important about this and I would make a note about the previous speaker from the Greens Julie Anne Genter who raised issues of privacy. One of the good things about this is that supplying their core information once that information the core information about that business will be shared with other agencies and the business if it needs to make an update will be able to make the update once at its preferred point. No longer will it have to advise every Government agency about a change of address or some subtle change in purpose that the agency might feel is important. The business will do it once at the agency of its choice the one where it likely does most of its business. It could be New Zealand Post. That is a possibility. It will make that change once and that will proliferate across the agencies that access that New Zealand Business Number.The issue about data privacy I think shows that the members opposite do not understand the data that is actually going to be captured behind the New Zealand Business Number and that is going to be shared. That data is the legal entity name its registered address a location identifier a start date the type of entity that it is and its business status—whether it is active or inactive. There is not a great hacking potential in that data. Businesses are not storing their customer addresses. They are not storing their receipts. They are not storing their inventories. They are not storing the heart of their businesses. They are saying they are an active business based at this address and here is their number. [Interruption] Well sure. I mean it is a bit of a worry if the hackers want to get in and have a look at that.So you have got to wonder whether the Opposition members actually understand the information that is going to be captured and shared because based on what they have been saying tonight it does not look to me that they do.But the point on this is also that although we are expanding in this bill the New Zealand Business Number eligibility across a broader range of business it is worth noting that we have actually already allocated about 1.1 million of these numbers to registered companies to date. In fact we have got a reference group of about 1200 small and medium sized businesses that we have been tracking progress with on the New Zealand Business Number and how it has been working for them. The reports over the last 6 months or so have reported back a net 7 percent reduction in reported effort in their dealings with Government agencies since 2012.So here we have it. We have got a reference group—actual businesses operating in the real world—using the New Zealand Business Number. Their reports show and their feedback to the Government shows that this has had a net 7 percent productivity gain for them in terms of their—well a net saving for them in terms of their interactions with the Government since 2012; that is a better way of putting it I agree. That is definitely a very very positive thing for them to have experienced. I tell you what: if I were the member opposite and I had a business and someone was offering me a 7 percent saving I would not be saying: “No give me something more. Take this one away.” I would be grasping it with both hands while doing something else as well to further improve my business.Chris Bishop: You understand business.BRETT HUDSON: Well thank you Mr Bishop.But I would just like to say in concluding that Opposition members have also made a comment that is just a small thing. And at an estimate of $30 million to $60 million in savings set against the entire economy you could say that is a small thing just as you could say that half a billion dollars out of the entire GDP of New Zealand is a tiny thing as well. You could say it is a very small thing but it is part of a larger plan. It is not one thing solely in isolation; it is one thing that is part of a plan. Like in our Business Growth Agenda for instance there are between 350 and 400 initiatives in that plan that go together to improve business outlook and promote growth and growth in employment as well.So this New Zealand Business Number is part of another plan. We have already seen things for small and medium sized businesses like www.business.govt.nz which is a bit of a one-stop shop for what a small or medium sized business needs to consider when setting up and operating or growing a company in New Zealand in respect of its interactions and compliance obligations with Government agencies. Within that is a thing called Compliance Matters. This is a tool that sets out for those businesses exactly what their compliance obligations are and points them in the direction of what they need to do to make sure that they are compliant.So let us take this in context. The New Zealand Business Number on its own is not the only thing that this Government is doing to support small and medium sized businesses. It is part of a much broader plan both for small businesses and for business as a whole to promote economic growth in New Zealand and to help to raise confidence and results in our businesses that lead to greater employment as we have seen in the past 12 months and earlier. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to this bill. I am looking forward to this bill going to the Commerce Committee because it has been some time since we have dealt with a piece of legislation of any weight—not that this piece of legislation is of any weight. As we have said on this side when you look at what it does and the 7 years of Government that this party has behind it and the fact that we are 2 weeks out from an election—Carmel Sepuloni: From a Budget.KRIS FAAFOI: —from a Budget sorry—I wish it was an election—shows just how tired this Government is. Two weeks out from the Budget this is as good as it gets—a plan to expand the national business number out beyond what has already gone out to the public. It is as Dr Clark said in his speech a laudable effort to try to make the interaction between business and Government as efficient as possible.We have heard from both sides of the House about what kinds of savings we are trying to get to make business interaction with the Government more efficient. But some of the numbers still need to be fleshed out. You have got to think of it in the context of what is being promised and what will actually be delivered. Steven Joyce in his opening remarks said that this piece of legislation will look to reduce the compliance cost of business by about $60 million. That is nothing to sniff at. It is a sizable amount of money.But I think small businesses in New Zealand 2 weeks out from a Budget are looking at more than the extension of the national business number programme. I think they will be scratching their heads and thinking: “My God. Is this all this National Party has 2 weeks out from an election?”.Carmel Sepuloni: From a Budget.KRIS FAAFOI: From a Budget—ha ha! I will get that right eventually.I would like to sympathise and empathise with some of the things that James Shaw has said because as he said in his speech as a freelancer—I have experienced being a freelancer as well—from time to time you can get slightly frustrated with the amount of red tape and interaction you have with Government departments. We will look to the select committee to flesh out I guess some more of the details as to what will be the real benefits to the sole traders to those other small businesses that this national business number may be extended out to. The select committee consideration will be very interesting.I also want to touch on something that Fletcher Tabuteau said. He talked about the lack of information and the abundance of redaction in the regulatory impact statement. That starts pretty early on in the regulatory impact statement. There is a table at point 5. For the benefit of those at home watching at 9.33 on Tuesday night the line above the table says: “The table below outlines the net benefits of the preferred options.” As you can see it has all been redacted. So maybe—Dr Megan Woods: Blankety-blank.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes in the words of Annette King it says: “Blankety-blank blank blank blank”. Those are the net benefits of the preferred options of this bill. What is so secret that the Government wants to redact even the net benefits of its preferred option of this bill? What is going on when the Government wants to redact the net benefits of this extension of a 13-number programme? You have got to ask some serious questions about that.There are also some questions that we will be asking around the costs that are incurred in this bill because we have heard that $60 million figure from Steven Joyce. But again in the regulatory impact statement—and if you will let me take some time to read point 127. For some reason the number 127 has been redacted but the point has not been redacted. I do not know what is so secret about the number 127. I will read it—I am assuming this is No. 127—below this redaction: “The benefits to business of the NZBN will only be realised when government agencies change their existing systems to allow centralised registration of businesses and maintenance of their business details through the NZBN system.” I will go on to the second page which says: “Government agencies will incur costs in making these changes. It is not possible at this stage to quantify these costs. In many cases it may be possible to absorb costs within planned upgrades of agency systems.”There are two questions I have here for when we get to the select committee consideration. Can we please get an idea of what it will cost to change the systems within the multitude of Government departments? If it is a huge cost and we are looking at saving roughly $60 million for these businesses or more then from my maths that simply does not make sense. There is a track record for this Government when it gets involved in multi-agency complicated changes to IT systems.Hon Todd McClay: That’s not true.KRIS FAAFOI: Well it is true. If you would like to dispute that get up and take a call. But it is true. This Government does not have a good track record. Let us look at some of the IT projects of note recently that it has bungled. The Inland Revenue Department—who is in charge of inland revenue? The member just over there who said: “That’s not true.”Chris Bishop: That’s not fair.KRIS FAAFOI: You might think it is not fair Mr Bishop but unfortunately it is true. It is true. I can see how the member might think that is unfair but unfortunately his actions and the actions of that ministry and his decisions are going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer millions more which they should not have to pay. There are also other things that have been mentioned by other speakers and I would like to talk to the point around privacy. This regulatory impact statement also talks to that.Again and I am talking about the rolling out of IT programs this Government does not have a good track record when it comes to the privacy of the private information of New Zealanders. What department is that? Oh it is Todd McClay’s department again the Inland Revenue Department. Of course it let a whole spreadsheet list go—just flicked out in an email the details of hundreds of New Zealanders and their Inland Revenue Department details. The department just nonchalantly emailed them out into the public. Then of course there was the Ministry of Social Development. Someone just wandered into one of the offices went to the publicly available booth and helped themselves to a lot of information. There are some serious questions that need to be asked in the select committee consideration around the safeguards and the privacy of information to make sure that this Government is getting right because in the past it has got it so so wrong.This bill as I said tries to achieve a laudable aim in trying to make the interactions of businesses and Government departments more streamlined so they can save money and therefore invest more money pay their staff more or enjoy more profit. The example of New Zealand Post has been raised by a number of speakers on that side of the House. I just want to take this opportunity to talk about one local example of where this Government is saying one thing and is doing another. I held a public meeting recently about the future of the Raumati Beach PostShop which this Government wants to close down.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to invite the member to bring his point back to this bill.KRIS FAAFOI: I will. In the front seat of that public meeting was a local businessman who wants to make his life easier with a State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post. But this Government in demanding more of a profit from New Zealand Post is forcing the likes of community post shops in my electorate in Raumati Beach—which is not the strongest Labour safehold area in my electorate. In fact the businessman who spoke to me saying “Well done for bringing up the issue.” said he did not vote for us but he is unhappy with this Government and the fact it is extracting more profit out of New Zealand Post and closing down a very important piece of infrastructure in his community the local post shop so now he will not be having that efficient interaction—STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I really feel for the member Kris Faafoi having to interrupt such a wonderful discourse of—whatever.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I did terminate the member’s speech for being irrelevant. The member is inviting me to do it very early to him.STUART SMITH: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for that direction. Can I begin by congratulating the Minister for Economic Development on bringing this bill to the House. Actually as a businessman—or certainly a former businessman—having dealt with the Inland Revenue Department and all of the other Government agencies I think this is very welcome news. It does not surprise me that as has been claimed by the other side of the House small businesses do not recognise the benefit to them of a bill like this. Often small businesses are so mired in the day-to-day running of their businesses that they do not particularly think of these things and they do not recognise the benefit of them until they are actually upon them.I have had experience with a business number not in New Zealand but with an Australian part that we had to deal with in my wine business. Having a business number over there absolutely made things a lot easier. It seems to me that it is nonsensical that we have not had one up until now. These little things that Governments do from time to time which may seem boring and not earth-shattering do make a difference and they do move businesses forward. Those little parts of the New Zealand economy are actually what drives New Zealand on. It is not the big businesses as important as they are to New Zealand’s economy. It is the little businesses that impact on most people in New Zealand so it is incumbent upon us to allow them to be as efficient as possible. The New Zealand Business Number will do that.I think one of the big things with this bill is actually how they are going to maintain the New Zealand Business Number Register. That register is going to be kept by the registrar appointed under the bill and it will contain only business-related data. Certain primary business data contained on the register for the entity must be publicly available as follows. “[In] the case of a corporate or public entity—(i) the data listed in Part 1 of Schedule 3” which is “Legal entity name; Registered address; Location identifier; NZBN; Start date; Kind of entity; Business status (eg active or inactive)” and “(ii) any data prescribed by regulations that the entity elects to make publicly available or that is otherwise available on a public register;”. “[In] the case of an unincorporated entity—(i) the data listed in Part 2 of Schedule 3” which is “Location identifier; NZBN; Start date; Kind of entity; Business status (eg active or inactive)” and “(ii) any data prescribed by regulations that the entity elects to make publicly available.”That all sounds like pretty mundane stuff but I can assure you that once you have filled out this information once and then you have to do it again—and sometimes four or five times in a day—it can become pretty tiresome. For a small business—and this will be rolled out to sole operators in time—it is going to make a tremendous difference and free them up to do what it is we as an economy want them to do which is get on with business. That is what enables us to enjoy the lifestyle we do as a country and enables us to have enough taxes to look after those people who cannot look after themselves which is something that many on the other side of the House claim to champion.I note that there are already 1.1 million businesses that have a New Zealand Business Number so this has already begun. This bill simply enables it to be rolled out more widely. I think the small businesses are quite rightly the ones as I said that need to come on further with this. It will enable us to build a more competitive and productive economy which is something that we all benefit from so I cannot see anyone having any issue with that.Lifting business confidence is also part of the Business Growth Agenda which this all ties in very neatly with and addresses issues that matter most to firms particularly building export markets building capital markets building innovation and building skilled and safe workplaces. I note that this ties in also with the Financial Markets Conduct Act which allowed crowdfunding to come in. This all ties in with this New Zealand Business Number because actually that has been a great source of capital for small businesses and they have been able to raise funds—in fact up to $2 million—that way.Carmel Sepuloni: Relevance?STUART SMITH: It is great to be able to have all of this pulled into the bill because the New Zealand Business Number enables all of that information to be equally shared. I think that is really important so it is very relevant.Labour market statistics show that self-employed businesses grew by nearly 35000 in the year to December 2014. If you think about that there would be at least one person involved with each. I do not know what the average size of small to medium sized enterprises is in terms of people involved with them but I would think it would be seven or eight people maximum—[Interruption] Twenty is it and then right down to one. I would say that the average would be three or four people so that is a lot of people involved in those businesses. So there is a significant increase in the numbers of people involved in small to medium sized businesses.A lot of small to medium sized businesses fail in their first year. I guess there is an element of Darwinian selection there and that is as it should be because not all businesses will survive—[Interruption] Absolutely but it is a great thing to get these businesses up and running. One of the things that new businesses often struggle with is the day-to-day management of their business—their data filling in all of this information—so it really is a great step forward this bill and with our 3.5 percent GDP growth that we are running at the moment it is enabling businesses to grow across the whole economy. I am sure that is something that the other side of the House will be delighted about—that we have a Government that is focused on business focused on growth and focused on making those businesses able to get as much profit for the amount of work that they do.So it is with great pleasure on that note—[Interruption] And with all the support I am getting from the other side of the House I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.Environmental Reporting BillSecond ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Environmental Reporting Bill be now read a second time. I want to begin by thanking members of the Local Government and Environment Committee particularly the chairperson Scott Simpson and the Officers of Parliament Committee for the very sensible refinements that the select committee has made to this important bill. This bill has its origins back in National’s Bluegreens—in our efforts to improve the integrity of New Zealand’s “clean green” brand. It was part of the policy that we put to the electorate and I am pleased to be now in Parliament seeing it progress through into legislation. We are actually the only OECD country to not have a statutory framework for environmental reporting. It is an anomaly out of step with New Zealand’s “clean green” brand. This new Act will rightly put our environmental management under scrutiny and improve the integrity of New Zealand’s brand.We should not underestimate the power of open reporting systems to improve performance. I remember in my first term of Parliament New Zealand had had 30 years of pretty appalling management of New Zealand’s public finances. The Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Act requiring Governments of whatever political flavour to be absolutely upfront with the electorate about the state of the Government’s books has been a game-changer in moving New Zealand from having some of the worst public accounts in the world to having some of the best. I would also make the consistent analogy with education. Members on this side of the House as part of our policy agenda introduced the national standards legislation which equally requires open and transparent reporting of how well our children are doing at school because we believe that providing integrity and honest reporting actually helps improve performance. It has been interesting in the years since 2009 to watch in both the National Certificate of Educational Achievement results and those national standards a consistent improvement in the way in which children are learning maths learning to read and write and learning those basic standards that are so important to New Zealand achieving better in that area. This Environmental Reporting Bill is about an equally significant area where I think New Zealanders want us to do better as a country.Having standardised reporting in areas like water quality air quality how well we are doing in protecting our biodiversity and the survival of important species like the kiwi and what sort of job we are doing in managing our oceans—all those areas—in my view is a very important step. I am proud to be part of a Government advancing that step. It is part of a broader role in terms of what we have been doing as a Government in strengthening the role of the institutions of firstly the Ministry for the Environment as the policy maker the environmental equivalent of Treasury’s role in the economic space and secondly the Environmental Protection Authority an agency that was created by this Government to act as the effective independent regulator not too different to the role that is played by the Reserve Bank in the economic sphere. Finally just as we have an auditor we also have an important role for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment whose job it is to provide for the overall independence of our system of environmental management. It is my view that this bill will actually strengthen those institutional structures which will also play out well for our country.I want to talk to two controversies in the process of the bill’s being processed to set the record straight. There are unusually parties in this Parliament that I thought would support a good bill like this which is absolutely well intended and is best practice by OECD standards. However a great deal has been made of clause 18. This is the provision that sets down which topics will be reported. The controversy with which members in the Green Party and the Labour Party justify their opposition to this bill is that somehow there is something wrong with the Government’s Minister of Statistics and Minister for the Environment setting the topic areas. The first thing I would point out is that the legislation makes plain the five domain areas that those topics must cover. The bill goes further and requires a process of public consultation with the Government Statistician with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and with the public iwi and local authorities about each of those topics.My challenge for members who want to criticise clause 18 is this: the exact parallel provisions exist in the finance area. So indeed if it comes to measuring things like GDP the Consumers Price Index or the labour index there is no more role here for the Minister of Statistics and the Minister for the Environment than there is in those parallel areas. So why is it that they want to have a separate set of rules when it comes to environmental reporting? I have never heard a member of the Opposition ever raise any questions of integrity in the economic space about the equivalent of clause 18. Nor did they do so in their 9 years in Government. So why would they do so here? I simply say to this House that it is crude oppositional politics rather than actually trying to be constructive.The second issue that has been raised is why the bill does not provide for greenhouse gas emissions which of course are important to report. There is a very simple explanation. New Zealand is a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It requires every single year that greenhouse gas emissions be reported.Hon David Cunliffe: You wouldn’t know it. Why’d you wreck the ETS Nick? It’s going to be your legacy mate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It might be a lesson for David Cunliffe that during the 9 years of the previous Government greenhouse gas emissions rose very steeply. Actually I would much rather Mr Cunliffe have our record on greenhouse gas emissions than the previous Clark Government’s which was all talk and no action. But my point is this to Mr Cunliffe and to members opposite: the framework convention is enlisted in legislation—the Climate Change Response Act. It requires every single year for us to both report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and to table in this Parliament New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. So why would you insist that there be another Act of Parliament to repeat those same reports? Are members opposite really saying that the very robust process of independent country auditing of greenhouse gas emissions is not good enough for them? If so again I challenge them and ask: why was it then good enough for them in Government? We are a party of minimising bureaucracy reporting information accurately and doing it once and not having repeat information in one document after another. And in my view the provisions of the bill in that regard are absolutely sensible.The last point I wish to make in respect of the role for Ministers and for Government is let us not pretend there is not a cost with environment reporting. The reality is that if we are going to pass regulations requiring regional councils district councils and ministries to collect environmental data—it is actually quite expensive to get good quality data. The view that is put by Opposition parties that somehow parties that are independent of the Government can make decisions about spending breaks one of the fundamental rules of the way in which our system of government works and that is that it is only the elected Government of the day that can commit to expenditure including the expenditure on the collection of environmental data. The system that is provided for in this bill is absolutely transparent and if Governments of whatever political colour attempt to misrepresent or not collect robust environmental data on the basis of budgetary constraint it will be as transparent as the day is light. That is proper and that is why the bill is drafted in this way.This is a good bill. This is a bill that will ensure that New Zealand does not just brand itself internationally as being clean and green. This is a bill that will give honest open reporting on just how we are doing. It is the sort of bill that a National Government supports. We are a practical Government that wants New Zealand achieving economically and educationally as well as in this environment space and we are proud to be a party that is making this significant change to our legislative as well as our constitutional framework—how we manage those natural resources that are so important to this country.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is not with pleasure that I rise to give this speech. Labour will be opposing this legislation. It is not a position that we wanted to be in. We did oppose the bill at its first reading. My predecessor in the role of Labour spokesperson on the environment Moana Mackey made it very clear that we wanted to work very hard during the select committee process to bring about the changes that meant we could support it. I think there are very few people in the world who would not support the stated purpose of the bill but it is when you get into the detail of the bill that the problems emerge.As Dr Smith set out in his contribution this is something that has been on the books of the National Government for a very long time. In fact it was promised in its 2008 election manifesto that it was going to introduce environment reporting legislation that required independent 5-yearly state of the environment reports. Well I guess that us being here tonight means that perhaps this Government has beaten itself to a surplus in terms of the Environment Reporting Bill because that was also promised in the 2008 manifesto.What this bill does not deliver is independent reporting. For Dr Smith to say that he challenges parties to justify why it is that it needs to be different—well I would like to hear from a Government contributor on this bill as to how it is that they disagree with the vast majority of submitters many of them very very deep in the detail of this bill who had grave concerns about the independence of the mechanisms that are set up under this legislation. We heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who had grave concerns around whether or not this bill would deliver independent decision making around which topics are to be covered.I am of course referring to clause 18 of this bill which is the central cause of Labour’s inability to support this bill. You simply cannot have the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics making the decisions on what is to be reported on and claim that you have independent reporting. What we have consistently asked for and will be asking for again is that that decision be in the hands of the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician—who does consult with other people such as iwi and such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and that they arrive at what is to be reported on.The Minister who has spoken was quite correct. We are the only country in the OECD not to have this. We really wanted to be able to support this legislation and to put in place robust and independent environmental reporting.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.