Volume 698 Week 71 - Thursday 8 May 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 698 Week 71 - Thursday 8 May 2014[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 8 May 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Apologies for that close call Mr Speaker. I was caught in that thing out there called the circus. Fortunately I was not a star turn—Mr SPEAKER: We were all waiting for you Mr Brownlee. [Interruption]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes I was on the high wire. [Interruption] No I told you—high wire.Mr SPEAKER: Could we have the business statement please Mr Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 May the Government will look to progress the Food Bill the Veterans’ Support Bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Thursday 15 May is Budget day.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Could I ask the ringmaster if he could tell us whether the Government has any intention for urgency in the coming week?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The ringmaster can always rely on the clowns to provide a diversion. I say to the member yes and it is my intention to—Hon Trevor Mallard: Don’t talk about Judith like that.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Gosh he is the only guy who has ever been promoted one day demoted the next and brought back for a third try on the third day. He—Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister just answer the question that was asked.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —is sounding quite saviour-like. It is my intention to notify the Business Committee on Tuesday that there will be urgency following the delivery of the Budget and the leaders’ responses to that.Questions to MinistersEconomic Growth and Job Creation—Progress and Forecasts1.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received about increasingly broad-based growth in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Quite a range of reports. Building consents are at their highest level since 2007 and almost double the number of consents for new houses issued 3 years ago. Yesterday’s announcement of 41 new special housing areas in Auckland will fast track 18000 more houses. Business confidence remains high and it is flowing through to increased investments supporting longer-term productivity and wages. Yesterday’s employment figures show 84000 more jobs in the year to March the largest increase in employment since 2004. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index shows 19 consecutive months of manufacturing growth and despite a strong exchange rate annual exports recently passed $50 billion for the first time.David Bennett: How does growth in employment over the last 3 years compare with forecasts for jobs growth in previous Budgets?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In Budget 2010 there was a forecast of 174000 additional jobs in the economy by mid-2014. Yesterday’s figures confirm we are on track to meet these forecasts. Including the 84000 new jobs created in the past year alone there have been 160000 jobs created since Budget 2010. I can also confirm we are ahead of job forecasts for the two Budgets and two half-year updates in 2012 and 2013. We are seeing increased confidence in our economy more people investing and more employment—that is New Zealanders who did not have jobs getting jobs.David Bennett: What evidence has he seen that increasing employment and rising wages are contributing to increasingly broad-based growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday’s survey showed reasonably encouraging employment growth although I acknowledge that it is not yet sufficient to reduce unemployment to the desirable levels that we would like to see. The survey does show encouraging growth in the regions and for traditionally disadvantaged groups. Employment growth in the year to March was strong in Auckland and Canterbury but even without those centres employment increased 24200—for instance in the Bay of Plenty by 12 percent and in Otago by 7 percent. Youth employment increased by 15600. Employment among Māori was up by 5.8 percent in the year to March and among Pacific people employment was up by 8 percent. Next week’s Budget is about building on these gains and locking them in for all New Zealanders.David Bennett: How will next week’s Budget continue the Government’s support for higher wages and more jobs for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will underpin the conditions that allow for more investment and more jobs. Around 170000 jobs are forecast to be added to the economy by mid-2018. The average full-time wage is forecast to increase to $62300 up from $48700 in 2010. The unemployment rate is expected to fall to 4.4 percent. These forecasts of course depend on ongoing control of Government expenditure so interest rates are not pushed higher than necessary and also some cooling in the housing market again to make sure interest rates do not go higher than necessary.Hon David Parker: How can he say the benefits of economic growth are being shared broadly when yesterday’s official figures showed the annual increase in the median wage was the lowest in 13 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member keeps using a measure of wages that is not the one that is used for instance to set national superannuation. I take it from Labour’s policy that it is going to change the basis of setting relativity between national superannuation and wages. The average wage is the appropriate measure and real average wages continue to rise because wages are rising faster than the cost of living. Not every New Zealander has had the wage rise they want.Hon David Parker: Is the broad-based growth he is referring to the enormous growth in house prices up by 40 percent in Auckland to over $650000; is it not the truth that it is the dropping homeownership and growing inequality that are broad based?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is not correct. One policy that will certainly create inequality is Labour’s variable savings rate which could cut the take-home pay of thousands of New Zealanders by up to 15 percent if they are forced into a compulsory scheme. That would certainly make inequality worse.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are aware the Minister has no responsibility for other parties’ policies and should not misrepresent them.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to go back and look at his two supplementary questions that he asked and the wording to the effect “Is it not the truth?”. The Minister took the opportunity to respond the way he did.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify because I do not want to start the day—Hon David Parker: I am seeking clarification.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is seeking clarification I will listen to it.Hon David Parker: I am seeking a clarification as to whether it is now in order for the Government to state what it believes Opposition parties’ policies to be because that would be a new ruling.Mr SPEAKER: No. What I am saying is that the member asked two questions and the Minister in his response addressed the questions to my satisfaction.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify now that this is a fresh point of order because my patience may not last for too much longer with Mr Parker.Hon David Parker: It is a further clarification.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear one more clarification.Hon David Parker: I did not say that he had not addressed the question. My point of order was not that he had not addressed the question but that he has no responsibility for Opposition party policy and should not misrepresent it.Mr SPEAKER: The member is right in that the Minister does not have responsibility for Opposition party policy but he can certainly bring a recent announcement by an Opposition party into his answer.Budget 2014—Cost of Canterbury Recovery2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the expenditure figures used in Budget 2014?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget is next week so the member will have to see just what the figures are. We do have confidence in the expenditure figures because this Government has taken a considered and consistent approach to controlling Government expenditure by focusing on getting better results for New Zealanders and their communities—that is higher levels of achievement in school lower levels of reoffending and less child violence. Because we are getting good results like sharply dropping crime rates we are able to control expenditure.Hon David Parker: Why is there an agreement between the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the former Mayor of Christchurch Bob Parker to exempt the council 3-year plan from normal auditing processes until the end of 2014 after the election?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well you would need to talk to Mr Brownlee or Mr Parker about the details of that arrangement. What I can reassure the member about is that the Government is fully behind the recovery of Christchurch. Financing has not been a barrier or a hold-up to that recovery. We have invested up to $15 billion in the rebuild of Christchurch despite the fact that we have had a recession and large deficits and we will continue to invest more through this Budget.Hon David Parker: Why does he have confidence in the estimated Canterbury rebuild costs in the upcoming Budget when it is clear from theKordaMentha report released yesterday that he is trading off the Christchurch rebuild for his arbitrary micro-surplus in Budget 2014?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member is fantasising there I can assure him of that. It is not a surprise that there is ongoing discussion between the Christchurch City Council which has very significant financial burdens to shoulder and the Government which has indicated an open willingness to support the rebuild of Christchurch. I expect that those discussions will continue. There will be differences of views about figures there will be negotiations but there will certainly be further progress in the rebuild.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table theKordaMentha report which shows a $534 million underestimate of council—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particularKordaMentha report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the revised figure that was put together by the Christchurch City Council the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and Treasury along with other assistance post the figure used byKordaMentha—the figure that the council agreed was appropriate for the cost-sharing agreement.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the decision by the Hon Gerry Brownlee to commission Morrison Low to review theKordaMentha report; if so why has it taken so long for the Government to consider an independent audit to find the true cost of the rebuild or is not the truth of it just that he is delaying it until after the Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. The Government and the Christchurch City Council have been in discussion for at least 2 years over these issues. It has taken quite some time particularly for the council but also for the Government to understand the impact of the earthquake on Christchurch’s finances but I have to say the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has been exemplary in his focus on the detail of the financial arrangements. I can reassure the House that the $15 billion committed by this Government to the rebuild of Christchurch is day-by-day achieving value for money and we will get a result we are proud of.Hon David Parker: Will he revise the timing of the estimated Canterbury rebuild costs in his upcoming Budget now that Fletcher Building has been downgraded by market analysts due to the slow Canterbury rebuild progress leading to sharply lower earnings?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member has pointed out if Fletcher’s does not win all the tenders it is hardly our fault. The numbers around Christchurch are revised regularly. What is actually striking is that estimates made 2 or 3 years ago including for insurance liabilities have proven to be remarkably stable. We have not had to deal with large unexpected changes in the Government’s finances. The discussion with the Christchurch City Council will continue. Some of the numbers are agreed some of them are disputed—that is hardly unusual.Housing Affordable—Progress and Management of Housing New Zealand3.MELISSA LEE (National) to theMinister of Housing: What progress is the Government making in addressing the housing supply and affordability issues particularly in Auckland and Christchurch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): Yesterday I announced with Mayor of Auckland Len Brown a further 41 special housing areas with the capacity for an additional 18000 homes. This is on top of the 22 special housing areas announced last October and December and brings the total special housing areas to 63 with the potential for over 33000-plus homes. Work has also begun on the fourth tranche which I expect to announce in August. I am also very encouraged by the latest building consent figures which show the highest new house build rate in 7 years. In Christchurch an all-time record of 3000 homes were built during the last year. In Auckland 6500 homes were built which is 40 percent up on last year. Nationally thehouse build rate has increased from 13000 per year to 23000 per year—that is with increasing economic confidence and the Government changes in the regulatory environment we are now building 10000 more houses per year.Melissa Lee: Has the Minister seen claims the Government is using Housing New Zealand as a cash cow and can the Minister say how much money the Government is giving and what it is getting in dividends since it has been in Government and how this compares with previously?Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was just waiting to see whether you were going to rule on a question that did not have one or two legs but had four and whether that sort of question is now acceptable as a supplementary question in the House.Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not going to rule it out. The question may have multiple legs. Many members ask supplementary questions with multiple legs. The Minister may then choose to answer just one of those.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will find there are multiple Speakers’ rulings that say that supplementary questions are meant to have one leg but are sometimes allowed two. That question had four legs. It is a horse and it is baying like a donkey.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The question has been asked. I am not ruling it out.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The cash-cow claims are made by talking about only—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the answer because of the level of interjection that is coming from my left-hand side. It will cease.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The cash-cow claims are made by talking about only the dividend from Housing New Zealand and not the huge Government payments of over half a billion dollars a year.Phil Twyford: Rubbish!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me give the member the full numbers. The Government has increased the funding for housing vulnerable families every year that we have been in Government. The Government payment to Housing New Zealand has increased by 33 percent from $474 million in 2008 to $633 million this year. It is also true that Housing New Zealand pays a dividend. The largest dividend that Housing New Zealand has ever made was $176 million.Hon Tony Ryall: When?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In 2003. The average dividend under the 5 years so far of this Government has been $88 million. The dividend this year is $90 million.Phil Twyford: What about the net contribution? Talk about the net.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asks rightly: “What’s the net?”. Let me give him the figures. The net figure under the last year of the previous Government was $341 million. The net figure averaged over the last 5 years under this Government is $478 million—$478 million more that the Government is putting into Housing New Zealand in each of the 5 years. We see the trickiness from Mr Cunliffe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That answer has been going on substantially too long.Melissa Lee: What progress has the Government made in negotiating further housing accords?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have completed discussions in Christchurch and a draft accord has been agreed which is now subject to council consultation. It involves the Government partnering with the council to provide hundreds more houses for families in difficulty on top of the hundreds already being built by Housing New Zealand and the temporary villages that are already operating. The Government is looking tocontribute an additional $75 million on top of the over $1 billion that is being invested by Housing New Zealand and the millions that we have spent on temporary accommodation on temporary allowances and in growing the social housing projects with community providers. I am also in discussions on further housing accords in Wellington in the Bay of Plenty and this week I am having discussions in Queenstown. I seek leave of the House to table both sides of figures: the dividends as well as the Government contributions to Housing New Zealand since 2000 provided to me by officials.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Immigration Minister—Attendance at Cabinet Club Events4.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theMinister of Immigration: Has he discussed issues relating to his immigration portfolio at Cabinet club events; if so on how many occasions?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I have no ministerial responsibility for Cabinet club events. I attend a number of events in my capacity as a National MP and I discuss a range of issues and canvass my role as an MP from time to time. I also discuss matters that relate to all my portfolios including immigration.Holly Walker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was set down on notice and accepted by the Clerk’s Office—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is a question that is a marginal question. It has been allowed through after some discussion between the member who lodged the question and the Clerk. In these circumstances I am giving a fairly wide leeway to the way in which a Minister answers such a question and on this occasion he has addressed the question to my satisfaction.Holly Walker: Did he ever meetDonghua Liu at a Cabinet club event; if so did they discuss the immigrant investor category?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to the first part of that question no.Holly Walker: Does he think thatDonghua Liu and others who paid thousands of dollars to meet him at meetings of the Cabinet club Chinese branch—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That statement has just been denied by the Minister in the answer to the previous question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member said that the gentleman paid the money to meet him—paid the money—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will allow the member to ask the question again if I have missed it but if I recall the answer given by the Minister the member is now effectively disputing the answer that was just given by the Minister.Holly Walker: I can rephrase the question. Does he think that anyone who has paid thousands of dollars to meet him at meetings of the Cabinet club Chinese branch has done so because he was a National list MP or because he was the Minister of Immigration?Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Minister to answer that in as far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no responsibility for Cabinet club events.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not whether he was responsible. The question was did he understand himself to be attending those events in his ministerial capacity in the context of those meetings? That is within his purview to answer.Mr SPEAKER: Yes and—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Minister made it very clear at the start that he attends a lot of meetings as a National member of Parliament. That should have given the questioner a fair guide. I think we have got to be very careful that we do not end up using question time on I would say the collision that there is between the executive and the House of Representatives and effectively have a question time that regularly impugns the reputation of members of Parliament. We do not get for example to ask whether it is appropriate for a political party to have a cash for clemency arrangement with Dotcom.Grant Robertson: The issue here I think is that the primary question was allowed and it did make reference to the Minister and Cabinet club in the question. The supplementary question that Holly Walker asked—the Minister has responsibility for himself for his actions as a Minister—was: when he was at a particular event was he there as the Minister? To just get up and say: “I don’t have responsibility for that.” is not I think an acceptable answer. He could get up and say: “When I’m there I don’t think I’m the Minister.” and that would be him answering in accordance with both the question that is here and his responsibility but just saying that he has no responsibility when you have accepted the primary question I do not think can stand.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The first point is that the Minister said he had no responsibility for Cabinet club arrangements. He has no more responsibility for arrangements that are made by National Party branches around the country than Grant Robertson does for Labour Party branches around the country nor does he have any greater accountability than Grant Robertson would for the use of the war room on the third floor for Labour Party campaigning purposes. There are lots of areas where these things can be questioned. There is only one side of the House that has to answer the questions and the Standing Orders should not be used to work in a way that impugns the reputation of members of Parliament who are simply—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to continue with the point of order. I am having trouble hearing it now because—[Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to stay for the balance of question time she can also be quiet when I am on my feet.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The point is that it would be an odd thing if Ministers in particular did not speak about their portfolios when they are talking to groups of New Zealanders regardless of the circumstances. I am speaking for example tomorrow at lunchtime to a group who I know have paid to be there. I am not being paid. The National Party is not getting any money from it but the group itself is getting it. The problem here is—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s your job.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave a warning to the left-hand side of my House that if there was discussion during a point of order a member would be ejected from this Chamber. It is very close to that on this occasion. I want to hear this point of order.Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am hearing a point of order Mr Robertson.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Interestingly in his interjection the Hon Trevor Mallard made a valid point when he said: “That’s your job.” Politicians speak about politics. I am not responsible for the organisation that has invited me to be there tomorrow but I am delighted to be there and to have the opportunity to give a very popular political message—something that troubles our opponents.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member speaking to the point of order?Grant Robertson: I am. I have two points I wanted to make. The first of those is that there will be disorder in the House when a person taking a point of order introduces material that is not a point of order and that makes false accusations about another party. So although I understand your frustration at the noise it is caused by the person taking the point of order. The second point I want to make in response to Mr Brownlee’s point of order is that there is a world of difference between going to speak at an engagement as a Minister in this way and something called the Cabinet club—or clubs sorry for those who do not understand; Cabinet clubs—that implies that they are a Minister. You have clearly accepted the question on the basis that there is something about the name “Cabinet clubs” that means that a Minister has some level of responsibility for that. Mr Woodhouse should at least answer the question rather than simply say that he does not have responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: The first point that I would make to the member is that the question has been accepted because it asks the member about discussions he had relating to his ministerial responsibility not specifically the attendance at any Cabinet club or other fund-raising event. The difficulty I now have is that it is so long ago since the question was asked and answered that I think to clarify the matter we will go back to that stage. But before I allow that to happen I say that at the time I was relatively comfortable with the way the Minister did answer that question in light of this difficult line that members face here in determining their role as a Minister where they have ministerial responsibilities and the role that every member of this House has as a member of a political party. All members are involved to some extent in concerns around the funding of their political parties. Where that crosses the line is a difficult and grey area but I will go back to listening to the question carefully and listening to the answer and then we will move forward.Holly Walker: Does he think that attendees who paid thousands of dollars to meet him—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In this circumstance that is an imputation that is completely unacceptable.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already accepted this question as legitimate when you first allowed it through. You have asked my colleague to repeat that question. It is not appropriate for Gerry Brownlee to now contest your ruling that she now be allowed to repeat her question.Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a very fair point that has been raised but I do warn the member that in making a statement like that within a question it gives fairly wide licence to the Minister who is then going to answer the question. Holly Walker could we get the question completed.Holly Walker: Does he think that attendees who paid thousands of dollars to meet him—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am now going to ask you to refer to the Standing Order that makes that question in order. I am not disputing issues about whether the primary question is valid but this is an important point. It would be like us asking whether the people who pay thousands of dollars to go to the Green Party conference etc. are gaining—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well they might laugh—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That question according to the Standing Orders is not strictly in order but most questions that are asked in this House day after day do not adhere strictly to the Standing Orders. I have allowed thequestion to be asked. It is to be repeated and then we can move forward by listening to the answer from the Minister.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are there for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is to protect members. Although I accept that often questions do stray beyond the strict bounds of Standing Order 377(1) through to (5) in this case because the attempt of the questioner is to inflict reputational damage—which is completely undue—I think it is appropriate that the question is confined to the parameters of the Standing Orders.Holly Walker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance. I have a lot of sympathy for the point the member is making but he could consider where this matter has got to in the House. I listened to the question. I allowed it in the first place. On many occasions I go back and look at theHansard subsequently and when you look at the supplementary questions that have been asked I perhaps should have ruled them out of order. In this case I let it through on the first occasion and to progress this matter I have invited the member—having let it through on the first occasion—to repeat it. That is where the matter lies. It may upset Mr Brownlee but that is the way we are going to move forward on this matter.Holly Walker: Does he think attendees who paid thousands of dollars to meet him at meetings of the Cabinet club Chinese branch did so because he was a National list MP or because he was the Minister of Immigration?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The questioner asks for an opinion about events over which I have no ministerial responsibility and therefore it would be inappropriate of me to offer such an opinion.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has any member of his office staff paid for by Ministerial Services attended any Cabinet club meetings with him? And you have got to say yes.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unacceptable. The question has been asked; we will listen for the response.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have the information with me to answer that question but if the member would like to put the question down in writing I would be very happy to give him an answer.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he fulfilled his obligations under paragraph 2.53 of theCabinet Manual by attending a chapter of a group that charges recent immigrants more than long-term New Zealand citizens?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I must confess I am not sure what the member is asking but I have every confidence that I have complied with all aspects of theCabinet Manual.Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5 Phil Twyford. Oh supplementary question Holly Walker.Holly Walker: We are only just getting started Mr Speaker. Was it wise for him as Minister of Immigration to attend a Cabinet club Chinese branch event given the risk outlined on the radio this morning by the former president of the Chinese Association that many new migrants may think it is possible to buy influence with Government Ministers because that is how business is done in their home countries?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for a bit of a—the Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will repeat my answer to the primary question which was that I attend a number of events in a variety of forums wearing my hat as amember of Parliament or as a member of a party and in my ministerial responsibility. As a guest I generally do not have any knowledge about the circumstances that lead to the other people in those events being there so in that sense it would be inappropriate of me to offer an opinion.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister say whether he has ever attended a meeting at the well-known Coatesville Mansion where he might have discussed with the occupant the possibility of accepting an enormous amount of cash not only to give him immigration preference or citizenship but also to give him clemency against the law?Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question had no relevance to the primary question and it had not been introduced in any of the answers.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I thought that the point of order would be another one. I thought you would have ruled the question out because of course it refers to a matter before the court. Mr Banks is the person who got the bag of money.Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling the question out.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can give the member and this House an absolute guarantee that that has not happened nor is it ever going to happen in the foreseeable future—unlike other members of this House.Holly Walker: If he is not engaged in cash for access how come people who cannot pay to meet him like Murdoch Stephens who runs the Doing Our Bit campaign to double New Zealand’s refugee quota cannot get a meeting with him despite repeated requests and people who pay thousands of dollars through the Cabinet club can?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not aware of whether or not Mr Stephens has sought a meeting but I am in reasonably frequent dialogue with him on social media and I am very happy to hear from him in the future. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for the Hon Annette King.Holly Walker: Would he agree that one way to help protect him from the awkward situation he has found himself in today would be for the Government to introduce a ministerial disclosure regime like that proposed by the Green Party under which Ministers would report on whom they discuss Government policy with in the interests of transparency and fairness?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refute the preface to the question. I am in no such awkward situation and need no such protection.Holly Walker: How can he credibly argue that he did not attend these events in his ministerial capacity when he is the Minister of Immigration and he met with would-be migrants keen to discuss immigration policy at an event called the Cabinet club?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I repeat: I speak to a number of people in a number of forums—at the supermarket at the service station at the airport in Cabinet club meetings and in public meetings. They are interested in articulating their views on immigration policy and I am happy to hear from them.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given that he is now answering questions on the Cabinet club does he ever think it likely that a Green member of Parliament would be a welcome speaker at such an event?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now that has stepped across the boundary. There is no ministerial responsibility. [Interruption] Order! Question No. 5 Phil Twyford. [Interruption] Order! I have called Mr Twyford.Housing Affordable—Progress and Homeownership Rate5.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement “The Government is committed to supporting as many Kiwi families as possible to achieve the goal of owning their own home”; if so is homeownership increasing or decreasing according to the latest Census?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I am totally committed to getting as many Kiwi families as possible into homeownership. That is why the Government has an active work programme on land supply fast tracking consenting development contributions materials projects like Weymouth and Hobsonville Welcome Home Loans KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidies and on our economic policies that are keeping interest rates lower for longer. The latest census data shows homeownership rates of 65 percent and a 2 percent decline over the preceding 7 years covering both Labour and National periods in office. These rates declined every year under the previous Government when house prices doubled and interest rates soared. I note that independent measures of housing affordability show they were at their worst in 2008 and have improved by 25 percent in the term of this Government.Phil Twyford: To what extent will the collapse in homeownership on his watch be worsened by the collapse in affordability—the biggest monthly drop in affordability in 12 years—and record house prices in Auckland up $86000 in Auckland in the past year and why does he think that parroting historical data from years ago helps Kiwi families now to get into their own homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very keen to share with the House the independent house affordability data that is collected both byDemographia and also by Roost. Both of those data show that housing affordability has improved. Let me give you the national results. TheRoost Home Loan Affordability Report which measures average house prices average incomes and interest rates showed that the average in New Zealand was 83.4 percent—that is a person on the average income with an 80 percent mortgage would need to spend 83.4 percent of that income on servicing a mortgage. That figure is currently at 57.6 percent. That is an improvement of 25 percent since that member’s party was in Government.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that theRoost Home Loan Affordability Report indicated that the March figures were the biggest monthly drop in home affordability in 12 years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to share the housing affordability data studied by the Roost survey. Let me give the numbers. Nationally it peaked at 83.4 percent in 2008. It was 57.6 percent in March 2013 and 58.7 percent in February 2014. If we look at Auckland the Auckland data peaked at its worst in the previous Government’s last year in office when 101 percent of an averageAucklander’s income would be required to service an 80 percent mortgage. The current figure is 77.6 percent an improvement in Auckland of about 23 percent under this Government.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I deliberately asked a very narrow and specific question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will invite the member to ask that question again.Phil Twyford: Can the Minister confirm that theRoost Home Loan Affordability Reportfor March indicated that the month of March saw the biggest drop in home affordability in 12 years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The figures that I have been provided with by officials are that the Roost survey March 2014 data showed that the average New Zealand family would need to spend 57.6 percent of their income. What it also showed was that figure was 83.4 percent in 2008.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I repeated at your direction a very specific question.Mr SPEAKER: And I have sympathy for the member. The member has put the question twice now. The answer has been given and we can certainly say it addressed it. Whether it was to the member’s satisfaction or the House’s satisfaction is for the member and the House to decide. The member has further supplementaries.Grant Robertson: Can we have a vote?Mr SPEAKER: No you cannot have a vote Mr Robertson.Phil Twyford: How many of the 18000 new homes he promised yesterday will be affordable for average Kiwi families when Auckland real estate agents are now marketing $800000 homes as affordable or is $800000 affordable under his failed housing policies when houses in Auckland have risen by $235 a day over the past year on his watch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that the largest increase in Auckland house prices occurred between 2000 and 2008—Phil Twyford: That’s history.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —when they more than doubled. The member can say that it is history but actually it is the changes that occurred over that decade that have really made the marked decline in housing ownership and housing affordability. In terms of the 18000 houses that we are freeing up the regulations to build the reality is that unless you are going to install a Stalinist economy where the Government and councils decide the price people can sell their home for nobody in this Parliament can say exactly what those houses will sell for. What all the economic data shows though including the latest report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is that the best way to make houses more affordable is to get rid of the stupid metropolitan urban limit that was strongly endorsed by members opposite.Phil Twyford: Were the 18000 houses that he promised yesterday included in the 39000 houses he has already promised for Auckland—are they new houses or is he double-counting again—and why will these new special housing areas be more successful than the last ones when only 13 resource consents were issued in the first 6 months of his special housing areas being in operation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no question that the level of house building in Auckland is growing at an all-time rate. It has increased by 40 percent. The number of building consents—Phil Twyford: That’s not true. That’s simply not true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the number of building consents this year is hugely increased on last year and is continuing to grow. The 18000 additional homes announced in the special housing areas is part of the delivery of those 39000 homes in the accord and just show how successfully this Government is working with the Auckland Council to address the affordability issues that developed in Auckland when the previous Labour Government allowed house prices to double.Phil Twyford: Is he proud of the fact that house prices are skyrocketing to the highest levels in history that families are being shut out of homeownership in record numbers that interest rates are rising that speculators are having a field day and that absentee foreign ownership is rampant and will he now concede that he should have just adopted Labour’s popularKiwiBuild policy?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am more than happy to comment onKiwiBuild. It is about as stupid as saying that the way to get food prices down is to have the Government own all the supermarkets or that the way to get car prices down is to have the Government own all the car companies. I would note that since the Opposition announced itsKiwiBuild policy the private sector is actually building 10000 more houses per year by increasing confidence and getting the regulatory environment correct.Drugs Control—Recall and Disposal of Psychoactive Substances6.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theMinister of Police: What steps are the Police taking to ensure psychoactive substances are removed from the market?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): From today all psychoactive substances must be removed from the market. It is now illegal to possess supply and sell these products. In the lead-up to the new law coming into force police and Ministry of Health enforcement officers visited retailers and provided advice on the psychoactive product recall how to comply with the recall and what addiction services are available for users. At midnight police began Operation Recall which will see all 148 licensed retailers visited to ensure they have taken appropriate steps to remove these products from sale and return them to suppliers. This operation is prioritising those retailers who trade 24/7 or who have previously been identified as high-volume or problem traders. By lunchtime over half of all retailers had been visited and all were complying with the new law.Mike Sabin: How will the police ensure that psychoactive substances remain off the market following Operation Recall?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Police and Ministry of Health enforcement officers will continue to monitor the situation and respond to community concerns. There will be ongoing visits to retailers to ensure that the products remain off the shelves and police will monitor the internet for illegal advertising and sales. This may include conducting what they call controlled purchase operations—which are obviously undercover attempts to buy the products—to ensure that sales are no longer occurring. But if members of the public have concerns about the illegal sale or distribution of these products I strongly encourage them to contact the police orCrimestoppers so that the appropriate enforcement action can be taken.Families—Paid Parental Leave and Other Financial Support7.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Will he use a financial veto on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to stop families from having 26 weeks paid parental leave?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member will just have to wait and see. It will depend on the progress of the bill through the House. No decision has been made yet because it is not required.Sue Moroney: In response to that answer why has National used a range of delaying tactics including the threat of a financial veto an extension of the report-back date from the Government Administration Committee and filibustering on members’ day to prevent a second vote from taking place to progress extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring to but the House has processes to ensure that policies that members propose through members’ bills have the opportunity to be improved. The member maybe has not taken all those opportunities.Sue Moroney: Given that answer and given that there is a bill currently before the House from the Labour Party that proposes to extend paid parental leave will he propose amendments to that bill to progress any proposals to extend paid parental leaveand therefore honour the commitment made by his party to me last year or will he play politics and continue to delay and oppose that bill?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have to say that we spend a bit less time worrying about the progress of Labour members’ bills than we do about ensuring that the Government sustains its ability to support hundreds of thousands of families. The Labour Party has picked out one group that it favours. It is not the only group of families. The Government will continue with its position which it has always had and that is that when the extension of paid parental leave which currently costs around $370 million or more is affordable we will look at it.Sue Moroney: Can he assure the House then that his proposal for families who are currently not eligible for paid parental leave will be superior to the $60 per week extra these families would get under Labour’s Best Start package?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is hard to know what families would get under Labour’s Best Start policy because Labour is confused about it itself and has misled the public by not announcing that it was abolishing some support for families. So the answer is no. We find it difficult to compare because like most Labour policies it is misleading and hard to understand.Sue Moroney: Does he accept then that ColmarBrunton found that 62 percent of New Zealanders support Labour’s bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks that the select committee heard submissions where 99.6 percent were in favour that the bill has a parliamentary majority and that the only thing standing between families and 26 weeks of paid parental leave is National’s financial veto?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am surprised it was only 62 percent. What happened to the other 38 percent who did not support getting some extra free stuff from the Government? The Government of course has got to balance up the natural desire of New Zealanders to see children better supported with the long-run sustainability of those schemes. I would have to say that New Zealand families have done an extremely good job through difficult times and we have been able to sustain extensive support for families through the recession. As the economy continues to recover we might have more choices.Minerals Exploration Central North Island—Pureora Forest Park8.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Will he rule out granting mineral exploration permits in Pureora Forest Park?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Kia ora to the member. No. As has been the case for many years in New Zealand any operator who wants to undertake exploration activity in any conservation area excluding schedule 4 land and World Heritage sites would first need to meet all the strict regulatory requirements set out by the Department of Conservation and also the local authorities.Catherine Delahunty: Why would the Minister grant an exploration permit over some of our precious conservation land that could allow drilling rigs construction of sedimentation ponds and cutting down of some of our last remaining ancienttōtara?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate the member’s pre-announcement publicity but I will be making announcements in relation to the competitive tender tomorrow and not today.Catherine Delahunty: Is he telling Stephen King and others that their protest high up in the trees of Pureora in the 1970s was for nothing and that the trees they sacrificed so much to protect might now be felled to make way for gold drilling rigs?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No I am not.Catherine Delahunty: Should not visitors to Pureora be able to hear the haunting call of the endangeredkōkako that live there rather than the drone of drilling rigs; if so will he promise to keep drilling rigs out of thekōkako habitats?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think that thekōkako—and themollyhawks for that matter—will still be singing loudly for some time to come.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a charming reply but it did not answer the question.Mr SPEAKER: In my opinion it did address the question.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table this recording of the call of thekōkako—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The member is wasting the time of the House.Immigration Policy—Investor Plus Scheme and Meeting with Donor9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Immigration: Did the Government instruct Immigration New Zealand to review the Investor Plus scheme of $10 million; if so for what reason?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): The business migration package was introduced in 2009 with a scheduled review 1 year after its implementation. That was reported back to Cabinet in 2011. A further review of the investor categories commenced in 2012 to check that they were still fit for purpose and that review is ongoing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: For how long did he meet with Mr Liu at Mr Liu’s hotel and what changes to immigration rules did Mr Liu specifically ask for?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The meeting lasted for about 1 hour and I cannot be more specific about the exact changes that were called for. There was certainly a question mark about whether the $10 million threshold was too high. I pointed out to him as I have to many others that simply lowering the threshold would not be appropriate. I am sure there was a range of other things but I cannot recall them right now.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I take it from his primary answer that he asked for his department to continue work on these changes and the intention to bring in a third investor category with absolutely no English language requirement?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I said the review is ongoing and no options apart from the one I mentioned have been specifically ruled out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Immigration had arranged to meet with Mr Liu and was the Prime Minister’s awareness before or after the meeting? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the interjection unfortunately. I have called Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of the meeting at the time that it was taking place.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When was he as Minister of Immigration aware that the Prime Minister supported Mr Liu’s proposed changes to immigration laws and was the date of this awareness before his meeting with Mr Liu?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not aware that the Prime Minister supports any of the proposed changes that Mr Liu put forward either then or now.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table two letters. One is a letter dated 4 April 2012 pointing out the third category about which my questions were shaped and having these words in it: “We have received strong expressions of support for this approach from the Prime Minister.”Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the second letter?Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second letter is dated 13 February 2012 and it reads: “We look forward to building on the engagement that one of our members Mr Liu of the Alpers Avenue Development Group had with the Prime Minister.”Mr SPEAKER: Those documents have now been described. Leave is sought to table those two particular letters. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact from these letters that the only reason he went on bended knee to a seedy hotel to speak with a woman-basher was because the woman-basher—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is out of order. I will give the member the opportunity to rephrase it but there is a case before the courts in this regard at the moment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the man has pleaded guilty to the offence. It is not sub judice. What is the offence you wish to raise now?Mr SPEAKER: No I am advised that the matter is before the courts with a further hearing in June. That is the advice I have been given. If the member can get the question in without referring to a current—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is your advice from the Clerk that this matter is sub judice or not?Mr SPEAKER: Yes it is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well she is wrong.Mr SPEAKER: The member is entitled to his opinion. If he wants to ask—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No no. There are ample Speakers’ rulings that say that a matter that has been published by the media—and he has admitted the offence—is capable of being repeated in this Parliament. I am not referring to his being sentenced. That is a sub judice matter. I am talking about the offence he has already acknowledged he committed. That is not sub judice—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the point and the member will resume his seat and I will seek some advice from the Clerk.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: No I will wait. The member has raised a point of order and I want the advice first. I am advised that the fact that the matter is before the court is the important thing and that this House sets itself a substantially higher standard than what the media may well do. In that case I am accepting the Clerk’s advice that this is sub judice. The member has not had that question taken off him. He has the opportunity to ask a question but it must not refer to the case that is currently before the court.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that it is not in any way disputing the ruling I have just given.Hon Trevor Mallard: No. What it is asking you to do—Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: Well the point of order is to ask you to present a considered ruling to the House that goes to the background of the reasons for the sub judice rule which are—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. That is a reasonable request and I will give a considered ruling.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the only reason he went on bended knee to a seedy hotel to speak to a certain person was that that person had given the National Party $22000 to let in his not-so-rich mates who cannot speak English?Mr SPEAKER: Order! In as far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no knowledge of or responsibility for any donations given by one person to another party. Secondly as Minister of Immigration I go on bended knee to no one.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect on that answer and that the Minister who has publicly admitted knowledge of the donation just said that he had no knowledge of it. That cannot—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked me to reflect on that answer and I will do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a time line of the National Party’s Ministers of Immigration Guy and Woodhouse with Mr Liu.Mr SPEAKER: Where is the source of the document?Rt Hon Winston Peters: An impeccable source. I prepared it myself.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. I think it will be fairly easily decided. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a National Party Cabinet club initiative set out for the Invercargill electorate talking about coming along to hear somebody who one day might be—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well described. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Cabinet club 2014 subscription at $1000 a pop from the Invercargill electorate.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a further document. It is an invitation—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify because this is now taking—are there more documents? I want them put all at once.Rt Hon Winston Peters: There are plenty more but not today. Just this one.Mr SPEAKER: This is the last one?Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is right.Mr SPEAKER: Then I am absolutely delighted. Let us hear about it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So am I actually because you can only take so much at once can you not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us hear it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: OK. The third one is an Invercargill Cabinet club invite to come along and hear Judith Collins the much-vaunted future leader—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular invitation. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I would like to ask the House’s indulgence to take a little more time than usual for the tabling of a document if I am granted leave to table it. Thedocument I seek to table is a National Party document from the early 1990s for a fund-raiser where it was touted that the Hon Winston Peters may well become New Zealand’s first Māori Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Budget 2014—Rheumatic Fever Prevention10.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to theMinister of Health: What investment will the Government make in Budget 2014 to help fight rheumatic fever?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Last week the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia and I announced that Budget 2014 will invest an extra $20 million over the next 4 years to combat New Zealand’s high rate of rheumatic fever bringing the Government’s total investment in rheumatic fever prevention to more than $65.3 million over 6 years. Free drop-in sore throat clinics will be expanded to target a further 90000 children and young people who are at risk of getting rheumatic fever. Excellent work is already going on across the country and expanding these initiatives such as the healthy homes initiatives will help reach more families whose children are at risk of developing this serious illness.Claudette Hauiti: What have the results been so far of the Government’s investment in rheumatic fever prevention?Hon TONY RYALL: Between July and December last year 70000 children had a sore throat swabbed at school and of those 70000 about 8000 returned a positive result for strep throat and were treated. That is 8000 kids who should be at a significantly lower risk of contracting rheumatic fever. As we raise public awareness of this disease we are finding and treating more children and this is a very worthwhile investment in New Zealand children’s health by the John Key - led National Government.Youth Unemployment—Statistics for Māori11.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to theMinister of Finance: How is the Government able to claim its management of the economy is “on the right track” when Māori youth unemployment continues to be unacceptably high at 22.1 percent which is higher than when they took office and nearly four times higher than the latest population-wide unemployment rate?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): An economy headed in the right direction including for Māori youth is one that is growing consistently and generating thousands more jobs. We do have one of those economies. There are a number of ways of calculating the rate of unemployment for youth. In the case of the figure the member mentioned for instance about a third of the 22 percent is classified as caregivers. However the number is certainly too high. I have to say that this Government though has a good track record of concentrating on those factors that will assist Māori youth to get better access to the labour market such as getting better results from school and ensuring that our training systems actually give those young people qualifications not just a place to go to. For instance National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement by Māori school-leavers has improved from 44 percent in 2008 to almost 59 percent in 2013. We are also supporting them through initiatives such as Youth Guarantee New Zealand Apprenticeships and the persistent work the Māori Party has done to introduce Māori Trade Training which has provided opportunities for hundreds of young Māori. I think the Government though would collectively agree thatthis result is not good enough. It is another reason why we need a persistently growing economy and a strong focus on results.Hone Harawira: Does the fact that tens of thousands of Māori have already left our shores in search of jobs in Australia mean that the Māori youth unemployment rate would probably be twice as high as the current rate of 22.1 percent if they all stayed at home?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is something in the view that as fewer people leave New Zealand—and a lot fewer are leaving—it makes it a bit more difficult for those who are here and without jobs to find jobs. I share with the member his concern that too many Māori have left particularly the far north and that is why it is good to see that he is taking a bit more of a positive approach to economic development up there. Although I respect his view that he is opposed to mining he does I understand work constructively to enable Treaty settlements in the far north where several hundreds of millions of dollars are waiting in the Government’s bank account simply forNgāpuhi to agree to accept it.Hone Harawira: What kind of future can young Māori possibly have in Aotearoa when the statistics show that they are destined for long-term consistently high levels of unemployment under National and why has this Government along with its friends in the Māori Party failed so spectacularly to address the appalling racism inherent in these figures?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the difference between the National Party and the Māori Party on the one hand and that member and his fellow travellers in the Labour Party is that we do not accept that that is the destiny of young Māori. It does not matter how many statistics he quotes. It does not matter what the track record has been. This Government has committed to changing that trajectory starting right from participation in early childhood education through to higher levels of achievement at secondary school. That is the difference. We do not accept that being a poor Māori from the far north means you are destined to no hope. We have set out on the path to give them hope and I particularly compliment the Māori Party on its efforts in that respect.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: In light of that response is it acceptable that the rate of Māori youth not in employment education or training has stagnated under his Government at 21.9 percent and that this compounds the fact that long-term unemployment trends for young Māori is the brighter future that they can look forward to under a National Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No it is not acceptable and that is why this Government has worked very hard to undo all the damage the last Government did by wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on training that took people nowhere and giving young people false hope that if they went along to some course they would get a job.Grant Robertson: You’ve done nothing.Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact I invite the members opposite to go along and talk to all the people involved in Youth Guarantee in Youth Service in the pipeline work that has been done in the trades academies and in the Māori Trade Training programme. They will tell those members that this Government has done more than any previous Government. In fact those members criticised the Minister of Education for trying too hard and going out and pushing schools to actually teach these kids.Immigration Minister—Meeting with Donor12.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to theMinister of Immigration: Why did he personally call onDonghua Liu to receive his representations on immigration policy followingDonghua Liu making a donation to the National Party?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Firstly this was not a personal call. I have no personal relationship with Mr Liu and I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no knowledge of or responsibility for donations to the National Party. When I met Mr Liu in 2013 I had no idea he had made a donation. I meet with a number of people up and down the country in my role as the Minister of Immigration and there is nothing unusual about that.Hon Trevor Mallard: When did he first become aware that this meeting was controversial as a result of Mr Liu’s donation?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not accept that the meeting was controversial then or is controversial now. It is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to hear from a range of people on a range of views and that is what happened.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Mr Liu offer cash?Mr SPEAKER: I just want to consider that question. I will allow it. It is a marginal question. I will allow it but it gives a very wide—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will give the answer but I do want to point out that Speaker’s ruling 50 I think or something like that is very clear about imputations of corruption on members. That is what that question is. The answer is emphatically no.Mr SPEAKER: I agree—[Interruption] Order! I agree this question is very close to implying cash for access. I am left with two choices: to rule it out which I am tempted to do; or to leave it there for the Minister to respond to and it gives a very wide leeway for the Minister to respond. That is probably the best way forward on this occasion.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact the Minister has responded and has responded appropriately.Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the response then.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well he is happy to give it again. The real point here is that there is a point where Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders can be determined somewhat by what happens in the House. I did not speak about this at the start of the question because I am very confident about the position that the Hon Michael Woodhouse is in in relation to this and because the question comes from someone who is well known for spraying this sort of thing out there—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stick to the point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point though is that I think there has to be some bounds established by way of a Speaker’s ruling. Otherwise every time we hear that someone from the Labour Party for example has gone to speak to someone at a union we would be wanting to know how much was involved in that deal etc. etc. Somehow that seems to be acceptable. Similarly no one has yet been told how much the Green Party has got from the visit to the Coatesville mansion.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now straying from the original point of order. I am aware of the difficulty around this question. There was significant discussion around its acceptance and as Speaker’s ruling 153/5 acknowledges there was the requirement then for some give and take before the final question was accepted. I am aware that both the Minister and in fact the questioner are unhappy with the question. The issue then of allowing it was as I say a marginal call and gave considerable licence to the Minister in response. On reflecting on the particular supplementary question that has been asked I have now decided that it is a supplementary question that will lead to disorder. It is effectively implying cash for access and I am ruling that supplementary question out of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would again just ask you to look at the question. The question did not in any way imply that the Minister took the cash that was offered.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a most unhelpful point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I will listen to the member in a minute. That is most unacceptable and that equally leads to disorder. That sort of behaviour will leave me with little choice but to conclude this particular question. I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker I called first.Mr SPEAKER: Well I took the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The comment made by Trevor Mallard needs to be expunged from theHansard record. It is extremely offensive to everyone on this side of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has taken offence then the Hon Trevor Mallard will stand and withdraw that comment.Chris Hipkins: No. That’s an outrage.Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member has taken offence at Mr Mallard’s remark. Some members of the House have taken offence. I have instructed the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand and withdraw that remark.Chris Hipkins: He shouldn’t have to.Mr SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins will immediately leave the Chamber.Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard stand and withdraw that remark.Hon Trevor Mallard: I decline to. It was not unparliamentary.Mr SPEAKER: Then the Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I remind you that when Mr Mallard was taking his point of order I was calling at the same time. That is why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not see that and that has been established. Now would the member give his point of order and do it rapidly.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You have made a ruling based on an appeal by Mr Brownlee whose integrity in respect of that appeal was destroyed when he attacked both the Labour Party and the Greens during his complaint. Therefore if that was a valid complaint he made why did you not rule him out of order at the time?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let me explain it very carefully. As I mentioned earlier supplementary questions are questions that I need to make a relatively quick decision on. For that particular supplementary question when I reflected on it and listened to Mr Brownlee’s point of order I reconsidered my original decision and ruled the question out of order. That is the end of that matter. With regard to Mr Brownlee then straying into some further superfluous information after his point of order that was not helpful and on that occasion I stood and told Mr Brownlee to cease.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I am looking forward to it.Grant Robertson: During the exchange that took place before Anne Tolley made a statement suggesting that the Labour Party took cash for policy. I take great offence at that and I would ask that it be withdrawn.Mr SPEAKER: I certainly did not hear the interjection. If that interjection was made by the member she is now required to stand and withdraw that comment.Hon Anne Tolley: I withdraw.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he has not met with MrDonghua Liu at any other time to discuss immigration policy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I can.Grant Robertson: On how many occasions has Mr Liu raised or attempted to raise with him specific immigration cases?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have met Mr Liu on one occasion and it was on that occasion that he raised immigration issues. As far as I can recall that is the only time.Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): This is a very short part. It establishes as one would expect the purposes and the principles of the Act; sets out a very carefully drafted Treaty clause which I suggest to the Committee is a much better model for Treaty clauses than some generic Treaty clause; and obviously states that the Act binds the Crown. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 444 which amends a number of definitions—for example “working day”Mondayises Waitangi Day and Anzac Day in accordance with the recent Holidays Amendment Act. The other definitions are minor and inconsequential.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Māori Heritage CouncilHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are two subparts to this part. The first establishes Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as the same body corporate as the soon to be former New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It is a Crown entity and that was established some years ago. It establishes an eight-person board appointed by the Minister. Importantly there is a provision that says the Minister can have a special adviser who can advise the board on Government policy and it establishes the requirements for general policy statements and conservation plans.Subpart 2—and this is important—continues the eight-member Māori Heritage Council. Supplementary Order Paper 444 is designed to clarify one or two matters and I refer honourable members to clauses 11(2) 12(1A) and 24(2). It clarifies in each of those clauses that Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council must recognise owners’ interests—and this is the important phrase—“as far as those interests are known”. There are a couple of other changes about archaeological investigations.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Part 2 which we are debating currently covers the critical points of the governance of the new body to be called Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. In establishing that and making that the name a very significant change is being made. It is the same body corporate as clause 9(2) says as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and it is a Crown entity for the purposes of the Crown Entities Act. The renaming of it has more than superficial significance. It is timethat we acknowledged the need for Māori heritage to be reflected more comprehensively in entities that are Crown entities and in departments and ministries for that matter.We are here dealing with this particular Crown entity but the governing body of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is the board which comprises eight persons appointed by the Minister one of whom is to be appointed as the chairperson of the board. Although we do have some reservations about the board structure or we did originally we do support good governance and any effort to strengthen agency governance will be supported by us. However we are not convinced that clause 10 actually does that. We through the select committee process have ensured that this bill will in fact strengthen governance and the performance and operation of the current processes and we have tried to make sure that that does not come at the expense of protection of our archaeological heritage and public participation in that process.The power of the Minister to appoint a special adviser in clause 10A is I think an improvement. It is something that this party welcomes. We would like to ensure that the governance arrangements—and even though this whole process has been somewhat controversial for those little Historic Places Trust bodies that we have known and loved for a long time around this country we trust that this particular governance structure will work in the interests of the aims of all of those former Historic Places Trust branches. That was and remains an issue of some concern to the Labour Party and although we are supporting this bill and we will in fact support the Supplementary Order Paper to which the Minister referred Supplementary Order Paper 444 we are hopeful that the amendments that have been made to clauses 10A and 10B for the purpose of this discussion right now will be in respect of the appointment of a special adviser with stipulated functions a strength and an asset to the governance of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. So at this stage in dealing with Part 2 it proceeds to cover most of the significant organisational and structural changes to the Historic Places Trust.I am pleased with the results of the select committee deliberation and that the changes we see in the bill before us in the Committee at the moment represent an improvement after the deliberation of the Local Government and Environment committee. As we go through this part which delineates the functions of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga—the powers the rights of entry on to land and the general policy for historic places and archaeological sites—I hope that those who have taken an interest in this from the beginning can have some reassurance particularly around the protection of archaeological sites and the treasures that may be contained within those archaeological sites that they are able to accessed under certain conditions and they are able to be protected.I also hope that the governance structure of this entity will ensure that the concerns that people have expressed around archaeological heritage in particular will be taken into account and it will be protected. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Protection of places and areas of historic and cultural valueHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): This is a very carefully reworked part of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Subpart 1 empowers Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to enter into heritagecovenants subject to the agreement of relevant parties and following on from what Ms Street said a few minutes ago Subpart 2 deals with the issue of the protection of archaeological sites. It is a very very important subpart. It protects these sites from being modified or destroyed without an archaeological authority. There are various exemptions to that. Importantly it establishes the way in which one goes about declaring archaeological sites associated with human activity on or after 1900. It also importantly sets out a procedure for the right of appeal to the Environment Court.Subpart 3—and this is obviously of great importance following on from the Canterbury earthquakes—sets out the process for emergency authorities in the aftermath of a national or local emergency. It will require Heritage New Zealand to determine applications for emergency archaeological authorities in 3 or 5 calendar days. Some people may ask why it is calendar days and not working days. It is not working days because of the emergency context. If I could just stop here to recognise the tremendous contribution that members of the Historic Places Trust made in the aftermath of both the September and the February earthquakes I am aware of one person whose own home was damaged but he rushed to the office because he was concerned about the need to carry out his responsibilities as an employee of the Historic Places Trust.Supplementary Order Paper 444 makes a number of clarifications to this important procedure. What we are trying to do here is recognise that there will be occasions when emergency steps need to be taken. These are as Ms Street said incredibly important issues and it is important that when one is dealing with an application for an archaeological authority or opposing or appealing it the law be as clear as it possibly can and that is the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 3 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it? The Ayes have it? It is agreed to.The question now is that CatherineDelahunty’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No—Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether this would help Ms Delahunty—and I do apologise to her—but we have actually incorporated these amendments into our Supplementary Order Paper because we thought that that was the tidiest thing to do.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would also like to clarify that the Minister and I have worked on this in the past but I was not clear that they had been incorporated. I am happy to accept that. Thank you very much. I withdraw those Supplementary Order Papers.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In that case then I just need to say to the Committee that we have actually passed—and we do not really need to because they are already in the bill. So is there any objection to the Committee—what is the wording? I will put the question again and really what should happen is that they be voted down right?Hon Christopher Finlayson: They’re in.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Because they are already in. Let me put it. All those in favour of CatherineDelahunty’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 being agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. The question now is that CatherineDelahunty’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Recognition of places of historical cultural and ancestral significanceHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I apologise to Catherine Delahunty for that confusion. We have actually done some good work together and I should have made that clearer earlier. Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill deals with the recognition of places of historic cultural and ancestral significance. There are a couple of minor changes in Subpart 1. It changes the name of the register to the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero. Importantly it introduces the concept ofwāhitūpuna as a new type of entry. What we try to do here is introduce the concept of independent expert assessors to make recommendations both to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council. It also provides that local authorities must have particular regard—that is the phrase—to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council’s recommendations on historic areas andwāhi tapu areas.One does not want to be sort of over the top but I suggest that Subpart 2 is actually quite an exciting proposal. What it does is it requires the establishment of a list of national historical landmarks which will be called—surprise surprise—the National Historic Landmarks List. What we want to do there is to promote an appreciation and conservation of the places of greatest heritage value to the people of New Zealand. Initially we thought about having a finite number but what we want to do is work together with local authorities private individuals and central government to draw up a list. Let me give a most recent example from a commemoration I attended a few months ago: the Battle ofŌrākau—there is an example of something that is a very important historic landmark and yet it is a field part of a farm. What we want to do is recognise this history and we can go from there to do something about making sure people know where they are and why they are important. So it is not simply limited to buildings but it can be a place.Supplementary Order Paper 444 sets out various provisions relating to landowners’ interests. For example I refer to clause 75(4). Heritage New Zealand “must recognise the interests of an owner as far as they are known”. There are a couple of other consequential improvements—for example the Supplementary Order Paper broadens the scope to reject an application to review an entry on the landmarks list—and there are a couple of technical changes. So I really think that Subpart 2 will be of tremendous benefit to this country as we get together and through a very careful process establish these landmarks—something like the national historic landmarks in the United States. That will provide a very good foundation for example when we are looking at protecting earthquake-prone buildings or dealing with sites like the site of the Battle ofŌrākau and we will make sure that these places are treasured for the benefit of all New Zealanders.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Part 4 is of considerable interest because it has been completely amended. Every clause every line of it in the version of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill that I have in front of me is a revised tracked version. It is important to pause for a moment I think. I am working with both the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage’s Supplementary Order Paper 135—the bits ofthat Supplementary Order Paper that relate to Part 4—plus the bill in its revised tracked version.Because this has been a long time between games I will say—and it has been a long time in the process of working its way through this House—that it might be worth reminding members present just what the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero does and what its essential purposes are. The amended version of this in the bill is not contradicted by anything in the Supplementary Order Papers as far as I can tell. The essential purposes of the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero are to inform members of the public about historic places and about historic areaswāhitūpunawāhi tapu andwāhi tapu areas—in other words those areas that are sacred have some historic significance have some ancestral connection or are sacred because they may be burial places or of similar spiritual and significant importance to Māori and to those who live near them. Its purpose is also to notify the owners of historic places historic areas and all of those others I have just mentioned as needed for the purposes of this Act and to be a source of information about these places. The New Zealand Heritage List becomes a register of those places that are of critical historical and national significance.I do not think it is overstating the issue to say that these are important to New Zealand’s identity in the same way that tikanga Māori and taha Māori are important to my identity as a New Zealander. Even though I may bePākehā my relationship with Māori defines me as a New Zealander because I am nowhere else in the world so uniquely located as here with Māori people in this country. Although my heritage may be different from that of Māori my current identity which includes my heritage is formed by the place where I live and my interaction with the other Treaty partner tangata whenua.Wāhi tapu and the New Zealand Heritage list which contains the recognised areas of significance are fundamentally important to the way we move on this land and the way we see ourselves in relation to it. The protection and the recognition of that list are critically important to our national identity. It is not possible to overstate this. Although I may be labouring the point somewhat it is not possible to overstate this.The Minister will know that from his assiduous work on Treaty negotiations and the hui that he has attended up and down the country the celebrations the commemorations and the functions of one kind or another that he has had the privilege of attending on many many marae around the country. He will understand the emotional and spiritual significance for Māori of the places of historical cultural and ancestral significance.So in Part 4 which ranges from clauses 63 to 81 I think what we are trying to achieve in this Committee is the greatest legislative accolade I suppose; the greatest legislative acknowledgment of the importance of these places to the identity of Aotearoa New Zealand. They become important not just because they are important to Māori but because we move across the land together. That is part of our national identity. I commend this part in particular to the Committee.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am pleased to take a call on Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and also to take the opportunity to apologise for the slight confusion on Part 3. Part 4 and Part 3 are linked. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage because we have had a very useful conversation about the importance of the way in which this bill deals with issues of significance to tangata whenua hence clause 66. That clause which relates towāhi tapuwāhitūpuna andwāhi tapu areas is linked to the negotiation that we had and therefore I should have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 372 and Supplementary Order Paper 373. This has strengthened the abilityof Māori to have a very good relationship with archaeologists around cultural sites because of course cultural sites are not just a matter of archaeological sites. This relates to clause 66 and relates towāhitūpunawāhi tapu.It is very interesting to have conversations with archaeologists and people who are not familiar with Māori culture about the difference between an archaeological site and awāhi tapu. Archaeological sites are evidence. They are based on the physical evidence found within the land. Thewāhi tapu are based on a cultural and spiritual landscape as much as a physical one. And so our citizens particularly archaeologists who do not come from that background really need to understand what is in clause 66. That is why I am grateful to the Minister for the strengthening of clause 42 in the previous part because it has made much more explicit the cultural competencies and access to appropriate cultural relationships and support that an archaeologist needs in dealing with archaeological sites. Yes we are talking aboutwāhi tapu here but often these things are in the same zone. So I would like to commend the Minister for the work on this. I think there is a lot of good in this bill and there is a lot of detail that is actually important for a more sophisticated understanding of the differences between heritage andwāhi tapu; between archaeology andwāhi tapu.Heritage might be a broad term but beneath that we need this bill to spell out some of these things. So I just want to acknowledge the good work done to make the bill more workable and also to acknowledge the previous speaker Maryan Street for talking about the landscape in which we are all living and working and how this is an issue of importance to all New Zealanders. The critical thing about heritage is that the more we can all understand howwāhi tapu for example function in the landscape from the point of view of tangata whenua the more culturally appropriately we can deal with some of our issues. I have been involved in many situations where coastal land for example is proposed for development or sale and then the private developer is shocked to find that there is awāhi tapu or where tangata whenua have been in a weak position to advocate because it has not been clearly recorded. I think that is where the fact that any person may apply to the Māori Heritage Council to enter awāhitūpunawāhi tapu orwāhi tapu area should actually assist us to have more of a no-surprises understanding.Every part of Aotearoa is a cultural landscape and important to all cultures here but particularly to the first nation to the first people. So it is really important that the clear recording and the scope that is offered in clause 66 assists us in avoiding cultural misunderstandings avoiding conflict over people’s expectations. If people know from day one that coastal land containswāhi tapu they are not going to have unrealistic expectations of what they can do on that land. Given the fact that there is not much land left belonging to Māori where the sites are neatly positioned—they are all over the motu in all kinds of different places with all kinds of different levels of meaning and significance to different mana whenua—this bill allows them to be registered and to be clear. I am hoping that councils will demonstrate an understanding of this. For example in clause 66(3) a council may decline an application in the case of awāhi tapu if it lacks sufficient merit having regard to the criteria. I do hope that councils will robustly read those criteria and follow the meaning and the intent that is in this legislation to make sure that the judgments made are in the right place.That is why I have been a strong advocate in this bill’s debate to make sure that the voice of mana whenuahapū are heard because it is impossible for anyone else to be an expert on another person’s culture. It is simply not possible for us to be those experts so it is always about the negotiation the relationship. Having lived with an archaeologist for nearly 20 years I know that archaeologists are not experts on Māori culture. Archaeologists are not experts onwāhi tapu. They are experts on archaeology which is the physical evidence not the cultural physical and spiritual evidence or relationshipsthat are upheld. So I commend this aspect of the bill to the Committee. There is always more that I would like to do but I think we have made some good progress.Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I take a call on this bill the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and I just want to firstly acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who is advancing this bill and other colleagues who have been driving this from the beginning. I also want to acknowledge the fact that there seems to be a general acceptance around this Chamber supporting this bill which I think is a really really good thing. I think that for most of us usually the only time we start considering some of our historic areas in this country and in our history is when we are going overseas. When people ask you where you are from and you say you are from New Zealand then the questions begin to flow about what we know about New Zealand and its history.Only yesterday afternoon we had a celebration of the Top Scholar Awards next door to this Chamber. Before that was done thekaumātua of Parliament was there and he began by welcoming the 35 or so recipients of the Top Scholar Awards from throughout New Zealand. In Te Reo he chanted and that gave the recipients something that moved all those who were present by my estimation and observation. I do not understand Te Reo Māori. I do some but I do not understand the depth of Te Reo Māori. But yesterday during that chanting and the blessing that was given by ourkaumātua to those recipients there was a common feeling of oneness in that particular room even though many who were present would probably not understand the detail or the depth of meaning that was conveyed by ourkaumātua.That brings me to Part 4 of the bill. In this particular bill we are recognising historic places probably not only in a more formal or legal manner but I think in a more in-depth manner. Firstly for our historic places our historic areas the use of the words “wāhi tupuna” “wāhi tapu” and “wāhi tapu areas” is significant.In the electorate ofMāngere—which I represent and affectionately call the gateway to the nation the land of the young beautiful and gifted—we have such places that the localkaumātua and the iwi recognise. In fact not too long ago I was privileged to welcome some people intoMāngere at theMāngere mountain that historic place there. I am not a historian nor am I an archaeologist but I learnt quite a bit by being present and from observing and listening to the people who were presenting at that particular forum. I say to you that the majority of people who were present at the forum were not necessarily Māori not necessarily experts in this particular field but we all learnt of the depth of history that is in that place of the meaning ofMāngere. In fact it was the elders who then later on said that the true name forMāngere is notMāngere but Te Hau aMāngere which refers—from my understanding as it was explained to me—to the winds and how that mountain blocks off a significant part of the winds that cover that region.From my perspective as a Pacific person who is a New Zealander with a proud heritage in Samoan culture I think this bill is great news in terms of this Parliament uniting around the fact that we do need to recognise some of these historical and cultural heritages which are of significant value not only to Māori people themselves but I think to the rest of New Zealand. There is only one New Zealand. There is only one place where Māori reside and that is Aotearoa the land of the long white cloud.The second part I am going to refer to—and I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to it either now or at a later stage—is that the bill makes reference to the role of local government. It refers to the fact that the local authorities must have particular regard to the recommendations made by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. I was not part of the Local Government and Environment Committee that deliberated on this particular bill but from a recent scanning of it I do not see anyreference at all to whether there is an avenue for the local council to be able to seek assistance from central government in terms of how it would protect and promote areas if Heritage New Zealand recommends that an area—for example in Manukau—is deemed to be recognised as category I or II and therefore imposes on the council a role to protect that area to build some advocacy and support for it and even to build it as an iconic tourism product.As I said for me from my scanning of the bill it is unclear as to whether that could be made a little bit more clearer. I know that the regular complaint to central government from many of the councils has been that central government has a tendency to impose legislation on local government or implement legislation without necessarily giving local government the support that it ought to receive. Without that support local government therefore tends to complain that it must then go back to its ratepayers and of course deal with that in one way or another whether it be through debt or whether it be through the increasing of rates.Other than that in terms of Part 4 of this bill I think it is absolutely delightful that we in this Committee seem united around the recognition that there are such things as taonga using the Māori word. The English word that I think is comparable to that is “treasures”. In fact in the Samoan world it would be “measina”—things that are unique things that are sacred things that have a value beyond what is seen by the eyes. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): Like Su’a William Sio I did not get the opportunity to serve on the Local Government and Environment Committee which was reviewing the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill so this is the first time I have come into contact with it but I too am happy to have a say in this debate and share the very positive views that have been expressed by members so far in supporting a move to modernise to streamline and to strengthen the governance of the protection of historical places and our heritage in this country.It seems very appropriate that in doing this the bill should fully recognise the interests of tangata whenua in protecting and celebrating our heritage. That seems entirely appropriate.With particular attention to Subpart 2 of Part 4 “National Historic Landmarks/NgāManawhenua o Aotearoa meōnaKōreroTūturu” in terms of the establishment of a kind of a premier category of landmark sites this seems to be a really good development. When I think about what kinds of sites might qualify for that special status and think about what kinds of places around the country they would be the ones that spring to mind most immediately are sites that are—this is obviously my own personal perspective here but I would imagine that things like as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage suggested the site of the Battle ofŌrākau would be a prime candidate.Again I would have thought Parihaka would be the sort of place that is immensely significant not only for Māori but for this country’s modern history in the last couple of hundred years. For a whole range of reasons it is enormously significant. Waitangi of course would be an obvious candidate and I would have thought the primary site of the massacre on the Chatham Islands orRēkohu. The name of that site escapes me at the moment but it is a specific place on the Chathams where probably the worst most concentrated violence took place during the genocide onRēkohu. Those sorts of places are enormously significant in the telling of the stories of this country. I am sure everybody will have their own ideas about what should qualify but it seems to me that the innovation that Subpart 2—the list of national historic landmarks—brings to the heritage system I think is very very welcome.Just more broadly in Part 4 in terms of establishing a system for historic sites again you start to think about what kinds of places might be worth recognising and protecting in this way. I thought about Port Craig which is a really interesting settlement down on the Southland coast where in the early years of the 20th century there was a thriving settlement establishing a timber mill in the most hostile of conditions. You can actually visit the historic settlement today. Hundreds of people tried to scratch out a living at Port Craig and there are still some buildings and some historical artefacts that are there today and it is a pretty extraordinary part of our early settler history.For me personally there would be things like the Blackball miners’ strike in 1908. That was a seminal point in the early 20th century development of labour relations in this country and led to not only of course the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party but much of the legislation on welfare and labour issues in the 20th century. The first State house in Fife Lane in Miramar may well be worthy of recognition as a historic site.As an Aucklander when I think about the volcanoes that are all over the Auckland isthmus—the volcanoes that were quite intensively cultivated and inhabited in the hundreds of years prior to colonisation and now are right in the middle of our country’s biggest city—they are worthy as many people have proposed not only of historic and heritage protection but as sublime natural features in our landscape. They would be worth protecting as well.I just want to say that I think that this is really a bill that will do a lot of good in modernising and reforming this area. If the effect is to strengthen the protection of our heritage and to make it more effective and more efficient then that will be a success but I think also there is every indication that the reforms will also make it easier for the public to understand and engage with our heritage. That also would be of tremendous benefit.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I just want to make a brief contribution on Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Obviously from the Labour Party’s point of view we do support this legislation. It does represent a modernisation around heritage in New Zealand. It is a bill with a fair bit of history and time that has gone into it.At an earlier point in time when I had some portfolio responsibilities in this area I spoke to a large number of local heritage and historic places committees around the country. They had mixed views it would be fair to say on their imminent going out of existence but there was a lot of enthusiasm even among those who were concerned about where the local branches might end up about it being time for us to get our heritage and historic places governance and management into a form appropriate for the 21st century. So I welcome the bill at that level. It is on that question of local involvement that I want to make a couple of comments and if the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage chose to he could answer them. It is a question that is around clause 75 of the bill around local authorities having to have particular regard to the recommendations around entries on the New Zealand Heritage List. As Mr Twyford just said this is a great opportunity actually for New Zealand to recognise in a contemporary way the most important landmarks and the most important occasions in our history.Inevitably with historic places as we see now and with the heritage list in the future the relationship between central government and local government is critical to helping protect and when the occasion occurs perhaps change a designation of something. It is actually very complicated. Right here now in Wellington we have a number of issues developing around heritage-listed buildings and what we can do with them at a local level in relation to things like earthquake strengthening and so on. That is causing sometension between national-level desires and local-level practicalities—if I can put it that way.When I look at clause 75 I see that we are asking local authorities to bear in mind this list. I guess the question I would have for the Minister is the extent to which the local authorities are now being obligated to have particular regard to the recommendations that come through. What response do we have to local authorities that often say—and I am sure many other members of the Committee will have heard this—“Central government is constantly putting upon us more and more things that we have to do more and more costs that we have to bear.”? What are we doing as a Government to say: “We believe in this heritage list but hello local authorities you are the ones that are actually going to be bearing the cost of dealing with this.”? Clearly it is a partnership and clearly we have to find a way of working together. But as I read clause 75 I just think that if I were in a local government situation I would be wondering about the extent to which local government will be supported and enabled to do this and how that will develop over time.I think that whenever in legislation we as a Parliament impose certain obligations upon somebody else outside central government we need to consider what we are doing to support those obligations being fulfilled. I just believe particularly when I look at clause 75 that it asks me what that support is. I would hate to think that this very useful and important idea of creating a heritage list would be undermined in some way by a lack of a relationship with local authorities to enable it to be implemented.The other comment that I want to make in relation to this is more by way of reflection on how far we have come. Some time ago when we were altering legislation in this area under the previous Government there was a huge conflict around the concept ofwāhi tapu. As a person in a ministerial office here I spent a little bit of time defending the Government’s ability to recognisewāhi tapu against the onslaught of the then National Opposition which thought that this was all PC madness that this was something out of witchcraft or something like that and that we as a Government that wanted to get out and protect ourwāhi tapu were not able to do so because this was outside what normal people would do.Phil Twyford: Mr Finlayson?GRANT ROBERTSON: Well no. Mr Finlayson was perhaps—[Bell rung] Since I have come to talking about Mr Finlayson I am sure he will not mind if I carry on with my call. Mr Finlayson was not so vocal about those issues and I suspect in fact much as it pains me to do this that some credit might need to go to Mr Finlayson for the fact that—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Say it again.GRANT ROBERTSON: —no no I am saying it only once; trust me—I believe there has been an evolution here in Parliament in terms of our acceptance of the broad nature of our heritage. It is the fact that our heritage is yes buildings that have been built in the era since we have been constructing buildings that have survived long enough to be here today but it is more than that. It is actually about the places that New Zealanders feel have significance and in the case of Māoriwāhi tapu are clearly those places. They are places that evoke ancestors and are part of who Māori are today.There is recognition ofwāhi tapu within this bill. There is a specific subclause (2) in clause 75 providing that local councils have to make sure that they have taken appropriate measures to assist in the conservation and protection of thosewāhi tapu. Notwithstanding the comment I made earlier about how the local authorities would do that the fact that we have as a Parliament moved ourselves to a point where across the Parliament we are agreeing that this is something that is a core part of our heritage and is recognised as part of something that should be in legislation I think is actually a verygood development. It is an evolution from the Don Brash - led National Party. There are still some things—Phil Twyford: They haven’t moved on everything.GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say there are still a number of things left over from that era that National could also move on from perhaps taking this as an example but Mr Finlayson’s influence in the National Party extends only so far beyond the sphere of the arts and culture sector which is the sector he is involved in. They were the two points that I wanted to make around Part 4.I believe that this rewritten Part 4 covers what we believe it should cover in terms of the heritage list. There will be competition for the 50 places on the heritage list I am very sure and that will be something that will be difficult to manage. It will be interesting to see whether we are back in Parliament at some time in the future relooking at that number but at this stage I am certainly happy to support Part 4 of the bill.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are just a couple of points. I very quickly want to say to Mr Robertson that clause 75 has gone.Grant Robertson: My apologies.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I accept your apology and indeed I formally record that he apologised. Can I also say that I thought MrTwyford’s contribution was excellent. In fact I do not think there was one site that he mentioned that I took issue with and I imagine all of those are going to be on the historic landmarks list. I will say in relation to the volcanic cones in Auckland that as part of theTāmaki Collective settlement they were handed over to the local iwi to be administered jointly with the Auckland Council. The proposal is also—and I have talked toUnesco about it and there is a process under way; MrMajurey for the collective has been working on it—that hopefully they will getUnesco historic status as well.The other point that was made and is a very important one—both the member fromMāngere and Mr Robertson raised it—was about how local authorities have all these burdens put on them and to ask what the Government is doing to help. In actual fact there is quite considerable central government assistance at the present time with the regional museums and art galleries fund. The Lotteries Commission provides the Lottery Significant Projects Fund. I would have thought that if a building for example was put on this list then that would really be an incentive and if it came to looking for help for earthquake-strengthening and the like that there are funds available that could be utilised.The other point I would make for example in relation to a site likeŌrākau not far from Te Awamutu—I was there a couple of months ago—was that if that site was put on the landmarks list then we could get together with local authorities and with local iwi to see whether there was a way that the site could be recognised more appropriately than it is at the present time. But I am very conscious of local authorities the need to support them and the need for them to be involved in this both in relation to buildings and to sites.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Part 5 Offences and penalties transitional provisions and miscellaneous mattersHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are two parts to Part 5. It would be important for landowners and others to have a good look at Subpart 2 because it sets out the offences and the fines for example for modifying or destroying property. What we have tried to do in this part is align the provisions here with the provisions under the Resource Management Act. For example under Supplementary Order Paper 444 clause 89A clarifies that a director or a person who manages a defendant may be guilty of the same offence as the defendant. The penalties are actually quite stiff.Subpart 2 contains what could be called in some respects the sad part of it because the branch committees are dissolved on the commencement of the Act. There was a lot of debate about it as members have said in relation to other parts recognising that there has been a debate but the whole idea about this is that as this is so demonstrably a Crown entity now the branches that were so important when the trust was established so many years ago in many respects are let free so that they can concentrate on advocacy and the demonstrably regulatory side of things is dealt with by Heritage New Zealand. Yes it is an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of branch committees over a very significant period of time and to say that it is not the end of the branch committees but an opportunity for them reformed out in the community to do that very important work of advocacy and really work with Heritage New Zealand. So the relationship will change but I actually think it is going to be very positive indeed.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a short call on Part 5 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill in respect of the comments that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage concluded his contribution with just now. I do not wish to traverse this unnecessarily but yes it did cause disruption to those Historic Places Trust branches which saw themselves going out of existence. Of course their commitment remains. If that commitment can be similarly expressed under these new provisions then this governance shift will have succeeded. However it will depend on resourcing and the people in my local area in Nelson were as concerned about this as any Historic Places Trust branch. It will come down to resourcing. Although we think the governance structures and processes in this bill are OK and we are supporting them we would like also to have on the record a residual concern about the resourcing of the commitment that has caused the Historic Places Trust branches to exist in the first place.What I really want to do in talking to Part 5 is focus on the first part of Part 5 of the bill which is around the offence provisions. These are the offences and penalties and the provisions around those offences and penalties in the bill. In trying to establish exactly what an offence was the original draft of the legislation had an “offence of harming land subject to heritage covenant” or an “offence of harming archaeological site”. In the course of the deliberations in the Local Government and Environment Committee that word “harming” was altered to be the words “modifying or destroying”—“modifying or destroying land subject to heritage covenant” in clause 83 or “modifying or destroying archaeological site” in the case of clause 84. This is really important.We get to this pointy end of the offences and I think we can all understand that feeling we have when things that are important to us are desecrated in some way. Whether it is an Anzac memorial that is graffitied or whether it is a sign that represents the memory of somebody that has been taken down or destroyed we can sympathise across our ethnic divides with that sense of outrage and that sense of offence—deep profound offence—when such a thing is done. This piece of legislation which is modernising our heritage legislation makes it very clear that every person commits an offence in respect of a historic place or historic area that is protected by a heritagecovenant if the person knows that it is protected by a heritage covenant if they breach the terms of that heritage covenant or if they intentionally modify or destroy the place.As punishment for that offence in the case of a natural person—that is an individual—the fine is $150000. In the case of a “person” other than a natural person—and to put that in English a person in this context also means the Crown or a corporation or a body of people whether they are a corporate or not and whether they are an incorporated society or not—they would be fined up to $300000. These are sufficiently hefty sums for the importance of the protection of these heritage covenants in this instance to not be taken lightly. Similarly there is the offence of modifying or destroying an archaeological site. Again if somebody knows it is an archaeological site and they modify or destroy it or cause it to be modified or destroyed then they are up for a similar amount. In the case of destruction it is a fine of $150000 for an individual and $300000 in the case of a person other than a natural person. So it may be that the felling of the tree on One Tree Hill could be considered in this regard.But similarly I am making the point that it is not just matters of interest to Māori but it is all historic places and areas. Also we have gone to great lengths in clause 89 to consider other offences—whether it is taking an animal or a vehicle on to land that is under the control of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; whether somebody lights a fire on it; or whether somebody unlawfully alters obliterates defaces pulls up removes or destroys any boundary mark plaque or sign. We have gone to some lengths to describe those offences that would be susceptible to punishment under these provisions. They are right and proper and we have no hesitation in supporting Part 5. Thank you.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Just a brief contribution because as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and Maryan Street have both noted this part does do something quite significant in terms of disestablishing formally the branch committees of the Historic Places Trust. I think it is worth placing on the record of the House the appreciation certainly from the Labour Party of the hard work of many many people over many many years to support the heritage of their own community.Although I actually agree with what the Minister has said about the changing nature of Heritage New Zealand—it is a Crown entity and the branch structure is actually no longer really appropriate for that—I do not think we should let the moment pass without acknowledging that around New Zealand there are monuments buildings and places that are protected today only because of the work of individual people who were part of those committees. I know that in 2010 when this proposal had been put up as I went around the country talking to groups there was a lot of variety of opinion. There were those who felt that the committees had had their day and really were not achieving much at all. Numbers had dwindled in a number of places. So they really were not achieving much at all and they were not too concerned.Then there were others and I am thinking here particularly of Dunedin where it was a very strong group that had had systematically gone around the city of Dunedin protecting the buildings. For any members of the House who visit Dunedin it is one of the things you notice instantly as you move around the city—the way in which the city has protected its heritage. LoisGaler and people like that were part of making sure that Dunedin retained what it was as a city. I know that in Dunedin and in other places—and Taranaki is an example—new bodies have been formed that are taking on these roles. And Mr Henare is himself heritage and so he understands.Hon Tau Henare: Soon will be.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is why he is nodding so enthusiastically because he understands the importance of preserving our heritage.Phil Twyford: It’s a good thing you didn’t say his history.GRANT ROBERTSON: No. And so it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of those around the country who have done that and those who want to continue and I think that that is the second message I would give briefly here on this point. There is still a place for people in local communities to play their part in protecting their heritage. It is no longer a committee of the Historic Places Trust but in different parts of the country organisations have been formed as the Minister said to be advocates. They are not resourced any more—let us just make that absolutely clear—but they are there in place and still able to do that and I would urge people who believe in the importance of preserving and protecting our heritage to get involved in those organisations.I just wanted to take an opportunity on behalf of the Labour Party to formally record our thanks to the generations of people who have been part of the local committees of the Historic Places Trust. What those people have done has meant that heritage has been protected and we should all be very very grateful for that.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would just like to echo the words of my colleague Grant Robertson in relation to local efforts. I guess living in TaiRāwhiti—theTūranga-nui-a-Kiwa area—we had the first contact site between Captain Cook and the local people there. It was represented by a statue at the port which was eventually surrounded by logs. The local community and the local heritage community did a lot of work to try to persuade the port about this thing called a cone of vision. I ended up as the mediator between the port and the local committee trying to protect this. It was a fascinating experience because this is the place where Captain Cook first met the tangata whenua and the circumstances are historically painful in terms of the death of a number of people fromNgātiOneone but it was important to everybody—tangata whenua the local heritage committee and the museum—that it was not just a statue surrounded by logs with no sight of the sea. So we went though a negotiation process on that and it made me aware of the work that local committees have put in.I think we need to modernise and I appreciate that we need to recognise that particularly because some of the committees around the country have done tremendous work but are very much siloed away. They have beenPākehā committees that have been siloed away fromhapū. But I think that has changed and what is more I think this bill will help to effect more change because it does so strongly acknowledge the importance of that relationship under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.So I just want to acknowledge all the work of those people in the past in terms of the cone of vision. We all need a broad vision in order to protect our sites starting from where we first met which is why I wanted to stand up and acknowledge the work done inTūranga-nui-a-Kiwa on that issue and to acknowledge the importance of both that contribution and also a true Treaty-based relationship for the future management of our heritage. Kia ora tatou.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the schedule be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to consideration of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part. This is debate on clauses 3 to 70 and schedules 1 to 3.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Labour supported this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill at its first reading but did want to see it given more teeth during its progression through the House. The bill does finally at least make some improvements in regulating consumer credit including third-tier lending or fringe lending or predatory lending depending on your point of view where significant harm is being done every day to our most vulnerable families.In my own electorate I am aware of vans that have made their way around the suburb of Brockville at times chased away by angry neighbours concerned about the horrendous practices of these predatory lenders. The vans turn up on the day they know that money is most needed. They turn up again when the money comes in to take their cut. They are like some kind of vampire that sucks the life out of vulnerable consumers at the time when they are indeed most vulnerable in what they might see as an opportunity but what the rest of us see as a parasitic type of behaviour.The bill embodies the National Government’s attitude to protecting consumers particularly those most susceptible to being preyed on. Its long-delayed response I think is indicative of a Government that is distracted by other issues more concerned with scandals aroundOravida—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. Order! Part 1.Dr DAVID CLARK: —and its support partners and to come back to the issue less focused on getting this important piece of legislation through the House. I mean 2011 was when Simon Power announced that “The Government is to target unscrupulous credit companies that prey on unwary consumers” and that “There are gaps in the system that allow the unscrupulous to take advantage of the unwary when it comes to access to consumer finance in these tough economic times.” And yet the bill took 2½ years—Hon Tau Henare: It’s a wonder it’s not 50 years.Dr DAVID CLARK: —to even get to the second reading. This Government may have the worst economic record in 50 years as Mr Henare wanted to bring in to the debate but that is very much a broader issue than what we are dealing with here which is the very specific issue of payday lenders and their parasitic behaviour upon those most vulnerable in society.Instead of carrying out its word in terms of the priority that Mr Power pointed out—those “unscrupulous credit companies that prey on unwary consumers”—the Government has passed Crown Minerals bills road-user charges legislation and so onand really has not focused on the issues of looking after our society and regulating it in a way that makes sure that our most vulnerable are looked after.The Government has had numerous opportunities to address loan sharks and predatory lending including the review process commenced by Labour and my excellent colleague Carol Beaumont’s member’s bill the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill 2010 which was of course originally drafted by Charles Chauvel. I am sure she will mention that in her contribution and we will look forward to hearing about it. But the Government did not take up that opportunity then. It has sat on its hands focusing on other distractions which I will not mention right now.Serious questions remain though around whether the Commerce Commission is adequately resourced to monitor what is happening in the consumer credit area especially third-tier lenders and in terms of enforcing the provisions provided for in the bill. And we are yet to see whether there is sufficient support for consumers to know their rights and how they can have them enforced.The other thing to point out I guess is that Craig Foss the Minister in the chair has a habit of lodging major Supplementary Order Papers as a bill comes to be read. He has done it belatedly and we have Supplementary Order Papers here that have come before the Committee in that regard. I guess he will explain his behaviour and we will look to understand better why that is so.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Well I have to say it is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill in the Committee stage and I am looking forward to working our way through the various parts. I was involved in the select committee process on this bill and each part has some very important matters in it. There is no question that this bill makes significant progress and Labour has supported this bill throughout. I will talk specifically about Part 1 but just by way of introductory comments—and this will be a theme that I will be returning to—it is deeply deeply troubling to the Labour side of this Committee that this bill has taken so long to get to this point. When we look at some of the provisions in here that will actually make a difference we need to ask ourselves why we have waited so long. Lots of the provisions in here are things that people have been calling for for years.As for Part 1 I want to start by saying that it is a very good provision to start this bill with a primary purpose that says the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act is to promote “the interests of consumers in connection with credit contracts consumer leases and buy-back transactions of land;”. It is really important that there is a primary purpose around protecting consumers because many of us from right across this Committee will know that particularly in the consumer credit area there is a great deal of harm being done and a great deal of exploitation. Some of it goes right down to some of our most vulnerable citizens: people with mental health issues for example who are being ripped off by truck shops; people who do not have English as their first language; and people who are struggling to make ends meet who are desperate to get money and who are preyed upon by some pretty dodgy characters out there. So I am glad to see that the primary purpose is to protect the interests of consumers.We need to make sure that those are not just pretty words though and that that is actually matched up by the reality. As my colleague Dr Clark says one of the things is that we need to make sure—and we need some commitments from the Government about this—that there will be sufficient resources put into place to ensure that consumers know what their rights are; to ensure that the changes in this legislation are widely promulgated; and to make sure that Government agencies and particularly the Commerce Commission are monitoring what is going on and the impact of the changes in this bill. One thing is certainly clear. This is a very fast-moving part of the market ifyou like and when you look at the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act it is not that old actually. But very quickly it became clear that there were things that were not being adequately dealt with by that legislation.Some of that may have been about what was in the legislation but some of it was because things were changing out there. Anyone who follows this area will tell you that the number of truck shops and the number of pay-day lenders has increased dramatically over even the last 2 or 3 years. There are constant efforts and constant changes and those fringe lenders are finding new ways to exploit and rip off people in our community. I am holding up a pile of papers here. This is some work that was given to me the other day—some internet research done by someone who was interested in pay-day lenders. There is page after page after page of research done on these pay-day lenders that are out there in the market. So we need to be aware that this primary purpose will need to be resourced but we will also need to monitor what is going on and be ready and able to make changes.As I said it is quite concerning that we have known for some time for some years of the need to make changes in this area to protect consumers to meet this primary purpose and we have failed to do so. When I say “we” I mean those members opposite because actually under the last Labour Government when it became clear that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act was not adequate a review was undertaken. A review was commenced and when the National Government came into office that review was already under way. There had been a summit people had raised their concerns we went through a process with a discussion document and submissions on all of that and there was plenty of information available to act upon. But in fact the Government deliberately deprioritised that work—absolutely deprioritised that work—in favour of the other piece of consumer legislation.In my mind we should have been able to do both. Certainly when we think of how many thousands of people and how many families have been harmed in the intervening years under this National Government by its failure to act it is quite disgraceful. In fact it is irresponsible when you know that there is a problem you know what needs to be done and you do not do that. So I have to say that this primary purpose now needs to mean something. It needs to mean that we monitor what is going on and that we are willing to update the legislation to stop some of the practices that will no doubt develop quite quickly. We also need to make sure that what we are putting in place here actually makes a difference. I think it is important we do that.As well as that primary purpose outlined in clause 4 there are a number of other purposes that are explained. I want to just comment on a purpose that is not there because there are some important provisions there around how the Act will look at responsible lending; look at disclosure of information; look at rules about interest charges credit fees default fees and payments; and look at what happens in hardship for example. They are all outlined as other “purposes” of this legislation but there is one that is missing. We will talk about that quite a lot as we go through this bill.What I find to be a real shame in what is basically decent legislation with some good provisions in it is that the bill is weakened by the fact that we do not have interest rate controls in it. We do not put in place that tool which if you added them all together would have given us a very strong and robust framework to try to really stamp out some of those really really shocking things that we hear about in our communities. When I spoke on the second reading of this bill and we talked about interest rate caps I asked the question: “How many members in this House think that interest rates of 80 percent 100 percent 200 percent or 700 percent are acceptable and is it right to extract that money from people who can ill afford to pay it?”. I ask that question again. That is what is missing here—some ability to stop those kinds of interest rate charges being made.Often people pay those interest rates. People actually pay the loan and the interest off; very low - income families take the loan and pay it off. Certainly some research around Pacific lending showed that. People do their best. Where is that money coming from when we know that families are struggling to make ends meet? Actually it is probably coming out of the food budget and actually it is probably harming children and families and I do not think it is right. I do not think that that rate of return and those sorts of interest rates can be justified under any circumstances. That is the gap in terms of the “purposes” of this legislation. As I have said we will be raising that as we talk about the various parts of this legislation.I was in Palmerston North last Friday with my good colleague our junior whip Iain Lees-Galloway. He usually sits right here next to where I am standing. He is a very fine member of Parliament. During the course of our visit to Palmerston North we talked to some budget services. They outlined some examples including an interest rate of 552 percent. Another example they gave was of somebody borrowing $15000 and paying back $18000. I do not think that was all the interest rate but none the less. They gave another example of a pay-day loan that when annualised had a 1080 percent interest rate.Those are just three examples from last Friday in Palmerston North and I can tell members opposite that you can get those examples anywhere in this country—just go and talk to your local budget service or your citizens advice bureau and they will tell you. Again I ask members to think about whether you can justify interest rates of that magnitude.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): First of all can I acknowledge the members of the Commerce Committee who have done a lot of very good work on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. That can be evidenced by their commentary in their report which is quite detailed and virtually goes through parts of the parts and the various clusters of clauses. As the previous member has just alluded to a lot of good work has come out of that process from when the bill went to the committee to where it has landed now not too much later. I also acknowledge the work that officials did have done and continue to do not only in the committee but also as we have managed to get this bill and the legislation arising from the Consumer Law Reform Bill—which many of them also worked on earlier in the year—into shape.I note the member Carol Beaumont’s point about it having taken a while since this bill was first thought about or discussed or whatever as part of the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act of 2003. I note that when I got the portfolio of consumer affairs I made it a point to prioritise the two very important deep and wide pieces of consumer legislation that still needed quite a bit of work to have ownership by the sector and to have a relatively smooth passage through the House with draft consultations. And of course this bill was waiting for the Law Commission report on repossession.As the committee notes repossession agents will need to be licensed. There will be a lot of rules around them dealing with a lot of the issues that were in the member Carol Beaumont’s portfolio of letters and examples. We all share those issues. Most of the repossession agents are abhorrent; some of them are appalling. The predatory behaviour by some in our communities towards others in our communities—even within small communities—is quite disgraceful and disgusting and I think the 121 MPs in this House will be pleased that at least this bill will make life an awful lot harder for those repossession agents. I say that the electric fence around the place in which those people operate will have a whole lot more volts through it now and will be a lot tighter.A member asked about the Supplementary Order Papers and yes we put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table yesterday or the day before. As I noted in my letter to members I acknowledge that the time between that arriving and now has been quite short. By and large they are technical amendments and tidy-ups. That is one of the reasons that this is good legislation. A lot of fine-tooth combs have gone through this bill and will continue to do so to make sure it is correct and fit for purpose and remains flexible.One of the speakers Carol Beaumont earlier raised concerns about whether the bill was able to be appropriate in this fast-changing environment and she pointed out some of the issues that had arisen with the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act in 2003. It absolutely is appropriate. That is why this bill brings in lender responsibility principles and the code and why what we call the life of a consumer credit contract is the focus of this bill—it is in order to deal with some of the exact issues the previous member raised.I believe that most of the Committee—I think all of the Committee—is supporting this bill. I think we will differ on only one item which the previous member started to talk about and that is the one about interest rate caps. I am sure members will want to have their say and I will talk a bit more about that one a bit later on. I acknowledge the good parliamentary public policy work by Parliament and MPs who were trying to get to the gist of this issue here whilst not damaging by and large the vast majority of consumer credit contracts that go out every day without any issues whatsoever.There are a couple of other things: there is my Supplementary Order Paper and a couple of other Supplementary Order Papers. Someone asked about the Commerce Commission. Their concerns were not so much about the bill—because it is such a good bill—but whether the Commerce Commission is resourced and ready to help implement and execute it on the ground; and about making sure it will do its job as the administrator of this particular bill when it lands. I can assure that member that yes I have asked exactly the same questions actually of the Commerce Commission not only for this bill but also for other legislation that have recently been passed. I think that those exact issues were also raised when the Commerce Commission was at the select committee recently—a very fair question actually. I have assurance from the Commerce Commission and I am quite confident that its new focus is particularly on an area it has not been too involved in: the retail at the hard and sharp end where so much of this damage is happening and areas of our country particularly areas of south Auckland unfortunately where so much evidence and so many of these terrible stories and circumstances have arisen. I do want to inform our members if they do not already know that the Commerce Commission has already hired a person who has a lot of knowledge in this space from one of the budgetary advisory services within south Auckland—fromMāngere I think; I cannot quite remember which of the services there—who has knowledge on the ground and who knows the community.That is probably one of the weaknesses the Commerce Commission has had in the past. It looks after the Commerce Act and all sorts of things like that but right down at the consumer affairs level—at the hard sharp end where people in the community know what is going on in that shop above the shop over there and where they know that someone is chasing someone down with a machete for repossession or repayment of some very very high burdensome loan—will be a new area of focus and resource for the Commerce Commission. Its monitoring of all these activities will be much much more heightened. I think just the process of this bill the questions the committee has asked and the direction where the bill has ended up actually mean that the Commerce Commission is now very aware of my expectations and the expectations of this Parliament—assuming that Parliament continues to support this bill—in terms of whatwe expect of it in this very unfortunate space where predatory behaviour has been happening whilst at the same time it will allow normal transactions to happen as they should.Just briefly for the record—because I realise we will be discussing interest rate caps and things—I want to talk about the life cycle of a consumer credit transaction. Long before the paper is signed and long before the commitment—in fact it will be 5 days after that contract is signed which is an extension of what we currently have—lenders will have to abide by lender responsibility principles. Let me just briefly list some of those. It will be different from now. Many listeners will probably think lenders do this anyway; by and large to be fair many of them do. Some do not and they are whom we are going after.They must exercise the care diligence and skill of a responsible lender in respect of credit advertising and before and after providing consumer credit. In relation to an agreement with the borrower they must make reasonable inquiries to be satisfied that the credit will meet the needs of the borrower and be repaid without the borrower suffering substantial hardship. Included in hardship is the burden of fees interest rates etc. for reference. They must assist the borrower to make an informed decision about whether they should in fact enter into the agreement. They should assist the borrower to make informed decisions in all subsequent dealings. They should treat borrowers and their property reasonably and in an ethical manner including during any repossession process. They should ensure that the terms of the agreement and the exercise of powers by the creditor are not oppressive. They must meet all their legal obligations to the borrower.The lender responsibility principles in so far as they are relevant are also applicable to guarantees and credit-related insurance products. Lender responsibility principles disclosure and changes in reinforcing and modernising repossession of consumer goods under a consumer credit contract are all dealt with mostly in this first part of the bill. We will talk about the second part in the next session I guess. But they are some of the reasons why—yes—it has taken a bit of time.I thank Parliament for joining pretty much together in our absolute focus on trying to alleviate and eliminate as much of this bad dodgy and predatory behaviour by sadly some in our community. It is not on. It is not the Kiwi way and I for one will be a very proud Minister once this bill hits and has passed its third reading for my role and my colleagues’ roles across the House in doing something to try to address this terrible indictment on some in our community.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on Part 1 of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I have to start by acknowledging all the incredible work that has gone into this bill particularly from the officials who clearly put many years of work into this legislation and from the other members of the Commerce Committee notably Carol Beaumont who I think is incredibly passionate about protecting vulnerable consumers from predatory lending.The Green Party absolutely welcomes the development of the Responsible Lending Code and the introduction of principles of lender responsibility that will be protecting consumers particularly those who are most vulnerable to third-tier predatory lenders often known as loan sharks. I do not have a whole lot to contribute because we do agree with the vast majority of the bill but I do have to bring up once again—as I have in previous speeches on this legislation—the omission of interest rate caps as a pretty substantial omission. I think it is unfortunate that at least the possibility of testing them or introducing them is not present here in this legislation particularly as New Zealand is now one of the last jurisdictions I think in the world that are not looking at interest rate caps. Certainly they have already been introduced in Australia the United StatesCanada the UK many European countries and Japan. I have not seen any credible convincing evidence that they were going to cause any sorts of problems.One of the two reasons given for not looking at interest rate caps was that firstly it might become a target and therefore everybody would suddenly be choosing the interest rate cap as the standard interest rate. I do not think that is very likely. It certainly does not seem to have been a huge problem in comparable jurisdictions overseas. The other problem which perhaps is more likely is that there would be restricted access to short-term credit. But I have to say that the demand for short-term credit is a symptom of growing inequality. It is true that interest rate caps in and of themselves are not going to be enough to deal with the problems of growing inequality but I think we need to acknowledge that we are in a vicious cycle of inequality and third-tier predatory lenders are part of that vicious cycle.The demand for short-term credit in some of the research that I saw about this bill showed that people were using it to pay for food or rent. It is simply unacceptable that people should have to get short-term loans for basic necessities like food and rent. That problem is only going to get worse if we do not have public policy responses in other areas of this country that are going to address the problem of growing inequality. There is a widening gap between the rich and people who are quite well off and those who simply do not have enough who are struggling to make ends meet from week to week and who are therefore in need of short-term credit. They should not have to turn to predatory third-tier lenders in order to pay rent or to get food on the table and then end up in a spiral of debt.On the one hand the demand for short-term credit is a symptom of growing inequality but it also exacerbates it because the people who are the most vulnerable are at risk of getting themselves into a huge mountain of spiralling debt from which they cannot recover. And so there are other solutions needed not just interest rate caps but I certainly fail to see why that tool was not included in this legislation. We should have at least been able to put it out and try it to see whether it worked. If it did not work there could have been other options. It does not have to be mandated in the legislation itself.I believe there are several Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward—one by Carol Beaumont and one by Te Ururoa Flavell. The Green Party will be supporting both of those Supplementary Order Papers because they are both different options for at least allowing this tool of interest rate caps to be explored here in New Zealand.I certainly think that given the amount of work that went into this legislation the number of submissions that we heard and the number of years that it has taken for it to get to its Committee stage it is hard to see why if we are still seeing the problem of usury and exorbitant interest rates a year or two down the track there is not going to be a tool to deal with them. I think that is incredibly unfortunate.Although the Green Party is supporting this legislation I just have to reiterate that we regret that there is a lost opportunity to include another tool in our tool kit. I have to say that unfortunately although I commend the National Government and the Minister of Consumer Affairs for bringing this legislation before Parliament and hopefully passing it before the next election—I am sure it will be passed—and it is great to see some movement in the area that is going to crack down on predatory lending which is fantastic ultimately the real underlying causes of inequality are being exacerbated by other policies of this Government.Tax cuts that benefited mainly those on high incomes have cost the country $4 billion already and it is going to be even more. The sale of productive State assets which were earning a good return for all New Zealanders have been sold primarily to overseas owners and to people who were the recipients of the tax cuts—those on higherincomes who had a lot of cash. That is a major transfer of wealth from the people of New Zealand to those who are already earning a lot.I am not sure whether members are aware of this but there is some very interesting economic research that has just been translated into English calledCapital in the Twenty-First Centuryby a French economist called ThomasPiketty—fascinating fascinating research. What it demonstrates is that when interest rates are higher than economic growth rates and the return on capital is higher than economic growth rates there will be a concentration of wealth and growing inequality. What we know fromThe Spirit Level and other really excellent public health research is that when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider everybody is worse off.Ultimately we are going to be facing a problem of sustainability here in New Zealand if we continue to pursue for ideological reasons an approach to deregulation that says we want to see wealth concentrated in the hands of those who already have a lot. The truth is that wealth does not trickle down. The evidence shows that that is not how it works. Although the people who are very well off and have a lot of advantages want to continue to lobby for policy changes that will build in their advantage that is not a recipe for success for the New Zealand economy as a whole. We will continue to see marginalised groups who are struggling to make ends meet who are on low incomes therefore going to short-term credit to predatory lenders in order to make ends meet in order to put food on the table and in order to pay rent. That is simply unacceptable. We can do better than that here in New Zealand. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. We discussed this at length at our caucus meeting on Tuesday and it got a full and robust discussion. The Minister of Consumer Affairs is not going to like this but I have to inform the Minister that New Zealand First is now not going to be supporting this bill. The reason is that we brought to Parliament’s attention a week or so ago how disappointed we were that caps were not going to be put in place on interest rates in this particular bill. During that speech that I gave previously I pointed out that interest rate caps were applicable in Australia the United Kingdom Canada the United States—in all sorts of other jurisdictions they do apply. Countries that we would consider our sister countries in many aspects see fit to have such caps on their interest rates yet this Government has determined it will not include them in this legislation. As a result of that New Zealand First feels that we cannot support the overall bill because we feel that that leaves such a huge gaping hole in the legislation that it will still allow unscrupulous racketeers loan sharks and such like to continue to peddle their wares in parts of New Zealand where our people are most vulnerable.We know where those places are. The Minister referred particularly to South Auckland and some other areas where low-income families are suffering. Porirua parts of Christchurch parts of Hawke’s Bay—we know all the places where this sort of activity is going on. Interest rates can go to triple digits—triple-digit interest rates compounding. In that situation it is just appalling that this Government has not seen fit to mirror the situation in Australia and the likes of Canada where they have put these caps in place. We just cannot understand the rationale as to why the Government would not include that measure.This bill had so much potential. New Zealand First has said so many times in this Chamber that we will support good legislation but we will point out where legislation is sadly wanting. In this case this legislation is sadly wanting because it leaves a gap where you could drive a whole truck bus or anything else like that through it.It is most disappointing that the Supplementary Order Paper that was put up a week or so ago by Carol Beaumont and the Labour Party was voted down and lost by onevote. It was lost by the vote of the Hon Peter Dunne. Had he voted for it it would have gone through and we would have had interest rate caps included in this bill. It was most disappointing. The Hon Peter Dunne and United Future supposedly stand for family values and all sorts of other principles that they say they espouse but he would not stand up for a situation where many of his own supporters we have been advised thought that it was only right that caps be put on interest rates. Yet when there was a member’s bill a few years ago called the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill 2010 which was a member’s bill brought in by Carol Beaumont and was originally put together by Charles Chauvel the Hon Peter Dunne voted for that particular bill and in fact wrote a letter that I read out 2 weeks ago which said that he was in support of it. He said: “I hope that further progress will be made on this issue in the future.”So we have a Minister who in 2010 said that he hoped the bill would go through and that it would be supported and that progress would be made in the future. But 4 years later conveniently because he is obviously under instruction of the Government he determines that he will vote with the Government and allows the bill to be voted down. That is very disappointing and the people ofŌhāriu particularly those who are subject to unscrupulous money lenders should be aware quite rightly that their member of Parliament is voting against putting a lid and a cap on extortionate interest rates.It is with regret that New Zealand First has to advise the Minister and the Government that until such time as they review this and look at putting a limit on interest rates and controls on interest rates and at the levels of interest rates that can be charged in this country we just simply cannot support it. We think it leaves vulnerable people in a very very difficult situation again. Regardless of all the fine print regardless of how the contracts are written regardless of how as we heard from the Minister those people are supposedly given an explanation of how things will be it does not make a jot of difference if at the end of the day the interest rates have no cap on them can be set at all sorts of levels and can be compounding and the amount of repayments can start exploding beyond all belief. At the end of the day those lenders will get around it through the fine print and they will continue to act in this manner. We will have people who can badly do with protection from this Parliament and from this Government against being left paying huge amounts while that money should be going to the health and welfare of their children and their families. New Zealand First will be voting against this bill.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnātātou katoa.Tātou e huineiitēneipō. I am standing on behalf of the Māori Party to talk to this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill introduced by the Hon Craig Foss. In particular I want to give some background to Supplementary Order Paper 445 which is in my name. I also advise that we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from Carol Beaumont. Also of course I think that there is support for the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers down the line.As electorate MPs we have many people coming to our offices—especially obviously those who are Māori—who suffer at the hands of loan sharks. The loan sharks are behind so many of the problems that constituents bring to us. On the surface the problem might be housing it could be access to health care it could even be shoes for the kids. But these problems have apparently come to a head due to a lack of money. A few questions often reveal that there is huge debt all due to the actions of the loan sharks.What is even more concerning is that a single phone call made from time to time to a loan shark might settle the issue it might settle the problem. Why? Well because loan sharks do not want their activities exposed or scrutinised. They prey on the poor and thevulnerable all under the cloak of secrecy and darkness. They feed on the misfortune of others and they would rather forgo that one single loan in order to keep their business under the radar.So under those circumstances no credit contract is freely entered into. The borrower is already under duress before they even approach a loan shark. They are desperate. They want some money to pay the bills to pay the debts. They have lost control of their financial affairs so they are not in a position really to take responsibility for their credit contracts.The Māori Party certainly supports the thrust of this bill in promoting fully informed decisions around credit contracts. We support the idea of responsible lending with interest rates that are commensurate with the risk of default. We support the idea of willing borrowers and willing lenders entering contracts to meet financial crisis situations. But we also recognise that in many cases these concepts simply do not apply. There remain circumstances where people need protection from these predators and that is why I have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper under my name to provide for a maximum interest rate on loans.The approach we have taken is that the Minister can set and alter from time to time the maximum interest rate. This enables the Minister to take into account for example prevailing interest rates at the time on credit cards. The maximum rate is likely to be a little higher than bank credit card rates. If a borrower does not qualify for a bank credit card because of poor credit history for example a slightly higher rate would reflect the greater risk of default while still making credit available to cover for urgent and temporary need. Even this is not the most perfect situation.Whānau still need to be financially literate to be able to budget and to have enough income to supportwhānau. These are all important issues from the Māori Party perspective and I am pleased to say thatWhānauŌra has had success in guiding families towards taking control of their situation including their financial affairs.But unscrupulous loan sharks remain a problem and it is my hope and my sincere view that the Supplementary Order Paper under my name would be part of the solution. I am pleased to hear that other members of this Committee also think so. I hope that they give serious consideration—and indeed the Minister of Consumer Affairs will give serious consideration—to this effort on our part to address the issue and I commend it for all of us to support.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Mr Chair; how gracious. I would like to begin the debate in the Committee stage of this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill by making a special mention of the woman who has campaigned consistently over the last 6 years for people who are preyed upon by loan sharks and that is Carol Beaumont my colleague. She has taken this issue and been like a terrier in the cause of trying to ensure that there is progress. Of course there have been other people involved and of course this is a Government bill that we are supporting tonight although we do have some issues that you are going to hear a lot about. Carol Beaumont has put a lot effort and commitment into this bill and I think it is really important that the Committee recognises that.I also want to make a special mention. I know that we often thank officials but I do actually want to say to the officials that this has been quite a complex piece of work and your work has been exemplary on this and really detailed and thoughtful. I know that it has not been the easiest bill. This bill has had a long gestation as I think the Minister of Consumer Affairs acknowledged. It has gone through several Ministers. I think that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs might be the third Minister—Hon Member: Fourth.CLARE CURRAN: —the fourth—who has taken this bill through which is another issue that has to be put on the table because the time taken to get this sort of legislation through the processes it needs does need to come under scrutiny in the House. [Interruption] Five I am being told—five Ministers!Carol Beaumont: Seven or six.CLARE CURRAN: Oh my goodness. Well anybody listening out there would be scratching their head thinking: “Well why?”. We know that there are some complex issues but we have certainly seen far more complex legislation on other complex issues rushed through this House at breakneck speed. This particular piece of legislation is about addressing issues for the lowest paid some of the most vulnerable people in our communities who are being preyed upon by some of the most unscrupulous and rotten people in our communities and one would actually think that this would have been given a higher priority.What I also want to note—because I think we need to tease this out later on—is the actual resource that has been put in behind the scenes to do the important work on this. I have got some question marks around that and I do want to put the Minister on notice that work that needs to be done is still to be done on this bill. We need to be reassured not just in the Commerce Commission but in the ministry itself that there is the resource that is required to do the work and to get this thing through so that it is not just passed in the House but so that the regulations are written and it can come into effect as soon as possible.We debated earlier this week the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill which went through—whoosh; just like that—under urgency because there was a great deal of political pressure and community unrest and unease out there. All of a sudden the stops got pulled out and that bill got through. The point is that our most exploited and our most vulnerable people are usually the people who have the least voice and therefore they get ignored in the course of things. So I guess our champion of those people will not be letting up and neither will the Labour Party.Just on that cycle of debt and poverty that this measure is trying to address I will give a little example—and I note that others in this Committee no doubt will be giving examples. Just recently in my electorate office in Dunedin South I had a case of someone coming in who was in absolute desperate straits having got themselves into terrible debt and being a solo parent having no wage. For various reasons which obviously I am not going to go into they had found themselves with lots of debt. That person was begging to use me as a reference to a loan shark because they could not see any other way out of their predicament. I hasten to add needless to say that that is not the course of action that I have taken.The amount of work that you have to do with those constituents is quite high because of the situation that they find themselves. There is self-harm there is desperation and it appears that there is no way out for many of them. I look around the Chamber today and challenge any MP to say that they have not had those sorts of experiences with people who find themselves in these sorts of situations. People are in these situations for lots and lots of reasons but the commonality of those reasons includes the high cost of living; low wages; the rising cost of basics such as food electricity etc.; the lack of language; and the lack of financial literacy. I say to the Government today that the Government claims to have made raising financial literacy in our community a priority and that these are the people who have not got the financial literacy and find themselves in these sorts of situations. The Government has lots of levers that it can use to effect change.This is a pretty good piece of legislation and I am disappointed with New Zealand First’s decision about it. I understand why it is making that decision but I would alsolike to say that an awful lot of work has gone into the bill. A number of those levers are being exercised to effect change but one of the most critical levers has been left out and that is the cap on interest rates. We have heard that there is so much movement internationally on this issue that there is movement in many many jurisdictions on this issue and yet New Zealand has decided that we should not go there and the advice that we got at the select committee was that a cap on interest rates was seen as being a blunt instrument.Well I suppose I would like to say in response two things. One is to ask the Government to show us the concrete evidence that it will not work. Show us that and also think about the blunt instruments that are being used every day out there in our communities by loan sharks and repossession crooks who are turning up with literally blunt instruments and actually using them on citizens on people in our communities to try to see their debts paid—debts based on 100 percent sometimes 100-plus percent interest rates. Those are the sorts of blunt instruments that I would have thought and the community would expect that this Government would address and not take into account the alleged ideological blunt instrument of interest rate caps which is totally out of step with what is happening internationally in this space and is being used in this sort of legislation.We will not be letting up on this and I am hoping that the Minister can provide us with a bit more detail around why interest rate caps are seen as a blunt instrument. Just on that the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward by Labour by Carol Beaumont are simply trying to address this as is an accompanying complementary Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party which we also support. We ask the Committee during the Committee stage to do the work that the Committee stage should do in the Chamber.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Part 1 of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill is an opportunity to talk about the primary purpose and other purposes of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The primary purpose about protecting the interests of consumers is a good primary purpose. Part 1 then looks at some of the other purposes and some of the ways that we are going to achieve that which the rest of the bill then goes into more detail on. I want to note just some of the other purposes: confident and informed participation in the markets by consumers; fair efficient and transparent markets; protecting the interest of consumers under credit contract consumer leases and buy-back transactions of lands; and providing remedies for debtors which includes things like oppressive contracts and oppressive conduct. Then there is a range of ways that those purposes will be achieved which are outlined in more detail in the next part of the bill. But as others have commented one of the ways that that could have been done and the big gap in this bill is through interest rate caps.I also want to note some other things. In relation to protecting consumers the primary purpose of the bill I say that consumers are people of course. Consumers are people who operate in a context and that context at the moment is pretty tough for lots of people. So part of the reason that we have some of the problems we have with these predatory lenders—the loan sharks the truck shops the pay-day lenders—is because people cannot make ends meet. Families are struggling because there is high unemployment and there are low wages.I want to acknowledge budget services because we have not really talked about them in any detail. Budget services have been at the forefront of seeking change to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act because they have seen where it has not met the current needs. They have identified problems in the Act that this bill will fix—for example in the hardship provisions which we will talk about later. Budget servicesstaff are people who do an amazing job and I do want to put on record that I am sure all of us actually really appreciate the work that our budget services do. They are where the rubber hits the road if you like. People working for budget services go in and try to help those in debt. As one person said to me last Friday in Palmerston North 99 percent of the people they see are hooked into high-interest debt. That is the starting point. They also say that nowadays the levels of debt are higher that the arrangements are more complex and that they are seeing a greater percentage of people who are actually in the workforce so it is not just about beneficiaries.That is the context in which people are consuming and why the need for consumer credit exists. Even for people who maybe are just managing—just managing—if something then goes wrong and they have not got savings they are not confident to deal with the banks or they cannot get loans from first-tier lenders then what happens is that these predatory lenders are the ones who are advertising and really trying to hook them in with easy credit no questions asked and by telling them not to worry about bad debt. Some of that will be helped by provisions in this bill and I want to acknowledge that again. There are many good features in the bill.Can I just say while I am talking about that something about the officials who worked with the Commerce Committee. I think the select committee as a whole worked pretty hard on some pretty complex areas. It did some quite detailed work. We were well supported by Roger and the team of officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. They did a really good job. We kept asking lots of questions: “Give us information about this. How will it apply to truck shops?” etc. Unfortunately probably the area that is weakest is the evidence around why interest rate caps will not work. I actually think—and we will talk about this more—that a lot of the reasons seem to be the same tired old reasons that have been said by previous Ministers of Consumer Affairs over the last 6 years. But I have to say that generally the work has been absolutely fantastic and the legislation has certainly been improved by the work of the select committee and by the work of the officials and indeed by the people who submitted on this bill.Consumers operate in a context. If we are trying to protect them we need to be noting that part of the problem for some people is that the numbers are never going to add up and therefore we need to make sure that people do not exploit that. Responsible lending provisions are one of the purposes outlined in Part 1. To achieve the purposes which I have already gone through there is going to be a requirement on responsible lenders both when they provide credit or finance and for the duration of those agreements as well. That will be right through the process of advertising people actually getting the loans and then people managing the loans. That is one of the ways that the purposes of this legislation as outlined in Part 1 will be met as is the disclosure regime around adequate information. We will in the next part be looking at the code but there has been some good work done on looking at how we can make sure that consumers have adequate information.Again in terms of the context I have talked about how tough it is to make ends meet. One of the other contextual issues is financial literacy. That is clearly not covered by this legislation but it is one of the areas that we would all agree needs to be dealt with. I would say that it is one of those things where we can all go: “Oh we need to improve financial literacy.” I have to say that what we need to do is work out exactly how we are going to do that and actually do it. It is not for want of good material which is out there. There is material developed for example by the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income and others. What we really need to look at is how we can lift financial literacy. It is possible that the responsible lending provisions will assist with that as people get given information in a more digestible and understandable form.Then there are provisions in this legislation to achieve the purposes around rules interest charges credit fees and default fees. That is again probably one of the other areas where we have a slight concern—around fees and clarification around unreasonable fees We felt that that was watered down a bit and we will talk about that more when we get to that part as well.The hardship provision is mentioned here and it is one of the ways to achieve the bill’s purposes. Just to explain for those listening at the moment the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has a provision that enables you to apply for hardship and to try to vary the loan that you might have. The problem is that you can do it only before you actually get into arrears. But that of course and as people know and certainly the budget advisory services see every single day is not when people identify they have a problem and try to do something about it. Generally speaking people are already in arrears. This bill will enable that to match the reality. So that is a good thing.The rules around security interests are also mentioned in Part 1 in terms of ways of achieving the bill’s purposes. Again this is something that the budget services have been identifying right from when the review was started. There are some terrible situations in this country where people are securing all of their household items right down to linen and kids’ toys and all sorts of other things. We have had some discussion on that. In the end children’s toys were not included in that list of things that you cannot secure your loan on but that list does mean that there will be some limits around securing loans on basic household items that people need just to be able to live day to day. So that is an important provision as well.In this Part 1 we have of course also got all our definitions. I do not intend to go through them all but I just note one of the definitions in here—and I am very pleased that this is something that is dealt with in the legislation—is the issue of guarantors. Responsible lending principles and a code will apply to guarantors. I have to say I think that is a very very good thing. Here I am particularly thinking of grandparents who feel under some considerable pressure many times whether it is self-inflicted pressure or pressure that is being put on them by their kids and grandkids who are struggling and want to get a loan and want somebody to be the guarantor for that loan. The problem is that we have probably all seen examples where people have guaranteed loans that in the end can in some cases cost them their house.Su'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I would like to take just a short call on a few points. Firstly I am heartened by looking at Part 1 in terms of the purpose of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill to protect the interests of consumers in connection with credit contracts and consumer leases etc. I am also heartened by the fact that in Part 1A the bill now installs a Responsible Lending Code—the reason being that the previous Ministers of Consumer Affairs prior to this Minister all heard this from the community. In the range of community meetings up and down this country after National became Government following the 2011 election during that period there was the unanimous view throughout the communities that they wanted this protection. So I am heartened that finally after this long period of time this has happened. I also want to acknowledge the Minister because I am heartened by what he said earlier in recognition that there are certain sectors of our communities that are targeted by those in this industry whose predatory nature this bill is meant to harness. So I want to thank the Minister but I also want to acknowledge my colleague Carol Beaumont because she has been quite vigilant in the pursuit of ensuring that we do arrive at this stage although she has been very focused on capping interest.The other thing I do want to put on record is that I am quite angry that despite the evidence of our communities stating quite clearly the need for consumer protection in the credit contract industry it has taken this long. And the thing is that this is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. There is also an approach that we oughtto be taking because this industry really targets the very vulnerable in our communities and the very vulnerable in our communities are generally on low wages. I think that what we ought to be doing also if we are serious about providing long-term solutions is ensuring that our economy enables people to have good jobs and higher incomes to support themselves. If people on low incomes are unable to sustain their families on the incomes that they are earning this is what happens to them. In desperation they end up borrowing money and end up going to the pokie machines. That has now become a pattern for many on low incomes because of the way that our economy over the years seems to have been embracing a low-income economy. I just think that is wrong.The other factor that I hope that this bill addresses is the complicated way that some of these contracts are written up recognising that in this country of ours the thing to do if we are really serious about protecting consumers is to simplify the process so that people know exactly what they are borrowing and know exactly what they have to pay in terms of interest and any other penalties and I think we also need to curb the amount of penalty fees that some in this industry seem to just get away with. There have been too many families in our communities that end up out of desperation using these services and losing their homes losing whatever valuables they may have and ending up in family break-ups.The point I am making is that yes absolutely I welcome the change of attitude in terms of this bill. I do believe though as some have said in their intention to introduce Supplementary Order Papers that the Government needs to take seriously the question of if there is a sector of our community that is not protected and if we do not provide that protection what sort of a country we are building. I just commend the Minister for bringing this bill finally after his other colleagues seem to have pretended to listen but did not do anything about it. I commend that and listening to his remarks earlier today I am heartened by what he said.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes79New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes40New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 79 Noes 42.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 445 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 22B be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 430 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 65 and to insert new clause 22B be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 431 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 63 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I seek leave to correct our voting record for the closure motion and correct that to 32 votes opposed.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. The record will be amended.Part 2 Amendments to Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I stand to take this call to debate the aspects that are in Part 2. The purposes of the Act—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill with amendment progress on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill and no progress on the Vulnerable Children Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.