Volume 687 Week 33 - Tuesday 12 February 2013 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 687 Week 33 - Tuesday 12 February 2013 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 12 February 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Election of Speaker 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to report that accompanied by members I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House on Thursday 31 January when I addressed His Excellency as follows: 
May it please Your Excellency: 
In obedience to Your Excellency’s request the House of Representatives in the exercise of its undoubted rights and privileges has proceeded to the election of a Speaker and as the subject of its choice I now present myself to you and submit myself for Your Excellency’s confirmation. 
To which His Excellency replied as follows:  
Mr Speaker it is with much pleasure that I confirm the choice by the House of Representatives of you as its Speaker. 
I congratulate you on your election to this distinguished office marking as it does the appreciation of the House of Representatives of your impartiality and ability. 
I have further to report that I also addressed His Excellency as follows:  
I humbly thank Your Excellency for your confirmation of the choice made by the House of Representatives of me to be its Speaker. 
I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgment to the House of the high honour it has done in electing me to be its Speaker. 
Authority to Administer Oath 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received the following authorisation from His Excellency the Governor-General for me to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. The authorisation reads: 
Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986 I Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae Governor-General of New Zealand hereby authorise you 
The Right Honourable David Cunningham Carter 
Speaker of the House of Representatives 
to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives. 
JOHN KEY Prime Minister 
Authorised 
Jerry Mateparae Governor-General 
31 January 2013 
Obituaries 
William Robert Fenton 
Hon Thomas Malcolm McGuigan QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 10 January 2013 of William Robert Fenton who represented the Hastings electorate from 1975 to 1978. I also regret to inform the House of the death on 5 February 2013 of the Hon Thomas Malcolm McGuigan QSO who represented the Lyttelton electorate from 1969 to 1975. He was Minister of Railways and Minister of Electricity from 1972 to 1974 and Minister of Health from 1974 to 1975. 
I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for their memories. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Points of Order 
Speakers and Presiding Officers—Speaker’s Ceremonial Dress 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as this is the start of your term as the Speaker perhaps you could explain to us because we are full of curiosity the background of the regalia you are wearing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can Mr Peters. It was presented to me about half an hour ago and it symbolises in Maoridom goodwill honour and peace to the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prime Minister—Statements 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker and in that spirit could I just welcome you to your position here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Shearer. 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement that “There have been cases where the Australians have considered whether they would help shepherd a boat across the Tasman …”; if so on how many occasions has this occurred? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and one. 
David Shearer 
: From whom did he receive advice that Australia was considering shepherding boats containing asylum seekers to New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My intelligence agencies and given that the member is on the Intelligence and Security Committee if he would like to have a briefing at the next committee meeting and see the paperwork I would be more than happy to release that to him. 
David Shearer 
: Did he offer to take 150 of Australia’s boat people or was it requested by Australia? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I made the suggestion. I made the suggestion for the following reasons. In my opinion firstly Australia has much greater capacity to disinterrupt and ensure that boats actually do not leave—[ 
Interruption 
]—disrupt— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —boats that would otherwise leave for our shores. Secondly in my opinion it would encourage Australia to keep boats that it might otherwise shepherd across the Tasman and thirdly it gives us the optionality to send mass arrivals that could come to New Zealand if we so chose to change the law to camps offshore. All three of those reasons are very sound reasons for the steps that we have taken. I would also add that these refugees that we will be taking are within the cap of 750 so frankly I am somewhat ambivalent about whether they would come from Australian territory or from Asia or Africa. 
David Shearer 
: When was the last time a boat containing asylum seekers actually arrived in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I am sure the member is aware that we have not had a mass arrival in New Zealand but again I go back to the member and say to him that he is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. If he would like me to authorise for him to see some of the paperwork that I see he should feel free to read that paperwork. I say to this House that I have now read some comments from Mr Shearer that says he will not be reversing the National Government’s position if he ever gets anywhere near office. He will “ring the Aussies”. Well good luck! They will give you the same advice that we have had: there are lots of people who could potentially come. 
David Shearer 
: Has he seen any reports about a boat potentially preparing to depart Indonesia possibly bound for New Zealand in late 2012; if so does he stand by his statement yesterday about that boat: “Don’t know don’t know whether don’t know whether it actually actually happened. It fell over.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm the location that the boat might have left from because there are intelligence reasons why we would not want to do that. Secondly absolutely. I worked on that issue for a number of weeks before the end of last year. I go back to the member. If he wants to— 
David Shearer 
: Fantasy. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it is interesting actually is it not? If the Leader of the Opposition wants to come to a briefing at the Intelligence and Security Committee if he wants to see the paperwork—hey he should feel free. I am more than happy for that to be the case but by the way the last time this country took refugees within the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees cap under Helen Clark we did not see the Labour Party arguing about it. 
Brendan Horan 
: Why has Dame Jenny Shipley not been stood down from the board of State-owned enterprise Genesis Energy in the wake of her role in the commercial failure of Mainzeal Property and Construction? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not believe that question in any way relates to the theme of this question now being asked. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I am slightly reluctant to defend the member in the corner you could not get a broader primary question than: “Does he stand by all his statements?”. The member is clearly able to go to areas well beyond what the Leader of the Opposition has. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My difficulty is—and perhaps the Prime Minister could assist—whether he has made any statements about the continuation of the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley in that position and if so he might be quite comfortable to answer the question. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not recall making any statements about her continuation. I am happy to check the record—obviously a number of issues—but I do not recall any. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The easiest way to progress this matter is I invite Brendan Horan to repeat the question. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has made statements in the media about Mainzeal Property and Construction— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I am inviting the member to repeat his question. 
Brendan Horan 
: Thank you. Why has Dame Jenny Shipley not been stood down from the board of State-owned enterprise Genesis Energy in the wake of her role in the commercial failure of Mainzeal Property and Construction? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will see the primary question. It requires the Prime Minister to have made a specific statement about Jenny Shipley’s position. The Prime Minister said he has not made one. The questioner must now point to the evidence that justifies him trying to get it within the ambit of the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance. On this occasion I am now accepting the question from Brendan Horan and I am inviting the Prime Minister to answer the question. He can answer it accordingly if he so wishes. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I acknowledge that Dame Jenny Shipley is the current chair of Genesis Energy and I acknowledge that she was a director of one of the Mainzeal companies—I have not got that exactly off the top of my head. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two of them. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Two—if the member says two that would be right. That would be about a hundred times fewer than the number of twitters he has made about Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Sorry. To go back to the point the situation is that we have not seen any particular reason—although we as the Government very much regret what has happened with Mainzeal because that will have an impact on subcontractors and employers in New Zealand—at this point that would suggest that she should no longer chair a State-owned enterprise. 
David Shearer 
: Is it correct that he went down to Queenstown last week to fight for the welfare rights of Kiwis in Australia and came back with 150 of Australia’s boat people? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is not correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Interestingly enough I did go to Queenstown last weekend to discuss the deal that the Labour Government did in 2001 to stop New Zealanders getting entitlements. Phil Goff was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and he stitched New Zealanders up. So I came back with the knowledge and I pointed that out to Julia Gillard. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he stand by his statement: “We are likely to create 170000 jobs in the next 4 years” given that a year and a half later there are 22000 fewer New Zealanders in jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I stand by that statement. Secondly there are a number of different measures at the moment to look at it. The member is quoting from the household labour force survey. But just to quote from the quarterly employment survey which the Opposition was just a few weeks ago claiming as the gold standard for looking at employment under that measure 54000 new jobs were created over the last 2 years. 
Infrastructure Investment Programme—Progress 
2. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is the Government making in its infrastructure investment programme and how will this contribute to building a more productive and competitive economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In 2009 the Government set out a significant long-term plan to pick up investment in infrastructure in order to accommodate a growing economy. In 2009 we set out projects and funding for 5 to 7 years ahead. Among those projects where very significant progress has been made is the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband; the near completion of the national grid upgrade; the Waterview Connection and the Waikato Expressway roads are well under way; significant investment in rolling stock ferries and rail track upgrades has occurred in KiwiRail and there is very significant progress on metro rail investments in Wellington and Auckland; and just recently the Government announced the first $80 million for water storage and irrigation projects. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Why is infrastructure investment a priority for the Government in the current tight fiscal environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has been a priority really for three reasons. The first is that when the New Zealand economy was in recession extensive Government investment in large-scale projects provided many jobs and helped many New Zealanders through that difficult period. Secondly we want to get ahead of the curve of economic growth rather than having infrastructure bottlenecks as New Zealand’s moderate economic growth continues. Thirdly it has turned out that with the earthquakes in Christchurch we have needed all the expertise and focus that the Government has brought to infrastructure investment. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What results have been delivered from the Government’s large infrastructure investment programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well there is any number of results. I will take you through just a few of them. By the middle of this year around 300000 business and homes will be able to connect to ultra-fast broadband and around 1300 schools and 30 hospitals will have fibre at the gate. The first school in New Zealand to be built under a public-private partnership has opened at Hobsonville. The new prison at Wiri will get under way as the first public-private partnership which will be a big step up in terms of rehabilitation of our imprisoned population. And the Government is planning to build more than 2000 State houses over the next 2 financial years as we continue our efforts to fix up the mess that the Labour Government left in our State housing portfolio. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister think it is fair that New Zealanders have to pay $1.5 billion more in petrol tax and ACC to make up for his Government’s shortfall caused by low growth and uneconomic spending on National’s highly political roads of national significance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason road-user charges and petrol tax have risen is that in pursuing policies—for instance those advocated by New Zealand First and taken up by National 15 years ago—we have a dedicated road funding system which is user-pays. They pay for the maintenance of the roads and they pay for the capital expansion of our roads. And because we are spending more on a programme that everyone supports except the Opposition which is against everything to do with jobs and the economy those charges have gone up a bit. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: How will the Government improve the management of its substantial infrastructure assets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Although it is certainly worthwhile to focus on new projects and the funding of them it is actually more important that we improve the management of the extensive infrastructure that is already in place because after all most New Zealanders will be using existing older infrastructure not new infrastructure. So the Government has set out in the 2011 National Infrastructure Plan six guiding principles to improve the management of existing assets and also to improve decision making for future investment to ensure that the billions of dollars we take off taxpayers and New Zealanders to spend on infrastructure through PAYE payments every week we spend wisely. 
Building and Construction Minister—Confidence and Potential Conflict of Interest 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Building and Construction? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he allow Maurice Williamson to continue as a director of Holyoake Industries when he appointed him as Minister for Building and Construction? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As with all Ministers I advised that the Minister should seek advice from the Cabinet Office about managing potential conflicts of interest. The Minister as I am aware took that advice and I am quite satisfied that he can actually manage any conflicts of interest. I would make this point: I was advised also by the Minister that Holyoake Industries does not have a contractor or subcontractor relationship with Mainzeal. 
Grant Robertson 
: Further to that answer is it correct that Holyoake Industries worked on the ventilation system of the Supreme Court where the lead contractor was Mainzeal? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm that because I do not know what Holyoake Industries does but if the member tells me that that is the case I am sure that it is the case. That was the Supreme Court building that was tendered for under a Labour Government and the Minister was not the Minister then. And by the way 2 weeks ago the Labour Party wanted Maurice Williamson to be Speaker; this week it does not want him at all. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is possible for the Minister to manage a perception of conflict of interest in his role as Minister by not receiving papers on “heating and ventilation issues”; if so how does he think the Minister will separate out discussion of heating and ventilation from that of other building issues like windows and insulation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is incumbent upon Ministers if they believe they have a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest to manage that. That has been the longstanding principle. The Minister has sought advice on that and is doing that. I will bet although I have not gone and checked that there were plenty of members of the Labour executive in the last 9 years who had conflicts of interests and they managed them did they not Trevor? 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the—[ 
Interruption 
] Over here. Has he appointed a Minister to be responsible for heating and ventilation issues; if not can the Opposition suggest that Steven Joyce would be a very appropriate person to be the “Minister for Hot Air”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is free to suggest anything he likes about Steven Joyce. All I would say is that I would rather have Steven Joyce than 20 muppets from the Labour Party forming a Cabinet. 
Tertiary Education and Skills Training— 
Occupational Outlook 
 and  
Moving on up 
 Reports 
4. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What recent announcements has the Government made to enable students and their parents to make more informed choices about their career and study options? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 Today I welcomed the release of the  
Occupational Outlook 
 report which provides a demand-side view of the current state of 40 common occupations in New Zealand their likely employment prospects and the qualifications required to enter those occupations. The new report addresses a shortage of readily available information on demand and a short to medium term outlook for occupations in this country. Used well it will help to lessen the likelihood of people ending up in jobs that are poorly matched to their skills and qualifications. This new report will assist students and their families to make more informed study and career choices and it will also be a useful resource for employers training organisations tertiary institutes and careers advisers. 
Simon O’Connor 
: What other reports has the Government released to help address this skills gap? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The  
Occupational Outlook 
 complements last month’s  
Moving on up 
 report which looks at what young people earn after their tertiary education and compares what people are earning after studying different subjects at different levels. It highlights some very significant variations in earning potential for different types of graduates. For example top earners with a bachelor’s degree are graduates in medicine as you would probably expect and they are earning around $110000 a year 5 years after leaving study which is 3 times as much as a performing arts graduate while civil engineering graduates obtain a premium in the job market earning almost over $68000 a year which is about 48 percent more than graduates in languages literature and sports and recreation. 
Simon O’Connor 
: How will addressing the skills gap help improve New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually I think addressing the skills gap is very very important to the New Zealand economy. Through the Government’s Business Growth Agenda we are focused on lifting New Zealand’s productivity and delivering higher wages and to do so we must have a workforce that as much as possible matches skills with demand. A comprehensive youth education strategy is about getting more New Zealanders into education and training that will lead to jobs. So as well as these reports our fees-free Youth Guarantee scheme at tertiary level trades and service academies around the country new vocational pathways funding for Maori and Pasifika trades training and the new New Zealand apprenticeship scheme all provide great options to get young people into trades and vocations that the economy needs to grow. 
Personal Explanation—Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Regarding Banking System When Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation in relation to the matter that the Prime Minister raised in question No. 3 relating to me in his supplementary answer to Mr Robertson’s question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as it is certainly a personal explanation— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well Mr Speaker I do not expect to be questioned by you as to whether it is personal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as it is a personal explanation I will put the leave. Mr Mallard is seeking leave to make a personal explanation with regard to an answer given recently by the Prime Minister. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From the period 1999 to 2008 I was Associate—and sometimes Acting—Minister of Finance. A close relative of mine holds a senior position in an Australian bank. As a result of that I gave Treasury instructions and copied them to the Cabinet Office that I was to get no papers to do with prudential supervision or with the regulation of the banking system. I followed that and it is a matter quite different from what was referred to by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Climate Change and Economic Policy—Greenpeace Report Job Creation and Infrastructure Investment 
5. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Will he implement the recommendations for jobs and economic development made in Greenpeace’s  
Energy Revolution 
 report researched and co-authored by the German Aerospace Centre—advisers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and the University of Technology Sydney? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 First I am pleased to advise the member that New Zealand is and has been for some time investing more in renewable energy and environmentally friendly technology. For example this Government has a target of 90 percent renewable energy by 2025 and renewables make up currently about 77 percent of our electricity generation which is actually the second-highest in the OECD. We have also implemented and invested around $347 million in the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme. However the trouble with the report as I read it is that it introduces massive additional subsidies and costs to the New Zealand economy and would be dislocating in terms of additional costs on New Zealand households and businesses. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the report’s main findings that New Zealand has the right mix of resources and talent to become a world leader in achieving a low-carbon prosperous economy creating new jobs and industries that will deal not only with the issues of climate change but also with some of the economic challenges facing New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I agree with him to the extent that I believe that New Zealand has the right mix of talent and expertise to achieve in a whole range of industries. The Government has a view that the investment in industries is led largely by the private sector of course which is placing its own money at risk and that investment tends to flow to the areas where investment can be profitable and industries can be profitable. The difficulty in actually trying to direct it away from those areas is the fact that it involves very considerable cost to taxpayers either directly or indirectly. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: That being the case why does the Government continue to invest in areas such as motorways the roads of national significance which consistently—or a number of the projects show—have greater costs than benefits and also increase New Zealand’s carbon footprint rather than invest in transport options that would reduce our greenhouse emissions and reduce our oil imports? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well there are a couple of points there. Firstly my understanding as a former transport Minister is that they have very significant benefits over costs particularly compared with some of the public transport projects the member advocates. Of course the Government is not just investing in roading projects. But I will point out again—and I think it was addressed previously by the finance Minister—that actually those who use the roads pay for those investments. We do invest in public transport but it is important to note that those who use public transport in many cases pay less than half the cost. There has to be an ongoing subsidy. So I think you are suggesting that there be even more subsidies to transport modes that people do not use voluntarily and in fact pay for voluntarily. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of the difficult jobs creation record of the Government—no new jobs in 4 years—will the Government consider adopting a different economic strategy rather than the current one backing the mining industry for example and actually look at manufacturing a much larger employer—and particularly clean-technology manufacturing—as an alternative given that so far the Government’s strategy has failed to produce the jobs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: My response to that is firstly we have very significant investment in this country in clean technologies. In fact I could name for the member any number of companies that are developing further and investing further in jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy right now. But the member again seems to be suggesting that the Government subsidise jobs in industries where they would not otherwise occur—and that that is an answer for economic nirvana in some way—and actually move jobs away from industries where they are prepared to invest in those industries without Government subsidy. With the greatest respect that is a recipe to head the country to the poorhouse. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: With regard to subsidies is he aware that in his previous answers and in the previous answers of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister they have given us long lists of particular sectors that the Government is subsidising—the mining sector is of course the favourite of the Government—and why is it that it is OK for the Government to subsidise areas such as mining whereas it is quite hostile to providing even a level playing field to the clean-technology sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well with the greatest respect to the member we are not subsidising the mining sector. In actual fact all we are not doing is putting the extra costs that the member would advocate on the mining sector and somehow that is supposed to be a subsidy—which with the greatest respect is just up there with printing money in economic ludicrousness. 
Canterbury Recovery—Mainzeal Contracts and Director’s Potential Conflict of Interest 
6. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What is the total number and value of contracts held by Mainzeal Property and Construction in respect of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery rebuild? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 There are two parts to that question. The first is that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority itself has two contracts with Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd now in receivership. The first is for the demolition of the Clarendon Towers for a contract price of $8.9 million. This is nearly completed with 3 weeks remaining—the job almost done. The second is for the QEII complex. The value is $2.1 million. These works are also almost completed with approximately we think 6 weeks left to go. There are a number of other contracts that Mainzeal has in Canterbury that are with the private sector and I do not have details for exactly what the position is on those at this stage. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will have gleaned by now that that is a totally inadequate answer for someone who has had 4 hours to prepare on a very very serious matter. Two contracts and about $11 million is not what was being asked about in the primary question. It will be very obvious to anyone associated with Canterbury what the depth of Mainzeal’s association was and to get up and say after 4 hours that he has not got the information is certainly Mr Speaker I think—well it is trifling with Parliament and trifling with question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am the Minister responsible for Canterbury earthquake recovery and the department and so there are the obvious answers to the contractual arrangements that the department has. I cannot at this point give a firm answer on the other contracts—I believe there are five of them—that Mainzeal has in Christchurch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. In my opinion the Minister answered the question according to the rules. He listed the two that he knew about that were the result of a contract between the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and Mainzeal Property and Construction. He noted that there could be a number of other contracts in existence that were within the private sector. I think the Minister has answered quite satisfactorily and the member has alternative supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did he or Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials view the Mainzeal company’s balance sheet before awarding Mainzeal millions of dollars in contracts; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We had every reason to believe that Mainzeal was a stable company and entered into the contracts on the basis that it had capacity to do the job which is far more important to us than anything else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. Did he or Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials view the Mainzeal company’s balance sheet? That is what he is being asked. The answer has got to be yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I think he— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can give a further answer if he wants to know. No because that would be a Minister interfering in operational matters and the member would have a dim view of that I am quite sure. As to whether or not the balance sheet was checked out by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials I have not been informed of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could he and his officials not be aware of Mainzeal’s financial position given that one of the members of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel also happened to be a director of the company in question? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The two matters are quite separate. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel is a statutorily constituted body that has the Hon Justice Sir John Hansen as its chairperson and he conducts scrutiny of Orders in Council after they have been considered by all parties in this House. To somehow construe that from that we should be discussing a private matter or a private engagement on a daily basis with one of the other members of that panel is utterly ridiculous. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can he confirm that Dame Jenny Shipley a member of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel which he appointed was also a director of Mainzeal Property and Construction until December last year when she was asked to resign by Richard Yan? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have no idea what the circumstances were around the resignation but I can confirm that she is a member of the review panel. The panel reviews Orders in Council after those Orders in Council have been considered by all parties in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So why did he appoint Dame Jenny Shipley to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel a body that is supposed to be independent despite Ms Shipley having a clear conflict of interest in respect of her directorship of Mainzeal Property and Construction? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the member needs to look at the Orders in Council that have been somewhat I think judiciously used in order to move the recovery forward and ask his own spokesman why he has supported some of them but more than that explain to the House why he thinks someone who is reviewing changes to law is somehow conflicted because they are the director of a construction company. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question is very direct. I am asking why when it was clear there was a conflict of interest did he appoint someone to the authority— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. You are now using the point of order process to debate the answer that was given. The Minister answered the question quite satisfactorily. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member and if he wants to use further supplementary questions he can but at this stage that answer was quite satisfactory. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do not have any other supplementary questions—that is the first thing—and twice today and this is the second time the Minister has referred to matters that have no connection with the question including New Zealand First’s Canterbury spokesperson. That has nothing to do with the answer at all. I want to know why— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have ruled that the question has been answered absolutely satisfactorily. If the member has no supplementary questions left today I cannot do anything about that. The member will have to look for another question time. 
Human Rights West Papua—Advice on Visit of Benny Wenda 
7. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade provide him with advice regarding the visit of Benny Wenda to New Zealand and the possibility of Mr Wenda speaking at a meeting in Parliament; if so what was that advice? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 No but I was made aware that our embassy in Jakarta advised the ministry’s head office of Mr Wenda’s impending visit and recommended that if Mr Wenda requested a meeting with the Government officials from the ministry should meet him. I understand that such a meeting took place this morning. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Did he personally advise against Mr Wenda speaking at a public forum at our Parliament; if so why? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: No. Indeed to the best of my knowledge I have not been asked to comment on whether Mr Wenda should be invited to speak at Parliament. I believe that there are arrangements under which all parties here are able to invite people to speak in their caucus rooms and I have not been asked to opine upon that topic. What I was asked about was whether I thought it was a good fit with the policies of this Government for National members to co-sponsor a meeting at which Mr Wenda would be the guest speaker and I expressed the view that it would not. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Why did he tell Government MPs that they should not support a public forum involving Mr Wenda giving an insight into human rights in West Papua given the fact that Mr Wenda has spoken at a number of Parliaments around the world? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have never been asked to express a view on whether Mr Wenda should be invited to speak. I have made it clear that I thought it was not a good fit with the policies of this Government for National members to co-sponsor a speaking opportunity. I think the member and I might agree on one matter. The background— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This supplementary question was not about whether he was asking people to speak. It was about whether he told Government MPs that they should not support a public forum. It was not about speaking; it was about whether he told Government MPs whether they should support it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I think that if the member gave the Minister enough time to answer the question he would answer it to her satisfaction. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker; that was precisely what I had in mind. I think the member and I might agree on one matter which is that the background to human rights matters in West Papua is not a good one. Although the Indonesian Government has worked very hard in recent years to improve the human rights position it is fair to say that even it would agree that the position is far from perfect. The New Zealand Government set a course of constructive engagement on these matters including targeting extra funding to development assistance—around $5 million a year—to West Papua and raising directly our concerns about those human rights issues with both Ministers and officials in the Indonesian Government. So in that respect I believe the member and I can agree. What I do not agree with is members of the current Government co-sponsoring a speaker who is a leader of the West Papua independence movement. I do not think it would be a good fit with that policy of constructive engagement. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does he believe that the Government’s level of discomfort around who might speak at a cross-party meeting in Parliament should be one of the principles on which any Speaker might make a decision to allow such a meeting? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I think I have made it very clear that I have not been asked for a view on whether Mr Wenda should speak at the New Zealand Parliament. I was asked by parliamentary colleagues whether it was a good fit with the policy of the Government for them to co-sponsor such a meeting. I have no particular opinion about whether Mr Wenda should be invited to speak at any meetings. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will he meet with a leader of the West Papuan people Mr Wenda or does he consider that meeting with members of the Indonesian Government is the only way to promote dialogue? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I meet a wide range of people from within and outside the Government of Indonesia and I believe the relationship we have with Indonesia is a good one including our ability to engage constructively on difficult issues around human rights including in West Papua. But as far as Mr Wenda is concerned the advice that was sent—as I replied to the primary question—from the embassy in Jakarta was that Mr Wenda may seek a meeting with the New Zealand Government and if so the advice was that officials should meet with him and I understand that occurred this morning. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question—will he meet? He talked about whether officials would meet and he said that they would. The question was whether the Minister would meet— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I think it was very clear from his answer that he is not intending to meet but his officials have the opportunity. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It became a habit of the previous Speaker to interpret the answers. I do not think it was a good habit. I would like to hear it from the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is my job here to interpret whether Ministers have satisfactorily answered the questions. In that case although he did not specifically say: “No as Minister I will not be.” it was very clear to me listening to the answer that his answer to the question was that he would not be meeting with Mr Wenda but that officials had had the opportunity to do so. Is there a further supplementary question? 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What confidence can the public have that he as Minister of Foreign Affairs will raise human rights issues in his dealings with Indonesia when he is willing to suppress the right of Papuans to speak in our Parliament? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I will say this as clearly as I can. The member can invite anyone she wants to her office or to her caucus room to speak about anything they like. That is of no concern to me. With regard to the first part of her question can I say that I have taken very great care to ensure that on all appropriate occasions we engage with the Minister and senior officials from Indonesia on human rights issues including human rights issues in West Papua where there are serious issues that need to be addressed. Good progress has been made and I believe New Zealand’s policy of constructive engagement has assisted that process but there is significant further work to be done and we never shirk our responsibility to raise those issues I can assure her. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This issue relates to you as Speaker as much as to the Minister. Effectively by the Minister giving that direction to his colleagues he vetoed this parliamentary meeting under your ruling. We wrote a letter to you and I am asking you when you will reply to our letter on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I have a chance to do so. That is not a legitimate point of order. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to ask questions of the executive; not to question a decision that I have made as Speaker. If the member wants to come and see me at any time to discuss that decision my door is open. If the member equally wants to raise the issue about the guidelines for these events through the Parliamentary Service Commission then that is the appropriate place to do it. 
Housing Affordability—Initiatives 
8. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve housing affordability? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 A major driver of housing affordability is mortgage interest rates. Since we have been in Government they have dropped from 9 percent to 5 percent a 50-year low saving a family with a $300000 mortgage $230 a week. We are taking steps across all five areas of land infrastructure labour materials and compliance costs to tackle the doubling in house prices over the past decade. The latest steps announced at the weekend are proposed changes to development contributions that have gone up by 360 percent over the last decade. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why has the Government made a particular priority the cost of land in sections as opposed to the alternative proposals of a massive State housing building programme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We are particularly focused on the price of land in sections because they have increased from $94000 a section a decade ago to over $190000. This compares with an average section price of NZ$100000 in the US. Reports on housing affordability from Treasury from the Productivity Commission from Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust and even from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under Helen Clark all recommended that changes focused on land supply and section costs. None of those independent reports recommended a massive State house building programme. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What was the rationale given in 2002 for widening the powers of councils to set development contributions and for removing any appeals to the amounts charged? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The law change in 2002 did broaden the powers for development contributions and remove those appeal rights. The rationale that was given at the time by the previous Government was that the increased cost was of no concern because it would simply come out of developers’ margins. Experience in the decade since has shown that this was flawed thinking. The 360 percent increase in development contributions has been passed on in section prices and has adversely affected housing affordability. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he said on  
Morning Report 
 this morning that he had been in the job less than 2 weeks and it was going to take time to pull together new initiatives for affordable housing could he tell the House why the Government has waited almost 5 years and two Ministers later to come up with an announcement on some work on new initiatives for affordable housing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As I pointed out in my answer to the primary question the single greatest factor in housing affordability is interest rates. I am very proud of this Government’s record which has seen interest rates at the lowest level in 50 years. It is a step that is saving the average Kiwi family— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. It is interesting to have the Minister ranting about something else but that is not what I asked and I would like an answer to the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a very political question but if the member wants to repeat her question we will give her the opportunity. 
Hon Annette King 
: If you could just wait. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give you a minute to assemble your pieces of paper. 
Hon Annette King 
: If you could wait 5 years while I put it together. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not about to wait 5 years but I will give you 5 seconds. 
Hon Annette King 
: I asked: when he said on  
Morning Report 
 this morning that he had been in the job less than 2 weeks and he needed time to get together new initiatives on affordable housing why has the Government waited almost 5 years and two Ministers later before it came up with a programme of work on new initiatives? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is exactly how I recall the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As I pointed out if you look at homeownership for instance over the last 50 years it has improved in the years when interest rates have been low and it has got worse in the years when interest has gone up. What that history also tells you is that interest rates have gone up under every Labour Government that this Government has done a good job of keeping those interest rates low and that there are further initiatives around Resource Management Act reform development levies and others that will be needed to enable more Kiwis to own their own homes. 
Job Creation and Unemployment—Statistics 
9. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: Does he stand by his Government’s 2011 election promise of “170000 more jobs”; if so why have a net 30000 New Zealanders lost their jobs over the past year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 In answer to the first part of the question yes and it is important to point out of course that that was no more and no less than Treasury’s forecast for job growth at the time— 
Hon David Parker 
: It was the advertised TV promise. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —which was the Treasury forecast at the time which I appreciate Mr Parker disagrees with. The latest household labour force survey shows the unemployment rate falling from 7.3 percent to 6.9 percent but it also does indicate a job market that is still tough which reflects the ongoing impact of tough economic times globally. But it also demonstrates the volatility of the quarterly employment data which continues to move around. Illustrating this point you have the quarterly employment survey that came out 2 days previously—which the member may recall was lauded by his party as the best measure of jobs in the economy—which shows there have been 54000 new jobs created over the last 2 years. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Given the size of his ministerial workload which includes economic development tertiary education skills science and innovation Novopay the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment merger resource extraction plans and the Skycity convention centre does he believe that over the past year he has given the employment portfolio the full attention and focus that it requires? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Absolutely—it is one of the most crucial aspects of this Government’s Business Growth Agenda. Could I refer the member to the  
Building Skilled and Safe Workplaces 
 programme which we released late last year with some 50-odd initiatives including comprehensive programmes around vocational training tertiary education and educational standards and achievement. In fact since that report has come out we have of course launched the New Zealand Apprenticeships scheme and the apprenticeships reboot which I know the Opposition values so much. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Does he take responsibility as Minister of employment for the 30000 jobs that have been lost over the past year; if so will he step aside as Minister of employment so that this important portfolio can receive the attention and energy it deserves? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am confident that I give this particular portfolio great energy and enthusiasm. I would point out again for the member that the quarterly employment survey shows an increase of 54000 new jobs over the last 2 years. It is also important to point out to the member the decline in the unemployment benefit over the last year and important to point out to the member that actual PAYE numbers collected by the Inland Revenue Department or in other words actual tax paid on income has gone up 6 or 7 percent in the year to date. So yes the household labour force survey has one view and I am not belittling it because the job market is still challenging but there are also other views of the job market that suggest a more mixed picture. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Can he explain to the 440 workers who lost their jobs at Solid Energy in December the 190 workers who lost their jobs at Alliance Meats in October and the 90 workers who lost their jobs at the Hillside railway workshops in November why he believes that the drop in employment in the latest household labour force survey is due to volatile statistics and not to actual job losses? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well that is because actually there is a very large number of jobs created and lost in every year. It is always very difficult when somebody loses their job and I understand that but we have about a quarter of a million jobs created and about a quarter of a million jobs lost in any 1 year in the New Zealand economy. The member is quite welcome to quote obviously situations where companies have lost jobs but there are also plenty of situations where companies have created jobs—just off the top of my head I think of organisations like Orion Health Tait Communications Douglas Pharmaceuticals and so on. The important point is that often some of those are in different areas than the areas of those who have lost their jobs which is why the skills training part is very very important and why the Government is putting such a big focus on that. 
Su’a William Sio 
: I would like to table a document from the Parliamentary Library—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Su’a William Sio 
: I would like to table a document from the Parliamentary Library that shows— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is it available to all members? 
Su’a William Sio 
: I am not sure because this was requested by us. So it would not be available to all members. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the easiest way to resolve that is— 
Su’a William Sio 
: It shows the loss of 30000 jobs December 2011— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this document prepared by the Parliamentary Library for the member. Is there any objection to that being tabled? Any objection? There is objection. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Why if he is doing such a great job as Minister of employment are there so few jobs available that 1000 people queued for just 70 jobs at a Mitre 10 store in Rotorua before Christmas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I am sure the member could pick any number of examples where people are applying for jobs. I can also point out to the member some of the indicators that we have in terms of say online jobs which have been up significantly over last year and so on and so forth. I think though that the point is well made that we do have an emerging potential skills challenge and skills matching challenge in the New Zealand economy which is why we have to remain very very focused on skills training and vocational training in tertiary education. This Government has put very big efforts into that and not only that—not just actually creating the positions—but encouraging performance in those positions as well. So we are very very focused on giving as many New Zealanders the opportunity as we can. 
Rheumatic Fever—Vaccine Project and Prevention Programme 
10. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What new initiatives is the Government taking in the fight against rheumatic fever? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 On Saturday the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand announced a combined project to find a vaccine for rheumatic fever. The two Governments will provide $3 million over the next 2 years for scientists on both sides of the Tasman to collaboratively identify a potential vaccine for rheumatic fever that could then proceed to clinical trials. An effective vaccine against group A streptococcus which causes rheumatic fever would be a major step forward. This investment shows how seriously Governments on both sides of the Tasman are taking this fight against this Third World disease. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other work on rheumatic fever prevention is under way? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are receiving encouraging results from the Government’s $24 million rheumatic fever prevention programme in schools and communities. Although it is far too early to confirm a decreasing trend provisional data shows that in 2012 there was a slight reduction in the incidence of hospitalisations for acute rheumatic fever. By the end of this year around 50000 children in over 200 schools in vulnerable areas will be part of the programme which tests for and treats sore throats. We aim to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds to 1.4 cases per 100000 people by June 2017. 
Teachers and Support Staff Payroll—Minister’s Decisions and Advice Received Regarding Novopay System 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her decisions as Minister of Education; if not which if any particular decisions does she now regret? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask you whether Standing Order 383(2) and Speaker’s ruling 176/5 will apply in this case or whether you will adopt the 2007 ruling regarding informing the House when the primary answer is longer than generally acceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At this stage Mr Mallard I accept we wait until we at least hear what the answer is to the primary question. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Yes in the circumstances and with the advice received at the time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she read all of the relevant Cabinet papers before she agreed that Novopay would be rolled out; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The primary question asks whether I regret the decision. Clearly with hindsight the decision in respect of Novopay was not the best decision and it has created incredible problems for everyone. That hindsight would have served the Labour Ministers of Education who progressed and signed the contract and for whom that member was an adviser. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was actually a very specific supplementary question. The Minister has not addressed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to ask the question again. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she read all of the relevant Cabinet papers before she agreed that Novopay would be rolled out; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: All of the Cabinet papers to my understanding go back to 2005. I read the papers that were relevant to the decision that was put before me in June and July 2012. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a re-run of the previous point of order. The question was on all of the Cabinet papers. She has indicated that she has read some of them but she has not given an answer as to whether she has read all of them. You might want to do a Dr Lockwood Smith and interpret she is saying no but I think she should probably say it herself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not want to do a Dr Smith but I think on listening to the question—and we are all able to listen to the question and then the answer—by implication it is fairly clear to me that the Minister has not read all of the Cabinet papers dating back to 2005. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she read the paper that indicated that as risk mitigation the new payroll system would be run in parallel with the old system and that there would be an 8-month staggered implementation in five distinct areas avoiding a “high-risk big-bang implementation”; if so why did she agree to a roll-out of the system without that risk mitigation being in place? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I did not hear the entirety of the question but the decision— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to repeat the question for the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in the circumstances that is fair. It was members behind the Minister who made it difficult for the Minister to hear. I would be grateful if they would also maintain a level of silence so the question can be clearly heard. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she read the paper that indicated that as risk mitigation the new pay system would be run in parallel with the old system and that there would be an 8-month staggered implementation in five distinct areas avoiding a “high-risk big-bang implementation”; if so why did she agree to a roll-out without that risk mitigation being in place? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I read a range of papers and at the time I was confident that I had all of the advice that I needed to make the decision at the time. But as I have said hindsight is a wonderful thing and I took the recommendations of all of the officials and all of the external consultants who were advising me and I read the papers and that was the decision we took at the time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does she stand by her decision to sign off the implementation of Novopay despite the fact that there were 142 known faults with the system before it went live or before she signed off on it going live that contingencies initially put in place had been removed and that the phased implementation initially proposed had been abandoned in favour of immediate full implementation; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I have already said I do stand by the decision in the circumstances of the time and the advice that was offered and the papers that were before me in terms of the independent and external advisers who offered the advice. At the time I considered it to be the best decision. In hindsight it is clear that better decisions could have been made but hindsight could serve all of us better as well. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was she aware that the Ministry of Education was considering breaking the contract with Novopay provider Talent2 only 2 weeks before she signed off the implementation; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I was not advised of that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for or receive any advice on extending the contingency arrangement that was in place with Datacom until after Novopay had gone live before she signed it off; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: All of these questions are interesting and germane and that is why the Minister responsible for Novopay has ordered a ministerial inquiry that will allow this House to have the detail that this member is securing. I look forward to that occurring as well. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question and one that the Minister is responsible for. I know that there is an inquiry that has been called for. That does not mean that she is not accountable to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I invite the member to ask the question again. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for or receive any advice on extending the contingency arrangement that was in place with Datacom until after Novopay had gone live; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: My recollection is I did indeed ask ministry officials what other contingency might be available and what we could do in order to ensure that and I was given advice at that time that we could and should proceed with the contract as it was being put before me by officials. 
Police Resourcing—Front-line Foot Patrols 
12. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the number of front-line police patrols? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that police have reported a huge increase in the number of front-line foot patrols over the last year. The total number of police foot patrols increased by 70 percent in 2012 rising from 40918 in 2011 to 69773 last year. Front-line foot patrols play a critical role in the Government’s strategy of reducing crime. This means that there are more officers walking on our streets preventing crime and protecting our communities. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Why are front-line police foot patrols important to crime prevention? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Foot patrols ensure that police are much more visible in our community and act as a strong deterrent to criminals. Police are also deploying these front-line staff much more strategically in areas where and at times when police know there is a greater risk of crime taking place. This ensures that the right people are in the right place at the right time and along with the 600 additional front-line officers delivered by this Government is leading to large reductions in crime rates. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Teachers and Support Staff Payroll—Ministerial Inquiry into Novopay System 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Brendan Horan and Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s announcement of a ministerial inquiry into the Novopay payroll system used by the Ministry of Education to pay teaching and support staff. The announcement of the ministerial inquiry is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. However not every ministerial announcement will give grounds for an urgent debate. The big hurdle to get over is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. I am not persuaded that setting aside the business of the House for an urgent debate can be justified today. 
There are two other occasions on which this matter can be debated. The House is currently debating the Prime Minister’s statement. The financial review debate which must be taken before the end of March will also provide an opportunity to address this matter. The applications are therefore declined. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 30 January. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 Can I start by first acknowledging you Mr Speaker in your new illustrious role. I like many of your colleagues wish you well on this journey of leadership. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues who have had promotions in the caucus and Government and wish you well in your respective roles. I also want to thank my other colleagues the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Hon Phil Heatley for your fine leadership and service to the Government and most important to the people of New Zealand. 
New Zealand will be a good place to be in 2050. We might feel we are doing it hard in New Zealand but not only is it one of the best places in the world to be born in 2013 but we are also well positioned for the mega shifts taking place between now and 2050. These are the words from the executive editor of  
The 
Economist 
 Mr Daniel Franklin who spoke at a conference last year and ended his speech by saying that with good management and the right policies New Zealand could come through the current period of turbulent change in good shape. Dr Franklin’s comments about good management and the right policies affirm the inspiring vision of the National Government and the responsible and astute leadership of our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! There is too much background noise. Those who want to have private conversations please do so outside the Chamber. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Dr Franklin’s comments about good management and the right policies affirm the inspiring vision of the National Government and the responsible and astute leadership of our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key. 
The Government has four key priority areas. Firstly to responsibly manage the Government’s finances—that means living within our means. Jacqueline Ireland the chief executive of Colmar Brunton commented: “I believe that the recession and its aftermath have forced many businesses to look at their costs and rethink their strategy and those that have made good decisions are now far stronger leaner faster more productive and more agile.” It also means New Zealand earning a living and being sensible with taxpayers’ money. In conversations with people—from the beaches and camping grounds of the far north during the holidays to South Auckland communities and market places—they just want to know that we are being fair and just as a Government. In fact in my conversation with a leader of the Pasifika community he said to me: “Alfred we don’t want handouts. All we ask for is opportunity and we’ll do the rest. We’ll work hard.” They did ask me why the focus on the economy and making money as a priority was so important to this Government—a very good question. I simply replied that in our communities instead of the word “economy” we use other words that have the same meaning such as “prosperity”—in other words the opportunity to provide for your family to feed and clothe them and to help them sustain the quality of life we have come to enjoy in this country. Most important it will help us pay our way in this country and in this world. They got it. 
Secondly another key priority is to push ahead with the wide-ranging programme of reforms to create a more productive and competitive economy. Albert Brantley chief executive of Genesis Energy comments: “While the NZ economy has faced significant pressure over the past few years I am cautiously optimistic that this year we will begin to see an increase in business confidence …” which confirms Treasury’s Half-year Economic and Fiscal Update of the economy growing at a rate of 2.5 percent over the next 3 years. 
The third key strategy is to drive better results and better value for money from public services. Here are just some of the targets. In the justice sector this will mean 45000 fewer crimes 7500 fewer violent crimes and 600 fewer young people appearing in court each year from 2017 and also 600 extra police on the front line. Education targets—98 percent of all school entrants having participated in early childhood education by 2016 and 85 percent of all 18-year-olds having achieved National Certification of Educational Achievement level 2 or an equivalent qualification by 2017. Targets for social development—we began implementing our reform of the welfare system to bring about an unrelenting focus on work including greater work obligations for beneficiaries and more support to help people into work through a fairer welfare system. And health targets—more operations now at record levels. Thirty-five thousand more patients get elective treatment a year under National than under Labour. Elective surgery volumes have been increasing on average by around 8000 patients a year over the last few years. 
And lastly our fourth key strategy is to support the rebuilding of Christchurch. As the Prime Minister said in his speech out of adversity comes opportunity and as Christchurch is an area where $30 billion will be spent over the course of the next few years this is an excellent opportunity for the whole of New Zealand to support its redevelopment. One of those opportunities is our commitment to train more New Zealanders in vocational careers—particularly important as the rebuild of Christchurch pushes forward. Colin James commented that the most important aspect of 2013 will be the importance of jobs and bridging the gap between education and employment. This affects all of us in our families and even in our communities. So what is this Government doing? It is boosting skills and supporting jobs. There is a big opportunity in New Zealand over the next few years particularly with the rebuilding of Christchurch to train more New Zealanders in vocational careers that will set them up well for their futures. 
A week ago I was privileged to attend a celebration for Pasifika success in education and the Wellington launch of the Pasifika Education Plan 2013-2017 with the Minister of Education the Hon Hekia Parata and my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga at the Ekalesia Faapotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa Church in Porirua. While I was there a young Samoan woman got up and said this: “I don’t like being called ‘underprivileged’ because I am privileged to have supportive parents. I am privileged to have great opportunities in this country of New Zealand to be able to succeed.” She went on to say that this year she is going on to Victoria University and through that if she gains a B average then she will be successful in gaining a scholarship to Scotland to the world-leading university in opera. There were also the Tau brothers who are twins who shared their stories of principles of success. Mafutaga one of the twins said this: “I want to be fast like Usain Bolt so my principle for success is ‘Dream Believe Achieve’.” In our communities our young people are looking for these opportunities and what is the opportunity for success? It is their attitude. 
So as a Government we are meeting this attitude of success. We have launched five new vocational pathways that clearly signpost the subjects that young people should take to prepare for vocational careers in construction manufacturing the primary sector the service sector and the social services. There will be over 4000 places available in trades and services academies and around 8700 Youth Guarantee places. We are also revitalising industry training to ensure that people have the right skills and training and that our system is responsive to trainees and employers. We are particularly focused on increasing opportunities for in-work training for all Kiwis by expanding and improving our apprenticeship training system. In respect of this system around apprenticeships being a tradesman and having come through apprenticeships myself I see the importance. I have worked with tertiary organisations like Unitec and the Manukau Institute of Technology and I see the importance that these schemes and scholarships have to young people in our communities. This is absolutely meeting a need and is relevant for the young people and families whom we experience every day as constituents in our communities. 
Our changes also include from 1 January 2014 combining Modern Apprenticeships and other apprenticeship-type training under an expanded and improved scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships. These new apprenticeships will provide the same level of support and subsidy for all apprentices regardless of their age. We are boosting overall apprenticeships funding. The current top up for Modern Apprenticeships will be redistributed across all New Zealand apprentices as an extension to their learning subsidy. In addition overall subsidy payments will be increased by around $12 million in the first year rising over time. Increased funding for apprenticeships will allow industry training organisations to invest in quality education for apprentices lower fees for employers and encourage apprenticeships with growth. We are boosting the educational content of apprenticeships. At a minimum they will require a programme of 120 credits resulting in a level 4 qualification. We are setting clearer roles and performance expectations for industry training organisations and giving employers other options if the industry training organisations do not perform. We are lifting the profile and participation of apprenticeships by giving the first 10000 new apprentices who enrol after 1 April this year $1000 towards their tools—and jobs of course. 
In conclusion just this month  
The Economist 
 magazine had New Zealand ranked sixth overall on a measure of the health of society from economic indicators such as innovation to social ones such as inequality and crime. It is clear to say this: the world is full of opportunities for New Zealand over the next few years and we need to seize those opportunities with both hands. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Is it not a pity that Alfred Ngaro was not in the last National Party term in Government when he might have actually been able to influence it on doing something about apprenticeships because we had 3 years when nothing happened with apprenticeships. In fact they went down by 20 percent. So Mr Ngaro can stand up and say to us how important apprenticeships are but the reality is that this National Government has dropped the ball and let New Zealanders down when it comes to apprenticeship numbers. We have seen a 20 percent drop in Modern Apprenticeships at the very time we should have been seeing a Government invest in the skills and the future of this country. 
Just before Christmas  
Campbell Live  
did a programme where a dog took control of a car and it was quite a big deal. I think it was a promotion for the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. A dog was put in control of a car and it was able to manoeuvre the car around. I noticed that when the dog was doing this it actually managed to have its paws on the wheel of the car. It had worked out that the way that you drive the car forward and give it direction is to have your paws or your hands on the wheel of the car. So a dog was able to do that on  
Campbell Live 
 but this National Government cannot work out that if it is actually going to give New Zealand direction if it is actually going to take New Zealand forward it has to have its hands on the wheel. That is what we have seen from this Government. It cannot even keep up with the  
Campbell Live  
dog when it comes to actually giving this country direction because it does not understand that leaving it to the market—saying that the market will resolve everything—actually is a flawed failed set of policies from another century. 
Times have changed and this National Government has simply not kept up with those changes. It is never better exemplified than by the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce—“Mr Fix-it” or “Mr Fudge-it” as we call him over here because he has been fudging the figures on unemployment right from the time he took over. He is meant to be this genius who can come in and solve the Novopay debacle but the reality of his record in unemployment is appalling. For him to stand up in the House today and briefly trumpet his excitement at the drop in the unemployment rate to 6.9 percent and to ignore the fact that the only reason it has dropped is that people have left the labour force and that friends and families whom we all know have gone to Australia when the reality is that if we put those people back into the equation and if we put back into the equation the people who have given up hope of even getting a job then the unemployment rate would be 8.3 percent—8.3 percent—the worst unemployment rate we have had since the mid-1990s. That would be the situation if all of those people were in there. So that is no record for Mr Joyce to be proud of. He cannot stand up in this House and claim that he is any kind of “Mr Fix-it” when unemployment is soaring like that. 
Every single MP in this House knows about people in their communities who are desperately seeking jobs. The people who line up for those supermarket jobs—in Auckland the other day 2500 people were applying for 150 jobs. These are people who want to work people who want the opportunity to get ahead and to provide for their families and the complacent Government sits on its hands on the other side takes its hands off the wheel of Government and says: “The market will solve it.” Well it is not and it is time for Government action. 
It is time to invest in people not condemn people who want to work. It is time to invest in businesses in new technology in a new economy. That is what the Labour Party is calling for. That is the plan that we are putting in front of New Zealanders. But this Government has— 
Hon Nikki Kaye 
: What plan? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Nikki Kaye asks: “What plan?”. That is the question she should ask John Key—“What plan?”. The Labour Party has been prepared to stand up and say that we are going to change the settings of this economy. We have recognised that there needs to be a new economy. We have recognised that we need to invest in clean green technology that we need to upskill people and that we cannot afford to leave monetary policy as it is. But this Government sits there with no plan for New Zealand and no plan for the future of New Zealanders. 
That was never more starkly put into focus than in those unemployment statistics where 30 percent of 15 to 19-year-olds are unemployed—30 percent. That is our future. That is New Zealand’s future. And even if the National Government does not want to look at that in economic terms it needs to look at that in social terms. It needs to think about what it means to have a 30 percent unemployment rate for our future generations. What does that mean for our society? What does that mean for people feeling included and feeling part of New Zealand and our society? This Government is leaving that generation behind. They are part of the forgotten New Zealanders whom this Government does not want to talk about—the people whom it is leaving in the unemployment queue whom they are not there backing—and the initiatives that could be being undertaken that it ignores. 
This Government’s record in employment—Mr Steven Joyce’s or “Mr Fudge-it’s” record—is unacceptable and to put him in charge of Novopay just means that that debacle will go on and on. Just briefly on that point this National Government’s shame is in Novopay. It is wrong for people in my electorate to have to come to me and say: “I have worked as a teacher aide and I have not been paid since November.” How does that feel? How do people look after their families in that situation? This is a debacle that Hekia Parata Craig Foss and Bill English all signed off on when they knew it would not work. It is a shame on this Government and Mr Joyce does not have the record in employment to indicate that he will be able to solve this. 
I want to speak briefly about a couple of areas in my portfolio and in particular in tertiary education. Steven Joyce has tried to sell to New Zealanders his brand new flash employment and apprenticeships scheme. Well it is all very well to rehash it and rename it and put in place a $1000 subsidy but the lack of commitment to actually working with businesses to saying: “We’ll help you employ people as apprentices.” is what is missing from this. It is the Labour Party’s policy to say to businesses that we will subsidise 18 and 19-year olds using the money that this Government seems happy to pay out in dole payments to actually get people into apprenticeships. Yesterday at the manufacturing inquiry in Christchurch a company came forward and said: “That is exactly what we want. We want a Government that is hands-on that is prepared to get in and help us make sure that we have the skilled workforce that we need.” So to hear about it now to hear about it 4 years after this Government had the opportunity to do something about apprenticeships is a hollow promise from Mr Joyce. 
The other thing I want to talk about is what do we do to ensure that the best and brightest stay in New Zealand? What do we do to ensure we have the people who are going to start the companies that will help create jobs? Well in the case of this Government it is to say to postgraduate students: “We’re not going to give you allowances any more.” 
Over the summer break I met two people whom I want to mention: Anthony Davidson who is a student in Dunedin and Tracy Merson who wants to be a student here in Wellington. They are two people who bravely put their stories into the public arena to show New Zealanders what we are losing because of the short-sighted policy of this Government to cut away their allowances. Mr Davidson wants to complete his master’s degree in zoology. He is a person with a huge contribution to make and he has been told by this Government that it does not care about that. He is part-way through his master’s degree he has 1 year to go and the Government has cut that allowance away. What did he tell the  
Otago Daily Times 
? He is off to Australia. He is gone. He will not be part of the future of New Zealand because this Government is not prepared to invest in his future and in our future with his education. 
We have got Tracy Merson who wants to become a clinical psychologist. Clinical psychology is on the skills shortage list for New Zealand. We import people into New Zealand to do that job. Here is someone who wants to finish who has been looking after children and who has been working and studying part time but wants to finish her master’s degree which she has to have to practise as a clinical psychologist and this Government comes along and cuts away her allowance leaving her at the moment unable to finish that master’s degree—unable to practise as a clinical psychologist. 
What New Zealand needs is a Government that is prepared to invest in people a Government that is prepared to give New Zealanders hope. New Zealanders want to be proud of their country. They want to know that they can have a future in their country. At the moment what New Zealanders see is a future in Australia. They see a future away from here. A Government that can come into office as Labour will and say: “We’re going to back New Zealanders. We’re going to fight for the future of New Zealand. We’re going to give New Zealanders hope. We’re going to do it in a compassionate way. We’re going to do it by accepting that the economy must change. It must evolve but at the same time we must ensure a fairer society.”—that is the Government New Zealanders deserve. 
That is the Government Labour will offer in contrast to this National Government which has no plan and offers no hope and no vision for New Zealand. This Prime Minister’s statement was nothing like a statement. This was the Prime Minister’s whimper. 
Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. I want to start off by saying that today I want to speak as an Associate Minister of Education and as the Minister of Youth Affairs because I want to speak about young people in New Zealand and the policies that will make an actual difference to their lives. What we heard from the deputy leader of the Labour Party was a lot of slogans. He talked about hope and vision. But at the end of the day when you look at the Prime Minister’s statement you see that there is a plan for our country that means that young New Zealanders do have a future. 
That plan involves getting back to surplus. It involves ensuring that we have welfare reforms so that young people do not grow up in disadvantaged households with very low incomes. It involves ensuring we have the right policies in terms of business to ensure we can actually create jobs. And when we look at what the Labour Party says in these areas we know that its members oppose everything. They oppose welfare reform. They oppose many small business policies—everything from the 90-day trial period to Resource Management Act reform. The Labour Party opposes everything that helps the 500000 small businesses in this country actually employ more young people. 
I am confident that when New Zealanders actually step aside and read the Prime Minister’s statement they will see the very strong contrast between a party across the House that talks in slogans and this Government which has real policies in areas like labour reform Resource Management Act reform small business policy welfare reform and housing—reforms that are actual and that will do something for the young people of this country. 
I really want to start now and address the area of education because we know that if we want to give some of our most disadvantaged young New Zealanders the best start in life then we have to improve some things. Our Government has a very strong policy in education. It involves accountability it involves raising standards but it also involves helping some of our most disadvantaged learners and I want to talk about that. 
I have recently been given responsibility in the area of digital literacy. We know that as a Government we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars connecting schools to ultra-fast broadband. I want to take a moment in this House to talk about a very personal situation at a place that I recently visited with the Prime Minister. We went to Great Barrier Island a small isolated community a community of 800 people. There are children there who have never had the opportunities in education and this Government has invested in that community to ensure that those children will have the same opportunities as children in Auckland. 
That is part of our vision for our education system—wherever you are in New Zealand whatever community you grow up in you have the opportunities to have the best resources available. Ultra-fast broadband delivers that we have put several hundred million dollars into that and we are very proud of that as a Government. 
The other point I want to make is that when we look at education policy the fact is that our record is clear. We are spending $9.6 billion—that is successive Government increases in terms of education—and we actually spend more than any other country in the OECD. So our message is very clear when it comes to education: this National Government under the most difficult financial conditions in a generation—the global financial crisis and a massive fiscal impact in terms of Canterbury—is spending the most in the OECD and that is something that we are very proud of as a Government. 
The other thing we are very focused on is that if we want to have quality of life for all New Zealanders we actually have to do better in terms of the one in five students who need help in terms of numeracy and literacy. We have obviously implemented national standards but we have also put more money into programmes to assist that. We are also focused on accountability and that is why we have very clear targets. We have got targets that are ambitious: 85 percent of 18-year-olds will achieve National Certificate in Educational Achievement level 2 or an equivalent qualification in 2016. 
What does this actually mean? It means that it is not good enough that there are young people coming through my electorate office and the offices of many of the other MPs around this House who have left school not being able to read or write. We are saying that actually that is not good enough. I want to make this point. One of the opportunities I have had was to visit many schools in this country. We have some amazing teachers. 
We know there is a complex range of factors that we need to focus on in order to bring about change. Some of that is about having accountability like targets and some of that is about having rich data and parents being able to know where to help their children and that is what national standards are about. But it is also about being very clear about expectations and it is about ensuring that we have the best world-class infrastructure to ensure that students wherever they grow up whether it is Great Barrier Island or Palmerston North have access to resources. 
We know as the Education and Science Committee demonstrated—and that was cross-party among MPs—that there are many areas of change that need to happen over our education system. One of the key things in the select committee’s report was that our education system is rapidly changing as a result of technology. That means that rather than sitting in a geographical location there are so many opportunities for teachers to potentially reach students online in other parts of New Zealand. 
Our Government has demonstrated—whether it is through our investment in ultra-fast broadband whether it is through the fact that we will eventually respond to the select committee report or whether it is through Network for Learning which is a major vehicle for the Government to deliver in this area—that we are actually prepared to put in not only the money but the policies to ensure that we have some of the most digitally literate children in the world. 
That is something that we are proud of and that is real vision. That is vision with policies. But when it comes to the Labour Party all we hear is negativity slogans and opposition to policies. The point that I would make to New Zealanders is that they should read the Prime Minister’s statement and see the detail in terms of policies. They should look at what we are actually doing whether it is in the economy where we have actual policies about getting back to surplus whether it is through small-business policies where we have implemented the 90-day trial period and we have got a good record on Resource Management Act reform or whether it is through our education system. 
When you look at what we are doing in terms of investment in infrastructure when you look at what we are doing around Network for Learning and when you look at the fact that we have invested significantly in Youth Guarantee—this is another area for young New Zealanders. We are focused on delivering those programmes for 16 and 17-year-olds who may otherwise drop out of school. As I have already mentioned we have implemented national standards. But also we are interested in ensuring that as has already been mentioned we boost apprenticeships. We know that although some young people may want to be doctors and lawyers other young people have many opportunities in the building and construction sector—which brings me on to Canterbury. 
I have had the opportunity over the last couple of months to be down in Canterbury and see that we still have a long way to go. But what I am proud of is that in the most difficult fiscal conditions of a generation our Government has put billions into rebuilding Canterbury. There is one area that we have put a significant amount of money into and that is $1 billion in terms of rebuilding and renewing our education system there. That is incredibly significant. It is difficult and it is challenging because we have some very damaged schools and we have families that are still recovering from the earthquakes. But again I make the point that we have found that money and we are working very hard on the ground to rebuild that city and that is something that we are all proud of. 
The final point I would like—as the Minister of Youth Affairs—is that there are many people in this House who will stand up and speak about issues that matter to young people. As I have mentioned before I think we have got some very strong policies and we have invested. But as the Minister of Youth Affairs I think it is really important that we ask young people for their views whether that be in designing more modern education policies or whether that be about service and how we can increase the amount that young people give back to the community because that helps create leadership. I am looking forward to the fact that I will be visiting a number of programmes in my capacity as Minister of Youth Affairs because I think there are some great community organisations across New Zealand and there are some great young people who are contributing to this country. 
Too often we hear in the paper the negative stories about young people but whether it is Sam Johnson and the work that he did with the student volunteers in terms of rebuilding Canterbury there are some amazing young people in New Zealand and we are investing in a number of programmes to help support that. I look forward to hosting the Youth Parliament which happens every parliamentary term—I was pleased to make the announcement yesterday. But also I think there are a number of areas such as the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project and the Youth Crime Action Plan where we can do more. I am very proud of this Government’s policies in terms of young New Zealanders. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I would be very cautious if I were the member opposite Nikki Kaye about using the word “proud” in relation to this Government’s record and in particular about stepping into the fray of listing a group of achievements and groups that should be feeling pleased with the contribution that this Government has made to their area. There were a couple that I just jotted down; I could not even grab all of them as the member spoke. But to list small business as somehow being a group that should feel grateful for the presence of this Government seems farcical to me. Businesses are losing revenue having to shut their doors and go offshore or even stop existing at all in New Zealand because of this Government’s inertia on the issue of monetary policy. Government members seem to be the only ones who do not think that there is an issue with manufacturing and the productive sector in New Zealand. If we need just a recent example they fold their arms and sit back while contractors—builders plumbers electricians—all suffer as Mainzeal collapses. They all suffer and on that side of the House they have no response to that situation. 
The second group that is meant to feel grateful for and proud of that Government’s list of achievements apparently is young people. Yes that would be the same group of people who are experiencing 30 percent unemployment for 15 to 19-year-olds yet the Minister of Youth Affairs had nothing to say on that matter. They should all feel pleased that the Youth Parliament is coming to town and that 120 young people have the privileged position of sitting in this place but what of the 30 percent of young people who cannot even get a job right now? Well I hope that the young people who come here for Youth Parliament do a better job of speaking on behalf of young people than that youth Minister did in her first contribution as Minister to this House. Thirdly we are all meant to feel grateful for the Government’s welfare reforms. Well I have got a bit more to say on that but if the Minister of Youth Affairs thinks that we should ask young people about their views on policy why do we not ask the people who are on Government support right now what they think of the welfare reforms and how those reforms are assisting them into work? I have got a bit more to say on that Mr Goldsmith because I think we will find that welfare reforms are that in title alone. They do nothing to help those people who are desperately looking for work. 
The Prime Minister’s statement in the first session of this House demonstrated that we have a Prime Minister who is willing to allow his Government to recline while we move into decline. We have gone from worse—what we had previously which was almost a “stand back and wait” option—to actually almost taking a neutral position on some things and almost a dangerous interventionist approach on others. It might have sounded harmless when it came out of the Prime Minister’s mouth because it almost looked like a comedy routine but underneath it all whilst he makes jokes people like young people the unemployed children Maori and Pasifika are all suffering. As Grant Robertson pointed out these are the people who represent our future—the taxpayers who will be paying for my retirement. I care about this issue deeply not just morally but fiscally. 
Let me show you how this hands-off approach is hurting us. There are 270000 children living in poverty. You can argue of course that we have always had a degree of child poverty in New Zealand—that is true. But we have moved from 15 percent of children living in material deprivation to 21 percent. Our social mobility is declining. What do I mean by that? The ability of a child to grow up in a State house and become a Prime Minister is lessening. It has become the area of the privileged few and when I say the privileged few I mean the baby-boomers not the children of today. We have a number of children suffering from Third World diseases and preventable hospitalisations. The markers are all there but the action is absolutely absent from that side of the House. Let us contrast that with the first speech that the Leader of the Opposition made in which he clearly said that Labour would present its plan on child poverty to the country this year. We will do that and we will do it with pride because we are willing to be bold. We are willing to address an issue that really speaks to the heart of whether we are a country that supports and looks after the most vulnerable because that surely is a mark of a society. 
There is a reason why we need to do that with urgency. I read an article in  
Idealog  
magazine recently where the writer said: “If the issue of income disparity isn’t addressed in the next few years our children will inherit a world of ballooning debt increasing social welfare costs high unemployment and rioting youth. Don’t believe it could not happen here.” Yet let us contrast that then with what Mr Key said on child poverty. Well virtually nothing. In fact whenever this Government is challenged on the issue of child poverty it responds by referring to its Ministerial Committee on Poverty. I took a look recently at what progress that committee which meets quarterly has made. I could summarise it by saying “absolutely nothing”. If I am more generous I could say that it has produced a few aides-mémoire one of which is from the Ministry of Social Development that list its projects that are focused on alleviating poverty. What might those projects be? One was listed as the White Paper for Vulnerable Children which I can tell you having read it cover to cover does absolutely nothing for child poverty. Yes it addresses some of the issues around identifying vulnerable children who have been abused but it does nothing to address child poverty. 
The No. 2 project that the Ministry of Social Development listed was its welfare reforms. I have read both bills in detail. For both bills I have sat on the Social Services Committee which has examined the welfare reforms and their impacts. 
Shane Ardern 
: With all that the member should be more informed. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I have looked at the statistics Mr Ardern that have come out since those welfare reforms have come into place. Tell me what the measure of success for those reforms should be. What would the measure of success be? Perhaps more people moving into work. Well on that measure the Government is an epic fail. Last quarter there was an increase in youth unemployment in every single region—every single region—bar one and that is with that Government’s first round of welfare reforms. What about invalids benefit numbers? They have gone up. Sickness benefit numbers have gone up too. DPB numbers have also gone up and that was a special interest of the Minister for Social Development. She focused on increasing work obligations yet we have seen a decrease in people on the DPB and in part-time work and an increase in DPB take-up—epic fail. 
What has the Minister also done as part of her welfare reforms? Well apart from asking people to prove more often that they are looking for work she has increased her use of sanctions. In fact sanctions under this Government have almost tripled on families with children. Across that time has that improved the situation? Well as I have said every single benefit bar the unemployment benefit in recent times has gone up. So I would call it a fail particularly when the unemployment benefit has always been the easiest one to move people in and out of and the others have always been the hardest. This Government on every measure that you could pick has failed on welfare and yet it prides itself on somehow being different and better than Labour. Yet we are the ones who got welfare numbers far below this Government’s numbers and we did it without harming children nearly to the extent that this Government must be held to account for. 
Welfare reforms should be about work first and by that I mean creating it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Then why are you so opposed to jobs? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I have received a letter just today from a man who has applied for 360 jobs Minister Smith—360 jobs. Our starting point on this side of the House will always be that people want to work. It is up to that Government to get its house in order and do its bit by making sure that the jobs are there. Instead what do we have? Some of the highest unemployment we have seen in recent times and jobless figures that we should all be ashamed of. Yet that Government sits and waits and reclines while we decline. Not on this side of the House. We have a plan for employment we have a plan for poverty and over the 2 years we will continue to prove to that Government and also to the people of New Zealand that this is a party of hope rather than that side of the House which is a party of desperation. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the Debate on the Prime Minister’s Statement and to the vote of confidence in the John Key - led National Government. There are a number of reasons why I say that. The first is that the National-led Government is the only political choice for people who want to see a growing stable economy that will create jobs for Kiwis—those Kiwis who are focused and want to get on in life. That is why our economy remains front and centre for this Government over the next term in Parliament. That is why we have a programme ahead of us to improve the surplus or the economic circumstances to return us to surplus in the next term and a bit. It is also why we intend to spend the amount of money that we do to rebuild Christchurch. It is also why we have introduced a number of reforms in our time so far such as the introduction of the 90-day trial period and the changes to the Resource Management Act system and also why we have invested so heavily in returning ACC back into financial shape. It is also why we have kick-started the multibillion-dollar programme on infrastructure investment. All through that time we have been dealing with three major challenges: an economy that was left in an unbalanced and poor shape by the previous Government—it is interesting to note the comments of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern in respect of unemployment when you look at that—the impact of the global financial crisis and of course the Canterbury earthquakes. 
New Zealand has to become a magnet for investment by individuals and small businesses—New Zealand and offshore. We have to create business opportunities to create jobs for hard-working New Zealanders. Without more investments that benefit New Zealand we cannot have jobs and we cannot have growth in the New Zealand economy. What is it about that that our Labour opponents find difficult to understand? One is a prerequisite to the other and there are no exceptions. The Government is working hard to encourage investment through our Business Growth Agenda by reducing costs and uncertainty for business and ensuring our people have the right skills to contribute. The Government’s recent announcements on youth training and apprenticeship courses aligned with industry to best meet the demands to develop work opportunities and training opportunities for young New Zealanders have been welcomed by all industries but in particular by the rural farming industries. Our apprenticeship schemes will provide the skills and opportunities particularly for people in the trades that service the farming sector but equally so in the farming sector itself. There has been quite a vacuum in this area for some time. So those announcements are very welcome and will have an undoubted effect on the New Zealand economy. 
 For businesses to invest in plant and facilities in New Zealand they need to be confident that they will have access to infrastructure and that there will be support through transport energy water and telecommunications to sustain those businesses. We have rolled out billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure over the past 4 years which is supporting thousands of jobs and will continue to increase the opportunity for those jobs. But unlike our opponents we will not just throw money at the problem. We are committed to fixing roadblocks like the Resource Management Act that are slowing down the process and driving up costs. We want to work cooperatively with local councils to reduce the amount of costly red tape. New Zealand has abundant natural resources. The Government is taking a hard look at how our resources are managed so we can continue to grow our economy and look after our environment. The Government is working on a comprehensive package of reforms to the resource management system which will be released in the next few months and will progress with our Better Local Government reforms. 
New Zealand is a strong exporting nation. We are committed to increasing the contribution that exports make to our economy by aggressively pursuing more higher-quality trade agreements. The opportunities in Asia and particularly the China economies are enormous and equally so in our Indian trade agreements. It is amazing to know that there are members in this House who would oppose that type of progress and it defies logic why you might do that. Our primary sector is an important contributor to our export earnings. In fact there is no other more important contributor—72 percent of our merchandise exports. Access to water and to the primary production structures is essential when you look at developing an economy that is sustainable. We are establishing a company to act as bridging investor for regional water infrastructure development and we will invest up to $400 million in regional-scale schemes—regional-scale schemes to encourage third-party capital investment. Last week the Government earmarked $80 million for the initial stages of the company’s operations and that will be set aside in the 2013 Budget. Reliable irrigation presents a major step in unlocking economic potential for New Zealand. Having our tradable sectors grow strongly delivering on the Government’s economic growth goals is the No. 1 objective of this Government. 
I hope that the rural and provincial New Zealanders who are listening to this debate and others who may listen in on future debates take note of what our opponents are saying. For example the Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech to the nation that “The reality is that we will not create more better paying jobs by simply exporting more milk powder.” How wrong is that! How naive and ignorant is that! How far off course can you be? Some of the very high-end sophisticated nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals and high-end food ingredient powders that are now processed in some of the largest manufacturing processing sites in the world here in our dairy industry hold one of the strongest keys to extra growth in this economy. And that can be done in a very sustainable clean green way. When you look at what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing he is proposing an increase in industry. That is not a bad thing. In fact increases in industry will generally lead to more jobs and more exports. But you are talking about the industrialisation of New Zealand in terms of its economy. What effects would that have on the environment? What sorts of effects do you create in the environment when you surge forward entirely focused on the industrial area as opposed to agriculture? Measure it credibly and sensibly against the effects of agriculture and I would suggest that the effects on the environment are far more. 
Labour has not changed its ideology since the 1980s when the then Prime Minister David Lange described agriculture as a sunset industry. So 71 percent of our merchandise export earnings are a sunset industry. Well certainly under Labour they would be because its vision for the New Zealand economy is a capital gains tax higher income tax higher company tax an emissions trading tax no support for irrigation systems higher ACC levies no more 90-day trial periods for employment rural New Zealand stuck in a dial-up age less road construction more unproductive spending and more debt. Is there any mix of policies that could be more of a contrast more backward-looking and less likely to grow the New Zealand economy than those? And it gets worse because for Labour to be in Government it would have to coalesce with the Greens. Let us just have a look at what the Greens have said. They would go harder than Labour on the emissions trading tax. They would put a restriction on livestock numbers. They would put a restriction on water use. They would put a restriction on nitrogen applications. The comparison is black and white and clearly it does not favour a Labour Green and who-knows-who coalition Government. 
If you think that by living in an urban environment in your house in Auckland or Wellington you are safe from these changes then I would suggest you think again because if our agricultural sector does not prosper and grow then nor will our urban areas. It is that simple. Seventy-one percent of our merchandise exports from this sector— 
Andrew Williams 
: Where are the jobs? In the cities. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well the agricultural sector is the highest employer both directly and indirectly in New Zealand. I suggest that a change of Government at this stage would be devastating to the New Zealand economy. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 First in this reply to the Prime Minister’s statement I would like to extend my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his ascension to that throne. I hope he enjoys the position. If he does not I understand there is a vacancy coming up in Rome towards the end of the year and he might find that of some interest. But I hope he also takes the opportunity to review conventions and definitions and to make his own imprint on the House. I wish him well. 
In reply to the Prime Minister’s speech I want to spend some time going to the heart of people’s needs and that is their health and the health of their children. In his speech in this debate 2 weeks ago the Minister of Health Tony Ryall trumpeted his Government’s so-called successes in health. He trotted out the things he usually trots out: more doctors and nurses—although those figures have been roundly disputed and comprehensively debunked by the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists together with the Minister’s own ministry—and he talked about more elective surgical procedures. Those are the things that one gets when one pays the district health boards to provide them. These are the easy wins which is what this Minister focuses on. But what are the statistics that the Minister of Health hides from? First of all 3701 more children were admitted to hospital last year than the year before. Nearly 4000 more children with preventable respiratory infections preventable skin infections and even some vaccine-preventable diseases were admitted to our hospitals around New Zealand last year than in 2011. This is not what success looks like; this is what failure looks like. For every 100 Pakeha children admitted to hospital there were 156 Maori children admitted and a staggering 251 Pacific Island children admitted. This is not a successful health system; this is a failing health system. Health inequalities such as those that are demonstrated by the admission of children to hospitals equal a bleaker future for our children and not National’s much-vaunted brighter one. 
 Health targets are by and large a good idea. We introduced them when we were in Government and this Government has continued them. But they need constant revision. I want to refer to a particular example that has come to my attention in recent times. An ophthalmologist was to operate on a small boy who had a genetic but surgically correctable sight problem. The boy was booked in for surgery on a Thursday afternoon I think it was. At the last minute the ophthalmologist had to cancel that boy’s operation because the hospital needed to do two cataract operations in that period in order to meet its elective surgical targets. In other words the number crunchers came before that specialist’s clinical decision on who was the priority for surgery that afternoon. When we see this kind of thing happening in our hospitals we know that the health targets which the Minister is trumpeting on a daily basis are in fact distorting the delivery of health services and not improving them. In that story the specialist told me that he felt demoralised—demoralised by the compulsion to cancel that little boy’s surgery so that he could do two much quicker cataract operations in its place in order to meet the Minister’s elective surgery targets. These are targets gone mad if that is what is happening. I understand that this is not an isolated incident. So although the Minister wants to get up and talk about particularly elective surgical procedure targets then let him also say to this House what has to be cut in order to allow hospitals to meet those targets. 
Let me give another example. At Counties Manukau District Health Board it takes now depending on who you talk to somewhere between 2 weeks and 8 weeks to get a hip operation—at Counties Manukau it takes between 2 weeks and 8 weeks to get a hip operation. It has almost got to the stage where it is going out into the highways and byways seeking out the halt the lame and the blind—let us throw in some cataract operations as well—and saying “Have you got a dodgy hip? I have got a deal for you.” If that is not skewing the purpose of health targets I do not know what is. In fact recently the Government was reported to be eyeing axing some of the elective surgical procedures on the basis of some advice from the National Health Committee which comprises people for whom I have a great deal of respect. However the particular procedure that it identified as possibly being one of the ones that could be taken out was the insertion of grommets. The insertion of grommets for children—babies usually; infants with ear infections—sets them up to be able to hear properly to get past their glue ear or their otitis media infection which causes them not to be able to hear and then paves the way for them to learn at school to be responsive to their environment and to not be problematic. This Minister is compelling advice to be brought to him—he is compelling advice that he wants to hear. In other words whatever you do do not cut elective surgery to people who can vote. Do not cut elective surgery to the elderly but go and ahead and sacrifice elective surgical procedures for children because they do not vote. This cynical approach to the delivery of health care is the hallmark of this Minister and needs to be stopped. It is time to revise these health targets. 
Children’s health is our best investment. Nearly 4000 more admissions to hospital of children with preventable or poverty-related diseases in 2012 than in 2011 is not success in the health system; it is failure. This Government is failing our children. Housing is one of the keys to this and this Government has done nothing in 4 years now in its fifth year to improve health inequalities that stem from poor housing. This Government also has a black hole where its plan for an ageing population should be. This is not success; it is failure. For all of Tony Ryall’s shovelling of negative questions off to other lesser mortals in his caucus people are now seeing beyond this teflon veneer and the evidence of failure is piling up. Child poverty is something that needs to be addressed. Health intervention can stem the worst impacts of child poverty but it is not a cure in itself. So the Minister of Health needs to get alongside the Minister of Housing and say “How can we knit our policies together so that they give our children the best chance?”. Opposing a decent living wage and opposing realistic minimum wage increases year on year are the things that will not improve the health of our children in this country. They will only make it worse. The Government is not a success; it is a failure. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the new Speaker so I will congratulate the new Speaker on taking my job. I am sure that the new Speaker will do a fantastic job. He has been in the job really only 1 day and already he is making his mark on the House. 
I want to cut to the chase. In 2014 this country goes to a general election. From an article today a member of this House is quoted as saying: “I will not stand by while [his daughters’] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan.” That is what one of these MPs said today. 
Hon Member 
: Disgraceful! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is disgraceful it is shameful it is racist and I have never heard—never ever heard—something worse than that come out of the mouth of one of the MPs in my time in the House. Yes we have come close to it; I will own up to that. But never ever—never ever—have we come even to the verge of being racist. I want to say this and to put out I suppose a challenge to everybody in this House not only that they say they dislike or are ashamed of that sort of talk but also that they would distance their party from being in a coalition—in a coalition—with that member’s party. 
I know for a fact that that sort of language would not come out of the mouth of members of New Zealand First except for one. He has done it before so it is no surprise. It would have been a surprise if Andrew Williams had said that. It would have been a surprise if somebody else had said that. But it was Richard Prosser I am sorry to say. 
You know there is a price to pay for living in paradise. But it is not a paradise if the Government is going to be Labour Green and New Zealand First. So I call on the Green Party and the Labour Party to distance themselves now from being in a coalition with a member who thinks and actually speaks like that in public. 
Shane Ardern 
: They won’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I do not know whether they will or not. You know in something like 22 months’ time we go to an election and all we can hear from the pretenders—and in saying this I will most probably put some of my colleagues off me; well maybe put more colleagues off me. But at least the Greens actually believe in what they say. They come to this House with a purpose and to see a whole lot of changes which they talk about incessantly. I know that upsets us but I kind of like that. 
Shane Ardern 
: They won’t have you mate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: On the other hand—no they will not have me! On the other hand we have the New Zealand Labour Party. All we get from the Labour Party and from Trevor Mallard is— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Oh! Let it go. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: “Oh!” he says “Oh!”. Mr Faafoi says “Oh!”. Well here it is in black and white for Mr Faafoi from Porirua: “Stop thrashing dead horse and work on imaginative tools appropriate for New Zealand.” I have not heard something better than that from Russel Norman. It is about finding the tools that are appropriate for New Zealand. All Mr Mallard can come back and say—well I do not want to go there. You know what we are seeing is a party bereft. I mean the New Zealand Labour Party. I am not attacking the Green Party because it believes in the stuff that it trots out. 
I want to talk about housing just for a minute. The New Zealand Labour Party has promised us 300000—is it 300000 homes or is 100000 homes— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: 100000 homes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —100000 homes at under $300000 each over 10 years. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: That’s roughly. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Did you hear that? It was very quiet. It was very quiet—“roughly”. It was “roughly” $300000. Well here is the thing: I was brought up born and bred in Otara. For those in Otara and for those in Porirua Freemans Bay Kaiti Tikipunga all— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How affordable is Freemans Bay now Tau? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I do not know. I live on the peninsula. I am not looking for a home in Freemans Bay at the moment. Here is the thing: if you want people to live in houses that are purchased or valued at under $300k a year then all you are going to do is build more slums ghettos and poor neighbourhoods like the one that I was brought up in because all the houses were the same. They were all the same—little boxes made of ticky-tacky. Although it suited the Labour Party to have those policies although it suited my mother and father while bringing up four children and although it suited my neighbours to do the same all it did was push the problem into one area. And now why do you think that South Auckland is a bit of a mess? Why do you think— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why are you selling Housing New Zealand stock? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no sorry I am not going to listen to it any more. I am not listening to it any more. 
Here is the thing: one person—one person—from the Labour members actually comes out of Otara and that is William Sio. In fact he and I were in the same class. Admittedly I was a year in front of him and that was second-year fifth. But here is the rub. Here is the rub. Those people over there talk on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden. What a load of rubbish! What a load of rubbish! They should try to be downtrodden try to be underprivileged for a change. All those people across the way have gone to university and have gone straight from university into a job—oh that is right—as a member of Parliament. And if they did have a job beforehand it was with the unions. It was with the unions. I did it differently: I went from the unions to the National Party. 
I want to say in the 2 minutes that I have got left that I have immense faith in the Hon Dr Nick Smith as the new Minister of Housing because in his mind there are ways and means to make housing affordable and I hope that one of my ideas gets a bit of a run. That is you know in the old days—in the days of my mother and father—it was easy for them to actually put a dwelling on the back of their property and to have that dwelling for themselves with no cross-leasing fees no development fund for a developer and certainly no Resource Management Act to get in the way. You are not allowed to do that these days. It is at least $100000 more to cross-lease and to build— 
Andrew Williams 
: It’s called slum infill housing. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh infill housing. Well we cannot all have a 10-acre lifestyle block full of lemon trees Mr Andrew Williams. We cannot have that but the fact is that there are things that we can do to make it better for young people trying to get their dream home especially on the Te Atatu peninsula—just like Phil Twyford. Kia ora. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is some member seeking the call because I might have to put the question. I understand it is a Green call but if those members are not taking it—Dr Calder. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 As the World Economic Forum came to a close a few days ago in Davos IMF chief Christine Lagarde enjoined the Governments of the world to remain focused. She counselled countries to adopt the “do not relax” principle. The IMF forecast is for very fragile and timid growth for 2013 based on nations making the right decisions. One could argue that the international system is undergoing a generational transformation. Although some speakers’ minds at Davos seemed to be eased by the US’s stepping back from the fiscal cliff in my mind the step was more of a soft-shoe shuffle if not a sidestep. 
The US remains on the brink of a chasm. Despite an extension in a few short months the Department of the Treasury runs out of legal authority to borrow. Failure to raise the so-called debt ceiling would force the US Government to default on its obligations and force immediate cuts equivalent to almost 6 percent of GDP. This could easily drive the US back into recession. Is there cause for alarm? In the summer of 2011 the Republicans were solipsistic and cavalier in using the threat of default to extract concessions from President Obama and the Democrats. As a result one credit agency stripped the US of its AAA rating adding roils of further and largely unnecessary stress to the foundations of the already shaky global financial system. If petty politics pertain in the US we could be in for more of the same. 
Some economists at Davos expressed some optimism regarding China as its economic slow-down seems less serious than a year ago but challenges remain as there is a shift in focus from an export-driven economy to one that relies on domestic consumption. China’s vast reserve of cheap workers is dwindling rapidly and it will not be very long before China’s demographic dividend is spent. 
Although Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank is trumpeting 2012 as the year that the troubled single currency was relaunched deep systemic failures—fault-lines—run beneath the surface of the eurozone. Rising unemployment a growing social disconnect declining competitiveness and the fundamental tension between integration and sovereignty in times of austerity are becoming more and more evident. 
This principled pragmatic Government is making the prudent financial decisions necessary to weather the ongoing economic turbulence. No Government has a magic wand to wave and no Government can change things overnight. However our balanced approach of economic stimulus combined with deficit reduction is working and working well. It is worth reiterating that it attracted a ringing endorsement from one of US President Obama’s financial advisers Peter Orszag who was Obama’s director of the Office of Management and Budget until 2010. He singled out New Zealand as the model sans pareil for its balanced approach to the deepening international debt crisis. 
 New Zealand is the only country in the world that has “coupled additional stimulus with medium-term fiscal consolidation.” Just last week the international credit agency Moody’s in its latest credit analysis of New Zealand said the country’s AAA Government bond rating reflected “high economic strength very high institutionalised and government financial strength and low susceptibility to event risk.” That is sound recognition of this Government’s strategy. 
A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. This National-led Government has borrowed to cushion vulnerable New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of the recession at the same time as maintaining strong financial discipline. As a result the New Zealand economy is performing better than that of the US Japan countries of the eurozone such as Germany and France and also the UK. We have focused on growth that is sustainable and is built on higher savings and earnings rather than ever increasing debt. 
How have we worked to protect the most vulnerable? Around $2 billion of borrowing over the last 4 years has been used to protect and grow public health services. This has contributed to the improved health services New Zealanders are seeing every day including free doctors’ visits for children under 6 years 35000 more New Zealanders getting elective surgery each year than 4 years ago and record numbers of patients being treated in emergency departments within 6 hours. But it is not only that—hugely increased numbers of our children are being vaccinated and we are aiming to do even better. We are increasing the target for infant immunisation rates to 95 percent of 8-month-olds being immunised with three scheduled vaccinations by 2017. 
We regard the incidence of rheumatic fever in some of our communities including the vibrant and diverse community of Manurewa where I have my office as unacceptable. We are investing $24 million and have set ourselves a target of reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds by 2017. Delivering better services to the public is one of our four key priorities. Our public services are steadily improving their effectiveness to get the most out of every health dollar. 
Attending a global health forum last year I met many delegates who were complaining that their Governments were cutting health spending. By contrast New Zealand’s public health service is doing extraordinarily well. In 2009-10 while other OECD countries were reducing health spending New Zealand had a 3.4 percent increase in real health spend—the third-highest of 27 nations. This is possible only through prudent financial management and building a strong and competitive economy. 
New Zealand is a trading nation. Building a more competitive and productive economy for New Zealand provides the resources necessary to protect the vulnerable in society maintain the rule of law provide high quality public services—some of which we have just mentioned—look after the environment and provide opportunities for our young people. Trade is our lifeblood. About 2 weeks ago the OECD and the World Trade Organization launched a new database of Trade in Value Added. This new data estimates trade in value-added terms which helps convey the interdependence of global value chains and reveal who ultimately benefits. 
New Zealand is especially well connected to global value chains in agriculture and the food sector. The OECD estimates that 81 percent of New Zealand exports’ value is created domestically. This is higher than the OECD average of 72 percent and reflective of both our geographic distances from market and the importance of agricultural products to our exports. As the Minister of Trade Tim Groser pointed out this database provides an important reminder that imports are vital to production of exports. About one-third of New Zealand imports of intermediate inputs are used to produce goods and services that are then exported. 
Now that we can quantify the contribution of imports to value-added exports it becomes clear that any barrier to imports in turn becomes a barrier to our exports and to our firms engaging internationally. Countries must ensure that business can access world-class inputs at competitive prices if they are to be productive and reap the benefit from global value chains and trade. The economic shamans and rune readers on the left constantly cry out for intervention to force the dollar down. One is reminded of King Canute—the cri de coeur from the economic sans-culottes is never accompanied by any explanation of how this may be achieved without ruinous inflation. It betrays a touching faith in the manifest abilities of our National-led Government that they believe us capable of doing so. 
It is worth knowing that Australia receives the bulk of our manufactured exports and the New Zealand - Australian cross rate has never been more favourable in the last 10 years. Obviously a strong kiwi dollar can provide a headwind to some New Zealand exporters but also depending on the proportion of imported inputs to the goods and services can be an aid to exporters. We constantly need to remind ourselves that companies like Apple Toyota and indeed Fonterra did not achieve their global success through selling goods cheaper than anyone else. 
The strong dollar has had other consequences. We ran a $486 million trade surplus in December—the largest trade surplus recorded for the December month as a percentage of exports in 21 years. The surplus is due in part to the costs of imports coming down because of the strong New Zealand dollar. Taking out the big one-off items and adjusting for exchange rate imports were actually up 7 percent in the December quarter. This of course suggests our economic recovery is continuing and we may be in for a pleasant surprise; an increase in the 0.4 percent Reserve Bank forecast when the December quarter economic growth figures are released. 
World dairy prices have improved in the December quarter and export prices are turning up which augurs well for 2013. A healthy growing sustainable economy allows us as I have mentioned to provide a safe secure environment in our communities high-quality public services and the opportunities for our young people to unlock the potential and creativity that lies within them all and to protect the most vulnerable—in other words a brighter future for all New Zealanders. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to acknowledge and congratulate our Speaker David Carter on his role and wish him all the best in that role. We look forward to seeing him progress in that position over the next few years. 
This debate is a very important one because it sets out the philosophical differences between the two political parties that represent the two main parties of this Parliament. On one side you have the National Party in Government with our great Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key doing the right thing by New Zealand and on the other side you have the Labour Party—a party of envy a party distraught in itself about who its leadership actually is a party that is looking for itself in the mirror but cannot find itself there. Then on the heels of that you have the smaller parties like New Zealand First and the Green Party there. New Zealand First members are beaming at the thought of being in Parliament for another 3 years. They do not actually care whether they do anything but just the fact that they are here is enough for them. The Green Party members are sitting there diligent as ever but completely misrepresenting to the public what they stand for and what they want for this country going forward. 
It is a shame that politics becomes a battle of perceptions. We think in this Parliament that it is a matter of perception and it is advertising. It is like Coke against Pepsi is it not—you know National against Labour—but it is not really that actually. The public out there are much smarter than we think. They can see through the perceptions and the facades on the other side. They know that the Labour Party and the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party do not actually stand for what is right for New Zealanders. They know that those parties will not do the right thing for this country going forward and they do not vote for them. It is that simple. 
The public out there look beyond the perceptions that this House tries to portray look at the realities of the policies and determine that those Opposition parties do not have a plan they do not have the people and they do not have the resources to actually do what the people out there actually want. What the people actually want is what this Government is delivering. They want good solid management that is going to direct this country through very difficult economic times. They want a Government that cares about social health and education issues. They want a Government that is interested in our people and especially in our young people’s future. They want a country and a Government that builds and builds a stronger country going forward so that future generations of New Zealanders have the opportunities and the ability to live in a first-class country going forward. They know they are getting that from the National Government. They voted us in because they knew our plan. They like it and they want to keep it going. 
Andrew Williams 
: You tell this to the 50000 going to Australia this year. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The New Zealand First Party keeps on talking about people going to Australia. Well that is the competitive pressure that we have. You know we cannot avoid it. 
Andrew Williams 
: 50000 a year. It’s the only reason why they’re not staying here. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We live right beside Australia that is right. We have a competitive pressure there. But that means that New Zealanders and the New Zealand Government have to step up. The Opposition wants to do exactly the opposite. The New Zealand First Party wants to create Fortress New Zealand. It does not want anybody coming into New Zealand and it does not want anybody leaving New Zealand. It just sees New Zealand as a fortress that will survive. Well that is completely irrational. It is not going to happen. It has never happened in world history. 
The Labour Party on the other hand is saying: “Well why aren’t you doing something? What are you doing?”. Well we have got a plan and the plan is something that the public sees. It is about investing in this country going forward. 
Andrew Williams 
: It’s a cunning plan. Nobody knows what it is. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: You want to see the plan? I will tell you about the plan. Come to Hamilton and you will see the plan because Hamilton is going ahead and it is doing really well. Do you know why it is going ahead? 
Andrew Williams 
: That’s because it’s getting a bypass. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is getting a bypass—exactly. The New Zealand First Party gets 10 points. A golden star to the New Zealand First Party for getting it right. The Government is building the infrastructure that enables Hamilton to take advantage of its biggest opportunity which is Auckland. It is linking Hamilton to Auckland just like New Zealand needs to link with Asia. Our opportunity in the future comes from those big Asian economies that will direct a lot of money around this part of the world. If we do not link into those countries we will miss out on our opportunity. 
Andrew Williams 
: Skycity Casino. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Skycity Casino is another thing that the New Zealand First Party does not want to see happen. It brings jobs into New Zealand but you do not want to see it happen. 
When we look at it the issue that the Labour Party and the Opposition have tried to promote over the last couple of months has been housing. That is what they have been saying. They have been pushing the housing button. Well let us have a look at it. We live on the Pacific Rim beside the countries that will be the richest on this planet for the next 100 years—Australia China Viet Nam the Philippines and Indonesia. Those are the countries that will pump out the wealth of this world for the next 100 years. If the New Zealand public and the Opposition think that there will not be some impact on the New Zealand economy from being right beside those countries then we are being naive. We will need to be able to play the game with those countries. We will need to be able to have a world-class education system so that our young people can grow up and compete. 
We will have to compete on our assets as well. We will have to pay the price for housing. There will be no free rides in this world. There is no fortress mentality where you can say that New Zealand lives in a different world. We want to be in that world. We want to be in a world where our children can aspire to getting good jobs can aspire to getting a good income and can aspire to having their own home because in that way they will be living the First World dream. If we do not aspire to that if we think that we can dumb our economy down if we think that we can dumb our people down and if we think that we can deliver houses for $300000 then you are dreaming. Get in the real world. 
We need to compete. That is the challenge that New Zealanders understand. That is the challenge that the New Zealand National Government understands. That is the challenge that the Opposition denies. It denies the challenge of this world and it denies the challenge of our people. That is why it will suffer in the polls in 2014—because it does not understand the reality of what our people are going through and the challenges in front of our country. 
But do not look at it as a challenge. It is not a challenge; it is an opportunity because the real opportunity for us is to succeed. If we succeed with those countries in the next 100 years New Zealand can be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. That is the crossroads we have in front of us now: to accept the challenge and succeed or to try to put up some walls and say: “It’s too hard. We’re not part of that.” That is the choice that the public has out there. 
We have young people watching from the gallery today. They have that choice today. Their choice is to get a good education and make the most of their opportunities or to not get a good education and think that it is going to come their way. Well it is a different world from when we all grew up. The world that you grow up in will not give you that choice. You will have to make the right choices and that involves getting that education and doing that hard work because there will be no second chance. The Opposition believes that there is some pot of gold that will suddenly deliver that for them. 
Andrew Williams 
: On the bypass—it’s on the bypass. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The New Zealand First Party talks about the bypass. Well that is linking Hamilton to Auckland like New Zealand will be linked to China and those other countries going forward. Hamilton is doing well because we understand the future. We are not afraid to take those challenges. We have invested in those challenges. We have put money into broadband we have put money into the university and we have put money into the hospital—we have put money into the infrastructure. My colleagues from the north look with envy on us but we have done it and we are succeeding. That is the future of New Zealand just like it is the future of my city. I look forward to this Government carrying on through this term and delivering that future. It is a strong future it is the right future and it is the only future that will enable our younger generations to actually succeed in the modern world. Thank you. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 May I express to you Mr Deputy Speaker a happy new parliamentary year. I also join other parliamentary colleagues in congratulating our new Speaker the Rt Hon David Carter. We wish him all the best in his new role. We have seen his first outing as Speaker in his first question time today and I think we will give him a provisional pass—it used to be a C- back in the fifth form a provisional pass. We wish him all the best in that new challenge. I know he is a Canterbury man born and bred so he has what it takes to be able to succeed in that role. Can I also wish members of the House a happy New Year too. 
I apologise to those people watching at home because they have just had to put up with three speakers from the National Party—that is 30 minutes uninterrupted of absolute spin and drivel from the Government. We heard that from the last speaker David Bennett from Hamilton. Hamilton is a lovely place. I have got nothing against it other than what the MP for Hamilton East has just said. He said that this debate is important because it is a philosophical debate about what our party stands for and what their party stands for and he is absolutely 100 percent correct in that. I cannot agree more with what Rodney Hide said about the Government when he was in this House: this is a do-nothing Government. It is a do-nothing Government and we have seen that for the last 4 years. 
And then Cam Calder earlier talked about judging a country on how it treats its vulnerable. I want to talk a little bit about that because Mr Calder one vulnerable part of our society is the Pacific Island community. If you want to talk about how that Government’s track record over the last 4 years has gone about looking after that vulnerable community last week when the unemployment statistics came out we saw that 16 percent of Pacific people are unemployed—16 percent. That is roughly one in eight of the Pacific people in this country who want work have no work. Let us look at that track record over the last 4 years. It has gone from 15.6 to 16 percent—so another rise in the last quarter. At this time last year the Pacific unemployment rate was 13.8 percent. So how is this Government looking after the Pacific community when in the last 12 months it has looked after the vulnerable Pacific Island community by letting unemployment go up by 2.2 percent? How is that Government going to be judged by the Pacific community when it looks it in the face in 2014 and says “We’ve looked after you. You’re a vulnerable community.”? You have not. You have not one iota because 16 percent is more than twice—more than twice—the current average national unemployment rate. So when that member of Parliament says “We’ve looked after vulnerable communities.” you have not and especially not the Pacific community. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. This Government has not; it has not looked after the Pacific community. 
We are talking about the Prime Minister’s statement and you know the brave effort that he made. I thought it was not his best—potentially his worst. But I want to know what has happened to the old John Key. What has happened to the old John Key? Back in 2008 and before that he was positive about our country. He used to say “We’re aspirational for a brighter future. We’re turbocharging. We’re kicking the tyres.” But that John Key has gone. That John Key has gone. We have seen someone who said he stood on principle—and then Mr Bennett says that voters want to know what this party stands for. I think it is clear to see that the people of New Zealand know that the National Party stands for whatever the last focus group said. The people of New Zealand know that this National Government stands for whatever the last focus group said. So where is the old John Key? The “Shucks!” happy-go-lucky Prime Minister whom the people of New Zealand thought was the be-all and end-all and would change the future of this Government—a man who said he was going to be a leader for New Zealand to a brighter future but who has become only a manager of a bleak present. He said this pretty soon after he came into power: New Zealand would be coming out of recession “reasonably aggressively” by early 2010. So New Zealand would come out of the recession “reasonably aggressively” by early 2010. Well one measure of that is our unemployment level and it is still—still—much much higher. And I think it was Steven Joyce at question time who started patting himself on the back because last Thursday the unemployment rate went from 7.3 percent to 6.8 percent. 
But let us do something that the National Party hates and let us look at the facts. Let us look at the facts. When those figures came out it was very interesting to read and a very helpful lady at Statistics New Zealand the industry and labour statistics manager Diane Ramsay said: “We’re seeing fewer people working and looking for work and more people outside the labour force. More younger people are solely in study and more older people are entering retirement”. So basically what she is saying in her statistical frame is that it is bleak out there for most New Zealanders. It is bleak out there for most New Zealanders. And the sad thing about that is that when she is saying that fewer people are looking for work she is saying they have lost hope that they can find work. They have lost hope that they can find work. This Government will be worried about that because when people start losing hope that they can find work that is going to start really impacting the Government and I think that will really impact it over the next 12 months. 
As the MP for Mana I want to take a bit of a closer look at those figures take a closer-to-home look at those figures because Wellington unemployment is at an 18-year high. Wellington unemployment is at an 18-year high. Not since 1994 has it been worse. It went from 7.1 percent in the September quarter to 7.9 percent in the December quarter—1 percent higher than the national average. Basically the raw numbers are that there are 22600 unemployed people in the Wellington region and in the previous quarter there were 21000. So 1600 more people in this region in our capital are now unemployed compared with the previous 3 months. Again those are people who are losing hope that they can get a job and losing hope that this Government can do anything to help them to try to find a job. Those New Zealanders are the forgotten New Zealanders whom National does not care about any more—whom National does not care about any more. Kiwis across the country are working harder than ever. They are doing their fair share. They are either working or looking for work but they feel let down by this Government which promised them a brighter future. Where is this brighter future? This is a Government that has forgotten about those people—those people who have gone off the register who are no longer looking for work. It is only a Labour-led Government that will stand up for those hard-working Kiwis whom this Government has forgotten. 
As I said before this is a do-nothing Government and in 2014 the people of New Zealand will elect a hands-on approach that will be different from what this Government has done. This Government has been a do-nothing let-the-market-decide Government. Well that has not worked for the last 4 years and you can feel the sense of unease that the people of New Zealand put faith in that Government in that party that things would turn round and all they get is excuses and more excuses that things have not. There needs to be a new era here in New Zealand and that is what we are promising in terms of a hands-on Government. We need a smart hands-on Government and a Government that is prepared to be a player and not a spectator. 
I think one of the best ways that we have done that—and we actually promised this at the last election—is we are going to help our young people whom Mr Bennett claims he was going to help. We on this side of the House have been saying that apprenticeships have been a priority for a lot longer than this party which thought it was a good idea in early January because the focus group said so. Back in 2011 when we put out our policy we basically said that we would make an investment in our young people who wanted to upskill and get into work and we would help those people—those chippies those plumbers those electricians who needed help with an extra pair of hands—by having a policy of making sure that we turn the dole into a subsidy for those employers that need an apprentice. And when we go around—and I was speaking to a builder in my electorate the other day—they love that idea. They love that idea and they do not necessarily buy what the Government is doing at the moment: coming up late to this party saying that apprenticeships all of a sudden are important to the Government. This Government has done very little around jobs for the last 4 years and then all of a sudden— 
Hon Michael Woodhouse 
: Rubbish. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: He calls it rubbish but look at the figures. Look at the figures. The figures do not lie Mr Woodhouse. The figures do not lie and the people know what is going on there. When you come late to the party around apprenticeships people will notice that. People will notice that. Our policy of turning the dole into a subsidy for employers is a good thing for those young people whom Mr Bennett says he cares about but also a good thing for those employers that are struggling that need an extra set of hands and that would love to take on somebody but cannot quite make the commitment because it is too much of a financial barrier. So that is one of the hands-on things that we are going to do. That is not stand-offish. That is not letting the market decide. That is a hands-on approach. 
And then you look at our KiwiBuild scheme—100000 homes over 10 years to address not only the employment problem but also the housing affordability problem which this Government has done nothing about. Its only answer to the housing affordability problem is to make Nick Smith in charge of it. Is this some kind of joke? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Can I begin by thanking members of the House and those others who acknowledged and congratulated me on my promotion a couple of weeks ago. It has certainly been a very hectic and busy time and I am looking forward to the challenges those portfolios hold. I also want to acknowledge my former junior whip now the chief whip for the Government Louise Upston and her new team of Tim Macindoe and No. 3 “The Whippet” Jami-Lee Ross. I am sure they will be a tremendous team and continue to keep the caucus energised. 
If there was any theme that underpinned Christmas 2012 for me it was the theme of the Christmas hamper. Of course many hampers were given out but I think the interesting thing for me was the one that was not. There was an article in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that rather warmed me actually through the very challenging period of the closure of the Hillside railway workshops—at least that part that was not taken up by Bradken—and the work that local MP Clare Curran did to provide hampers for what was believed to be all the workers at Hillside. Indeed she was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 saying that “she called for donations of hamper items for Hillside staff and said yesterday ‘hundreds’ of products had come in from Dunedin businesses and individuals since the appeal was launched”—businesses that I think thought would be donating to all KiwiRail workers who were affected by this closure. But apparently not because one member was not given a hamper and that member had something that the others did not. He was not a member of the trade union. In fact he was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times  
as saying: “I asked if there was a hamper for me and was told no”— 
Clare Curran 
: Make sure you get the facts right Michael. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —these are the facts as reported by the  
Otago Daily Times 
—“because I was a National supporter and a scabber. The union people simply don’t want me to have a hamper because I voted National and always have.” So those Dunedin businesses were not donating to Hillside workers; they were donating to union workers. Clare Curran cries tears not for Kiwi workers but for her union mates because when she had an opportunity to say that this was a mistake and that clearly there was a misunderstanding about who would get the hampers she did not. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. Order! The time to do that is between when members have the call. It is not a mechanism to interrupt a speaker. I will not put the leave but that is not saying that the member cannot do it. I am informing the member when she can do it. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I fear I have touched a nerve. However there was an opportunity to say that this was a misunderstanding. There was an opportunity to correct this but rather Miss Curran was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 saying that “She ‘understood’ some workers would not get hampers”—“some” notice not “one”—“but said she did not ask why and did not know whether hampers were given only to union members. She said she would not be taking any action.” Well I know what the public of Dunedin thought about that concerned though they were at the closure of the Hillside railway workshops. There was disgust on social media at the perceptions of that action. 
But roll on the new year and we have last week’s decision by the Auditor-General to not unlike what Ms Curran had requested conduct a further inquiry into the purchase of flat-deck wagons by KiwiRail. I note the Office of the Auditor-General basically said “We have concluded that the decision to select CNR as a supplier was made for normal business and commercial reasons after a competitive market process.” This happens to be exactly what KiwiRail was required to do under section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act an Act passed by a Labour Government. It could have amended it but it did not. Section 4 says that there was a requirement to adopt normal commercial practice. But the Office of the Auditor-General goes on to say “We did not identify any unfairness in the way the proposal from Hillside workshops was treated.” and it concluded—significantly I should say for me—by saying “we have seen no evidence to suggest improper influence over these decisions.” So no influence and KiwiRail did exactly what it was required to do: follow normal commercial practice invite Hillside to submit a bid which it came a distant third on and make a commercial decision that an Act passed by a Labour Government required it to do. 
The only person prepared to stand up and say that they would change that law was Clare Curran. Phil Goff when he was Leader of the Opposition came down and said he would not change the law. He said “We’d look into it. We’d give Kiwis a go.”—and absolutely that is required in any event. David Shearer stopped short of saying that he would change the law but Clare Curran said: “Nope. Under a Labour Government we’d reopen Hillside. We’d give them the subsidies that they would need. We would take $160 million by conservative estimates out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers to fund that project because unfortunately Hillside was not big enough or technological enough to compete on the world market.” So there it is—$160 million more in subsidies and heaven knows what else would come our way. 
It is tough out there in manufacturing. It is not a crisis but it is tough. This Government does not have the luxury however of only talking about the negatives. There is job growth. I happened to visit Bradken yesterday morning. Bradken purchased the foundry at the Hillside railway workshops and in fact its admin officers were moving into Hillside Road just this morning so I was very grateful to them that they accommodated me. And they are upbeat. There is new work there are new jobs being created there are plenty of opportunities for the big pots that it has there to do foundry work under one tonne and it could become Australasia’s leader in that market. So there is cause for optimism. 
I just want to touch on some of those new responsibilities that I have as firstly Minister of Immigration which perhaps on the face of it would seem like a rather dry portfolio. But I am very excited by it because it is an absolutely vital cog in the wheel of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. New Zealand is in a contest—a global contest—for talent for tertiary students for tourists and for migrants who are prepared to invest in this country. I have been really really encouraged by the manner in which Immigration New Zealand has improved over the last 4 years and there are strategies under way that will supercharge that organisation and ensure that the skilled migrants that we need in order to take that Business Growth Agenda forward will be here. 
I want to touch on one small matter that has been raised over the last few days in respect of the immigration portfolio and that is the issue of asylum seekers and the passage of the Immigration Amendment Bill which is due for its second reading soon. I have been asked—and it has been claimed even in this House during oral question time that there is no risk and that it would be completely impossible for a boat to get from Indonesia for example to New Zealand. Well I want to remind the House that most of our ancestors arrived here in sail ships and waka. 
Andrew Little 
: How many refugees have been found in waka? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: And anybody who thinks that a steel-hulled motorised vessel with a number of people—dozens or hundreds—could not make New Zealand shores is frankly being naive. And I challenge Andrew Little to be saying the same thing if and when that event occurs because the risk is real the possibility is real and the response is necessary. 
Andrew Little 
: No it’s not. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well there we go. We have it on record. Mr Little says “No it’s not real.” Thank you. I shall mark the date and time because the risk is real and if Labour does not believe so well we will just see. 
I want to just finish on the issue of veterans’ affairs. This is a very busy year for veterans’ affairs. Planning for the 100th anniversary commemorations of Gallipoli begun under the previous veterans’ affairs Minister the Hon Nathan Guy is well under way. There will be an announcement very soon if not already on the allocation of places for New Zealanders and Australians to that event. There are also a number of other commemorations taking place this year that are going to be very important: the 70th anniversary of the war in the North Pacific the 60th anniversary of the signing of the ceasefire in Korea and of course we have the very important work that veterans are looking for in the rewrite of the War Pensions Act 1954. So I can tell you it is going to be an extremely busy year. I look forward to all of those things taking place as part of the important work this Government will be doing. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in response to comments made about me by the previous speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It must be personal comments to you personally. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I think it is important to put the correct facts into the  
Hansard  
around the donation of materials for Christmas hampers to the Hillside workers and my part in that before Christmas. There were 112 hampers put together. More than $18000 worth of goods was donated by dozens of local businesses which I organised and as I said 112 hampers were produced. Not all of the people given those hampers were union members. Quite a number of them were not union members and there were certainly more than 112 people still at Hillside. The list of people whom those donated hampers were given to was certainly drawn up by the union delegates who gave me that list and I was unquestioning in that because that was their right. As you can imagine there was a lot of emotion at the Hillside railway workshops before Christmas as 90 people lost their jobs due to the prioritisation by this Government of lowest cost— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member can relate only how you were personally affected by the comments that were being made. You cannot get into debate. Has the member finished? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Not quite. I certainly think that there is relevance here because the previous speaker Mr Woodhouse has made comments about the unfairness of one particular person— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No look—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! A personal statement is your response to be able to put your position. This is not a debate; it is about how the comments made by a previous speaker have affected you personally. That is your right and you have got leave to do that but you cannot then get into a debate about the substance of that. So I ask the member to be very succinct on this because otherwise I will close it down. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Thanks Mr Speaker. Certainly it had an effect on me—having the wrong facts put into the  
Hansard 
 by the member across the House. There were certainly many people who received Christmas hampers who were not union members and there was certainly more than one person who did not receive a hamper for very good reasons. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to take an opportunity to congratulate our new Speaker. I hope that we can have a great relationship with him and that the opportunity of free speech in this present Parliament will be upheld by all of us for the benefit of all of us as an important right that should be protected by all Speakers and also by all MPs irrespective of the political bias of any political party. 
I would also like to acknowledge that the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement came at the end of a beautiful summer but after that I slightly lost my will to live. I find my will to live struggling when we listen to motherhood and apple pie which we can all agree with but underneath it the ideology the rhetoric and the attempt to justify the attack on education in the Prime Minister’s speech but also in the Minister of Education’s speech were quite notable. The Prime Minister’s speech was focusing on national standards as the only—and deeply unpopular—method by which educational outcomes are going to be changed. Hekia Parata’s speech was very defensive. It was understandably defensive because there are so many debacles on the list. 
 I want to talk a bit about the debacles but also about the positive vision because out there outside the beltway there are some fantastic people working in education who absolutely believe in quality public local education. I had the privilege of attending a hui at Waitangi for engaging Maori learners which occurs every year. It is a conference of teachers and principals not only in Northland but often Northlanders. They were very welcoming because what they are really interested in is how quality local self-managing schools with a good relationship with the Government can actually achieve the goals of supporting their young people. 
We have schools such as Moerewa School where Ngati Hine have worked so hard to make a curriculum based on their own community’s desires for how their children will become good citizens and then the school is cut off at the knees by Government policy and by Government action. It was distressing to see people from that community in tears while talking about the loss of their children. What has happened is that with the axing of the school’s senior class which was being taught in Te Reo we have lost young people from the system. We have lost young people who did not want to go to other schools and who now have had the message that the Government does not want them to be part of education on their own community’s terms. A punitive approach to education and towards schools that have an aspiration—a favourite Government word—for their own children to be educated according to their own beliefs has been lost and that is a very sad thing. 
I could also pick on Wanganui Collegiate School if I felt like it. It is really tempting. My partner went there and he has got some interesting things to say about it. The Government is certainly spending a lot of money on it bailing it out to the tune of $3 million a year through integration because that school cannot stand on its own feet. But it is still going to charge thousands of dollars of fees and we are going to help pay for that—a very bizarre scenario. When you look at the deed of Wanganui Collegiate School in 1852 Sir George Grey actually said that the school was to benefit Europeans and Maori. And if you look further down the deed you will see—and this is something my partner has often quoted to me—that it was supposed to be for the poor of Aotearoa and the Pacific and Maori as well as Europeans. Instead of which we have a private school that has now been bailed out which is going to cost the taxpayer at just the time when the Christchurch schools are facing tremendous stress about their viability—and that announcement is coming up really soon. 
We are talking about Wanganui Collegiate School Novopay national standards charter schools and early childhood education fees going up because of the targeting of people who are 100 percent qualified. I met somebody this weekend in Invercargill who lost her job because she was qualified. That is the kind of perverse incentive for any country that wants to build a stable strong viable system where all our children have access to a quality creative participatory education system when somebody in early childhood education loses their job not because they are not good at their job but because the early childhood centre under this Government cannot afford to hire them any more. That consequence will ripple through the generations because our smallest people need our best. Just because they do not vote does not mean we should not focus our attention on the smallest people. They need the quality teaching and the quality support instead of which we have a privatised sector where the not-for-profits are struggling and with baby barns where the babies are lined up and all have their nappies changed at the same time. That kind of robotic universe prepared for some kind of weird production line is not the future for early childhood education. 
If you look at Te Whariki which is a fantastic curriculum there is now pressure that there should be more assessment of children. So in early childhood education we are going from portfolios and the idea of child-centred integrated learning to the idea that we need to have more assessment like national standards for 3-year-olds. That will really work because it is really not working in schools. There is an alternative to national standards and that is actually called trust. It is called trusting schools and trusting parents to actually develop a curriculum that works and to stick within the broad parameters of a very good curriculum instead of imagining that measuring is going to work. Instead of actually feeding the cow as they say in Canada it is about weighing the cow. No matter how often you weigh things especially if you weigh them differently in every community you are not going to end up with any information that is going to be worth having about how to improve the so-called long tail of underachievement. 
I would never belittle the reality for children who are struggling in our school system. I would never belittle that. That is why at the Engaging Maori Learners Conference we heard from principals and teachers who are actually innovating. They are not measuring they are not labelling they are not putting on their website they are not competing they are not trying to be privatised they do not want to be charter schools they do not want to have secret contracts and they do not want unregistered teachers. Actually what they want to do is make sure that they are meeting the goals of the families and whanau of their communities in terms of actually making our teachers able to be culturally inclusive and responsive. 
What we have is Te Kotahitanga—one of the most culturally responsive programmes—which allows Pakeha teachers to become reflective practitioners on their bias against Maori children. 
David Bennett 
: How can you say you’ve got a bias? How can you say you’ve got a bias? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: It has been blocked. Forty-four schools have seen great success. One in Hamilton which the member from Hamilton may not know about saw National Certificate of Educational Achievement results go from 23 percent to 77 percent. That happened because of Te Kotahitanga because of the fact of that programme and the Government has limited it to 44 schools. It has cut it. It has been limited because the Government thinks it might cost money. I am speaking about the importance of Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success and Te Kotahitanga as instruments of allowing teachers to reflect on their own practice and when you have that instrument blocked you have got to ask why and what the alternative is. 
National standards versus proper professional development of teachers is a very very sad thing because what we are seeing is that proper professional development has been sacrificed. Everything has been sacrificed to national standards. The Government Budget has been sacrificed to narrowing the curriculum. Science advisers drama advisers all of those advisers who have lost positions are constantly contacting the Greens and saying that a broad curriculum allows a child to learn differently. It may be news to some people but all kids start at different stages. Some talk when they are 2 some talk when they are 3 months—I was one of those—some talk when they are 4 some cannot stop talking. The fact is that they all develop at their own rate and so when you start trying to measure them and put them in boxes and when you start saying that the only pathway to literacy is through literacy—rather than through drama for some kids it is through science for others it is through Enviroschools for others—you have narrowed the curriculum. National standards—everyone knows they are not national or a standard so that is another sad debacle. In hindsight as we have heard from Hekia Parata quite a bit lately national standards will be another of those jokes. 
Moving right along to the education amendment bill that is before the House at the moment it is reflected by the Government’s commitment in the Prime Minister’s speech that these are going to be the solutions. Privatisation is the solution to inequity. The trickle-down theory was introduced in the 1980s by former members of this House with disastrous consequences for people who did not happen to be at the top and who happened to be trickled down upon. So the trickled down upon will now have the opportunity to go to schools with no registered teachers if those schools desire. That is an extraordinary response but it is not a local one. Unfortunately it is part of what we call the GERM—the global education reform movement—which is the neo-liberal fight-back because in education early childhood is being privatised tertiary is being privatised and there is one thing left: the school system. So let us do it. Let us take the school system and privatise it and let us say that choice the mantra of choice is actually about the mantra of privilege. You have only to talk to people from New Orleans who actually saw the consequences of Hurricane Katrina with the loss of their schools to see that the privatising agenda which is driving the Government’s education policy is not going to be a vision for a healthy happy just and equitable community. The Green Party has a much better vision. Kia ora koutou katoa. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It has been very interesting sitting here listening to National Party members giving their speeches on the Prime Minister’s statement. It has been basically spin and rhetoric and meaningless drivel constantly all afternoon. I think that if members of Mr Key’s own caucus are unable to elucidate exactly what his vision and his plan are for New Zealand then the rest of us do not really stand a chance. This is the fifth year of this National-led Government and we have been saying since the day it was elected: “Show us the plan. Where is the grand plan for our economy? Where are the jobs going to come from? Where are the ideas? Where is the vision of this John Key - led National Government?”. Here we are 5 years down the track and still no answer. 
There was a lot of apportioning of blame from Mr Key and from National Party members a lot of telling us whose fault it was and who should have done this and who should have done that and a lot of trying to blame the previous Labour Government saying that the previous Labour Government is to blame for the financial difficulties of today despite the fact that the previous Labour Government reduced net debt to zero paid off the debt and ran surpluses every year. The IMF not a loony left-wing organisation by any stretch actually said that New Zealand was one of the best-placed countries in the world to go through that global financial crisis relatively unscathed compared with other countries because we had been prudent we had reduced debt and we were in a position where the Government could get in and play its role in supporting its economy and in supporting its communities and its families when times were toughest. Instead—instead of the acknowledgment of that instead of John Key and Bill English saying thank you to Michael Cullen and the Helen Clark Labour Government for leaving the books in such a good state—what we have had is John Key and Bill English trying to blame the last Labour Government for the global financial crisis. Well I can tell you that Helen Clark was good but she was not that good. She was not that good. There is no way that Helen Clark was responsible for the entire global financial crisis but to listen to the National Party that is exactly what it would have New Zealanders believe. 
What this side of the House has been saying consistently is that the Government does have a role to play here. When economic times are really good when things are humming along a Government might play a lesser role but when things get really tough and when the levers that need to be pulled are the levers that only the Government can pull that is where a Government needs to get involved. That is what Governments are there for—to listen to the business community to listen to those families and to say when times are tough “What do you need from us?”. There are things that only a Government can do. With the best will in the world the private sector cannot pull some of the levers like monetary policy that a Government can pull. So on this side of the House we say that there is an appropriate time for Government to step up and be a part of the economy. 
What a radical idea that a Government that expects everyone else to be part of the economy might actually see itself as a player in that as well and might actually see itself as having the ability to reduce certain barriers that no one else can reduce to make things easier where no one else can make them easier and to pull levers that do not exist for anyone else in the country other than with Government! That is what a Labour Government will do. That is what a Labour Government will do because we do believe that a Government has a role to play and we do believe that saying Governments should stay out of it just for the sake of it is not good for New Zealand it is not in the best interests of our economy and it is certainly not in the best interests of the families that are really struggling at the moment because this Government has taken its hands off the wheel. This Government has said it is asleep at the wheel it will go wherever it wants to and it will go completely off course if that is the case because no one should be driving this. Well Labour says that is not the case in fact. We do have a role to play. There should be someone in that driver’s seat because at the moment we are headed off the end of a cliff. 
I think a really good example is in the area of housing. Labour has released our plan for affordable housing and is it not a unique and novel idea for a major political party to have a plan on affordable housing? The National Party hates it. It hates it because it knows that in 5 years it has done nothing. It has done absolutely nothing. Let us have a look at what the National Party did. Well the first thing it did was that John Key said he did not want any of those State house people in Hobsonville. Hobsonville is in his electorate. We have very few opportunities in New Zealand for greenfield housing developments. Hobsonville was—and still is because we are going to be in Government in 2014—a great opportunity and what we said was that within this development of 3000 or so houses 500 would be State houses and 500 would be affordable homes for first-home buyers. That is what we said when we set the project up. That is what all the research and all the evidence tells us works best: mixed communities. We had all the amenities: the public transport the schools and the jobs for people who were going to be living there. And what John Key said was that it would be economic vandalism to have State houses in Hobsonville. I mean some of those properties have sea views. God forbid that poor children should get to look at the ocean as well! Surely that should be something that is only the preserve of freehold homeowners! 
Andrew Little 
: How could it possibly help? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: How could it possibly help them? Absolutely. What utter garbage. It is so offensive from a man who at every chance he gets trades on his State house upbringing that he has now pulled up the ladder behind him and denied that same privilege to 500 families in his electorate—500 families. 
What the then Minister of Housing Phil Heatley said was: “You know there’s not really the demand out there.” Well there is not the demand out there because there are no State houses out there. All those people are living in South Auckland often in overcrowded situations and going on the waiting list there. But there are going to be jobs in Hobsonville for people—you know minimum wage jobs. There are going to be jobs for people who are going to clean the school and clean the businesses. There are going to be a lot of jobs there for people who are going to struggle to be able to afford to live there but the National Party vision is that those workers should have to travel all the way from South Auckland up to Hobsonville to clean those schools and to clean those offices rather than saying that here is an opportunity for them to live in this fantastic new development and this new community. That was our Prime Minister—our Prime Minister whom we are all very proud of who said he did not want State housing in his electorate because it might damage house prices. 
The other tranche of that was that there was going to be 500 affordable houses in Hobsonville as well. I think at the end of the National Party’s last term in Government we had about six—about six. And the only people who could afford them—and this is the really fantastic bit—were people who could already afford to buy a market home at market rates. The only people who could get into National’s Gateway Housing Assistance programme were people to whom banks would lend the entire amount up front. So in its first term of Government not only did the National Party have tax cuts for the wealthy; it had an affordable first home ownership policy for the wealthy. That is pretty impressive even for the National Party: to manage to set up an affordable homeownership scheme that only the wealthiest New Zealanders could possibly access. 
So Labour has come in with an affordable housing plan that will make a real difference and will create jobs. This is what the Australian Labor Party did after Australia’s last election right at the beginning of the global financial crisis. It recognised that housing not only provided a social good but also provided an economic good and that it created a lot of jobs and it created them quickly. It had what was called a long tail which meant that it employed a lot of other people outside of just the construction industry: the people who sell the whiteware the people who sell the carpet the people who do the landscaping. All those people were involved. Apprentices were involved. This is an area where you get a very quick short-term and medium-term benefit. That is why so many Governments around the world when the global financial crisis hit decided that housing was one of the areas that they were going to put a focus on. They did that because like New Zealand a lot of other countries in the OECD have under-invested in this area over a long period of time. So this was not creating an asset that was not needed; this was actually taking an opportunity to keep people in employment keep income tax flowing keep GST flowing keep all that money coming into the Government and keep incomes going into households at a time when the private sector was pulling back and at the same time create an asset base that was desperately needed and that we are desperately short of in New Zealand especially in our major cities. 
So the Australian Government invested billions and billions and billions into housing. It created tens of thousands of new houses for State housing and affordable homeownership. It kept people in work. It kept apprentices in training. It kept all its income taxes flowing. It got all the peripheral benefits that come from building that housing and it did not go into the deep recession that we went into. It did not have the issues. I remember reading about a building firm in Australia. One hundred percent of its work came from that economic stimulus package. The only reason it was able to keep all of its staff on and all of its trainees on was that housing was used as an economic stimulus package. 
That is what a Labour Government would have done. That is what a Labour Government will do again. We recognise the importance of housing not just for the social benefits it brings; I also welcome the moves that we have announced to increase the warmth and the health of our housing in New Zealand and also for those in private rentals. But the reality is that there is a big economic benefit to taking housing seriously which this National Government does not do. The market is not going to provide in this area. What we need is a Government that is prepared to take action is prepared to be a part of the solution and will not just sit on the sidelines telling everyone what the problem is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Corrections Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced in October 2011 received its first reading in February 2012 and was referred to the Law and Order Committee. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee under the chairmanship of my colleague Jacqui Dean from the deep south for its consideration of the bill and for the very sensible changes that it has recommended. 
To achieve the statutory purpose of the corrections system custodial sentences and orders must be administered in a safe secure humane and effective manner. Overall the legislation governing the administration of the corrections system is working well. However some provisions in the Corrections Act were identified as barriers to effectiveness and efficiency in the management of prisons and the Corrections Amendment Bill was introduced to remove such barriers. 
Some of the amendments in the bill will strengthen prison security for instance by making strip-searches more effective. Currently corrections officers are required to carry out strip-searches according to two different procedures depending on the circumstances of the strip-search. As the committee has agreed this needlessly complicates practices and increases the risk of staff error. The bill provides for a single clear and effective strip-searching process. Some submitters were concerned about the nature of the strip-searching procedure that the bill proposes to generalise. Although strip-searches are by their very nature an intrusive measure the proposed procedure actually helps to minimise the loss of dignity. By allowing for greater use of visual aids rather than close inspection the proposed procedure is preferable for both the officer and the prisoner alike as well as being more effective. Submitters also emphasised the need to protect prisoners from the potential for abuse associated with strip-searches. In light of these concerns the committee has decided to retain the current requirement to obtain the prison manager’s approval before conducting a strip-search in certain situations. Although removing this requirement would have had operational benefits I accept the committee’s view on the basis of submissions that it does play an important role in safeguarding the rights of prisoners. 
Other amendments in this bill will assist in achieving positive outcomes from the management of prisons under contract. Managers of contract prisons are expected to carry out all aspects of prisoner management. However their ability to do this is constrained by the fact that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections cannot delegate powers and functions to the organisation contracted to manage a prison or to its staff. To enable this to occur the bill as introduced provided the chief executive with a general ability to delegate powers and functions to the contractor or its staff as well as providing the contractor with certain powers directly. As the committee has rightly concluded there is no need to provide the contractor directly with powers that the chief executive can delegate at his or her discretion through the general provision. By relying only on the general provision the chief executive will retain accountability and control over any of his or her powers that are exercised by the contractor. 
The bill will also help to improve the quality of prison health services by aligning statutory responsibilities with the way that services actually operate. Current legislation places contracted part-time medical officers at the forefront in the organisation and delivery of health care to prisoners. In reality this key role is played by full-time health-care managers who are registered nurses employed by the department. The role of health centre manager will be recognised in law while retaining the requirement to ensure that prisoners have treatment from medical practitioners when required. The Office of the Ombudsmen believes that the delivery of health services in prisons should be the responsibility of a health agency rather than the department. The Department of Corrections has given careful consideration to this model of service delivery but has concluded in the light of experience in New Zealand and other jurisdictions that a dedicated prison health service is better placed to meet prisoners’ needs. The bill recognises the importance of this service and has the support of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation in this regard. 
As a result of ongoing analysis of the issues addressed in the bill the Department of Corrections has identified additional barriers to effectiveness and efficiency in the management of prisons. I asked the committee to consider some additional amendments which will remove these barriers. Thankfully the committee has included these amendments in the bill as reported back to the House. Many of these additional amendments will further improve prison security. For instance it is an offence for prisoners to possess or use mobile phones or SIM cards and there is provision to seize them. The department is usually able to extract information from these devices to investigate offences. However prisoners are sometimes able to lock their SIM cards and it is only phone companies that hold the information required to unlock them. The bill as amended will enable the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to obtain this information from phone companies where it is necessary for the detection of an offence. 
Most permitted phone calls made from within a prison are recorded and held by the department. Another of the additional amendments would enable the department to keep these recordings for 2 years rather than just 6 months. Having to erase recordings after 6 months unduly constrains the department’s ability to retrieve calls for use as evidence and often impedes criminal investigations. A 2-year retention period strikes a much better balance between the privacy of those whose conversations are recorded and the need to preserve potential evidence of criminal activity. 
Another of the additional amendments will give the department better flexibility in authorising suitable staff to read prisoner mail in order to ascertain whether material contained in it could prejudice public safety or the security and good order of the prison. Currently this can be done only by approved custodial staff who would otherwise spend that time performing their core duties. The bill will enable the prison manager to approve suitable non-custodial staff for this purpose. 
Prisoners are far more likely than members of the public to suffer from poor mental health and attempt to harm themselves. In cases where there is particular concern that a prisoner may attempt self-harm or suicide the prison manager authorises their segregation to an at-risk unit for medical oversight. Staff have an obligation to take every available precaution in every such case to ensure the prisoner does not have anything in their possession that could be used for self-harm or suicide. For that reason the bill as reported back to the House requires prisoners subject to a segregation direction due to risk of self-harm to undergo a strip-search on admission and return to an at-risk unit. 
The opportunity has also been taken to amend an anomalous requirement imposing more stringent drinking-water standards on prisons than on other suppliers of water such as schools and hospitals. 
I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the Corrections Amendment Bill when the bill is considered by the Committee of the whole House. The primary purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper will be to remove any uncertainty about the legal status of the smoke-free prisons policy. The policy was introduced on 1 July 2011 and has had a very positive impact on staff and prisoner health and safety. 
In conclusion it is important that the legislation governing the operations of the corrections system appropriately balances the need to preserve the rights of prisoners with the need for prisons to operate in a manner that is safe and secure for both staff and prisoners. I am confident that the amendments in this bill strike this balance while satisfying their purpose of increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the operation of the corrections system. The bill will support front-line staff to ensure that the corrections system performs at its best. My thanks again to the select committee for its very considered work and I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 When this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill was read a first time my colleagues and I acknowledged that it did contain as the Minister of Corrections said a number of provisions that would assist in the better administration of prisons. But we said at the time that we had a major problem with the legislation and that was the fact that it permitted the delegation of public powers to private officials and that has not changed. The Minister of Corrections knows that that is a major obstacle to allowing the Labour Party to be able to support the legislation. 
I have to say that additionally my colleagues Kris Faafoi and the Hon Phil Goff sat on the Law and Order Committee heard the evidence and discussed that evidence with me and other colleagues and a further concern has arisen around strip-searching which I will refer to later in my remarks. And there is yet a third concern with this legislation now. The Minister foreshadowed the Supplementary Order Paper 171 that she proposes to move in respect of the smoking ban. Very properly she consulted about that Supplementary Order Paper but it too has problems and I will speak to those in my concluding remarks. 
I want first to deal with the Labour Party’s original main ground for opposing this bill. That is the fundamental objection that we take to involving any actor other than the State in the business of corrections. We believe in a hands-on active Government approach to reducing reoffending and we are concerned about the sorts of perverse incentives that introducing the private sector’s profit motive to the system will bring. We strongly oppose privatised prisons and this bill extends the powers that can be delegated by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to prison managers and staff in privately managed prisons. That is the fundamental reason why we cannot support it. We believe that prison management involving as it does the removal of freedom from those who are incarcerated is and must remain a core role of the State and it is not something that should be run as a profit-oriented commercial interest. The logic of the system is all about reducing reoffending. The logic of the profit motive is all about expanding the offender pool. 
If anybody needs to see the evidence for that they can see the powerful lobbyists who have operated in California so effectively for the last 20 years in the interests of those who have managed private prisons and have sought to expand rather than sensibly contract the corrections system in that state. We do not want to see that phenomenon becoming the model that we follow in New Zealand. International experience simply does not support the privatisation of prisons or of other core services. It shows that the private sector does not provide a more effective or less expensive prison system. We think that the motivation for introducing the private sector to the prison system in New Zealand is purely ideological. It will not work. We have warned against it consistently and we maintain our opposition to it in the context of this bill. 
One just needs to look at the experience of Serco which has some very good staff—I acknowledge that. I visited the facility that it manages in Auckland and it has got people who really want to do a very good job. But the entire system is built around processing inmates. It is a sausage factory. It simply cannot effectively reduce reoffending in the way that we would want to see. If you look at the controversy that has surrounded Serco’s management of Mt Eden prison and of facilities in the United Kingdom and in Australia the logic of this argument starts to become clear. The record of Serco in its first year of operations at Mt Eden prison has been poor. It has failed to meet 17 out of 37 performance standards requiring sanctions to be imposed on it for wrongful detention wrongful release and escape of inmates. 
I was interested to read the other day in the  
Guardian 
 that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Committee in the House of Commons has just produced a damning report into a similar attempt to privatise a core function of the State and that is the court interpreting services. It has been described by the committee in the House of Commons as shambolic and MPs have warned that it has caused trials to collapse and suspects to be remanded unnecessarily in custody. That is the consequence of introducing the private sector into functions that ought to be by their very nature the core role of an active State that actually understands its mission and carries out its functions effectively. 
A second ground of concern as I said emerged during the evidence that was given at the select committee. The Minister I think was a little selective in her description of that evidence. This relates to the changes to the rules governing strip-searching. They are of grave concern to members on this side and they form the second basis for our opposition to this legislation at this stage. As we heard in the previous speech there are currently two types of strip-search procedures that can be undertaken under the law. One is for routine cases such as when inmates have been on work parties outside the prison and another is a more intrusive procedure where somebody in authority has reasonable cause to believe that there are items of contraband that are concealed on the inmate. In respect of the second type of procedure there is a more intrusive search procedure permitted. It involves using lights and mirrors to magnify the genital and anal areas of the inmate. The bill proposes to make that second procedure the standard one for all strip-searches. 
This was opposed in particular by the Corrections Association of New Zealand the association of prison officers—the people who actually work at the coalface in our prisons. They say that making that more intrusive procedure the standard one will be provocative and it will put corrections officers their members at greater risk of assault. We do not want to see that happen. Furthermore we think that the evidence demonstrates that making this more intrusive type of procedure simply is not necessary. There has been a dramatic improvement over the last 15 years for example in the reduction in drug use within the prisons. This seems to suggest that existing search measures are working well and that the more intrusive searching procedure in the case of routine strip-searches simply is not warranted. This was reinforced by a range of credible submitters including the Office of the Ombudsmen the New Zealand Law Society and the Salvation Army. They drew attention to the risk of abuse of such procedures which the Ombudsman pointed out has regrettably happened in the past. 
The third basis on which Labour will oppose this legislation is the Supplementary Order Paper concerning smoking in prisons which the Minister referred to briefly at the end of her speech. At the time that Judith Collins introduced the ban members will remember that we were supportive of it. We think that it has worked well. I have been to a number of prisons and I have seen that it has a good effect on morale and discipline although regretfully as far as anybody can measure it the recidivism rate for people going back to smoking once they leave prison seems to be quite high. But at the time that the ban was introduced we warned that it should be put on a better legal footing than it has been. The decision was made simply to introduce the ban administratively—to allow prison managers to make rules as to tobacco as contraband and disciplinary offences for possessing and using it and it was asserted by the Minister at the time in her typically cavalier fashion that this would do. Well she has put taxpayers at risk through her approach just as she did with the David Bain matter and just as she has with the bungled appointment of the Director of Human Rights Proceedings. 
Again we see this cavalier approach coming through. Mrs Tolley has been given the job of trying to rescue the situation and I pay tribute to her for that but we are not sure that this provision will actually be effective. The ban has been declared ineffective by the High Court. The Supplementary Order Paper will provide that “no proceedings may be brought against the Crown questioning the validity of any rules or regulations referred to in subsection (1).” There are major concerns about whether that is going to be effective. Because we warned about this some time ago we simply cannot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member his time has expired. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. Perhaps I will cover off some of the issues raised by the previous speaker Charles Chauvel. I think we have to just acknowledge and note that Labour is ideologically opposed to any kind of private management of the prison system. That is a given. It was a view expressed in the Law and Order Committee and it is no surprise to us. I guess you have to ask yourself why it is so ideologically opposed. If you reflect back to when Labour was in Government in 2008 and in the previous 9 years to that it left the corrections and criminal justice system in disarray. It was working in an environment where it was actually struggling with not only its criminal justice system but also with its corrections system. It lacked accountability. There was no focus in particular on victims. There was a critical shortage of prison beds. That was corrected by the Hon Judith Collins when she was Minister of Corrections and she brought in the double-bunking containers which actually if you have a look at them are a great solution. When the Law and Order Committee members were at Rimutaka Prison and we spoke to the prisoners in the containers they were happy with them. They were snug. They were warm. They felt safe. 
This is a Government that has faced up to the issues that it was left with by the previous Labour Government. So I guess it is no surprise that Labour was unable to face up to the challenges that it had while it was in Government. Gangs and organised crime were on the rise. The P problem was absolutely out of control and that Government had absolutely no answer to it. In contrast since National has been in power public confidence in the Department of Corrections is 53 percent higher than it was when this Government took the Treasury benches. That is 53 percent higher confidence in corrections so that is not a bad record. Positive random drug-tests were at a record low last year. They were down from 13 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent in the last financial year. Changes in this bill will make it even harder to get drugs into prison. 
I want to talk about strip-searching. We know that Labour is ideologically opposed and always will be to the possibility that anybody else can run a prison other than the Department of Corrections but the issue of strip-searching was one that our committee looked very carefully at and the provisions in this bill standardise the procedure of strip-searching. The reasons for doing that were many but I want to highlight just two. One of them is that a prisoner naturally does not look forward to the prospect of being strip-searched whether they are returning from work they have been to a court appearance or they are going into a high-dependency unit. Of course they do not and it is fair to say that corrections staff do not look forward to the procedure either. So there is a fair amount it would be fair to say of anxiety around the whole strip-searching procedure. The prisoner does not know the form of the strip-search at the moment. So it might be the very intrusive strip-search or it might be the less intrusive strip-search. They do not know which one it is to be. By standardising the search that uncertainty is ramped down just a few notches and the prisoner knows what they are going to face on their return to prison for whatever reason. 
The second reason is the nature of the strip-search. Using lights and mirrors so that the corrections officer can have a look at the areas he or she needs to look at places the distance between the officer and the prisoner. There is less physical contact and proximity between them which also serves to ramp down the tensions and anxiety for the prisoners and the corrections officers— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s not what the corrections officers said. They said exactly the opposite. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —and at the same time increases the safety. Oh well the member says “exactly the opposite” and I beg to differ. 
This bill is intended to reduce the barriers to effectiveness and efficiencies in prison. It does that. We received as the Minister of Corrections said some amendments set out in a draft Supplementary Order Paper which we looked at carefully throughout the course of our examination of this bill. Those included to allow the Department of Corrections “to require a phone company to provide it with the personal unlock codes or keys to SIM cards … within legislative parameters allowing prison managers to authorise non-custodial staff to read prisoners’ mail”. What that means is that the prison manager can appoint a staff member who has the appropriate training to read prisoners’ mail. That means that corrections staff do not have to go through that function thus releasing them for other duties. The amendments also stated: “requiring that drinking water being made available to prisoners be of a standard reasonably equivalent to that supplied to the public;”—and by the way that also supports provision in the bill of making waterboarding before a urine test a punishable action—and “requiring that any prisoner being segregated because of a risk of self-harm be strip-searched on admission to an At Risk Unit;”. You would think a prisoner who is at risk of self-harm is pretty upset and yes they are. It is also worth noting that we were told that a prisoner can do damage to themselves with a paper clip and have done so in the past. So it is necessary to do strip-searches at that time. The amendments further stated: “and allowing the department to keep recordings of prisoners’ phone calls for up to two years”—instead of 6 months—“before having to erase them except in some defined circumstances.” and that just aids the efficient running of our prison system. This was a good consideration of this bill in the second reading and I commend it to the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 Labour has three basic concerns about this legislation the Corrections Amendment Bill. The first is that it takes us further down the track of taking a core State function and making it into a commercial enterprise that is profit driven. We believe that basic State functions whether it is prisons which deprive people of their liberty whether it is the police or whether it is the armed services are core State functions and they should be carried out by the State. What this National Government is basically saying to the country is that it is going to put a billion dollars into the pockets of Serco which has an appalling track record across the world and that money will flow out of the country. We will end up with second-rate prisons because they have cut staffing they have made the conditions worse— 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —and they have undermined the prison’s ability to carry out its basic functions. You might say rubbish but look at the track record of Serco in its first year. 
The second thing we are against is changing the process so that the most intimate form of strip-searching—that is illuminating the genital and the anal area with a mirror and with lights—will be used in routine cases instead of where there is reasonable cause to suspect. Jacqui Dean says that this will help prison officers. I want to tell Jacqui Dean that the prison officers came along to the select committee and said: “This makes our job harder. This raises tension.” And the Ombudsman came along to the select committee and said: “We have seen more than we should have of the use of this sort of strip-searching as a way of demeaning and deliberately humiliating the prisoners.” What is it about the Ombudsman’s report and the former inspector of prisons who made that report that the National Party members of this select committee do not understand? There is no good reason for a more intimate form of strip-searching. 
Since the changes made under the Labour Government we have seen drug use in prison positive drug-testing go from 36 percent of inmates down to 5 percent today. They were changes made under a Labour Government. We had the Law Society saying there is no good cause as to why this intimate and intrusive form of strip-searching should be introduced. The figures are going in the right direction and yet this Government is coming along and saying: “We are going to do something that the Ombudsman the Law Society and the prison officers themselves say will be abused and will make things harder for those who have the tough job of working in prisons.” 
The third thing we are concerned about is that this bill seeks retrospectively to patch up the botched job done by Judith Collins on smoke-free prisons. I believe in smoke-free prisons but you have got to have legislative authority before you act. That is something that a Government should understand. Judith Collins was more interested in being the show pony and doing the political spin than she was in getting the law right. The courts have said to this National Government: “You have taken an action that is unlawful.” Now it comes back crawls back into the House and says: “Now we have got to patch it up.” We have got to bring in retrospective legislation in an endeavour to get right what it should have got right in the first place. 
I am tired of this Government stuffing up things because it does not put the attention into the detail whether it is prisons education or foreign affairs and defence. Time and again we see these botch ups because of an incompetent Government. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was saying before the dinner break that there are three concerns that we have with this legislation. The first concern is the latest Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister Supplementary Order Paper 171 which corrects a monumental botch-up. The Minister I recall back in 2010 and 2011 announced with great flair that prisons would become smoke-free. Well I am actually in favour of that. But she was warned at the time that she needed to have the legislative authority to do that and unlike Henry VIII she could not simply make a pronouncement. But a pronouncement she did make; yes and the inevitable happened. The court ruled that she had no authority to do that. I do not know about the rest of the House but I am sick and tired of Ministers not doing their homework botching up their portfolios and then coming back with a request for retrospective legislation to put right what they should never have got wrong in the first place. So that is the first concern. 
The second concern is about the proposal in this bill for what is called intrusive strip-searching. There are two forms of strip-searching that are available to prisons. One is where it is a routine; the person may be required to squat which may force out anything that they have concealed internally. The more intrusive form is to illuminate the genital and anal areas with both lighting and a mirror. The chair of the select committee said before the break that this would help the prison officers. That is not their view. Their view is very clearly set out in the submissions they made. They do not support this provision. This is the prison officers. They are a pretty tough hard-headed lot. They say that “It is a serious impingement on the dignity of prisoners and also the staff having to conduct such searches … If staff have reason to believe that there is contraband within a prisoner we have the ability to place a prisoner in a “dry cell” under observation for a period of time and wait for the contraband to be passed … To include such an invasive procedure like this [the association] believes will result in an increase in staff assaults.” 
You know you can use the more intrusive method under current law if there is reasonable cause to believe that there are things concealed but not for a routine search and that is what is being proposed here. It is not only the prison officers who have to carry that out who are objecting to it; the Ombudsman says this about it: “Such strip-searches are highly degrading and prone to abuse. We are concerned that they may become a matter of routine on any occasion when a strip-search is conducted following the movement of a prisoner or a visit. At present strip-searches may only be conducted when there are reasonable grounds to believe a prisoner has an unauthorised item.” 
The Law Society likewise says it does not accept that these more invasive measures should be available in respect of all strip-searches. It makes the point that the positive drug-testing rates have dropped significantly without these additional mechanisms. In fact shortly before Labour became the Government the positive drug-testing in prisons was 36 percent of all prisoners testing positive for having taken drugs. By the time the National Government came to power and because of the changes that Labour made in office that had dropped to 5 percent—from over one-third down to 5 percent—all without this extra required measure. 
I have got to say that when we visited Rimutaka Prison—and Asenati Lole-Taylor was with us at the time—I asked the prison manager there of one of the biggest prisons in the country: “If somebody has something concealed internally will this more intrusive manner show it up?”. He said “No”. If they have it concealed internally this will not work. There are other things—there is scanning of prisoners there is what they call the “boss chair” that they have got in Auckland and there is a dry cell. All of these mechanisms are available. This measure is not justified. This measure will cause problems; it will not help. 
I want to come back to our fundamental concern about this bill and it is that this bill further entrenches privatisation of prisons. It turns what should be properly a State function into something that is a commercial business for profit. We saw Serco the agency that is getting these private contracts going to the London Stock Exchange late last year and saying it expects to make $30 million a year. That is $30 million a year out of the New Zealand taxpayers’ pockets to a multinational corporation that will repatriate that money back to where the shareholders live. What good does that do to New Zealand? No evidence has been shown that it will do it cheaper or more effectively—no evidence. To the contrary. What have we seen from Serco in the last year? It had 34 measures of its performance. It failed 19 of them—19. Serco let prisoners go that it should have kept on a number of occasions it retained prisoners that it should have released and of course it had an escape—and this was from a brand new prison the easiest prison in the country to operate and Serco stuffed it up. We are paying for it to do that. 
How does Serco make its profit? It cuts down the staff numbers it reduces the working conditions in the prison and it does not meet its responsibilities in the way it should to ensure public safety. So why is this Government apart from for purely ideological reasons going down the track of giving private contractors more and more power? They are out to make money. They are not out to look after public safety or to do a good job in not only keeping the prisoners secure but also rehabilitating them. This bill is wrong on that ground and that is why the Labour Party will be opposing it. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. The Green Party opposed this bill at its first reading based on our objections to provisions within it that in its view diminish basic human rights of prisoners potentially make our prisons less safe and less likely to achieve the essential goal of rehabilitation and making New Zealand safer and as the Hon Phil Goff just said further entrench the privatisation of prisons which are really a core fundamental role of the State. I did not have the privilege of following this bill through the Law and Order Committee; that was done by my eminently capable colleague David Clendon. As I understand it the bill that has come back from the select committee does have some minor improvements. It is not quite as bad as the one that did go to the select committee and that is largely due to the excellent submissions from the Law Society from the Human Rights Commission from the Howard League and from Rethinking Crime and Punishment. It was really down I think to the excellent work of the Green and Labour members of the select committee to ensure that common sense was actually implemented in the bill. 
But we cannot support the bill as it is even though it has been improved. There are three basic reasons for that. The first is human rights. It does continue the Government’s erosion of the human rights of prisoners. The Human Rights Commission gave the select committee an excellent submission which pointed out that the cumulative impact of some of these changes is to fundamentally erode human rights. I would like to read from the submission because I think it really is excellent: “The Commission considers that respect for human dignity as well as being a fundamental and universal human rights obligation is linked to reintegration and rehabilitation.” A good deal of research that was undertaken for the commission into human rights in New Zealand prisons found that human rights values have a key role in the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is a report that is called  
Human Rights and Prisons 
 and it notes that the international literature also shows that the attention to human rights in prisons helps reduce conflict it strengthens prisoners’ chances of rehabilitation and ultimately leads to safer societies. So not only are human rights something that we need to guarantee to all members of society—even those who have been imprisoned—it is actually the best way to get the outcome that we all want which is a safer society. 
I was really surprised to hear the member Jacqui Dean in her speech earlier this evening argue that this increased strip-searching which is going to really dig right into the most private places of a person is somehow going to help prisoners who have mental health difficulties and who might be at risk of self-harm because it would be obvious to me—and I think to anyone—and is also confirmed by overseas research that the psychological impacts of strip-searching on prisoners have a significantly negative impact particularly on the female prison population. There has been a good deal of research from around the world that questions the effectiveness of strip-searching both as a contraband control and as a security strategy. International research has also shown that the number of female prisoners who have suffered violent and in particular sexual abuse is very high. So there is considerable risk of the abuse of strip-searches. There is really no evidence to support the idea that it is going to be effective at minimising the likelihood of prisoners inflicting any sort of self-harm. If anything the psychological impacts are going to be negative and make prisoners more likely to suffer from negative psychological consequences. So it really undermines the whole purported goal of safety in prisons. Also it limits the ability of prisons to be effective in rehabilitating prisoners which really is the purpose—supposedly the stated purpose—of the bill. So again we see this conflict which is quite common in the legislation coming forward from this Government in that it has certain stated goals like increasing the safety of New Zealanders or increasing the economic productivity of New Zealand but in fact the tools that it is using to achieve these goals will actually do the direct opposite of what they are intended to do. 
A second concern is the ability of prisoners to get adequate exercise. It should also be obvious that fundamental to the good psychological well-being of prisoners is regular exercise—that is true for all humans. Although there was a minor improvement to the bill by the select committee—in that instead of getting rid of any requirement for exercise it now limits it to 2 days without exercise—we are talking about people being held in very close quarters potentially in very small rooms or in the back of a prison van for up to 48 hours without having the opportunity to exercise simply to achieve a goal of cost cutting. That really is not a good enough reason to stop looking after the health of prisoners and their fundamental right to get out move around and get some fresh air which is going to be better for them and better for all of us in the long run. 
On the topic of health the fact is—and I am going to read from this excellent submission from Rethinking Crime and Punishment—“the state of prisoner health in New Zealand is very poor particularly in … oral health mental health alcohol and other drug related ailments chronic disease communicable disease and disabilities and is much worse than that of the general population of New Zealand. There is … evidence that the prison environment has a negative effect on the health of prisoners.” There have been a number of reports notably one from the Ombudsmen which I believe another member mentioned earlier which have called for the primary health care to be provided by the Ministry of Health as opposed to the Department of Corrections. The report of the Office of the Ombudsmen states: “we strongly urge that the Department’s Health Service should be aligned with the wider health system. Health Services for prisoners should be funded and delivered by an agency whose primary focus is ‘health’ and therapeutic support not custodial services.” which is what fundamentally the Department of Corrections is responsible for. Similarly the National Health Committee has stated that there are a number of unresolved concerns for prisoner health because there is a fundamental conflict between the custodial role of the Department of Corrections and the role that health services must play in providing a high-quality service. 
It is unfortunate that we do not see the recommendations of these reports being implemented in this legislation. What is worse there is actually a provision—I believe it is in clause 8 new section 20—that is going to move the responsibility for prisoner health care from the medical officer to the health centre manager and it is changing the principal legislation so that there is no longer a requirement for a minimum number of medical officers. The language has been changed to just “a sufficient number” but ultimately we are extremely concerned that this is actually just a cost-cutting approach to prisoner health. History indicates that the short-term cost cuts in health care in prisons or anywhere else inevitably lead to longer-term social and economic costs in the future. So the reductionist approach of this Government to justice to health and to many other areas is actually going to cost us more in the long term and fundamentally will not achieve a safer New Zealand or the principles of justice. 
Finally I was quite amused to hear the member Jacqui Dean say that the Labour Party was ideologically opposed to private sector involvement in the Department of Corrections because I would take it to be a fundamental principle of democracy that the State has a monopoly on the ability to use coercive force. It should not be the private sector because simply a profit motive is not going to deliver justice. If anything if is going to deliver extremely perverse outcomes as we have seen in the United States where a private detention centre for juveniles was paying off judges to send young people to a juvenile detention centre. That is exactly the sort of outcome that you get when you have the private profit motive conflated with what is fundamentally a core public role which is serving justice and enforcing the rule of the law of the land. We are extremely concerned. We will not be supporting this bill for those reasons because it erodes human rights it is not going to do much for the health of prisoners and it is going to entrench private prisons which are going to be bad for New Zealand. Thank you. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Corrections Amendment Bill. None of us likes strip-searching. No one in this House likes strip-searching. I am sure that the corrections staff do not like it. I know that the prisoners do not like it but it is a necessary part of prison life. The best way to avoid a strip-search is to not commit a crime in our communities. 
The reason why we have strip-searching in our prisons is that prisoners take contraband into the prison—whether it be weapons whether it be drugs—and there is a responsibility actually to protect not only the prisoner but also the other prisoners and importantly the corrections staff. For some reason Labour members do not like the private sector. I do not know what it is but they seem to have a real issue with the private sector. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We don’t like the private sector getting into people’s private parts. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: Well actually that is probably a bit unfair on Mr Mallard because he has had a go at some entrepreneurship. He tried scalping some tickets. He tried taking advantage of some students so I guess it is a little unfair on Mr Mallard. 
However I would just like to talk a little bit about Serco because Serco has come under a fair bit of attack tonight. I would like to point out some of the great initiatives that actually Serco is bringing to corrections. There is the establishment of the specialised Care Support and Integration Unit where prisoners at risk of self-harm are housed. While in the unit prisoners are supported by trained staff and psychologists and are able to interact with and support each other. This unit has helped achieve a very low rate of self-harm incidents. In fact under Serco’s management there have been no deaths in custody and only one self-harm incident. That is a pretty good record. 
Serco has taken steps to make prison visits more family friendly to encourage prisoners to have regular positive engagement with their children. Maintaining relationships with family especially children is a major factor in reducing the risk of reoffending and in motivating prisoners to make positive changes. That is another pretty good positive step implemented by Serco. 
Finally the advantage of contract management is that it imposes financial penalties for non-performance on some targets. This is to ensure that there is motivation for Serco to consistently perform. I would say to this House that sometimes actually the greatest way to get someone’s focus and attention is if you are going to remove some financial incentive. I am in full support of the way this Government is using the private sector with a company like Serco to provide very good services and new initiatives in our Department of Corrections. Thank you. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I believe that everyone in this House would agree when I say that this country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. The Corrections Amendment Bill is one of the few bills being introduced in this House that could provide improvement to the way our prisons operate and are managed. New Zealand First supports the removal of barriers to managing prisoners in a manner that is safe that is secure that is humane and that is effective and efficient. We believe that the intention of this bill is to fix up many of the loopholes we have within the current Corrections Act and regulations. 
It is our prerogative as members of Parliament to protect and secure the safety of our communities. It is our prerogative as parliamentarians to protect and ensure the safety of our communities—it is important. It is also our prerogative to ensure that the rules we put in place will work. Why? It is because there is a need for real commitment to a safe and humane approach to the containment of prisoners. There is no question about the commitment that New Zealand First has in this area—absolutely no question. We are honoured to have the support of those dedicated men and women who provide security and public safety for our country. 
Since the introduction of the smoking ban in prisons cigarette smoking has not ceased. Rather the ban has now created a black market for tobacco within our prisons. High demand has inflated the price of tobacco to many times its normal price. The smuggling of tobacco is easy money for some prisoners and will provide a smokescreen for illicit drugs. There are obvious economic rewards for prisoners who successfully smuggle tobacco into prisons. This has also put pressure on prison visitors and on prison staff in terms of smuggling tobacco into prisons. Nobody—and I say nobody—is going to receive extra jail time for smuggling tobacco on its own. It is easy money. 
With assaults on corrections officers trebling in the last 5 years we see a further increase in tobacco-related incidents. Prisoners in the Release to Work programme are free to smoke while they are at work. There is no current legislation that will stop them from doing that. What this Government needs to do is work on a comprehensive and ongoing stopping smoking education programme for all prisoners. After all it is an unreasonable attempt that comes with unfair implications. 
I want to talk about private providers and contractors. The policy of using private firms and contractors for the purpose of operating prisons and prison services is one that New Zealand First will continue to strongly oppose. The incarceration of prisoners should remain the sole preserve of the State. In the past year—if I could say this to Mark Mitchell—Serco has failed our communities and our law enforcement officers and staff on numerous occasions and one must be working in the environment to know that. This is an unacceptable reality. It is unacceptable. The Government seems to be bemused by it all. The Government is bemused by it all and has a slap on the hand approach to multiple compliance failures including failures on performance targets. Serco paying a fine and taking a no lessons learnt approach for escaped prisoners is just not good enough. 
As for property claims New Zealand First supports clear processes in the area of lost or stolen property of prisoners. It has been established that thousands of dollars have been wasted on the processing of such claims. Clear guidelines that will transfer liability to prisoners making it his or her own responsibility to manage personal property must be laid down in order to define accountability. This will alleviate the time spent on investigating spurious claims. Currently the time taken up by these deters our officers from focusing primarily on safety and security in our prisons. 
The old penal institutions legislation of 1954 gave power to a visiting justice or adjudicator of corrections to impose certain punishments and penalties which included a loss of remission on any sentence. In 2004 that legislation was replaced by a Corrections Act amendment and they failed to include this in the amended version in 2005. That was a situation that should have been addressed. The clause needs to be reinstated. It worked when in place and would come into effect in cases where prisoners have threatened or assaulted corrections officers. 
I have spoken before on the importance of suitable training programmes for corrections officers in order to facilitate better enforcement. Pepper spray is locked up or is not readily accessible when needed. That is like having a fire alarm or a smoke detector with no batteries. It may look efficient but it will not do a damn thing when it is bound up with red tape. One-off training of corrections officers to manage difficult and often psychotic prisoners is tokenism a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and leaves no assurance for corrections officers and staff that they will be safe in confrontational situations with dangerous prisoners. 
The issue of prisoners introducing a shy bladder medical condition as a defence when they want to avoid drug testing by giving the impression that they are unable to produce a sample must also be addressed. Too many prisoners are successfully using this defence after being charged. 
Rehabilitation and reintegration is an area I am very familiar with. I would like to commend the Government for its plundering of my member’s bill in making prisoners work while behind bars. I suppose I should be thankful that New Zealand First policies are being recognised. Although we acknowledge that prisoners should be paid for the work they do in no way should they retain all their earnings. It would be advisable that one-third of their earnings go to the victims of their crimes and one-third go to the State. At the moment I think they pay some kind of board fee when they are working outside the prison and being paid for it to pay towards their expenses. New Zealand First believes that they are sensible measures to take. Prisoners would be allowed to keep the remaining third of their income. This would assist in their reintegration needs upon their release. 
Let us come to ethnic groups in prisons. The bill’s current amendments do not cater for ethnic groups with a high prison population—that is Maori and Pacific peoples. There is a need for suitable rehabilitation programmes that focus on these groups. We need to make use of trained local community service providers rather than overseas private providers in order to achieve the successful reintegration of prisoners back into their communities. At the same time assessments should be carried out of these providers as well as the Maori focus units the Vaka Fa’aola Pacific Focus Unit and the Whare Oranga Ake. It is important to note though that the Department of Corrections has been relying on a programme with 10 participants at a time Saili Matagi for Pasifika prisoners as the only initiative in improving the rehabilitation of the second-highest ethnic group of the prison population. It is time to bring back Pasifika Legend Story Telling and the Polynesian journey or the Malaga Polynesia which were very very successful in the last 5 years. 
Lastly I turn to staff training. Staff training programmes must include cultural perspectives in order that staff may understand and deal with the major ethnic populations in our prisons. New Zealand First recognises that this bill will address some loopholes we have in the current Corrections Act of 2004. However we have a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward because I believe that the introduction of the smoking ban is unreasonable and that other areas I have mentioned earlier need to be reviewed and incorporated into the bill. Thank you. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As we moved through the select committee process for this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill I guess I acquired a new appreciation of the work that our Department of Corrections does. It does a very difficult job well. As one moves through the changes this bill introduces one gets an idea of the difficult nature of the work of our prison officers. They deal with all sorts of things—strip-searches reading others’ mail preventing prisoners from harming themselves ensuring an opportunity for exercise access to drinking water and all sorts of other human rights issues. 
It is a very difficult job and in my view they do it pretty well. So it was an interesting process for me. I got not only an understanding of the difficulties prison officers face but also an idea of life in prison and the difference between those prisoners who have a will to improve their lives and those who do not. There is an opportunity provided for those prisoners to work and train for the future while in prison. Equally there is an opportunity for them to do the opposite and stay there for years. 
During the submission process the Law and Order Committee heard from a number of organisations from both sides of the fence. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths or extremes some of these submitters will go to to put their point. Consequently I think it is difficult to get a balanced position on the submissions. Interestingly tonight we have heard a number of speeches that were very different from any of the information or words spoken during the course of the select committee hearings—slightly astounding I thought. The “Sausage Factory Man” for example Charles Chauvel objected to the delegation of powers to people on the job which is a typical Labour Party response—inefficient and laborious. I think that this bill introduces a whole lot of efficiencies to a fraught system and I certainly have to support the allocation of work to the private sector. I think it is admirable so I certainly support this bill. Thank you. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Corrections Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee which Mr McKelvie is on. I think that although we have some fundamental problems with the bill the committee on the whole worked quite well together to look at some of the issues that are contained within the bill. There are some serious things that are contained within here—for example the strip-search change in regime. We actually took a trip to Rimutaka Prison where in terms of the ability to ask inmates and corrections officers some pretty probing questions—sorry to use the pun—we had the opportunity to speak to them about some of the practicalities of some of these things that this bill will introduce. I did want to just acknowledge some of the Law and Order Committee members who traversed this bill during the select committee consideration. 
As Charles Chauvel our corrections spokesperson said in his contribution to the bill we are opposing this on three grounds—the first being that we have a fundamental ideological problem with the National Party opening up the corrections part of its responsibilities in this Government to private management. We do not believe that there should be a profit motive at play when we are talking about the incarceration and rehabilitation of people who transgress and then find themselves locked up. The second issue that we have an issue with is around strip-searching and the change in regime. At the moment there are two regimes for inmates—one is what you would call a standard regime and the second one as the Hon Phil Goff mentioned earlier in the debate is one where there is much more detailed inspection with the use of mirrors and lights and the lifting of certain body parts. As Mr Goff said in his contribution there are a number of corrections officers who came to us as part of the union affiliation to talk about their concerns about moving from what I called the standard strip-search to the more invasive strip-search. 
And of course then there is the third issue that we have which Charles Chauvel pointed out and that is the changes that the National Party is looking at by way of Supplementary Order Paper 171 to try to make good the legislation around the banning of smoking within— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: There was no legislation. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: No that is right. There was no legislation to ban the use of cigarettes and tobacco within our prisons—something that this party supports wholeheartedly. We want to make sure that for the safety of the inmates and their health—and also let us not forget the corrections officers; they too deserve to work in a smoke-free environment—there is legislation in place to make sure that that can happen. But unfortunately the warning that the Labour Party gave to Judith Collins at the time when that primary legislation went through about the fact that we did not think this would be covered under that legislation was not heeded. Someone took the Government to court. That person won and now the Government finds itself in the odd position of bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper to try to retrospectively change the law to bring about what we agree with but what we warned the Government about and said would not work in terms of the legislation that it brought through—rushed through. And now Anne Tolley has to clean up the mess that her colleague Judith Collins has created. 
But going back to my first point and that is around our fundamental ideological idea of making sure that it is the role of Government to incarcerate and rehabilitate prisoners we believe that corrections is a core role of Government just like we have our defence force and our police force and that in the area of incarceration you should not introduce a profit-making motive into that sphere. We believe that it is the role of the Government not only to incarcerate but also to rehabilitate in the long-term interests of the community to make sure that there is less recidivism out there to make sure that the public is safe. We believe that it is the job of the Government to take on an active role a hands-on role in that sphere to make sure that prisoners who are locked up are rehabilitated and when they are put out there it is the responsibility and the role of Government to make sure that they are rehabilitated as much as they can be. 
Also opening that sphere up to private business takes away some of the responsibilities that Ministers have in terms of answering questions when something goes wrong at say a privately run prison. And we have seen on a number of occasions with Serco which runs a prison currently in Auckland where things have gone wrong. We have had three improper inmate releases three wrongful detentions one escapee and a 72 percent failure rate to get inmate plans up and running. And that is one of the reasons in terms of private management of prisons why we are fundamentally opposed to it. That responsibility needs to be taken back and if questions need to be asked about the improper release of inmates or wrongful detentions those questions need to be shepherded back to the Minister in charge of corrections—not necessarily someone who is paid or contracted by the Department of Corrections to run a private prison. That responsibility has to come back to a Minister in this House. 
The second point I want to make is also around that and I think Mr McKelvie mentioned that some of the contributions in this debate were not necessarily accurate in their reflection of what happened in terms of submissions during the select committee process. But let us look at what others who think along similar lines to us think. Rethinking Crime and Punishment came along and gave its testimony to the select committee. It says here on page 13 of its submission: “The incarceration of citizens their treatment within prison and rehabilitation throughout a prison sentence is in our view a primary function of the Government … Rethinking is concerned that by giving these powers to private contractors the Government is opening the door for misuse of power and corruption as the checks and balances that apply to government departments may not be passed through to private entities. Examples of such behaviour have been evidenced by private corporations in the United States”. If Mr McKelvie was worried about misrepresentation of some of the views that were put forward at the select committee that is verbatim from Rethinking Crime and Punishment. 
There is also some concern from the Salvation Army within its submission. It said in its submission that it was also concerned about the business case around private management of prisons. It says—and again I do not want to misrepresent it so I will read it verbatim—“These new private prisons also somewhat confusingly go against recent forecasting done by the Ministry of Justice that estimate prison numbers of about 8200 whereas the Department of Corrections is forecasting prison numbers at over 10300! Which of these forecasts is correct?”. So we have got real question marks around the business case that this Government is using to justify private management of prisons. The Government says it is using private management of prisons to save Kiwis money. Well when the Salvation Army is pointing at a rather big gaping hole around the business case of private management of prisons I think some serious questions need to be asked. 
 Also around the strip-search regime and a change to that the Ombudsman of all offices came and made a couple of submissions I believe. I speak verbatim from a submission that it made on 15 August for the benefit of Mr McKelvie where it said that it is expressing strong concerns about the amendment of a section of the Act “which diminishes the safeguards against prisoners being strip searched unnecessarily or inappropriately and also removes the less intrusive type of strip search. We have previously stated that existing requirements for strip searches provide a very good balance between the rights of the Department to manage its prisoners and the rights of prisoners to not be subjected to unreasonable searches. In our view they do not need to be changed.” So there you have it. The Ombudsman in terms of changing the regime around strip-searches agreed with us that we did not need to go from the two regimes to the one regime with the one that the Government prefers being much more invasive. 
Of course it was not a lone voice. The New Zealand Law Society also said that the current legislative regime regarding strip-searches is effective and “provides a sound balance between the need for prison security and the requirement not to unnecessarily demean and humiliate prisoners.” So for Mr McKelvie’s benefit there has not been any misrepresentation of any submissions in my speech. It has all been verbatim from the submissions of people who gave evidence to the Law and Order Committee. I think they are fair and reasonable concerns about some of the things that this Government wants to do within this bill. We are completely and utterly opposed to the private management of prisons. We have serious concerns about the regime change in strip-searches and of course then you have got the shonky work the Government has done around smoking in prisons. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I am honoured to take a very short call on this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill. I follow the honourable member Mr Kris Faafoi who represented the reports of the submissions but has maybe been a little bit selective—it is clear that there was opposition from the prison union but there was strong support from prison wardens themselves around privatisation. 
We are clear that there have been some issues like there are for any organisation when starting out on a contract but what is really clear is that those were amended and currently 95 percent of the targets for Serco are being reached. I commend the Law and Order Committee for its work and its recommendations to the House and I commend this bill. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I believe that it is a split call. It is a split call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: A split call. Thank you—5-minute call. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Well I am surprised to find myself on my feet already after such a short and pathetic call from actually one of the better-performing members from the National backbench. But I think that if Alfred Ngaro really believed in this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill if he really had something to say about this bill and if he thought that this was a piece of legislation that was going to make a positive difference for the community that he has come to Parliament to represent he might have said a little bit more than the 30-second contribution we got from him. 
The Corrections Amendment Bill and the associated Supplementary Order Paper 171 are absolutely symptomatic of some of the idiosyncrasies of the National Party and of this National-led Government. First of all they express the Government’s desire to privatise absolutely everything whether it is our State-owned assets whether it is aspects of the welfare system whether it is roadside vehicle checking or now of course whether it is one of those fundamental core State services or State functions of incarcerating people who have fallen foul of the law. It does not matter what it is; this Government wants to privatise it. Why does it want to privatise it? Because there is money in it for its mates—that is why. Whether it is selling off our power companies—it is not doing it for mum and dad investors. This is the party of big capital. This is the party of big foreign capital. They are the people who are going to make money out of the privatisation of our prisons and that is what we are seeing here with this legislation. 
But it also represents I think the absolutely gung-ho hands-off arrogant approach that this Government takes to governing and legislating. That is because poor Anne Tolley has to come along with this Supplementary Order Paper to clean up the mess left behind by Judith Collins the future leader of the National Party who was told when she announced that she was going to ban smoking in prisons—something that I think most members in the House are comfortable with even though when you ban anything you get a black market and of course there is now quite an active black market in tobacco in our prisons—that we were happy to see it happen. But we said to Judith Collins that she needed to slow down and do it properly because New Zealand is actually a democracy. I do not know whether Judith Collins is aware of that. I do not think she really does democracy very well but New Zealand is a democracy and what Judith Collins did was illegal. That is what it comes down to. What Judith Collins did was illegal and now Anne Tolley has to come along and try to clean up that mess. 
The problem with regard to this Supplementary Order Paper of course is first of all that we are not entirely convinced that this actually solves the problem. It may still leave the Government open to legal challenges. It may still leave the taxpayers vulnerable to having to pay out more money to prisoners who can take the Government to court and challenge their smoking ban. So we are not actually convinced it will do the job. But what is worse is that it is retrospective. This Government cannot even admit that it got it wrong that it stuffed it up that it was too gung-ho that it was too arrogant. It cannot take it on the chin and accept that what has gone already is correct and that Judith Collins got it wrong and she opened up the taxpayer to having to give payouts to prisoners. Government members cannot just say: “Oh we got it wrong.” No no they have to try to make it as though it never happened—as though it never ever happened. Well that is wrong. That is wrong and it just reflects the way this Government wants to do everything fast. It wants to make everything go faster. It has got its foot on the accelerator but no one has got their hands on the steering wheel and when that happens it is absolute carnage. That is the result of this Government’s gung-ho arrogant attitude to governing. 
Incarcerating people and taking away their freedom no matter what they have done is a core State function that can be carried out only by an elected Government and the infrastructure of an elected Government. We do not believe that such core State responsibilities should be handed over to the private sector in order for a company like Serco to make a profit. Maybe this is why the Prime Minister is so excited about sending refugees over to Australia because of course it is Serco that runs those offshore refugee detention centres. Maybe it is going to build another one here in New Zealand. Maybe that is what it is all about. 
We are fundamentally opposed both to this bill and to the Supplementary Order Paper. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 This bill the Corrections Amendment Bill represents essentially a missed opportunity. There is a great deal we need to do better and differently in corrections. A corrections amendment would be a very welcome thing. This bill succeeds with one or two provisions that will make a situation better around the margins but predominantly it represents a great leap backwards in a number of areas. It is a missed opportunity. It reflects a complete misunderstanding of the real needs of our corrections and justice sectors. It meddles around the margins. It is not a trivial matter given that last year we spent close to $1.4 billion on corrections. That figure has increased something like 2½ times in a decade. We cannot afford to throw money into a situation or into a model that is increasing human misery. It is not making our communities or our society safer and it is not getting anything like value for our taxpayer dollar. 
This bill makes some marginal changes around health care in prisons. There is a critical need to improve the health of the prison community. Typically the health status of inmates is much less good than that of the average population. I spoke recently to people who provide services to recently released prisoners and to parole prisoners and the stories are dreadful. People who have been incarcerated by the State for long periods are coming out with chronic untreated respiratory conditions and appalling dental health none of which is going to assist them in their rehabilitation or enable them to come back into society. The solution to that seems to be again to meddle around the margins. 
There was good work done by the Opposition parties at the Law and Order Committee to ensure that we have a reasonable guarantee of having at least one medical officer in each prison. The initial draft of the bill could have dropped that number to zero. There were some minor improvements there due to the Opposition but the reality is that this bill does nothing to address the fundamental issue of improving the health status of our inmates of our prisoners. 
The Ombudsman last year gave us a very compelling report insisting that the delivery of health services should not be a task for the custodial agency which primarily the Department of Corrections is but should be handed to an organisation that is primarily concerned with delivery of health services. That is compelling logic and we would encourage the Ombudsman’s recommendation to be picked up. 
One of our primary objections to this bill as has been said earlier is that it further embeds the privatisation and private management of our prisons. It creates this almost blanket authority for the chief executive to delegate through a chain of private managers contractors and subcontractors. We are reassured that this will not break the chain of accountability. One would have to be an awful optimist to think that three or four degrees of separation from the chief executive will not create a great deal of wriggle room when it comes to accountability when things go wrong as they inevitably will. For anybody who thinks our private managers in our prisons here will not get it wrong Mr Goff in his contribution earlier recounted some of the rather dismal achievements—or non-achievements—of Serco to date in New Zealand. It has a dreadful record in the UK not only in prison but also in the delivery of health services. It has not performed well in Australia. Why would we expect it to do any better here? Why are we investing—or should I say throwing away—$900 million on a new prison that will be managed privately? A fraction of that money spent differently spent better on breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending could completely remove the necessity of the extra capacity that will be provided in that prison. 
There are a number of things we could do today immediately without spending more money in fact through spending less. We could intervene in a meaningful way in drug and alcohol addiction which is rife in our prisons. We could intervene in a meaningful way by providing decent mental health services to our inmates both in the time they are in prison and when they are released from that prison. None of these things are simple or straightforward. They do require some spending some investment. But we could do it within existing budgets. We would remove the necessity to have this revolving door where we have something like 20000 people each year cycling through our prisons—in and out in and out through that revolving door. We could do a great deal better. We need to. This amendment bill takes us nowhere near to the place we need to go. The Greens will oppose it. Kia ora. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 We have got a good story to tell in corrections. Let me tell you that public confidence in corrections is up by 53 percent. It is 53 percent higher than it was when we came into Government. Prisoner education and employment training places have almost doubled and participation in prison drug treatment has doubled as well. That is a good-news story that the Opposition does not like to hear. 
I just want to briefly touch on a couple of points on this bill the Corrections Amendment Bill because my colleagues have covered many of them already. One is strip-searches. The Opposition is trying to make it sound as though the strip-searches in this bill are a completely new way of interrogating prisoners. Well they are not. Actually that type of strip-search is already in part of the Corrections Act. We are just extending it. The provision for strip-searches is in section 90 of the Corrections Act—the Corrections Act 2004. Which party was in Government in 2004? It was the Labour Party. Its members are all up in arms about it right now but actually they passed that piece of legislation with that exact type of strip-search in it. 
The second point I want to make is around the chief executive officer delegating in terms of private prison management. You know what? This is actually about helping Serco helping private prison providers to do their job better by allowing the chief executive to delegate some responsibility to them. It is about making them more efficient. The Opposition does not believe in that. The Opposition dos not want to help them do better. They just want to bag us and bag private prison management when actually they are doing a good job; they are achieving 90 percent of their targets. 
This bill is about making it better for corrections making it easier for them to serve New Zealanders and help ensure that fewer people reoffend in the future and that is a good thing. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be now read a second time 
. The aim of this bill is to facilitate Better Public Services and improve the way personal information is collected stored and used to help people. The bill adequately balances the need for better information-sharing with the need to protect privacy. Medical professionals social workers police civil defence and many other key service providers will be assisted to share information to help protect the lives and well-being of vulnerable people. The bill adds to the existing methods that public service providers have to provide information. Agencies will be able to decide what information they need and enter into information-sharing agreements to get it. This will address existing barriers to information flow for the delivery of public services and clarify information-sharing rules. 
The bill does two things. Firstly it removes the need for a threat to public health or safety or to the life or health of an individual to be imminent. The privacy principles will be amended to allow agencies to share information at an earlier stage in cases where there is a serious threat to public health or safety or to the life or health of an individual. That difference between a serious threat and an imminent threat can be crucial particularly when we are dealing with vulnerable people. It makes no sense for an agency to keep information about a serious threat secret simply because that threat is not imminent. Secondly the bill sets out a process for drawing up information-sharing agreements to be approved by Orders in Council. The Orders in Council will enable information to be shared in information-sharing agreements outside of the information privacy principles for specified public purposes. Private sector agencies can become parties to information-sharing agreements and share information in the course of delivering public services. This will ensure the existing barriers to information flow can be easily removed and unclear information rules can be swiftly clarified. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the bill. I thank the committee and officials and commend them for their efforts. The committee has suggested some sensible changes to the bill and the Government has adopted all of these. The committee received 20 written submissions and heard five oral submissions. Almost all submitters supported the bill in whole or in part. Half of the submitters considered that the bill adequately balances the need for better information-sharing with the need to protect privacy. Some submitters were concerned that the bill may erode personal privacy or allow too much information sharing. The committee acted on these concerns and made changes to the bill. 
The first change clarifies that an agency wishing to share information when there may be a serious threat to health or safety must consider the likelihood of the threat occurring its severity and when the threat will occur. The second change clarifies which agencies can use information-sharing agreements to share information. This includes clarifying the provisions that allow agencies to join an information-sharing agreement after it is approved. The third clarifies that a lead agency must make the most up-to-date version of an approved information-sharing agreement publicly available. 
 The bill has also been reordered to make it clearer and easier to navigate. The committee also made technical changes that will better achieve the bill’s policy intent. I would like to acknowledge the input of the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner into this bill. The policy foundations that the bill rests upon have proven to be solid. The Law Commission can take much of the credit for this as the concept of the information-sharing agreement came from its briefing paper. The Privacy Commissioner has also played a valuable support role providing expertise and ensuring that privacy is adequately protected. 
At the appropriate time I intend to table a Government Supplementary Order Paper to make three further amendments. The Supplementary Order Paper will build on the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee which was previously chaired by my colleague Mr Tim Macindoe. The first amendment allows the New Zealand Transport Agency to be a lead agency. The New Zealand Transport Agency holds a significant amount of information and should be able to lead the development of information-sharing agreements. The second amendment will allow the Department of Internal Affairs to use information-sharing agreements to share births deaths marriage and relationship information. This amendment enables a recommendation of the “Person A” ministerial inquiry to be implemented. Teachers whose history of offending has been hidden or who have changed their names will be able to be picked up. The final amendment will remove any doubt that improved information-sharing agreements can be used to deliver public services whether those services are established by Government policy or by law. 
It is intended that the bill will be divided at the Committee of the whole House stage. One bill will amend the Privacy Act. The other bill will amend the Tax Administration Act so that the Inland Revenue Department can share information with other Public Service providers more effectively and efficiently. The bill has the support of the Privacy Commissioner. As the commissioner noted in her submission the bill is a “fine balance between providing … flexibility … and ensuring that privacy considerations are given due weight.” I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
:  
I too rise to speak in the second reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill a bill that had its first reading 1 year and 4 days ago. It was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee which I serve on 6 months later on 8 June 2012. In fact our select committee ably chaired by my colleague across the House Tim Macindoe—well at that time. Unfortunately he has not been able to see the bill’s conclusion and he probably felt that he would have seen it traverse its full passage through the House given how prompt we were in actually reporting back within the time frame set by the Minister of Justice when it had its first reading just over a year ago. So the question that I have got is why the bill has taken so long to come up the Order Paper given the degree of urgency that was expressed in the first reading contribution from the Minister herself. In fact she spoke at some length about the need to progress this element of the Law Commission review on privacy legislation rather than await the detailed analysis of that report and all of the recommendations that would flow from that. So I sort of thought that maybe I would give it a go because she did not mention it in her contribution and I guess I did not expect her to. 
But maybe the Government does not want privacy or matters of information sharing particularly to be debated in Parliament and I am not surprised that this debate is occurring at half past 8 on a Tuesday evening. I suspect that has something to do with the Government’s not wanting to have a debate around these matters. I just thought of a few cases that I thought I might address. How about ACC? I think ACC would be a really really good example. The particular ACC example that I was going to use was Michelle Boag. Michelle Boag made this statement— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh I remember her. Former president of the National Party. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Michelle Boag as a former president as my colleague points out of the National Party stated this and I just think this is a very helpful contribution to this debate: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached that’s very very dangerous.” To which Minister do you think Michelle Boag— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Anne Tolley? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —ex-president of the National Party was referring when she said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to breached that’s very very dangerous.”? Whom was she talking about? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Paula Bennett? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Tony Ryall? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it was not Paula Bennett and it was not Tony Ryall. It was not Anne Tolley. Have we got any advances on those particular Ministers? It was Judith Collins. I have to actually declare the fact that she was in fact referring to Judith Collins. Michelle Boag was very clear about whom she was referring to. 
Then there is another set of particular organisations or another Minister who might not like to have the question of privacy breaches and information sharing brought up in this House. Let me consider the role of one Paula Bennett in releasing the private details of two women receiving a benefit after they spoke out against cuts to the training incentive allowance a benefit that she herself benefited from when she herself was in that situation. She was so concerned that these women were daring to suggest that they were finding it difficult to get through tertiary education without the benefit of the training incentive allowance which the Minister for Social Development got the benefit of that she in fact decided that that gave her the right to expose all of their private information about what benefits they were receiving through the State system through Work and Income. 
Of course the privacy complaints system upheld that this was a breach of the individuals’ privacy but as Paula Bennett herself said in response to that “I do not accept that view.” That was what she said: “I do not accept that view.” Then she was asked the question as to whether she would rule out releasing other people’s information. What do you think the Minister said in response to that? “Well depending on the circumstances yeah I’d make a call on what I did at the time. I’m four years in the job now I’d make another look at it and make a decision based on what the recommendations are and the rules are around privacy.” [ 
Interruption 
] She is just absolutely unclear about it and I think that is why we are debating this bill over 6 months—6 months—after it was reported back from the select committee. They wanted to sort of shuffle it out of the way and try to get it through without any particular focus being brought to bear. 
And of course we had the blogger Keith Ng who discovered that there was a little problem in Work and Income again with some problems that we had in that particular area. And of course well there is Novopay. Shall we mention Novopay as well? The breaches of privacy with Novopay are actually legendary. They actually outweigh a number of the other—[ 
Interruption 
] They actually set new very low standards Ms Dyson I think it would be. They have sunk to new levels of incompetence with the Novopay system. 
But the point is that I think that this Government has been rather unfortunate in trying to actually put to one side a piece of legislation that yes we have put up a minority report on but we are supporting through the House because as the Minister quite rightly said there were 20 submissions 18 of the submissions supported the bill in part or full and of course the Privacy Commissioner supports the bill as well. So we are supporting the bill through the House. But I think that if the Government was actually sincere about the urgency with which it wanted to attend to this particular matter rather than dealing with the entire Law Commission report which is what it told this House then we would have had this dealt with before the end of last year. 
I just want to put on record our minority view with the reporting back of this bill: “Labour believes in an effective and efficient public sector.”—we agree that that is an important motivation in terms of this legislation—“The swift sharing of information between public sector agencies accompanied by appropriate safeguards is an important component of this. But”—and I think this is the important “but”—“this bill takes a piecemeal approach to dealing with information sharing and may not stand the claims that have been made as to the need for it.” I think the fact that we have had it delayed for 6 months shows that that was an accurate assessment of our position. “In particular it is unlikely to do much to enhance the protection of vulnerable children.”—and again that was something that was brought up by the Minister in her original speech in the House when she introduced the bill 12 months and 4 days ago. 
“We agree with the New Zealand Law Society and with other submitters that there are better approaches than simply enacting some cherry-picked aspects of the Law Commission’s review of privacy law. A standalone statute dealing with the welfare of vulnerable children when they are most at risk is a preferable approach. We would have preferred to see a standalone statute for the protection of at-risk children accompanied by the complete enactment of the recommendations arising out of the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act.” I have to say that that stand-alone statute concept was actually supported by the Children’s Commissioner so it does have quite widespread support throughout the sector. 
“This would have ensured that our privacy legislation—now nearly two decades old—is up to date with technological developments changing social mores and the barriers to ensuring safety of the most vulnerable in society. A comprehensive rewrite of the Act on the basis of all of the Law Commission’s work is essential. In particular we are concerned that some of the Law Commission’s key suggestions such as those regarding the Privacy Commissioner’s power to investigate and enforce may not be taken up by the government. Given the ever-widening powers of agencies to share information let alone the implications of new technologies it is important that the Commissioner’s role allows her to ensure compliance with up-to-date legislation. We will support the bill because we do not think it is likely to actively cause harm. However we think there are alternative approaches that could have done much good.” I believe that that really sums up the Opposition’s position which is why we will support this bill through its remaining stages. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and to hear the Minister the Hon Judith Collins speaking so eloquently in the opening segment of this debate was a joy to behold for us all. But having heard the member who has just resumed her seat the Hon Lianne Dalziel one would be hard-pressed to consider that in fact the Labour Party was at all supporting this very good piece of legislation. It was only in the very last few minutes or few seconds indeed of her presentation that we actually garnered an understanding of the Labour Party’s support for this good legislation. It probably pays to remember that of the 20 submissions that were received by the Justice and Electoral Committee 18 were in support in full or in part including that of the Privacy Commissioner which supported it fully. 
The bill rightly aims to improve the rules around the collection storage and use of personal information. It is a tricky area. It is an area where Governments have to balance carefully and responsibly the rights of individual citizens against the need of the State and of the society we live in to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. So often over the years we have heard that our 20-year-old privacy laws have in fact acted as a barrier to prevent the free flow of information that in many cases could have and would have prevented evil from being done in our society had that information been flowing more freely. This omnibus bill seeks to remedy that and I think from what I can see in my reading of the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee that that fragile balance has been very neatly met in a careful and considered way by the committee. 
The bill has been some years in the making and it stems from the work of the Law Commission. It is an area where technology is changing quickly and that just means that as a Parliament and as a House we need to be even more careful about our obligations and our rights. The committee of course chaired so ably by my colleague Tim Macindoe the member for Hamilton West has made a number of recommendations and included in those are changes that would clarify in the bill that “serious threat” has to consider all three aspects of likelihood severity and timing. There is a new section to specify who could be parties to an information-sharing agreement and the guidelines that might be put in place around such an agreement. 
The bill I think is a good piece of work. It shows that the select committee process is working well and notwithstanding the minority opinion of the Labour Party I am looking forward to progressing this bill through the House. I stand tonight proudly in support of it and commend it to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk on this bill the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. It has been a long tradition in this country during the summer months for many of us to head into the fruit-growing areas of New Zealand and get a summer job picking fruit. Many of us no doubt have done that during our earlier lives. Fruit picking in reality means picking the good ones and leaving the not-so-good ones behind. It also involves picking the fruit that you can reach. If you have brought your ladder with you then you can get to the top of the tree and get the fruit. But if you have not brought your ladder or if you cannot be bothered climbing up it then it is the low-hanging fruit essentially that you end up picking. 
Cherry-picking is an expression that is apt for this bill—really apt for this bill—and indeed I would say for the attitude of this Government generally to privacy issues and what it describes as openness and transparency. There are a few titbits. I mean there are plenty of other analogies you could use around crumbs and titbits and that sort of thing but I have gone with the fruit-picking and the cherry-picking analogy today because ultimately it has also been described by my colleague Lianne Dalziel as the piecemeal approach—do a little bit and claim that you have done a lot—which really sums up this Government actually around information sharing around privacy protection and certainly around openness and transparency. It is time to put this Government on notice around those issues that it will be challenged and held accountable on secrecy withholding information doing backroom deals and insincerity which is probably one of the worst things that this Government is guilty of. 
This bill as Lianne Dalziel pointed out does take a piecemeal approach to dealing with information sharing. It does not stand up to the claims and may not stand up to the claims that have been made as to the need for it. I know that she talked quite at length about doing something to enhance the protection of vulnerable children. On this issue we agree with the New Zealand Law Society and with a number of other submitters that there are better approaches than simply enacting some of those cherry-picked approaches to the Law Commission’s review of privacy law. We say that a comprehensive review of the legislation on the basis of all of the Law Commission’s work is essential. Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing here today. We question this Government’s veracity and we challenge it on the hypocrisy of its rhetoric and its actions on all of these issues. 
Openness and transparency have the power they truly have the power to transform government. If we had those before us today then they would be something to be celebrating. But unfortunately that is not the case. They can strengthen people’s trust in Government and encourage greater public participation in decision making. Participative democracy is one of the things that across the House no matter what party we are part of we should all be aspiring to. But unfortunately what we see on the other side is window dressing and cherry-picking and picking out the things the low-hanging fruit that are going to give some returns and give the appearance of doing something but actually openness and transparency are the very last things that they are actually meant to be delivering. 
Labour on the other hand and the Greens by their very nature demonstrate commitment to greater openness and transparency. I did not see a policy coming from that side of the House on open government at the last election and I doubt that we will see one this time. That is about providing citizens with mechanisms so that they can feel confident that there are ways that they can truly participate in policy development and Government decision-making. That is what is really important and that is what this bill should really be standing for but unfortunately again it is ultimately about cherry-picking. It is about picking the eyes out of a substantive Law Commission report and providing something to the House that really does not address any big issues at all. 
Alongside this bill goes the recent discussion around the Law Commission’s report on the Official Information Act. I would just like to refer to some of the statements that were made by the Minister of Justice around this that I really believe can be seriously challenged. She said—and it was just very recently—that New Zealand has an open Parliament by international standards and that Parliament currently makes a great deal of information available. She also said that the Government is committed to openness and transparency streamlining processes and reducing red tape for agencies businesses and individuals. 
Well let me refer you to a report that was tabled in this House only today by the Commerce Committee which was the financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development etc. etc. otherwise known as “Mobie” in which there was a Labour Party minority view that said: “Labour members consider that in respect of the ministry’s response to written questions its performance in the hearings and in Official Information Act requests on related issues there has been an unfortunate pattern of denial of legitimate information to members of Parliament and the Commerce Committee by this ministry. In addition Labour members of the committee have been denied timely and accurate information in response to written parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests by the ministry and Minister on the issues covered by the committee’s questions. On this occasion the Commerce Committee felt the need to recall the ministry”—to recall the ministry—“for a special hearing” which is most unheard-of “to require full and frank responses to written select committee questions. While further information has been provided prior and subsequent to the second hearing Labour members remain very concerned by the difficulty of requiring information that should have been readily provided to the committee in the first instance. Labour members do not wish to see a repeat of this process in next year’s hearing.” Let me say that if there was not an issue they would not have been recalled— 
Katrina Shanks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like the Labour member to add the National view after what was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. That is not a point of order. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: So the relevance of this to the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill ultimately goes back to the point around cherry-picking—cherry-picking the points that it thinks are going to get a bit of attention and make everybody think that it is doing something but ultimately behind the scenes it is not. If this was not a significant issue then that chief executive and his ministry would not have been recalled for a second hearing in that select committee. 
Contrary to this and conversely democracy and public confidence rely utterly on citizens knowing what Government is doing and why being able to take part in decision making and being able to get access to information. One of the most important things the Government could be doing right now so that citizens could be feeling confident is proactively releasing information. Labour policy is to establish as a default practice Ministers and Government agencies releasing all Cabinet papers and other relevant papers on to a dedicated website in line with the Official Information Act once a decision is announced by the Government. If this Government wants the trust of its citizens that would be a good start. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I rise today to speak to the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. This is the fourth piece of legislation with significant privacy aspects that I have spoken on over just the last year and a bit. Again sadly I find the need to express the Green Party’s opposition. We have an opposition it seems to the fundamental direction of this Government in relation to our shared privacy rights. 
I think it is also salient to remember that over just the same period of time which feels so fast to me—just over a year—the Government has had to deal with multiple major privacy breaches within Government departments: the Inland Revenue Department ACC Work and Income justice immigration and of course Novopay. Privacy is the issue of the day. In a lot of the annual round-ups for 2012 privacy was at the top of the list of items of importance for this country. 
So what is this Government’s response to what I think could fairly be said to be a crisis of systems? It is a systemic crisis in relation to the protection of people’s information. Well we have been given this piece of legislation which actually seeks to extend the sharing of information with no further assurance of protection of people’s information. That to the Green Party is anathema. It is a massive lost opportunity. 
We absolutely acknowledge the need to update our privacy laws and ensure a clear process for protecting people’s information. It is a concern to us—probably more than a concern—to hear that the current law is not being consistently or logically implemented and that is something we do believe needs action. We certainly support anything to fix those problems but sadly this piece of legislation does not give us the confidence that rights are at the centre of this Government’s approach or even that this piece of legislation will solve or go anywhere near solving the problems that exist from the perspective of a citizen. For us they should be at the heart of any changes to privacy legislation. 
People require a sense of security if they are to feel comfortable within their society and one important facet of security is the capacity to control information about oneself. Therefore the principles of privacy as a means of controlling that information are vital contributors to an individual’s sense of security. So it is a fundamentally important human right. 
In my first reading speech I referred to a pregnant woman on the DPB who was escaping a violent relationship who had recently just told her community organisation that she was working with that she was considering hiding her pregnancy because she was scared that if the Housing New Zealand Corporation or the health system found out about her pregnancy they would tell Work and Income and she would experience incentives to find work more quickly than she could actually cope with. 
I listened to the submissions that were made on this bill. I heard the support—qualified and unqualified—for this bill. I listened to that information and their views from the perspective of this woman. Was what they were saying—would this Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill help this woman have confidence in disclosing and getting the help she needed to be safe? I did not find that assurance. For me the experience of this woman and others like her need to be at the heart of our policy making. 
A Labour colleague Lianne Dalziel also mentioned the lost opportunity that seems to have been missed from not picking up a stand-alone child welfare statute that could have gone some way to actually consciously front-on looking at those issues. I think that is a shame. I hope that the Government may consider in the future actually looking at a piece of legislation in that light. I believe as a society we need to confront those issues and their interaction with privacy legislation. 
A nuanced message of responsible information-sharing as we are hearing from the Government will not be heard by our most vulnerable people. The drive to hide information can dramatically increase people’s isolation. We have a duty to protect our most vulnerable and they for me are at the heart of what we need to consider when we are looking at this legislation. 
This bill will increase the amount of information sharing that Government agencies can undertake in order to accomplish this goal of Better Public Services. For me that is about front. Actually what we need our privacy legislation to do is to enable our citizens to access services and get the help they need and to be safe. It is not about the delivery of Government services. That is completely secondary to what should be the focus of this bill which is our citizens. 
Although another stated goal is to ensure that privacy remains highly protected increased information-sharing between Government departments actually means the individual enjoys less control over their personal information. That is what this bill does. Because of the centrality of public service to this bill the individual’s relationship with the State becomes pivotal. As we have heard from that list of Government departments that have actively breached people’s privacy that relationship is not in good shape at the moment. We need to be focusing on how we can increase people’s confidence rather than extend provisions that potentially undermine that confidence. 
Technology is often touted as a reason for privacy laws to be updated and with good reason. I absolutely support that. We are in a changing world and our legislation needs to change with it but this bill does not relate to technology and rather it seeks a readjustment of the core privacy principles that impact on the rights of the individual vis-à-vis the State. 
One particularly concerning element is the empowering of the executive to create information-sharing agreements by regulation. This could result in agreements that are not in keeping with the principles of the Privacy Act and by extension gives the public less reason to be confident in the integrity of that legislation. Scrutiny of the agreements is also a potential issue because copies will be made available only on the internet which some people do not have access to or in the head office of lead agencies which imposes its own set of access issues for those not in the vicinity. Moreover the decision not to carry over section 96T in new Part 9A inserted by clause 8 has serious implications because it increases the likelihood that information will be passed to agencies not envisioned in the original agreement. 
Diluting the requirements for when private sector agencies can participate in the information sharing might contribute to a misplaced sense of certainty on the part of the agencies but it does not contribute to a sense of certainty for the individual on how their information is to be disseminated and used responsibly. If you do not know whom the information is going to be shared with are you going to want to share it at all? 
The Law Commission’s landmark report on privacy law in Aotearoa New Zealand made two key recommendations for empowering the Privacy Commissioner to protect against the sorts of breaches that are happening. The first of these was that the commissioner should be able to issue compliance notices. The second was the power to require an audit of an agency’s practices and systems for handling private information. These would have brought the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner’s powers in line with the majority of comparable overseas bodies charged with the protection of privacy. This would have really addressed a lot of our citizens’ concerns but tragically these measures are not included in this legislation. For us that is a fundamental problem which means we cannot support this bill. We want legislation that has citizens’ needs and human rights at the heart of it and we regret that this bill does not. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 It is an honour to take a call on this Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill this evening. The previous member Jan Logie spoke about the need to meet the needs of our citizens their cares and their concerns. We hear a lot about the breaches of privacy but what we do not hear a lot about is the benefits. There are thousands literally thousands who have benefited from the sharing of information that is so needed to meet the very needs that she has talked about. 
The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is about supporting Better Public Services by providing a new mechanism to share personal information more effectively and with more certainty. The key word here in the message I suppose is about balancing—balancing people’s rights to privacy with the need to protect vulnerable New Zealanders. That is very much at the heart of this Government in wanting to ensure this. 
It is really important that as we began to hear some of the submissions—you would have heard that there were 20 submissions and 18 were in full support—some of the comments that were coming out were that there were a number of supporters who were absolutely clearly in support of the current safeguards that the bill contains. In fact even the Privacy Commissioner noted that the safeguards were mutually supporting and that none of them should be reduced. 
Information sharing enables agencies to work together to examine and understand customer needs as a whole. This can lead to significant service benefits for individuals. Nevertheless there are risks associated with information sharing that need to be carefully managed. These risks can include failures of security duplication of inaccurate information and the use of information in ways not anticipated by the subject of the data. 
We consider that the protections in this bill strike a workable balance. The protections are not too onerous for agencies that wish to have information-sharing agreements and ensure strong and practical privacy safeguards so people can be certain that the Government is acting as a trustworthy steward of their information. Trust is important too. Again as the Privacy Commissioner noted in her submission “The framework in the Bill provides a package of safeguards which are practical and mutually supporting. The Bill currently represents a fine balance between providing the flexibility agencies are requesting and ensuring that privacy considerations are given due weight.” 
Finally on the privacy safeguards in the bill when drawing up information-sharing agreements agencies must consult with the Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner may provide a report to the relevant Minister on any related privacy issues before agreements are approved. The Minister must take the report into account before agreements are finalised. The Minister must be satisfied that the agreement does not unreasonably invade the privacy of individuals and contains adequate safeguards to protect privacy before it can be approved by an Order in Council. I commend this bill in its second reading to the House. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does support the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and it supports the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. But we do have some concerns still about the protection of personal privacy. Having said that though we do consider that this bill has done just sufficient about that for us to be able to continue to support it. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to propose at the appropriate time concerning consultation requirements in new section 96L(1)(a). 
In general New Zealand First accepts the need for a statutory regime for the sharing of information between Government and non-Government agencies that are authorised. It is needed to provide certainty for agencies to lawfully share information about individuals to protect the privacy of those individuals and to define the role of the Privacy Commissioner. 
 New Zealand First agrees that the prohibition in the Privacy Act as it now is is too restrictive. It requires the existence of a serious and imminent threat before an agency can share information. Part 1 of this bill replaces the definition of “serious and imminent threat” with just “serious threat” but the Justice and Electoral Committee’s amendments will make it clear that all three of the specified aspects of “serious threat” must be present before such a threat will exist for the purposes of the amended Act. The agency must now reasonably believe that the threat is a serious threat based on “the likelihood of the threat being realised … the severity of the consequences if the threat is realised; and … the time at which the threat may be realised”. Thus the circumstances allowing information sharing remain restricted but any threat need not be imminent so a proper balance between the need for privacy protection on the one hand and the need for agencies to share information has been achieved. 
There are many circumstances where such sharing is beneficial to the community and the proper use of information within the Public Service to make it more effective is in the public interest. This will include the sharing of taxation information by amendment to the Tax Administration Act 1994. At present there are only ad hoc agreements by the Inland Revenue Department for this. This amendment will bring that situation up to date by coverage under the Act as amended by these new provisions. 
Another important amendment in the bill is the new provision for information-sharing agreements in new Part 9A inserted by clause 8. It provides a mechanism for the approval of information-sharing agreements between agencies which can be non-governmental private sector agencies local authorities Government departments or parts of any of them but not overseas agencies and a Government department must be one of the parties or part of one. The lead agency must be a Government department. 
The agreements must be specific about the purpose of information sharing and require due particularity about the purpose. The agreements must specify safeguards for the protection of personal information provide for complaints to a Government department identify which agencies will be eligible for getting the information and be provided for approval by Order in Council. Any exemptions must also be approved in that way. There are specified requirements for what an Order in Council must state. 
But an important section is the new section 96K(2) which provides that only the necessary information can be shared and no more the agreement must not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of an individual and the benefits must outweigh both the financial and other costs of it. Another important section is new section 96L which requires consultation by participating agencies with the Privacy Commissioner and any person or organisation representing a class of persons affected and anyone else the agency thinks should be consulted. 
But there is a glaring omission and that is that the Children’s Commissioner is not specified. It may come under one of the four provisions I mentioned but it really needs to be specifically stated. The Children’s Commissioner did make submissions on the bill and said: “I would also expect that my Office would be party to any consultation process under s96L regarding information sharing arrangements that affect the rights and interests of children pursuant to my statutory role to monitor the application of UNCROC by departments of state under s12(1)(f) of the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.” I will therefore propose a Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time that will insert the Children’s Commissioner as a fifth and mandatory consultee. The interests of children are a significant issue that must be well provided for because they cannot be expected to provide for their own interests. 
The role of the Privacy Commissioner is a vital part of these new proposals to ensure protection of the privacy of individuals. New section 96M provides for the right of the commissioner to report to the Minister on approved information-sharing agreements and the commissioner may publish the report. New section 96OC empowers the commissioner to require regular reporting by the lead agency and new section 96P empowers the commissioner to review an approved agreement after 12 months and at any time thereafter. 
Under new section 96Q there may be a report to the Minister if an agreement is not operating properly or is impinging on individual privacy. The commissioner may recommend amendment or cancellation. New Zealand First especially approves of new section 96R which requires the Minister to present a copy of the commissioner’s report to the House within 5 days or as soon as possible and the Minister must report to the House with a response to the commissioner’s concerns. 
I also note with approval the requirements of section 96N which requires the giving of notice to anyone against whom any adverse action is to be taken as a result of the information sharing under the Act. The individual can then dispute any information and can take action to show cause why no such action should be taken because of inaccurate information. 
New Zealand First therefore supports the bill because it believes it has achieved a proper balance between information sharing and personal privacy. I note the Labour Party will also support the bill but it has said that the bill would do little for the protection of vulnerable children so I trust it will support my Supplementary Order Paper. I also note that the Greens will not support the bill without enforcement provisions which the Labour Party also wishes to see. I doubt however whether those provisions are really required. I think the bill as it is is in fact adequate to protect personal privacy for all of the reasons I have canvassed and if that does not prove to be the case then a future Government can add these additional powers if they are then shown to be needed. In the meantime I believe this bill as it is should pass. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the second reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. One of the priorities of this Government is to improve the way public service areas are delivered and to find newer smarter ways of doing things and this bill will certainly assist in this objective. 
We have heard that the vast majority of the 20 submissions—18 in fact—express support for the bill in part or in full. Indeed we have also heard and we know that the Privacy Commissioner supports this bill. Importantly there are a number of privacy safeguards that have also been inserted into this bill. It also responds to the Law Commission’s review in this particular area. We know there have been tragedies that could have been averted if information had been shared between agencies and because information was siloed this was not the case. 
This bill will allow agencies to share information ensuring agencies can see the full picture not just part of the picture. We know this will assist front-line staff enormously. I am sure this bill will be welcomed by our agencies. The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended some changes which will be debated in the Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a call on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. In the relationship between the citizen and the State the protections that the citizen has from intrusions by the State are absolutely fundamental. These are principles that go back to the Magna Carta. They are fundamental to the sort of liberal democracy that we have and that we celebrate here today. 
When the Privacy Act was put together—its genesis started with the fourth Labour Government—it reflected some foresight about the direction that the processes of Government might take. Data was able to be stored in significant volumes and in new forms—electronically and so on. So the Privacy Act has played a very important role in providing protections to citizens who must surrender their personal information to the State and for that matter conversely helping the State to function effectively and appropriately as well. So we should not when we are considering upgrades and updating to legislation as important as the Privacy Act take lightly the principles enunciated in it and the protections that they afford every citizen. 
Although Labour will support this bill and is supportive of reviews—comprehensive reviews—and the redrafting of legislation like the Privacy Act we nevertheless have some reservations that relate to the fact that the changes that are proposed for this bill are piecemeal. They are cherry-picked changes to the bill that give the appearance of suiting one or two purposes but in fact could be used for others. 
The bill effectively relaxes the protections that are afforded by the existing Act and its privacy principles or at least its personal information principles. The relaxation of those protections and of those rules is justified by what are described as Better Public Services—a mantra that we have heard frequently in the last 5 years and I am still waiting to see what exactly the better Public Service is that we are meant to have. Certainly a rapidly de-staffed one but I am not quite sure where the better Public Service is. 
It is also justified by an expressed need to deal with public health or public safety or the life or health of an individual. There is already an exception in terms of the application of the existing information privacy principles relating to public safety and prosecuting the need for public security and indeed an individual’s health or safety. This bill relaxes the protections by changing the description or the proviso that goes with it. Whereas at the moment the threat to public safety or public health or the threat to an individual’s health or safety must be imminent under the changes that would be brought about by this bill the threat need no longer be imminent and in fact a new set of words are used: “There must be an assessment”. In the interests of public safety there must be an assessment of the likelihood of threat. There must be an assessment of the severity of the consequences if the threat is realised and indeed an assessment of the time or potential time of the threat. These are all much more weaselly words to use a term. These are weasel words— 
Mike Sabin 
: Weaselly? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: —and therefore they are more weaselly than the previous words or more weaselly than other words that are frequently used. It is a bit like Better Public Services. They are just as weaselly as those words if not more so. We can conceive of— 
Hon Annette King 
: How is it faster or better though? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Faster better—that is what they said. That is what they said about Superman was it not? Faster—faster and better. But anyway if I could draw the House’s attention back to the matters that you and I are most concerned with and that is that this bill here relaxes very important protections when it comes to the relationship between the citizen and the State. 
We can all conceive of situations in which it is appropriate and desirable for information held by one State agency to be disclosed to another and the classic situation is for the protection of children or a vulnerable child. Indeed one of the biggest complaints we have sometimes of the regime we presently have for disclosure of threats or endangerment to children is that agencies are reluctant to breach privacy principles. It is not just for children but also for patients in hospitals and particularly mental health patients. So you can see that there is a justification for having an exception to this sort of protection not only for children but for other vulnerable people as well. 
The classic Neil Pugmire situation which of course led to the Protected Disclosures Act which is really what this is about in privacy terms—this bill relaxes those protections as well. We do not want a repeat—well of course we want plenty of Neil Pugmires—of the situation he found himself in which was common at the time where people were reluctant to disclose information to hospitals even when the safety of individuals and indeed the public as a whole was threatened. 
Notwithstanding those justifiable exceptions and the examples I have given it is also possible to see how the relaxing of these protections can be abused. This is as I articulated before a much more opaque test. It is about carrying out an assessment of possibilities and probabilities. So when the words affording protection are more conditional are more contingent are more opaque and are more difficult to define then the interests of citizens are themselves under threat. 
We have seen already how there is a lack of respect by this Government and the departments under its control as it has conducted itself. We have seen how it has gone in the last year or so. We have heard tonight already about what happened with the Inland Revenue Department. The details of thousands of taxpayers were wrongfully disclosed. We have seen in ACC that there have been mistakes in terms of the management of personal information in ACC. I always favour cock-up over conspiracy when it comes to many of these things but one thing that we know was not a cock-up and was utterly deliberate was the disclosure of the personal information entailed in an email from a woman called Michelle Boag who wrote to the Minister and then found the contents of that message circulated to the public at large. That was a nasty and insidious thing and it is the sort of thing that currently would simply not be permissible under the Privacy Act but may well be inveigled through the more opaque test that must now apply. 
One thing that is absolutely crucial when it comes to matters like privacy and the protections that we give it is good enforcement and this is another issue that I want to draw the House’s attention to. Even with the present Privacy Act we are dependent on a robust a strong and an independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that the law is upheld. How disappointing it is that nearly a year on—would you believe that it is nearly a year since the Bronwyn Pullar issue rose to public prominence? A week or two later that information that was provided to the Minister in charge of ACC under the usual confidentiality arrangements was then disclosed. A year on the Privacy Commissioner has been investigating but we are still none the wiser about what was behind that breach of privacy by this Minister—ironically and coincidentally the Minister in charge of this piece of legislation and the Minister in charge of the Privacy Commissioner’s office. We have no word on the progress of that investigation and on what has happened in that regard. 
This draws attention to the very point I started off with and that is the crucial importance of legislation like this in the relationship between the citizen and the State. We should not devalue it. We should not undermine it. We should pay very close attention to the sorts of changes in this legislation to make sure that our rights are not abused and that citizens continue to be protected and are entitled to continue to respect the State and the way in which the State conducts it affairs. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a short call on this Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill tonight. It is going to be short because I will be speaking to the other stages of this bill later on in the next couple of days. 
It was disappointing to hear the Opposition in this debate. It was hard to tell actually whether it was for or against this bill. There was Lianne Dalziel in particular—personal attacks on the Ministers Judith Collins and Paula Bennett. Actually I think this bill is a bit bigger than personal attacks on Ministers. We had Clare Curran talking about picking berries or cherries somewhere on her holidays. Actually this bill is more— 
Andrew Little 
: Which one is it—berries or cherries? Come on. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: And Andrew Little who has just now sat down—I wonder whether he has actually read the bill—quoted some bits out of his notes which did not really make a lot of sense I have got to say. 
This bill is actually a very very important bill for many families and vulnerable people in New Zealand. For me this is about allowing agencies NGOs and Government departments to be able to share more information with each other. Of course they can currently but the current legislation is unclear and there is a lot of misunderstanding around it. This gives the legislation more clarity. It also allows agencies to have an earlier intervention than they had before and that is really important. 
I want to briefly share one story. I spoke to somebody in the weekend a child psychologist and she said to me that she does a lot of home visits around New Zealand especially in rural New Zealand where she does all her work. I asked her whether she knew the other agencies that were meeting the families and the children. She said: “Yes I always ask the families ‘Who’s been to see you and what services are you getting?’ so we can have a collaborative approach.” I asked her what were the answers and she said: “Well I see them and I say that and some of them know who’s been up their driveway and who hasn’t and others go ‘Well we had a nurse but we don’t know where she came from and we don’t know really what she’s doing.’ ” 
I think if we want to have a good wraparound service for our families and our vulnerable families then we have to allow that information to be shared with those professionals. This legislation does have safeguards in it to protect those families in the information sharing. The select committee made a big recommendation actually for a new section which was taken up by the Minister of Justice and the Government. 
It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to debating it further in the future. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 You understand correctly Mr Speaker and thank you for allowing me the pleasure of speaking in this debate. Could I make it clear to National Party members who seem a bit puzzled judging by the contribution made by the member who has just resumed her seat Katrina Shanks that Labour is supporting this legislation the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and we have said that consistently throughout our contribution to this part of the debate. 
The member mentioned the fact that it would be very puzzling if anybody was opposed to the intention of the bill which is to get more data sharing from ACC Work and Income and other private agencies. I thought “I wonder where she’s been for the last little while.” because there has been a lot of data sharing from ACC and Work and Income particularly and actually it was not appropriate data sharing. It was data sharing of private information of people who had no idea that their personal files were going to be sent to entirely the wrong person. So there is a degree of anxiety. There is a lack of trust in the integrity of the systems that this legislation is proposing to expand to allow for better data sharing. That is the first point I want to make. 
The other point is even more serious in that we have had a Minister who has actually deliberately and in a considered way openly released the private information of Work and Income clients. I think that is an abuse of the privilege that Ministers have. Ministers get all sorts of information across their desks as all the Ministers in the Government would know. A Minister a Work and Income Minister Paula Bennett heard criticism of her attack on the training incentive allowance which had previously allowed particularly women on the domestic purposes benefit to go to university get a degree and have a much better chance of a stronger career with better income in the future—the training incentive allowance was the support for those women on the DPB. Paula Bennett herself had benefited from it. She scrapped it. When some women complained about that she released their private details to the media and saw no problem with that. 
That is an example of why there has been considerable caution expressed and acted on by the Justice and Electoral Committee because of abuses and breaches of privacy considerations in the past. We heard from the Green Party member Jan Logie that her party’s concerns are so great that it is unable to support the bill. I know that it supports the intent of this bill which is to give better responses from Government agencies where a number of agencies are dealing with one person or one family. 
In the short time I have remaining the other concern that I want to address is one of disappointment in the Minister of Justice in whose name this bill is standing before the House. That is because her reputation in the past has been that she is quite rigorous and takes a particularly broad perspective on issues to make sure that every detail is considered and attended to but this is actually a piecemeal approach to a comprehensive problem and I am disappointed that the Minister chose to take that. 
We have a Law Commission report. We know that we have issues in New Zealand with vulnerable children. The Law Commission proposed a comprehensive stand-alone piece of legislation to deal with that issue. This legislation that we are considering falls short of the mark. 
I know that the select committee worked very hard on this and I want to commend Tim Macindoe as the chair of that committee. I am sorry he is no longer in that position because he came to be very well regarded by the other members of the select committee. I have not served on that committee myself but that is certainly the reputation that he has got. 
I know that with a bill like this you have to weigh up the benefits that can be gained from one agency being able to access information quickly and in a secure way about a person with whom it is dealing. We know that the Housing New Zealand Corporation might have information as might ACC Work and Income and the health system let alone other non-government organisations. The theory behind the legislation is sound. It does not address the problem that Minister Judith Collins paraded before the public. It does not address the issues with vulnerable children. It is a piecemeal approach. But it is a step in the right direction and as such we will be supporting it. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It has been interesting listening to this debate on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill tonight. How often the word “balance” has popped up. The Minister of Justice in her opening remarks referred to the balance she believes has been achieved in this bill and that has been reiterated by a number of other speakers from the Government side. It is interesting to note that the word “balance” actually pops up quite routinely in this Government’s rhetoric. It insists for example on talking about balancing the environment and the economy which generally means a little more environmental degradation for a little bit of an influx a short-term cash-flow hit which really is not a balance at all. 
We talk a lot about balancing the needs and the requirements and the legitimate claims of the State against the rights of the individual. It is interesting that by observation we can see that this Government actually does not value very highly the right of the individual to their privacy. The evidence of this is in the Government’s response to what has been referred to inelegantly but accurately as cock-ups over recent times: ACC the Inland Revenue Department and the various failures to protect information that people and organisations in good faith have submitted to some public agency. 
There has been a distinct failure. Accidents can happen. Things can go wrong but we judge the Government by its response. Almost uniformly its response has been defensive to suggest that the Government the State has some overwhelming right compared with that of the private citizen. And that is quite peculiar really coming from a Government that professes to favour small rather than large government and that has been heard to utter the words “nanny State” about former Governments in this country and not in a good way. We saw it with the search and surveillance legislation where yes there was some value in changing the law then in order to acknowledge new technologies and new challenges but overwhelmingly it took away the rights of individuals to privacy. And this bill unfortunately swings far too far on that pendulum once again. 
The point has been made that the Labour Party is supporting this bill but marginally. It was a line call for them clearly. The Labour Party has some serious concerns about it. The policy intent of this bill is not bad. It is one we could have supported and would have liked to support. We do see that initiatives like Whanau Ora and the logic of it—a provision of social services through multiple agencies to ensure the well-being of whanau and of communities—make perfect sense that Government agencies could reasonably want to exchange information. 
But this bill fails to put in place the necessary protections. It does not sufficiently protect the rights of the individual or the reasonable expectations of individuals and indeed organisations that information submitted to Government agencies will be secure will be safe and will be protected. Even the Government’s presentation the purpose of this bill the rather amorphous reference to Better Public Services and to facilitating public service is not a really compelling statement or a compelling argument. It does not really engage or give us any real confidence that this is what it wants to do. The point has been made. We had a very robust report from the Law Commission which looked at a whole range of issues and led us to think that there might be an attempt made to get a comprehensive statement a set of privacy legislation and regulations fit for use in the 21st century. This bill rather unfortunately simply meddles around the margin. It fiddles with one or two points. 
A couple of very easy improvements to this bill could have been to give the Privacy Commissioner some teeth. There is a requirement for consultation with the commissioner but no obligation to do anything more than have regard to it. There is an opportunity—and it is a good thing—for the recommendations to be tabled in the House but it is very easy to imagine the Government of the day doing something unpopular doing something that degraded the right of the individual to their privacy and taking the political hit in the short term in order to impose its will on the community and on the individual. There could have been some quite robust protections even in this rather short bill. The Greens unfortunately cannot support it and will not. Kia ora. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this second reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and to acknowledge the Minister of Justice for her role as someone who is entirely in tune with the public of New Zealand who is entirely in tune with the justice sector across all spheres and who understands the appropriate balance that is expected of this House in terms of the legislation that we are working on now and into the future. While working as a police officer I can tell you now that the difficulties the lack of understanding and sometimes the hiding behind the Privacy Act as it currently stands have actually cost the lives of some New Zealand citizens. This is a piece of legislation that I believe is well overdue updating and this bill sets about updating that regime and many of the failures that I believe need addressing and will be addressed. 
Importantly the safeguards that are being introduced—and members right across this House have actually touched on those—are about achieving that balance that is required. But it is a balance that is very important to understand in terms of the way in which the scales of justice can tilt because when we do not get that balance right not only does it cost the lives of New Zealand citizens and destroy lives in this country but also it does not serve the interests of law-abiding citizens in this country one little bit. And let us not forget despite what we hear from the watermelon patch this legislation is about law-abiding citizens and protecting law-abiding citizens who go about their lives not asking to be victims of crime but doing it in a measured and balanced manner. I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting this bill to the House. 
Amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill continues to help provide the Canterbury region with stable and effective governance. This stability remains an important goal to provide a platform for Canterbury’s future growth and to assist with the earthquake recovery. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No it doesn’t. It does nothing to assist it. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The Canterbury region is of national significance as the member across the House would understand. It has huge economic growth potential and it is a key driver in making New Zealand a more productive and competitive economy. 
Canterbury’s vast and valuable water resources its significant capacity to support highly productive agriculture its size its history of competing interests for resources and the demands of earthquake recovery continue to set it apart from other regions. The Environment Canterbury regional council’s role in realising the region’s full potential is of critical importance. There is a strong need for a governance arrangement that maintains the council’s current momentum and effectiveness particularly in freshwater management. Effective regional decision-making is particularly important during the critical period of earthquake recovery and major Government investments in water and other infrastructure from 2013 to 2016. 
However it has to be said that in the past the actions of Environment Canterbury have not always achieved the standards required of it. In 2010 the Government was confronted with a serious situation that had arisen with the then Environment Canterbury regional council. The council had lost the confidence of its community including every one of the region’s 10 mayors. An independent review found that the council’s failures required comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being. 
In particular despite almost two decades since the passing of the Resource Management Act there was no operative plan in Canterbury to manage its fresh water and the council was not capable according to that report of delivering one. If you are concerned about the environment then these actions are very important. So in 2010 the Government acted. We passed the original 2010 Act that provided special governance and resource management arrangements to address the situation and appointed seven commissioners for a 3-year term. Since then the commissioners under the leadership of Dame Margaret Bazley have proved highly effective in addressing urgent problems with water management in Canterbury and in rebuilding key stakeholder relationships. 
Dame Margaret is a public servant of the highest calibre who has served successive Governments. She and the commissioners have been very successful in a short space of time. The commissioners have brought a collaborative approach to decision making which I understand has been widely appreciated in the region. In short they have done a great job. 
Some of their significant achievements include the receipt of eight of the 10 zone implementation programmes under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and successful applications to the Government’s Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund for Lake Ellesmere and the Wainono Lagoon. These are important environmental initiatives for that region. They have also included progress towards a land-use recovery plan and a second-generation land and water regional plan. It has also included a massive increase in consent processing time frame compliance to 92 percent in 2010-11 and throughout 2011-12 with a current average of 93 percent compliance. That is an excellent result.  
However their work is as yet unfinished. There are a number of initiatives critical to Canterbury’s environment and economy that are either incomplete or still in progress. The second-generation land and water regional plan and other plans will not be adopted by late 2013 nor will the Canterbury Water Management Strategy be fully implemented. These are core components of freshwater decision-making and management in Canterbury. In particular the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is critical to unlocking the region’s economic potential in an environmentally sustainable manner. This remains the commission’s top priority. 
Another critical factor to consider is the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes. The earthquakes struck subsequent to the original 2010 legislation. This has reinforced the need for a competent and consistent approach to planning for infrastructure from this organisation. In the interests of Canterbury’s progress and to protect the gains the commissioners have made it is vital that we continue with the current governance arrangement for another 3 years. Accordingly the bill provides that commissioner-led governance of Environment Canterbury will continue until the 2016 local authority elections. The bill also retains the 2010 Act’s provisions that provide Environment Canterbury with additional resource management powers and functions. The continuation of the current arrangements will facilitate the region’s economic growth and recovery. 
The commissioners have been able to build strong relationships with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Christchurch City Council Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council on earthquake response and recovery matters. To displace or to interrupt these relationships at this point in time would significantly impede the region’s progress. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee chaired by Nicky Wagner for the committee’s consideration of the bill and in addition thank those other members on the committee. I also acknowledge the genuine concerns expressed by submitters on the bill about the decision not to hold regional council elections in 2013 as was originally planned. This decision was not taken lightly. However for the reasons I have outlined continuing with commissioner-led governance for another 3 years is justified in the circumstances. 
Our intention is to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to elections by 2016. This is why the bill provides for a review of Environment Canterbury’s governance arrangements. The review is mandatory and must begin on 1 March 2014. It will look at Environment Canterbury’s governance structure membership and resource management powers. 
The bill is about enabling the Canterbury region to prosper and enabling the commissioners to complete their excellent work. The people of Canterbury deserve strong and effective leadership from this organisation. The commissioners have delivered this over the last 3 years and will continue to do so. I thank them for that. This bill will ensure robust effective and stable regional governance for Canterbury and therefore I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I have to say I am very disappointed in the speech from the new Minister of Local Government. I thought having been given responsibility for a major portfolio that he might have taken some time to have some new thinking in his portfolio area. But what has he done? He comes into this House and trots out the same arguments of the two previous Ministers in regard to Canterbury. So I think he has made a start that he will be ashamed of in the future because he could have put his mark on local government but he has decided not to and he has decided to back an undemocratic bill for the people of Canterbury. 
What this bill does is to delay the elections of Environment Canterbury until 2016 with a little review in 2014. The Minister said it was a transition. That is not the transition that Dame Margaret Bazley—the woman he has just said was a very high public servant—suggested to him. I absolutely agree so why did they not listen to her? Why did they not take notice of what she recommended to the Government which was a transition to a fully elected council? They totally ignored what she said. So those were hollow words from the Minister of Local Government in regard to Dame Margaret Bazley. 
But this is a broken promise from the Key Government because when Nick Smith was Minister he said that whatever the circumstances—whatever the circumstances—the next Environment Canterbury election would be in 2013. He said: “the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent”—he went on to say—“is for the commissioners to withdraw and to be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.” The task has been achieved and the issues have been resolved. But he did not just say it he actually made it equally clear in the Cabinet papers he presented to the Government. He said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as the commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for 2013.” Those immediate issues have been resolved. Why is this election being delayed? 
 The first Cabinet paper put up by the next Minister of Local Government David Carter and the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams stated that any option except a return to a fully elected council would be a limit on the democratic rights of the residents of Canterbury compared with the rest of New Zealand. That was what was in a Cabinet paper from the former Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment. They said that any option except a return to a fully elected council would limit the democratic rights of residents of Canterbury compared with the rest of New Zealand. Well it is obvious they were rolled. They were rolled at Cabinet and the Government decided to extend Environment Canterbury’s term thereby denying the people of Canterbury a vote for another 3 years. 
And what is being used? The earthquake. It is a very convenient excuse for everything that the Government does. It blames it for the fact that there is rising unemployment it blames it for the fact that there is loss of jobs it blames it for the fact it is getting nowhere in its policies—it is all the fault of the Christchurch earthquake. And it has done it again on the Environment Canterbury elections which should be held this year. Our suspicion is that this latest U-turn is just a precursor to the Government’s plans for regional amalgamation in Canterbury on a grand scale. Why will it not be upfront and tell the people of Canterbury that what it really wants to happen is for there to be a major amalgamation of all those councils? No it is hiding that and it is hiding behind the earthquake in Christchurch as to why it needs to delay elections in this area. 
Well what did the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford say? He is not a Labour person; in fact he was appointed by the National Government. What did he say to the select committee? He said: “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced and its continuance is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.” That is what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford National’s appointment said about its legislation. Is it not all stacking up? You have got some very important people telling the Government to have elections in Christchurch but the Government is totally ignoring them. 
And what do the residents of Christchurch think? Well they are pretty outraged at what has been done to them and there has been a series of very significant protests held in Christchurch against the fact that there will be no elections for Environment Canterbury until 2016. They see that as a loss of democracy in this very troubled city. Even the Christchurch City Council has overwhelmingly expressed its opposition to the move and it said it was going to seek a meeting with the Minister to ask why the elections are being postponed. Well that will be a fat lot of use. That will get it nowhere because the Government decided that there was one issue and one issue alone—well two issues as to why it was postponing them. One is the major amalgamation and the other is the effect of irrigation—the effect of irrigation. To hell with democracy let us worry about irrigation for the farmers! To hell with democracy let us worry about whether or not the farmers get a bit of water! Let us protect their irrigation. Democracy does not count when it comes to whether or not the farmers get a fair deal. That is what the bottom line is in this. 
David Carter admitted in answer to oral questions in this House that his officials advised that there should be a transition to a democratically elected council and he actually agreed at that stage that there should be a transition. The option that was put forward was an option where you would have a mixed governing body as a transition. So when the Minister talks about transitioning by having a review that is not a transition Minister; that is a review. The transition model that was put up out of the five models and supported by Dame Margaret Bazley was that you actually have a transitional mixed governing body for Environment Canterbury with provision for the Minister of Local Government to review the arrangements by 2017. That was rejected by the National Government. It cancelled the election and cancelled the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury. We absolutely oppose this bill and we will continue to oppose it and so did the regulatory impact statement. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.