Volume 691 Week 46 - Thursday 27 June 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 691 Week 46 - Thursday 27 June 2013[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 27 June 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence)on behalf of theLeader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 2 July the Government will look to make progress on the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill and the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.Questions to MinistersEconomic Programme—Progress1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore)to theMinister of Finance: How has the Government’s economic plan helped New Zealand families to get ahead since the recession five years ago?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance):I can confirm that the Government’s economic plan is helping families in many ways. The Government has clearly set out a strong plan for the economy. We have stuck to that plan and we have taken New Zealanders with us as the latest polls confirm. The plan is about responsibly managing the Government’s finances so that New Zealanders’ taxes are spent wisely on the services that they need. It is about building a more competitive and productive economy to create more jobs raise incomes and build opportunities here in New Zealand. It is about delivering better public services for families such as schools hospitals and keeping communities safe and it is about rebuilding Christchurch so that Canterbury families can get their lives back on track.Maggie Barry: What are some of the signs of progress with the Government’s economic programme?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are several positive indicators. Firstly the economy grew by 2.4 percent in the 12 months to 31 March. This is better than most developed countries. Secondly there are around 50000 more jobs in the economy than there were 2 years ago. Thirdly the cost of living is increasing by less than 1 percent—its lowest rate in more than 13 years. Fourthly the unemployment levels have been the lowest they have been since the global financial crisis but of course there is still more work to do there. The Government is on track to surplus in 2014-15 so that we can start repaying debt on behalf of New Zealanders. All of these things are very positive for New Zealand families.Maggie Barry: What do the latest official statistics show about growth in wages?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The quarterly employment survey from Statistics New Zealand shows that average full-time weekly wages including overtime rose 2.6 percent over the last year. This compares with inflation over the last year of only 0.9 percent. Over the last 2 years the average wage including overtime has risen 6.1 percent and that compares with 2.4 percent inflation over those 2 years. Of course every individual has their own particular circumstances but it is quite clear that on average wages have been rising considerably faster than the cost of living which is an important indicator that families are getting ahead.Maggie Barry: How have wages in the manufacturing sector performed in the past year and how does that compare with the situation in 2008?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The average wage in the manufacturing sector including overtime increased 5.2 percent or in other words twice as fast as wages in the economy as a whole. In fact since the beginning of 2009 the average wage in the manufacturing sector has risen a total of 18 percent making it the second-strongest sector of the economy in terms of wage growth. That strong wage growth is in marked contrast with the situation in 2008 when manufacturing wages fell by 0.3 percent while inflation was running at 3 percent. So again it is clear that manufacturing is in much better shape now than it was during the manufacturing crisis of 2008.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he read the economist Bernard Hickey’s article in theHerald on Sunday last weekend where he said “[New Zealand’s] real per capita GDP is still 1.3 percent below 2007’s. Most of the gains in any economic recovery have gone to the top few percent”; given that why should anybody believe a word he said just now?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can stand corrected but I am pretty sure that Mr Hickey is not an economist; he is a journalist. Of course although journalists are wonderful people generally I am not sure that I would take their recommendations always on economic matters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he read further where Mr Hickey recalling the similarity with New Zealand said of the US recovery that the incomes of the top 1 percent rose over 11 percent while the real incomes of the bottom 99 percent fell 0.4 percent which meant the top 1 percent captured 121 percent of the economic recovery in that country as he says happened here; given that why would anybody believe a word he is saying in the House today?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the idea that you could just lay out some statistics in regard to the US economy and somehow translate that to the New Zealand economy suggests that that is actually quite a big leap of faith to make. Can I confirm for the member that I read a number of economists but it is fair to say that there are two columnists whose work I do not bother reading too much because the level of accuracy is concerning—one is Mr Hickey and one is Mr Oram.Hon David Parker: Having dismissed the American comparison does he agree with the OECD that in New Zealand “Income inequality is higher than the OECD average.” and “There is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest. The top 20 percent of the population earn five times as much as the bottom 20 percent.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is undoubtedly income inequality between the top income earners and the lower income earners by definition.Hon David Parker: Is it getting worse?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You did not ask that question Mr Parker. But my key point is that the answer to that is to do things that encourage investment and growth of jobs in the New Zealand economy. This Government is in many ways doing that across a range of industries and it is interesting to contrast that with the view of the Opposition which is basically to oppose every approach that the Government takes to grow jobs in this economy.Jacinda Ardern: In light of that answer can the Minister confirm for the House that both income and asset inequality are getting worse under National?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I cannot.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the Minister’s statement that the Government is taking actions to improve investment in the New Zealand economy has he read the submission by InternetNZ on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill currently before the Intelligence and Security Committee where InternetNZ says that New Zealand’s internet economy is at risk of going backwards as a result of this bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I have not. What I can tell the member is that the information and communications technology industry in New Zealand is growing partially in response to the Government’s policy around the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative and partly in response to the general settings of the economy. In a broader sense the Government is focused on things like resource management law changes to speed up investment the building of an international convention centre in Auckland oil and gas exploration on the North Island’s East Coast investment by international companies reforms to allow aquaculture development speeding up mining exploration on the West Coast and increasing irrigation and agricultural intensification to name just a few that the Government is in favour of and the Opposition is against—and they try to lecture us about jobs.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Acting Minister of Finance stand by the statement of Bill English from Budget 2010 where Mr English said “New Zealand’s largest single vulnerability is now its large and growing net external liabilities.”; if so is he concerned by the projections that were in his Budget from this year which show that New Zealand’s net external liabilities would grow from $150 billion this year to $208 billion by 2017?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of course I read his Budgets on a nightly basis to keep up with his wisdom. I think that this weekend I am reading Budget 2013 again because it is a wonderful Budget. But in regard to the member’s concerns with international liabilities of course we share those concerns particularly if they are about investment in the New Zealand economy. But I have good news for the member because the balance of payments has just come out and international liabilities have dropped again under this Government. Our international liabilities are now significantly lower than they were when that member was propping up the previous Labour Government.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister concerned that under the projections in his own Budget and under the economic projections that were contained in the Budget of only a month or so ago New Zealand’s current account deficit will increase from $10 billion a year or about 5 percent of GDP to $17 billion a year by 2017 or about 6.5 percent of GDP and that that will mean according to the International Monetary Fund that New Zealand has the second-worst current account deficit amongst developed countries in the whole world?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly it would probably still be lower than it was under the previous Government. But the member makes a valid point about the importance of encouraging a rebalancing of the New Zealand economy and that is why this Government is focused on the things I outlined earlier which I note he is against like oil and gas exploration international investment reforms to encourage aquaculture development encouraging mining development increasing irrigation building an international convention centre and changing the resource management laws to speed up investment. These are all things—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was asked a question on the rapidly growing current account deficit—from $10 billion to $17 billion. That requires an explanation not a diatribe of things that are not true.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] No I do not need any assistance from the Minister. The member is to cease interrupting an answer with a point of order that is not valid. The Minister was explaining reasons why he thought over time the current account deficit could come down.Question No. 2 to MinisterPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I seek leave to have this question held over as I think Mr Brownlee would be sorry to miss it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is objection. The member can proceed to ask his question.Public Transport Auckland—City Rail Link2.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to theMinister of Transport: Why is the Government planning to fund the City Rail Link from 2020 and not 2016 as proposed by the Auckland Council?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: To be clear the Government will be announcing details tomorrow of how it will advance the City Rail Link. It will not be funding the entire project. In 2017 the Waterview Connection funded by this Government will open and will finally complete the Auckland motorway network. This will lead to a considerable improvement in the transport system.Phil Twyford: What financial or traffic modelling was done to justify the selection of 2020 as the year to start funding the project and what vital information was provided by the well-known transport planners Curia Market Research?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well if there was to be any research done it was probably going to be done byHerald -DigiPoll but nevertheless there were a number of reports and assessments that said that the project becomes more viable closer to 2030. So we have looked at the likely demographics of Auckland and determined that we do need to futureproof the city. Therefore we support the rail loop being built from 2020.Phil Twyford: Why is the Government continuing to deliberately hold back Auckland growth by delaying the start of the City Rail Link by 4 years when the project could be started now and be in service by 2020 adding badly needed jobs and prosperity to the Auckland economy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No Government has done more to advance the interests of Auckland transport than this one. There has been a huge number of projects—Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked why the Government is delaying the start of the City Rail Link. I did not ask for a diatribe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member gave enough opportunity for the Minister to answer the question we might hear the answer. Would the Minister please continue.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In response to the part of the question where the member asked why the Government is holding back Auckland’s development no Government has done more than this one to advance Auckland’s interests in rail in the electrification and in electric multiple units; in Waterview; and in the State Highway 16 project which that member opposed. I think we do very well and stand up when it comes to Auckland transport.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No member on this side of the House ever opposed State Highway 16.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. [Interruption ] Order! That is not a valid point of order and the member is going to be very lucky today to be allowed to continue with his questioning.Phil Twyford: Why is it that a new survey out today says that only 18 percent of Aucklanders rate the Government as trustworthy and what does that appalling level of trust mean for the Government’s ability to contribute to the Auckland economic growth agenda if hardly anyone trusts a word it says?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Michael Woodhouse in as far as he has ministerial responsibility.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Quite frankly I am amazed that the member should be reading about polls. That particular poll polled very high levels of support for this particular project—much higher support I have to say than the recentHerald -DigiPoll polled for his leader his party or his leader and party combined.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Steven Joyce has until very recently been describing the City Rail Link to senior Auckland business leaders in terms that are too obscene to be repeated in this House?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well clearly I cannot confirm those comments but what I know is that Mr Joyce did agree with the Auckland Council that it should go ahead and protect the route and that is occurring as we speak. When the Minister of Transport inherited that ministry we carried on the position that had previously been taken.Primary Growth Partnership—Successful Bids and Purpose3.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to theMinister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he made on boosting productivity and environmental outcomes in the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yesterday I announced $6.88 million in Government funding for two new Primary Growth Partnership programmes. The first project will work to develop new probiotic dairy health products helping to add value to what we export by targeting high-value niche markets. The Government and the companies involved will each invest $1.75 million in this project. It is expected that this project will generate around $8.6 million per year in economic benefits by 2021. The second project will help improve how fertilisers are applied to hill country. The project will help the environment by better targeting fertiliser use and reducing nutrient runoff. The Government and Ravensdown will invest—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We know that we are not allowed to table press statements in the House but are we allowed to read them out? This was something that was announced a couple of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! That is not a valid point of order. The Minister was asked a question by another member and the member is entitled to an answer to that question. Has the Minister got further to add?Hon NATHAN GUY: Would you like me to reread it? I will just finish it off for the member concerned. The Government and Ravensdown will each invest $5.13 million into this project and it is expected that this project will generate around $120 million per year in economic benefits to New Zealand by 2030.Ian McKelvie: Why is the Government investing in innovation in the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government has an ambitious goal of increasing New Zealand’s exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. To help reach this target we have set a goal of doubling our primary sector exports by 2025. We will not meet this by continuing with business as usual. We need to increase innovation investment in the primary sector and these projects will help to do that.Hon Damien O’Connor: How much of the $674 million committed to the Primary Growth Partnership is delivering benefits given the refusal of the Minister to provide proof of any deliverable outcomes and is it not truer to say that this is like confetti to consummate a few cosy deals with a few of their mates?Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute that allegation. It is no wonder that Labour is down in the polls and that it does not care about rural New Zealand. This is going to generate ahuge amount of money for this country and for rural communities and I am disappointed that Labour will not support it in the way that this Government does. I have already taken the member through in the Primary Production Committee today how these projects are returning to New Zealand and I am happy to do that now if you would like me to.Mr SPEAKER: No that is quite a sufficient answer.Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table the report referred to by the Minister in the select committee of the results and the accountability for the Primary Growth Partnership programme which contains no narrative detailing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! The document has been described enough. What I just want to check is if it is the deliberations of a select committee has the select committee concluded its deliberation or was it heard in public?Hon Damien O’Connor: No. This is I believe the only document that I could find on the website that must be the one that the Minister referred to which is the evaluation—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! If it is available on the website it does not need to be tabled here. [Interruption ] I cannot deal with two points of order.Hon Damien O’Connor: I do seek in a genuine attempt to work out whether this is the document that the Minister referred to or indeed I might have missed the point.Mr SPEAKER: For the benefit of the member the easiest way to tidy it up is to allow leave to be sought. Leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Businesses Small—Start-ups and Compliance Costs4.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)to theMinister for Economic Development: Why has the number of small business start-ups declined from an average of 8000 a year under the previous Government to fewer than 5500 under this Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Well first off can I welcome that member to his first economic development question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister—[Interruption ] Order! The Minister will please answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is an exciting day for him Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry.Mr SPEAKER: That sort of comment is not helpful to the order of the House. The Minister will now please just answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well it is convention in this House that when a member refers to the previous Government he or she matches the data to that period. In fact if you look at the data the majority of the decline in small business start-ups actually happened in 2008 when that member’s party was still in Government and New Zealand was in a domestic recession ahead of most of the world. The other point in terms of the explanation for it is that—and it may have escaped the attention of the member—New Zealand of course along with the rest of the world went into a thing known as the global financial crisis which occurred in recent years. I am a bit surprised the member is heading down the path that Mr Parker did when he ignored the global financial crisis. So 2008 was when most of it happened and the balance of it was because of the global financial crisis.Dr David Clark: Why did his Government further increase compliance costs for small businesses by introducing an annual $45 filing fee for companies when electronic filing used to be free?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of the exact details of that because the member did not place it in his primary question. I would have been quite happy to come down and discuss it in the House. But I think it is fair to say that this is probably not the most significant issue that businesses have faced in the last 5 years.Hon John Banks: Are the following conducive to the formation of small businesses: introducing a capital gains tax increasing public debt to fund new spending printing money nationalising the electricity sector having different rates of GST or income based on activity type resisting reform of the Resource Management Act opposing the supply of more land for housing resisting reform of labour laws and telling investors that their investments will be subject to political will if they ever get their hands on the levers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member raises some very fair points because of course none of those things would be helpful to the formation of small businesses. If the member who asked the primary question is concerned about small businesses then I would persuade his colleagues to abandon all of those policies.Dr David Clark: Does he agree—with respect Mr Speaker I have forgotten how many supplementary questions I have already asked.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr David Clark: Is that a legitimate thing to ask you?Mr SPEAKER: Sorry I am sorry—I am not sure what the point of order is. The member rose to ask—[Interruption ] Order! Order! I do not want to have to repeat the departure of one member again today.Hon Tau Henare: I haven’t got any numbers.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might leave for more reasons than not having the numbers. Dr David Clark has called for a supplementary question.Dr David Clark: I was quite thrown by Mr Banks getting up. Has he been advised—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I have called Dr David Clark.Dr David Clark: Does he agree that charging small businesses the Financial Markets Authority fee is effectively the cross-subsidisation of large businesses by small businesses; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well done. I think in terms of the matter of how much to charge individual different-sized businesses I know it has been the subject of great debate and my understanding is that large businesses are paying a very significant amount as are the medium-sized businesses. In terms of the wider issue of course it is very important to all businesses that we have good management of our financial markets. It is crucially important and to pay a small amount to actually improve the management of the financial markets is very important because we all know what happened when they were badly run. It was called the finance company collapses of the last Government.Dr David Clark: Has he been advised as to why the Minister for Small Business who popped up earlier has not led a single practical initiative designed specifically to support small businesses since he took office in 2011; if so what are the reasons?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry the member is simply incorrect. The Minister has been focused on advocating strongly for small businesses right through the period that he has been the Minister for Small Business. He is at the Cabinet economic growth and infrastructure committee every single week. He is one of the strongest attendees. He makes the case for small businesses for every initiative.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and asked whether he had been advised as to why the Minister for Small Business had not led—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the Minister rose and said he did not agree with the supposition in the question and then proceeded to answer it.Dr David Clark: Does his Government consider it appropriate that the main delegated area of ministerial responsibility delegated to Mr Banks outside small business to which he contributes nothing is as the Associate Minister of Commerce in the area of—wait for it—standards?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are a million miles from the start of the first question but can I say that I think the member is still criticising the Minister for Small Business. Can I give him a number of things that the Minister for Small Business has been doing. He has been advocating for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise services and grants and advocating for research and development grants for innovating firms. He has set up the Small Business Development Group that we have had. The Government has set up its Prime Minister’s Business Scholarships. We have had exemptions for small businesses under various pieces of legislation for the 90-day employment probation periods and Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. The regional business partners are servicing and linking businesses to local and national support. We have Business Mentors New Zealand and a number of small to medium sized enterprise initiatives arising from back in 2009. These are a range of things and as I say the Minister advocates strongly for small businesses whenever an economic matter comes up.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Crediting this Minister with things that that Minister said started in 2009 cannot be a proper answer to this question. He was not even a member of Parliament at the time.Mr SPEAKER: It was an appropriate answer when you consider the tone of the question that was asked.Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. When you consider the political nature of the question that was asked inevitably that is going to get a political answer back again.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even political answers have to have some concept of truthfulness about them in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: —and indicating that a Minister did something as a Minister when he was not a member of Parliament cannot be true.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here long enough to know that if he thinks the Minister has misled the House there is an appropriate process. It is not to be done by raising a point of order.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will find that the shadow Leader of the House suggested there was a lack of truthfulness in my answers. I would appreciate it if he would withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion if the member wants to take it further he knows how to do it. Often in a debate in this Chamber a member will disagree with an answer that has been given and I accept that. So we are moving forward but I think we have a further point of order.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a document from the Parliament Library showing a key legislative initiative where an Act of Parliament repealed 31 spent Acts which effectively—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That document is—[Interruption ] Order! The member will resume his seat. That is available at the Parliamentary Library. It is available to members.Public Transport Auckland—City Rail Link5.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green)to theMinister of Transport: Does he agree with Auckland business leaders Michael Barnett and Kim Campbell that the Auckland City Rail Link is a “game-changing project … which is ready to go”; if so will he prioritise the project so that it can be up and running by 2021?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: In part yes. We have prioritised the project and we will be working with the Auckland Council to advance work to begin construction in 2020. However there is considerable work required before the first shovels go in the ground.Julie Anne Genter: Has he changed his mind on the Auckland rail link because it is essential to double the capacity of the entire network allowing for trains every 5 minutes all across the region; if so why will he not reprioritise his spending so the project can be up and running by 2021?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would not agree that there has been any change of mind about whether the project is required. In fact I think that great champion of National Government policy Len Brown said it best this morning when he said: “Right from the get go the Prime Minister was saying ‘Look it’s not really about whether we agree or disagree - we agree on the overarching need its about the timing and the funding.’ ”Julie Anne Genter: Has the Government finally changed its mind on the Auckland rail link because it will significantly cut travel times for Aucklanders from the west and south by up to half an hour per trip; if so why will he not reprioritise the transport budget so the project can be up and running by 2021?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There has been no change of mind in respect of the need for the project and the benefits that will accrue when it is finally completed. There are a number of reports that raise questions about the timing of the implementation of the project. We have chosen 2020.Julie Anne Genter: Has the Government changed its mind on the Auckland rail link because it is the best way to reduce congestion on Auckland’s roads and it can move more people during rush hour than 12 lanes of motorway; if so why will he not reprioritise the transport budget to ensure that the project can be up and running by 2021 when it will be needed?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I repeat: the Government has not changed its mind on the need for the project or the benefits that will accrue when the project is finally delivered. That will be when the cost-benefit ratio suggests that it is and that is 2020.Julie Anne Genter: Has he changed his mind on the Auckland rail link because it is necessary for the expansion of the rail network to Aucklanders living on the North Shore and to link the airport to the city with a fast reliable service; if so why will he not reprioritise the transport budget so that the project can be up and running by 2021 when it will be needed?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There has been no question about the benefits from the project when they accrue but this is a significant investment of ratepayer and taxpayer money and it should be invested at the right time in the right place.Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that modelling from Auckland Council shows that the Auckland bus services are going to be over capacity by 2021 without the rail link; if so why will he not reprioritise spending so the project can be up and running by 2021 so that people can move around Auckland and the bus capacity will not be overrun by demand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Minister is aware of a number of reports and analyses that highlight the congestion problems in the Auckland transport infrastructure which is why this Government has made a significant investment in road rail and the soon to be announced central rail link.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this research from—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry; I could not hear because of an interjection within the Chamber. Could the member please start again.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this research from Auckland Transport which says that the bus network will be over capacity by 2021 traffic speeds will drop to 7 kilometres per hour—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of a description. Leave is sought to table that particular study. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Julie Anne Genter: Given that vehicle trips all across New Zealand are down and public transport boardings are up why will the Government not reprioritise the unbalanced transport budget so that this rail project can be up and running by 2021 so that it can benefit the people of Auckland and the country of New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The last time I looked buses travelled on roads and roads are a significant part of the public transport strategy for Auckland which is why we need to invest not only in rail but also in roads.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this data from the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency which shows that vehicle trips per capita have been falling—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it available on the Ministry of Transport website?Julie Anne Genter: No. This is an analysis done by an independent transport engineer of the data that is available.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular graph. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this graph showing the National Government’s transport spending over the next 3 years and how unbalanced it is.Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of that document? Is it the same?Julie Anne Genter: An independent transport engineer did an analysis—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is.Julie Anne Genter: Will he accept the congratulations of the Green Party on finally recognising the huge economic transport and climate benefits of investing in rail after years of debate in this House that stretches all the way back to 2008 when Jeanette Fitzsimons first called for investment in this rail project?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would be very happy to accept the congratulations from the Green Party on the continued investment in rail in Auckland.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on this issue. I have a press statement from 2008 from Jeanette Fitzsimons calling for—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption ] Order! We are not tabling that. It is available.Tourist Numbers—Tourism Growth Package6.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to theMinister of Tourism: What recent reports has he received on the number of tourists coming to New Zealand?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Associate Minister of Tourism)on behalf of theMinister of Tourism: I have received reports that the numbers of tourists coming toNew Zealand jumped to 153000 for the month of May compared with around 141000 in previous years. This is the highest number of May visitors ever. This increase was mainly due to 8000 more visitors from Australia and nearly 4000 more visitors from China. This is great news for our tourism industry.Jonathan Young: How will the Budget 2013 tourism package build on the growth in visitor numbers?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: As part of our Budget 2013 international growth package we announced that we would put $24.5 million into growing our existing key markets over the next 4 years. These include China Japan the United Kingdom the United States and Australia. We will also invest $44.5 million into attracting more tourists from emerging markets such as India Indonesia and Latin America.Jonathan Young: What visitor growth is expected from India Indonesia and Latin America?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: By 2016 we forecast to see 50000 visitors from India 45000 from Indonesia and another 45000 from Latin America. Total forecast growth adds up to an additional 50000 visitors from these markets over the next 5 years. These extra visitors will spend more money and stay in more hotels. This is great news for our tourism industry.Earthquakes Christchurch—CTV Building CollapseDENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):This question is to the Prime Minister. Has he read the open letter to him dated 25 June 2013 written on behalf of the quake families who lost 185 of their loved ones in the collapse of the CTV building in the February 2013 earthquake?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The sound system was clearly not going when my colleague started that question.Mr SPEAKER: We will allow the member to start again.7.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Has he read the open letter to him dated 25 June 2013 written on behalf of the quake families who lost 185 of their loved ones in the collapse of the CTV building in the February 2013 earthquake?Mr SPEAKER: 2011 earthquake.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development)on behalf of thePrime Minister: I am not quite sure of the accuracy of the question but obviously the tenor of the question is understood and the response is no the Prime Minister has not yet had the opportunity to read the letter which was received by his office earlier this week. However I can assure the member that as it has done in the past the Government will carefully consider the issues raised in that letter and respond directly to the writer.Denis O’Rourke: Whether he has read the letter or not what is his response to the last paragraph of the open letter from the quake families which says: “We know what went wrong. We know who is responsible. We know that the CTV building was code non-compliant. It was illegally built by inexperienced negligent and incompetent individuals and entities—even a so-called engineer who had a false name and fake degrees was involved. The Government has the responsibility to ensure justice and that this will not happen again.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I certainly understand the sentiments in the letter as quoted by the member but I just have to reiterate that the Prime Minister has not had the opportunity to read the letter which was received just earlier this week. But again I assure the member that as has been done in the past the Government will carefully consider in full the issues raised in the letter and respond directly.Denis O’Rourke: Given the statement in his letter to the quake families dated 13 September 2012 that the “judicial avenue will remain available” what is his reply to the plea in the recent open letter from the quake families which says: “I am asking you Prime Minister on behalf of the families to give us your support as you promised in providing the families with legal help to give us advice information and the resources to undertake legal proceedings against those responsible.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Given the previous two answers I have made to the member I am not sure how much further I can advance matters for him today but I will point out one further matter. My understanding is that the police are currently looking into this matter and they are yet to make a decision on any prosecution and that would feed into the timing of any other things as proposed by the families.Denis O’Rourke: What action has his Government taken to ensure that every person or organisation having any degree of provable culpability for the fatal defects in the CTV Building in the state it was in as at the date of the February 2011 earthquake is brought promptly to justice in the light of the findings of the royal commission?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I think we have to be very careful while the police are investigating these matters. It would not be appropriate for the executive to direct the police in the approach that they should take. They have to have the opportunity to consider the situation and decide whether they want to take a prosecution.Pay Equity—Employment Court Case8.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to theMinister of Women’s Affairs: Has she requested or received any briefings from Ministry officials on the Equal Pay Act case which commenced this week in the Employment Court?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs):No. Although the Equal Pay Act does not fall within my ministerial responsibilities I do regularly receive briefings from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on how we can continue to reduce the gender pay gap which has been steadily declining and is now at its lowest level since 2001 when this measure started being used. I would caution the member because this case is still before the courts.Sue Moroney: Well does she think it is fair that the woman taking the case rest home caregiver Kristine Bartlett is paid just $14.46 an hour after 20 years’ experience as a caregiver and does that represent equal pay to her?Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the Minister said this case is before the courts so it is inappropriate to be asking these questions in that level of detail.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that this is a difficult one because it is before the courts. As the question was asked I would have thought it was still a question that is in order and the Minister can rise and answer as she sees fit.Hon JO GOODHEW: I believe that for me to answer the question asked I would be in fact contravening sub judice because it would call on me to make an opinion on something that is currently being discussed in court.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well that’s disagreeing with you Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No it is not.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not actually ask the Minister to make a ruling on this; I asked her—Mr SPEAKER: No no. [Interruption ] Order! You asked the Minister whether it is fair and the Minister has said she does not want to comment on that whilst the case is now before the court. Has the member got further supplementary questions?Sue Moroney: Could she tell the country why the Government declined the invitation to appear in court as an intervener in Kristine Bartlett’s equal pay case?Hon JO GOODHEW: I have no knowledge of that. I am not the Minister with any responsibility for that whatsoever. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Your own member is trying to call for a supplementary question.Sue Moroney: Is the Minister telling the country that as the Minister of Women’s Affairs she has no responsibility for the Equal Pay Act?Hon JO GOODHEW: The Equal Pay Act is within the domain of the Minister of Labour.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you whether you would give more consideration and perhaps report to the House on what has just happened here. You had a Minister get up and plead the sub judice rule and you went along with it. I am not rushing to judgment here but I would think that is far too wide an interpretation of that legislation to bar a person a Minister not before the court on the basis of the sub judice rule. I would just like some further consideration of that.Mr SPEAKER: I will give the matter further consideration because the member asking the question of course has a legal background. But this particular question was accepted as in order because it simply asked whether the Minister had requested or received reports. Supplementary questions since then have been in my mind close or marginal but have been accepted by me as Speaker and the Minister has chosen to address them by saying that because the matter is before the court she did not want to give an opinion.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking your advice. The Minister has said that she does not have responsibility for the Equal Pay Act yet responsibility for pay and employment equity was removed from the Department of Labour and placed with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs back in 2010. I cannot see how the Minister can plead that she does not have responsibility for the Equal Pay Act.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister rose and said that the Equal Pay Act does not come under her responsibilities and I heard an interjection from the Minister of Labour saying: “Ask me. It comes under mine.” I would have thought that was fairly clear.Criminal Justice System—Reform of Court Processes and Electronic Filing of Charges9.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel)to theMinister for Courts: What progress is being made on preparing for changes to criminal procedure next week?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts):On Monday our criminal courts will see the start of the biggest changes in courts for 50 years. This will see 60 percent of criminal court processes replaced or substantially changed to simplify processes and remove unnecessary court events. Ensuring a smooth change to the new system is a massive and vital task for the justice sector. As part of this an extensive programme of training has been delivered to courts staff judges and prosecutors. The New Zealand Law Society and the Public Defence Service have delivered comprehensive training to lawyers around the country and I have met with lawyers in nine centres this month. Although they approach these changes with some degree of trepidation they have a determination to make these reforms work. On Monday we are embarking on a huge change but our justice system is up for it.Scott Simpson: What benefits does the Minister expect from the criminal procedure reforms?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: These changes to criminal procedure are designed to remove unnecessary court events and speed up the criminal process. Once fully implemented we estimate that these reforms will save 6 to 9 weeks in the time it takes to dispose of an average jury trial. They will also remove more than 30000 unnecessarycourt events a year saving 10000 court hours. These reforms will help deliver a system focused on delivering justice in a timely and effective manner reducing stress and inconvenience for victims witnesses jurors and defendants and they are a key part of this Government’s commitment to a better justice system that helps create a safer New Zealand.Scott Simpson: How will these reforms allow the courts to make better use of technology?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Also starting on Monday will be the first part of the electronic operating model which is enabled by these law changes. This will see police charges filed electronically replacing the current practice of police officers having to print off the charges in triplicate travel to the court hand them over the counter swear them and deposit them. Each year police file around 250000 charge sheets although with crime reaching record lows under this Government this number is falling. Electronic filing will save front-line police approximately 9000 hours a year which is time that can now be better spent keeping our streets safe.Health and Safety Workplace—Inspectors10.DARIEN FENTON (Labour)to theMinister of Labour: Does he stand by his statement to the Safeguard conference that the Ministry’s programme includes an increase in the number of health and safety inspectors from the current 139 to 158 all with increased capability; if so will all 158 inspectors be in place by 1 July 2013?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):Yes I do. The ministry’s new health and safety inspectorate model will begin on 1 July and I am advised that there will be ongoing recruitment and training to build the required capability and capacity over time. If New Zealand’s record on health and safety is to improve it is important to get this first step right.Darien Fenton: Is the Minister aware that only 74 of the new inspector roles have been appointed and there will be only half the number of health and safety inspectors as there were 2 years ago when the deadline of 1 July for the new health and safety inspectorate model is just days away?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well that does not accord with my understanding. My understanding is that from 1 July there will be 110 front-line inspectors in place and there will also be 22 line managers—16 of whom will be warranted—six chief inspectors 10 technical and specialist practice support staff and that over the following fortnight there will be a further 15 trainee health and safety inspectors commencing. That provides a total of 163 staff in the health and safety inspectorate from mid-July.Darien Fenton: Has he seen yesterday’s email advice from Leslie Haynes from the department advising that there are quite a few roles to complete recruitment for and advising the 74 inspectors who have actually been appointed; if so does he expect those quite a few inspectors to be in place in 5 days’ time?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am such a busy Minister I have not seen that email. If the member given Labour’s current polling is looking for a job—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Darien Fenton: Will he now consider changing the name of the health and safety change programme from Lifting Our Game to “Shifting the Blame” as it has been called by health and safety inspectors in his department?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am very disappointed with that comment from the member. As Ruth Dyson just said this is health and safety and we should take it seriously. Frankly the facts of the matter are that this Government today with a bill that is about to have its first reading has done more in one day than the Labour Government did in 9 years on this matter. So Labour members have got nothing to be smarmy about.Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table an email for the Minister’s benefit from Leslie Haynes advising of the 74 inspectors—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Māori Students—Impact of Changes to Student Allowances and Institutional Funding11.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki)to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What feedback if any has he received about the impact that the new restrictions in student allowance eligibility for those aged 40 and over will have on the goal to increase the number of Māori students enjoying success at higher qualification levels particularly the significant numbers of Māori who have accessed second chance education opportunities?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):I received very little feedback on this matter. However I can say to the member that over 90 percent of people aged 40 or over use fewer than 120 weeks of student allowance. In fact the average number of weeks used by people aged 40 and over has been just 51 weeks. I can also say that between April 2008 and April 2013 the number of Māori students aged 40 and above studying towards Bachelor’s degrees grew by 24 percent and the number of Māori students aged 40 and above studying postgraduate degrees has grown by 30 percent over that same period.Te Ururoa Flavell: Is he concerned that Māori participation in postgraduate studies is being adversely affected by the caps on student allowances and what opportunity is there to enable the Tertiary Education Commission to direct the funding to where it is most needed in order to achieve its goal to increase the number of Māori students enjoying success at higher qualification levels?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To the first part of the question no I am not at this stage. The indications I have received so far are that it has not had a significant effect on the participation in postgraduate studies. To the second part the Government’s equity loading fund provides a top-up for student achievement component funding in recognition of the additional costs that may be associated with supporting priority learners like Māori Pasifika and students with disabilities. Thirdly the point would be that the Government is determined to see Māori succeed in tertiary education and since 2008 we have seen a very big increase in Māori and Pasifika students enrolled in higher-level education—in the case of Māori students it was about 15000 in 2008 and just a short time ago it was 20000 this year.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with tertiary education providers in Gisborne that the changes to level 1 and level 2 student achievement component funding and to the Youth Guarantee are already having the effect of turning away students; if not what assurances can he give those providers that Māori students still requiring study at these levels in order to progress to higher learning will not be disadvantaged?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not agree that they are causing people to turn students away. In fact my understanding is that around the country there are places in those areas that the member raises. What I can say to him though is that moving from Youth Training to Youth Guarantee has certainly put more challenging targets on the providers in terms of the number of credits achieved and I make no apology for that because we do want to get good results for those students.Taxis—Security Cameras12.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North)to theAssociate Minister of Transport: When was he or his predecessor first made aware of concerns about the installation and operation of security cameras used in taxis and the regular failure of some cameras to deliver images that Police could use to investigate allegations of violent crimes?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport):I am aware that my predecessor the Hon Simon Bridges was provided with a Ministry of Transport briefing on 9 October 2012 that among other things quotes Taxi Federation head Tim Reddish saying that the cameras have had a huge effect particularly in deterring drunks and fare-evaders. I was first made aware of concerns around a particular system on 15 June by the media. I asked officials for further information before making public comment on the allegation unlike that member who was quick to comment but got his facts—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficient answer.Iain Lees-Galloway: On how many occasions since October 2012 has equipment failure prevented the police from acquiring taxi security camera footage to aid the investigation of criminal activity?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have that information. It may be best to direct that to the police or the Minister of Police. What I do know is that the responsibility for maintaining the cameras is with the taxi organisations themselves.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why in the 8 months since Simon Bridges first became aware of this problem have changes to the Land Transport Rule: Operator Licensing 2007 which the Taxi Federation has repeatedly asked for to fix this problem not been made?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows a review of taxi cameras is due to me in coming months as was required when the new rules were implemented. But in respect of the specific issue this is not one about the New Zealand Transport Agency’s role in the endorsement of the specification of cameras; it is about the counterfeit supply of a knock-off. If that member had sought to find out the true facts he would have known that.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with Taxi Federation Executive Director Tim Reddish that today 8 months on from when the Government first became aware of this problem up to 50 percent of cameras currently installed are either not working can be tampered with to distort time and data settings or produce images that are unable to be retrieved by the police?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have not had those comments referred to me so I am unable to comment on their veracity. But what I would say is that this is an issue about a counterfeit product and that member has maligned the good name of the supplier and the New Zealand agent.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table a letter written to the Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee by Tim Reddish that outlines the exact statement that I just made—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Iain Lees-Galloway: Is he concerned that in the rush to get the optics right Steven Joyce oversaw the drafting of an inadequate rule that has failed to make taxi drivers and their passengers safer which is what Steven Joyce promised he would do?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am satisfied that the rule as implemented has been a strong success and that has been the feedback we have had from the TaxiFederation. But I do remind the member that the rule states that the taxi organisations themselves are responsible for ensuring that the in-vehicle camera is fully operational.Questions to MembersVote Education—2013-14 Estimates Review1.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: When will he present the report on the 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education to the House?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):The committee is due to report back by Tuesday 16 July.Dr Megan Woods: Does he have any concerns that the committee’s report may not be up to its normal standards; if so what are those concerns?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order. The chairman is not responsible for the committee’s report; the committee is.Vote Education—2013-14 Estimates Review2.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Was he contacted by the Minister of Education her staff or her officials following her appearance at the hearing of evidence on the 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education yesterday concerning her readiness to return to the Committee at a later date to answer questions around the responses to 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education questions received by the Committee; if so what was the nature of any discussion?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):I had contact with both the Minister of Education and her office yesterday afternoon. As part of that I advised them that the committee had resolved not to request her to return to the committee at a later date. I did not have any contact with either her or her office prior to the committee making its decision.Dr Megan Woods: Is he aware of whether the Minister her staff or her officials contacted her Government colleagues on the committee to get them to vote down any motion that would see her being recalled to face questions?Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is so much noise that I could not hear the question.Dr Megan Woods: OK. Is he aware of whether the Minister her staff or her officials contacted her Government colleagues on the committee to get them to vote down any motion that would see her being recalled to face questions?Mr SPEAKER: No—the purpose of these questions is to ask the member as a chairperson and it must be linked to his responsibility. I do not accept that that question is.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you ruling out the possibility that the chairman might have been officially advised of that?Mr SPEAKER: I am ruling that the question was not satisfactorily addressed to the member—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I am giving a ruling I do not expect interjections from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The rules are very tight with the supplementary question. I have listened to it. I have ruled that it is not in order so that is the end of the matter. The member can disagree with that but I am not reconsidering it. I am inviting the member now to ask question No.—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to understand the ruling because I might have a major misunderstanding here. I think you have ruledout the possibility of a chairman of a committee being briefed on that matter. I just do not think that you can. He might have been briefed; you do not know. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I have is in listening to the question because even though it was repeated for a second time the level of noise and interjection was still substantial. For the benefit of the member I am going to ask her to repeat it and then I will make a ruling which will be a final ruling.Dr Megan Woods: Is he aware of whether the Minister her staff or her officials contacted her Government colleagues on the committee to get them to vote down any motion that would see her being recalled to face questions?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order. The member is not responsible for the actions of the Minister or the Minister’s staff.Vote Education—2013-14 Estimates Review3.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he invite the Minister of Education to return to the Committee for further questioning on the 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):No because following her lengthy appearance and her comprehensive answers over a sustained period of time to questions posed by members the committee resolved not to ask her to return.Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member starts we will ask all members to be a bit more silent. Thank you.Dr Megan Woods: Why did National Party members feel it necessary to stop the Minister coming back when she had earlier indicated—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! That is not a question that is in order.Vote Education—2013-14 Estimates Review4.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: On which date and time did he receive the Minister of Education’s written responses to the 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):The responses were received by the clerk of the committee at 1.26 p.m. on Tuesday 25 June and notice of their being posted on the eCommittee portal was communicated to all committee members at 1.52 p.m. on the same day.Dr Megan Woods: In light of the fact that committee members received the Minister’s responses at approximately 2 p.m. on Tuesday does he agree that it was an insufficient time to adequately review the Minister’s responses prior to her appearance at the committee and will he write to the Minister expressing his dissatisfaction with her lack of compliance with the due date for responses to the committee?Dr CAM CALDER: No but it was a little difficult I understand and it is a credit to the Opposition members that their questioning was so comprehensive over a wide variety of topics touching upon a huge number of the written questions asked which showed that they had worked very hard in an effort to deal with the large amount of information that was provided to them. I have indeed as you will see written to the Secretary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! That answer is quite sufficient.Vote Education—2013-14 Estimates ReviewDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):Did—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has put down this question on notice. She has a right to ask the question and will proceed to do so.5.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he agree to an extension of the due date and time set by the Committee for the Minister of Education’s written responses to the 2013/14 Estimates Review for Vote Education?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):No. The chairman is a servant of the committee. Only the committee can agree to an extension of a deadline set by the committee. I do understand however that there was some confusion between the Ministry of Education and the clerk of the committee as to whether a late submission was agreed by the clerk.Dr Megan Woods: What action—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to be able to hear this question.Dr Megan Woods: What action will he take in light of the fact that the Minister of Education was overdue in providing her responses to the review and will he support the recall of the Minister to be further questioned on her responses as she agreed to do?Mr SPEAKER: That question is not the responsibility of Dr Cam Calder as the chair. It could be the responsibility of the committee.Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters) BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 26 June.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I rise to address the Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back with some recommendations that certain amendments be passed. The Green Party’s view is that those proposed amendments are in order and do improve the bill.The concern we have is that the real amendment Supplementary Order Paper 167 which would have potentially made this bill an excellent one—it would have added a tax on carparks—was withdrawn by the former Minister of Revenue. That has left us with a bill that is of some merit but has not fulfilled its potential. We will none the less be prepared to support the bill and I wish to draw that to the attention of the House.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I commend the Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) BillFirst ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):I moveThat the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 October 2013.This bill is part of the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy by the end of 2013. The bill paves the way for a new set of mining regulations that will improve health and safety in the mining industry and bring New Zealand’s regulation ofmining health and safety in line with international best practice. We owe this to the workers who lost their lives at Pike River and to their families and to all current and future workers in the mining industry.The bill before us today is an omnibus bill. It addresses those recommendations of the royal commission that require new or amended primary legislation. It will establish a new stand-alone Crown agent WorkSafe New Zealand to focus on workplace health and safety it will amend the Health and Safety in Employment Act and it will replace the Mines Rescue Trust Act.The first part of this bill as I have said establishes WorkSafe New Zealand. The creation of a stand-alone Crown agent with a dedicated focus on health and safety was a key recommendation of both the royal commission and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. It signals the step change required in the regulation of health and safety in the workplace.WorkSafe New Zealand will play a significant role in achieving this Government’s target of reducing workplace fatalities and serious injury rates by 25 percent by 2020. This goal should be representative of the type of approach that this new regulator should take. Improving health and safety is not about simply giving people checklists and telling them what to do; it is about letting them know what they need to achieve so that they can then set about achieving that.Part 2 of the bill amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act to provide the necessary statutory support for the new mining regulations. This includes establishing new classes of duty-holder under the Act specifically “mine worker” and “mine operator”. It also includes a definition of the mining operations that will be covered by the new regulatory regime for mining. This will include all surface and underground mines and some quarries and tunnels.Part 2 also provides for enhanced worker participation arrangements in the mining industry. The provisions strengthen worker participation in health and safety in the mining industry and in particular the functions and powers of health and safety representatives. At the same time it ensures there are appropriate checks and balances to prevent undue interference in the day-to-day running of mining operations.All mining operations will be required to have a documented worker participation system and this system will cover all mine workers at a site including contractors and subcontractors and their employees. The functions and powers of site health and safety representatives will be explicitly set out in the legislation. These include the ability for suitably trained representatives to perform inspections and stop operations if there is an imminent risk of serious harm occurring. The bill also establishes a new position of an industry-wide health and safety representative to provide in the royal commission’s words an extra set of eyes and ears and a further line of defence.These positions can be appointed and funded either by a union or by another group of mine workers. The functions and powers of both site and industry health and safety representatives will be balanced by provisions that ensure the health and safety representatives carry out their functions only for health and safety purposes and do not unnecessarily impede production.Part 3 of the bill ensures that the legislation that supports the Mines Rescue service is fit for purpose today. The Mines Rescue service plays a crucial role in emergency response. The royal commission recommended that the Mines Rescue Trust Act better reflect the functions that the service actually carries out and that there be a review of the adequacy and fairness of the levy that funds the service. Part 3 also reflects the Government’s decision to broaden the response to the royal commission to other forms of mining as well as underground coalmining. It does so by expanding the coverage ofthe Mines Rescue service. The governance of the Mines Rescue Trust is also amended to reflect this change in coverage.The Mines Rescue service has unique expertise in training and equipping brigades to respond to emergencies assisting mine operators in emergency preparedness and deploying brigades and providing advice to mine operators during emergencies. All of these capabilities will be reflected in the new functions of the Mines Rescue service provided for in the bill.The bill also enables the levy that funds the service to be set in regulations. Officials are currently developing proposals to ensure that the levy adequately covers the core functions of the service while remaining fair and proportionate for the mine operators that will be required to pay it.The introduction and consideration of this bill is happening in parallel with public consultation on the wider package of proposals for the new regulatory regime for mining. Although the consultation mainly concerns the proposed mining regulations it also covers the worker participation and mines rescue elements of this bill. This parallel process is necessary to meet the commitment to implement the response to the royal commission’s recommendations by the end of this year.Submitters have been advised that their submissions on these issues will be taken into account when officials advise the Government and the select committee on any changes that may be needed to the bill. The public discussion paper also informs likely submitters of this bill and invites them to get involved in the public submission process on it.This Government has made a commitment to the families of the victims of the Pike River mine to ensure that we follow through on every recommendation of the royal commission. If there can be any good from the tragic loss of lives then let it be movement from platitudes to action and a creation of frameworks that will shape better behaviour and outcomes in the workplace. This bill is an important step in this process and will improve workplace health and safety in the mining sector and beyond in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I rise to support the referral of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am pleased also to hear that there will be a reasonable process and time to consider what is a very very important bill but is also highly technical when it comes to the mining regulations.I want to start by noting again with sadness the needless deaths of the 29 men in that awful tragedy at Pike River mine. I know the families will be following this legislation with great interest but also it will bring up many of the issues for them again. I know their lives have been broken by this tragedy. I hope that they have a real opportunity to meet with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and put forward their views. In fact the select committee was discussing that this morning. I think there is a willingness by the committee to actually go to them and allow that to happen.The bill establishes WorkSafe New Zealand which is a stand-alone Crown agency for workplace health and safety. As I said Labour supports it although we have some reservations that we will want to explore at the select committee. Secondly the bill implements the recommendations around an effective regulatory framework for mining. It makes quite big changes to worker participation in health and safety. We want to see these changes implemented without delay. As I said the changes to mining are particularly technical and as the Minister of Labour observed the Safe mines: safe workers consultation is still incomplete and still carrying on so that needs to feed into it.It is really important that during the process the workers who are expert in the field who actually do the jobs and the people who represent them have real input and that those who actually work in mines quarries and tunnels are heard. That is why I am pleased we have more time. The establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand was also the recommendation of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety which produced a very comprehensive report. It was a consensus report around the need for major change in our approach to the health and safety of people at work.One of the things the taskforce was particularly clear about was the need for tripartite involvement. It was very clear about that and in fact the Minister told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just 2 weeks ago that the WorkSafe board would include union representation. But we also know of course that the Minister is not that keen. I have seen the Cabinet papers and there were a few ifs buts and maybes.When we look at the legislation we see in clause 7 “Worksafe New Zealand’s board” that the Minister must appoint at least five but no more than nine people as members of the board. It talks about the knowledge and experience required including having experience in the public sector central government processes and the health and safety environment and then there is this peculiar phrase “perspectives of workplace participants”. What the heck does that mean? Is that supposed to be a half-hearted attempt to include workers and their unions? Could the Minister not bring himself to use the “u” word in this legislation? If he really means it when he talks about tripartism he should be able to use that word and it should be very clear in this legislation.Clause 7 then goes on to talk about business generally. The governance arrangements are left in the hands of the Minister. I am sorry but on our side of the House there is not an awful lot of trust in that Minister and in leaving it in his hands. The perspectives of workplace participants could be the perspectives of employers. So the select committee has to look at that and demonstrate that it has heard the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and its main recommendation about the importance of tripartism. That means unions workers employers and the Government working together not excluding them—not saying: “Oh they’ve got some perspectives of workplace participants.” That is a big let-down and I think there will be a lot of discussion about that in the select committee.The functions provided for the WorkSafe New Zealand agency in the bill are a shadow of those recommended by the task force. The agency has no power to approve codes of practice. There is no role for it in making or amending regulations. It has no clear lead role in workplace health and safety. It cannot make recommendations about the nature of funding. It has no role in fostering tripartism or working with unions. Those are significant gaps in the role of this new agency that will need to be addressed to make this real and to make it work.What I think we are seeing in this bill is a hanging-on by that Steven Joyce monolith “MoBIE”—Moby Dick—that was created and was not up to the job and by those senior managers who were around when the Pike River mine disaster occurred who have not been held to account for the decisions that led to that tragedy who are desperately trying to cling on to power in that shrinking department.For goodness’ sake let us get this agency off on the right foot and accept our history. Let us understand our history and accept that the exclusion of workers and workers’ organisations in the health and safety changes to legislation in 1992 was a monumental stuff-up which ultimately led to the tragedies at Pike River and to those that continue every week in New Zealand workplaces. Every week people die.I was reading Subpart 3 of the bill which is about the transition to WorkSafe New Zealand. It deals with the transfer of existing employees under “MoBIE”—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—to WorkSafe New Zealand. It is veryinteresting because as I have already pointed out to the Minister today the number of health and safety inspectors will be around half the number we had 2 years ago and will be at the lowest level we have had since the late 1940s. That is how far backwards that change programme has taken us.It has been called “lifting our game” and whether the Minister likes it or not the process has been such a botch-up that the inspectors—many of whom have 20 or more years of experience and who have been through restructuring after restructuring—are calling it “shifting the blame”. I think that is appropriate because nobody at management level has been held to account for the mess that led to the Pike River mine disaster. Redundancy notices have been issued to some and inspectors are going down the road. Trainees will be taken on to fill the gap. They will be unwarranted trainees and I am told that they are going to be expected to do some of the duties of inspectors. That is really really concerning.In my last 2 minutes—there is so much in this bill and we will get a chance to look at it—I just want to go back to the point that I make again and again to this Minister about work rights and the link between work rights and health and safety which he does not get. Obviously he does not accept that the task force has identified that the health and safety problems we have in New Zealand arose from the deregulation of the labour market in the 1980s and 1990s. That was the beginning of this. At the same time as we are considering this bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we are also considering a bill that will cut wages that could force workers to work longer hours and that will cut meal breaks and rest breaks—a fundamental health and safety entitlement of workers.We are going to have a big debate about this bill but what I would like to see as we progress through this—and we all acknowledge how important this is—is that we get to a point where we reach some understanding in this House that health and safety and work rights go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. Until this Minister understands that his weakening of employment security and other employment rights will contribute to health and safety problems our death toll and injury toll in New Zealand are going to continue to escalate. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):The significance of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill will not escape the notice of any members of this House. I am quite sure of that. I wish to enthusiastically herald its introduction and commend it to all parties and all members for their attention. The name of the bill and of the Act once passed carries and conveys the reality and the significance of this piece of legislation the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I have said before in this Chamber that an unforgettable part of my life is the memory of sitting through day after day of the testimony heard by the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. I certainly was not alone but significantly I sat in the company of family relatives and friends of the 29 who were lost.There are four main aspects of this bill that I wish to join the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges in giving emphasis to. I would like to do that now. First this bill acts on the recommendations of the royal commission establishing a new stand-alone agency to improve safety in the workplace. Second the bill demonstrates that the Government and indeed I hope all parties in Parliament are committed to the Pike River Implementation Plan. There are 16 recommendations from the royal commission to be implemented by the end of 2013. Third the Government is committed to improving workplace safety by specific dates with firm targets of a reduction in workplace fatalities and serious injury. Fourth the bill needs to be seen by company directors public servants politicians employers and employees contractors and indeed all who are associated with engaging in the workplace not just as a significantstep and not just as meeting the requirements of the royal commission but as an inexorable determined drive with the full weight of parliamentary commitment to ensure workplace and safety reform. Reform is not an option; it is a commitment and an essential requirement.Let us look at some of the specifics. This bill establishes WorkSafe New Zealand as an independent Crown entity. It amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 to give new regulations creating clear expectations in managing hazards in the mining industry. It regulates managing those hazards and it strengthens the minimum standards. It strengthens the health and safety management systems it provides new safety-critical roles it raises training and it increases competency standards. I would like to give emphasis to the following point—and I can almost hear a cheer down on the West Coast. It creates the position of check inspectors in mines. It empowers the mines inspectorate at a greater level. It creates a New Zealand Mining Board of Examiners. It allows for the creation of new regulations to be made following the bill’s passage. It lifts New Zealand to the same level of standards that meet best practice throughout the world.Andrew Little: Let’s not go overboard.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It creates a Mines Rescue Act 2013 which will better reflect the role and functions of the Mines Rescue Trust in providing specialist search and rescue services in mining emergencies training and equipping mines rescue brigades providing advice to mine operators during emergencies and assisting with the development of emergency plans. I note the comments of my colleague on the other side. No none of this will happen by itself Mr Little. It will require the full efforts of everybody involved.This is not a once-over-lightly bill. This strikes to the very heart of the requirements of the extractive industry. I understand that the Pike River families are being kept informed of progress towards re-entry of the mine with all the necessary safety precautions for doing so and they are aware that it will be at least a further 3 months before anything can begin. This bill is not the end of the Pike River mine disaster. This bill does not give closure for families. It is a continuum for them and indeed for us. But the families relatives and friends of the 29 the communities of the Coast and those committed to winning the benefits of the extractive industries for the rest of us can be assured that it is a beginning. It is the beginning of a serious reform programme the beginning of a commitment and the beginning of ensuring that we have listened and learnt and that we can all look forward to adding to our visual memorials adding to the thoughts of our minds and adding to the grief in our hearts through ensuring the legislative benefits of learning from the past.This bill is a continuum in showing that like the fallen in the war the 29 who fell in the mine disaster will not be forgotten and we will and do remember them. This bill is a part of the legislative proof that we are determined to look after the interests of those engaged in mining. It heralds a new beginning for the extractive industries and I look forward to playing a full role with other members from all sides of the House in the select committee process for this. I commend this bill’s first reading for the unanimous support of the House. Thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):It is with a sad heart that I stand to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill but it is also with some relief. Bill Brazil who will be up there somewhere looking down spoke to me in 1994 and said profound words—post the deregulation of mining regulations and health and safety regulations in 1992—that we were destined to repeat the tragedies of the past because we had stepped back from prescriptive mine regulations developed over 100 years of tragedies internationally picking up thewisdom from each and every one of those tragedies into a set of regulations that took the best of international knowledge in an attempt to protect workers who were always and who are always working in a unique and usually quite risky environment. I say to Bill that we have finally made the progress that you spoke of. Tim Hix was another miners union delegate whom I worked with—not in a mine but prior to that—whose death was commemorated 10 years ago last weekend. He was someone who knew of the dangers and who was passionate about driving change but unfortunately whose life was taken from him before he could make real progress.This is a good bill. It is not perfect and I am sure the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will deal with it appropriately. There are lessons for each and every one of us in the passage of this legislation. For politicians it is a lesson for us on all sides of the House that when we receive advice from officials we have a responsibility to ask the hard questions. It is not good enough to just accept that advice and move on. If we think there may be something wrong or some deficiency in that advice then we should pursue it. I say to the Ministers over on the other side of the House now that they should heed my words not because I am full of all wisdom but because of personal experience and because of watching this sad process since 1992 where Minister after Minister has refused to accept the wisdom of people literally at the coalface but has accepted the advice of people sitting on their arses in Wellington. Yes and I say it with a little bit of anger because that is exactly what they were doing: making judgments on what was right and what was not right for the safety of people working underground. It is time we brought check inspectors back in people at the coalface who know what is dangerous and what is not not people sitting on their butts in Wellington. That is what the deregulation brought to the coalmining industry.It is a lesson for officials. Officials work under pressure and they do not always have the resources so sometimes they make up advice on the best of hints or their preconceived notions. It is not good enough. If officials know that they do not have the proper resources to make and provide the proper advice then they too have to speak up because that is exactly what was happening here. Officials sought advice from the big coalminer Solid Energy over a number of years. The big coalminer wanted to get on change the culture in the mining industry get rid of all the old unionists all the old miners who had the knowledge and get a new breed of young keen energetic miners who were prepared to work for bonuses who were prepared to forgo some of the lessons of the past in order to get the coal out of the ground. The lessons for the officials are to ask more than just the mining companies for advice and to seek advice from everywhere you can.For company directors there is a lesson here. You may flit around from one company to another pollinating the advice from one sector to another. Being an independent corporate director is a great honour in this country. Well with it comes responsibility. The people who went to that company Pike River Coal looking to get a good return for the investors had a responsibility to make sure that the investment was sound not just for return to investors but for each and every person involved in that project. They did not. My colleague Andrew Little has taken initiative to try to address that. The lesson for company directors is to ask more than just the chief executive officer; ask the people at the coalface ask the people in the company what is going on and take responsibility for your investment and your job.There is a lesson for the miners. Their enthusiasm to work with one another in risky environments to get on and do the job to grow the project and to deliver incomes for their families incomes for their mates and income for the community is something we must respect but it should not be at the expense of safety. Safety should never be compromised. Some of those miners knew that things were not right. They wereconcerned about jobs for their mates. They were concerned about incomes for their own families. So sometimes as is human nature they overlooked the obvious. With best intents they ignored some of the lessons of the past and some of the wisdom that was surrounding them. I am sure there will be many miners—not just the ones at Pike River but in fact those at Spring Creek Mine where the mine was shut down effectively for 6 months after the Pike River disaster because it too was unsafe. We have to take the lessons from the past and not forget them.For the community for the people on the West Coast sometimes we place too great a weight on the individuals who go and do the jobs to earn the income to provide the secondary businesses and a nice healthy vibrant community. We place upon their shoulders a huge responsibility and the miners feel that. So perhaps we in the community expected too much of them knowing full well in the case of Pike River that it was a high-risk environment. Relying on an unregulated health and safety system was not good enough because human nature and commercial drivers will fail us time and time again. We know that. I do not think anyone in this House wants to bring in legislation or regulation unnecessarily. We do it for good reason most of the time. We do it to protect ourselves from others to protect ourselves from ourselves and to try to have a community and a working environment that are safe and that can allow people who go to work to go home at night and look after their families.The legislation that was changed in 1992 by a National Government that was determined to deregulate anything it could get its hands on was a failure. It was irresponsible. In fact we have seen over many years deregulation being called the panacea to all economic woes—the way forward. Well this was a sad and tragic experiment. I acknowledge the work and the commitment by this National Government to put back into place some prescriptive legislation for underground coalmining. It is necessary. Bill Brazil told me that in 1994. He was right. I take some responsibility. Should I have shouted and screamed from the rooftops? Should I have marched in the streets to get the legislation changed? Perhaps I should have but it is incumbent upon this House here each and every one of us to not buy into this ideology that says that less regulation a hands-off Government and hands-off regulation are going to protect each and every one of us. There are some people who work in risky environments and there are some people who are less able than others who need protection. It is the responsibility of this House and of any Government to put in place those necessary protections.Today we are introducing into the House the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Can I acknowledge Bernie Monk Nick Davidson the families and the people who were determined to push ahead to have a proper inquiry in order to understand what went on here and then to ensure that change occurred. This is the start of that change and we commit to follow it through for better mining safety.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Tēnā koe. Can I begin with the unusual step of acknowledging my colleagues from West Coast - Tasman Chris Auchinvole and the Hon Damien O’Connor and congratulate them both on two excellent speeches.In the 1980s and 1990s New Zealand experienced a wave of change underpinned by the boneheaded notion that if a Government takes a hands-off attitude to more or less everything then the free-market competition that results between unregulated companies will somehow magically produce the best outcomes for everyone. The theory was applied not only to goods and services but also to whole industries and areas of core public services like electricity generation health and education. One of the casualties of this enthusiasm for deregulation was leaky homes. Ordinary people became the victims of corner-cutting and butt-covering by all those who could now get away with it. The same thing happened with finance companies.Another casualty was safety in underground mines. In 1992 the Government threw away the prescriptive mine safety rules that had been built up by the experience of centuries—many years—underground. These rules were eventually replaced with requirements that mining companies take safety measures that are “practicable”. That requirement has embedded in it affordability because a company that cannot afford a particular safety measure will not find it to be practicable with the result that different mines will have different safety standards. At the same time the “triangle of safety” as Dave Feickert refers to representatives of companies workers and Government who all have responsibility for safety was demolished with the abolition of check inspectors and then a radical downgrade of the Government’s mines inspectorate. Thus the National Government in the 1990s first of all radically weakened the actual rules for underground mine safety and then dismantled the structures to monitor and enforce compliance.None of these changes was reversed by Labour in its years of Government and throughout all of that time experts warned that that erosion of safety would result in the loss of life. It did in 2006 and then again in 2010. In 1995 in his submission to the inquiry into the administration of occupational safety and health policy coalmining safety expert Bill Brazil whom the Hon Damien O’Connor has already referred to said: “Furthermore the [Health and Safety in Employment] Act is being used as a manipulative device to eliminate management structures and many historically formed mining codes of practice that were firmly established in the heart of previous legislation much of which has proved successful over 100 years. Should this situation be allowed to continue without intervention the end result can only be the escalation of potential for further disaster.” How right he was.From my kitchen window I look out at the Paparoas where 29 men still lie. I am reminded every day of my commitment that those men’s remains are brought back to their families that the investigation of their deaths sees justice done and that systems are reconstructed to protect all other underground miners from avoidable risk. Mine was one of the very first calls for a royal commission of inquiry into the Pike River tragedy. Then I came to this House day after day pressing the Minister of Labour to reinstate the mines inspectorate and overhaul the health and safety regulatory framework until the Government eventually capitulated created the High Hazards Unit and established the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. The royal commission and the independent task force both produced excellent recommendations.I would like to say that the job of reconstructing those safety systems to protect miners is now being completed with this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill but I cannot. When the Government said it would implement all of the recommendations of the royal commission I cautiously welcomed the announcement but said the devil would be in the detail. Now we have seen some of the detail and it has become clear that the Government intends a pale facsimile of what the royal commission and the independent task force intended. Of course we welcome the Government’s eventual acceptance that a stand-alone occupational safety and health agency is required. But rather than the very strong tripartite model recommended by the royal commission and strongly endorsed by the independent task force the Government instead proposes as Darien Fenton has already commented the vague formulation that the Minister will have regard to the perspectives of workplace participants as one of six general criteria for appointing board members.The functions of the new entity owe much more to the standoffish half-hearted and proven inadequate approach of the Department of Labour to these responsibilities than to the strong authoritative and proactive agency that had been intended. The agency will enforce the legislation but every other function—and there are 13 functions—is toadvise promote provide guidance and generally give the appearance of action without authority. The Government is proceeding to provide for advisory groups when this has been resoundingly rejected by participants in the task force process particularly as it seems that this will be accompanied by the dismantling of the Workplace Health and Safety Council. I invite subsequent Government speakers to tell me if I am wrong but if I am right such a dismantling would seem to contravene International Labour Organization conventions to which New Zealand is signatory.The changes in Part 2 of the bill certainly go part-way towards re-establishing that triangle of safety I referred to earlier and I am pleased that it is largely based on the Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Act. In a variety of places however the bill resorts again to weasel words. For example in the proposed new section 19Q in clause 27 which is pivotal mine operators must show that there is “a documented worker participation system that provides reasonable opportunities for the mine workers to participate” in improving health and safety. I want to state categorically that that is not enough. Successful mine safety programmes require that there is full worker participation. It can never be acceptable under the law for an employer to be able to say: “Well we provided them the opportunity but they didn’t show up at the meeting.”I remain profoundly disappointed that the Government has not moved to address the “all practicable steps” formulation in the Act itself. More prescriptive regulations for mining should emerge from the new processes being established but unless the problem is dealt with in the Act I believe it will continue to drive haphazard practice in industries such as forestry which also has an appalling safety record. Part 3 of the bill establishes a wider role and sounder footing for the Mines Rescue service and that is long overdue. The pity is that the Government’s woeful management of Solid Energy and its current underground coalmines may have already meant a critical loss of expertise from our Mines Rescue service.All in all one has the impression that the Government has not learnt its lesson and again hoped to get away with superficial or half-hearted adjustment rather than the fundamental change that is called for. On 22 November 2010 John Key said: “I have no reason to believe that New Zealand’s safety standards are any less than Australia’s and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good”. He has since denied in this House that deregulation was at the heart of the systems failure that allowed the Pike River tragedy to occur and one has the impression with this bill that the Government is responding to public perception rather than a genuine understanding of the need for fundamental change. We will support this bill at this stage we will follow the submissions with very close interest and we will need there to be significant change to continue to support it.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges on bringing through to the House the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. As many members of this House have said and I am sure further speeches will indicate this bill relates to a very serious tragedy in our country’s history. We wish to pay tribute to those lost in that tragedy and also to their families and the wider community of that region. To all those who are involved in the productive industries of New Zealand in forestry in mining and in agriculture where lives are at risk because of the nature of those industries it is difficult. That is something we need to be very aware of and cognisant of in this House to make sure that we take the best approach possible.I would just like to pay tribute to the local MPs from that area Chris Auchinvole and Damien O’Connor who have spoken in this House and their words. They as local members will have been touched immensely by the events that happened there. We look forward to their contributions through these debates. We look forward also to thecontributions of the political parties involved in the process. We are very fortunate to have on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members who have a good awareness of labour relations law and regulations and we look forward to their involvement in making sure that we get the best possible result.I guess the only disappointing part has been the Green Party and its last speech. This is not something I think for which anybody can attribute blame. It is a very difficult situation. We hope that the Green Party will be constructive in the way that it works within the committee towards getting the best results for New Zealanders our industry and especially those people who put themselves at most risk day by day working in our very dangerous productive industries. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):New Zealand First will be supporting the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. We welcome the changes that this bill will make to our mining sector. Health and safety is absolutely essential in this particular workplace. New Zealand First agreed with the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and we are happy to now see that many of its recommendations have been heard and are being implemented. The Pike River tragedy as we all know cannot be blamed on just one factor but resulted from a series of errors. It is very sad that it took this devastating tragedy and 29 lives to make the changes necessary to improve the health and safety regulations in the mining sector happen. New Zealand First acknowledges the families and friends of those lost in the Pike River tragedy and all of those other people caught up in this disaster who are dealing with and dealt with this particular tragedy. And of course we need to acknowledge the two West Coast MPs as well the Hon Damien O’Connor and Chris Auchinvole.We are very pleased to see the workplace agency WorkSafe New Zealand that is being created under this particular bill. The intention of this agency is to improve workplace health and safety through the creation of a stand-alone health and safety agency that will have a dedicated focus on health and safety. We were very impressed when we had a look at clause 10 on the WorkSafe agency’s functions. It appears to be quite a thorough list. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we will examine these very thoroughly. But we want action with authority when it comes to these particular issues.In 1998 New Zealand First voted for the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill (No 2). In doing so we were advocating for a centralised agency that would be responsible for all things that related to health and safety. We believed then and we believe now that a sole Government agency ought to have centralised responsibility for ensuring that responsible health and safety practices are undertaken in every workplace in New Zealand. It has been a very unfortunate fact that successive Governments either underfunded the Department of Labour resulting in very few health and safety inspectors or allowed the Department of Labour to underfund the mining inspectorate for which it was responsible—a disaster just waiting to happen. When one goes to work in the morning there is the inherent expectation that one will return home safely after a day’s work and that health and safety requirements in the workplace have been complied with to ensure that this actually happens.The bill also provides amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. This change will see new clear mining regulations such as processes for better managing hazards increasing minimum standards requirements for health and safety standards and strengthened training and competency requirements. The royal commission’s focus on this was for a mostly underground mine. However the changes in this bill will focus on all mining operations due to the hazards that they actually present. New Zealand First has always supported an increase in health and safetyregulations for our workers. We are also aware too that the unions have voiced their concerns around this particular issue. During the select committee process we need to review whether or not the unions can be involved in checking out the credentials of some of these health and safety inspectors. We look forward to hearing their submissions and many others through the select committee process and we believe that each and every one of them needs to be taken into serious consideration. We support changes to health and safety and we look forward to the contributions from others on this committee.The royal commission found that the effectiveness of the mines inspectorate had been declining for many years and by the time of the tragedy the Department of Labour unfortunately had only two mining inspectors. Basically this was totally insufficient for New Zealand. They were unable to discharge their statutory functions. In short in whichever form old or new the deterioration of the mines inspectorate was an inevitable consequence of political neglect after 1998. While undertaking that task it also decided to integrate the mines inspectorate a leftover aspect of the Ministry of Energy residing in the Ministry of Commerce into the larger Occupational Safety and Health Service within the Department of Labour. Questions were raised about this from both sides of the House regarding how the newly transferred mines inspectorate would actually be funded. It is also worthy of note that well and truly before the Pike River tragedy the Opposition had raised questions about the adequacy of the mines inspectorate. We know that several mine inspectors had lost their jobs in transfers and were paid out redundancy accordingly. Many of these positions were not refilled and as outlined in the report that left only two inspectors. This in itself was a recipe for disaster.We know having read through the royal commission report that there were a number of safety issues at Pike River that went totally unaddressed. Failure across a number of Government departments and sections of Pike River management contributed to this tragedy. This is a view that we believe is advocated in the royal commission report where it explains the Swiss cheese model of causation where it is maintained that there needs to be a perfect storm of failings across agencies coupled with human error before an accident on this scale can actually occur.We welcomed the royal commission report on this tragedy and we now welcome this bill to implement changes to improve the sector; they are very much needed. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to make these much-needed improvements. Safety should never ever be compromised particularly in the mining industry. This legislation is absolutely essential and we look forward to working on it.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am pleased to take a call on this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and I want to join with other members of the House in acknowledging and paying tribute to those fine men who lost their lives as a result of the Pike River tragedy. I do that knowing that words will never really adequately express the sort of anguish and loss that occurs in these sorts of events but I do so in a manner that suggests that in terms of life and its cruel outcomes and tragedies often we have to look rearward to learn what to do next. In that sense there are really no “what ifs”; there are just lessons to be learnt and this bill is very much about what is next.In acknowledging the lives lost I also want to acknowledge the families that remain behind and the role that they themselves and others around them may play in the select committee process. I want to also acknowledge Damien O’Connor and Chris Auchinvole—members from the affected area of Pike River—and the steadfast support that I know they have provided to those involved.This bill is an omnibus bill. It really does recognise many of the lessons learnt and it reflects the findings of the royal commission of inquiry. I just want to briefly touch on the three main spokes that the bill is dealing with. Firstly it establishes WorkSafe New Zealand a Crown agency that essentially starts a new health and safety agency. To some extent I think we can all have some degree of scepticism inasmuch as actually workplace health and safety is not about just the structure that sits above the workplace the chief executive officer the supervisors within the workplace or the workers themselves; it is a combination of all those factors and in some circumstances as Barbara Stewart the member who has just resumed her seat recognises a perfect storm will work against all those things at play. But this is about ensuring that the legislative framework that is being worked through here does as much as possible to ensure that all the relevant components are lined up.The second part of the bill contains the amendments that will be made to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the new regulatory regime that sets out some clear expectations in terms of hazard management. The third limb of the bill creates a new Act called the Mines Rescue Act. A number have commented on the circumstances that have led to this. I very much want to encourage us now to think about what is next and the way in which we as members of Parliament can support not only workers within this industry but workers across New Zealand in constructing the best legislative framework we can for their health and safety and for the health and safety of their families. I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and in acknowledgment of the last speaker Mr Sabin I just say that I do not think the families or the miners who continue to mine in this country today and their communities and the unions to which those miners belong expect this House to continue to come up with comforting words to continue to ease the grief and the loss. What they do expect is this House to come up with meaningful and genuine action that genuinely takes account of the now studied failures and gaps in the system that led to the Pike River tragedy.The Government and the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges and indeed Chris Finlayson before him as the Acting Minister of Labour and Kate Wilkinson before him who was the Minister of Labour in office at the time of this tragedy are entitled to the gratitude of the House for bringing this important bill to the House at this time. As we all know it follows the royal commission and its study of the dreadful disaster. The Pike River coalmine tragedy was the worst industrial disaster in more than 40 years and we now know and we need not be ashamed or feel guilty about it any more that it was the product of poor regulation poor oversight and inspection and poor governance and management.The royal commission was very clear. The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 was at that time half-baked and a half measure. We have learnt that lesson. We have been told that. Even the subsequent attempts by the Labour Government to fix it up—good attempts and the correct efforts to be made—were not enough to make it a robust and enduring but ultimately safe piece of legislation. We have made the mistake before. We made it in 1992. Let us not make the mistake again. This is not about just the Pike River 29 and we do not honour just the Pike River 29 with this bill and getting it right. There are the three miners who died on the West Coast in 1998 the one down in Ōhai in 2003 the one in 2006 and now the Pike River 29 in 2010.This bill is an opportunity to set a new standard for health and safety in all workplaces for all employers and for the benefit of all workers in New Zealand. This bill is a chance a first step to honour those dying on our farms in our fisheries on our construction sites and in our forests. I acknowledge the work of Helen Kelly of theCouncil of Trade Unions on her campaign on forestry safety. This bill is a first step and a first chance to honour people like Ken Callow of the East Coast and Adam Olsson of Taranaki. This bill is largely confined to the mining industry and that is a good industry to start with given its track record.Although we support the bill at this stage we are saying it is a good first draft and that is all it is. It beefs up the inspectorate and it creates WorkSafe. It is explicit about worker participation and it provides for industry health and safety inspectors which is the check inspector that certainly the union and its members in mining have been calling for for many years. I first made the call for check inspectors in 2004 and made it again in 2005 and 2006—and so it went on—in my capacity as union secretary.But let us not forget about the reality of workplace relationships and employment agreements. Workplace relationships and employment agreements are about a relationship of power and control. That is something else we should not feel ashamed of or guilty about admitting. That is the reality. It is the legal reality and it is the practical reality. The employer has ultimate control. The worker has a duty of obedience. That is how the workplace works. But health and safety risks hazards at work and danger at work directly affect workers. It is workers who are the ones who are killed and maimed when poor health and safety happens at work. It is not management; it is workers. Input by workers into health and safety and risk assessment and risk management must be real and genuine. Their voice the worker voice must be genuine and meaningful.The royal commission of inquiry into the Pike River tragedy went to great lengths to underscore the need for worker input. It talked about tripartitism and so did the recent Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. They both underscored the need for worker input and they said that tripartitism must start from the top. So we should expect to see it in the governance of WorkSafe we should expect to see it in the governance of Mines Rescue and we should expect to see it in the health and safety measures in the governance measures in the workplace at the enterprise level—not with the directors although they need to be aware of it but in the way that health and safety is given oversight at the enterprise.Here is the thing: this bill if it is to be effective if it is to honour the Pike River 29 and everyone else who has died unnecessarily at work since 1992 will have to tell employers what to do. It will have to be instructive and mandatory. We must honour the call for a better stronger voice for workers in health and safety in our mines and in every workplace. Even when some employers turn up to this Parliament to quibble and cavil this House should not quail from legislating as far as is necessary to protect and preserve life and limb in the workplace. That is our duty. Anything less is negligent and that is what we on this side of the House will be going into this deliberative process with as our objective.Some aspects of this bill in its first draft do not come up to specification. For example new section 13AA in clause 25 which deals with the training and supervision of mine workers talks about employers taking “all practicable steps” to ensure that mine workers have been properly trained and are properly supervised. That is not adequate. It is not enough to take all practicable steps; it must be a requirement that miners employed to do the dangerous work of mining especially underground mining have the proper training and qualifications and are provided with the proper supervision.New section 19Q in clause 27 “General duty to involve mine workers in health and safety matters” simply requires as presently drafted “reasonable opportunities” for input. That is not enough. That will not be enough. If this bill comes back to this House with that language still in it we will not have done our job and the bill will not come up to the mark.New section 19R talks about the development of worker participation systems and it is there where we must be absolutely on our mettle to ensure that the worker voice is properly provided for and will be heard. Engagement between management and workers over health and safety must be real and it must be protected and supported by legislation. We do not need legislative skeuomorphism.Dr Cam Calder: Skeuomorphism.ANDREW LITTLE: We do not need a bill that looks like it is doing one thing but is actually doing another. I see that Dr Calder is taken with the language and that is good. He can go into the deliberative process in his caucus when the bill comes back for endorsement and ask the question of the chair of the select committee and indeed of the Minister: “Do we still have a bill that is just another piece of legislative skeuomorphism or do we have a real bill that will have real effects and will provide real protection?”.Barbara Stewart talked about one of the findings of the royal commission being the Swiss cheese model of failure and disaster. Well we need to go from the Swiss cheese model to the Swiss Army knife model. We need to go to a health and safety legislative framework that provides all necessary protections respects the role of management and provides proper protection for workers because nothing less will do. We have had the lesson—the bitter cold hard lesson. We have seen what bad legislation does. We can avoid it if we are on our mettle and perform our duty and we are here to do that.Dr CAM CALDER (National):There have been some very thoughtful contributions from all sides of the House on this piece of legislation the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. TangiwaiWahine  Christchurch Pike River—tragedies seared into our nation’s collective consciousness. I want to acknowledge those lost at Pike River and the continued pain and suffering of the loved ones left behind who will continue to mourn their loss as long as they are alive.We are committed as a Government to our Pike River Implementation Plan. This is an omnibus bill that enacts the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It establishes WorkSafe New Zealand which is a new workplace health and safety agency it amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and it creates a new Mines Rescue Act 2013.The Pike River Implementation Plan has 16 recommendations and we are aiming to have these implemented by the end of this year. National is committed as a Government to improving workplace safety across the board and so we have set a firm target for ourselves of having a 25 percent reduction in the rate of workplace fatalities and serious injuries by 2020. This is a significant step in the Government’s workplace health and safety reform programme. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call—5 minutes.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Can I also start my contribution to the debate on this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill by acknowledging the 29 men who died in the Pike River mine tragedy and their families. They suffered from losing one of the most fundamental rights at work: the fundamental right to walk out the door in the morning go to work do your job and return home safely to your loved ones. Sadly for far too many New Zealand workers including the 29 at Pike River mine that has not happened. The fact that that has not happened is a blight on our country and on our country’s laws and that is what we are attempting to resolve today.But can I say at the outset that yes we have learnt a lesson. Can we please never ever forget it? History is sometimes there to repeat itself and this is one piece of history that must never repeat itself. We must never have to relearn the lesson about deregulation of the workforce and in the workplace and the tragedies that it actuallyleads to because to me that is the lesson of Pike River mine and other tragedies. They were not things that were accidents. They did not just happen. They were designed to happen and they happened through poor design. That is what the royal commission told us. We must never unlearn that lesson again.In a decade’s time I do not want to ever hear any parliamentarian in this House argue for deregulation in the workplace because today we are accepting right across parties I think unanimously in the House that deregulation risks health and safety for workers. I expect that if everyone is genuine about their commitments to this debate they are accepting that premise. If they are accepting that premise then can I say to the Government that it cannot happen in isolation. It is not just one bill that needs to accept that reality. It is in fact all of the employment legislation before this House that needs to understand that reality. To accept just in this bill and not in others that deregulation risks workers’ health and safety is to pay lip-service to learning the lessons of the Pike River mine tragedy and other tragedies.I say this because earlier today I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we were debating and discussing another piece of legislation before the House on employment rights. That piece of legislation does further deregulate the workplace.Mike Sabin: No it’s not this bill.SUE MORONEY: It is not this bill and that is my point Mr Sabin. It is not OK to recognise that deregulation is a bad thing just when it comes to this bill. It actually needs to be right across the board because the bill Mr Sabin that we were discussing actually reduces workers’ rights to—Mike Sabin: Yeah it’s not this bill—that’s my point.SUE MORONEY: My point Mr Sabin is that it actually reduces workers’ rights to having a lunch break and rest periods. That is a fundamental health and safety issue. That the members opposite do not seem to get that gives me no comfort because they can pass this bill and think they have done their job but if they continue to deregulate other parts of the workplace they are not honouring—they are not honouring—the lesson that needs to be learnt from Pike River mine and those other tragedies. They need to be serious about this not just with this piece of legislation but with every single piece of legislation that they currently have before this Parliament that attempts to deregulate the workplace. I am proud to stand and support this bill and I urge the Government to take this issue seriously with regard to other pieces of legislation.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens for this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. The bill enacts some of the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy an inquiry that was pushed for by the Greens—and we are certainly glad that it was carried out. The commission’s report into the tragedy where 29 men lost their lives highlighted the areas where we could be doing a lot better to provide safe workplaces so that those men and other people like them can come home from work.There were 16 recommendations in the report. The bill deals with some of them but not all of them. The Greens will be supporting this bill. We recognise that health and safety regulation in this country is long overdue and it is time we focused on a framework that puts the safety of workers before the profits of business. It has been acknowledged that the loss of lives at Pike River was the result of a series of actions and inactions culture and a health and safety framework that lacked the appropriate checks and balances. So it is heartening to see some remedies in this bill.We support the creation of WorkSafe New Zealand. We believe that an independent agency that has as its main focus health and safety and that is charged with education monitoring and compliance will provide some safeguards. I note that around $34million has been allocated to the creation of this agency in the last Budget round. This has even had the Employers and Manufacturers Association quite concerned that that may not be enough to adequately resource and staff an agency so that it can fulfil its compliance and monitoring work. We support the introduction of stronger regulations and we recognise that this bill is a step towards encouraging worker participation and highlighting safety breaches and hazards. We welcome the provisions that create workplace health and safety representatives who have the power to suspend operations if there is serious concern for harm.But what we need is a shift in culture so that workers and contractors and staff in any mine are able to speak up if they are worried about safety. We know that we will see that shift in unionised workplaces. The research shows that where there is a strong union presence workers are safer because they can speak up. This is not the case in the forestry sector a deregulated industry where workers are isolated from each other and that has low union membership. This fear of speaking up is exactly what happened at a public meeting on forestry that I was at last week in Gisborne with my colleague Darien Fenton from Labour. None of the workers in the 50 or so people in the crowd said a word because there were bosses there—and they certainly spoke up.We recognise that this bill is quite a dramatic change from the original 1992 Health and Safety in Employment Act which introduced the deregulated framework for health and safety. This Act replaced other legislation in the mining industry that ensured that there was independent monitoring and compliance with health and safety standards in mines—my colleague Kevin Hague has talked about that. The 1992 Act ushered in a concept of the cost-benefit analysis being taken with workplace hazards. Employers were urged to take practicable steps to minimise and isolate hazards but only if they could afford to do so. I note that there was a draft code of practice in the mining sector that remained in draft form until 2006.So it is a huge step forward to have WorkSafe New Zealand and some provisions for the voice of workers but if we want safe workplaces across New Zealand not just in mines the Government must stop undermining unions and removing the ability for workers to bargain collectively. It needs to shift away from the truly awful amendments it is making to the Employment Relations Act and it needs to positively encourage workers to speak up and join their unions.We are looking forward to examining this bill more closely as it goes through the select committee process but in the meantime we commend this bill to the House.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I am pleased to stand in support of this first reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. As I think I have said in the House several times before context is important. I firstly therefore join with colleagues around the House in acknowledging the context of the Pike River coalmine and the tragedy there that has facilitated the approach of this bill in the House. Secondly this area of safety is always something that is constantly evolving. As those who have spoken before me have noted this is a bill of three parts dealing with everything from the mines to an omnibus aspect and to the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):I moveThat the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill be reported back to the House on or before 30 October 2013.Motion agreed to.Psychoactive Substances BillSecond ReadingHon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health):I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be now read a second time . I want to thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill and also the many people who made submissions on this important piece of legislation. I appreciate your broad support for and the helpful comments on the detail of the bill. Because of the overwhelming wish of New Zealanders for the Government to act on the sale and use of psychoactive substances so-called legal highs the committee has had a shorter period than usual to consider this bill. I greatly appreciate the cross-party support that has enabled Parliament to expeditiously deal with this issue. The shortened time frame was recognition of the significant problem that unregulated psychoactive substances have become and the need to find a solution.I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the considerable amount of work done by the Hon Peter Dunne in getting this bill to this stage. The Hon Peter Dunne has been a driving force behind this world-first legislation and we need to recognise the great work that has been put in place by Mr Dunne in this area.It is worth taking the time to remind ourselves what this bill is about. This bill is squarely about safety. It was prompted by concerns about untested substances being sold with no controls. The Government could have banned individual substances once we found out what they were but this process was reactive and extremely time-consuming. For each banned substance the Government had to identify what the substance was and identify possible harm from it before any action could be taken. Unfortunately the realities of living in this technological age meant that there were always new ones waiting with the potential to cause more harm. The number of substances available potentially thousands meant this was never going to be more than a temporary fix.This bill will fix this problem once and for all. No longer will the onus be on the Government to show a risk of harm; the onus will be on anyone wanting to produce a psychoactive product to show it poses no more than a low risk of harm. In order to do that there must be a way in which producers can demonstrate that their product meets the standard. But even if products meet that standard the Government will still be insisting on tight controls around their availability. For starters from day one of enactment neighbourhood dairies will no longer be entitled to stock any such product nor will sales to those under 18 years of age be permitted. These restrictions were always the Government’s intention but I appreciate the Health Committee’s wish to have that detailed in the primary register—legislation rather than regulations.Hon Trevor Mallard: It always pays to read the speech beforehand. It always pays to read it through and you can work out the big words that way.Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes Mr Mallard. Lots of things always pay but thanks for the advice. These and other restrictions including restricting where advertising can occur provide absolute certainty that the Government is serious about controlling these substances and preventing harm.Other changes made in the select committee include some clarification of the principle and purpose of this bill. The new version of the bill clarifies that the legislation is about protecting the health of individuals who use these substances. The select committee also inserted a principle that a product that meets a standard will be approved. If there really are products that meet these tests and pose only a low risk of harm then they will be approved. This bill was never meant to be a ban by stealth; it is about providing safer communities for our young people in particular.One issue on which there was a great deal of discussion was the offences provision in the bill. On balance the Government recommended keeping the offences for possession of an unapproved product and possession of any psychoactive substance by people under 18. I know that a lot of submitters wanted no personal possession offence and I respect that view. Submitters raised a concern in particular about young people having their future travel and employment options blighted through youthful foolishness. I agree that this would be an undesirable outcome. This bill is not about establishing a new class of criminal but I do not think recognising that there still needs to be some personal responsibility taken is a bad thing. However I can assure those who argued against a personal possession provision that we have very carefully made sure no one will receive a criminal conviction simply by possessing one of these substances. The worst thing that can happen is an infringement notice similar to a speeding ticket. I am assured by police that even this would be a last resort. The first response will be education and possibly referral to health or social services. These provisions will allow police to intervene and prevent harm to young people and harm from unapproved substances—the harm that I talked about earlier and the harm that this bill is intended to prevent.Another issue raised was the impact of these products on local communities. The select committee heard very strong submissions from local authorities on this issue in particular. In response the bill now contains provisions allowing local authorities to restrict outlet locations and density similar to the provisions in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.The final issue that I want to talk about is that of animal testing. I know that this is an issue that many if not most people feel very strongly about. Let me say now that I respect those feelings and I share them. If there are suitable non-animal tests then they must and will be used. This bill is a response to the harm caused by untested products and the countervailing consideration must be human safety. We must be sure that the tests that these products are put through give us robust information so that the regulator can make sound decisions. Whether or not there is a suitable non-animal test is a matter for the experts.The Ministry of Health established an interim expert committee including experts on toxicology pharmacology and animal welfare. Mr Dunne asked that committee for advice on non-animal tests clearly articulating his strong preference for a regime that excluded animal testing. The committee’s advice was that some animal testing would be necessary at first to ensure that the risk of products was accurately assessed. The committee went on to advise that there were some alternative tests that could be used immediately and that it would continue to work to identify other alternatives.After receiving this advice I asked the Health Committee to consider an amendment to the bill that would put controls on animal testing and put a duty on the expert advisory committee to actively seek alternatives. I am very pleased to say that the committee members agreed unanimously to these amendments which are in clause 11A of the revised bill. The expert advisory committee will actively seek alternatives to animal tests and again I want to make it clear that there will be no animal testing where there is a suitable alternative. The overriding principle remains the need to make sure that the products sold in New Zealand pose no more than a low risk of harm. The importance of that principle is why this bill is before the House.This bill is also timely as I moved as a new Minister to refresh the National Drug Policy. Although there will be separate discussions and consultations held to discuss what else can be done in this area starting with a discussion forum tomorrow hosted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation the restrictions placed on psychoactive substancesthrough this bill will form an important component of New Zealand’s policy on drugs for the future.I am aware that drug policy is a particularly polarising area and I have no doubt that in the course of the National Drug Policy’s development a variety of interested parties will float a wide range of ideas many of which may not be acceptable to me or to this Government. However if thinking outside the box achieves even one promising proposal that will reduce the dependency and harm that come from drug use then I believe that it is worth the effort.Ensuring that we do not have high-risk novel psychoactive substances on shop shelves is the purpose of the bill and it will be achieved with this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. Can I welcome the new Minister Todd McClay to the debate on this issue and can I suggest to him that the process and the thinking behind this piece of legislation were far superior than for some of the legislation that he promoted in the House as a private member. I hope he learns from this experience because this is the way to go Minister. I really also—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not a high test.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is not a high test no. I also ought to recognise the Hon Peter Dunne who is the architect of this legislation who steered it through its first stages in the House and who steered it from its genesis as a set of recommendations out of the Law Commission report to becoming legislation. It is good to see Peter Dunne in the House this evening.Can I say thank you very much to colleagues on the Health Committee. I have to say barring a couple of process issues—and I do need to reflect on those—the constructive approach that all members of the select committee took to this legislation was encouraging. It is the sort of thing that I wish the New Zealand public could actually get to see more often. I want to acknowledge particularly Paul Hutchison and Scott Simpson from the National Party side who really worked hard to improve this bill. I think it has come back to the House in much better shape than it was in when it went to the select committee.I did say there were a couple of process issues and I do need to just briefly reflect on those. The first is the fact that we had such a short time frame at the select committee to deal with this bill. It has been said by the Government that that was in order to have the legislation enacted as quickly as possible and to have it enacted before the expiry of the temporary ban notices that were placed on some of the psychoactive products. It is true that that is necessary. However we did not need to curtail the select committee process; we simply needed to get this legislation to the House much sooner than we did. In fact because the Law Commission reported its recommendations over 2 years ago there has been plenty of time for the Government to make this a priority.This is no reflection in any way whatsoever on Peter Dunne. I know he has always viewed this as a priority. The Government—the National Party in particular—simply did not prioritise this and caused some difficulties for the select committee in dealing with all the issues because of the shortened time frame. One of those issues was animal testing. I do not want to dwell on that issue too much in this speech but suffice to say that it was a mistake for the National Party members on the committee to vote against hearing the submissions referring to animal testing. We needed to hear all sides of the debate. We were not able to consider that issue properly because those submissions were blocked. That was not a matter of scope; that was a question that the committee had to make a decision on and we did not hear those submissions because NationalParty members voted against the committee doing so. It is as simple as that and that is all I really want to say about that.We have made this bill a better bill. The first thing we have done is that we have amended the purpose and we have added the words “to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances.” That absolutely has to be at the heart of this legislation. It has to be driving this legislation that its purpose is to reduce the harm to people who use psychoactive substances and indeed to the people around them and their communities. That is a positive change. It is incredibly positive. I think probably the most important change for the families the parents and the communities who have taken an interest in this issue is that we have brought into the primary legislation the banning of the sale of psychoactive products from dairies. It will be absolutely clear from day one when this legislation is passed that it will not be possible to buy any psychoactive product from the local dairy. It is not appropriate for these substances to sit alongside milk bread lollies and all the other things that we buy from our local stores. That is a massively positive change and in fact I think for many people it is the only change that is important.There will be a transition period. There will be a transition period in which the substances to which a temporary ban notice has not been applied will be able to stay on the shelves so long as the manufacturers of those products apply for them to become an approved substance. To reiterate that does not mean that there will be a transition period in which they can continue to be sold from dairies. Again from day one they will be out of dairies and that is important to note.When the bill was originally drafted there were a number of licences available—licences to manufacture a psychoactive product and licences to import a psychoactive product. We have added in the select committee some more licences the most important of those being a licence to retail the product. The people who sell these products need to be of good character they need to know what it is that they are doing they need to know about the products and they need to be able to provide information to the people who are purchasing products from them. I am very pleased that the select committee saw fit to introduce that retailers’ licence.We considered at length the issue of point-of-sale advertising and the packaging of psychoactive substances. We have not gone quite as far as plain packaging and that is in recognition of the fact that not all these substances are the same. They are different chemical compounds and they are different substances that have different effects on people. But we have heavily regulated exactly what those packages can look like. They must not be designed in a way that appeals to young people and they must carry information about both the ingredients in those products and the places that people can seek help should they find that the product has had an adverse effect on them.There are great restrictions on point-of-sale advertising and indeed the only advertising that will be possible will be inside the stores that are licensed to sell these products. My vision is that these will essentially be stand-alone stores into which people will enter really only for the reason of purchasing these and associated products. That I think is appropriate. They should be R18 stores in my view. Only people who are 18 or over should be purchasing those products and only people 18 and over should be going into those stores to purchase those products.We considered the issue of whether or not we should apply an excise tax to these substances. It is something that we do for alcohol and it is something that we do for tobacco. I think it would be a positive move to apply an excise tax one day. We heard advice from the ministry—and indeed the Drug Foundation supported this view—that what we need to do is see how the market develops and what the pricing points are and revisit this issue in the future when we have a better idea of exactly what level of taxshould be applied. I support that approach and I hope that we will get an opportunity to review that in the near future.Another issue that the select committee took a considerable amount of time to consider was the issue of possession and whether or not it should be an offence to possess an unapproved substance and whether or not it should be an offence for a person aged under 18 to possess either an approved or an unapproved substance. This was an issue that challenged the select committee. Again we gave it great consideration and there was constructive consideration from members of all parties. In the end the select committee came to the view that for people aged under 18 making it an offence was useful because it created the series of events in which police could ensure that early intervention occurred and young people could be referred to health providers—that level of early intervention would happen. The police assured us that their first step would not be to issue an offence notice against the young person.It is important to remember that these are not criminal offences; these are infringement offences. They rate alongside a speeding fine or a parking fine and they do not result in a criminal record for young people. However for the possession of an unapproved substance by people aged 18 years or over initially the select committee came to the view that this was not an appropriate thing to do simply because it would be so difficult for police to enforce. It is very difficult for police to know on the spot whether someone is in possession of an approved or unapproved substance. In fact the testing to determine that takes a matter of months. That does not support the notion that this should be an on-the-spot fine. The Health Committee initially came to the view that because it did not really advance the purpose of the bill which is to reduce the harm relating to these psychoactive substances it was really better to simply remove the offence of possession of an unapproved substance.However the Minister came back and the Government insisted that we retain that possession offence. I would like us to revisit that and I have offered a Supplementary Order Paper that we can consider during the Committee of the whole House to revisit that issue and possibly remove the offence of being in possession of an unapproved substance. With these final words I simply want to say that Labour supports this bill and we hope that it is progressed with haste.Hon PETER DUNNE (Independent—Ōhariu):I seek the leave of the House to table a petition that was presented to me in my last days as the Associate Minister of Health from the Manurewa community signed by 3533 people opposing the opening of a new legal highs store in downtown Manurewa.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. You can table that.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the member goes on—not to be unhelpful—could we just inquire as to the process now whether that petition is to be referred anywhere or not? Normally when petitions are tabled they are referred off to a committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No he asked only for it to be tabled. Maybe in the course of the member’s speech he might like to comment on that but he asked only for it to be tabled and that was what leave was granted for.Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I must confess that the debate this afternoon is taking place in slightly different circumstances from those I had originally imagined would occur when we talked about this bill proceeding at this time. None the less I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its considerationof the legislation and with the bill that has emerged which looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.Hon John Banks: No no no.Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry. I should have known better perhaps than to presume that the ACT Party would be in line with public opinion. The reason I sought to table this petition very simply is that it is indicative of the wide range of community concern up and down New Zealand about the impact of psychoactive substances being sold with impunity through dairies and various other outlets by some very irresponsible retailers. The Manurewa example was one and I know that the member for Manurewa and Dr Calder had been very vigorous in their local efforts and I was pleased to receive this petition.I want to correct a myth that has been circulating about this bill. It did not actually arise as a result of the Law Commission’s recommendations. In fact the genesis of this bill came at the UN convention on narcotic drugs meeting in Vienna in early 2011. It became clear to me in discussions at that meeting that the British Government at that stage was seeking to move down this path. I thought that was a particularly good idea and as we were developing our interim regime I tasked officials in the Ministry of Health with finding out all we could about what the British were proposing and then developing a regime that met our needs. Along the way the Law Commission made its recommendations. The irony is that when I went back to Vienna in March this year for the follow-up discussions the British were curious to know where we were because they were actually stalled in their efforts. In other words we picked up their idea from 2 years ago and had the legislation almost before Parliament at that stage and they were still working through their internal bureaucracy to get to that point and were asking us with some envy what progress we were making and how this would occur.I acknowledge the comments by both the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay and the previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway about my own role and I thank them for that. It is no secret that I was frustrated with the time that it was taking to get this legislation into the House and I am delighted now that we are through the process and that the bill looks like passing fairly quickly.This is world-breaking legislation. The reason is it tackles the problem in quite a lateral way. It simply says to the manufacturers and suppliers of these pernicious substances: “You prove they are low risk and if you can we will let you sell them.” It is a very simple proposition. Other countries—the Australians the Irish the French the Americans the Russians the British many of the European nations with whom I have spoken—have all been playing the same game of trying to define what a psychoactive substance is and how you ban it. There have been many variations on that theme. All have come to the point of saying it is too difficult and asking what a way through is. New Zealand is being looked on as world-leading in this regard. If this legislation is as I believe it will be successful then we can expect to see that model picked up and implemented right around the world because this issue is not one for just this country; it is one that is affecting every jurisdiction. When you look at the debates that are going on in those countries and you follow the tenor of the argument it is exactly the same as we have had here over the last couple of years or so.One of the great frustrations that I also experienced during my time as the Associate Minister was the anger of communities who wanted to see action and the sense that they had was often reflected in the comments that I would get asking why I did not just simply ban these things. Well for various reasons that is not possible. Their chemical composition is such that these things are almost indefinable. You ban one substance and one element is changed and the same substance reappears. In my time as Associate Minister we banned 30-odd different substances over 50-odd products and we werevigorous in doing so. But you can go only so far down that path. That is why this legislation becomes vital and necessary. I make no apology for the fact that we will set a deliberately high bar. I make no apology for the fact that those who want to go through the process will pay an exorbitant fee to get there. There are huge proceeds involved from this trade and I think it is only fair and reasonable to expose those people to a very rigorous standard of testing and a very rigorous process before we even get to the point where they get on to the market.Let me deal with one of the great red herrings of this debate the animal testing issue. There was never any intention—ever—to embark upon a programme of animal testing associated with these products. There was never ever any intent. What happened was simply this. What happened—Hon John Banks: There was going to be.Hon PETER DUNNE: If the member would just give me the courtesy of some silence I will explain to him what actually happened. Late last year an Official Information Act request was lodged with the Ministry of Health for a whole range of papers relating to this new regime. One of the papers was a paper prepared by Dr Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre in Dunedin. Dr Schep has done a huge amount of work in this area but is at one end of the spectrum in terms of the debate. He is a purist. I acknowledge that. He is an exceptional toxicologist but he is a purist. He produced a paper that was headed “Report to the New Zealand Government on Animal Testing”. It was his initiative. Unfortunately when we sought to release that batch of papers I did not check the title page. What appeared in theSunday Star-Timeswas: “Here is an official report to the New Zealand Government recommending animal testing.” It was an unsolicited piece of advice. That was why I ruled out—very immediately—the LD50 test. That was why I worked with the select committee through the expert advisory committee to make sure that the instances where animal testing might be even a possibility were minimised and reduced. But I say to the House it was never the intention—Hon John Banks: Is there any animal testing? Is there any animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: Mr Banks if you ask a question it is customary to let the person answer it before you come back with the next one.Hon John Banks: OK. Will there be any animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: I am just in the process of explaining to the yabbering preacher to my left the answer to his question. It was never the intention to embark upon an animal testing regime as part of this legislation.Hon John Banks: Will there be animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I explain again. This is becoming like a routine. It was never the intention to embark upon any form of animal testing. The expert advisory committee has given very clear advice to the select committee. The reality is that a lot of the stuff—and I am still getting emails today in Cyrillic script in various different languages from around the world from people saying: “Don’t test psychoactive substances on dogs.” That was never the intention.Hon John Banks: Will it happen?Hon PETER DUNNE: It was never going to happen. The member says: “Will it happen?”. Can I say it was never going to happen.Hon John Banks: Will it happen?Hon PETER DUNNE: Dear me. You can go only so far in terms of legislating—Hon John Banks: Will it happen: yes or no? Will animal testing—Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I say again to the member: it was never the intention. How many words does he need to explain it? I am not going—Hon John Banks: No you won’t you puppy-hater.Hon PETER DUNNE: Oh that is absolute ridiculous nonsense. If the member for Epsom wants to go out there and oppose this legislation he can answer to his communities he can answer to the parents and to all of the people affected by it and he will be the one who will be reviled as the person out of step with public opinion. I say to the ACT Party that if it wants to show any form of relevance it will grow up it will respect the conscience of New Zealanders on this issue and it will support this legislation. He is welcome to be out on a limb; it will be a very lonely place I assure him.The bulk of New Zealanders want to see this legislation passed immediately. It will be and I acknowledge the support of the Government. I acknowledge the support of other parties that take an approach in this particular legislation that is beneficial. This is the opportunity to make huge progress. The world is watching us. I think this Parliament will not only do the people of New Zealand and the young people of New Zealand a huge service in passing this legislation but will set a standard that other nations will follow. Hopefully working collectively at an international level we can start to turn back the clock on this particular issue.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):It is my pleasure to take a call on the Psychoactive Substances Bill in this second reading. I am also a very proud member of the Health Committee which as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said has worked very very collaboratively to bring to the House a piece of legislation that I think we are all very proud of. I want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne and the leadership that he has shown in bringing this piece of legislation to the House and to also thank him for tabling a petition on behalf of 3533 members of the Manurewa community. In acknowledging that petition being tabled I want to acknowledge Jan Lim who owns a chemist’s on Great South Road very near a legal high shop that was established 2 months ago I believe to dump these products as this legislation progressed through the House. In acknowledging Jan I want to acknowledge Dr Tim Wilkinson who owns and manages the health centre next door to this legal high shop and who has worked very hard to be a representative and an advocate of our community. I want to acknowledge Mr Youkhanis who is the barber in the store next to the legal high shop in my Manurewa electorate and also young people such as Meliana Ngata who is the chair of the Manurewa Youth Council and Warriors of Change representatives Benjamin Tamarua and Susan Fotunga who organised a march for the community of Manurewa to come out against this legal high shop but in support of the Psychoactive Substances Bill.The main point that I want to make in my contribution really is about the select committee process and the number of changes or amendments to the original legislation that we have worked so collaboratively on. I would like to highlight for example that in the original purpose statement for this particular bill nowhere did we state that this bill was about protecting the health of and minimising the harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances. The committee came to the conclusion that actually this was about instituting a regulatory regime but coupled with that the heart of this legislation was to make sure that New Zealanders in the consumption of these products were going to be safe. That I think is a very fundamental point about this piece of legislation because these substances are not drugs. These substances are not foods. These substances were pretty much unregulated. They were nothings that a whole lot of people capitalised on packaged up and sold to New Zealanders. The reality of these substances was that they were hurting our community. Technically I think they were poisons. So the ability of the select committee yes to institute a regulatory regime but fundamentally to say that at the heart of this legislation we are going to protect the health and safety of New Zealanders is something that needs to be acknowledged.I certainly received and I know that many of the Health Committee members received communications particularly from mental health workers who were very concerned about their ability to engage constructively particularly with young people who were going through counselling because they had addictions. The fact was that these substances were legal substances so they may have got off the drugs but they were getting into these psychoactive substances. And also one of the things that we made very clear was that there could be a demand on public services in terms of mental health and addiction services. We particularly wanted to highlight that that was something that the select committee had obviously heard and was concerned about. So we have given notice to the health Minister and to the health sector that that is a possible consequence of this bill going through and regulation of these particular products.I also want to highlight a couple of other substantive debates that we had. One of them was around the age of purchase. It was very interesting because again all the professionals who understand addiction and who understand the development of our brains are particularly concerned about how these substances engage or interact with young people’s consumption. Again we are all very clear that we should actually have an age of purchase of either 20 or 21. It did I guess inspire a lot of heated discussion around the table within the context of a bill that we had approved just recently as a Parliament in terms of the alcohol consumption age. Fundamentally I think what we have done is reinforce a decision that this Parliament had previously made. I have to say that I stood on the side of making the age of purchase either 20 or 21 based on the scientific evidence.At the end of the day as you will see and as people will see if they read this bill what we have primarily done is said that these psychoactive substances fit into the category of either alcohol or tobacco which is what a lot of the initiatives or amendments to this legislation have replicated. In doing that we then had to be consistent. We could not say that psychoactive substances were worse and so they deserved a higher age of consumption because from our perspective alcohol tobacco and psychoactive substances—all of these products—have detrimental effects particularly on young people. So to the Manurewa Youth Council and to the young people of Manurewa who were very clear to both me and Cam Calder that we should be advocating for an increase in the age of purchase that is the rationale. Hopefully they will understand that that is the position that we came to.The other heated discussion we had was about whether or not we should provide a mechanism for the police to engage with young people under the age of 18 who are in possession of a substance whether it be an approved substance or an unapproved substance. What we did in the end was to enable the police—through them coming to the Health Committee—to be empowered to engage with young people and basically to confiscate any psychoactive substance that they have in their possession. To enable them to do that we had to create an offence but we as a select committee were very clear that it would not be a criminal offence. We do not want young people to be criminalised for being in possession of psychoactive substances. But what we did want was for the police to have the tool to engage with young people. It was our hope that in engaging they would actually look at whether or not health or social services were an appropriate medium. At worst-case scenario there would be an infringement for possession but it will not be a criminal offence.I would like just briefly to touch on the aspects of sponsorship and advertising. The select committee was very clear that any retailer or manufacturer of psychoactive substances would not be able to advertise the product or provide sponsorship of the product that then puts the product out into the market. Advertising particularly isrelevant to the shop in the heart of our Manurewa community the High Zone shop so we were very clear and we insisted on a specific provision clause 53A which sets out restrictions on what retailers can call shops. From our perspective that has been specifically put in to ensure that High Zone shops or legal high shops cannot advertise and establish themselves in communities like ours. The other thing that we were very clear about was that local people—our local boards—have to be involved in the decision making about where these shops are established. We made specific mention of these shops not being near schools not being able to have a detrimental effect on young people particularly. What I say to Angela Dalton who is the chair of the Manurewa Local Board to Colleen Brown to Simeon Brown and to Toa Greening who all made submissions on this bill is that this piece of legislation will give you the tools so that you can protect our communities.I want to thank once again my fellow committee members. It was a very constructive process. I look forward to this bill being passed as soon as possible because we have to get these products off the shelves and out of our communities. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Could I begin as others have done by congratulating and thanking other members of the Health Committee who considered the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I believe that we collectively did a pretty good job. As Iain Lees-Galloway has said we worked very collegially apart from I think on one issue which I will come to later on. I also want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Health and other departments who worked with us on this bill. We were given a tight time frame to work in and they worked very well under pressure.In the first reading debate I praised the bill for a variety of things. It is world-first legislation. It provides a framework that bases our response to these substances on health effects. It is a framework that makes the regulatory response proportional to the harm that is being prevented. It is a framework that sets the bar at low risk not no risk. So it is not a prohibition-based response to these substances which I think is practical and visionary recognition of what works and what does not work in regulating such substances.We are a country that has been very much at the forefront of this debate. We were pretty much the first country to experience the wave of psychoactive substances with the benzylpiperazine products. We were the first country to go into the failed regime of temporary prohibition notices. Now here we are the first country to be developing this kind of framework which is modern proportionate and rational drug policy. Accordingly the review that we do of this legislation in 5 years’ time—and I am very pleased that the Government has built that into the bill—is going to be very important. It is going to enable us to learn from it and it is going to enable the rest of the world to learn from it too.In my first reading speech I indicated a number of areas that needed improvement. I want to run through those very quickly. Others have touched on some of them. I said that improving health had to be clearly stated in the purpose of the bill. Improving health and reducing harm are now very clearly stated as others have pointed out. I said that the bill needed to define what low risk constituted. The bill does not do that. I have to say—and this is I guess the strength of our select committee process in New Zealand—that I changed my mind. Submitters to the bill changed my mind on that issue and I agree that actually it is better for practice to inform that definition and that is what is going to happen.I indicated that a number of the measures that are used in the control of alcohol and tobacco ought to be brought over and used in this bill also to add to the suite of tools available for regulation of psychoactive substances. We looked at controls of locationhours sponsorship advertising labelling and price in relation to each of those substances—alcohol and tobacco—and on most of those fronts we have now added in the possibility to regulate those matters.Iain Lees-Galloway has mentioned the reasons that we have not moved on excise tax at this time. Like Mr Lees-Galloway I also was convinced by submitters on that point. I was initially a fan of plain packaging and I changed my mind about that too. I changed my mind on the basis that unlike tobacco the psychoactive substances that we are dealing with are not all ones that uniformly cause harm. In fact the ones that we are allowing through the gate with this bill are ones that by definition carry low risk so the same level of response that we have on tobacco is not appropriate. Also these substances are not all the same. Unlike a cigarette or a pouch of tobacco which is more or less the same thing regardless of who the manufacturer is these substances are actually different; they do different things. So plain packaging is not appropriate.In my first reading speech I called for a shorter transition period and that has been adopted. I also called for the licensing of retailers and that has also been adopted. I think that is a very good development. Overall what we see with this bill is I think the beginning of a convergence of the way that we approach the regulation of substances that cause harm but none the less as a society we say that a person ought to have the right to use that substance and to engage with that harm. I think that convergence is a very good thing and certainly one of the things that I look forward to in the future is further convergence of the regulation of these kinds of substances.Back in the first reading speech I expressed the hope that we would offer the world a model that would be worthy of being world-leading. I think that with a couple of exceptions we have done that. I just want to come to those exceptions now. One is around the possession offences. There has already been some discussion here today. The bill contains an infringement offence for possessing an unapproved substance. I think that that should be scrapped and I really hope that the Minister—and I appreciated his words today—will consider doing that and that the House does in fact have opportunities to do so.The result of possession offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act has not been to see more people treated it has not been to see less consumption and it has not been to see less harm and there is no reason to suppose that any of those would be the effect of including a possession offence here. Instead what it mainly has done is it has tied up police time and punished people. I do not know that that is really consistent with the objective that we now have for this bill. There have not been possession offences in the temporary prohibition notices and not a single person has been clamouring for there to be such possession offences. So the non-existence of such offences under those notices has not been a problem and if there is not a problem we do not need to provide a solution for it.As Mr Lees-Galloway has mentioned the idea of infringement notices is to provide an on-the-spot response to a minor offence. In fact in this case an on-the-spot response is not possible because the testing to determine whether this is an approved or unapproved substance takes months. So it is out of kilter with infringement notices—the rubric upon which those are based—it provides no real benefit and there is significant harm. I do not believe on balance that it is worthwhile. The minority report refers to the under-18s issue and we are going to be watching that closely because we believe that that is likely to be used more to harass young people than to actually result in their receiving treatment.The other issue that I address in the minority report—and it has to be addressed I believe by this House; and my colleague Mojo Mathers will speak more about it—is the animal testing issue. The fact is that the previous Associate Minister of Healthencouraged people to make submissions about animal testing. The committee did receive advice from the Clerk of the House that amendments that absolutely ruled out animal testing per se would be out of scope. We received no advice that those submissions were out of scope. So the chair was wrong to rule those submissions out of scope. The National majority was wrong to not hear those submissions.How it stands now is that a whole bunch of New Zealanders have been effectively disenfranchised from their opportunity to have a say about this bill. The only people now to have actually read those submissions—and we provide a little bit of flavour in the minority report demonstrating how there are suitable alternatives to animal testing to establish safety—are the Green Party members because we held our own hearings to hear those submissions.That is not how the process ought to work. It is not how the process ought to work. We must adopt Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the Committee stage in order to have that world-best practice—that model for the rest of the world. Thank you.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill and I will oppose it at every turn until it ends up on the statute book with the numbers except for me in this House. This bill is well intentioned—there is no doubt about that—and is aimed at ensuring that psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay my respects to the new Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill which he inherited from the ex - Associate Minister. However I simply cannot support it.I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out—to rule out—testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals. Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul. I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use just for fun can be and likely will be tested on harmless animals. Animals will be put to extreme pain animals will suffer and animals will die. That is why the countries in the European Union have banned the testing of cosmetics on animals—in particular rabbits.We must remember that psychoactive drug substances are not a necessity and we should say to people today from this Parliament that they are high-risk substances under any circumstances—they are not a necessity for the well-being of the human person. Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They are not something people should consume. We should say from this Parliament today that young people any person should not be consuming these substances. That is the first message. They are not lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People do not need to take these chemicals.Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering. There is simply no justification or reason for unnecessary drugs like these to be tested on animals and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction this. Animals will be in pain and animals will die in the name of people wanting to take mind-altering drugs on the weekend. That is simply wrong and unacceptable. Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons or for lining the pockets of the drug importers and the drug dealers who will be selling them at the dairies to addle the minds of our kids.I know the Health Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should be used only when necessary. But animal testing will never be necessary for recreational drug purposes. It will never be necessary to cruelly treat a beagle puppy in the name of a recreational party drug. Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary at all to prove the safety of these mind-altering chemicals. Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says that non-animal testing can adequately establish whethera substance has an unacceptable risk of acute toxicity. Cell culture ex vivo and structure-activity relationship studies can all be used to establish the risk. Non-animal testing regimes can test all of these substances to establish the risk.I cannot for the life of me see the mischief in allowing the good people of Save Animals from Exploitation and the SPCA to come to the select committee to make a submission. What would have been the mischief of saying to these good Samaritans in our community who protect harmless animals from cruelty: “Come to the select committee of the Parliament and have your say.”? I know why they were not allowed. It was because the ex - Associate Minister of Health would have been embarrassed by what they would have had to say about our obligations to treat animals with respect and dignity.This afternoon in the House the ex - Associate Minister said: “It’s not our intention to test these substances on animals.” He said it four times: “It’s not our intention.” I interjected from that seat there: “Tell me ex-Minister will animals be used for testing?”. He said: “It’s not our intention.” The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I asked the ex-Minister four times. The naive ex-Minister said “It’s not our intention. It’s never been our intention.” but that is not what the bill says. The bill does not rule out the testing on beagle puppies of these mind-altering dangerous chemicals. It does not rule it out.There would be no mischief whatsoever in taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 and embracing it and then we would have world-class leading legislation on mind-altering substances that will be sold by the drug dealers and the dairies on the corner mainly to our young people. We would have that there. What would have been the mischief? What would have been the mischief of taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper? It was a pigheaded attitude by the ex-Minister that stopped it and nothing more. I know my friends in the National Party on the select committee would not have worried if that had been the directive from the ex-Minister. But the ex-Minister could not see it in his heart and in his soul to protect harmless animals from being treated with these dangerous drugs.If you cannot prove your fun drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery you cannot sell the drug. If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing in China where it will be tested I say tough luck again. That is the price you pay and that is the price you have to pay for the profiteers of these dangerous chemicals who sell them to our kids. The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being tested on animals in places like China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent. Most of these substances will be tested in China and in India where there are no animal welfare rights no animal welfare care and no responsibility.The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us in New Zealand to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in South-east Asia. There is no way we can test there. There is no way we can put our high standards of animal welfare on regimes there. Despite assurances from the ex-Minister this bill fails to rule out the use of extremely cruel LD50 tests. We will wait and see where that goes and we will talk about it later.But even worse these animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friends as I said—dogs or more important on beagle puppies bred for purpose. Some have said that Mr Kerridge the eminent Mr Kerridge from the SPCA supports this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Kerridge has told me: “It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products and my presence on this committee does not alter or condone it at all.”Finally I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill and her Supplementary Order Paper which I will be supporting. I am sure other parties will support it as well. But I say to her and the Green Party that if your amendment fails at the Committee stage to get the numbers you should vote against this bill anyway. The Green Party has an excellent set of credentials around animal rights and animal welfare and I applaud it today for those.We are sacrificing animals at the altar of recreational drug-use. It is a disgrace to this country. It should not happen. It does not need to happen. We could stop it. It could be world-leading education. I repeat these words: as the most powerful creatures on this earth humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places and I am starting with this legislation here today in this Parliament.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill has been a long time coming. It has taken a long time for the former Associate Minister of Health to front up to the problems caused by legal highs but we have this legislation here now and we now find that we could be world leaders in this area. I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison. He has done a wonderful job with this legislation particularly when one takes into account the views that many of us had prior to going to the select committee. Thank you too to the rest of the select committee. It was a very constructive process helped out by the committee officials.Ideally—and before we went to the select committee—New Zealand First would have liked to see these substances banned. We know they are a very high risk but during the select committee process we had our opinions changed because these products contain many ingredients that are commonly available for purchase now. Of course the former Associate Minister the Hon Peter Dunne outlined at quite some length the reasons as to why these products could not be banned. But the bottom line is that New Zealand First did not want our young people going for a trip never leaving the building never leaving the street and coming back with massive challenges as baggage.Week in week out we have seen reports of these substances leading our young people into crime and reports of the serious harm that is being created by the consumption of these untested products. The bottom line is that we still do not know what the long-term effects are of consumption of these products.We know that petty offences are taking place and of course serious crimes. The effects that these substances have on one’s well-being have been widely documented. It has been shameful that under the current legislation New Zealanders have had very limited means to actually prevent harmful substances from being sold manufactured or even imported into New Zealand. We have been putting the manufacturers of these substances ahead of the well-being of everyday New Zealanders. These companies have been able to manufacture new legal highs. They import them and distribute them as they please. The Government has been always behind the eight ball having to try to continually monitor these drugs and placing every dodgy substance on the misuse of drugs register when it became a problem. Consequently the Government was always left two steps behind running to try to catch up and that is not a good situation when the Government is actually supposed to be running the country.New Zealand First supports this bill because it actually protects the health and safety of New Zealanders which is most important. We know that legal highs are largely detrimental to our nation’s health. Unfortunately they are lucrative to the manufacturers and the sellers. Most of the time we do not know what is in these substances or the effects that they are going to have on people. We are going to have a change on this front which is very positive.Legal highs are basically being marketed blind without the purchaser knowing or even caring about what they contain and how they can encourage dangerous behaviour and without them knowing that legal highs may make people seriously ill that they should not be used in association with alcohol and that they can even endanger young lives. We constantly read pages and pages of news in various newspapers right throughout the country of how New Zealanders have put themselves at risk by taking these legal highs. We know that these substances are associated with numerous mental health issues violence—a whole range of issues. So they are not good products as they currently stand.The purchasing and the advertising restrictions are adequate for the time being. Like previous speakers we initially thought that these products should have been restricted to those who are over 20. We have got a very conservative view on the age of purchase but we have agreed that perhaps the legislation should be in line with the alcohol legislation. The ban on sales from dairies and having no advertising at point of sale is also good. We needed to have something in this way. It is not good enough when bags of sweets are given away by dairy owners who did not really want these products associated with drug dealing. It is a bad situation when we are allowing dairy owners to be the legalised drug dealers in the community. These products should not be sold alongside newspapers and chocolate and iceblocks and sweets but this bill will sort out this problem which we are very happy about.I was talking to my taxi driver and he had actually been sent into a dairy to purchase one of these products along with a can of V for the woman who required it. He was actually looking in the freezer part of the cabinet. He thought that it was perhaps some sort of iceblock or perhaps another product like V. He was shocked to find out that it was actually synthetic cannabis that he was carrying in his taxi to take back to the customer.New Zealand First supports the provisions in the bill that wish to make manufacturers prove that their products are safe. The testing should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. They make mega-money from this particular product so it is time they ensured that their products are legitimate and that the substances they contain provide only a low risk for consumers. The onus has to be on the manufacturers here.New Zealand First along with others wanted plain packaging for these particular products but throughout the select committee process we like other parties changed our mind on this particular aspect. We are very happy with the labelling requirements that are going to require all products to have their active ingredients listed a phone number for the National Poisons Centre the contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier plus a warning that it should not be consumed with alcohol.The bill is a much-needed start at regulating the uses of psychoactive substances; it is something that we are very pleased to see. One of the issues that we believe should be at the forefront for all New Zealanders is the health and safety of our young people particularly when we read in the paper about the growing violence that is created by these substances. Psychoactive substances need to be heavily regulated. We have got paramedics speaking out about how these legal highs are now a much larger problem than the illicit drugs that are available.New Zealand First supports the tough new penalties that this bill will actually introduce: 8 years in prison for importing making or supplying banned substances and 2 years in prison for importing making or supplying untested substances. We believe that this bill is a very positive step forward. These drugs will be tried and tested. We will not have these drugs in dairies and we know that advertising is not going to be as widespread as it is at this point. It is for all of these reasons that New Zealand Firstsupports this bill and we look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very innovative Psychoactive Substances Bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank first of all the Hon Peter Dunne who has pressed on with this bill. I was under the impression that the bill came about through the Law Commission’s recommendations but he has told us this afternoon that it was through a United Nations committee. I think the main point is that this bill requires manufacturers to show that these substances are of minimal risk. Might I also acknowledge and thank the officials and the Health Committee which has generally worked extremely well to achieve a very good result.Finally might I thank and acknowledge the submitters. There were powerful submissions from right around New Zealand. I remember specifically the Mayor of Timaru coming up and saying that in her community this was the No. 1 problem and that there were four or five shops dairies selling these substances to young people. They even texted young people when a new high came in and they would come to the back door and sell them.From Manurewa we had three submissions. People were absolutely outraged by the way that High Zone was carrying on business in that community next to a doctor’s surgery and next to a shopping centre where lots of young people went. Since those submissions I have been rung up by them to be told that they have just heard that a truckload or planeloads of substances that have come from Pakistan have landed in the wharves and at the airport in Auckland and they are basically loading up prior to the date that this bill is enacted. I think that is a great worry and it is a warning to our officials to make sure that they rigorously pursue the regulations associated with this bill. Certainly I would like to acknowledge Cam Calder for all the work that he has done along with Louisa Wall in supporting the Manurewa community and of course the individuals who have been devastated by their children being involved with cannabinoids and various other legal highs.In my own community Waiuku the supermarket owners have set up a campaign to reduce these substances and three of the four dairies have already spontaneously said: “No we’re not going to have anything to do with them.” and I think that is very good.I would like to comment on the basic purpose of the bill which indeed is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances. It was one of the amendments of the select committee—and it was supported by submissions—to include: “to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances.” I think that was very much in line with the alcohol legislation and with other such legislation that we have in New Zealand and I applaud that.The expert advisory committee has some major tasks ahead and its working will be pivotal to this bill. The committee of course has to advise the authority. Its experts include those in pharmacology toxicology neuroscience medicine and several others. On this occasion it has included Bob Kerridge and he has been absolutely clear about his opposition to animal testing and I acknowledge that.The offences in this bill are very clear. For manufacturers they are high—up to 2 years’ jail and $500000. We had considerable debate about sanctions for possession for those under 18 and those over 18. Undoubtedly we also had advice from the police who were clear in what they wanted. I think we have come out with a good steer in this bill that infringement notices are there but that they will not be criminal particularly for young people. The police know well that they want to ensure that rehabilitation is the way to go rather than down the criminal track.I also want to just make note of the fact that indeed many places will have restrictions on sales not only shops grocery stores supermarkets and garages but in fact any other place or premise specified or described in the regulations. Already I understand there has been a suggestion that video stores may try to sell these things. More important was the select committee putting in clause 61A which relates that a territorial authority may have a policy relating to the sale of approved products within its districts which is similar to the alcohol legislation. I think that is very useful and will be welcomed in Manurewa.Finally I come to animal testing. Firstly I want to just comment on the advice from the Clerk of the House because it was very clear initially on 26 April 2013. Then later on 5 June the Clerk of the House confirmed the initial advice that amendments prohibiting testing psychoactive substances on animals were beyond the scope of the bill as the bill is about approval and licensing of the substances and not their testing. On 5 June the Office of the Clerk said it could advise that an amendment to preclude the use of information derived from animal testing of psychoactive substance products in support of any application for approval may be in order—may be in order.Kevin Hague: So all the submissions would have been relevant.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I absolutely reject what Kevin Hague has said regarding the process and will not resile from the position that we took on the advice from the Clerk of the House.Secondly I come to the advice of the expert advisory committee. It came to its recommendations through a consensus process. It decided to come to “a consensus position … followed by a majority and minority report if consensus was not possible.” No minority report was needed and it was on the recommendations of the expert advisory committee that we came to an amendment that satisfied ostensibly all members of the select committee: “The advisory committee must ensure that any preclinical or clinical tests … that relate to a psychoactive product do not rely on any research testing or teaching that involves the use of an animal if suitable alternatives exist.” What is absolutely clear is what the expert advisory committee then came up with because it said this: “The Committee considers that it is not currently possible to completely prohibit animal testing and some animal testing may be necessary to provide data to support human research in order to allow the legislation to deliver its primary aim. The Committee recommends that some animal testing be permitted.” I think that is very very important to underscore.The final point is this: having looked very carefully at the international best-practice scientific community there is no question but that animal testing—though it should be minimised—is necessary. Undoubtedly rigorous testing is required to demonstrate minimal risk particularly when tens of thousands of users are young adults and adolescents. I very much hope that the Labour Party—given that its current leader Mr Shearer is also its science spokesman—will support an evidence-based approach and support his health team. Not to do so I believe would be utterly irresponsible.Just to end there is no question but that the major purpose of this bill is excellent. It is to regulate psychoactive substances and to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use them in this country. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I welcome the opportunity to speak at the second reading of this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill. It is an important opportunity to talk about the absolute hope that is out there in the communities throughout New Zealand that this bill is going through the House as quickly as possible and that it will go some way to addressing some of the terrible harm that is being done in our community by the psychoactive substances that are prevalent. First of all I would like to just put on the record—if it has not been put on the recordalready—my congratulations to our spokesperson on this bill Iain Lees-Galloway who has done such a great job on pushing this forward. It was he who said very loudly last year that this change should be happening and should have happened sooner. In fact he said that we think it is ridiculous that we have basically been experimenting on our kids by allowing the substances to come on the shelf and then constantly chasing our tails trying to get them off the shelf again. That absolutely encapsulates just what has been happening in communities throughout New Zealand. Although I certainly do also acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall who has been working extremely hard in her community in Manurewa there are many other communities for which this is a terrible scourge and in which there are terrible harms being done.I want to talk in my speech on this bill about some of the harm that has been done in my community in Dunedin but before I do that I would also like to just point out that it must be said that this Government has not taken the opportunity to completely overhaul the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In 1975 many of the people who are standing in this House were not even born. Many things have actually moved on since then.Hon Trevor Mallard: Ha ha!CLARE CURRAN: Not all of the members of the House—some of them were probably sitting in this House in 1975 but only a very few. But certainly times have changed and as we know the composition of drugs has changed the way that they are being taken has changed and our ability to respond to drug abuse has changed. The only thing that has not changed is the law.I just want to say what has actually brought me to be speaking about this particular issue today. It was the community that came into my office earlier this year and raised this with me. There was a stream of people from the community talking about the absolute importance of making change happen and making change quickly and the impact that this problem has had on so many young people in the community. For example there was the woman who came into my office to offer me her support and give me her story on how she had been affected by taking these drugs. She had just come out of a psychiatric institution.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.