Volume 697 Week 67 - Thursday 13 March 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 697 Week 67 - Thursday 13 March 2014[Sitting date: 13 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16669. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 13 March 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 March the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the Electoral Amendment Bill the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill and the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Can I ask of the Leader of the House now that we know that the House plans to rise on 31 July whether he has any plans for any bouts of urgency between now and then.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):The Government treats all its activities with a degree of urgency as will be evidenced by its great success over the last 5 years. As to the desire to keep the Opposition here for long hours trying to progress that legislation programme the time we are here will largely be in their hands.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Monetary Policy Statement March 20141.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: The Reserve Bank this morning issued its latest Monetary Policy Statement. It confirmed that GDP growth has strengthened over the last 18 months and become increasingly broad-based. In addition to low interest rates the Reserve Bank Governor noted that growth had been supported by higher construction activity elevated terms of trade and higher levels of immigration. These conditions have contributed to very strong consumer confidence and increases in business investment and hiring intentions. The Reserve Bank is also forecasting strong growth in jobs over the next 4 years with seasonally adjusted employment growth of 3.5 percent 2.1 percent and 0.9 percent respectively over the next 3 years. It is within this context of a faster-growing economy that the governor confirmed that the official cash rate will rise by 0.25 percent taking it from a record low of 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent.Paul Goldsmith: How does the new 2.75 percent official cash rate compare with previous cash rate settings and what steps is the Government taking to ensure that interest rate increases are not as severe as they were in the mid-2000s?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said the official cash rate has been at a record low of 2.5 percent since March 2011. As the Reserve Bank Governor has indicated many times it could not remain at this expansionary level for ever particularly as the economy picks up strong momentum. The new official cash rate of 2.75 percent is significantly below its record high of 8.25 percent which it was through much of 2008. The Government continues to support lower interest rates with its responsible fiscal policy and by addressing supply issues in the housing market. This has been good news for families who faced mortgage interest rates of nearly 11 percent back in 2008. A family with a $200000 floating rate mortgage has been saving about $200 a week compared with 5 or 6 years ago. If the official cash rate increases by 1 percent over the coming year this would be worth around $38 a week on that mortgage.Paul Goldsmith: What else did the Reserve Bank say about the economy in its latest Monetary Policy Statement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank forecasts that the economy will grow at an annual pace of around 3.5 percent on average over the next year. It is a little higher than it forecast previously and would put New Zealand amongst the fastest-growing developed economies in the world. Nationwide construction spending is expected to rise to levels similar to the mid-2000s construction boom and to last for several years although housing market momentum appears to have moderated. Strong net immigration is expected to boost private consumption and the terms of trade are expected to remain elevated. This is all good news. The Reserve Bank expects this stronger economic outlook to support more jobs and to lower unemployment. It expects the unemployment rate to drop below 5 percent next year.Dr Russel Norman: Was Kim Campbell the head of the Employers and Manufacturers Association correct when he said this morning that these avoidable interest rate rises will lead to “mass closures” of businesses?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With respect to Mr Campbell no. I think that that is a particularly dramatic and alarmist thing which we are used to hearing from the Opposition.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Minister’s comments about controlling inflation in the housing market is it not the case that Auckland’s house prices have increased by 44 percent over the 5 years of this Government; and does he believe that an increase of 44 percent in the Auckland housing market over the course of his Government is a sign of a successful policy to control house price inflation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am advised by the Minister of Housing that in fact the figure for Auckland is around 26 percent and interestingly it contrasts with the period of the previous Government where Auckland house prices nearly doubled over that period. But the key point for the member is how you address that. The way you address that is by increasing the supply of housing something which this Government—Hon David Parker: Has it worked?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes it is working well if you look at measures such as the building consents and so on. That is improving. What you do not do is restrict the supply of housing artificially because you have an ideological aversion to greenfield housing.Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that families will be paying more for their mortgages as a result of this Government’s failure to control inflation coming out of the housing sector and also as a result of the Government’s failure to control inflation coming out of the electricity sector as people all around the country are receiving letters from their electricity providers telling them that prices are increasing dramatically in the year ahead for some people by as much as 24 percent under the current settings of this Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not agree with the member. The simple reality is that if you look at the CPI projections of the Reserve Bank today the 2013 year was 0.9 percent 2014 is expected to be 1.7 percent 2015 is expected to be 1.9 percent and 2016 is expected to be 2.1 percent. These are a long long way from the high levels of inflation we saw under the previous Government. The primary way in which you control that inflation is to have responsible fiscal policies. Yes individual markets are important but if a member thinks that dealing with the housing market by not increasing supply and dealing with the electricity market by turning it into a monopoly purchaser would have any positive impact he is wrong.Paul Goldsmith: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to economic and monetary policy and how would these impact on interest rates for New Zealand households?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen an alternative policy reported claiming that apparently you can go soft on inflation by tinkering with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and that somehow this will keep interest rates lower for longer. The trouble with those sorts of approaches is that the prescription does not stand up to scrutiny particularly if you accompany it with much higher Government spending. History has shown that under Governments that go soft on inflation the people who are hardest hit are those on low and fixed incomes because their spending power does not keep up with the cost of living. Yet the very politicians who complain about the cost of living can now apparently approach a policy that would see them soft on inflation. That just does not make any policy sense. If you want to look after the vulnerable in society you control inflation.Ministers—Confidence in Ministers of Finance and Justice2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Prime Minister:Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes because they are competent and hard-working Ministers.Hon David Parker: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance when Auckland prices have gone up by over 40 percent in 5 years at a time of low inflation interest rates are headed for 8 percent and first-home buyers cannot get a look-in while speculators run riot?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister has every confidence in the Hon Bill English who has done a great job in shepherding New Zealand’s economy through some very difficult years post a spendthrift Government that took little opportunity of the circumstances it had to advance the cases of New Zealanders. What I can say to the member is that if he thinks a prescription that is a return to the profligate ways of pre-2008 is good for New Zealand then he will find out I suspect later this year that most do not agree with him.Hon David Parker: How can he continue to have confidence in Judith Collins to act as a Minister when it is now clear she misled him misled the media misled the public and has plainly acted in a way that allowed her private interest to conflict with her public duties?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Although the member may wish to conflate a number of things to reach a conclusion that suits him those matters have been laid on the table. They are transparent and they have been dealt with.Hon David Parker: How can the Prime Minister deny that Oravida has benefited financially from Judith Collins’ involvement?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Ministers when they are travelling are encouraged to use their time to support New Zealand companies. New Zealand’s exports indicate that Ministers are doing a good job in that effort.Hon David Parker: Does he deny that a financial benefit to Oravida arose from Judith Collins’ promotion of its products?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can neither confirm nor refute that suggestion.Hon David Parker: Does he deny that a financial benefit to Oravida arose from Judith Collins’ dinner with Oravida and a Chinese Government official?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not in a position to answer that question.Hon David Parker: How can he deny that Judith Collins’ involvement with Oravida is linked to a personal pecuniary advantage to Ms Collins and her family given that her husband is a director of Oravida?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There will be many associations across this House between politicians and their spouses and partners. Whether or not they have some particular advantage is a matter for the public to determine as long as they are stated transparently and in this case it is most transparent.Education Sector—International Summit on the Teaching Profession3.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about opportunities to share education best practice with international counterparts?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):This morning I announced that nearly 20 Ministers of education from the top-performing education systems around the world together with heads of teacher unions and teacher leaders as well as our Pacific regional neighbours are coming to New Zealand for the fourth International Summit on the Teaching Profession. We expect to share successes and challenges and to learn from each other. Among the confirmed Ministers is the United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who first initiated the summit in 2011 bringing together the OECD Education International and the top 25 performing education systems. This Government has an unrelenting focus on giving all our young people a better education.Simon O’Connor: What is the focus of the summit?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The summit theme is “Excellence Equity and Inclusiveness—High quality teaching for all”. This theme reflects the longstanding challenge our system—along with others across the world—has of raising even higher the achievement of our best and brightest students while also lifting those who are being left behind. This Government is committed to success for five out of five of our children and young people.Simon O’Connor: What other steps is the Government taking to strengthen the teaching profession and raise student achievement? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There were quite a significant number of complaints about the amount of noise through question time yesterday. I do not intend to have a repeat of that level of barracking today.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Hosting the summit is part of our Government’s comprehensive quality teaching agenda. It includes proposing the new independent professional body the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand the cornerstone of our quality teaching agenda; the $359 million investment in professional career pathways; the inaugural Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards in June; the education festivals in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch this month; and the new postgraduate qualifications in initial teacher education. The teaching profession makes a powerful contribution to lifting student achievement. This Government is backing our profession to win—in law in policy in practice and in funding.Justice Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual4.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements regarding her relationship with Oravida Ltd?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Yes and I have told the shareholders and managing director at Oravida Ltd as I have told many other people and organisations when I visit them that they must ensure that the use of any photos taken of me or any references to me in published materials must not give the impression that I am endorsing them their products or services. I have also referred them to the Cabinet Manual.Grant Robertson: What reasons does she have for her statement that there is no actual conflict of interest in her dealings with Oravida Ltd during her ministerial visit to China?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously I have read the Cabinet Manual but also the Prime Minister has assured me that that is the information that he has received from the Cabinet Office.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not what the Cabinet Manual said; the question was how she can say she did not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was not the question. The question was what reason did the Minister have and the Minister—Grant Robertson: Why did she agree to visit the Shanghai headquarters of Oravida Ltd in October last year?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I thought that it would be a good thing to do. I was asked by my personal friends Mr Shi and Ms Xu and I also know—Grant Robertson: Oh right! Asked by your friends?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And just as that member will one day visit some friends overseas should he ever become a Minister I thought that it was a good thing to do. The ambassador assured me that we would have time but if we did not have time then we would not go to it. But it was at the end of the schedule and we did have time.Grant Robertson: In light of paragraph 2.62 of the Cabinet Manual which says: “A conflict may arise if people … such as a Minister’s family whānau or close associates might derive or be perceived as deriving some personal financial or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister …” does she believe that her good friends the directors of Oravida Ltd would have benefited from her coming and being part of a photo opportunity at the Shanghai headquarters of their firm?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On all matters in regard to the Cabinet Office I take my advice from the Prime Minister and his advice is very clear that this is not a breach of the Cabinet Manual.Grant Robertson: In the last 2 years what other benefits or gifts has she received from Oravida New Zealand Ltd?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If I had received any gifts that should be declared under the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament then they would have been.Grant Robertson: Given the statement of Oravida director Julia Xu on Television New Zealand’s Q+A programme in September 2013 that “we as an operator are still needing to provide lab tests for each batch of milk that we ship into China to CIQ that our milk is free of contamination.” can she see why a dinner with her the chairman of Oravida and a Chinese border control official might give rise to a conflict of interest?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well obviously I am not responsible for Ms Xu or any statements she may have made but I will say that I took with me to that dinner Ms Margaret Malcolm who is a senior adviser and well-respected person here in Parliament and she can verify that what we talked about was tourism. She is also a barrister and solicitor and I think that is very important. So clearly I would have been much wiser to have treated it as an official function and put it in the Cabinet report.Grant Robertson: When Julia Xu said in her interview on Q+A on 15 September—1 month before her visit to Oravida a company that her husband is a director of—that the botulism scare had had quite a significant impact on the sales and investment of Oravida can she see how a meeting with Oravida’s chairman and a Chinese border official could benefit her and her close associates?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well if it were not for the fact that the border official is a very close friend of Mr Shi I could see why that member might want to perceive that but that is why I have said that I should have been much more careful about that and I was not. And for that I have apologised unreservedly.Transport Funding—School-related Travel5.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green)to the Minister of Transport: What percentage of the transport budget is currently being spent specifically on ensuring that children can walk or cycle to school safely and does he consider that is adequate?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Delighted to answer this question. The National Land Transport Fund currently allocates $53 million or 0.6 percent to the walking and cycling activity class. This includes all types of walking and cycling activities not just travel to school. This however does not show the whole picture. The Government invests in walking and cycling—Tracey Martin: They can’t have a walking school bus in Rodney because they can’t cross a State highway.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Someone get the medics.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister continue his answer.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This does not show the whole picture. The Government invests in walking and cycling throughout the transport budget be it via the roads of national significance programme or Safer Journeys. All up this represents at least $96 million a year of dedicated walking and cycling spending from central government. As to the adequacy although this is good there is always more that can be done.Julie Anne Genter: Does the total amount being spent on walking and cycling including that spent on the roads of national significance add up to be more or less than the hundreds of millions of dollars a year he is spending on projects that the Transport Agency classifies as having low benefits?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: A transport network is going to have all sorts of benefits spread across it. It remains a network. What is important is that alongside the drivers of our economy which are effectively good infrastructure as well as good economic management we take care of social needs as well. This large spend—almost $100 million a year—on walking and cycling is a very good spend.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was pretty straightforward. It was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty really was that the question was not that straightforward but for the benefit of the House today I will ask the member to repeat the question to the Minister.Julie Anne Genter: Is the amount being spent on walking and cycling more or less than the hundreds of millions of dollars a year he is spending on projects that the Transport Agency classifies as having low benefits?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Transport Agency will have its classification for benefit as it sees it but any community that is having that money spent on its roads will see it as very high priority. So although in dollar terms it may well be something less it is none the less a very good benefit. Almost $100 million is spent on walking and cycling programmes by the New Zealand Government annually.Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept that under-investment in walking and cycling infrastructure has contributed to a decline in children walking and cycling to school from over 50 percent in 1989 to less than a third now and that that has a corresponding rise in car journeys to school during peak travel times?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I do not. I think that one of the most significant contributors to children being delivered to and picked up from school probably has been parental worry over some of the crime statistics that ran rampant in this country for a number of years. It was not until our Minister of Justice and our Minister of Police in recent times got on top of it that we could start to confidently enable children to get back into walking and cycling to and from school.Julie Anne Genter: Has the Minister read the report undertaken for the New Zealand Transport Agency which clearly states that the No.1 reason for children not walking and cycling to school is a lack of appropriate infrastructure and a lack of safety on the road due to the traffic environment?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the very reason we are spending $100 million a year on programmes to make cycling and walking more accessible and safer.Julie Anne Genter: For the benefit of the Minister I seek leave to table this report called Improving School Travel Systems. It was published in November 2010. It was written for the New Zealand Transport Agency.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not easy to find for some reason I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this particular report. 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 during school holidays traffic is often free flowing and one in three car trips in the morning rush hour are education-related why will he not invest more in safe walking and cycling for schools to reduce congestion?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I will say it again. We are spending almost $100 million a year on improving cycling and walking access for New Zealanders—and that is excluding the national cycleways programme which is also a great enabler of people’s fitness and enjoyment of the outdoors.Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister consider that the walking and cycling improvements associated with the roads of national significance and the national cycleways will help children walk and cycle safely to school; if so how?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes I do. If the member took some time to go on a road of national significance which I know she would find a sacrilegious thing to do given her political views she would see alongside a number of those roads numerous kilometres of cycleways with children cycling on them and I am quite confident—I am quite confident—most of them go to school.Julie Anne Genter: Has the Minister read the recent University of Auckland paper The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling which finds that investing in cycling infrastructure can have benefits worth $20 for every dollar spent primarily because it means people are healthy and live longer but also because it reduces congestion and saves billions of dollars in imported oil?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Although I have not read that report page to page I am aware of it and I am almost as excited as the member is about the prospects for increasing the capacity for people to cycle around this country.Julie Anne Genter: Given the overwhelming benefits in terms of improved health improved learning and reduced congestion will he back the Green Party’s plan to make it safer for kids to walk and cycle to school; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I am a member of the National Party.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table from Environmental Health Perspectives the journal article entitled The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling.Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the article?Julie Anne Genter: It is from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It is an academic journal. It is a research paper that demonstrates the benefits of cycling—Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it may be informative to members and may be hard to get hold of I will put the leave. It is in the hands of the House. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection.Electricity Market—Prices Supply and Generation from Renewable Resources6.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How has the electricity market improved under this Government?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):Since the Government’s reforms of 2010 consumers have seen a fundamental change in offerings and discounts available to them from retailers. Advertised prices tell only part of the overall price story. Although a rarity in 2008 prompt payment and online discounts are now commonplace as is aggressive behaviour by retailers to win and retain customers. Consumer switching is at record levels and for good reason. For example consumers can save around $300 a year by switching from the dearest to the cheapest provider in Auckland.Jonathan Young: What progress has been made on security of supply?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Much-needed investment has been made to our national grid—investment that keeps the lights on. Transpower is reaching the end of a multibillion-dollar investment in projects like the $672 million upgrade of the high-voltage Cook Strait cable. This investment is already making a difference. In 2008 there were nearly 25 unplanned system minutes lost. Each system minute lost equates to turning off a city the size of Hamilton for about 40 minutes. In the last year there have been just 7 system minutes lost the lowest since the mid-2000s.Jonathan Young: What progress has been made on renewable electricity generation?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Renewable electricity generation goes from strength to strength under this Government. We have seen renewable generation rise from 65 percent in 2008 to 75 percent today which makes us the fourth in the OECD with no need for Government subsidies or intervention. All generation currently being built is renewable as is the majority of consented generation. In fact we have 30 years of consented renewable generation waiting to be built.Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table research provided to me by the Parliamentary Library that shows that this is a smaller proportion than we had in 1980 or 1990.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the member is simply using this as a debating point.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whatever the member from the Green Party did he is nevertheless entitled to seek leave to table a document.Mr SPEAKER: Order! He sought leave; I was not prepared to even put the leave because it was simply a means of introducing competing debate. If he wants to take a supplementary question to have the debate that is OK. I am not prepared to put the leave. Point of order—[Interruption] I can only hear from one of you.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am on my feet.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The fact is that I always understood that when a member sought leave if he did it within the Standing Orders then it had to be put.Metiria Turei: As far as I understand there are no rules in the Standing Orders that say that a member cannot stand up and seek leave to table a document where it contains content relevant to the debate at hand. That is what my colleague Gareth Hughes was doing and therefore leave should be put.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Although that might have been a common practice there were a number of changes made by the previous Speaker to the way in which things can be tabled—I think largely driven by some very frivolous points of order and attempts to table material between the period of 2005 to 2008 an action that I was very very familiar with.Iain Lees-Galloway: By who?Hon Member: No names?Hon Gerry Brownlee: No no names are required. I think perhaps Mr Peters has not been made aware of that and perhaps Metiria Turei has not quite understood the change.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no further assistance. I made a substantial ruling on 19 February last year which again was questioned on one occasion by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I gave him a second copy of that ruling. If he needs a third copy I am happy to give it to him today. I will not see the use of tabling of documents simply for making political points. I make a decision as to whether I will allow leave to be put to the House and the House then makes the ultimate decision if I decide the document is worthy and informative to members. The matter has been well and truly traversed over the last year and that is my final decision on this.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not seek to draw this out or challenge your ruling but I would refer you to Standing Order 1 which has been commonly defined throughout this Parliament’s history as this House being the master of its destiny. This House can seek leave and make a decision.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now challenging my ruling. I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 149/1.David Shearer: On what date did he write to electricity companies about the record number of power disconnections that occurred last year as reported by Radio New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I cannot recall the specific date. I think you will find it was either the end of September or early October. Certainly it was in the fourth quarter of last year.District Health Boards—Staff Levels7.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received of staff shortages and the impact of such shortages if any in DHBs?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Health: I have received a number of reports outlining staffing issues. The most recent revealed that although the $24-million bowel screening pilot is delivering results the biggest constraint to a national roll-out is a shortage of professionals to do the colonoscopies which would require an extra 100. I have also seen reports that the health workforce was short of 1400 general practitioners that one in four nurses at the Capital and Coast District Health Board had quit in the last year and worse that 45 general practitioners in Southland actually wrote to the Southern District Health Board about their dismay at the resignation of 12 senior doctors. These however were all in 2007 and 2008 and part of the workforce crisis legacy that that member left behind.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Hon Annette King: Could I ask through you that the Minister table that advice because there was no Health Workforce New Zealand in 2007-08.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is very easily resolved. In effect the member is asking if the Minister was quoting from an official document for it to be tabled. If the Minister was not quoting from an official document—[Interruption] He was not quoting from an official document.Hon Annette King: Supplementary question Mr Speaker—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to assist—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I am trying to assist the member asking a supplementary question. I require a little bit of assistance from her colleagues.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling was correct before of course but the members on the other side then immediately challenged the veracity of what the Minister was saying in his answer. I wonder whether should he decide to seek leave to table the press releases verifying his suggestions you would consider on this occasion that you might let him do so.Mr SPEAKER: One never knows. We will have to see what happens at the time.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I seek leave to table a document. It may not be readily available.Mr SPEAKER: I want the source of the document.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is from a New Zealand Medical Association press release dated 28 March 2007.Mr SPEAKER: No I am not prepared to put the leave.Hon Annette King: Was he advised by Health Workforce New Zealand just over 3 months ago that there will be a shortage of nurses starting in 2015 that measures to address the gap needed to have started 2 years ago and that if changes are not made to recruitment retention and increased supply then “the future of clinical and fiscal sustainability of health services will be put at risk”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I am not in a position to verify the veracity of that advice. What I would say is that I am advised that the healthy nursing workforce has increased by over 3000 under this Government and that is delivering better sooner more convenient service.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that only 600 of the 1328 new graduate nurses or only 45 percent of them secured nurse entry to practice positions 2 months ago down from 59 percent in the last cycle who got jobs—both appallingly low figures—showing little acknowledgment of the looming nursing shortage and a looming workforce crisis?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I note that we segued deftly from not enough nurses to far too many. But I would note the more recent data I have seen that suggests that considerably more than half of the nurses who graduated in 2013 now have places. That is an ongoing process and I am confident that district health boards are continuing to place further graduates.Hon Annette King: Has Health Workforce New Zealand told him that its information database’s latest reports are that there are now fewer actual midwife fulltime-equivalents in district health boards at 977.3 than there were in 2007-08 when there were 1020 fulltime-equivalents making a mockery of his commitment to strengthen the health workforce and leading to huge pressures in district health boards and on midwives?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not in a position to verify whether the Minister has seen reports of that nature but he certainly has seen reports on the maternity workforce in crisis where 30 percent of midwife positions were vacant as reported by the Dominion Post on 10 October 2008 under the previous Government’s watch.Hon Annette King: Has Health Workforce New Zealand told him that over the past 4 years fulltime-equivalent nursing positions around the country have increased by 4.4 percent while in-patient numbers have increased by 16 percent and that nurses are now reporting instances of care rationing increased falls medication errors and pressure injuries—all indications or red flags that point to insufficient staffing?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not in a position to verify that but what I can verify is that district health boards all across the country have invested very wisely the extra resources they have been given. That has resulted in several hundred thousand more first specialist assessments several hundred thousand more surgical procedures fewer people having to—well no people—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about nursing. We have moved on to wider issues that are irrelevant to the answer which the Minister said he could not verify.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member makes a reasonable point. The question was actually answered very quickly. The difficulty I have is the length of the question in the first place. If it had been a shorter question I could have dealt with it more appropriately.Hon Annette King: What does he say to new graduate Freya Head who has spent $1000 attending interviews for jobs since November has a $48000 student loan is happy to work in any practice area—still has no position—and is working 7 days a week teaching swimming and how can that be building a stronger health workforce as promised by the National Party in 2011?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I say to that correspondent that the process of recruiting nurses all around the country is an ongoing one and I wish her all the best in her search confident that a Government that has under this watch placed 3083 full-time nurse equivalents since coming to power will give her a much greater opportunity of getting a job than under any other Government.Question No. 1 to MinisterDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that shows that Auckland house prices have gone up by 54 percent since November 2008—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that it was a substantive argument earlier leave is sought to table that particular research from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):I seek leave to table the advice of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand showing that house prices in Auckland have in fact gone up by 26 percent in the advice that has been provided—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been adequately described. Leave is also sought to table that information from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Tertiary Education Funding—Centres of Research Excellence and Māori-led Research8.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Māori Party—Tāmaki Makaurau)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How does the Government intend on sustaining supporting and growing Māori-led research driven by Māori researchers with positive outcomes that support the goals and aspirations of whānau hapū and iwi in light of the decision by the New Zealand Royal Society not to fund Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga or any other Māori-led research organisation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):It is important to point out to the honourable Minister that at this stage that process has not been completed but nevertheless the Government is committed to unlocking the science and innovation potential of Māori knowledge resources and people. We are achieving that in a number of ways. For example the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund builds capability to improve engagement between the science system and Māori users of research. In December last year I announced investment of more than $2.4 million for 18 research programmes in that regard. Furthermore since 2009 I am advised that total Government science investment in Māori knowledge and development for research and science activities specifically invested alongside Māori interest totals over $222 million.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: Does he have concerns that the chair of the Royal Society’s centres of research excellence advisory committee charged with undertaking the review is a commercial executive of companies such as Rio Tinto BNZ National Australia Bank OceanaGold and Ports of Auckland and holds merely an honorary doctorate rather than being an expert scientist himself?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In regard to that person’s role that person does not actually evaluate the research quality of the applications but oversees the Centres of Research Excellence Fund selection process to ensure the process is applied consistently. The applications—of which there are around 27 I understand for about seven or eight centres of research excellence—are passed through five expert selection panels made up of independent scientists who review the research quality of the applications and then pass those that they recommend through to the Royal Society’s centres of research excellence advisory committee chaired by the person whom the member knows. The advisory committee while taking into account all the selection criteria has a focus on the remaining two criteria which are the contribution to New Zealand’s future development and the governance and management arrangements of those centres of research excellence.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: So does he have confidence in the review process undertaken by the New Zealand Royal Society when there is no one on the centres of research excellence advisory committee or the selection panel committee who is Māori or who has any expertise in mātauranga Māori?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes I am confident that the panel had the expertise to independently assess centre of research excellence applications fairly. The process including the way in which it was set up is deliberately independent of politicians. Independent scientists not politicians are in the best position to judge research excellence and in terms of the applications for the centre of research excellence funding. As I said before the Tertiary Education Commission advised me that there were 27 separate applications from current and proposed centres of research excellence to be assessed with the seven or eight possible funded centres of research excellence.Conservation Policy—Progress9.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki)to the Minister of Conservation: What progress is the Government making in implementing its “Bluegreen” plan for New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):We are making excellent progress in improving New Zealand’s management of our natural environment while building a stronger economy. We have launched the Battle for our Birds a record pest control programme covering over 1 million hectares—the largest ever—which will save millions of our native birds although I admit it is not focused on “mollyhawks”. We have enhanced conservation of private land by expanding covenants to over 50000 hectares and making native planting tax deductible. We have toughened penalties for wildlife conservation and biosecurity offending and we have reformed the Department of Conservation to make it more outward looking to enable it to partner with business and communities in protecting New Zealand’s treasured wildlife and places.Jacqui Dean: How has National improved the management and protection of our oceans?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The very first big step was the new exclusive economic zone legislation which for the first time requires consents and assessments of environmental effects in that huge area of New Zealand’s oceans. Secondly we have expanded New Zealand’s number of marine reserves—most recently with the subantarctics but we will also be making a further announcement this weekend in this space.Phil Twyford: More window dressing.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our ambition is to achieve a record number and area of new marine reserves. Unlike the Opposition we do not see marine reserves as window dressing. We have also expanded the protection of Māui’s dolphin by over 2000 square kilometres we have banned shark finning and we have launched a new threat management plan for the New Zealand sea lion.Jacqui Dean: What specific actions has this Government taken to improve our outdoor recreation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The national network of New Zealand cycleways as initiated by the Prime Minister has been a stunning success. Opening up the Heaphy Track to mountain biking has also had economic benefits for communities like those in Collingwood and Karamea. We have also in partnership with United Future given hunters a real voice in their recreation with the establishment of the Game Animal Council. The Government has also helped surfers by recognising the importance of surf breaks in the national coastal plan that Cabinet approved which gives formal protection to 19 surf breaks across our country. We have also invested in new and upgraded Department of Conservation huts tracks and camping facilities to enable more Kiwis to get out and enjoy the great outdoors.Justice Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual10.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister of Justice: Were all her answers to questions relating to her involvement with Oravida accurate and in compliance with the Cabinet Manual?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Yes to the best of my knowledge. However in hindsight my answers should have been broader for which I apologise.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the ruling on the effect of the Cabinet Manual was made without the Chinese to English translation of the Oravida website on which she clearly endorsed its products then how does a clearly defective ruling excuse her clear conflict of interest?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not agree with that member’s statement.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Following the botulism scare of last year is it not a fact that her visit to Oravida was predominantly to facilitate access and customs clearance for Oravida products with the Chinese market and that is the real reason why a People’s Republic of China border official was present at that dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister seriously asking New Zealanders to believe that after the botulism scare last year her murky secret meeting with the Oravida directors and Chinese officials was just a mere coincidence and not an attempt to facilitate access to the Chinese market of a product from New Zealand in which her husband had a clear interest?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite incorrect in some of his statements. I have already advised this House that the senior adviser Margaret Malcolm was with me. She can verify exactly what happened at that dinner.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where in the Cabinet Manual does it say that serious breaches of the provisions in the manual can be overcome by a belated and grudging apology; and why has the Minister not done the decent thing and stepped down pending a full independent investigation into her murky behaviour?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am of course not the expert on the Cabinet Manual; the Cabinet Office is and I take all my advice on it from the Prime Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an old transcript of 15 September 2013 where an interview with the co-founder of Oravida Ltd is expressing the need for Government Ministers to get involved in the kind of facilitation of clearance I am talking about.Mr SPEAKER: Source of the transcript please.Rt Hon Winston Peters: And the source is a press release from Television New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No again press releases are freely available to members who want them.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is an example of where—I certainly have not got access to that and I would like to see that document and I would suggest to you that that should be put to the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter can be resolved. I will put the leave. As described it is a press release by Television New Zealand from 15 September last year. It is over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection.Transport Infrastructure—National Freight Demands Study 201411.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland)to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on the importance of freight movement to New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):I have received and today released the National Freight Demands Study 2014—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister start again please.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have received and today released the National Freight Demands Study 2014. The study shows that each year 236 million tonnes of freight is moved around the country. For each member of our population that is the equivalent of 50 tonnes of freight moved on their behalf. It is a big undertaking and the freight demands study confirms that the Government’s commitment to rail roading and coastal shipping is a good approach.Mike Sabin: What else does the National Freight Demands Study show?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I believe it shows that the Government has been right to invest in transport infrastructure. It has been right to push the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan. It has been right to invest in the roads of national significance. The Government has spent the last 5 years bringing our transport infrastructure up to standard—[Interruption] Sorry?Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister want to finish his answer?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I cannot. I am being harassed here by these people—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the Minister is big enough to handle the harassment. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is to complete the answer please.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is the end of the week and that Darien is pretty fearsome. This Government has spent the last 5 years bringing our transport infrastructure up to standard so it can cope with the increased demand for freight movement and move that freight and consumers safely and efficiently.Housing Affordable—Outlook and Government Policies12.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister of Housing: Does he expect housing affordability to improve in the coming year?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):I expect interest rates to rise above their 40-year lows as the economy improves but I do not expect them to rise to the unaffordable level of 11 percent which is what they were when we first came into office. I also expect as do the Reserve Bank and most commentators house price inflation to slow. This cooling of the housing market will help affordability. I am also confident that this Government’s housing supply initiatives like the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act will improve the supply and affordability of housing. I also expect average wages to continue to rise faster than inflation which also helps housing affordability.Phil Twyford: Does he expect housing affordability to improve with interest rates heading north of 8 percent coupled with massive mortgages that are the new normal since average house prices in Auckland have been nudging $700000 under his watch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that interest rates are over 5 percent and went up by 0.25 percent today. That is a long way from the 11 percent that they were under the previous Labour Government. In respect of house prices—and I note the member mentions Auckland—over the last 5 years under this Government house prices in Auckland have gone up by 26 percent. Under the previous Government they went up by 82 percent. That is why I am sure those concerned about housing affordability will stick with this Government’s policies.Jami-Lee Ross: What success is the Government’s housing initiatives like the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act having for housing supply?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The rate of house building is soaring particularly in Christchurch and Auckland. The latest building consent figures in Christchurch show the fastest rate of house builds ever in that city’s history. The growth in Auckland house builds is the strongest in more than a decade. Nationally we have gone from 13000 houses per year being built in 2012 to the current rate of 23000 homes per year. In other words National’s policies are delivering another 10000 homes per annum in New Zealand which leaves the question of why the Opposition would want taxpayers to subsidise building houses.Phil Twyford: Was it his intention to make the housing market easier for property speculators to have a field day at the expense of first-home buyers and hard-working families and to encourage the sale of houses worth up to $1 million to soar while sales of affordable homes are plummeting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the member is concerned about soaring house prices he should look across the country at the record of the previous Government last decade when prices truly went out of control. This Government’s policies which are increasing housing supply and keeping interest rates low for longer and this Government’s initiatives of expanding the KiwiSaver first-home deposit scheme and expanding the Welcome Home Loan scheme are the smart way in which we help New Zealanders get to own their own homes.Phil Twyford: Does he think that whining about historical data on interest rates is relevant to first-home buyers who today are locked out of the housing market or to struggling families facing big increases in their mortgage payments because of rising interest rates on his watch under this Government?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As a parliamentarian who has been here for some years I very proudly stand as a National member who has consistently during my entire political career been more focused on and more successful at having lower interest rates for home owners than members opposite have. In fact the record is very clear that under Labour Governments in the 1980s and under Labour Governments in the 2000s we had the highest interest rates and that consistently under National Governments interest rates have been lower.Phil Twyford: What photo opportunities does the Minister have planned in his increasingly desperate attempt to divert attention from a policy that is a shambles and a fiasco and is resulting in first-home buyers being shut out of the market rapidly rising interest rates and power prices and incomes flat-lining for most people; or does he still think that housing is becoming more affordable under his watch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When we have got the highest number ever of homes being built in Christchurch when we have got the biggest increase in new house builds in Auckland in more than a decade when we have got a record number of community houses being built and when we have got housing affordability at an average level of 35 percent better under this Government than what it was when we came into office yes I am proud of our record on housing affordability.Education Amendment Bill (No 2)First ReadingHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):I move That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported by 21 July 2014.Our Government has a comprehensive successful and sustainable education plan. We want every New Zealand child to get a better education so that they can be successful here at home in New Zealand as well as globally competitive. This Government is investing in an education system that gives students and young people the skills that they need to achieve success in education and in life. This is why we are introducing legislation that sets up the education profession with an independent entity as the cornerstone of our quality teaching agenda to ensure our education system meets the challenges and opportunities of the modern learning context. This will promote educational leadership accountability and high standards within the education system; help to drive continuous improvement by strengthening and streamlining quality assurance processes; and establish a regulatory framework for the protection of children and for discipline—for the highest and safest behaviour. My colleague the Hon Steven Joyce will speak in more detail about the tertiary and international education aspects of the bill.The Government is focused on strengthening and valuing the education profession. Earlier this year our Prime Minister announced an investment of $359 million for teaching and leadership career pathways that will create four new teaching and leadership roles in schools. These roles will recognise and use talent where it is needed most. They will be implemented from next year to support communities of schools across the country. Importantly the pathways will have a focus on supporting teachers to collaborate to lift achievement.This year we are reviewing professional learning and development for the compulsory school sector. This month we are hosting the International Summit on the Teaching Profession here in Wellington. We expect to host Ministers of education from the top-performing education systems from all around the world. At the same time we are hosting education festivals in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch to showcase school best practice to each other to parents and to the community and to celebrate what is happening in our schools. We have instituted the inaugural Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards to be awarded in June this year.We want to build on the good practice that occurs in schools every day and support the system to promote high professional standards and accountability. The Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is integral to our plan to value and strengthen the teaching profession. The bill establishes the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand EDUCANZ which will be a new professional body for the education profession replacing the existing New Zealand Teachers Council. I would like at this time to record my thanks to the New Zealand Teachers Council for the sterling work that it has done over the duration of its existence and to thank it for the work that it will continue to do until the new body is in place.This bill today is the result of a 3-year conversation. Widespread consultation began in 2010 when the Education Workforce Advisory Committee wrote its report and it ended with the 2013 ministerial advisory group report which led engagement on the proposals right across the profession. EDUCANZ will lead and promote quality teaching in New Zealand. As an independent statutory body it will focus on investing in high-quality leadership and teaching practice across early childhood and schooling. It will be the guardian for standards for teachers and help ensure that the aspirations we have for educational success are realised in the day-to-day operation of our education system. EDUCANZ will be owned by the profession and will have its needs at its heart in the interests of quality learning and the best education for each and every child and young New Zealander.The bill sets out the purposes and functions of EDUCANZ and the appointment process for members. Members will be appointed by the Minister and will have the skills attributes and credentials to lead the profession. Of the nine appointed members up to five will be registered teachers. Many of the functions of the new professional body reflect that of the New Zealand Teachers Council but it will have additional responsibilities in providing direction for the profession. The most important role of EDUCANZ will be as steward and guardian of the standards of the profession.The bill requires EDUCANZ to develop a code of conduct that must be adhered to by every teacher in New Zealand ensuring that there is clarity for all about the expected behaviour and conduct of teachers and the priority of safety for the young people in their care. The bill promotes the safety of students through a robust regulatory framework for teachers. Teacher registration will be separated from the issue of practising certificates to promote the professional value and status of those practising certificates.The safety of learners in our schools is an absolute priority. This Government supports an education system that takes a robust approach to safeguarding children and young people. Therefore the bill will make changes to strengthen and clarify the disciplinary framework for teachers. To help raise public confidence in the profession any teacher convicted of a serious criminal offence will have their registration cancelled. EDUCANZ will have an explicit function to monitor and enforce the mandatory reporting requirements relating to teacher misconduct. Likewise streamlining the powers of the complaints assessment committee will ensure that appropriate disciplinary measures are taken in a timely manner. The Education Council Disciplinary Tribunal can suspend a teacher’s practising certificate if the safety of children or the reputation of the teaching profession are in question. We are removing the current 3-month maximum interim suspension.The bill helps us to achieve our aim of five out of five students achieving success in education. We are committed to ensuring that our education system is well equipped to meet the challenges of the modern learning context. The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) helps us achieve this. We have invested significantly in consulting with education professionals to ensure that this bill reflects both their aspirations and their ambitions but also balances the need to ensure that the safety of children and the protection of parents’ interests in terms of their children are also safeguarded. I now commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Christopher Hipkins.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):That is what my mother calls me when I am being badly behaved. First of all I suppose I should sympathise with the Minister of Education’s croaky voice. I am not sure whether I will get through 10 minutes today either. There seems to be something in the water at Parliament today.I do want to pick up on some of the comments that the Minister made in her speech on this bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). It seems that whenever the Minister speaks in the House about education there needs to be some translation. When she talks about an independent voice for teachers and a teachers’ body that is governed and owned by the teaching profession it is very difficult to reconcile that with the idea that the Minister will hand-pick all the members of it. How is the profession supposed to feel in ownership of the body if it does not actually have any say in who is governing that body? The membership of the council is going to be exclusively determined by the Minister. That is completely at odds with the idea that this will be a body that is owned by the teaching profession.The Labour Party does support an independent teaching body; whether it is called the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ) or something else it does not really matter. The principle of an independent body is something that we are strongly in support of. However having that body exclusively appointed by the Minister simply is not going to lead to that. This body to do the job that it is being tasked with must have the confidence and the support of the profession because without that it simply is not going to be able to do the job and it is not going to get that support if the teaching profession feels that the new EDUCANZ body is something that is being done to it rather than being done with it.When Hekia Parata talked about this being the result of a 3-year conversation most people in the education sector would say that there is a big difference between being talked at and spoken with. The problem is that the current Government’s approach is very much to talk at people who are working in education rather than have a genuine conversation with them. I think that there should be an independent robust education council or teaching council that does have quite an expansive role in raising the quality of education in New Zealand and in raising the status of the teaching profession in New Zealand. Sadly that is not what the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is delivering.When Hekia Parata mentioned briefly the changes in this bill to make tertiary governance more effective what she effectively meant is the removal of staff and student representation. That is not going to lead to more collaboration and a more collegial approach to educational provision. Hekia Parata talked in her speech about the Government’s plan to introduce expert teachers. One simple question: which teachers will not be the experts?Hon Hekia Parata: The ones that aren’t raising achievement.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh the ones who are not raising achievement. Well if they are not raising achievement then one has to question why they are still teaching and ask whether in fact the Government should be focused on providing support to all teachers because all teachers should be expert teachers. The idea that we are going to have a two-tier teaching profession—where if you are one of the lucky few who gets an expert teacher you get a better-quality education than all the others who supposedly have non - expert teachers—clearly shows that the Government has got all its priorities wrong.When the Government talks about expert principals what it is basically saying is: “We will take a principal who is doing a good job of running their school and we will reward them for that by taking them out of their school for a couple of days a week and we will pretend that by being out of their school for a couple of days a week they can still continue to do the good job they were doing when they were there full time.” Most principals will say that actually being a good principal is more than a full-time job. Running one school is more than a full-time job so how on earth Hekia Parata and the Government can think that a good principal will somehow be able to run a whole lot of schools whilst still running their school at the same time is beyond anybody.It is no wonder that the teaching profession and the principals are walking away from this. They are clearly walking away from this and we have seen that in the last few days. They were willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and in record quick time Hekia Parata has already managed to burn them off. She has already managed to burn them off. The whole profession was willing to say: “Actually let’s work with the Government and see whether we can make this work.” and already it is walking away saying: “No this isn’t going to work.” EDUCANZ and the future of the teaching profession should be driven by the profession. In what other profession does the Government dictate: “This is how you will run yourselves. This is what all of the criteria will be.”? There are not very many. I actually think—Hon Hekia Parata: The Minister already makes all the appointments Mr Hipkins. Read the law that your Government put in place.CHRIS HIPKINS: I have read the Cabinet paper I say to Hekia Parata. I have read the Cabinet paper thin as it was and it was very clear that there was a very insubstantial evidence base there. Going on holiday somewhere does not create an evidence base for something. It seems to be that Hekia Parata thinks that just by going somewhere and speaking to a few people it creates an evidence base. Actually there is a lot more to an evidence base than that. There was a very flimsy evidence base for the proposals that have been put forward by John Key and the National Government and it is no wonder that that is already starting to come unstuck.We do need to focus on raising the quality of education in New Zealand and that starts by recognising the critical role of the teaching profession in setting and maintaining the standards for the profession. That is something that this Government is not willing to do. This Government thinks that it can impose those standards on the teaching profession including by setting up an establishment body for the new education council of New Zealand which has a National Party office holder on it. If you want to know why it is that the teaching profession baulks at the idea that the Minister would appoint—hand-pick—the entire board of the new education council of New Zealand that is a pretty good example. That is a pretty good example. I actually think that the teaching profession should have the ultimate say or at least a significant say on how this body is made up. That is not something that Hekia Parata is willing to do because this Government thinks that it should be dictating to the teaching profession what should be going on within the profession.This bill of course entrenches—entrenches—the double standard of this Government where on the one hand it is talking about raising the standards for the teaching profession and then on the other hand it is exempting charter schools from those provisions. It is exempting its small group of charter schools from those provisions. If it is really committed to raising the standard of the teaching profession why would it exempt the newest schools—the schools that it wants to expand? Why would it say that this new model of education should be exempt from the agenda to raise the standards in the profession? It has no good reason for doing that. This bill simply entrenches the double standard that says that schools in the public system should be dumped all over as they have repeatedly been by this current Government while the charter schools which the Government is hand-picking and establishing should get a different set of standards.Of course it is all spin—all this good news that we are getting from the Government is spin. Let us not forget that this is the Government that thought that the answer to quality teaching was increasing class sizes. This is a Government that after a year and a half and $43 million of taxpayers’ money being shovelled at it still cannot get the payroll system right—Hon Steven Joyce: That you signed up “Chippy”!CHRIS HIPKINS: —so that teachers actually get paid for their work. Steven Joyce is an absolute failure. “Mr Fix-it” still has not fixed it. A year and a half and $43 million later Steven Joyce’s answer is to shovel another $10 million at it and hope for the best. Novopay does not work and Steven Joyce still has not fixed it. He has been an absolute failure. “Mr Fix-it” did not fix Novopay.Bigger class sizes Novopay school closures in Christchurch national standards that are neither national nor standard—the litany of educational failures of this Government is not going to be undone by a little bit of spin work now where the Government claims it actually values the teaching profession. It values them so much it is not willing to entrust them with any decision making over the future of the teaching profession. This is a Government that is not willing to practise what it preaches.This is a Government that wants to control everything. Hekia Parata wants to control the new education council and yet we know that the courts do not have any faith in her decision making because twice she has been challenged in the courts and twice she has lost. She has been twice challenged in the courts and she lost on both occasions. The courts even went so far as to say that she had abrogated her responsibilities as a decision maker.Now Hekia Parata wants to have decision-making responsibilities for the whole teaching profession. She wants to hand-pick the entire body of the new education council. I think that is wrong. I think teachers should have a say in who is going to be on this new education council. The Government has no good reason for explaining why it does not believe that. Not once has the Government put forward a compelling argument for why this body should be exclusively appointed by the Minister of Education.We should be focused on raising the status of the teaching profession in New Zealand. That means meaningful recognition for the teaching profession. It means meaningful ongoing dialogue and discussion with people working in the teaching profession. It means a two-way conversation not a Minister who is preaching to them telling them what is best for them and never listening.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):I would like to thank the author of the Novopay contract Chris Hipkins for that contribution. I would like to thank him for that. Unfortunately I cannot thank him for much else. Unfortunately also I do not understand his contribution. I have tried to summarise it. I have tried to summarise it for him. It appears that he thinks that independent teacher councils are important but they should not be too independent. That is the first thing he said. He also seems to be relitigating Labour’s support for teaching excellence. He seems to be quickly moving away from its support for teaching excellence. But to be fair to him that is Labour’s “yeah nah” approach as exhibited in education.The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is an important bill. This bill will improve our education system. I agree with the remarks made by my colleague the Hon Hekia Parata and I suspect I will not agree with remarks about to be made by “Jurassic” Grant Robertson. In my speech I would like to focus on the two areas of the bill—Grant Robertson: What’s that Humpty-Dumpty?Hon STEVEN JOYCE:—within my portfolio of tertiary education skills and employment. It is all right; I will come to you Grant. First let me deal with the Government’s reforms to university and wānanga governance. These moderate but important changes modernise councils so that they are smaller skills-based and can better respond and more quickly respond to the challenges of modern-day tertiary education. The changes will mean that the councils can more easily meet the needs of a rapidly changing employment market; adapt to the new challenges from changing technology teaching and learning; and operate more effectively in an increasingly competitive international university environment.There are four major changes from the current model. Firstly councils will decrease in size from 12 to 20 members currently to eight to 12 members. Universities and wānanga will choose their council size within those parameters. Secondly council membership requirements will be more flexible by the removal of specific representative requirements. The current law is highly prescriptive and outdated in that regard. Thirdly the Minister and councils will be required to appoint members with skills knowledge or experience relevant to each council’s particular needs. Fourthly the duties and accountabilities of individual council members will be clarified. That is it. “Jurassic” Grant Robertson has been roaming the campuses desperately trying to wind the students up to revolt in the streets and they have largely ignored him. In fact if it had not been for my signing them up for the Young Nats at Victoria University’s campus the other day nobody would have been talking to him.These changes will allow both universities and wānanga to recruit the expertise needed to effectively respond to the challenges of a changing environment. Individual council members will get a clear picture of what is expected of them. Those who are performing poorly will be prevented from undermining the overall performance of a council. The changes will help address the difficulties that larger councils can have with timely decision-making and communication. They will bring university and wānanga councils more in line with most other organisations in the modern world which have been moving towards smaller governing bodies for quite some time—many many years in fact. The governance changes made to our polytechnic sector in 2010 have greatly contributed to the turn-round in educational and financial performance in that sector. All university and wānanga councils will be required to have at least one Māori member to assist the Government’s role of raising achievement for Māori. This will not be a significant change as all but one do today.The changes are particularly important for wānanga. The current governance settings were not written with them in mind. They were asked to adopt the university settings. The changes will allow increased flexibility for wānanga to reflect their unique stakeholders particularly iwi on their councils. I want to stress that despite the scaremongering of “Jurassic” Grant—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind the member that the member must use an honourable member’s full name not a nickname or anything else. All members in this House are honourable.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. I will not refer to him in that manner again even though his response to these things is reasonably outdated. The changes will not compromise institutional autonomy or academic freedom. These freedoms are guaranteed by section 161 of the Education Act which is not changing so I can therefore save the Opposition members their breath for the rest of this debate and the subsequent stages of this bill because those matters are not changing. I know that members opposite are concerned about student representation and that is important. Under the changes proposed in this bill councils will be free to choose to retain their student and staff representation. I have already stated that I expect most institutions will do just that. The key point is that they get the flexibility to determine the best make-up of their councils; we treat them like adult organisations.The changes proposed in the bill are the latest in a series of incremental reforms made by the Government to improve the performance and quality of tertiary education. We have reduced spending in low-value areas such as student loans for people who consistently fail their courses and we have improved the way the system targets need.Grant Robertson: Like people over 55. They’re terribly low value aren’t they Steven—people over 55.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have set performance incentives on providers and students—here comes the guy who wants to spend the money—and improved information for students about the performance of providers and the employment outcomes of their study. Interestingly Government investment in tertiary education has risen substantially. In 2012 we invested $2.2 billion in publicly owned tertiary institutions. That in itself is an increase of 13.4 percent since 2008. The investment increase in universities is higher—up 16 percent since 2008. The approach is paying off. We achieved a record number of qualifications in 2012—162000. The number of domestic students who completed a Bachelor’s degree in 2012 was the highest ever at 25400 up 4790 in just 2 years—an increase of 23 percent. Right through the 2000s despite the buckets and buckets of money that Labour poured into this system the number of degree graduates flat-lined despite these big increases in funding. So these results are great to see when somebody manages the tertiary education system properly and does not rely on old fossil politicians from the student unions. Many more young people are now moving from school to degree-level study: from 13600 students in 2007 to 16500 in 2012. These include more young Māori and Pasifika. The total number of Māori students enrolled in total in qualifications at Bachelor’s level or higher increased from 17500 to 21900 in 2012. The number of Pasifika students increased too from 8500 in 2007 to 11800 in 2012.I will now talk about how the bill will improve the education system’s responsiveness to the needs of international students. International education is very important to New Zealand. It contributes $2.6 billion a year to our economy and 28000 jobs for New Zealanders. I thought most parties in this House supported international education; after last week though I am not quite so sure because the Shane Jones and Raymond Huo thing about supporting international education one day and not the next did send yet another confusing signal from the Opposition. The Business Growth Agenda has set a goal of doubling the total value of New Zealand’s international education sector to $5 billion by 2025. It is also part of our drive to be better connected across the world. Our success as a country depends on our level of connectedness. At the end of the day we are a small trading nation and we need very strong links with the world and international education is an important way to develop those links. It provides New Zealand with lifelong ambassadors as graduates go back to their home countries and share their experiences with friends family and colleagues. It helps enhance teaching and research the sharing of knowledge and the building of human capital. We must take steps to ensure always that our international students have the best possible experience while they are here. This bill adds on the reforms we have already made and creates a new legal framework for the Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students. This will enable targeted interventions in situations where providers are not complying with their obligations under the code. A more effective and efficient sanction process will be introduced to ensure that code signatories represent New Zealand education in the best possible way. It also establishes a dedicated disputes resolution scheme which provides international students with an accessible and efficient forum for settling financial or contractual disputes with providers.The bill also makes improvements to student fee protection which covers both domestic and international students. That will help reduce the compliance costs associated with that for private training establishments. The bill strengthens the ability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to undertake quality assurance of tertiary education organisations and streamlines the process for deregistration of private training establishments. To protect the quality of tertiary education the bill strengthens enforcement and offence provisions and provides disincentives for those who seek to avoid the consequences of poor performance. This bill is from a Government that is doing a very good job in the education sector and a very good job in tertiary education. I know it is galling for the Opposition but we are receiving great results in the tertiary sector. This bill makes important changes to the governance of our universities and wānanga so they can respond more effectively and strategically in the modern world Mr Robertson—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and it will create a more robust regulatory framework for our international education sector. This bill is a good bill for our tertiary education sector. I commend it to the House.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):It is a great pleasure to follow on from “Mr Fix-it” Steven Joyce who told us he would solve the Novopay problems in 3 months. That is what he told us—that he would solve the Novopay problems in 3 months. It was not so much a case of “Can we fix it? Yes we can.”; it was a case of “Can we fix it? No we can’t.” because the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce is responsible for the Novopay debacle. We learnt today that Novopay has cost another $43 million to New Zealanders and it is why teachers continue not to be paid. What kind of Government can claim success in education but is not paying the teachers is not paying the staff in our schools and is seeing support staff in our schools resign because of the stress of it? Good old “Mr Fix-it” is behind that making sure that Novopay continues to fail.On this side of the House we will be opposing this legislation the Education Amendment Bill. We will be opposing it strongly. The reforms to university governance that are being proposed by Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata to quote New Zealand’s largest university “strike at the very essence of autonomous but accountable universities in this country.” That is a quote from the University of Auckland’s submission on these proposals. These proposals undermine everything that universities and tertiary education are about: being the critic and conscience of society. Steven Joyce does not want to hear from critics. Steven Joyce wants to silence the voices of critics of his policies and that is what lies behind these changes.There is no evidence that lies behind these changes. There is no great call for the terrible governance of universities that has driven them into the ground financially. It has not happened. New Zealand universities are generally performing very well. They are adapting very well to the so-called modern world that Steven Joyce talks about. There is no problem here. This policy is a solution in search of a problem. It is Steven Joyce’s ideological response to people who disagree with him. It typifies a National Government that does not want to hear about criticism. Be it protest at sea or protest at a university this Government does not want to hear from critics. It works to silence critics by shutting them out and we on this side of the House utterly oppose that.There has been no evidence provided for this. We looked and what we saw in the regulatory impact statement were a whole lot of “could be’s” “maybe’s” and “might be’s”. “Current governance arrangements”—this is what the regulatory impact statement says—“may not be optimised.” They may not support efficient decision-making. They could result in people not making good decisions. There is no evidence; it is made up. Steven Joyce is simply putting forward his ideological solution to a problem that he has invented. Maybe as he said today large bodies in universities have difficulty making good decisions. Maybe around the world there will be examples where large councils are causing universities to have terrible performance.Let us look at a few of them. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology—one of the leading innovative research universities in the world—how many people are on its council? Seventy-two people are on its council. Before Steven Joyce gets too excited I am not proposing an increase to 72. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology seems to be doing all right but perhaps that is an outlier. I know why do we not look to the great universities to Oxford and Cambridge? That will give us a guide. They will have small councils because there is no way the Oxford and Cambridge universities could not be making good decisions. Well Oxford has 25 on its council.Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s a lot less than 72.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is. Cambridge has 23 on its council—not eight not 12 but 25 or 23—and Stanford has 33. If you look at the 50 top universities in the world most of them still have this kind of representative model. Many of them have far more than the number of councillors that are proposed in the current law in New Zealand.There is no relationship here between universities the size of their governing bodies and their success. It is just not there. There is no evidence. Steven Joyce has provided no evidence. There is no problem with the financial performance of universities in New Zealand and any problems will certainly not be dealt with by more of Steven Joyce’s mates being on the councils. There is no evidence that this actually supports better learning or teaching inside an institution. There is no evidence that universities are not responding to the modern world that they are not looking at new ways of providing courses and that they are not looking at new ways of attracting students. Steven Joyce has made up a problem and he has no real support for this.When they did the consultation process there were around 2000 submissions. Almost none of them supported any aspect of this—almost none. Of the universities themselves absolutely no one supported this whole proposal—absolutely nobody. Our two largest universities—Auckland and Otago—have outright rejected the proposal. They do not want it; they are happy with where they are. The excuse that the Minister has used for the University of Canterbury looking to reduce the number on its council down to 12 was that it could have done it under the current law. It does not even want the law changed. Nobody wants this apart from Steven Joyce and possibly his mate Phil O’Reilly who I expect will come along to the select committee and tell us what Steven Joyce wants him to tell us. There is nobody else out there. Staff students and community representatives—none of them want this.Actually the representative model of governance gives universities something very special. It gives them the ability to have at the table the communities that they serve. If you just want to look at it from an economic perspective students pay a whole lot of money to be there. Steven Joyce might understand that argument maybe. But beyond that universities have a special character. They play a special role in our society. They are the critic and conscience of our society. They represent something that is important about higher learning education and what we want for our society. The university councils we have show that they are part of their communities. It shows that by having the students there by having the staff there and by having people who come from worker groups employer groups and the community the university is both part of and there to serve. We think that actually makes for better decision-making.I was on a university council myself. I know that when student voices are there it makes a difference. I know that when staff voices are there it makes a difference. I actually also know that when employer and union representatives are there it makes a difference. Better decisions are made because there is a wider representative model. It is actually about inclusion rather than exclusion but this Government is all about who it can exclude not who it can include in the kinds of decisions that get made. Actually modern governance theory says that more people should be involved in decision making in businesses. This is a tired old policy from the 1980s. Mr Joyce might want to throw insults around about dinosaurs and Jurassic Park. Well he is the one bringing something back from the 1980s some sort of Chicago school of economics model that says that small by definition must be good.As others have said and as I asked Mr Joyce in the House a while back presumably there will be some kind of policy coming from National to reduce the size of Cabinet from 20 to eight or 12. Clearly Cabinet as a body of 20 is not capable of making good decisions because large bodies of 20 could not be capable of making a good decision. Presumably Steven Joyce will practise what he preaches in that regard—I think not.This bill is ill-thought-out. It will cause problems. It will cause trouble. The answer in the regulatory impact statement was to say let us manage it by saying things that will placate people. The reality is that this will reduce the representation of key stakeholders in a university it will limit the range of views that are at the table and it will lead to poorer governance not better governance. The Labour Party strongly opposes this legislation.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare Pāremata. The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is a consistent continuation of Government policy. It is a plan to further privatise the governance of tertiary institutions reform the Teachers Council without the support of teachers and continue to create two tiers and lower standards for schools such as charter schools versus those in the State sector. Therefore the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. There are useful elements in small parts of the bill but the overall thrust is depressing. One of my colleagues will take a later call on the debacle in the tertiary sector the reduction of democracy and the increasing of ministerial powers over tertiary governance. I do agree with Grant Robertson that this is an out-of-date backward-looking failed management theory which many people have abandoned. Inclusion broadness and representation are how we all know better decisions are made. One of my colleagues will expand on that in her later call.I would like to make some general comments about the overall direction of the bill. The overall direction is not only the National Government’s policy but also part of an international process we are seeing that has afflicted the education sector. Education has always been a politicised and deeply debated space but now it is an eroded space in this country where concepts like education for lifelong learning and educators as the conscience of society are being minimised and marginalised by the overarching and depressing determination that education is mainly a business. From early childhood to the tertiary education sector it has been carved up for profit and the compulsory sector is being redefined from the perspective of business efficiency and standardisation.I would like to talk about a parent whom I met with today who said to me that their 5-year-old had been kept in at lunchtime to improve their spelling because the school was worried about meeting national standards. That is a very very depressing experience for a parent. And a teacher told me that she was forced to put up a picture in her classroom of where every child was at in relation to national standards—those who were failing supposedly and those who were achieving. If that is what we call expert teaching that is a tragedy. That teacher who is a remarkably good teacher is destroyed by the introduction in her classroom of competition and the exposure of so-called achievement for 5-year-olds 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds. That is what I am talking about Minister—not that she wishes to hear it.There is endless rhetoric in the education space about meeting student needs creating outcomes and fulfilling potential for all. We can all buy in to that. But when we read the clauses of this bill it is pretty clear that it is about advancing changes that will fulfil a very different power shift. The reform of the Teachers Council was heralded with some excitement. Teachers expressed interest in the idea of a professional body that was by teachers for teachers. They were interested in the model that would regulate and represent them as professionals just as medical professionals have their own professional bodies.However things started to go badly awry when the transition chair of this process John Morris put out a series of papers advocating right-wing education solutions such as performance-based pay through The New Zealand Initiative when he was supposedly leading a neutral process of developing the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. The “see no evil” Government saw no conflict of interest in his behaviour but the teachers organisations smelt a big rat because performance pay is divisive inefficient destructive and irrelevant to student well-being and it should have had no place in the discussion around the development of the new education council. It was deeply conflicting that the transition chair actually focused on that and politicised that process.Now we see the enabling legislation but we do not see the robust involvement of the broader teaching sector representing the concept of quality public education. The education council is described in the bill as being “to provide leadership to teachers and direction for the education profession:” as well as having a number of other new roles and responsibilities. Who gets these roles and how they are developed is a critical process and should not have been a politicised situation. It should have been an inclusive and depoliticised situation. I guess the new bill could not let the new education council be a teacher-led professional body because then all of the provisions of the Education Act that undermine accountability safety and transparency in the charter schools would have become an even greater contradiction.The Green Party sees no need to abandon the limited authority to teach as an important adjunct to the essential role of the registered teacher because that idea—the limited authority to teach—was always based on the idea that these were people who were studying towards an education qualification but also were contributing to classrooms. The bill sets up all kinds of structures which we do not disagree with to protect children to regulate teacher registration and to establish a code of conduct—note that it is not a code of ethics but a code of conduct—but it is extraordinary that these are not applied in other parts of the Education Act to the unregistered teaching staff in charter schools who will also be working with the same range of students and who are not covered by the education council rules. They will have police checks but so should all volunteers. They might be fabulous or they might be a risk but lowering standards seems to be an underlying contradiction alongside double standards.On the one hand teachers are meant to be professional leaders who get $350 million spent on their career pathways towards executive principal and on the other hand in the charter schools in the targeting of the so-called vulnerable students the staff do not have to be teachers and are not covered by the codes of conduct or accountability rules of the new education council. So it is all about tightening up the rules for teachers but totally relaxing them for others and that is a massive contradiction.All students deserve an education that is liberating innovative and inspiring and of course I agree that they are not all getting that now. I have visited the people working on charter schools—some who are clearly motivated by the best reasons and some who are just downright inappropriate in their ability to meet targets. The Green Party fails to see how the Vanguard Military School - style press-ups and military training punishment model is going to create the best modern learning environment. That is not the pedagogy of collaborative learning that we all believe in; it is the pedagogy of authoritarian control.It was very interesting when a professor from the University of Oregon talked in this Parliament not long ago about how the authoritarian model which appears to work in Asia to create great Programme for International Student Assessment standards but does not lead to innovative thinking is welcomed by Western societies that do not know how to manage kids without an authoritarian model. He said our biggest challenge was creativity. In fact the Chinese Government and the Singaporeans for example are recognising that it is not working and that paths that test standardised teaching and national standards for those countries are not creating innovative learners who can then lead a modern world.Hon Hekia Parata: Again not true.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: So it was really interesting to hear him speak. The Minister says it is not true but he was a fantastically creative person who has been employed by the Chinese Government for that very reason—for that very reason.The Green Party is very keen to work for solutions for genuine initiatives to become part of quality public education in Aotearoa that is culturally appropriate and innovative. That can happen but we do not need to privatise. We do not need for-profit State-funded unaccountable schools to do that.Much of this bill is detail—and stuff that I would like to read in more detail—around international students private training associations and teacher registration. Much of it may well be useful. We often find that these omnibus bills combine things that are good with things are that are actually abhorrent and then put us in a difficult position because we cannot support them. We will be looking for the greater good in the bill if it is there but the overall approach towards the tertiary governance issues and towards the education council is very disturbing. We find it difficult when our in-boxes are now being flooded by people who are very concerned about this bill and do not believe there are enough good things in it to justify it.It is difficult to imagine how less democracy and less teacher involvement in their own professional body will result in better decision-making. Steven Joyce talks about for example cutting students out being a choice—people can choose to cut students out. What he is failing to acknowledge is that democracy needs to be encouraged supported and acknowledged in law so people recognise the importance of those diverse voices rather the myth of efficiency. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. I have been contemplating for some time. There is a longstanding convention in the House—it goes back to the time of Sir Basil Arthur in 1984—Speaker’s ruling 63/1. When members are in close proximity to each other and there are constant interjections going on it actually has an effect on the microphones so I just ask the member the Hon Hekia Parata to please desist.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: An education amendment bill is an opportunity to strengthen democracy in education and unfortunately this bill fails to do that.Dr CAM CALDER (National):It is an enormous pleasure to take a brief call on this bill. The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is another strand in this Government’s cable of initiatives to lift New Zealanders’ educational achievement. I personally have benefited hugely from our country’s education system. I went to Westown School in New Plymouth. I went to that paragon of virtue—Hon Maryan Street: Bastion of virtue.Dr CAM CALDER: —of a secondary school New Plymouth Boys’ High School. The Hon Maryan Street went to the sister school across the river New Plymouth Girls’ High School. I then went to Otago University and the highest compliment I can pay to Cambridge University where I did my medical degree was that it was as good as Otago University but in a different way. Why do I mention Otago University? It was there that I met a young man whose musical virtuosity left me absolutely in awe. I am talking about Tim Hazledine who was a young economics student. Tim went on to become a professor of economics in fact a member of the Auckland University council and a little bit of a comic I have to say. It was something he had not displayed as a student. He showed no sign of comic prowess. He was a brilliant musician and is still a brilliant musician. But the reason I think he has perhaps indulged in stand-up comedy is that he referred to Steven Joyce as an “old-fashioned socialist central planner at heart”. I do not know what the Opposition feels about that but I have a hard job equating the Steven Joyce that I know with that sobriquet.Why do I mention Tim? I mention Tim because I have a huge amount of respect for him. He is an economist and yet he finds the prospect of slightly reducing the number of people in a governance entity—to whit the new university councils—and having people on there with proven governance experience outrageous and remarkable. He says there is no need for it—there is absolutely no need for it. He does not give a skerrick of evidence as to why there is no need for it. So what evidence can we find to suggest that there may be need for it? Well it does not come much simpler than looking at a past experience where this happened in 2009 when the policies came in and were instituted in 2010 by the Tertiary Education Commission in the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics—the ITPs. What happened when the Government introduced a policy like this? We had the opportunity to hear from no less a person than Tim Fowler the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission who looked at what happened. What Mr Fowler told us was that with the reduction in numbers of the councils of the ITPs and with a requirement for skilled governance ability in fact the performance of these organisations improved.Are we surprised? We are not surprised. That was the commission’s impression and its summary after a number of visits to them. So what did it do? It went back twice since 2010 and it is going to do so again to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the changes. It has not just looked at the performance and found it to be much improved but it has also interviewed the new chairs the chief executives and the chief financial officers of these organisations. The feedback from those individuals who are actually on the bodies has been uniformly favourable. So there is evidence hard evidence that this model works.Before I close I will just address a few points that have been raised. As the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment himself said this is about making council membership requirements more flexible by removing specific representative requirements. What can be bad about more freedom to make involve and create the make-up of your local council in your university? I cannot see a problem with that. That was one of the concerns raised by the Opposition. I could go on for ages but time is pressing. I look forward to further debate on this bill in future.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to acknowledge Dr Cam Calder who is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. He is a lovely man and he is going to have a hell of a time on that committee around the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge Dr Calder now because I want to make sure he understands that although I appreciate his collegial manner on the select committee it will not last with this bill.I would like to start at the beginning. Let us just note bullet point No. 2 in the general policy statement which says: “to create a regulatory framework that promotes accountability and high standards within the education sector;”. The National Government just cannot seem to help itself. Either that or it just does not realise how insulting that truly is to hard-working professionals inside education in this country. Statements like that suggest to the public that there currently is not any accountability or that the profession does not already have high standards otherwise the bill would not say to create them. Any Minister with actual knowledge of this sector would have known that that statement is demonstrably false and would not have allowed the staff to use that language.It is farcical to suggest later in this bill that one of the purposes of creating the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is to raise the status of the teaching profession. It is farcical because it is this Government that has done more damage to the status of the teaching profession than any other single incident or entity since it began using attacks on this profession for political purposes in 2008. This Government makes these sorts of derogatory statements inside legislation which places them on the permanent historical record of this House and then it has the audacity to try to kiss up to teachers by launching a website where people write on it about their personal favourite teacher.The Government has announced a top-down bribe of $359 million in an attempt to get teachers to forget the number of times the Government has kicked them in the guts over the close to 6 years that we have had this National Government. The Government appears to hope that teachers will be so busy trying to figure out their payslips from Novopay that they will not notice that legislation like this will remove their representation on a body that they will be paying for. According to Treasury papers they will be paying more for the privilege of having this Government take away their ability to elect their representatives.If this bill is not about raising the status of the sector then what is the purpose of these changes? The Minister of Education has been very helpful in her publicly recorded statements. This is unusual but she has. Ms Parata uses dog whistle politics when she makes statements such as: “There will be less chance of dodgy teachers resurfacing at other schools under this legislation.” What absolute rubbish. The Minister knows that one of the worst convicted sex offenders was found to have completely bypassed the teacher registration process so nothing inside this bill will stop that from happening again.The Minister seeks to remove the basic rights of teachers around being innocent until proven guilty through clauses in this legislation. Teachers are humans too. They deserve the right to be able to have complaints against them heard away from the public until it is shown that that complaint has a basis in truth. Teachers will be pursued under this legislation and the Minister is using that to try to create turmoil and a voting base for the National Party just as it did when it scaremongered in 2008 and just as it did when it scaremongered in 2011. The Minister knows that it is more likely that improvements to the front end of teacher training through the screening of potential teacher trainee candidates and the continual screening of candidates around a holistic matrix would have more effect as opposed to the current “bums on seats” mismanagement of teacher supply in practice under this Government.The Minister knows that her Government has left a gap that one could drive a truck through. It specifically puts our children at risk in recent charter school amendments to this same bill that allow anyone with a Ministry of Justice check into those charter school classrooms. The fact that the Ministry of Justice checks cover only New Zealand convictions and not those from overseas has been ignored by this Minister and by this Government. The fact that should any incident arise in a charter school around any of these individuals where there is no central record to track them from one charter school to another puts our children at risk. But the Minister does not want the New Zealand public to focus on that.This Government prefers to have another go at the professional body that actually takes the educating of our young people seriously. If I have a criticism of members of the teaching profession in New Zealand it is that they are too reasonable. They try too hard to accommodate the many choices that this Government says it wants for our children. If there is a criticism I have of them it is that they are so invested in the children of this country that they put themselves so far second and they have allowed this Government to ride roughshod over them.But they do stand up so why do the Minister and the Government pursue this legislation? It is about the fact that the teaching profession is still fighting back. Teachers still stand up no matter how battered and bruised they are and they fight for their students to be judged as a whole person on holistic criteria as opposed to the narrow robotic view the National Party would like. The National Party believes only in winners and losers. That is its reality. Given a chance we believe this Government would bring back the “scale to fail” of the 1970s. We believe that this Government would have primary school children held back year upon year if they did not meet the national standards.We have seen no money being put into the front end of the spend to support students who have been clearly identified which is what the purpose of national standards was supposed to be when it was sold to this country in 2008. Not a single cent of the close to $40 million spent to date on national standards has touched a child at the front end and given more resources with regard to our dyslexic children our dyspraxic children and our children who need any other support—not a single cent. If this is not about protecting our children and it is not about lifting the status of the profession what is it actually about? Again Minister Parata has articulated this—mistakenly perhaps but none the less she has put it into the public domain. This is about control. This is about removing any elected official from the body of the profession and giving the Minister total control of all appointments. The Minister has quite clearly told the educational representation bodies that her ultimate goal is that this new council will be the only body that she or any future Minister of Education will have to consult when they start the next tranche of privatisation and performance pay amendments to our education system.But Minister Parata is not the only member of this Government who is hell-bent on removing democracy and the need to consult from the education sector so let us move on to the amendments in the bill under Mr Steven Joyce’s area. We have seen that it is about removing what this Government finds most annoying. It is about the requirement to consult and removing it. We have seen time and time again from this Government—and it is an arrogance that is inherent in the National Party—a disdain to enter into constructive dialogue. This is why this party actually finds it most difficult to get its head around MMP. MMP is actually about entering into constructive dialogue and this party finds it very difficult to do so.Well we all know that it is much easier for people to just do as they are told. We know that. But that is called a dictatorship and history has shown us time and time again that the people will stand a dictatorship for only so long before they will demand to have their views and their voice heard and we hope that the New Zealand public will demand that their voice be heard later this year. Mr Joyce is basically saying that we should trust him with his ministerial appointments and I am sure my Opposition colleagues will address this further as they go on.I want to have a look today in the last few minutes at the performance of this particular Minister. Information provided to us about the make-up of the current ministerial appointments to councils show that he cannot be trusted to actually provide the diversity that is required to keep these councils representative. At the moment only 16 percent of his appointments are women only one Māori and no Pasifika. Two-thirds of his appointments have been chief executive officers company directors or accountants; a further 20 percent are commercial lawyers; and only four come from some other professional background. And this is despite 90 percent of graduates actually heading into professions and vocations other than those.The bill is a mishmash and we will stop it.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura):It is a pleasure to take a call on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I intend to take only a brief call because I look forward to the opportunity of receiving submissions from the parties who are interested.This bill certainly fits in with the Better Public Services targets that this Government has set out. It proposes to establish a new professional body for the education profession. It also intends to support the tertiary education institutions with a better governance structure. It will also codify a better pastoral care model for international education. And it will also reinforce the New Zealand Qualifications Authority side of appraising the delivery of quality assurance of tertiary institutions. So I look forward to receiving those submissions.Tracey Martin: Will it make a difference? Will it matter?COLIN KING: I would also say just as a point of conclusion that what we are hearing from the other side totally ignores the underperformance of a lot of our institutions in the way that they have delivered outcomes and qualifications to our students. When we reflect on the way that the taxpayer dollar is spent we should be very very careful that we deliver quality for that taxpayer dollar. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):You have to hand it to this Government for its consistency. There are a couple of areas of consistency that I am going to talk about today. This is a Government that when it does not like what people who are elected to a body are doing simply does away with voting. It has literally taken away votes where I come from in Christchurch—we no longer have an elected regional council. But in education this Government has really taken the knife to the notion of representation. We have seen it with charter schools which are not going to have elected boards of trustees taking away the rights of communities to have a say in how these schools are run. We have seen this with the closures and mergers and the creation of super-schools in Christchurch. Bigger schools mean less community governance and less community representation within our election system.Moving right along this Government is now taking the knife even further into the notion of representation in our education system in the tertiary sector. We are seeing it in the Teachers Council and we are seeing it in our university councils. When this Government does not like something that it is being told it simply gets rid of the elected members. It just does not like it. It just simply appoints some of its friends. It puts into positions some of its friends who will roll and do exactly what they want. We look at Environment Canterbury and water irrigation—put in commissioners who will agree with that. You want things to happen; you appoint your mates who will not put up one murmur of discontent about what is going to happen. This is a Government that has given up on the notion that we elect people through democratic means and that this is an effective way of having governance. This is a Government that has given up on the idea of any type of civic governance it seems in education and simply wants to rule through corporate models.Well newsflash—it is not a company. These are universities these are our schools and corporate governance is not necessarily the best model.Phil Twyford: But Government is business Megan.Dr MEGAN WOODS: “But Government is business.” my colleague tells me. Well that is the way it is being treated by this Government.Let us go through some of that changes that are going to be made. I did say I was going to talk about consistency in two areas from this Government. I just want to go through its capacity to botch - up everything in education. I will take just 1 year—1 year out of the 5 long years nearly 6 long years it has been in Government—and have a look at the number of botch-ups. Let us pick a year any year—2012 will do. In May 2012 larger class sizes were announced. In June this was reversed. The Minister of Education had got it wrong. In August the Minister’s top adviser quits. In September the Canterbury school closures are announced. In October it seems her cousin is behind the charter schools. In November there was the Novopay debacle. In December the Christchurch teachers decide to go on strike. In December Lesley Longstone resigns. This is a Government with the capacity to turn absolutely everything it touches in education to absolute custard.We have that again with this omnibus bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) which we have been presented with. This is a bill that came to the House on Monday. We are debating it now on Thursday. It covers off very large areas of disparate bits of our education system. What is it that the Government is trying to hide? What is it that the Government is trying to do? What we have is a very consistent theme. They may be disparate parts of our education system but we have a very consistent theme of an arrogant and out of touch Government that is interested only in appointing its mates to key positions.Let us have a look at the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and what these changes will do. Well this is a Government that does not believe that the council should be representative of the sector. What we believe in and what we stand for on this side of the House is a democratically elected educational council. Hekia Parata has been heavy-handed in all the decisions she has made and this is another one. I want a Government member to take more than a 1-minute call on this bill and tell us why it is that teachers should not and do not need to be on this council. Why is it that we do not need to have teachers on it?Moving right through to the tertiary sector Steven Joyce is hiding in Hekia Parata’s bill. It must be that he senses a botch-up and knows that one more against Hekia Parata’s name is not going to make a blind bit of difference. So let us have a look. Steven Joyce tells us it is OK because universities can still choose to have students and staff on their governing bodies. Well that is not good enough Mr Joyce. What we say is there needs to be legislative protections so that the governing bodies of our universities will ensure that the people who work in universities and teach in them the colleagues of the collegial body that makes up a university have a voice and a say in how a university is run. We also say there needs to be legislative protection for people who attend those colleges who are taught by those colleagues in these collegial environments to have a say in how universities are run. We have had no justification for why we are going to change an age-old tradition of how a university is run.If you go back to the very reason that democratic councils and bodies were established in universities you go back to the beginning of the 19th century when they were put in place to ensure that we entrenched Enlightenment thinking and teaching within our universities and that we did not hark back to religious tuition within our universities. The only way this could be protected was by having the people with a real stake in it have a say in the running of those universities. We have had absolutely no justification. We have the regulatory impact statement on this aspect of the bill which really cannot give the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment any arguments that he needs to argue for it.My colleague Grant Robertson has been looking through the size of some of the governing bodies of universities throughout the world. The Minister is telling us we need to make this massive reduction down to 8 to 12 people on our governing bodies so that we can have better universities we can be better at innovating and we can be better academics. Well go tell that to Stanford University with 38 members on its governing body. Go tell that to Harvard with 32. Go tell that to Oxford University with 30. Go tell that to Cambridge University which has 16 places reserved for academic staff members on its governing body. It has a further three places reserved for students because it makes that university a better place. Then we have the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with its 76. Well that university is pretty shoddy at innovation and commercialisation is it not? We must need to change it.Grant Robertson: Hopeless!Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is a hopeless university—need to change that! The Minister will not even talk about the report that he received in 2012 from the Ministry of Education. What was the Minister told in this report that he received in 2012? Well it was noted that internationally even those bodies that were taking a skills-based approach maintained stakeholder representation in their governance—that even if you do want to go to a smaller model you do not have to do away with staff representation and you do not have to do away with student representation.But this Minister has made a decision. This Minister knows that it is the staff who are not putting up with the way in which he sees education as a cost to be cut and that the staff on those councils are not happy with the money that he is taking away from those institutions and the fact that he sees success in tertiary education as dampening down the demand for tertiary education. He certainly does not want students sitting on those governing bodies because heck some of those students might be people who have had their access to allowances and loans cut. This is a Minister who is taking the knife to tertiary education and he does not want to have critics. He does not want universities to carry out their very function as the critics and conscience of society.This is a Government that is continuing its grand tradition now of taking away democratic rights when it does not like what someone is saying. All New Zealanders should be very worried because this is something we are seeing right throughout our country in various places. Elected staff members and students should have a say. Teachers should have a say. Education is too important to leave to Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):Well it is interesting; you have to be very careful with the facts coming from the other side. One of my colleagues was pointing out I think that five of the last six graphics the Labour Party has put up on its Twitter feed and Facebook have been wrong. You know details have to be right and precise. Let us talk about a quick example—a quick example to give context. I was at a school recently talking to a teacher. She came up to me and said: “Simon I vote Labour. I’m a union person. I always vote Labour. I can’t bring myself to vote for National in education.” But she said: “You know what? Actually National is doing the right thing in education. The $350 million - plus you are putting in to support teachers and the other elements you’re putting in to support young people are incredibly important.” That was from a person who is an avowed voter for the left. She knew that this Government is doing the right thing.The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) looking at the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is doing the right thing. It is doing the right thing. [Interruption] Here we go. Members on the other side are saying we are making it up again—a lack of details they will not provide. There you go. They do not like it when you point out that their very own people are in agreeance with a lot of these changes. I am very keen to get this bill before the Education and Science Committee. I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to make a few points. First of all I will respond to the member Simon O’Connor who just sat down. I actually agree that some of the changes that National is making are useful. I think the $359 million is a step in the right direction but one has got to remember that it is well under 1 percent of the salary budget. It is minuscule and actually will not make the changes that National wants.We in the Labour Party will vote against this bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). The main reason that I am voting against this bill is as a result of the changes that were made around tertiary education governance. I think that if there had been two bills and this bill addressed only the question of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand then it could well be amendable and supportable.I think it is fair to say as a former Minister of Education that probably my biggest area of policy failure was the setting up in the initial stages of the New Zealand Teachers Council. It was something where the initial appointment was wrong. Kathie Irwin was not a suitable person to appoint to chair that organisation. I took advice on the matter and I had doubts. The advice came from Liz Gordon and I regret that I took her advice as to Kathie’s suitability because my view was that the Teachers Council probably suffered for a period of about 5 years as a result of the poor governance at the beginning of the process and the poor setting up then.I do want to acknowledge the recent work that Stan Rodger did in tidying up some of it and more recently Kathy Smith and Alison McAlpine. As chairs of the organisation they have done a very good job. I also want to acknowledge the current chief executive who I think has done an excellent job and has almost certainly been the best. Having criticised Kathie Irwin I have to say that my old mate Harvey McQueen did not have the ability to do the necessary detailed work and to set the necessary systems up. Even his recollections of the time of the Lange Government were a relatively poor history.Grant Robertson: He was a poet.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He was a poet and he had imagination. He had imagination in his writings and I think it is fair to say that he did not have the necessary focus to be the chief executive of an organisation like the Teachers Council and that is sad. I think that as a result of that it did suffer and the vision that I had for it—which was that it would in fact be the organisation that was the main deliverer of professional learning for teachers in New Zealand; that it would contract with the Ministry of Education; and that it would be the organisation that would be of teachers by teachers for teachers and for developing the profession—is something that we have lost by a period of probably about 15 years. That is something that I very much regret. My colleagues will tell other members of the House that it is not that often you get a mea culpa from me but in this particular area I think we did lose something.My view is also that if we had managed to make the transfer of the funding of professional learning to the Teachers Council it would not have been as easy for Anne Tolley to take that $100 million out in the way that she did on an annual basis in the first of those budgets. My view is that that sort of cut—if it was to an organisation that was owned by teachers and contracted to teachers—would have resulted in much louder screams than actually occurred. The screams in 2009 were mainly political. They were not extensive screams.My view is that most parents did not realise that the National Government was cutting the future quality of the education of young people in New Zealand by taking out the funding for the most important thing. The quality of learning in a classroom is very much based on the quality of teaching and the quality of teaching depends on the professional development and the professional support of those teachers. The National Government cut that to ribbons in its first term. I think our kids will suffer for decades to come as a result of those cuts. I am opposed to this bill but I regret that the Minister did not put up the important part of it separately.HOLLY WALKER (Green):My colleague Catherine Delahunty has already spoken at length earlier in this debate about the changes to the New Zealand Teachers Council and the changes to the school sector in this bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). So I want to focus my contribution on the changes to tertiary governance which include as we have heard reducing the number of members on tertiary governance councils removing the membership requirements for staff student and community representatives and requiring the Minister and the councils to appoint members with governance capability.What we see here of course is the Government pressing ahead with these changes despite the fact that during the so-called consultation period on them almost nobody was in favour of the changes. I went and had a look at the summary of submitters during that consultation period. There were a number of significant concerns that submitters raised consistently throughout those submissions. These were things like the very important need for staff and student perspectives to be taken into account on university and wānanga councils. They were things like the fact that council members need to have the appropriate knowledge of those most affected by the changes in order to be able to make appropriate decisions about those people affected. They were things like the fact that smaller councils would lack the diversity necessary to accurately reflect the professional and student body of the university.With specific reference to universities there were submissions that universities are different from polytechnics. They are different from schools. They are different from wānanga. They are unique institutions and they have evolved with a democratic form of governance that should be honoured and maintained into the future.There were a large number of concerns about the negative impact on institutional autonomy and academic freedom that these changes could have and there was a strong thread running through all of these submissions that insufficient evidence had been provided giving the rationale and the need for these proposals. There has not been sufficient evidence to actually tell us why we need these changes. Even the universities that supported the changes did not want smaller councils and they spoke very strongly in favour of stakeholder representation on the governance boards. So even those universities that perhaps did think specific governance capability was important still did not want their size reduced and they still wanted stakeholders represented on those boards.If you look at the submissions those that were in favour of these changes—very strongly in favour—came from the business sector. Well surprise surprise! My question is: what has the business sector got to do with it? What stake does the business sector have in the way that our tertiary institutions are governed? Why should its submissions on this governance review shape the decision of the Government to press ahead with it when all of the academic submissions all of the submissions from students all of the submissions from staff and many of the submissions from the institutions themselves—even those that were supportive of it—reinforced the need for stakeholder representation on tertiary governance boards? Who have we listened to? We have listened to the business sector which has no direct stake or interest in this whatsoever but of course it probably will in the future under this Government.Never one to let public and stakeholder opinion get in his way Steven Joyce is pressing ahead with the changes in this bill and the Government has already wreaked the same havoc on polytechnic governance boards in 2009 by removing democratically elected representatives. This is simply a continuation and an expansion of that into the university and wānanga sectors. Also of course it follows the attack on student voice that was the introduction of voluntary student membership which was rammed through this Parliament at the behest of the ACT Party last term.If you put these two policies together you get a very clear picture of what this Government thinks about student voice and student participation in these institutions—that is to turn them from institutions of education into institutions where students are passive consumers in degree factories.I just want to make a point about wānanga as well before I finish. The Minister said in his contribution earlier that it was a shame that when wānanga were established they had been lumped in with the way that university governance is put together. Of course this bill does not change that. This lumps wānanga in with universities and gives them exactly the same parameters for governance including the fact that they have to have at least one Māori member on their board. Well is that not nice for wānanga? It is both irrelevant and not helpful.I will leave my contribution at that. There is much more I could say but I think that we should be listening to the submitters.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):I move That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported back to the House by 21 July 2014.Motion agreed to.Health and Safety Reform BillFirst ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):I move That the Health and Safety Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. The Government is committed to improving health and safety at work. This bill represents the most significant law reform in this area for 20 years. The bill’s main purpose is to provide for a balanced framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces. The new law will play a major role in helping us meet our target of reducing New Zealand’s workplace death toll by 25 percent by 2025.The bill’s development has been prompted by a number of events most tragically the loss of 29 lives at the Pike River coalmine. The bill addresses recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and of course the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. I thank the task force for its work and I am pleased that this bill gives effect to a range of its recommendations. The bill builds on the important work already done: the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand as the new independent workplace health and safety regulator and the changes to mining health and safety legislation that brought New Zealand into line with international best practice for the mining industry.The bill is central to creating a world-class health and safety environment but this will not happen in isolation. A shift in the way that we all view our involvement in and responsibility for health and safety at work is needed to make a lasting change in our safety culture. I therefore commend the forestry industry for convening the Independent Forestry Safety Review Panel to investigate the contributing factors to the high rate of serious injuries and fatalities in that industry and to recommend practical steps for change.Most workplace health and safety legislation in developed countries follows what is commonly known as the Robens model named after Lord Alfred Robens’ 1972 report to the British Government. The Robens model provides for performance-based general duties that ensure broad coverage of work in workplaces to be specified in the Act. These all-encompassing duties support innovation and provide flexibility for businesses. Under the Robens model these broad duties are underpinned by industry or hazard-specific regulation such as specific rules for mining petroleum exploration or major hazard facilities with approved codes of practice and guidance to clarify and assist people to understand what is required of them. Australia and the United Kingdom have both confirmed their Robens-based models as the best approach after recent reviews. Our own review confirmed that a properly implemented Robens model is the best way forward for New Zealand as well and this bill the Health and Safety Reform Bill reflects this approach.The Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety recommended that the core concepts in the bill should be closely modelled on the Australian Model Work Health and Safety Act. The Government has carefully considered areas in the model Act that need to be modified to reflect New Zealand’s specific context. Having said this variations to the model Act have been kept to a minimum and have only been made for good reason. That approach was recommended by the task force and I would respectfully like the select committee to keep this in mind when it considers the bill.The driver for adopting and adapting the Australian model health and safety regime in New Zealand is not harmonisation or alignment with Australia. However simplifying workplace health and safety for trans-Tasman businesses is an important ancillary benefit of implementing a version of the Australian regime here. Being able to draw upon the significant resources body of knowledge and jurisprudence developed in Australia is another strong benefit. This is especially the case when it comes to the suite of regulations codes of practice and guidance material that has been developed to support the model Act. The royal commission and the task force both told us that the inability to develop these independently in the past was a major contributing factor to our failed implementation of the Robens model through our current legislation. In short there is no point reinventing the wheel if an excellent one already exists.The Health and Safety Reform Bill is an omnibus bill. The first five parts will become the Health and Safety at Work Bill to replace the current Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950. The bill will also result in amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Accident Compensation Act the Employment Relations Act and the WorkSafe New Zealand Act to ensure there is a consistent and robust health and safety framework.The current work health and safety regulatory framework places a strong emphasis on the employer and employee roles with a fixed workplace setting. This is no longer suitable to address modern working arrangements. Modern working arrangements can contain multiple employers with diverse workforces made up of employees contractors and indeed others. Irrespective of a person’s role within a workplace they should have the appropriate level of obligation to make sure their safety and that of others is not adversely affected.This starts with the person conducting a business or undertaking—a PCBU. A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that no one is put at risk from the work carried out as part of their business or undertaking. Workers are afforded the same level of protection by the bill no matter what the working relationship whether they are employees contractors or self-employed.Parties in the upstream supply chain of goods and services including designers manufacturers importers and suppliers of plant substances and structures also have obligations depending on what is within their sphere of influence. Directors and other officers in governance roles must be proactive ensuring that the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its duties and obligations. The due diligence duty on officers in relation to persons conducting a business or undertaking is new and will ensure that decision makers are held accountable for the health and safety consequences of their decisions.The task force said that our current worker participation system was not working. The bill addresses this by expanding worker engagement participation and representation requirements. It acts to encourage workers to get involved ensuring a framework exists to support workers in having a say in matters of health and safety that affect them without fear of repercussions. The bill contains a strong and effective enforcement regime with new enforcement tools and graduated offence categories and penalties. Higher penalties for non-compliance are introduced where appropriate and distinctions have been made between the role and nature of the offending duty holder. The penalty regime under the bill is complemented by a wide range of enforcement tools including enforcement undertakings or training orders which can work to improve health and safety awareness and culture in ways that monetary penalties cannot always.The bill although central to improving health and safety at work is one part of a broader reform package. Introduction and consideration of the bill is occurring parallel with the development of the first phase of health and safety regulations with public consultation on these regulations expected to begin by early April. Development of codes of practice and guidance material will also begin shortly as these are fundamental parts of the framework which are necessary to ensure that a robust and effective system exists and is operational on the day that the new Act comes fully into force. I anticipate that this will be 1 April 2015.Effective health and safety at work makes good business sense. It is an investment in productivity worker engagement and reputation and everyone must recognise that health and safety is something they have a part to play in and a responsibility for. Seventy-five people each year are killed and many more are seriously injured in our workplaces. The legacy we owe to these people and their families is to ensure that we deliver robust and effective work health and safety legislation so that everyone can return home from work every day safe and unharmed. I commend this bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):Labour is supporting the Health and Safety Reform Bill. It is a very important bill and much needed given New Zealand’s poor health and safety record and the unnecessary deaths and injuries workers are suffering on the job. The impetus for this change started with the awful tragedy at Pike River mine 3 years ago. The story of that disaster is far from over as we saw on TV3 earlier this week. No one has yet been held to account for the loss of the lives of 29 men whose families have had their lives changed forever. Pike River exposed the realities and consequences of the deregulation of workers’ rights including health and safety during the 1990s.The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 has been described as an object lesson in how not to implement legislation. Typical of the National Government of the time it was light-handed regulation and left it up to employers to get things right. Unions were excluded and tripartism ignored. This coincided with a time when National’s attacks on workers’ rights left unions greatly weakened and workers exposed and unprotected. The Department of Labour’s health and safety inspectorate was run down and to this day it struggles to keep up with the demand and problems.New Zealand has a terrible health and safety record. Around 75 people die from workplace accidents every year in this country. There are 200000 work-related claims made every year to ACC from people being harmed at work. In addition there are 500 to 800 deaths from occupational diseases such as cancers including from asbestos. We have seen pretty scary stuff around KiwiRail in the last week. In the last year safety in the forestry industry has been highlighted as another disaster. Ten men lost their lives last year. There has been one already this year. The Minister of Labour has consistently refused to launch an inquiry. To the credit of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and to the credit of its president Helen Kelly the issue is now being taken seriously by the industry itself which has set up its own independent inquiry.That does not mean the issue will go to sleep. In a few weeks’ time on 28 April Workers’ Memorial Day families of forestry workers killed at work will come together to remind us all that urgent action is needed in this industry. I want to pay tribute to them and also to the work of the seven lonely health and safety inspectors in the forestry industry who must be run off their feet after the Minister finally gave up on his voluntary code of practice and got real inspections happening in our forestries. There were some shocking outcomes. Nearly half of the 162 forest operations visited were not operating in compliance with the industry code. Inspectors had to take 203 enforcement actions to force these operations to comply—15 of them had to be shut down completely because they were so dangerous. So although the attention has been on mines and forestry there are other dangerous industries in New Zealand as well that will need attention: construction road transport and farming to name a few.Labour is committed to working with the Government on this bill through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to make it as good as it can be. It must mark a turning point in New Zealand’s health and safety for the sake of those families who have lost loved ones in dreadful accidents and for the thousands of workers injured maimed or exposed to disease in our workplaces.The bill covers new ground in many ways. Firstly there is a definition of “worker” in clause 14 that covers all workers. It recognises the variety of working arrangements we have now—triangular relationships contractors self-employment—and applies the same rights to all workers regardless of their employment status. Then there is the concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking or PCBU ensuring the health and safety of workers or others affected by the work. There is shared responsibility for multiple persons in control of businesses or undertakings and through supply chains and that is designed to incentivise coordinated action rather than passing the buck. In my opinion there needs to be a lot more work done on supply chains and their impact not only on health and safety but on workers’ rights and wages generally. I am thinking of road transport as a good example. We will have the chance to talk about this in the select committee.However we can see some fish hooks in the details that we will want to discuss. For example the introduction of work groups under clause 66 could lead to workers who want to elect a health and safety representative for the first time finding themselves in a cumbersome negotiation with the person conducting a business or undertaking to work out how to divide the workplace into work groups. This could easily take months and sap the will of the workers to create a safe system. Under the current New Zealand system senior or expert health and safety representatives can collaborate with more junior ones. The proposed system would allow health and safety representatives to act only on behalf of their own work groups except in exceptional circumstances. These changes are worse than our current system and will not lead to better health and safety. Another disappointment is that despite all the recommendations of the royal commission and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and the requirements of ILO Convention 155 there is very little tripartism built into this system under this bill or WorkSafe New Zealand itself.Labour has called on the Minister time and again to recognise the importance of the role of unions of business and of the Government coming together to improve health and safety in this country but it seems to be being ignored. And then there is the training of health and safety representatives. The bill recognises and implements a worker participation system but is silent on their rights to training. Under the current Health and Safety in Employment Act health and safety representatives have a right to 2 days’ training a year. The bill removes the right to any specific amount of training in clause 80 and leaves this question to the regulations. We do not think that is good enough particularly when health and safety training has been ditched by the Minister for ACC Judith Collins who said—in a very insulting way I thought—that training workers in health and safety was a waste of time a waste of money and a rort. There seems to be some conflict between Judith Collins and Simon Bridges about the important role of worker participation and the need to be trained. So I want to know how the obligations for worker participation can be met under this bill. Yes it sets up a new system but without training and without that obligation to allow training and to pay for it there is a problem.We support the right to take private prosecutions where the State fails to step in but the proposal to retain the current system is too weak and needs to be fixed. There is no provision in the bill on corporate manslaughter which we have repeatedly called for. Therefore this remains a gap in the law. The most egregious cases of workplace death caused by gross negligence will still be met with a fine and where the failure is a systemic one directors and senior management will not be held to account. Employees have weaker remedies than other workers under this bill for the same adverse conduct because they are forced to use the personal grievance framework under the Employment Relations Act 2000 and therefore for example are subject to a reduction in penalties for contributory behaviour and limitations on penalties.They are some of the concerns we have. But then of course there are all the other things that the Government has done that have undermined effective health and safety such as the proposed removal of rest and meal breaks the 90-day trial period which allows employers to dismiss workers for raising health and safety concerns the weakening of union access rights so workers are left unprotected and of course the crazy Employment Relations Amendment Bill which the Minister of Labour seems to have given up on.This may indeed be the greatest reform to health and safety in 20 years and it is needed but what is also needed is recognition by this Government that our current employment laws and its proposed changes to those will work against the good intentions of this bill. I am calling on the Minister with the good work on this Health and Safety Reform Bill to withdraw his Employment Relations Amendment Bill to show that he finally understands that workers’ rights go hand in hand with health and safety.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am still quite confused as to whether the member Darien Fenton is actually supporting the Health and Safety Reform Bill or not.Grant Robertson: Oh for goodness’ sake! It’s the first thing she said. Listen. Open your ears.MIKE SABIN: It may have been the first thing she said Grant Robertson but everything else she said after that was entirely critical very negative and hardly forward-thinking but that is what we have come to expect from the Labour Party. I very much look forward to the member’s contribution in the select committee process that follows.This is a very very important piece of legislation and it is part of a much broader area of reform in the labour and industrial relations space. I just want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges for his work in this area because it has been informed—Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s gone past Judith Collins on IPredict.MIKE SABIN: It is amazing when David Cunliffe is away how much Trevor Mallard wants to play. I am sure other members in this House have noticed. Do not worry Trevor. You have not got too much longer to wait before he is out on his bike and you can regain your rightful place as the centre of obstruction in this Parliament. As I said this is part of a larger—Hon Trevor Mallard: Talk about Simon O’Connor again. Simon—what’s his name? Simon Bridges.MIKE SABIN: If the member wants to actually quieten down for a minute and listen to what this bill is about it is an important piece of legislation Mr Mallard. It is an important piece of legislation. It is part of a broader suite of reforms. Its genesis lies in the report of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and of course the tragedy of the Pike River disaster and the lessons that we are still learning from that.This bill will give effect to an entirely different regulatory regime and approach: the relationship that must be well established in a workplace to ensure health and safety and productivity are achieved; the relationship between employees employers and the Government and the legislative platform on which that operates; and the importance I guess of reflecting the dynamic nature of the New Zealand workplace the ways in which this has altered over time and the fact that there are many workplaces that operate in a manner that presents risk. There are many employers who have struggled in some ways with the challenges and the changes in the New Zealand workplace. There is a need for the requisite messages penalties and regime to be in place to set up the platform upon which they must operate.On the other side of the coin there is the importance of the employee being engaged in health and safety in their workplace. It is not solely the responsibility of the employer or the Government. It is certainly an area in which when all of the parties come to the table I think we can expect far greater outcomes in terms of safety and indeed in terms of productivity. There is a reciprocal relationship between the two. There cannot be productivity without safety. When safety is jeopardised not only are the life and health and safety of the individual compromised but ultimately so is productivity. Everyone wins when we get the balance right and when we set the appropriate framework. This is what the bill is essentially looking to do: to marry these together and learn from the lessons of the royal commission and Independent Taskforce on Workforce Health and Safety reports to ensure that the modern working environment and those who are participating in that working environment—be they employees or be they contractors—meet with employers’ and the Government’s expectations around health and safety.I think it is important to point out that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee took a very collegial approach and learnt a lot in considering the legislation that resulted from the Pike River tragedy. I think it is going to be very important through this process that the committee gets to hear from stakeholders from right across the spectrum in terms of the role that this legislation will play in their workplaces moving forward. I certainly want to encourage those stakeholders to come forward and make submissions and engage in this process. This is really a landmark piece of legislation. Although part of a broader reform this really is the nuts and bolts; it is the glue that is going to bring it all together. I recommend stakeholders out there engage in the process. Although I talk with my colleague Darien Fenton and we do jest I know that this committee will work in a collegial fashion to ensure that the very best legislation is afforded to the New Zealand workplace. I very much commend this bill to the House and thank the Minister for his work on it.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Health and Safety Reform Bill. To be fair I have not had the opportunity to study in detail what is a very substantive piece of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister of Labour because it is a very substantive area of Government responsibility that we are talking about here. I would like to acknowledge the families of the Pike River miners who have of course battled ever since that terrible tragedy to get some good to come from that terrible terrible set of circumstances and then got an outcome that to anyone who reads through the royal commission report was almost unbelievable. There will be many who say: “We told you so.” This piece of legislation has been needed since 1992 when the previous National Government brought in a philosophical laissez-faire idiotic piece of legislation that believed that market forces individual responsibility and commercial pressures would protect workers in the workplace. They have not and they do not and we do need to change that legislation.There are some very good provisions in this bill and I am sure that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will properly scrutinise each and every word of it as it should. It will be done with new enlightenment I guess particularly by members of the National Party and ACT who have for a long time thought that the market will deliver as I said protection for everyone nirvana for all and huge wealth for those who have the ability to get it.Too many people in New Zealand are killed every year when they go to work. From the situation of farmers who are their own boss out doing their own thing and making their own decisions to someone who is in a factory working at a machine where the protection has not been properly built in and whose job is somewhat monotonous but they are simply working in an unsafe situation the whole time—most of it is OK but one incident occurs or something happens and they might lose an arm or worse still lose their life. We have these situations occurring all too often across the country where the farmer makes the wrong decision and goes into a place that is too steep for the four-wheeler or you have got as I say other judgments on risk that simply end up being fatal and disastrous.There will always be judgments made by individuals in any activity so I do not think we can kid ourselves that everything can be regulated to be safe. But placing the right pressure on individuals to make the right decision is what we should be encouraging. Firstly ensuring that at a workplace they are allowed the time to stop and think and make the right decision is really important. The one thing occurring across all of industry today in New Zealand is that people are under more pressure. In spite of what the Government says about our rock star economy and about having this wonderful economic growth the reality is that many many people across our economy are under more pressure. The dairy farmers and the agricultural sector might be doing OK but dare I say it their poor workers are not under much less pressure even though the payout has gone up. So with pressure comes stress and sometimes with stress comes inappropriate decision making. That is what we are trying to prevent here.It does not matter how good WorkSafe New Zealand is and it does not matter what regulations we put in place. If we do not have a culture and an environment that encourage people to stop and think and make the right decision to be—Dr David Clark: The Cabinet Manual.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Not the Cabinet Manual. I do not think they stop and think about that too much—perhaps they should. Can I say that risk management has not been part of the Cabinet Manual or of mainstream thinking in the workplace. If we have regulations that remove the individual’s responsibility and the opportunity that is not good either. So I do not think we in any way believe or think that we can regulate our way to safety but we must put in place provisions and we hope that this bill when passed—with no doubt the necessary amendments—will enable people to work in places where their input and their judgment are valued and they have the opportunity to stop and think and make the right decisions around health and safety.There are a number of things in the bill that my colleagues referred to and I say on behalf of Andrew Little who is not here that the absence of corporate manslaughter provisions from this legislation is probably a major omission. There are bigger fines on corporates and there are other responsibilities that—I am just trying to get the right words here. Directors and officers must exercise “due diligence” which is a bit better than “oversight” but no guarantee. Ultimately until people in every part of a business at every level of a business—be that vertical or lateral in terms of its operation—think about work safety and think about protecting the people who work in and around them then we will not have the culture that we are trying to create through this bill. I acknowledge that the Minister is trying to do the right thing but he is in a straitjacket of ideological right-wing thinking that the market forces will ultimately protect workers.I hope the select committee as I say extends and challenges some of the assumptions made in the bill. There is a definition of “worker” that might be better but may not be and there is an obligation on workers. I know that when the Minister first announced this legislation he clearly indicated that there would be responsibility on workers to uphold safe practices and that is fine to a point but the workers do not have the same level of negotiating power when it comes to raising a point in the workplace. There is a culture of fear in too many workplaces around this country where workers are afraid to raise issues.The Pike River tragedy identifies what human nature can do if allowed to. That is where bonuses or incentives are placed in the workplace people will cut corners ignore warnings do things that should never occur and create unsafe situations. We are not saying that we should remove bonuses but wherever they will exist there must be proper safeguards to ensure that those bonuses are not earned through the shortcuts that can and do occur every day up and down this country resulting in a workplace safety record that is absolutely outrageous.I go to another point here about definitions of notifiable injury or illnesses—“notifiable” being the point here. In the Government’s previous philosophical determination to privatise ACC—and I do not believe for a moment it has shifted off that. If it gets voted back in God help us at the next election; it will move down that path of privatisation. The notifiable part of this is really important because people will not notify if they think that their private insurance premiums are going to go up. There are all sorts of abhorrent behaviours that occur under a private system and that too will drive bad behaviour in the workplace.So although the bill is moving forward in some areas there are some dangers in here. I hope that the select committee has the time and the freedom to think laterally and that it does take input from all parties in order to indeed deliver the kind of health and safety legislation that this country desperately needs and that was thrown out the door in 1992. Now the National Government in guilt—and so it should be—is reintroducing finally legislation that goes in large part down the track to a better safer working environment for New Zealanders.DENISE ROCHE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call for the Greens on the first reading of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. We will be supporting it. This bill as you know is an omnibus bill that signals the most comprehensive changes to our health and safety laws for about 22 years when the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 took effect. Others have critiqued it before me so I will not bother to go into that. This bill follows on from the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and also the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the recommendations from both of those. The Government has already enacted some of the recommendations from the Pike River royal commission when it passed the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Act last year—some of the recommendations not all of them.The Government has very clearly said that it wants to reduce workplace deaths and injuries by 25 percent by 2020. We agree. No family should experience having a loved one killed on the job—having a loved one who never comes home from work like the families of the 10 forestry workers who lost their lives last year. According to the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that accompanies this bill it estimates that between 600 and 900 workers lose their lives to workplace illness or disease every year—that is between 600 and 900 people—and that between one to two people die in traumatic incidents at work every week. That is 52 to 104 people killed at work every year. On top of that about one in 10 workers is harmed at work.We will be supporting this bill. Of course we will. We will support any bill that attempts to reduce the incidence of harm to our citizens. We are however concerned that although the reforms in the bill are good they do not go far enough. I think we have heard from this side of the House about that. I note that this bill still takes a bit of a soft approach. That has been carried over from the 1992 Act. In the explanatory note of this bill it says: “Clause 22 relates to the key principle of managing risks. It provides that a duty imposed on a person under the Bill to ensure health and safety requires the person to eliminate risks to health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable; and if it is not practicable to eliminate risks to health and safety to minimise those risks so far as is reasonably practicable.”How does that play out in a forest I wonder? “Reasonably practicable” is significantly different for someone working alone in a forest miles from anywhere with a desperate urge to make his quota. That is very different from an office worker a flight attendant or a warehouse worker. Today I was visited by two of the panel members of the Independent Review of Health and Safety in the New Zealand Forest Industry to talk about the terms of reference for that inquiry. We were slightly disappointed that this Government did not see fit to undertake that inquiry itself but it is clear from whatever evidence you look at that voluntary codes of practice are not enough to keep workers safe in the forests.Much has been made of the fact that this bill is similar to the Australian Model Work Health and Safety Act. It sort of is but not quite. One of the crucial elements missing is the voice of workers. I think this is alluded to in the bit in the agency disclosure statement of the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in the second to last line which says: “Modifications to the Australian Model Law are proposed where they are considered necessary to fit with New Zealand circumstances.” So what are those New Zealand circumstances?I would suggest that it is union membership. If you have a look at the regulatory impact statement on page 14 there is a fairly telling graph that shows the difference between the rate of accidents excluding road accidents for workers in Australia and workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. If we are introducing the same laws we are failing if we are going to be ignoring the voice of workers and the role of unions in making sure workers’ voices are heard. In Australia in 2012 there were 1.8 million Australians who were members of a trade union. Unions have a place at the table. They are part of the tripartite system of monitoring evaluating and keeping track of health and safety on worksites. We know that in Aotearoa New Zealand a unionised workplace is a safer workplace. I note that the regulatory impact statement does not have a comparative graph in here that compares the health and safety track records of unionised versus non-unionised worksites or worksites that have collective agreements versus those with individual agreements.Unions play a significant part in maintaining a culture of health and safety in the workplace. I guess one of the tragic comparisons we can make is between Pike River Coal and Huntly East Underground Mine. The Pike River mine was as we know un-unionised frequently and workers were basically in a culture where they did not see health and safety as a priority. Compare that mine with the Huntly mine which is highly unionised. Workers are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and they certainly stand up for health and safety on a daily basis and do not let the standards slip.In Aotearoa New Zealand we particularly need that voice heard on behalf of workers because workers frequently are in a position where they cannot speak for themselves. We are currently in a position where we have reasonably high unemployment job insecurity and increased casualisation. We have the Minister of Labour who has introduced legislation that will make it worse for workers. The 90-day trials have been introduced over the last term. The latest Employment Relations Amendment Bill removes the capacity for union bargaining and the offer of collective employment agreements in the first 30 days to workers who start. Basically the Employment Relations Amendment Bill counteracts some of the benefits that the Government is trying to put forward in this Health and Safety Reform Bill because the Employment Relations Amendment Bill undermines the ability for workers to have a voice.We are also concerned that it is not just employees who will have a problem with this. Unless we fully resource our Government agencies to ensure that employers are trained up we also risk their ability to participate in creating healthy and safe workplaces. We will be supporting the bill but we are interested to see where we can improve it during the select committee process. I particularly look forward to hearing from the forestry sector about what it will be doing to improve the health and safety of workers in its sector.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):The Health and Safety Reform Bill is about New Zealand workplace health and safety. I like others would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges on bringing it forward. This is a very important bill and our voices in speaking to it echo back in time to reflect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Specifically a 25 percent reduction in workplace fatalities and serious injuries by 2020 is called for in this bill. And it will not end there for New Zealand is competing internationally not just for workers and not just for markets but at a time when ethical resource management is noted by potential purchasers; at a time when workplace safety is a concern not just for those working but also for trading partners for corporates for potential customers and for the population at large; and at a time when workplace fatalities and serious injuries are not just distressing for family members and communities but also impact on Brand New Zealand and our international standing.This bill builds on the important work already done in establishing WorkSafe New Zealand as the new independent workplace health and safety regulator which was called for in the Pike River implementation plan. In New Zealand families want to send their family members their relations into workplaces where they can do work that is challenging difficult rewarding and enjoyable sure in the knowledge that they will use the best of Kiwi values—resilience adaptability problem-solving curiosity generosity and reliability—matched with a safety-conscious environment. That is why this bill is about improving workplace health and safety—so we can get on with living the good life so we can all expect to achieve the full span of our natural lives without people being lost to industrial accidents injuries and avoidable fatalities. I look forward to working on this bill with my parliamentary colleagues. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):I am very pleased to take a call on the Health and Safety Reform Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. It is a very important bill. It is a substantive piece of legislation and a positive step forward. We understand that it is part of a wider range of reforms. We support the general focus of the bill—all improvements to health and safety in New Zealand workplaces are always welcome. It is timely to replace the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. After all it is over 10 years old and a lot has happened in the intervening years particularly when we review that legislation after the Pike River tragedy.Employees—and their families of course—need to be as sure as they possibly can be that their workplaces are safe and that they are going to return home safely each day. This is not something that legislation can achieve by itself. Business has a large role to play. So it is welcoming to see that there is a strong theme of consultation right throughout this legislation. Employers must consult with workers and workers are encouraged to be active in all aspects of health and safety in their workplaces. Of course this is particularly important in risky areas like forestry and mining.The bill does appear to contain a number of potential challenges for employers. At the select committee consideration it is to be hoped that these challenges are talked through so that there is a better outcome for both parties. One example relates to workgroups and the PCBU the person conducting a business or undertaking. What is to happen when work groups are scattered as they are in the forest industry?We are also pleased to see the focus again on health and safety reps. Health and safety representatives have been around for a number of years and I know personally that a lot of effort went into setting up that system in our workplaces. More of the same is not going to improve health and safety in workplaces. Training too is an essential element. It is vital that companies include all employees middle and senior managers as well in workplace safety—something that has not had the emphasis that it could have had previously.The bill also includes a new concept: a person conducting a business or undertaking. This means that the company’s officers and directors must step up their individual and corporate activities to ensure that the safety of workers and all others in the workplace is a focus. In New Zealand First we are delighted to see the role of inspectors returning to the workplace. They have a very important role they always have and we welcome their return. It is vitally important that inspectors achieve the health and safety rules and regulations that are vital in the workplace and ensure there is compliance with the industry code. Workplace inspectors have always helped with safety in the workplace.So overall we are very pleased to see a far more inclusive bill and it appears that there will be far more consultation and some oversight of the workplace by our inspectors. This bill is important and deserves to be treated as such. In New Zealand First we would support this bill being passed through the House prior to the election so that in the intervening period work can begin on drawing up the regulations that are specified in the bill. We are seeing an increase—not an improvement—in forestry worker accidents so we know that our health and safety regulations do need to be improved. The bill will incorporate all aspects of the workforce more but we believe that some emphasis does need to be taken off the health and safety reps and actually put on to individual managers. We welcome the fact that when an offence is committed there will be a harsher penalty. We need to do this. We agree with the requirements for WorkSafe New Zealand and ACC to consult on injury prevention initiatives. New Zealand First welcomes this bill and hopes that it has a speedy passage through the House. A safe workplace is good for everyone.Dr CAM CALDER (National):When the circus of question time is viewed across the nation it is quite wonderful to have an opportunity like this to note that the House is in agreement with a piece of legislation. There is actually a lot of cooperation behind the scenes and this Health and Safety Reform Bill is a very worthy indication of that collegiality and cooperation. National is committed to delivering Better Public Services and this Government’s reform package namely the Working Safer package is part of that body of work. We have a firm target of reducing injuries and fatalities in the workplace by 25 percent by 2020 and this new law will play a major role in achieving that target. We value the cooperation of the other parties. I commend this bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I have to say it is a little bit disappointing that National members are not prepared to engage a little bit more in this debate. I do not really think a 1-minute contribution is worthy of the level of debate and the level of seriousness that ought to be applied to this legislation. The reason that this Health and Safety Reform Bill has been introduced to Parliament the reason why we are having this debate today is the Pike River disaster. Had that disaster not occurred there is no way this Government would have been inspired to introduce legislation to improve health and safety regulations in the workplace. It is a shame that it took a tragedy like that to reverse the ideological adherence to deregulation and stepping back from a legislative role in health and safety. It is absolutely a fact that a blind unthinking adherence to deregulation is what led to the Pike River disaster and frankly it is what is causing the Government to fail to respond truly adequately to the appalling situation in the forestry industry right now.Mercifully as I think Darien Fenton pointed out earlier on in this debate the forestry industry itself is taking the situation seriously and is working with unions and others. But the system that has always worked—in terms of getting the regulatory environment correct the employment relations environment correct and the health and safety environment correct—has been the tripartite approach where the employer the workers and the Government work together and each take responsibility. Frankly for too long I think the Government has not been taking responsibility. The good aspect of this legislation is that there is recognition in here that the Government does have a considerable responsibility to ensure the health and safety of workers.It should be an absolute right of every single person living in this country that they are able to expect to go to work be safe and come home again at the end of the day. It should be the right of their families to expect that the breadwinner can go to work be safe and come back home to them at the end of the day and that they are not going to lose that person and go through the heartache and the trauma of not only losing a loved one but also losing the source of income for that family. Unfortunately in too many instances that right has not been something that people in New Zealand have been able to rely on.Although events like the Pike River disaster when in a single blow a large number of people were lost do focus the mind we do need to be aware that every year when Workers’ Memorial Day rolls round there is a list of names of people who have been lost in the previous 12 months. Those lists are not getting any shorter from one year to the next and that is a shame. I do acknowledge that this legislation is part of an effort to actually reduce the incidents of workplace fatalities and workplace injuries.However it does have to be part of a package and all the different aspects of the package have to be working together. There are areas where I think the Government does need to lift its game. One of those is certainly in employment relations. The appalling amendments to the Employment Relations Act which are being pushed through—although the pace seems to have gone off those lately and maybe those are being parked until after the election. That would be a good thing because that would mean that a Labour Government could just scrap that legislation before it is even enacted.What that legislation demonstrates is that perhaps in terms of workplace health and safety in the National Government the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. On the one hand it has introduced this very good legislation which although there are aspects we would like to see improved—and we will work hard at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to ensure that those improvements are put in place—we broadly support. You then look at the open and blatant attacks on collectivism the attacks on unionism the attacks on workplace rights the efforts to make work more precarious and the efforts to keep wages down to encourage people to work longer hours and put their health and safety at risk which seem absolutely at odds with what this legislation is trying to achieve.Likewise decisions made in ACC appear to be absolutely at odds with it. The Minister for ACC Judith Collins described health and safety training carried out by both the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand as nothing more than a rort. She ultimately had to go to Business New Zealand and I do not know the exact words she used but it was something along the lines of she did not mean to impugn its integrity. Heaven forbid that Judith Collins should apologise for something but she did not mean to impugn its integrity. There was no apology for or back-down from what she had to say about the Council of Trade Unions which I think again simply portrays the anti-union mood and ideology—Hon Trevor Mallard: Anti-worker.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and anti-worker—Hon Trevor Mallard: They just hate people who work.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is right actually. I think people who earn a salary or a wage are sort of public enemy No. 1 as far as the National Government is concerned. Certainly those who represent them and attempt to further the interests of people who rely on wages and salaries are treated with equal disdain by the National Government. They were certainly treated with that kind of disdain by Judith Collins. The interesting thing is that those programmes that were the result of recent announcements and the astroturfing with the Taxpayers’ Union which somehow magically managed to discover the expenditure on these programmes at around about the same time—Hon Trevor Mallard: What have they said about Judith’s trip to China?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well indeed what has the Taxpayers’ Union said about Judith’s trip to China? I am still waiting for that press release—waiting to see what Jordan Williams has to say about that. What that revealed was the fact that a number of programmes designed to prevent injuries both in the workplace and for other accounts of ACC have been cut over the last 5 years. In fact for the last 3 or 4 years of the last Labour Government the expenditure on programmes focused on preventing injury in the workplace and in other settings was around $40 million a year. In the last financial year that has been cut to $22 million. So in the time that National has been in Government it has halved the budget for injury prevention.That would be fine if there was really good evidence to say that those programmes were not doing anything but the evidence from ACC itself demonstrates that for every dollar invested in those programmes at least $1.12 in treatment was saved and in some cases it was as high as $1.23. So that is between a 12 percent and 23 percent return on that investment. It was stopping injuries. Most important people were safer. They could go to work and assume they were going to come home in one piece without any injury or heaven forbid suffering a fatality. It even saved ACC money. Surely the National Party should understand the value of saving money. But no it took the short-term approach and cut the programmes so that it could cut expenditure and improve the surplus that ACC could record to help get the Government books back into surplus because it had failed so demonstrably in actually improving economic growth in order to get the Government books back into surplus.We absolutely support this legislation but what we do demand of the Government is that it demonstrates a true focus on health and safety in the workplace by ensuring that in all its actions it improves the safety of workers. It is not that much to ask but we are still waiting.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I want to just briefly respond to the last speaker Iain Lees-Galloway. This Government is committed to health and safety. That is why we are putting these reforms through. Like my colleagues I want to acknowledge Minister Bridges for the work that he is doing and continues to do in this space in bringing this legislation the Health and Safety Reform Bill to the House. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I am very much looking forward to having it in front of us. I think—if it is not being presumptuous of me to speak for my colleagues—that is the reason we are speaking briefly on this bill. We want this to go to the select committee as quickly as possible and pass into law. So I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Raymond Huo. Ni hao ma Mr Huo.RAYMOND HUO (Labour):Very good. I rise to take a call to support this Health and Safety Reform Bill. It is very important that we have a robust health and safety system to protect New Zealanders. It is equally important that this new law is supported by stronger enforcement and education. We must work together to meet our target of reducing the New Zealand workplace injury and fatality toll by 25 percent by 2020. The Minister of Labour said in his earlier contribution that this bill seeks to put more onus and legal requirements on managers and company directors to manage risks and keep their workers safe. This bill will require greater worker participation so workers are more involved in health and safety in their workplaces. This bill will establish stronger penalties enforcement tools graduated offence categories and court powers and it will of course seek to amend a number of other pieces of legislation including the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013.The proposals in this bill are well intentioned but there are at least four issues that I wish to bring to the attention of this House. The first one is that WorkSafe New Zealand must be properly resourced to enforce all obligations under this bill including the worker participation requirements. This cannot be seen as an afterthought by inspectors as it has been under the present law and as we saw with fatal results at the Pike River mine disaster. Secondly it will be vital for inspectors to deal with workers and health and safety representatives independently of their employers to ensure the workplace systems have integrity. Thirdly it was incredibly disappointing to see in the case of the Pike River mine disaster that in spite of the royal commission finding clear fault by a number of parties no one—no one—has been held fully to account to date. This brings me to the fourth issue which is that there is no provision in this bill on corporate manslaughter. Therefore there remains a gap in the law.The most egregious cases of workplace death caused by gross negligence will still be met with a fine. If we look closely at the proposals under this bill new orders available to the court—such as a restoration order an adverse publicity order an injunction or health and safety project order—will not apply at least in any practical sense in the case of a workplace fatality. Where the failure is a systemic one directors and senior management should be held to account. Under this bill the limitation period for mounting a prosecution will be extended. It will be extended from 6 months under the Criminal Procedure Act and that is welcomed because it allows time for a lengthy investigation where that is required or follows a coroner’s inquest so that the possibility of a prosecution is not closed off if a coroner draws a different conclusion from an inspector. To wrap up it is very important for us to have a robust health and safety system to protect all New Zealanders.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I want to begin by echoing Denise Roche’s words that the Green Party will be supporting this bill the Health and Safety Reform Bill and by expressing I guess my personal thanks to the Hon Simon Bridges and his predecessor the Hon Kate Wilkinson for actually progressing this legislative reform.I attended most of the hearings of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. I was one of the submitters in fact to that royal commission. There was a particularly dramatic moment when Dr Kathleen Callaghan took the stand to give her evidence about human factors. Dr Callaghan is an expert in what goes wrong in disasters. She has specialised previously in air crash disaster investigations for example. She began with a list of factors: inexperienced workers under-trained workers fatigued workers pressure to increase production inadequate breaks low unionisation missing equipment faulty equipment poorly maintained equipment and poor oversight by the regulator. There were other matters in her list and she said that all of those factors were present in the Pike River mine—all of them.I come from the health sector and in the health sector we talk about risk environments—environmental factors that lead to health or illness. All of those factors that I have mentioned are not individual factors; they are environmental factors which lead to error and to disaster. What that highlights is that there was no individual worker inside that mine who could have dealt with any of those things. It required a systems approach. Yet as others have said in 1992 the Health and Safety in Employment Act was brought into legislation placing an onus on employers to take “all practicable steps”. That was based on an ideology that was wrong. It was based on ignoring something that most of economic theory and most of the actions of the Government are based on which is that the firm will seek to maximise profit and that it will do that by minimising its costs. That is what it is supposed to do. So the weasel words of “all practicable steps” and the weak oversight from the Department of Labour gave employers an out. It gave them the opportunity to take a short cut if they wished to in order to minimise their costs and maximise their profit. Deregulation hands-off Government and weasel-worded legislation caused the Pike River mine disaster. They killed those 29 men. That disaster was not an isolated accident or incident. It was just a low-frequency but entirely predictable consequence of that 1992 Act.In forestry we see an inexperienced and under-trained workforce. We see an industry forced into more marginal and steeper land. We see production pressure—pressure to increase production—because right now the price is a bit higher. We see long supply chains long contractual chains with weak oversight and controls and until very recently we saw almost no oversight. No wonder that when decent inspection began again an unprecedented number of serious problems were found.So we welcome this legislation. We believe that it should be stronger. We note as Denise Roche said that it still contains that practicability test that I have spoken of many times in this House. We believe that the Government could resume the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee to actually have some systematic review of what is going on in occupational safety and health. But we welcome the legislation we look forward to the submissions and we look forward to the opportunity to work with the Government to make this a stronger bill. Thank you.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):I proudly commend the Health and Safety Reform Bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.Electoral Amendment BillThird ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Electoral Amendment Bill is the latest chapter in a longstanding ongoing endeavour to ensure that our electoral system is the best it can be. As the bill’s general policy statement notes the New Zealand electoral system has a very high level of integrity. However minor changes to the legal framework are required to help continuously improve the efficiency and integrity of elections. As members will be aware against that backdrop the bill primarily puts in place recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election. Specifically the bill implements recommendations that require legislation and can be put in place in time for the 2014 general election. The Electoral Amendment Bill will improve services to voters candidates and parties; improve efficiency through greater use of technology; and simplify and clarify existing provisions of the Electoral Act.At this time I would like to recap some of the specific changes the bill makes. The bill provides for full online enrolment using electronic identity verification makes loans to parties subject to similar disclosure rules as donations extends the time for filing party expense returns and allows bulk nomination and party list documents to be lodged by email. The bill also clarifies that the High Court can direct the Electoral Commission to recalculate and amend the allocation of list seats if there is a successful electorate petition. These reforms along with other largely technical changes contained in this bill will not only update aspects of the Electoral Act; they will also enhance the already strong integrity of our electoral system.I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent consideration of the bill and for reporting back by the end of last year. I would also like to again thank those members of the public who made submissions. As I said during the second reading of this bill and on many other occasions electoral reform should if possible be based on consensus. I note that there was unanimous consensus among the committee on the report back of the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to note that in addition to the positive changes contained in this bill I also intend to amend the electoral regulations in the next few months to implement several other recommendations of the inquiry into the 2011 general election.We are lucky to live in a nation where our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. New Zealand is a nation where we actively seek to build on the lessons learnt from previous elections and where we take a multiparty approach to electoral reform. The Electoral Amendment Bill is one result of this drive for continuous incremental improvement. It will enhance the integrity of our electoral system and ensure that the law remains relevant going forward. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just refer members to Speaker Statham 1923 in Speakers’ ruling 60/5 where he says interjections are out of order unless rare reasonable relevant and restrained.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Electoral Amendment Bill will have a positive impact on the administration of this year’s general election and future elections. I commend this bill to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):I rise to speak in this third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill which is a bill that should have enjoyed the support of every party in this House. This is electoral law reform. This is the modernisation of our electoral legislation. This should have enjoyed all the support of the House. We used to have in New Zealand a proud reputation around our electoral systems and the maintenance of them. The convention that all parties or at least the vast majority of parties would support changes to legislation was one that had not been broken until now—until now. This is a shame because we ought to have been able to get up and say yes we support this bill because some of the silly things that were originally in it were taken out such as the prohibitions on streamers ribbons balloons and rosettes on election day. That was a silly provision and that quite rightly bit the dust.What we now have here is a potential improvement lost—an improvement that could have put into the legislation the enrolment confirmation card. We could have had that provision surrounding the EasyVote card put into the legislation and cemented in there so that nobody could touch it—not the National Party not the Labour Party; nobody could touch it. It could have stayed there and it would have had the support of the House. However it transpired in the course of the consideration of this bill—which I have to say was considered by quite a different composition of the Justice and Electoral Committee from the one that had previously considered the review of the last election. So there have been some changes of personnel. But in the meantime the Minister brought to the House a piece of legislation that had in it provisions for the EasyVote card to be written in. So the EasyVote card instead of just being an administrative piece of apparatus could actually have been part of the legislation.The importance of the EasyVote card is that it allows people to come without any hindrance without any obstruction without any barrier to present their vote in a polling booth. They can hand over their EasyVote card and say “This is who I am.”—or not say it. They can just hand over their EasyVote card and simply demonstrate that this is who they are because they received it in the mail according to the process. Where we have had in the past the one or two infringements of that practice—where the EasyVote card has been abused—that has been found. That has been caught out. There is not any evidence of large-scale fraud with the EasyVote card.So now in this legislation we have barriers being put up. We have a provision now that says that people must go up and they must say their name. It does not matter if the polling clerk cannot understand cannot spell it has never heard it before does not recognise the ethnicity of the person coming to vote or if as in the case of one person I know who contacted me yesterday the person cannot speak. They have to say their name and present some other evidence that they are who they say they are or provide a way of finding their name on the electoral roll and then that must be verified.What this does is to put barriers in the way of people voting. Everything else in this legislation we could have supported but why did the Minister not wish to reinstate in the bill the passages that the select committee chose to delete? On reflection some of us thought that was not such a good idea. Why did the Minister not choose to reinstate those provisions? They were there in her original. They were in her original bill. The select committee took them out. Some of us reflected on that thought that was not a good idea heard the cries of people around us who said “Hold on a minute—that’s not right.” and came back to the Committee with Supplementary Order Papers that would have reinstated those very clauses that had been struck out which were the Minister’s originally. We could have had a harmonious presentation at this third reading of the bill and great support across the House for this bill. But for some reason the Minister could not see fit to reinstate clauses that she had drafted and had included in the original draft of the legislation.We remain concerned on this side of the House that there is now in this bill a disadvantage to people—a disadvantage and an additional barrier that the EasyVote card would have disposed of quickly. For that reason the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill at the third reading. We wish we could. We should be able to. It was not beyond—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.