Volume 690 Week 43 - Thursday 30 May 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 690 Week 43 - Thursday 30 May 2013[Sitting date: 30 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 30 May 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ResignationsOmbudsmanMr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr David McGee CNZM QC resigning as an Ombudsman with effect from Friday 31 May 2013.Business StatementHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theLeader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 June the Government will look to continue the debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill the third readings of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill and a number of other first and second readings on the Order Paper. On Wednesday 5 June effective Thursday 6 June and with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will have extended hours for the third readings of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill and the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill and the first reading of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Can I just ask the acting Leader of the House whether it is still the Government’s intention to make enough progress on the Budget next week in order to have a members’ day in the following week?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I was hoping his question would be about the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill which comprises eight settlement bills and the haka redress which is more than those members did in 9 years. [Interruption] But the answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member address the question that is being raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know; he would have to speak to Mr Brownlee.Points of OrderHuman Rights Cambodia—Leave to Move Motion Without NoticeHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to introduce without notice and without debate a motion in support of a free and fair election process being followed in Cambodia for the elections this July.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has been consulted on. Can I ask the acting Prime Minister to speak to the Leader of the House because he agreed to it.Mr SPEAKER: Listen leave was put; leave has been denied. That is the end of the matter. [Interruption] Order!Questions to MinistersBudget 2013—Support for Vulnerable New Zealanders1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: How did the Budget balance the Government’s programme of responsible fiscal management with extra support for vulnerable families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In the first place the Government supported New Zealanders through the recession by borrowing to maintain support programmes because we were confident that even though we were borrowing we could set a path back to surplus. The Budget also confirmed significant investment in programmes to support vulnerable families. This includes $189 million to assist people from welfare into work through work-focused case management and increased support for job readiness and job searching. The Government is also investing a record $2.9 billion in Housing New Zealand including 2000 extra bedrooms on existing houses and insulating around 46000 homes for low-income families. This week we announced the KickStart Breakfast programme which will expand to five mornings a week in decile 1 to 4 schools. High-decile schools can opt in during 2014.Maggie Barry: What other measures were included in Budget 2013 for New Zealanders on lower incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other measures include a combination of existing proven programmes and new initiatives that are targeted. I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Tariana Turia and the Māori Party in this area. This includes $100 million over 3 years for the Warm Up New Zealand programme targeting low-income households; $21 million over 4 years for rheumatic fever prevention; $1.5 million for budgeting services on top of the $9 million already provided; a trial in Housing New Zealand properties of a warrant of fitness programme for rental housing; and a whiteware procurement programme to enable beneficiaries to buy new appliances under warranty. The Government is also investigating microfinance.Maggie Barry: How is the Government investing to deliver better results in health and education?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well too often in health and education more and more money is put in as if more money were an indication of success. In fact what this Government is doing is focusing on achieving better results for the existing spending and of course for any new spending. So there is a total of $5.1 billion in new operating spending over the next 4 years but the key to the use of that money is targets such as in health more elective surgery and better immunisation rates and in education more young New Zealanders achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and achieving the national standards.Maggie Barry: What steps is the Government taking to further reduce crime and maintain law and order?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is another area where the amount of money spent is not a good measure of how safe our communities are. When the Government came into office justice sector spending was the fastest-rising cost in the Government. So we have set targets for reduced crime rates and there has been encouraging progress: a 9 percent reduction in total crime and a 7 percent reduction in violent crime. This is coming about from building on a sophisticated analysis of what causes crime in our community and police corrections and the courts working together in an unprecedented manner to make our communities safer.Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou. To what extent were Budget decisions to support vulnerable families influenced by the Ministerial Committee on Poverty which was established as a result of the relationship accord between the Māori Party and the National Party?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Ministerial Committee on Poverty played a key role and in particular the Māori Party played a key role because the Māori Party brought to that committee a strong focus on getting change on the ground rather than more measuring and more strategies. That is reflected in the large number of practical initiatives designed to help those who suffer from the most persistent deprivation.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he agree with the Māori Party that extending breakfasts in schools and investing in KidsCan are not the only solutions to address child poverty; if so what other priorities does he consider worth exploring?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree with the Māori Party. In fact children who are hungry at school is often—as school principals have pointed out to me—a symptom of deeper problems in the family circumstances rather than simple negligence. The Government has proceeded with the programme because whatever the problems are at home the children need to be able to learn. In respect of other methods for addressing poverty we believe that the $189 million going into the active management of up to 40 percent of our beneficiary population will have a significant impact because it will assist people to get back to work—people who just need a bit of support and guidance and some encouragement to achieve that.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that both income and asset inequality are rising under National’s management of the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of measures of that particular phenomenon. What I am aware of is that a recession and a weak economy have the biggest impact on those on the lowest incomes and with the least assets. This Government has set out in the face of very poor economic circumstances in 2008 2009 and 2010—partly a legacy of the previous Government—to protect the most vulnerable as best we could and actually we have had some success in doing so.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that spending $2 million per annum on food in schools while handing over an additional $40 million to private schools is an example of why inequality is widening in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not. The Labour Party has never understood that every New Zealand child by right of birth has a right to a free education and the money paid to private schools represents the cheapest free education that the Government can procure because it pays only about 30 percent of the entitlement that every child has. Why does the Labour Party believe that some New Zealanders are not entitled to free education?Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the food in schools programme is “here to stay”; if so does that mean that the high level of child poverty under this Government is set to become a permanent feature of New Zealand society?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister. With respect to levels of child poverty the biggest puzzle on this issue in the last 15 years is how come it got so high when the economy was apparently booming under the Labour Government. Despite the fact of the recession this Government is wrestling with the complex issues of reducing child poverty and is having some success.Jacinda Ardern: How many children has Treasury estimated will be lifted out of poverty by this Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not believe that Treasury has made that estimate directly but I can tell the member that the $189 million committed to welfare will be spent on assisting for instance solo parent families off welfare and into work. Andevery single child who is in one of those families where the parent gains work will be lifted out of poverty.Question time interrupted.MotionsHuman Rights Cambodia—Electoral ProcessHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have now clarified the position about Mr Goff’s motion. He had indeed spoken to the office of the Leader of the House. I regret any inconvenience. It is perfectly proper for him to put his motion.Mr SPEAKER: On that basis is the member going to seek leave again?Hon Phil Goff: I will seek leave again.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without debate. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I moveThat this House note the recent report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Cambodia which addresses the issue of election organisation and makes a number of recommendations in order for Cambodia’s general election in July 2013 to meet international standards for democratic elections and for urgent and long-term reforms to give Cambodians confidence in the electoral process and calls on the Cambodian Government to hold free and fair elections in 2013 and to ensure that Opposition parties are able to participate fully in Cambodian politics without physical or judicial harassment or intimidation including Opposition Leader Sam Rainsy as recommended by the United Nations Special Rapporteur.Motion agreed to.Question time resumed.Questions to MinistersCommunity Services—Discontinuation of Community Response Fund2.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Social Development: Do the same needs in the community continue to exist now as they did in 2011 when she extended the life of the Community Response Fund stating “we listened to community organisations who were concerned the fund was ending while pressures remained so we kept it going”; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister for Social Development: Of course some of the needs have not changed but the context for families has changed. In 2009 when this fund was set up the economy was contracting the world was facing a systemic financial crisis and New Zealand was looking at a decade of deficits and ever-rising debt. Those circumstances have all changed. The funding was announced as and was always intended to be a one-off fund. The member makes the mistake of thinking that the only way to get results is to spend more money. In fact the Government is working intensively with the NGO sector to focus more on outcomes and use the money we have much more successfully. I have to say that the NGO sector is playing a very responsible and long-term role in those discussions.Jacinda Ardern: Is the Minister aware that the south Wairarapa will lose its food bank coordinator as a result of the Community Response Fund coming to an end a rolethat has seen more demand in the last 2 years than when she first introduced the fund; if so what led her to decide that this organisation was no longer in need of support?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not aware of that. Of course I would need to check up on the facts of that matter. We are engaging with NGOs on better ways of ensuring that the significant amounts of money that go into a community such as Wairarapa are used to achieve better outcomes. Too much of the money that goes in is dedicated to administration and fund-raising through large numbers of groups some of which do not have the capacity they need for the problems they are trying to solve. Those discussions are ongoing. In fact the total amount of money being paid out to these groups has risen from $280 million in 2009 to $320 million this year and that is excluding the Community Response Fund.Jacinda Ardern: Is the Minister aware that Rainbow Umbrella Charitable Trust which provides after-school programmes for children and young people with disabilities will close its doors today because of the end of the Community Response Fund leaving up to 35 disabled children without specialised care; if so what led her to decide that this organisation was no longer in need of support?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I am aware of that one because it has been I think broadcast in the media. The fact is that the Community Response Fund was always very clearly specified as a fund put there in response to the very difficult pressures of recession. Despite the fact that the Community Response Fund has come to an end overall funding has increased but more important we are working with the NGO sector to get better value for the hundreds of millions that goes into that sector too much of which is spent on administration and fund-raising. I invite the member to visit some of the projects around the country such as the social sector trials for youth the child health teams in Whangarei and the education initiative in Rotorua which are focused precisely on getting better use of the extensive resources available.Jacinda Ardern: Is he aware that Age Concern which provides professional help each year to 1500 older people who are abused physically emotionally or financially will lose services in Kaitāia Rodney Rotorua Wairoa and Marlborough due to the Community Response Fund coming to an end; or is he saying that they spent too much on administration and fund-raising?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not aware of those particular changes. I can only reiterate the points I have made. Firstly excluding the Community Response Fund funding through these programmes has increased from $280 million to $320 million over the last 4 years. Secondly the Community Response Fund was always a short-term fund and no one was misled about that. Thirdly we are working with the NGO sector to make more effective use of the fragmented funding streams of which there can be hundreds into any individual community.Jacinda Ardern: Does he have any plans to intervene for these organisations and the more than 290 others that will lose funding as a result of the Community Response Fund coming to an end many of which will close their doors as a result or is he content to simply blame fund-raising and administration for the fact that core services will be lost as of tomorrow?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course if there are very significant needs here I am sure the Minister for Social Development would pay some attention to it. But we need to be very clear that the Community Response Fund was always set up as a one-off fund. It was extended in the face of the extended recession. At the same time we have spent several years working and negotiating with the NGO sector to ensure that we have better public services available to New Zealanders who are in need.Jacinda Ardern: How much money was cancelled as a result of this Government putting an end to the Pathways to Partnership programme and how much of that is nowno longer going to the community sector as a result of the supposed Community Response Fund being cancelled?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer the question as to how much money was funded from Pathways to Partnership except to say that the Labour Party Opposition’s thinking about social services is clearly anchored very deeply in 2005 when that was first set up. The world has changed. The NGO sector has moved on. There is a much more gritty and responsible discussion going on about how to use our resources more effectively. Far too often more money is a signal of failure not success.Government Financial Position—Debt Forecasts and Management3.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Finance: By how much in dollar terms is the Treasury forecasting New Zealand’s external debt to increase between 2012 and 2017 as measured by the net international investment position?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As we have said in the Budget net international liabilities are expected to worsen over the next few years as insurance payouts for Canterbury continue. However national saving is expected to rise led by the Government getting its finances in order. In answer to the question the net international investment position at the end of 2012 showed liabilities of $150 billion. Treasury forecasts this figure will be $206 billion by 2017. The difference is an increase in liabilities of $56 billion. At around 80 percent of GDP that would still compare favourably with the peak of 85 percent of GDP in 2009 during a period when the economy had been going pretty well.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister of Finance telling the House that under his economic plan for New Zealand our national indebtedness will increase by nearly $60 billion over the next 5 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the case and that will be driven by a number of things but substantially by growth in business credit as businesses invest in what is clearly now a recovering economy and through this year it will be one of the better-performing economies in the developed world. You would expect business to be investing because that is how it will create all the new jobs that are going to be created. But the question is a bit rich coming from the member who is determined that instead of doing the Government share offer and getting money from New Zealanders—Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not about me; it was about the Government’s financial and economic plan.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not in order for the member asking the question to then insist on the answer by design. The answer very satisfactorily addressed the question that was raised by the member.Dr Russel Norman: Given that his economic plan for New Zealand is to borrow a further $60 billion over 5 years does he think that you can borrow your way to prosperity?Mr SPEAKER: Well again do not bring the Speaker into the debate.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well you can borrow through a recession as we have done in respect of the Government as long as at the same time you have a plan for reducing that debt. One of the things that is going to reduce at least the Government contribution to it is that we sold Mighty River Power shares for $1.7 billion of cash which is now in the Government bank account. That member is advocating that we borrow that money from overseas bankers. If he is so worried about how the debt is going to build up why is he advocating that we borrow more and supporting a Labour Party that wants us to spend a whole lot more?Dr Russel Norman: In reference to his so-called plan to reduce debt can the Minister confirm looking at New Zealand’s accounts under his Budget and his economic plan that New Zealand’s external debt continues to increase in every year under his proposed economic plan for this country?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot confirm that but I am happy to look at the figures. What I can confirm is that the Government is outlining its plan to get on top of the debt we have built up through the recession paying New Zealand superannuation and maintaining public services. I did not hear the member opposing that at that time. If he was worried about debt he could have raised the issue then. And we will be making sure that we do not introduce a universal child benefit extend Working for Families write off 1 year of all student debt cap all tertiary fees and phase out the fee system and make all unemployed students eligible for the unemployment benefit which apparently he is going to finance as Green Party policy not by borrowing money but by printing it.Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen Treasury’s projections for the current account deficit which show that the annual current account deficit will increase from $10 billion a year to $17 billion a year in 2017 according to the figures in his Budget; and does he believe that increasing the current account deficit year on year on year is the best way to rebalance the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen those projections and in my view Treasury is consistently more negative about the current account deficit than it should be but we do have some choices. We could stop rebuilding Christchurch to meet the member’s requirements. That may be possible. The fact is that the Government is doing its best by getting our finances back under control. The current account deficit today stands at half the level it was when Labour left office.Hon Steven Joyce: Has he considered getting a really big colour photocopier and printing off enough money to pay off New Zealand’s international liabilities on behalf of all New Zealanders sometime next week?Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that is a helpful question but if the Minister wishes to answer it the Minister can.Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have been advised to consider it but I understand that the whole supply of them has been bought up by the Green Party in anticipation of its opportunity.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister of Finance tell us what happened to the Southland farmer who used to be a Minister of Finance who once said that the nation had to live within its means and that our income had to match our expenditure and why has this Southland farmer been replaced by a Parnell banker who believes that New Zealand can borrow money indefinitely as he projects to do in his own economic forecasts in Budget 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What happened I think to the Southland farmers is that they get very worried that the Greens are going to shut down the farming industry and so they will have to print money because New Zealand will not be earning any.Dr Russel Norman: Why did the Minister of Finance say the word “rebalancing” more than 50 times in the House in 2010 yet fail to mention it once in Budget 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually I cannot answer that particular question but I can tell you that whatever the number of words in the Budget the Government’s focus on rebalancing the economy remains as consistent today as it was then. We need to move from an economy driven by excessive borrowing and consumption as advocated by those parties towards one built on investment exports job creation and savings. Economic circumstances have made that difficult but we will see it through.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this at the first opportunity after the question time of Mr Norman. To his first point of order you said this: “The Minister very satisfactorily answered the question.” To say that the Minister answered the question is one thing but then to throw in your subjective judgment is what is so contestable to this side of the House. All I am asking is that if the answer is that you think the Minister has answered the question well fine. If you are going to keep on throwing in that he answered very satisfactorily some of us are going to contest that because it is a judgment you should not be making.Mr SPEAKER: I will look carefully at the point the member is raising. The question was raised whether the question had been addressed. I have to judge whether I think the question has been addressed.Budget 2013—International Education4.Dr CAM CALDER (National) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How is the Government investing in New Zealand’s export education sector in Budget 2013?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): The Government’s internationally focused growth package of $400 million over 4 years includes an investment of $40 million to market and promote New Zealand’s international education industry. In 2012 there were nearly 100000 enrolments of international students in New Zealand and the industry contributed more than $2 billion to our economy and supported around 32000 jobs. The Government has identified international education as an important area for growth recognising that in addition to the substantial revenues it generates former students go on to become wonderful ambassadors for New Zealand internationally and create strong people-to-people links with New Zealanders doing business abroad.Dr Cam Calder: What targets has the Government set to boost the value of international education in New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda we have set a bold target to double the value of international education to $5 billion by 2025. To achieve this goal we will need to continue to strengthen our presence in markets such as China India South-east Asia and Latin America both through investing more in education in New Zealand and of course through ministerial and trade visits. The boost in funding provided by Budget 2013 and the internationally focused growth fund will enable our education industry to market New Zealand in these new and developing markets highlighting our world-class institutions our outstanding teaching and research staff and qualifications that are valued and transferable throughout the world.Dr Cam Calder: What wider benefits do international students bring to New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: International students bring back to their home countries a greater understanding of New Zealand. We are of course a small country that depends for our prosperity on international trade in goods and services. International education is one important way in which we increase awareness of New Zealand in the countries we trade with and this can only be good for growing New Zealand exports for jobs and growth and for incomes for the benefit of Kiwi families.Government Communications Security Bureau—Investigation into Review of Compliance Leak5.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to thePrime Minister: In the inquiry being conducted by David Henry into the leaking of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB are Ministers being interviewed on oath; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of thePrime Minister: I am advised that the inquiry commissioned by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Chief Executive Andrew Kibblewhite and Government Communications Security Bureau Director Ian Fletcher has not interviewed Ministers under oath. The inquiry is not yet complete and I do not think it is appropriate to get into discussions about the detail of it while it is being conducted in order to preserve its independence. I can inform the member that the Prime Minister’s office and the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet made it clear to all ministerial offices that they are expected to cooperate fully with the inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry were publicly released in April and are available to members.Chris Hipkins: Were the Ministers interviewed during the Rebstock inquiry into the leak of foreign affairs documents interviewed under oath; if so why is the same standard not being applied in this case?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter for Mr David Henry who is conducting the inquiry. He has that capacity but I have to say that trying to direct him in how to conduct the inquiry would probably lead to stronger criticism that it is no longer independent. It is an independent inquiry by a senior civil servant who has served not only both Governments but also in the Australian and New Zealand Public Services and it is our view that he is best left to conduct the inquiry according to the procedures he believes will be effective. The report of course will be available to everybody.Chris Hipkins: Will all Ministers who were in receipt of the report prior to its leaking to the media be questioned on oath in the investigation; if not why are some Ministers being interviewed but not others?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter for Mr David Henry. I am quite sure that if the Prime Minister’s office was issuing instructions daily to him about how to conduct the inquiry we would be getting ferociously questioned in here about interfering with it. So either it is independent or it is not. In this case it is independent. It is not how the previous Labour Government did it but it is how we did it. In fact I am sure that anyone being questioned in this inquiry will be held to a very high standard of transparency and honesty.Chris Hipkins: Do the terms of references for the inquiry into the unauthorised release of information relating to the Government Communications Security Bureau compliance review report allow for “the conduct of formal interviews if the inquirer believes these are warranted by the facts …”; if so why has one Minister been interviewed several times but others have not been interviewed at all?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter for Mr David Henry who is conducting the inquiry. As I understand it the inquiry has some time to run and he will have the opportunity to interview whomever he likes and ask any question he likes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has this inquirer not asked the various Ministers and Mr Peter Dunne in particular for their phone records where the evidence is available—Hon Tau Henare: Why don’t you ask him?Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and why not—I am asking the Minister responsible all right? Why are the phone records in which the evidence lies in this case not being asked of Ministers—in particular Mr Peter Dunne?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member cannot actually know how the inquiry is being conducted. It is being conducted by Mr David Henry as an independent inquiry by a senior civil servant. I am sure that he will make whatever inquiries he needs to in order to try to achieve the objective of finding out how the report was leaked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would anyone have confidence in an inquiry headed by David Henry who is not taking evidence on oath not keeping an electronic record of witnesses’ answers to questions and not demanding phone records of particular Ministers and whose forensic investigation incompetence was revealed when he jumped ship before the wine-box inquiry? Why would we not believe—[Interruption] Oh no—oh yes he did. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There may be some controversy in the question but the member has a right to ask it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will ask it again. Why would anyone have confidence in an inquiry headed by David Henry who is not taking evidence on oath not keeping an electronic record of witnesses’ answers to questions—Hon BILL ENGLISH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked a question I was getting ready to answer it and he popped up to ask it again.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is the member was halfway through his question. He had not finished. I could not hear because of the level of interjection that was occurring on the National benches. The member will please ask his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am dying to ask this question. Why would anyone have confidence in an inquiry headed by David Henry who is not taking evidence on oath not keeping an electronic record of witnesses’ answers to questions not demanding phone records and whose forensic incompetence saw him jump ship from the Inland Revenue Department just before the wine-box inquiry was so damning to the Inland Revenue Department? What about this bespeaks an in-house snow job?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I wonder whether we should have an inquiry into how that member seems to know so much about how the inquiry is being conducted.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He cannot turn a question—a very legitimate one—into that sort of answer but I did write to David Henry and I got an answer that said: “I won’t tell you.”Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would Bill English on behalf of the Prime Minister please answer the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know how Mr Henry is conducting his inquiry. I am surprised that that member seems to have detailed knowledge of it. I cannot help wondering whether his criticism of the inquiry may be preparing the ground for the fact that he cannot quite prove the allegations he made yesterday and he is now going to blame the inquiry for failing to back him up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again all the Minister has to do is answer the question. He did not.Mr SPEAKER: No I believe that the Minister answered the question adequately.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue here is about Standing Order 383(2) which says that “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. Mr Peters was not the subject matter of the question. The Minister’s answer was an attack on Mr Peters and he brought him into it in various ways. If Mr Peters had put himself in the question fair enough but he was not in the question.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member when he returns to his office to look very carefully at the question that was asked. It certainly had a good level of opinion from the member who asked the question.Chris Hipkins: In light of the Minister’s comment just now does he intend to open a further inquiry to ascertain who leaked to the Rt Hon Winston Peters the fact that the Hon Peter Dunne had been interviewed about the leak of the Kitteridge report; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No we will not be opening another inquiry because this one is independent and will report fully. I have noticed though that when there is an inquiry into a leak to the Labour Party it is called a witch-hunt and when there is an inquiry into some other kind of leak they say it is incompetent.Chris Hipkins: Why will he not launch an inquiry into the leak about the inquiry into the leak?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason is that I suspect Mr Peters already knows the outcome of the inquiry into the inquiry about the leak.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just try to get some silence. [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been raised. The member has a right to raise a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Deputy Prime Minister is going to keep drawing me into the inquiry then I am going to short-circuit things by saying all the evidence is in those phone records and your Minister is gone.Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that is an adequate point of order at all.Pilot Licensing—Colour Vision RequirementsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This is something new—Hon Steven Joyce: Something borrowed something blue.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —of the Minister of Transport—[Interruption] But the same sort of incompetence of course.Mr SPEAKER: Order!6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Transport: Why does Civil Aviation Rule Part 67 require that the applicant for a commercial or airline transport pilot licence have no deficit of colour vision to an extent that is of “aeromedical significance”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of theMinister of Transport: Civil Aviation Rule Part 67 contains colour vision requirements that are designed to meet the standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization—known as ICAO—in line with annex 1 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Annex 1 requires contracting States to the convention of which New Zealand is one to test applicants to ensure there is no colour vision deficiency that could interfere with the safe performance of a pilot’s duties. In practical terms pilots need to be able to discern different colours used in aviation—for example on navigation charts in cockpit instruments in airport lighting and in air navigation lights.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that Australia’s implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard enables pilots with all types and degrees of severity of defective colour vision to operate VH-registered aircraft across the globe and that these operatives are flying planes into New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The reality is in relation to Australia that New Zealand and Australia do apply the same standards as required by the International Civil Aviation Organization—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No they don’t.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —well just hear me out—and use the same primary screening method. However in Australia’s case the Australian Administrative AppealsTribunal has made some decisions on some individual cases that require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia which is the safety regulator there to issue medical certificates to applicants with some colour deficiency. The authority endorses the individual’s medical certificate as not conforming with the requirements of annex 1 of the convention and commercial pilots are limited to co-pilot duties only and I understand are not able to fly commercially into New Zealand.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that these colour vision defective pilots in Australia continue to meet the most stringent of operational training testing and ongoing review requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia and their airline employers and that these operatives have been for the last 25 years flying into New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I am advised that that is not the case. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia requires pilots to get approvals from the regulator of the country that they are flying into. In the absence of any such approvals the Minister is not aware of any Australian colour vision deficient commercial pilots flying in New Zealand.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that over the 23 years that Australia has followed this implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard there have been no accidents or accidents reported in which the colour vision status of the pilot has been found to be implicated causally so why is he insisting upon fictional standards unsupported by countries like Australia?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry but that does not appear to be the case in relation to the matters that the member has raised.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You don’t know what’s going on that’s why.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No you are wrong Mr Peters. The reality of the situation is that the Chicago convention requires New Zealand to sign up to the same tests. Australia has the same tests as I have explained to the member. It has an appeals tribunal that has allowed some pilots to fly but with restricted practices. In terms of New Zealand’s standards relative to the rest of the world we are seen as having standards that are more liberal than some countries and also slightly more requiring than others but all are under the Chicago convention.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well that is the point. I have done my homework and you have not.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there has not been one recorded aviation-related fatality anywhere in the world in which the colour vision of the pilot has been implicated causally can he provide the evidence upon which the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority continues to justify its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard whereby New Zealand certified pilots with defective colour vision have imposed upon them restrictions so severe that they make a professional career—Hon Member: Who wrote that question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am able to write my own question not like the bozo over there all right? I am able to write my own question not like the dumbo over there.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to help the order of the House. It starts because of interjections from my right-hand side. Would the member please complete his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So here we go—whereby New Zealand certified pilots with defective colour vision have imposed upon them restrictions so severe that they make a professional career in aviation a practical impossibility in their own country and yet if they get a job in Australia they could fly planes into New Zealand? How ridiculous is that?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: First let me say that I think the House must admire the generosity of the member in bringing this issue up because he is not known for colour blindness himself. But the reality—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member raising a point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes I am and it is that the Minister as the Standing Orders require should try to answer the question—he has never been much of a wit; in fact he has been half of a wit most of the time—and get on with being a responsible Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister please just address the question to help the order of the House.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I suppose you could call that one all but I do not think so. The reality of the issue that the member raises is a very important issue because if you look at some of the examples—he asked whether it has ever effected any accidents anywhere in the world. There are actually two documented aviation incidents—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No there are not.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and one accident in the United States where colour vision was seen as a contributing factor.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No that’s been contested—overruled.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well the member can say that but actually the job of the air safety regulator is to ensure that it meets the international rules and that is what it is doing in this case. If the member is saying that he knows better than the aeronautical regulator that he should be trusted to make some judgments that actually our tests do not need to be as strong as they are internationally well he is fine to have that view but the reality is that we trust our regulator every day to provide the sort of safety that New Zealanders depend upon. It is a serious subject and actually we are required to sign up to the international regulations.Budget 2013—Affordable and Social Housing Initiatives7.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister of Housing: How will Budget 2013 contribute to delivering more affordable housing and better social housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): We are tackling the issue of supply identified by the Productivity Commission with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which will enable 39000 homes to be built at pace in Auckland over the next 3 years. I have also had a constructive discussion with other councils on how these tools might help improve supply and affordability in other parts of New Zealand. The Budget also makes major inroads on social housing. It opens up access to the income-related subsidy as part of the Government’s plan to grow the community social housing sector. It also provides for a record $2.9 billion being invested over the next 3 years in upgrading Housing New Zealand’s stock with a real focus on improved quality.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What specific steps is the Government taking to improve quality and to better match social housing to tenants’ needs?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a big focus on home insulation and every single State house that can be insulated will be insulated by the end of this year. Already the Government has invested in providing insulation for 230000 privately owned homes and the Budget provided a further $100 million so that a further 46000 homes will be able to be insulated. The Budget also provides for Project 324&5 an investment of $260 million in adding 3000 additional bedrooms on to three-bedroom homes to better matchthem to tenants’ needs. This initiative will reduce over-crowding and will be welcomed by many large low-income families around New Zealand.District Health Boards—Diagnostic Testing8.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Are all district health boards meeting his expectations of providing timely quality health services; if not which DHBs are failing to provide “Better Sooner More Convenient” health care?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Generally yes although there is always room for improvement. District health boards are receiving over $1 billion extra over the next 4 years and they are doing a very good job in tight financial times. The last quarterly national health targets published this week show that New Zealanders are receiving even more checks for diabetes and heart disease more help to quit smoking and they are getting more elective operations faster. The Government inherited a health service on track to ruin but thanks to strong financial management across the sector we are now able to invest more in the changing needs of our population.Hon Annette King: He is a joker is he not! Well in light of that answer—[Interruption] The optics are not good for you today Steven.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member ask—Hon Annette King: In light of that answer is it acceptable for a patient to wait 12 months for an endoscopy at Southern District Health Board?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check whether that data is correct or not. It would depend on whether or not the patient had been booked in advance for a regular check-up. That is the reason why they would be waiting a year as we have a number of cases like that. But I am determined that we actually have faster access for those sorts of services and that is the reason why the Government is closely monitoring those. We are ensuring as part of our faster cancer treatment and better access to diagnostics that we can improve those waiting times.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer is it acceptable for a patient who finds it difficult to eat because of reflux and nausea who vomits blood and who has black tarry stools to wait 12 months for an endoscopy at Southern District Health Board?Hon TONY RYALL: Certainly if they have got those symptoms they need to go and talk to their general practitioner and get prioritised to go and be seen there. There have been longstanding issues at Southern District Health Board. I highlighted those in a press release last week.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether it was acceptable for that condition—Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister was explaining that there have been issues at the hospital. Would the Minister please continue his answer.Hon TONY RYALL: As I was saying to the member there are issues at Southern District Health Board. I identified them in a press release last week—what the Government is working on. Those problems are longstanding. They include for example Southern District Health Board stopping the provision of surveillance colonoscopies to hundreds of patients in 2006-07.Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable for patients at Waikato District Health Board to wait on average 31 days for urgent magnetic resonance imaging 128 days for semi-urgent magnetic resonance imaging and 174 days for a routine one; and what impact will those delays have on patients?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check that information. What I can tell the member is that as we said in the statement last week 75 percent of patients are getting a CT scan within 6 weeks and just over half of our patients are receiving magneticresonance imaging within 6 weeks. Certainly those who are needing them urgently are getting them faster.Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable for patients at Waikato District Health Board to wait on average 81 days for an urgent ultrasound and for no routine ultrasounds being undertaken at all?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check that information because I simply do not believe that is correct. I would suspect that the member has received information under the Official Information Act and she has not provided any coherence around what actual information she has asked the district health boards to provide.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table from the Waikato District Health Board under the Official Information Act information exactly as I set it out including that those who are not accepted—those who cannot even get a routine one—are returned to the referrer because they are unable to be completed within 6 months. That is the evidence he wanted—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that letter from the Waikato District Health Board. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Why did he re-announce his so-called new gold standard for diagnostic tests as new policy last week when he had already announced it last year and does he think that re-announcing policy actually gives patients better sooner more convenient health care?Hon TONY RYALL: We were updating the public on the success that we are having in this. When I became Minister of Health Ministers could not actually tell people how long they were waiting for magnetic resonance imaging and CT scans because Annette King would not put any money into asking the question. The reason that they would not ask the question was that a whole lot of people in Dunedin were being denied regular colonoscopies because that Government did not want to know. What we updated and announced last week was that because of our new monitoring system we can tell patients that 75 percent of New Zealanders are getting their CT scans within 6 weeks and 50 percent are getting magnetic resonance imaging within 6 weeks far better than under—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that is quite a satisfactory—a long enough answer.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table two documents.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two documents. A brief description please.Hon Annette King: Certainly. A letter from a patient from Southern District Health Board saying that he has to wait 12 months for an endoscopy and he has all the symptoms that I have already described. I have his permission to table it.Mr SPEAKER: Yes. And the second one?Hon Annette King: The second one is a letter from the Southern District Health Board—and the Minister wanted proof of this—saying that he has to wait for approximately 12 months for that endoscopy.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Schools Digital Learning—School Network Upgrade Project9.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to theAssociate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding the School Network Upgrade Project?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): I was pleased to announce recently that the Government will be investing $136 million over the next 4 years to enable the completion of the School Network Upgrade Project by 2016. This is great news for New Zealand schools because it means that the School Network Upgrade Project will be delivered 2 years early. Under our Government over 1400 schools are now involved in the School Network Upgrade Project. That is over 60 percent of all eligible State and State integrated schools. This announcement is about providing better internet connections for students and teachers. Our Government is committed to providing modern learning environments that create more learning opportunities for all young New Zealanders. This is great news for New Zealand schools.Colin King: What other information can the Minister provide on the completion of the School Network Upgrade Project?Hon NIKKI KAYE: In addition to providing additional money to speed up the School Network Upgrade Project initiative I am pleased that from June 2013 wireless capacity will be included in the School Network Upgrade Project process. The inclusion of wireless in the upgrade process will allow students to be able to learn from more places in their school. This is just another step towards ensuring that students and teachers around New Zealand can take full advantage of our $1.35 billion investment in ultra-fast broadband.Clare Curran: Is it correct that $86 million of the funding that Budget 2013 provides for the School Network Upgrade Project in fact comes from previous allocations and underspends; if so does that not mean that the School Network Upgrade Project is actually behind schedule?Hon NIKKI KAYE: No.Question No. 10 to MinisterGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave of the House for this question to be set down for a day when the Minister of Justice is here to answer it.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection to that? Yes there is.Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—Appointment Process10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Justice: How many expressions of interest or nominations for the position of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner were received by the Ministry of Justice after the advertised deadline of 13 October 2012?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theMinister of Justice: The member is still regrettably wrong in his assertion that there was an advertised deadline. The Ministry of Justice does not determine any deadline or closing date for a ministerial appointment. Any advertised dates either in public advertisements or in the letters the Minister sent seeking nominations are for administrative purposes only. The Ministry of Justice acts in a purely administrative support role at the Minister’s direction to support the Minister’s process and timetable.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the same answer that the Minister of Justice gave yesterday to this question. At that point you ruled that that was an unhelpful answer which I agreed with and you gave us additional supplementary questions. Will you be doing that now?Mr SPEAKER: No on this occasion I will not be. The member still has supplementary questions. That was an answer that was far more clear as to the reason. The Attorney-General clearly explained what he thought was a reasonable difference between the advertised deadline which I have a copy of in front of me and the reasonswhy he did not think that was the Minister’s deadline. It has been addressed adequately. The member certainly has some additional supplementary questions anyway.Grant Robertson: Why was Jackie Blue’s expression of interest for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner position treated differently from the expressions of interest from other members of the public?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think it is important to say that there were various ways in which expressions of interest could be received. There was the advertisement and the reference to the Ministry of Justice website—I think that is what the member is perhaps fixated on—and the Minister wrote to support parties so there were various ways. What at the end of the day the Minister is guided by are the statutory requirements set out in section 29 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 and the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1993. The Minister also received guidance on relevant UN resolutions as to the appointment to this particular kind of position.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer how is it in line with those processes that the Minister has outlined for the Minister to withhold the name of one of the members of the appointment panel for a position such as this—a person who looks after the human rights of New Zealanders? Do not New Zealanders deserve to know that and why would you withhold that name?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because she respects the requirements of the Privacy Act. There are certain requirements under the Human Rights Act the Crown Entities Act and the Paris principles as to the way in which these interviews should be conducted. It is a very senior position; I am surprised the Opposition is treating this as a matter of frivolity.Diabetes—Forecasts Prevention and Blood Glucose Meters11.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to theMinister of Health: How many New Zealanders are expected to have diabetes in 2021 and what is the expected cost of providing health services for them?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): A number of studies have attempted to estimate the number of people who may have diabetes in the future. It is a very complex issue to calculate and I am advised there is not yet an agreed methodology amongst the experts. I am advised by officials that a report produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2008 has put the cost of diabetes rising from approximately $600 million in 2008 to $1.5 billion in 2022. A New Zealand study by Jo Tobias and Yeh predicts a 20 percent increase in the prevalence of diabetes from 2012 to 2021 which would mean 271000 New Zealanders. I am aware of further advice from the head of the diabetes advisory committee that the number could be 386000 if there is no change in practice or management. The Government is committed to improving health services for diabetes and heart disease with a strong focus on prevention. In Budget 2013 we announced a boost of new funding for New Zealanders with or at risk of developing diabetes and heart disease.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister dispute the PricewaterhouseCoopers estimate of $1.78 billion in expenditure in 2021; and does he accept the findings of the University of Otago research recently published showing that a much higher prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the New Zealand population currently one in four adult New Zealanders and a higher prevalence in other population groups means that that is likely to be a significant underestimate?Hon TONY RYALL: I think that the answer I gave to the member indicates that depending on the assumptions that you use and the various numbers that you put in you can get a range of results. What I do think the member has touched on quite rightly though is the importance of investing in prevention but particularly in theidentification of pre-diabetes. The biggest-increasing pressure in much of this space is pre-diabetes and that is the reason why achieving 90 percent of New Zealanders getting a heart and diabetes check means that we can actually identify those at risk of pre-diabetes and enable them to make the vital lifestyle changes needed in order to prevent themselves from getting that disease.Kevin Hague: What is the likely availability of funds to meet the costs of diabetes treatment services that should be anticipated in 2021 which are likely to more than treble over that 8-year period and exceed $1.78 billion in 2021 alone?Hon TONY RYALL: The advice that I have is that those numbers are premised on no change in the way that we manage diabetes or the activities we have in order to prevent diabetes or more important in many ways the development of pre-diabetes amongst individuals. That is why the Government is focused very much on increasing the number of heart and diabetes checks in order for those people at risk to have that identified by their general practitioner and be able to get the lifestyle changes that they need. Also in this year’s Budget the Government has invested significant new money in expanding local diabetes care improvement programmes. We have provided additional money for encouraging more checks and also a very significant investment in doubling the number of green prescriptions that general practitioners can refer patients to.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question related to the availability of funds to meet the sum PricewaterhouseCoopers anticipated would be required—and I think most would accept it is going to be more than that $1.78 billion in 2021. The Minister in his earlier answer indicated that there was some dispute about what the number was but that did not prevent him in fact from responding about what the likely availability would be say on a range of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept the point of order the member is making. To be fair to the Minister he tried to very adequately address the question but if the Minister wants to address just the part about the availability of additional funding that would be helpful.Hon TONY RYALL: What will be important for the availability of funds for affording the demands of diabetes and any other health disease is that New Zealand has a strong growing economy—an economy where taxes are low where regulations are under control where Government spending is well spent. I do not think we will meet those costs by printing the money in 2021.Kevin Hague: In light of the Minister’s apparent confidence that there will be available funds to meet a $1.78 billion health services bill for diabetes in 2021 alone could I ask the Minister how much money would it have been rational to invest in obesity prevention in this year’s Budget and how much would it have cost to reinstate the healthy food requirements in schools?Hon TONY RYALL: Look I think it would have been rational to have the investment that this Government is making in the area of diabetes and helping people manage their weight. The Government is spending $60 million a year on prevention initiatives which include Fruit in Schools the funding for which was going to be stopped under Labour; a range of nutrition and breastfeeding programmes; and a very significant investment in Kiwisport. So it is across the range and across the life course.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I clarify whether the Minister’s answer is that the Government invested the perfect rational amount in obesity prevention?Mr SPEAKER: That is how I took the answer effectively yes.Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the PricewaterhouseCoopers report for Diabetes New Zealand entitled—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify how available that is for members?Kevin Hague: It is not readily available.Mr SPEAKER: OK I will take the member’s word for it.Kevin Hague: That is from September 2008. The second document is the report of the research by Coppell Mann and others entitledPrevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in New Zealand: findings from the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a report from Stuff where the Minister of—Mr SPEAKER: No Stuff is—[Interruption] Order! Stuff is freely available.Brendan Horan: Does the Minister expect that the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders forecast to have diabetes by 2021 should have access to accurate and reliable blood sugar kits and is he aware of the many expressions of concern from both health professionals and diabetics around the new sole supply CareSens kits with life-threatening reports of inaccurate meter readings and faulty test strips?Hon TONY RYALL: Pharmac has moved to a sole supply arrangement for most people for their blood glucose testing kits. I have to say that as I have been travelling around the country I think the transition has gone remarkably well actually. About 90 percent of those people on the previous meters have now transitioned and I think that most people are finding the service is up to what they might have expected. We have had very very little feedback counter to that in the last few months.Health and Safety Workplace—Hazardous Substances Guide12.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made to help businesses understand and manage the risks posed by hazardous substances?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Yesterday I launched a new multimedia tool box to raise awareness amongst small and medium sized businesses about the risks of working with hazardous substances such as paints solvents and liquid agrichemicals and provided simple tools they can use to minimise those risks. Chronic health problems caused by exposure to hazardous substances all too often lead to disabilities and early death. Businesses and workers need to make themselves more aware of the risks involved and of the simple actions they can take to prevent exposure to hazardous substances. The tool box is part of a wider package to improve compliance with hazardous substances requirements including a comprehensive review of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation a 3-year campaign to raise public awareness of the importance of the safe handling of chemicals at use at home and at work and an increase in compliance monitoring.Hon Phil Heatley: Why is it important to improve the management of hazardous substance risk? [Interruption]Hon AMY ADAMS: The Opposition might think this is a joke but research shows that every year approximately 500 to 800 New Zealanders die due to industrial illness—more than double the road toll—and many of those deaths are due to exposure to hazardous substances. But a recent survey has shown that only 25 percent of businesses comply with best practice in eight key areas. That is simply not good enough. We have a comprehensive regime in place but awareness and response to critical risks is too low. The Kiwi “she’ll be right” attitude is literally killing us. Exposure to hazardous substances is largely preventable with the right combination of education enforcement and greater investment by industry in modernising safety systems. The announcementswe have made signal that this is a priority issue for this Government and we are aiming at making a real difference to the safety of New Zealanders.Questions to MembersHousing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Closing Date for Submissions1.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: When do submissions to the Social Services Committee on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill close?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): Submissions on this bill close today: Thursday 30 May 2013.Holly Walker: Did he consult with the Minister of Housing or his staff before making the decision to close submissions on this date?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty the member has with any supplementary questions is that they must be something that is a matter of the responsibility of the chairman. As advised by the Clerk that one does not meet the Standing Orders. I invite the member to rephrase her question or attempt to rephrase her question—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet—to make sure that it is within the Standing Orders and then I will accept a supplementary question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not the responsibility of the Clerk and for you to say you were advised by the Clerk that a particular supplementary question is out of order is not satisfactory. You have to rule it out of order and you can choose whether or not you say why.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here long enough to know that although I accept the responsibility for any decision I make I am on regular occasions advised by the Clerk. I have ruled that question out. I have invited the member to rephrase it in a way that is acceptable.Holly Walker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to seek your guidance. The question was in relation to whom the chairperson of the committee consulted with in his capacity as chair before making the decision about the closing date. I do not see how that is out of order—Mr SPEAKER: The member is now starting to question my ruling—[Interruption] Order! I am trying to assist the member. Would she ask a question that is in order and then we will make progress. At the end of this time the ability to ask a supplementary question is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker. If we are not going to make progress here then I suggest that the member will not get opportunities to ask—[Interruption] Order!Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not trying to trifle with you at all. It is a clarification of whether you are changing the rule of Speaker Smith in Speaker’s ruling 159/2 on this very point which is that a chair can be questioned on whether they have acted independently in making this very specific decision.Mr SPEAKER: And I invite the member to look at Speaker’s ruling 159/2: “The chair of a committee is empowered to call for submissions. The chair does not [have to seek] the approval of the committee to call for submissions. The chair can call for submissions” and then subsequently have them confirmed by the committee. Would the member please proceed—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member attempting to question my decision on this—Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes I am—Mr SPEAKER: —because I would take that quite seriously.Hon Trevor Mallard: —because it is inconsistent with the Speaker’s ruling you have just read out.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear from the member.Hon Trevor Mallard: When you read that Speaker’s ruling you indicated quite properly—and we all know—that the chairman has the right to make that decision without consultation. However the member asked whether or not in coming to that decision he consulted with the Minister or the office. Asking a person how they came to a decision they are responsible for is in my submission within the Standing Orders and is not inconsistent with Speaker’s ruling 159/1. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to repeat the question as asked.Holly Walker: Did he consult with the Minister of Housing or his staff before making the decision to close submissions on this date?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Under Standing Order 192(1) as chairman I can set a closing date and advertise—Hon Annette King: No no no.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Let me finish ma’am. Let me finish.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let the member—Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I can as chairperson set a closing date and advertise for submissions or invite submissions from interested parties. As chairman of the Social Services Committee I did make that decision and that decision was confirmed by the committee at yesterday’s meeting on 29 May. As that member knows though the bill was referred to our committee on Budget night 16 May 2013—Mr Speaker if you could bear with me—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is becoming a very long answer to what was a relatively simple question.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —and 10 weeks were due for committee consideration. So prior to the bill being referred I did ask senior Opposition members on the committee seeking leave to meet on Friday—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now the answer has gone on quite sufficiently long enough. The member was simply asked whether he consulted with the Minister and his office. Could the member please answer that question.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: After the bill was referred to our committee on the night of Budget night I made—in my own decision—the decision to set a 13-day period for submissions.Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please—[Interruption] Order! Would the member just answer the question. I am going to ask the member Holly Walker to ask the question again.Holly Walker: Did he consult with the Minister of Housing or his staff before making the decision to close submissions on this date?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: After the bill was referred to us on the night of Budget night I made this decision on my own as is my discretion under the Standing Orders.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one has disputed that. The question was whether consultation occurred. After I think four attempts that has not even been addressed.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member Holly Walker to ask the question again and let us hope that on this occasion we get a simple answer to a simple question.Holly Walker: Did he consult with the Minister of Housing or his staff before making the decision to close submissions on this date?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The bill was referred on the night of Budget night 16 May and I did not consult with the Minister. I made this decision on my own.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you for that answer.Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Length of Submission Period2.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: What is the length of the period for submissions to the Social Services Committee for the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): The public call for submissions was made on 17 May 2013. Submissions as I said in the answer to question No. 1 closed today. The length of time therefore was just under 2 weeks.Holly Walker: Is 10 working days sufficient time for members of the public and key stakeholders to engage with the 52-page bill and prepare detailed submissions?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes it is.Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Request for Submissions3.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: Has he as chairperson of the Social Services Committee written to anyone soliciting submissions on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill; if so who?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): No.Holly Walker: Given that the regulatory impact statement accompanying the bill stated that the bill was developed with very limited consultation why did he not proactively alert key stakeholders to the existence of the bill and the opportunity to make a submission?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to let the member answer it but I would have thought that was clearly a responsibility for the committee rather than the chairman. Does Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga want to add to that question?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Speaker as you said it is a matter for the committee to decide that.Holly Walker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In his earlier answers the chair clearly referred to the fact that he used his delegated authority under the Standing Orders to make this decision so the question about who to write to was part of that delegated authority that he used. Therefore I think it is legitimate to ask why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member if she wants the opportunity to ask question No. 4. Would she ask question No. 4.Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Submissions Received4.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): I am aware that some submissions have been received. The total number of submissions received will not be known until submissions close later today.Holly Walker: How many have been received to date?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: At this moment in time I am not aware of the total number of submissions that have been received.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a simple question that was set down today at 10.30. Although I can accept that the member might not know how many have been received between the time that he prepared his answer and now when the question simply asks how many have been received he should be able to give a number.Mr SPEAKER: The submissions will then be received by the Clerk but as chairman he would not necessarily need to know.Hon Member: He could ask.Mr SPEAKER: I am quite satisfied with the answer that the member has given to Holly Walker.Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Closing Date for Submissions5.HOLLY WALKER (Green) to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: Did he decide that submissions to the Social Services Committee on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill will close today; if so why?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): As I said under Standing Order 192(1) I have the discretion to determine the closing date. I felt that the closing date of today was the appropriate amount of time for submissions giving a 10-week turn-round period for the closing date.Holly Walker: Will he extend the submission period to allow New Zealanders to have their say on this significant piece of legislation; if not why not?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have the power to extend the submission date. It can be extended by the committee but that is a matter for the committee to decide.Budget DebateDebate resumed from 29 May on theAppropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Here we are discussing and debating the fifth Budget of the National-led Government and I have to say that every single day in this House the difference becomes clearer and clearer. I could be talking about the polls of course which are also becoming clearer and clearer about what New Zealanders want but I am not. I could be talking about the difference between the factions in the Labour Party because every day they become clearer and clearer but I am not. What I am talking about is the very clear difference that the New Zealand public can now see between what this Government is continuing to deliver has delivered for the last 5 years and what Budget 2013 is a continuation of—the solid sensible caring and progressive management of this Government which has got New Zealand on the right path—and what the Labour-Greens coalition would condemn this country to. That is what is becoming clearer and clearer in the minds of New Zealanders and I welcome it actually. I welcome Labour tethering itself hitching its cart to the Green horse because that is showing New Zealanders very clearly the real risks that they face if they were to put that lot in charge of this country.Bill English in this Budget has New Zealand on track. He has us on track to get back to surplus. He has this year in this Budget shown us that this year we are looking at a deficit of around $2 billion when Australia that mighty powerful nation across the Ditch which is always held up to us as the beacon of all things good has announced under its Labor Government a $20 billion deficit. We are on track to a $2 billion deficit this year and a return to surplus as promised in 2014-15. Bill English is delivering us steady growth—in fact growth rates that are the envy of most of the rest of the world and are bettered only by Australia. He has delivered us continually reducing debt projections remembering that we inherited from the Labour Government never-ending deficits. We were facing a country that would never ever get back to a surplus—never get back to surplus. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The Speaker will not allow a speaker on their feet to be drowned out. This is Parliament; it is not a public house.Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you Mr Robertson. I enjoy their bleating. It shows just how much the truth hurts them. Bill English has us on track to get back to surplus. That is a remarkable feat. We see falling unemployment we see record low interest rates and we see the lowest rates of crime in 30 years. That is what sensible management means. That is what a caring progressive Government that is focused on what matters and that does want a brighter future for all New Zealanders means.What is the difference between the alternative and the options New Zealand faces? What would a Labour-Green regime deliver to this country? Well what we do know is that those parties continue every day to show us without doubt without question that they would take more money out of the pockets of New Zealanders to spend on inflated bureaucracy working groups more red tape more spending and more debt because that is all they know it is all they deliver and it is their only way of functioning. It seems to me that they are genetically hard-wired to focus on what they can take and what they can spend. Every utterance that we hear from Labour and the Greens is about how much they can take and how much they can spend—not one word not one policy not one contribution not one press release and not one speech about how they are going to contribute to getting the New Zealand productive sector up and running providing the jobs providing the incomes and providing the opportunities for New Zealanders.Hon David Cunliffe: Come on Amy. You don’t even believe this crap. You don’t even believe this rubbish from the research unit. You just don’t believe it. Look like you believe it. You’ve got no idea.Hon AMY ADAMS: You see David Cunliffe still does not get it. David Cunliffe still thinks that Government spending is the fix for all our worries. If a Government can tax you more and spend more on bureaucracy then everything will be well. The Labour Party still thinks there is a magic money machine and magic beans that it can spend and that it can just keep on spending keep on taxing and keep on borrowing. That will not matter. Never mind that under a Labour-Green Government under the settings that those parties left us with and the ruination that they gave to this economy right now we would be looking at $100 billion more debt—$100 billion more debt that is the future they want for young New Zealanders. That is the future they want to condemn every young New Zealander to—a $100 billion debt burden around their necks. We will not do that. We will manage this economy sensibly. We have done so for 5 years and we will continue to.That is why you have people like the IMF coming out and saying that New Zealand has got it right. New Zealand has got economic and political settings that are right and that other countries should be looking to. That is a significant milestone. That is why our interest rates are low. If you want to talk about making living affordable for New Zealanders the best thing we can do—Mr Assistant Speaker I apologise for bringing you into the debate—the best thing this country can do is ensure that we have sensible policies low debt and low interest rates and that the settings are right so that businesses can create jobs and are incentivised to invest. That is one of the core reasons that we in this party and in this Government are focused on reforming the Resource Management Act to ensure that while it protects our environment it also provides the certainty and the streamlined processes that mean that we can have housing that we can afford that we can create jobs in our cities and in our towns and that we can do it in a way that is not simply a fest of billing for the consultants the lawyers and the planners who have built up around the industry that this has become.We have got to have good outcomes but we know that in the last 2 years alone these over-bloated cumbersome litigious processes have meant that at least $800 million worth of projects have not gone ahead. That is jobs. So every time one of theOpposition comes into this House and says “Where are the jobs?” I say to them “How about you support fixing some of the roadblocks to creating those jobs? How about you get on board with the Government and say that we can do better that we can have settings that look after our environment and still provide certainty and opportunities to invest?”. But no Labour wants to oppose it. In fact the Labour Party has already come out and said that if elected it would repeal all the improvements to the Resource Management Act which is interesting really because it is saying that it would rather keep the inefficient bloated expensive litigious system that we have than support any sensible change.Do you know what else that would mean? It would mean that the Labour Party has announced that it opposes our including in the Resource Management Act the protection of New Zealand from natural hazards. That is one of the changes that we want to make to Part 2 and yet we have already got the Labour Party coming out and saying that it opposes that and that if it was elected it would reverse that. Here we are with the Labour Party. Labour members are sitting there telling New Zealand that they do not want in the Resource Management Act the protection of New Zealand from the risks of natural hazards. I think that is appalling I think it is disgraceful and I think it shows how they are willing to play politics and to do and say whatever they can to get back into power where they can continue to borrow spend and ruin the future of this country. They are shameless. They are not looking out for the best interests of this country. If they were they would be looking to support sensible meaningful improvements.This morning I have been up in Kāpiti announcing the beginning of the build of ultra-fast broadband in Kāpiti in Levin in Gisborne and in Upper Hutt because we are interested in supporting rural and provincial New Zealand. We know that we can make significant gains by ensuring that rural and provincial New Zealand is connected and can do business from anywhere in this country; that our children in the smallest town or the smallest rural community can access the best resources not only in New Zealand but in the world; that our patients can get access to health care from wherever they are through high-speed video hook-ups and telehealth initiatives; and that our businesses can conduct business around the world recruit staff work from home and sell into markets anywhere in the world. This is transformational. It is transformational infrastructure that this Government is backing and Labour voted against it because Labour does not support rural New Zealand and it does not support families in small-town New Zealand getting ahead and the National Government does.But it does not stop there. We are rolling out ultra-fast broadband. We are supporting better water infrastructure. We are supporting better roading networks to ensure that our goods can get to market. We have put in place for the first time an exclusive economic zone protection regime. Nine years under Labour and the Greens—did they care about putting rules in place to protect the exclusive economic zone? Absolutely not—absolutely not. The National-led Government is the one that introduced rules to protect the exclusive economic zone. The National-led Government is the one that introduced the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The National-led Government is the one that introduced the Waste Minimisation Act and is reducing waste in our landfills. This is a Government of action; that is a Government of ruination.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): There were three points in the speech that has just been made by the Minister Amy Adams. There are two points of agreement and one of clarification. Firstly she said that every day the difference between the parties on that side and this side becomes clearer and I say “Thank God for that.” New Zealanders are not that stupid. They know that that side has delivered empty promises of 170000 new jobs and promises of prosperity—for whom?The second thing—and I will agree with her—is that the Government thinks that it will reach surplus in 2014-15. That may be the case but the question is for whom. It will not be for the average Kiwi I can tell you that but for your greedy wealthy mates—Mr Assistant Speaker not yours but National’s. The third point is the outrageous exaggeration that we would have incurred $100 billion in debt for this country.Bill English admitted in the House today that the National Government will incur a debt of $61 billion for this country—$61 billion—under his current plan. The previous speaker Amy Adams also made great claims about how the Government had rebalanced and done great things for the productive sector and what the Resource Management Act is going to do. I will quote Business and Economic Research Ltd: “Growth in the non-tradeable or inward-facing side of the economy has outstripped the tradeable sector which has not really grown at all over the past four years.” Those are the facts. The National Government—the wonderful champion of the farming and productive sectors—has done absolutely nothing to assist with their growth and development. Those facts speak for themselves. The tradable sector is the sector that Bill English said when he came in in 2009 he was going to rebalance the economy to benefit and in fact in 2010—I think a colleague in the House today said—he mentioned rebalancing so many times in his Budget speech. He does not mention it now because the only rebalancing that is being done under the National Government is to tip the table in favour of all those people who have wealth and who have privilege. It is not even possible for the crumbs to fall up the table to those poor people who do not have any capital. It has not just been hands-off; it has been hands-on in favour of the wealthy. This Budget does absolutely nothing to rebalance the economy either in favour of the tradable sector or in a way that helps the average hard-working Kiwi.We have a two-speed economy. We have an economy for the haves and another economy for the have-nots. We have had tax cuts for the rich from the first Budget of the National Government and we had GST imposed on the poor. On every single thing they spend money on they have paid more GST and more tax. The wealthy on the other hand can siphon off money into areas where GST is not incurred—that one single advantage. We have had increased opportunities for people importing into this country under the high dollar and we have had increasing barriers and hurdles and challenges for anyone exporting. Where Mr English is the help for the tradable sector in that area? We have had increasing profits for home speculators and decreasing opportunities for the average New Zealander to buy a home. Well we had in the last Budget some token movement the Government says in favour of those people struggling to buy a home. We know that it simply will not work. You need to build houses on the ground not simply make it harder for people coming in at the bottom end to buy a house. That is what the Government has done with the new deposit ratios.The National Party says it has plans. In fact the previous speaker Amy Adams said a wonderful thing about spending on infrastructure. Well there are roading plans for projects of National Party significance but they are all around the cities not out in the rural areas and we had no further funding in that area from this Budget. Ask the regional council chairs and the mayors in the South Island what they think about the current system of allocating funding for roading. They are being squeezed. They know that the productive areas of Southland out on the West Coast and in Canterbury are not getting the funding for roading that they should do.We have got in education a determination by a pig-headed Government to put in place National Party standards. Well the Government sold it very quietly as “national standards” but they are National Party standards. The parents out there who think that kindly thought that they are getting some equal opportunity to measure their child against someone from another island or another school or whatever north to south eastto west have simply been hoodwinked once again. We have seen recently—and there are delays I understand in publishing the first outcomes of the National Party standards in education—what we call “moderation”e-asTTle and now a new PaCT tool. If you talk to principals in your electorate—andthere might be a few over there who do—they are horrified with the manipulation of the National Party standards in education which will undermine the goodwill the high quality and the commitment in education that have driven our system to be one of the best in the world. It is stupidity.We need a Government with a plan. What we have got at the moment is a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who think they are steering the economy in the right direction. Well the analogy I use is of putting someone in a trolley cart at the top of a hill—we put them up there with zero Government debt—giving them the ropes and letting gravity take the trolley downhill. Mr English thinks that steering around the corners is achieving the goal. The fact is that we need a Government that drives the economy not just steers it. That is what Labour will do. In driving an economy we will be utilising more technology than a trolley cart not relying solely on gravity to take us forward and not thinking that just steering around the corners is going to deliver the benefits to this country into the future. We need someone driving—someone who can brake can accelerate can overcome the hurdles can compensate for the inevitable challenges that are thrown up in front of this country in an economic sense. But Bill English thinks that the market and gravity will take this country to where it needs to go. It will not. That is why we have a plan. The National Party has never had a plan. It relies on the market and it relies on its mates to deliver it the best outcomes. The only thing the National Government has done for the tradable sector or the trading sector is increase the turnover on the New Zealand Exchange by allowing firstly Fonterra units and by then putting our assets on to the New Zealand Exchange so that traders can make a small profit and a small fortune.The tradable sector that needs help is the farmers out there. What did this Budget do for them? Well in biosecurity we saw a cut of $6 million to front-line services. People have not picked up on this yet but they will because in the agribusiness sector biosecurity has been identified time and time again as the No. 1 threat to our economy to our biodiversity to every single part of our economy that relies on tourism and relies on primary production and indeed to protecting our biodiversity. This Government has just cut the funding to biosecurity. It has done well to try to bury that in the Budget but it will become apparent. Its first Budget cut was $2 million and then it has tried to make that up by the restructuring of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry into the Ministry for Primary Industries cutting out a few people in policy and saying that all is well. Last week exposed the flaws and the problems within the Ministry for Primary Industries. The next weeks will expose the flaws in biosecurity because this Government has cut the funding.The Novopay debacle has put the joint system of computer control and information sharing—the Joint Border Management System—on hold. The Government has even mucked up that. But front-line biosecurity systems have been cut because of this Budget and our economy is at risk. There are 1.5 million tonnes of palm kernel coming into this country every year from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. Mark my words this Government has failed in the area of biosecurity. It has failed to protect primary producers up and down this country. We are sitting on a knife edge. If we do not keep out some of those pests and diseases this economy will collapse and it will be the National Government that will be responsible for that.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): The opportunities for all New Zealanders presented by this Budget are exciting and I say that not lightly. The opportunities presented in this Budget for all New Zealand are exciting and I am proudto be part of this Government—absolutely proud. This Government is prepared to grab the opportunities that will enable all Kiwis to benefit from this Budget. We are delivering that through our clear plan—a clear plan to rebuild Christchurch to responsibly manage the Government’s finances to build a more competitive and productive economy and to deliver better public services.The crazy thing is that the Opposition—Labour the Greens and New Zealand First—will vote against every part of this Budget. So let us go through it in some detail: to rebuild Christchurch one of our principal objectives—the Opposition will vote against it.Denis O’Rourke: Failed. Too slow. Not enough. People are dissatisfied. Don’t hold that up as an example. That’s a failure.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: It will vote against the $40 billion that this country will spend down in Christchurch through this Government to put that beautiful city back on her feet. And Mr Denis O’Rourke will vote against that. He will vote against Christchurch and helping to get her back on her feet in this Budget. Shame on you Mr O’Rourke. Let us think about that for a moment because it is a huge investment from this country. Forty billion dollars is about $100000 per citizen down in Christchurch. It is something we have to do as a country. But the Opposition including New Zealand First will vote against this.The second part of our plan for all New Zealanders is to responsibly manage the Government’s finances. In that regard I think we are making great progress albeit there is still work to do. Just a few years ago we were staring down the barrel of an $18 billion deficit and 2014-15 will see us get across the line into a surplus position. If we are able to achieve that we will be one of the few Western countries in the world to be able to achieve it. That is absolutely fantastic. It is proved by the facts the actuals. We are actually improving on the forecasts. We are holding our expenses on track and our revenue is actually above and better than what we are forecasting. That is on the back of 3 percent growth last year and growth is forecast to go forward again. That will allow us to keep our debt down.So for Mr Damien O’Connor to stand and say that this Budget would not benefit all New Zealanders is absolute rubbish. It will hold our debt at no higher than 38 percent of GDP and then we have a goal of getting it back down to 20 percent. And Mr O’Rourke again will vote against that in this Budget. Shame on you Mr O’Rourke.What that is actually delivering and the really exciting thing—because it is tough; often employment is an indicator lagging behind economic growth—is what we saw in the first quarter of this year. It is exciting news: the unemployment rate dropping from 6.9 percent down to 6.2 percent. That meant 38000 additional jobs—Hon David Cunliffe: How many percent above your targets was that?Denis O’Rourke: What about the 170000?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —into the economy in the first quarter. Opposition members do not like that do they? It does not go with their story to see us actually delivering jobs. And again they will vote against that. In terms of restoring the economy back to surplus Opposition members—Mr O’Rourke Labour and the Greens—are against it. They do not want us back in surplus they do not want us bringing our debt back and they do not want the economy growing.The third part of our plan for all New Zealanders is to build a more competitive and productive economy. That is being driven strongly by our Business Growth Agenda. Today I want to focus particularly on building export markets because that is a big and important focus of growing the economy. I want to focus particularly on my responsibilities as Associate Minister of Tourism in that regard. As a country we havenow set a goal of getting from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP through our exports. That is a huge task to take on but tourism can deliver strongly in that area.Our Business Growth Agenda has a number of initiatives that we have been ticking off as we go forward including a real focus on growing the Asian markets. That is exciting. The opportunities out of Asia are just absolutely fantastic. We are spending $10 million per year on a major events fund to bring events to this country. New Zealand First will vote against that as well. We have got a convention centre off the ground and not only in Auckland; we have got convention centre plans for Christchurch and for Queenstown. The Opposition will vote against them.Our Māori Tourism Action Plan is very exciting. The leveraging of the Hobbit movies has been huge for this country and is actually growing more tourism particularly from our traditional markets such as Germany. We have rolled out the Cycle Trail—a $50 million investment into one of the most exciting tourism initiatives that we have ever seen in this country.Denis O’Rourke: You’ve got to be joking.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Just to go out and ride—try this Mr O’Rourke. Go out and try cycling on one of these. I know it would be difficult for you but actually go and try it and see the New Zealanders and the international tourists who are just loving that. We are also bringing new and improved airline services into the country with the likes of Hawaiian Airlines flying in here now giving us direct routes up into mainland United States.That is what we have been doing. The exciting thing is that this Budget delivers $158 million on top of our existing spend into the tourist industry. That is phenomenal—a 40 percent increase in the Budget. And do you know why that is? This initiative will drive growth across our country. It will drive the opportunities that we are trying to achieve through our plan. We are actually investing in this for all New Zealanders. So let us have a quick look at that. There is $24.5 million to support growth in our existing markets. So we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; we still have markets like the United Kingdom the United States of America Japan Germany Australia and China—our key traditional markets—and we are going to invest more money to bring those markets to New Zealand.The exciting news is the investment of $44.5 million into three emerging markets—three new emerging markets—of India Indonesia and Latin America. These are wonderful opportunities. I know that my colleague here Mr Bakshi is really excited about the opportunity to bring lots of Indian tourists down here to New Zealand on our shoulder season. I think that is fantastic. They do not tend to come here so much in the middle of our main season but in the shoulder season. That helps us to grow the markets.We are investing $20 million to target high-value spending visitors because the trend historically in the last few years has been more visitors but actually lower spending so we really want to focus on that high-value end of the market. We are investing $34 million to bring new business events down here to support the convention centres and to support a range of events throughout the country which again are exciting opportunities to grow the economy to grow our export dollars. But also another $28 million is part of that $158 million for the tourism growth partnership investing and helping to add value to the tourism industry and once again grow our export earnings from that. The Opposition will vote against that initiative. It will vote against jobs in this country. It is unbelievable.I just want to finish with the fourth plank of our plan and that is to deliver better public services. Once again the Opposition will vote against this as well. Despite tough economic times the Government has held itself accountable to lift service levels acrossthe State sector. I mean when you are faced with many departments—such as my own the Department of Internal Affairs; a wonderful department—that have had to deliver service increases in a period when they have also had to deliver an 8 to 10 percent efficiency dividend that is a remarkable achievement and I want to compliment my team at the Department of Internal Affairs on what they have been able to achieve. But during the same period they have also rolled out some pretty amazing new services. A good example is the passports online service which just yesterday achieved 70000 online renewals—Hon Member: How many?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —within a 5-month period—70000. That is at a 19 percent reduction on the level of cost for passports than we previously did and actually it is on average a 3-day turn-round time. That is a remarkable achievement.Simon O’Connor: How much?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: It took 3 days on average to turn round those passports. So this Budget will also deliver some key funding in there for result area 10 which my department is responsible for. Our goal there is to lift the ability for all Kiwis to liaise to work with Government on an online system. So our aim is to get the common transactions up to 70 percent of citizens using that system by 2017. We have got specific funding in the Budget to do that—$2.9 million of collaborative funding across the departments to work together to deliver better services for this country and we are seeing great results. Already within about 18 months we have seen an increase from 29 percent to 41 percent of people using online Government services. That is absolutely magic.On top of that there is additional funding of $14.5 billion to roll out the igovt or the RealMe service which will once again leverage up online services for this country delivering better services for New Zealanders. And once again the Opposition will vote against that. I am excited about this Budget I am excited about the future for New Zealand and I think that the opportunities ahead of us for our country are like never before. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The objectives of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill are a major Budget issue and housing as we all know is a major concern in many parts of New Zealand. The bill represents the Government’s solutions to fix the housing crisis in this country. It is of course about time that the Government acted. It has fiddled while the housing market in New Zealand burns hot especially in Auckland and Christchurch and several other places. Very few first home seekers can now afford to even dream of buying a home in this country. The great Kiwi expectation of a homeowning democracy lies in ashes. The Government is now belatedly trying to conjure up a phoenix from those ashes but it is far too little and it is far too late.The basic problem with the Government’s actions is that they are under-reactive to a huge problem suddenly realised. It is based on simple expediency rather than a balanced approach. It favours developers’ agendas and sidelines local democracy. It is ad hoc rather than strategic. It is careless about good planning and substitutes it with quick-fix band-aid solutions. It is superficial rather than well considered. It is short term and not an enduring long-term plan which New Zealand needs. No doubt profiteers are already buying up land that might be used for special housing areas.The Government has assumed that freeing up the land supply will work. But will that really mean lower home prices? Will it even mean that the rate of increase of home prices will be curbed? There is no apparent research upon which the Government has based that assumption that freeing up land for development will really assist with housing affordability and it is housing affordability that is the real issue. First homeowners will see no real assistance to them buying a first home in the Budget provisions that have been presented to us.But there is some good. New Zealand First supports the concept of special housing areas in regions or districts identified by the Minister of Housing on the basis of the criteria proposed but it would allow special housing areas only on the basis of a genuine accord with local government or where there is genuine disagreement and not contrived disagreement by the Minister acting alone. Because the Minister alone will have the power to create special housing areas if there is no accord it is necessary that such accords be genuinely negotiated and that councils not be bullied into them.The way the bill is drafted it will be an “agree or else” scenario for councils so an important question arises as to what constitutes disagreement because it is that fact of disagreement that empowers the Minister to act alone. The bill should therefore state clearly that both the Minister and the council concerned have concluded on reasonable grounds that an accord is not possible and the bill falls short on those issues. There should also be a provision for partial or limited accords so that the Minister cannot simply assume the power to act alone on the basis of perhaps a single point of disagreement when there is agreement on most matters. We would want to see at least some opportunity for local public consultation by the council before finalising an agreement even if consultation is more limited than might usually be expected.We would also expect that the special housing areas would be approved within the established Resource Management Act principles rather than within the compromised bill the Government is currently pushing on to us. We see no need for the panic measures of the kind promoted by the Government in the proposed legislation. Our main concern would be the loss of local democracy with too much power given to the Minister of Housing. Of course we in Christchurch are very very used to that in the current circumstances.In practice developers would be looking for quick ticky-tacky developments rather than quality housing. There is a risk that developers would continue to optimise profits with large houses on large sections not the modest housing that New Zealand needs and that first home owners can afford. We also do not see any reference or intention to try to integrate these special housing areas into transport health and other strategies when New Zealand needs a much more integrated policy framework for all of those things. In other words it is not a strategic approach; it is a quick-fix ad hoc approach.New Zealand First would also oppose the width of the proposals concerning plan changes. We think these are too likely to completely compromise district plans. They need to be consistent with plan objectives. Coming from Christchurch I would have to say that we should be learning lessons from that city. There were far too many developments there for housing in inappropriate areas—housing built in areas that we all knew were subject to liquefaction subject to ground damage subject to rockfall in an earthquake subject to sea level rise or subject to flooding. The developments should not have gone on in those places. So it is very important that these sorts of proposals for special housing areas should be consistent with the objectives in district plans otherwise we are going to risk repeating the mistakes that we have seen the effects of in the city of Christchurch.Overall we think that we need to balance speed—which is needed—with quality because that is just as important a consideration. Although the special housing areas are an appropriate measure—but only with the amendments I have suggested—I would ask how this measure alone would really help homeowners seeking their first homes. How would it help them to provide the deposit that is necessary? How would it help them even if they could find a deposit to finance a new home? The answer is that there is actually nothing in the Government’s proposals that goes anywhere near far enough toadequately address those sorts of issues. The expectation that making more land available within district or city plans will bring prices down enough is fraught. It addresses only availability and only in a limited way. It does not adequately address affordability at all. Supply alone will not result in solving the affordability issue.Much more is needed and New Zealand First has much more comprehensive policies for housing. Our first objective is to simply see that homeownership is within the reach of all New Zealanders. We would set up a special purpose agency for those purposes and we believe it should establish a land bank—land actually purchased by the Government to make it available for housing in the proposed special housing areas. We want to see long-term agreements for sale and purchase made available to first home seekers at an initial concessionary interest rate so that they can buy a section without having to come up with the full capital cost up front. They could then pay it off over 25 years and they would get title to the land so that they could then borrow from their bank to build a home on the section.The cost breakdown for a new home is about 36 percent for the average cost of a section 4 percent for consents and permits and the remaining 60 percent for the house itself and associated costs. So under the New Zealand First policy a first home seeker would be able to avoid over one-third of the total capital cost up front with the long-term agreement for sale and purchase of the land on the initial concessionary rate of 2 percent that we propose. We also think that there needs to be a comprehensive New Zealand housing strategy addressing a whole range of things such as the role of the Earthquake Commission; compulsory insurance; quality housing provisions such as earthquake-proofing leakproofing and insulation; and a whole range of other things. In the end New Zealand First will support the bill because there is some good in it but it does not go far enough. It is a move in the right direction—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): This Budget tells us something very critical about this Parliament. It compares the parties that have a vision for New Zealand with the parties opposite which are visionless for New Zealand. I say they are visionless for New Zealand because they oppose everything this Government tries to do to help grow the economy and they oppose everything this Government tries to do to help New Zealanders get back into jobs.This National-led Government is all about getting on with the job. We are all about helping to grow the economy. We are all about helping to cut red tape for New Zealanders and seeing more New Zealanders get back into work. The contrast on the other side and what we have heard throughout this whole debate is a Green-Labour-led option under which New Zealanders would see a recipe for more debt and more inflation in the economy. Those parties would be printing a whole lot more money to really stymie the economy and we would see even more Government intervention in the lives of New Zealanders.The New Zealand public has shown us through a number of opinion polls now that they absolutely approve of this Government’s proposals for the future. They absolutely approve of the Budget that Bill English has put together for New Zealanders. It is a good Budget. It is a good Budget because it shows us on a track back to surplus. It shows us carefully managing the economy.We like to hear from Opposition members because they are often deluded when they talk about the economy. They like to think that the global financial crisis did not exist. They like to think that Labour has a plan that would have succeeded. Well actually the plan that Labour had which it left this Government with was a plan for a whole lot more debt. It was a plan that would have left New Zealanders with a decade’s worth ofprojected deficit. If Opposition members do not want to admit it they should just look at some of the graphs that came out with the Budget. The projected debt in the 2020s under this Government looks to be about 10 percent of GDP. In the 2020s under the plan left by Michael Cullen and the Opposition debt was projected to reach 60 percent of GDP.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Zero Crown debt—that’s what you inherited.JAMI-LEE ROSS: No no Mr Cosgrove. No no Mr Cosgrove. You need to spend some more time in Waimakariri. Actually debt was expected to be 60 percent of GDP in the 2020s. Have a look at the graphs. He is deluded—he is deluded. He just does not understand. He cannot read a graph.The party opposite left us with a decade’s worth of projected deficits. It would not have been good for New Zealand. We are getting back to surplus next year. David Parker likes to joke around with us and say that actually Labour would have got back to surplus as well. The only way that Labour would have got back to surplus would be with Russel Norman’s printing machine. That is the only way it would have got back to surplus. Russel Norman would have printed all the money that it needed so that it would not have to rack up the debt.Fortunately for New Zealand Michael Cullen had not thought about printing more money but had Labour ever coalesced with the Greens and had Russel Norman as Minister of Finance—which is probably what we will see in about 10 years’ time—there would have been a whole lot more money printed. Yes it might have got us back to surplus but it would have been at the expense of New Zealanders who would have seen huge inflation and it would not have been good.Business confidence is improving in this country. Our companies are becoming more competitive. Wages are growing and inflation is low. We have excellent growth considering the economic circumstances that the world has found itself in. New Zealanders are approving of that plan. New Zealanders are seeing more jobs created. Almost 60000 new jobs have been created in the economy.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where? Where? Ninety thousand kids unemployed.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Mr Cosgrove wants to ask where the jobs are. Well let us just go through the list of things that Mr Cosgrove and his mates on the other side oppose. These are the job creation schemes that they oppose. Every time we want to come up with ideas for new jobs those members oppose them. They oppose the Auckland convention centre which is going to see thousands of jobs created. They are opposed to that. TheHobbit law—they were opposed to that. That saw a whole lot of jobs created. They are opposed to everything that Amy Adams wants to do in the resource management sector that will make it easier for businesses to operate and that will make it easier for New Zealanders to employ people. They are opposed to oil and gas exploration. If the Greens ever get into Government the whole of Northland will probably be shut down because there will be no road to get up to Northland and everything that the people up there want to do to try to create jobs will be shut down as well. The Opposition wants to see more costs go on to New Zealand businesses through the emissions trading scheme and it opposes jobs being created in many of the manufacturing areas. A Labour-led Government would be a disaster for New Zealand. This country knows that the Budget and the track that we are on are good for New Zealand and it absolutely supports it.I am glad that the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke touched on housing because I am actually quite excited about the plan that this Government has for housing affordability in New Zealand. It has a plan for housing affordability particularly in Auckland through the Auckland Housing Accord legislation. I heard an unusual comment from Denis O’Rourke. He tried to tell us that land supply has almost noimpact at all on house prices. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment put out a very good document recently. It was about residential land availability in Auckland. It had an excellent graph. I am sure that it will be difficult for members to see across the House. Clayton Cosgrove probably does not have his glasses on. He might want to put them on. The document has a very good graph which pretty much shows that as the land availability in Auckland slowly declined through the land strangulation policies of local government the cost of land in Auckland gradually increased.It is not hard to see that housing supply actually has a very big impact on the cost of land. You know the Opposition likes to think that it is going to be able to provide houses for Aucklanders at $300000 each. Actually roughly right now section costs are about $325000 per section but we are working on it. We are working on it because we recognise that land supply is a big issue. We recognise that we need to have more houses coming on board for New Zealanders.The Auckland Housing Accord that has been agreed with Len Brown and the legislation that is going through Parliament will be hugely beneficial for New Zealanders. I am disappointed—I am disappointed—that some parties in this House are opposed to that because the reality is that we need to build more houses in Auckland. We need to build more houses in New Zealand. At the moment roughly only 3500 houses are being built in Auckland every year. That simply is not enough. We are going to pretty much triple that—actually quadruple that—to an average of 13000 houses per year to be built under the housing accord that has been signed with the Auckland Council.I have heard some comments about the legislation that is going through and there has been some discussion out there. I simply say to those members in Auckland and those members of the Auckland Council who are opposed to the Auckland Housing Accord and the legislation that we just have to get on with the job. We need to stop fluffing around. We need to stop delaying addressing the housing issues in Auckland and actually working together with the Auckland Council is the best way to achieve that. But this Government knows that if local government is not prepared to come on board and work as intensively as needs to be done to address the housing issues in New Zealand then we will just have to box on ahead and get it done for it.New Zealanders do not want to see any more delays. New Zealanders do not want to see the housing issue being left for much longer. New Zealanders and particularly Aucklanders and the types of people whom I represent in my electorate of Botany want to see more houses coming on board. They want to see more land being made available and they want to see red tape being cut. They do not want to see a continuation of the delays and the problems that we have had in the past. Land strangulation policies in Auckland where local government through the Resource Management Act process has deliberately decided it wants to constrain the availability of land for Aucklanders have absolutely led to a lack of supply of land which has led to housing costs increasing which has led to a poor situation for New Zealanders.We are working on addressing the cost of building materials. We are also working on addressing some of the social housing issues that we have got. There is a remarkable programme that Minister Smith is working on to get more bedrooms and more State housing coming on board. We are spending a whole lot of money to insulate housing. We have got a very good story to tell about housing. It is going to be hugely beneficial for New Zealanders in the future. I challenge the Opposition to get on board. I challenge the Opposition to stop saying no to everything. I challenge the Opposition to stop saying no to more growth. [Interruption] I tell Rajen Prasad to realise that New Zealanders want more growth and they want more jobs. They do not want more debt they do not want the printing of money and they do not want a Labour-Greens Government.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I will tell you what this Opposition will say no to. It will say that no it is not good enough that there are 146000 people unemployed. This Opposition will stand with New Zealanders and say that no it is not good enough that there are 90000 young people not in education or training. This Opposition will say that no it is not good enough that this Government did not get off its backside and utilise what is a disaster in Christchurch but what is also a major opportunity and what is also the world’s biggest training scheme to train the 30000 or 40000 apprentices say that we need in Christchurch. Three years from that disaster they would have finished their apprenticeships and be the tradespeople we need rather than businesses as they do now because they cannot wait for this Government to wake up having to import our Irish brothers and sisters our Filipino brothers and sisters and others to come to fill the skills gap because this Government was asleep at the wheel and would not take advantage of the opportunity out of that tragedy. So we say no to that member Jami-Lee Ross to those things.In 2008 when that crowd over there took office it said that we were going to have—remember—the brighter future. There was a grand plan. There was a vision. Remember all those wonderful little commercials with the Prime Minister at I think it was the local private school—ironic though that is. At the same time as it throws a couple of million bucks to kids who need a feed in the morning it gives 11 million bucks in the Budget to private schools. That is one thing. But remember the vision. Remember the brighter future. This apparently is the party of sound financial managers. This is the party it said that understands our new business. This is the party that could run businesses like State-owned enterprises. Well I am glad the Minister for State Owned Enterprises is in here. That man could not run a bath let alone a State-owned enterprise with his mismanagement of for instance Solid Energy. He grins away over there in his little Cheshire cat way. You sad little man. That man was asleep on the couch in his office in the Beehive as the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit and Treasury kept telling him for over 2 years that Solid Energy which under a Labour administration was an export award - winning company returning tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayer every year was in trouble. He could have woken up picked up the newspaper and worked out that the international price of coal was going down the gurgler. He could have then picked up the phone and called his former mate—his former mate after he was shafted—Mr Palmer and said: “What’s plan B? How are we going to consolidate this asset preserve it and make sure that it is OK for the taxpayer in these tough financial times?”.Well the truth is that that Minister just like this Budget tinkered around minced around did not listen to the advice knew it and possibly did not read the reports and as a result we now know that his Government and his Prime Minister are now considering letting the whole show fall over. If that was not bad enough there is $395 million and counting down the gurgler thanks to his mismanagement and over 500 jobs lost. The last speaker talked about job creation and he talked about some programmes—a convention centre. But he also was going to list for us all these jobs that have been created. Remember the cycleway? I think there were a fish and chip shop and a bike shop that got a few jobs out of that. That went out the window. New Zealand was going to be the international financial centre of excellence—remember that? Well that went out the window as well. So there are 146000 people on the scrap heap in a two-speed economy in this country—some of the people doing very well; many of our people doing very badly and scraping for it—as a legacy of this Government. There are 500 Solid Energy workers and counting down the gurgler. No more can Tony Ryall or John Key or Bill English ever claim to be sound financial managers when they went to sleep and watched a company the people’s asset go down the gurgler. The last speakertalked about an auction. Well I predict this. Solid Energy will be the biggest fire sale that we have seen in our time as they allow that company to tip over.It is true that New Zealand is in a two-speed regime a two-speed economy. It is the case that we now have the haves and the have-nots—big time. Let us look at jobs and the amount of jobs created. Well since Steven Joyce became tertiary education and employment Minister the Government says that there have been a few thousand jobs created. Where were the brighter future and the grand plan to actually assist the 146000 people who are on the scrap heap thanks to these guys? This is a Government that inherited zero Crown debt. The last speaker—I cannot remember his name—talked about debt. Well I will tell you what the Government inherited: zero Crown debt and 9 years of surpluses—not projections not rumours not spin but facts—zero Crown debt and 9 years of surpluses which the Government then mismanaged and squandered. So those members cannot stand up today and crow about being sound financial managers when you look at their litany of disasters particularly the State-owned enterprise Minister who will go down in history as the worst State-owned enterprise Minister in living history. Since the promulgation of State-owned enterprises as a piece of legislation he is the worst and biggest mismanager of State-owned enterprises. He sat there and twiddled his little thumbs he did not listen to the advice he did nothing and people are paying for that of course.Then we look at things like housing affordability which is skyrocketing all over the country. We cannot blame the earthquake for what is happening in Auckland or other parts of the country. If you look at the earthquake in Christchurch and the so-called grand plan I say to those members over there that 3 years down the track there is still a large number of the population where I live who are hurting because they cannot get their Earthquake Commission claims because they cannot unlock their insurance money and because they cannot actually take charge—not through inability or through laziness or anything like that—and they simply cannot get their hands on the levers to take control of their own lives.But what does this crowd do in the Budget? Well not a lot—a bit of money sprinkled here and a bit of money sprinkled there. In some ways you could call this Budget a bit of a “Holyoake Budget” because old “Kiwi Keith” was known to be a tinkerer. He tinkered around the edges. I think he is a sort of hero for the Prime Minister. But “Kiwi Keith” and Sir Keith Holyoake’s Government took the record for just tinkering around the edges doing a few populist things not actually upsetting the apple cart and just mowing along—you know “She’ll be right. We can hoodwink the people.”Look at child poverty. Child poverty is a disgrace in this country. We have five measures I am told—five I believe—to actually gauge and measure the extent of child poverty although I do think that if you walk around the streets of many of our cities or most or all of our cities you can get a pretty good gauge very very quickly. It is a disgrace. There is a saying that if you measure it you can do something about it because you actually know the quantum of the problem. But this crowd gets up and will not even use a measure of child poverty. It will not even take the abacus out in Gerry Brownlee’s case or the calculator and actually say: “We will measure the quantum that is child poverty. We will put a definition around it we will measure it we will front it and we will do something about it because we know the extent that it is.” These guys will not do even that. They get up in the House day after day and just simply refuse to use any measure to calculate the disgrace that they have put in place in this country in respect of child poverty.Action is needed we know around superannuation. Superannuation costs have already increased from $7.3 billion in 2008 to $10.2 billion this year. We know that thecost of superannuation will exceed the cost of primary secondary and tertiary education within 2 years yet what is the Government’s answer to that? I have been in the United States recently with colleagues from across the House. It is a huge issue in the United States. That country is just starting to grapple with how it deals with its key entitlement programme. Here this Government believes that the way you secure superannuation is to just let it go and let it blow out whereas we on this side of the House say that it needs to be reformed it needs to be protected and it needs to be stabilised. But we have got to make a few hard decisions for people my age and a wee bit younger in terms of what contribution we make.So I ask where is the vision? I say to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises who will jump up in a second and take a call that this is his opportunity as the worst Minister for State Owned Enterprises in our history who has presided over more mismanagement than any other to actually explain why it was he was asleep at the wheel why it was—the wrist will be OK mate—that he did nothing why it was that he took no advice why it is that he will not be accountable and why it is that he will not even front to the media with some answers because Minister people want answers. They want to know why it is that there is $395 million that they will have to cough up and why over 500 people and counting are unemployed because of his mismanagement.Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I moveThat the debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Third ReadingsDebate resumed from 28 May on the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill the Auctioneers Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Summary Offences Amendment Bill.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill and associated bills in their third and final reading. The laws governing criminal procedure are now over 50 years old and well out of date. The current criminal procedure system has been characterised by four key areas.The first area is avoidable delays. We know that if court cases are drawn out to create problems for everybody in the system you create problems for the victim and the victim has the agony of the court case being drawn out. There are also problems for the defendant and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Delays also create problems for the juries. People have busy lives that are interrupted and they are paid a minimum attendance fee to participate in our justice system. When there are excessive delays because of these inefficiencies then people are less likely to be supportive.The second area is excessive complexity. With legislation being spread across several statutes and seven different categories of offence it was described by the Law Commission as an impenetrable maze.Excessive cost is the third area and that excessive cost is caused by inefficiencies. Wherever we can within the Public Service this Government is keen to ensure that we reduce those inefficiencies to make sure that things are done right and they are done properly but also that they are done efficiently. Our court system had problems which meant that the court cases took longer and we have an obligation to New Zealand to reduce those costs.The fourth and last area is a reliance on paper-based systems. It does not make sense in a modern era increasingly dominated by electronic technology that we would notmodernise that system. In response to such concerns this Government passed the Criminal Procedure Act in 2011 and its 14 associated amendment Acts in October of 2011 to modernise and simplify criminal procedure. Reforming criminal procedure makes the justice system more responsive to the needs of victims and witnesses. Again this is another milestone in National’s commitment to overhaul the justice system and focus on victims.In summarising and finally this has been a thorough process involving key stakeholders like the Law Commission with the Associate Minister of Justice setting out some real changes in our justice system that will improve it considerably including the changes made in Supplementary Order Paper 233. The reforms created in this legislation have the potential to free up 10000 court sitting hours with 31200 fewer court events 300 to 500 fewer jury trials and a 6 to 9-week reduction in the average time to complete a jury trial. There was some controversy over this legislation in the sense that it provided a regulatory power that is commonly known at the “Henry VIII” clause which is a power to make regulations that amend statutes. The Justice and Electoral Committee and the Minister involved Chester Borrows agreed that this was inappropriate and it was taken out.This legislation has progressed with a thorough process. It has been properly researched and carefully planned and it will make a real difference. These reforms will ensure that a timely justice system is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and the community. I commend these nine bills arising from the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill to the House.Bills read a third time.Education Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 29 May.Clauses 1 to 3 (continued)TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Talofa Mr Chair. As I was saying last night before we went to the break I wanted to make sure that we understood that any conversation around the development of policy or procedures by the Ministry of Education with stakeholders must include the boards of trustees. It is the boards of trustees that hold the discipline hearings. This is something that is not well known to most people because most people do not end up in front of a board of trustees for a discipline hearing. Very few children inside our school system end up inside this process.I want to clarify that when we call it a discipline hearing it is somewhat misleading. The purpose of this process is to identify with an issue make sure that all the evidence around the issue dealing with that student is put on to the table and make sure that every effort is made by the school the staff and the board of trustees to provide the supports necessary to re-engage that student safely—safely for themselves and safely for everybody else in the school—with their education. So it is the boards of trustees at the end of the day that have the power under current legislation to implement random drug-testing for example. Random drug-testing or the ability to take bodily samples—for example urine tests—was one of the conversations we had and this goes to the commencement clause. This goes to the reason why very clear guidelines need to be worked out with all stakeholders prior to the commencement of these clauses and one of those major stakeholders if not the major stakeholder is the boards of trustees.I was expressing my ill ease—it was a conversation had and Mr Sabin put in a lot of conversation around the surrender and retention parts of this Education AmendmentBill—and I still carry some ill ease that the bill refers to teachers constantly as opposed to boards of trustees in the legislation. Although the teachers are on the front line and there is an aspect of this bill that has been put into place to keep them safe just as it has been put into place to keep students safe the boards of trustees are actually the people who set those governance rules who create those policies and then delegate down authority to implement those policies to staff through senior management. So at the end of the day after much discussion it was agreed by a majority in the Education and Science Committee that it was the teachers at the front line who needed to be referred to in the legislation. That was the recommendation of the officials.I trust that that will work. I trust that teachers do not feel empowered by this legislation to go beyond the boundaries that they are delegated down to do by their boards of trustees and I trust that prior to the commencement date the ministry will work closely with all those groups to make sure that we all clearly understand that this is about safety not about restriction of freedom and that this is about working together for the best outcomes for all our students including those students who show up at our discipline hearings.The other parts that we are discussing tonight are around the title of the bill. I did think that there is some room—I mean the Education Amendment Bill is a somewhat innocuous little title for this bill. So I have a couple of suggestions. One is the “Bill English Outlasts Outwits Outplays”—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): The Education Amendment Bill—let me pick up from where Tracey Martin was on this bill. The title of this bill is an innocuous one is it not? The Education Amendment Bill—it could be anything but actually the title does not reflect the magnitude of change that is being proposed in this legislation. The changes are probably some of the biggest changes for decades. In particular the changes around the charter schools are the ones that I wish to focus on and I want to look at them in the context of the title and also look at what is being changed and reflect that in the title.The charter school provisions are providing for a number of things that Labour is strongly opposed to. They give schools the right to have unqualified and unregistered teachers and that includes the principal of the charter school. It also means that the school will not have to follow theNew Zealand Curriculum. So I have been reflecting on this title the Education Amendment Bill and thinking that if we are serious about this and if the Government is so proud of this initiative let us call it something that does reflect what this bill is actually about. It could be called the “Charter Schools (Parents Don’t Deserve to Have a Voice) Bill” because what this bill provides for is doing away with our democratic provisions in our school system our elected boards of trustees that provide parents and the community with a say on what happens in their local school. That is all done away with. Instead the sponsor of the school can determine what happens in that school. That includes as I say staff who are not necessarily qualified as teachers or indeed registered to teach. Maybe it could be called the “Charter Schools (Profit Before Pupils) Bill’ because what this bill does is allow schools to operate at a profit.We had quite a lot of discussion last night about why it is that this legislation excludes charter schools from coverage from the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act. We had a lot of debate about what was excluded in terms of the Official Information Act. It was pointed out by the Minister that those things that are in the contract of the charter school would be able to be accessed from the ministry by people using the Official Information Act if they needed to. But a lot of debate last night was about what information would and would not be included in that reporting against the contract. The information held by the school will not be covered by the OfficialInformation Act. So I wonder whether perhaps an alternative title for the bill could be “Charter Schools (Lack of Transparency and Accountability) Bill” because I think the fact is that information about what is going on in these schools at least in part will not be covered by the Official Information Act and certainly the Ombudsman is not able to be used in relation to charter schools. I was not there for the submissions process but I understand the Ombudsman was absolutely critical—absolutely determinedly critical in fact—of what the Government was proposing here and the lack of transparency the lack of accountability in this legislation. I think “Charter Schools (Lack of Transparency and Accountability) Bill” may well be a good name for this bill.I want to go back to where I started from. I am somebody who values education very highly as I know my colleagues on this side of the Chamber do and we recognise the importance of teachers and those who lead teachers—principals—and their very critical role in terms of delivering quality education. I think I am going to go with the title “Charter School Students Don’t Deserve Qualified and Registered Teachers Bill” because that is what is enabled by this legislation.Teacher quality is something that those across the other side of the Chamber say they believe in. At a time when the Government claims it is focusing on increasing the quality of teaching—in Budget 2012 the Government indicated that it intended to introduce a postgraduate qualification as a requirement for trainee teachers—this bill allows charter schools to employ staff with no formal teaching qualifications at all. That is like saying that in the end anybody could teach. There are no specific requirements of teachers. There is no specific knowledge base. There are no particular competencies or skill requirements of teachers. In the end perhaps if you are funny enough or engaging enough you could teach. That is what it is really saying—that this is not a real profession. Well actually we all know if we are honest that that is not true. We all know that that is not true.Even the principal of a charter school does not need to be a qualified teacher. You have to say to yourself—and all of us I am sure visit schools—that the role that is played by a principal as a leader of education and learning in a school is absolutely critical. A good principal has to understand what teachers do. They have to understand the learning environment. Having as a principal somebody who is not a qualified or registered teacher just does not make sense. I have to say that that just seems to me to reinforce the need to change the title of this bill to make it really clear to New Zealanders who hear about this legislation going through that it is not the innocuous Education Amendment Bill. This is the “Charter School Students Don’t Deserve Qualified and Registered Teachers Bill”.There is a unique set of skills that teachers require. Apparently the Prime Minister on the other hand said that people should not be “hung up” on the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children in charter schools. So let us not be “hung up” about that says the Prime Minister. But actually not that long ago that same Prime Minister was telling parents that it is not the class sizes that matter but the quality of the teaching that we are getting in our schools. How are we going to get this quality teaching if we are able to have unqualified and unregistered teachers across that school? It is astounding really that the Prime Minister thinks that those two statements go together.Part of National’s promise to improve teacher quality does not make sense because it said that it wanted to improve teacher quality at the same time that it cut funding for teacher professional development by $15 million per year.Hon Simon Bridges: Where is this speech going?CAROL BEAUMONT: This speech is about what this bill is really about. It is not about the title the Education Amendment Bill. My suggestion if we are being honest isthat this bill should be called the “Charter School Students Don’t Deserve Qualified and Registered Teachers Bill”.I know that the Government likes to say that teacher opposition to this bill is all because they are unionists and they are trying to protect their wages and conditions. I have been appalled during the last term and the current term of this Government by the way it thinks it is appropriate to attack teachers constantly to undermine teachers when we all know that the community actually values and respects teachers and that their job is critically important to the future social and economic development of this country. Let me say that it was not just teachers teacher unions principals and principals’ organisations that raised concerns about this bill and the lack of a requirement for qualified and registered teachers—not at all. The National Council of Women New Zealand’s largest women’s organisation which is made up of branches from all around New Zealand and women from an absolutely diverse range of professions and organisations in its submission to the Education and Science Committee was absolutely adamant that having unqualified and unregistered teachers in our schools was the wrong way to go.Hon Simon Bridges: They did not.CAROL BEAUMONT: It is not just about teachers. They did say that Mr Bridges. Have a look at the submission.I just want to say that this concern and this disquiet about what is being proposed in this legislation are widely shared in the community—by teachers and principals yes indeed but also by the wider community and the parents who know what a difference teachers can make. If we are all honest—Dr CAM CALDER (National): I moveThat the question be now put.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I really appreciate this opportunity having spent the last hour on my back coughing when I would have liked to be critiquing. However now is my one chance; I am going to have a go. I recognise that where we have got to is the commencement and title clauses of the Education Amendment Bill and I am really really disappointed to be standing here at all on this particular issue but it is par for the course. I do not think that children will get used to it and I think that is the point. It is not actually about the business agenda; it is actually about our kids.Let us have a look at the title. I would agree with some of my colleagues that there should be a change of title. The Education Amendment Bill is a meaningless and innocuous title for something that is really the “Charter for Disasters Bill”. I would like to call it the “Charters for Disasters Bill” or “Accountability is Just a Secret Bill” because that is really what it is all about. It is about a disaster for education and it is about secrecy in terms of contracting which may be perfectly acceptable for some businesses but actually has no bearing on education for our kids. The title is misleading and disingenuous which is not usual in Parliament but this one in particular does not tell the public what is happening here which is probably one of the most profound shifts in the history of education legislation away from what it says in Part 1 of the Education Act 1989: “free primary and secondary education”.“Free” is such an interesting word and “free” is what the schools in Britain are called. That is their title: free schools. In America they are called charter schools. When we are talking about the title of this bill both those words need to be considered because Aotearoa New Zealand in the 1980s introduced charters for every single school. What we did not do is introduce secrecy privatisation unregistered teachers no boards of trustees any hours that the school chooses to set a contract that is only with the Government a sponsor who has no educational background and so on. That is what “charter” meant to the citizens of this country. It was not perfect—Tomorrow’s Schools has its critics and there are things we need to do for it—but rather than chucking that outwhat is happening is an undermining through this really odd initiative that has failed elsewhere. At the very best all the research can be called mixed in terms of its results.Let us a spade a spade in the title of the bill. I think it would be a refreshing change. I think that perhaps we should call the bill the “Throw Away the Rule Book Bill” because the rule book around what works for an equitable quality public education system is being undermined by this. What I would also like to call the bill is the “Privatisation (Trojan Horse) Education Amendment Bill” because it is actually a Trojan Horse for a fascinating speech that Heather Roy made some time ago which I wrote a blog about called “Bad News from Bunnythorpe”. She made it in Bunnythorpe which is an interesting place to announce the end of quality public education but it sums up the way of life in this country in some ways in that disastrous educational policy was whispered in an obscure small town called Bunnythorpe. I am sure it is a very good place but did it need Heather Roy announcing that vouchers and privatisation were the solution to education? That was prior to the election then we had the cup of tea then we had the coalition agreement and now we have disastrous legislation that will undermine something that is very very important to people in this country which is the concept of a local school being good enough for all children.I am not saying—no one is—that we cannot innovate and improve the quality of the public education system that we have; of course we can. I do not think anybody wants to deny that there are real issues from poverty from disadvantage and from the growing gap between the richest and the poorest families attending schools and that there is the need for a much greater level of cultural responsiveness in the diversity of Aotearoa. That has always been needed. But we do have special character sections in our education legislation. We do have a whole range of mechanisms such as kura kaupapa that need resourcing.If we are going to talk about the title of the bill we should really be honest and say that this bill is not about any of the stated goals that we hold dear around free primary and secondary education; it is about facilitating business. So the bill could perhaps be called the “Business Facilitation in Education Bill”. I have had a look at some of the international groups that have expressed an interest in setting up charters and they are franchises. It is basically an opportunity for international educational franchises to take over.Another opportunity is there for unqualified teachers. This is what we heard at the select committee and this is why the title is mild and misleading. What we heard was that if you have failed to keep your registration—sorry not you Mr Chair—if there has been a failure to keep your registration up to date or you have committed some kind of misdemeanour that the Teachers Council is concerned about do not worry; that person will be able to go and teach in a charter school. We are going to have this bizarre scenario where half the teachers in a school—or fewer because there is no requirement for a particular number to be registered—will be registered and the others will not. We will not know why the parents will not know why and that is the Government’s idea of accountability in education. That is the Government’s idea of safety for our children. It is extremely odd and totally inconsistent that it is building this into the Education Amendment Bill as it is titled.I am very concerned about these titles. I think that as well as reflecting that unregistered teachers are being allowed access through this bill the title could also be the “Good at Lecturing? You Can Easily Be a Teacher Bill” because what I heard at the select committee from some people—not the submitters but other members of the committee—is that they did not understand the huge difference between lecturing in quantum physics at a university and facilitating children’s learning in a primary school. And so the idea from some people was that you could just hijack some lecturers from auniversity who have a degree throw them into a charter school and then everything will be fine. Of course 6-year-olds will really enjoy being lectured because lecturing is learning to some people—just shows you what they do not know about learning.The most offensive thing about this Education Amendment Bill and its title is that it does not expose the fact that children’s learning is not well served by privatisation and competition. I would much prefer that we call it just the “Competition Bill”. The league table is the way to go. The sports team model for education which says that we should all be in league tables and that we should all compete because people learn best by competing is worse than a fallacy. It is incredibly destructive. There is plenty of evidence of that all over the world when you read into the evidence about the creation of these so-called free so-called charter so-called helpful for education schools. I am also very concerned about the idea that perhaps a person could finish their university degree in their subject be considered an expert and then be hijacked into a school where they had 6 weeks’ training. Charter schools will be well positioned to take those people but it will not work for kids.So we have a bill that is called the Education Amendment Bill and is supposedly about free primary and secondary education but it creates risk. It creates risk for parents trying to decide what will be sustainable because if the schools fall over—and they often do in other parts of the world—then your child has been mucked around. People are vulnerable about what is going to be best for their kids’ education. They need to know. Christchurch yesterday is a case in point. There is huge vulnerability. There is not a need for lab rat experimentation. Therefore the title of this bill really needs to change. It really needs to be—I think my favourite is the Trojan Horse one actually. I think the Trojan Horse one is my favourite because yes it is educational—it sort of inspires history. We think about what happened in Troy when the wooden horse was rolled through and everybody was smiling thinking the siege was over—but the siege was not over. The siege was just beginning. That is what we see in the title of this bill: an innocuous title when the siege of Troy after years of battle has just begun. Out of the wooden horse will come the warriors of privatisation who will break it open and create an amazingly well-resourced experiment which no doubt the Government in its first few years will refuse to allow to fail whatever the definition of success is.I certainly do not think that competition will work for these kids. The experience overseas in terms of this bill is that charter schools counsel out students who fail because it is a contract and if you fail to meet the contract it is over—it is over. That is what is so destructive from the students’ point of view. I am sure the experiment will not fail in the first few years because it will be heavily resourced but we could have done a whole lot better with that $19 million we wasted in the Budget on this. We could have done a whole lot better with our ethos around education. We could have stuck to the title of section 3 of the Education Act “Right to free primary and secondary education”. We should add some words. If the Green Party was going to amend the Education Act we would add words around creating a quality local culturally responsive and equitable public system for the benefit of all students. We would not play games with the future of our children.MELISSA LEE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I appreciate that this is my first call on this bill the Education Amendment Bill and I hope the first of many in this Committee stage. I have come to the Chamber because I am extremely concerned about the bill. I am extremely concerned. I once held the office of Minister of Health. I am trying to imagine a health parallel for this bill. Imagine public money going into a private hospital where by special dispensation from an Act of Parliament they had unqualified doctors unqualified nurses and medicines that did not have to go throughMedsafe and that were never trialled. Just imagine putting your family into a hospital where you could not by law have access to your medical records. It sounds so preposterous that it is creating excitement—even disorder—around the Chamber. But that is exactly what this bill says about education.From the people who brought you Novopay the people who brought you the Christchurch schools debacle the people who brought you the record number of unfunded contingencies in the education budget and the people who brought you increases in funding for private schools while cutting money for public schools they are bringing you the big granddaddy of them all the innocuous-sounding Education Amendment Bill. This is the thin end of a very very dangerous wedge. This is the idea that private for-profit interests are going to be on the take for public money with no scrutiny no financial accountability no curriculum no qualifications required for teachers and no qualifications required for principals. You have got to ask what an appropriate title is for this ridiculous piece of rubbish. The answer is: how about the “Education (You’ve Got to be Joking) Amendment Bill”?This is so ridiculous it is like some neo-liberal Martian—let us call him “John Banks”—landed on planet Earth and thought that they were going to lay waste to public education because they just hate anything with the word “public” in it. This is so ridiculous. Wake up New Zealand. Your treasured education system is going to be ripped apart into a two-tier for-profit discriminating against minorities discriminating against the poor pile of rubbish—pile of rubbish. If you do not like a two-tier health system you are not going to like a two-tier education system.Or perhaps we should call this the “Education (Death of the Kiwi Dream) Bill”. The death of the Kiwi dream that the daughter of a doctor and the son of a driver could grow up and have equal access—Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am struggling to see how this fits in with the title and commencement of the bill. Perhaps the member could be brought back to the actual clauses.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not really need any assistance on this. Relevance is a pertinent issue particularly on clauses 1 to 3. I just remind the member to bring us into his realm of thinking pertinent to clauses 1 to 3.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you Mr Chair. Of course we are discussing the title of the bill and that is an opportunity as Standing Orders dictate and as you have previously reminded us to draw together the general themes of what the bill is intending and of course that is what we are trying to do by emphasising the craziness of disembowelling the concept of public education in this country. It is a very serious matter.All hyperbole aside all jokes and argy-bargy aside this is a precious thing that we are handling here. This is the idea that Kiwi kids all should have a good start in life—in fact all deserve an equal start in life. We know that in our country we are already too far from that. We know just from recent international surveys that we are now one of the most unequal countries in the entire OECD—the rich countries’ club. And you know that Kiwi dream that we grew up with the egalitarian idea that everybody could have a fair suck of the sav that everybody deserved a fair chance in life? That is going so fast in this country and it is going further under National Governments.The Labour and Green Opposition parties are incredibly concerned by this bill. We are worried that its genesis was out of a cup of tea a shabby deal between National and its neo-liberal wet-dream ACT partner. We are worried about—Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to labour the point but I am still struggling to see the relevance in the member’s comments in relation to the clauses.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I know that the member is a relatively new member but I think relevance—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: Well—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No please sit down. When the member gets up to give a contribution to help the Chair decide attacking a member on his length of experience is completely outside because then I think the member is standing up to attack the member and that is not appropriate. If the member wants to make a contribution I will hear it but he must desist from making comment on other members.Hon Trevor Mallard: And I apologise Mr Chair. I was being generous rather than attacking him—I think he would know if I was.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You must not speak on my ruling.Hon Trevor Mallard: The point that I am trying to make is that the question of relevance is one for the Chair to determine and not one for which points of order are meant to be taken.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is correct on that point.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let us take this down to the level of evidence. We have heard from Government members that it does not matter if charter schools have unqualified teachers it does not matter if the Official Information Act and other forms of accountability to the public for public money do not apply and it does not matter if principals do not need teaching qualifications. None of that matters. Well I think we should look at the evidence. Here is a very interesting study from none other than Stanford University. As it happens it is a private university—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Simon O’Connor.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without wishing to create any sense of obligation on your good self you will have noted that this was my first call on this bill and—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Excuse me please. I am going to hear the call of Simon O’Connor.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.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.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Immigration Amendment BillIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive amendmentsDARIEN FENTON (Labour): Thank you very much for the chance to speak on the Committee stage of the Immigration Amendment Bill. I think that in speaking to Part 1 it is worth reminding ourselves because it has been a little while since the second reading what this bill is about—well what gave rise to it—and why we have this bill in the Committee stage.Sue Moroney: Was there anything?DARIEN FENTON: What was that?Sue Moroney: Was there anything that gave rise to it?DARIEN FENTON: Well actually there was. There was something that gave rise to it actually. If we go back to around about a year ago when this bill was first introduced there were a couple of things that gave rise to this. The National Party was having a little bit of trouble. There was a little bit of trouble going on a little bit of controversy around Skycity.Sue Moroney: Oh!DARIEN FENTON: Yes so what happened was that this bill suddenly appeared from nowhere out of the blue a year after the Prime Minister had said that New Zealand is in a very very good situation in terms of the potential for a mass arrival of asylum seekers. He said that New Zealand is in a very good situation and we could copequite adequately with that there was nothing to worry about nothing to see nothing to fear—and here we go this bill arrived.If you go back to the reason behind this bill—in fact to the purpose of the bill—it was premised on the fact that we could at some stage in New Zealand expect to see a mass arrival of 500 people on a boat. That is one of the justifications for this bill that was put forward as the original reason why we needed to have this bill. Five hundred people—Dr Cam Calder: Are you saying that’s impossible?DARIEN FENTON: Well I am saying that that was the original reason but that has changed now because actually it is now 30 people Cam Calder so it has changed. It has changed during the year that we have actually been looking at it. Well actually a mass arrival originally under this bill was 10 people—10 people turning up on a rusty old boat on our shores was a mass arrival that New Zealand could not cope with. That is what this bill has come down to.Dr Cam Calder: And are you saying that’s impossible?DARIEN FENTON: I am saying that it is just about impossible. Yes I am saying that. It is just about impossible.I am also saying that this bill is premised on a completely false assumption. It was based on a Canadian ship that came from Sri Lanka. It arrived on Canadian shores chartered by Tamils who are a big population in Canada. It was a steel-hulled ship that for some reason sent our Government into a panic believing that a similar ship could arrive in New Zealand.There are two things about that. First of all a steel-hulled ship carrying 500 people could never be funded by any population in New Zealand. We do not have a sizable Tamil population or any other in New Zealand. Second of all there has never been an instance of any ship arriving in this way since we have had the issue of refugees going right back to the 1970s in fact when there was all this scare around boat people.So that was the first premise of the bill. It was premised on the fact that there would be 500 people involved in a mass arrival. This is in the regulatory impact statement. They would all be from the same country they would all claim asylum and 62 percent of these claims would be declined following assessments. So there was a big scare around 500 people. As we got further into this bill of course we found out that actually what the Government was talking about was 10 people. Ten people turning up on a boat was a mass arrival which our country could not cope with. Honestly that is so so pathetic.The second thing that this bill was premised on was that it was supposed to deter people-smugglers. I find this very interesting because of course none of us support people-smugglers. We all know that that is something at the heart of some of the problems we are seeing in Australia which have given rise to the appalling detention centres that they have. In fact that is the system that we are trying to copy with this bill. People-smugglers are crooks. They are the people who prey on vulnerable people who are looking for a better life who are struggling and who have families and children whom they are trying to get out of camps and so on. People-smugglers are evil so we support stopping people-smugglers.But what did we find in the last couple of weeks? We have actually let a people-smuggler into New Zealand. We have granted that person refugee status.Hon David Cunliffe: John Key?DARIEN FENTON: Well there is that one but there is another one. We have granted refugee status to someone who was responsible for being involved in people-smuggling whom the Australians are seeking—they want him extradited. He was responsible for being involved in people-smuggling where hundreds of familymembers—parents and children—were drowned when the boat sunk. That person is living in New Zealand as a refugee. He was granted refugee status. If we are so worried about people-smuggling surely the first thing we should be concentrating on rather than this rubbishy bill is making sure we protect our own refugee system from people like that who are involved in people-smuggling.We all know that this bill is punishing the victims of people-smugglers and they are the people who arrive in a rusty boat who are often in awful situations and they often end up drowning or end up in horrible camps somewhere. We all know that they are the victims of people-smugglers. What this bill does is it punishes the victims of people-smugglers. It does nothing—nothing—to deter people-smugglers.The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard the evidence and advice from I think 33 submitters—only one of whom actually supported this bill—who are very very involved in this issue like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and refugee organisations that have got years of experience. All of their advice was that research shows that this kind of legislation locking up the victims for up to 6 months or more in mandatory detention without the rights of ordinary people without the rights of asylum seekers who come by plane does not deter people-smugglers.So the premise that this would be 500 people on a boat and the premise that this would deter people-smugglers are false—they are false. The underlying question that I have then for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs about Part 1 is this: what is really behind this bill? What is really behind this bill?Carol Beaumont: The Minister told us the answer to that.DARIEN FENTON: Well I think we know—I think we know. I think that the Minister of Immigration and John Key have got themselves in the big boys’ club along with Canada the UK Australia and so on they have gone off to the five-country conferences and they have been persuaded that we should join with them in their immigration policies which are wrong—which are wrong. They have been persuaded.In fact we know that John Key was persuaded by Julia Gillard from Australia that we should take 150 of Australia’s refugees. Julia Gillard is a smart woman. She got a great deal. She got a great deal out of that. [Interruption] Yes she is a very smart woman; that is why she is the Prime Minister of Australia. She got a great deal out of that. What did we get? We got nothing. John Key got done and John Key has not been able to justify that deal. He has not been able to justify that deal in any way shape or form. He is hiding behind national security. Nobody knew anything about the deal. It popped up and he got done by Julia Gillard down in Queenstown. She got a great deal; we got a terrible deal.And here we are now with a stupid bill a bill that does nothing except actually damage our international reputation which I treasure which we treasure as a country that has got a great human rights record when it comes to refugees and accepting refugees. This bill does damage. It is not necessary. The purpose of this bill is stupid. The purpose has been shown to be completely based on a false premise. We are debating the bill and I do not even know why we are wasting the Committee’s time on something like this where 10 people could be locked up for 6 months. It is supposed to be such a critical issue for New Zealand that 10 people might arrive on a boat one day. It possibly maybe could perhaps happen and we want to lock them up.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I would just like to acknowledge the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who are here today and our officials who did a sterling job on the Immigration Amendment Bill and did a very good job in presenting this. I decided to take this call because I was disgusted by that last speech. Darien Fenton is a member of the committee whom I have a lot ofrespect for. She is a very nice lady she is very active on the committee and she has been a great member of that committee for many years.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You pulled me up for being patronising earlier. I think this member should stop it and get back to the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well there is a pertinent difference between a member using a point of order to make a comment and a member in debate. Actually I could not see any offence in the way in which the member was speaking.DAVID BENNETT: And I genuinely mean it—Darien is a really nice lady.Hon Members: “Dar-rien”.DAVID BENNETT: Darien is a really nice lady but for her to say in this debate that Australia got a great deal to talk about how letting people go is a great deal and to say it is a bad deal for New Zealand to have another 125 citizens of New Zealand coming our way is an absolute disgrace to the Labour Party. That is what it really thinks of people who are refugees—they are a bad deal. People are a bad deal under the Labour Party. The Australian Labor Party got a great deal because it gave away refugees—that is what the Labour Party has said in this Chamber tonight. That is disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful. That is not the kind of person that Darien is. That is not the kind of way that she should be approaching this bill. That approach has got no regard for the people their sacrifices and the pain that they go through to get to New Zealand and to other countries. That is a disgrace I think for the Labour Party.This bill is about sending a signal. It is sending the signal that we will enshrine our immigration rules and we will work towards getting the best solutions. The Opposition talks a lot of fear loathing and hatred and a lot of things that are just not true. It creates a lot of fear in our migrants it is creating a lot of fear in people who are looking at New Zealand as a home and it is saying that the Government will act in a way that the Government will not. The Government has not acted in that way and does not intend to act in that way but we need to give ourselves the ability to deal with these situations should they arise. These are people. They are not a bad deal. These are real human beings whom we are talking about here. How dare the Labour Party call them a bad deal and things like that in this Chamber. That is a shocking stance.The reason why Labour Party members are saying this is that they have bought into the rhetoric around this bill. They are saying how bad it is when they do not actually believe that. They know it is not like that. They know that a reasonable Government needs to work to have these kinds of initiatives in place. They are taking this measure out of context and looking at it in a way that is not real. I do not think that Darien actually meant those comments that these people are a bad deal. I think that she did not actually mean that. Opposition members are doing this because they have been told to argue in this way in this Chamber today on this bill and they think that that is the way that they should present themselves.The Greens will come along next doing exactly the same thing—building a lot of fear and preying on those people who are vulnerable. That is what the left does: it preys on the vulnerable and it takes advantage of people in their time of need. That is not what Governments do. That is not what this Parliament should stand for. Everybody is a good person and not a bad deal. You cannot say in this Chamber that the Australian Labor Party got a great deal by giving 125 people away and that we got a bad deal in taking 125 people. That is disgusting and I hope that Darien takes another call to make amends for that comment.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Well it is not a pleasure to take a call on the Immigration Amendment Bill. The member David Bennett who has just resumed his seat said one thing that I do agree with—that none of us will disagree with—and that is that he admitted the true façade nature of this bill when he said that the Government hasno intention of acting in this way. It raises the obvious question: why are we considering this bill? It is a nasty insidious and vicious piece of legislation that will do nothing for our international reputation. It will continue the decline and degradation of our reputation under this Government. Every time we come into this House—just about every session we have had this year—there has been a piece of legislation that has been about an abuse of due process and an abuse of civilians’ rights and here is another piece of legislation doing exactly the same thing.This was a trumped-up bill connived and contrived to appeal to a very small number of the National Government’s donor base to sort of press a button to say that we are tough and we are strong and we can beat up on those people whose situation is so desperate that they flee their country of origin and undertake any means possible—go across dangerous waters—to try to wash up somewhere that will have them. That simply will not happen in New Zealand. There has never been a vessel of the type that has washed up on shores in Australia that has turned up here. They would not. The only vessel that has entered New Zealand waters unlawfully and thrown up its unwelcome passengers was the yachtOuvea carrying the French spies who then sunk theRainbow Warrior. That is about the only case. That is the only case we know of—that is the only case we know of. When you think about the treacherous waters of the Tasman there are naval boats that have not been able to make it across the Tasman. They washed up on that little island just to the east of Australia. A naval boat washed up on that island and holed itself. That was an Australian naval boat. So how is it that those other boats are going to wash up here?The clauses that I am most concerned about and that Simon Bridges ought to be deeply ashamed about—and yes he is cheering them on in this Committee—are clauses 9 and 10 which are about this Government yet again withholding basic civil and political rights that people in this country ordinarily expect. So just as the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act (No 2) included the ousting of the courts’ jurisdiction to hear legitimate legal claims now we have it again—now we have it again—in clause 10. The right that any other refugee would otherwise have to take a claim and to have it heard by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is to be removed under this legislation in this mad desperate rush to look tough and strong against people who are the vulnerable the dispossessed and the unfortunate. That is what the Government wants to do. That is what this bill will do. That is what this Government will do.The reputation that this Government is establishing as being in total contempt and disrespect of basic civil and political rights is continuing under this bill. It has done it before and it is doing it again in this bill. That is the tragedy. That is how unfortunate it is. It is not good for this House or for this country. This House is a House of Representatives—representing all of the people of New Zealand including those who come here in unfortunate circumstances those who are refugees and those who are asylum seekers. As a civilised nation and as part of the comity of all nations around the world we extend to all those who are here—whether they are citizens born here whether they are residents whether they come here without any nation status at all—basic civil and political rights. That is what we do as a civilised nation. Clauses 9 and 10 will eliminate those rights for those who come here whether as part of a mass arrival as this bill describes it or whatever it is. We should not be putting ourselves in that situation.This House should not be legislating in a way that removes and undermines well-established internationally recognised civil and political rights for those who are refugees in whatever form they arrive here—whether they come in ones or twos whether they come in groups of 10 or more—JAN LOGIE (Green): There are several points that I would like to make in speaking in the Committee stage of the Immigration Amendment Bill but I will start with some of the overarching points that are held within Part 1 of this bill. I guess the first one is about this being a deterrent to asylum seekers. I want to address that general point of the purpose of this bill and to remind this Committee as I did in my first reading speech that in the initial edition of this bill that we were presented with there was nothing in the content of the bill that actually referred to people-smugglers apart from the declaration that that was the purpose of the bill. Within the content of it there was nothing referencing people-smugglers. Within New Zealand law we have legislation that specifically relates to people-smuggling so you would think that actually if we were wanting to deter people-smugglers our laws would be the place to start looking.I would like to bring to the attention of this Committee how we have been using that law up to this point. From 2004 to 2010 15 people were convicted of people-smuggling within New Zealand and none of these cases to my knowledge involved mass arrivals. That is a key point. The people who were convicted of people-smuggling under section 98 of the Crimes Act have actually been treated pretty leniently in our courts. In fact the harshest penalty in recent years has been 8 months’ home detention. Eight months’ home detention is the harshest penalty for people-smuggling and we have been told in this House that people-smuggling is a heinous crime and that we need to break the consensus in this House on our commitment to the refugee convention because we need to deter these people. And yet that has been the response in our courts to people-smuggling.It really does beg the question whether this piece of legislation actually has anything to do with that point. I would echo the call for the Minister of Immigration to point out in terms of this legislation what evidence he has that this piece of legislation will do anything to address people-smuggling. I note that the more recent Supplementary Order Paper 232 which has come through from the Minister does actually have some relationship with people-smuggling—potentially—around the provision of documents; it refers to those who are seen as aiding and abetting people’s entry into the country and providing false documents.When it comes to this point in reading this I think it also brings us back to some of the complexity around asylum seeking. My strongest association with this takes me back to my childhood when I was immersed in stories of the Second World War. A huge number of those stories would be around the French Resistance and the provision of documents to Jewish people or to soldiers who had landed in places and needed a safe passageway to get out and to get to safety. I was there as a child hearing those stories just egging on the Resistance to provide that to get that false document for that person to get to safety. In some ways that is what we are talking about here.This is about people whose very lives are at risk in completely war-torn countries in crisis. We are supposedly on the international stage intervening and standing up for these people and yet we are introducing legislation into this House that potentially limits their ability to get to safety. I do not understand it. I do not believe that is the New Zealand spirit. When David Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee stood up and said that we on this side of the Chamber are scaremongering around this bill and creating fear in migrant communities—because they are never going to use this bill—then I have to remind him of the cause.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First takes people-smuggling and border control very seriously. New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch by would-be people-smugglers or illegal immigrants. We accept that there is in fact a risk that mass arrivals are possible here as they have been in Australia. We agree also thatthe risk is small for now but what about next year or what about next month for that matter?Deterrence is an important element to discourage mass arrivals by boats and vessels with the capability to reach New Zealand must be considered a real possibility. Deterrence is a basic consideration for all criminal activity so we cannot accept the argument that deterrence is not relevant for these matters. Therefore the amendments proposed by this Immigration Amendment Bill will at this stage be supported by New Zealand First but subject to the condition that Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters is agreed to—and I will come to that in a moment.New Zealand First has the most consistent stance on border control of all political parties. We have what I would call a strict regime approach to the whole issue of immigration which we think is currently far too lax in far too many ways and that is where we would part company with the Labour Party which I think would be even worse. We are especially concerned in respect of all cases of illegal entry and more especially again if New Zealand is faced with illegal mass arrivals. We have a hard-line approach because we put New Zealand first and the Labour Party obviously does not. If that means perceived—and I stress the word “perceived”—non-compliance with international conventions then so be it. We see New Zealand interests first in priority rather than the soft approach which other parties would foist upon us.In this day and age this matter is at the forefront of the protection of New Zealand and the integrity of our borders. New Zealand First will never tolerate illegal entry to this country and we will not accept the many and various excuses people involved give for their illegal activities. We also know that if we adopt a soft approach we will not be doing enough to protect the lives of people who are the customers of the people-traffickers.Notwithstanding New Zealand First’s hard-line approach New Zealand First is committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations quota programme for 750 people each year. Illegal immigration puts strain on our ability to meet those obligations. Illegal arrivals are actually nothing more than queue-jumpers who must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow correct process. This will happen if mass arrivals get out of control. Although that is unlikely we must still be prepared for it not only so that we can handle it if it occurs but as I said before to deter people-traffickers and their customers from trying it on.The bill assumes that the New Zealand authorities actually have the capacity required to deal with mass arrival defined as over 10 people together. This means the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the capacity to set up one or more detention centres for illegal refugees within 24 hours of their arrival. We see no guarantee that such systems or plans are in place and the bill in its present form places no expectations on the authorities to adequately deliver those facilities. New Zealand First therefore strongly urges the Government to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper which would ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals as they happen if or when they happen and which specifically requires the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections with the authority of the Prime Minister—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is Mr Chairman to get the call after you had been tantalising the Labour Opposition by darting your eyes around the Chamber. Can I just say to the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke that I have news for him—I have news for him. “Wogistan” is a landlocked country. There will be no boat people from “Wogistan” because they have no ocean—they have no ocean. The chances of “Wogistanis” invading New Zealand by boat are exactly the same as Martians invading New Zealand by spacecraft.In fact why has the National Government not got an anti-Martian clause in this tawdry bill the Immigration Amendment Bill? There is no protection from alien landings and there is exactly the same probability of an alien invasion from Mars as there is of boat people from Indonesia or “Wogistan”—exactly the same probability.In all seriousness I would like to recall a tale of two leaders. It was my privilege to be—Denis O’Rourke: Don’t worry about it. Nobody wants to hear it.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. It is not often that I take a point of order seeking the ability to give my remarks in regard to a member sitting on the same side of the Chamber and I am sure that he will do us the courtesy now that the initial humorous introductory period of the remarks are over to engage in—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Excuse me I am the Chair. The member should be addressing me not the member who has just resumed his seat. He is falling—no no stay seated please. He is falling into the same sort of habit as using points of order for other points of view. Can I just say this: although I accept that the Chamber was too rowdy when the member began he did say some rather insightful things that may have generated the response and he has to take some—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I just want to check—I think you meant “inciting” not “insightful”.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh right. Thank you.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well I have dealt with those points of order but Denis O’Rourke has a point of order. Look it is time we moved on. I hope this is not trivial.Denis O’Rourke: I just wanted to respond—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No you cannot respond.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Chairman I take your guidance and that of my very learned colleague Mr Mallard that I need to move from “incite-ful” with a “c” to “insightful” with an “s” and I shall try to do that. [Interruption] That has confused the Minister opposite; he has no idea what I am talking about—no idea. But never mind—back to my tale of two leaders.It was my privilege to be present at a public meeting in my electorate with the Rt Hon Helen Clark when her phone rang and she was advised about theTampa—theTampa. [Interruption] Does the “member for dairy conversions” remember theTampa? That situation was true test of leadership where New Zealand said: “Here is a desperate situation where human beings are at mortal peril. We will take 150 of those boat people.” It was recently a privilege to know that they have had a celebration for thoseTampa refugees and that so many of them have gone on to tertiary education and to very gainful employment. They have become really really valuable members of our society.At roughly the same time John Howard played the boat people card in his last and “it has to be successful” re-election campaign where he used footage gained by the Australian Defence Force and intelligence services to scaremonger about the yellow peril crossing the straits into Australia. It seemed that he was submerging the dangers to human life to the need for crass partisan politics and playing if not the race card then the invasion card to frighten his people into conservative voting.I have to say that it is straight out of the Crosby/Textor playbook. If you cannot convince people about your economic policies if you want them to ignore the true effect of your social policies you will need an external enemy and if there is not a real one out there create one and say: “I know we are going to create the bogey ofthousands of Asian boat people!”. Why is Melissa Lee supporting this anti-Asian legislation? Why is she doing that? Why is Kanwaljit Bakshi supporting this anti-Asian legislation?Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That kind of comment is very very offensive. I take offence at that because it is not Asian people who are in fact the boat people who actually turn up on New Zealand’s shores and his comment about “yellow peril” was very offensive. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I actually do think that comment had a bit of innuendo and I ask the member to withdraw it. [Interruption] No just withdraw it.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is a matter of debate. It is a matter of debate and not of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Some aspersions were cast that could be offensive and I have just ruled that.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No no I just want the member to withdraw and then we will continue. Just withdraw the comment—that is all that is required.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I certainly withdraw any—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —inference that the comment may have been in any way calling the member’s intentions into doubt. But the point which is actually beyond debate is that the nearest land mass to Australasia is Asia and it is from the countries of Asia that Mr Howard and Mr Key have painted the threat as emerging. That is actually incontrovertible. So if this Committee or anybody listening has a problem with the use of the word “Asia” in that context there is one person to be blamed and it is John “Slippery” Key—John “Slippery” Key. And I withdraw that comment because of course it is outside the Standing Orders and—Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that the Standing Orders require that you use the correct name for members.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. All members are honourable members. The member will have to withdraw that comment as well.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will not only withdraw but apologise for that one.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you. Now let us proceed.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A tale of two leaders: on the one hand we have a leader who put humanity above politics and took a political risk to save the lives of 150 young Afghans who have gone on to be very upstanding citizens of New Zealand; on the other hand we have Mr Key and Mr Howard right-wing politicians who are willing to sacrifice goodness and decency for populist right-wing political ends. If New Zealanders cannot see what is going on with this shoddy awful Draconian right-wing anti-liberty piece of legislation then they need to wake up. And it is not just this bill—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Mr Chair—David Bennett: No way! Hey there’s people in the audience.SUE MORONEY: I know that—well there goes David Bennett again after the Chair has actually called me to speak telling me not to speak as he did in question time the other day. It is about time that that member got dealt with by the officials within this complex—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the record Ms Moroney I never—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No no. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The member cannot use a point of order to direct comments directly at a member.SUE MORONEY: In addressing Part 1 of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill I am trying to internalise a complicated situation. That is all I can say about this because this Part 1 is all about John Key’s ghost ships. You know Mr Key we cannot legislate for your ghost ships. We cannot legislate for your ghost ships and we should not be legislating for John Key’s ghost ships because that is where it all comes from.Last Christmas 500 of these people apparently—so Simon Bridges told us—were on their way to New Zealand in a boat. They never arrived. Of course they never arrived—they were never on their way here. But Simon Bridges whose credibility must already be in complete tatters—what is it that he has got against boats? Not only did he create that ghost ship but also he is stopping people from getting out on boats and going and protesting about oil exploration. What is it that he has got against boats? In both instances he has misled the New Zealand public and in both instances he has been shutting down human rights—shutting down human rights in both of those instances. But in Part 1 we find out that it is actually not 500 people arriving on our shores that the Government is worried about at all. In the definition of who is going to be affected by this bill in Part 1 the meaning of a “mass arrival group”—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education Amendment Bill without amendment and progress on the Immigration Amendment Bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I moveThat the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the report be adopted.Ayes70New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes49New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.