Volume 693 Week 54 - Thursday 19 September 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 54 - Thursday 19 September 2013[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13539. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 19 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 September it is the Government’s intention to progress the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill and other bills that are on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Just to let him know the Labour Party will provide him with a list of Clayton Cosgrove’s speaking slots so he can set his DVD.MotionsWomen’s Suffrage—120th AnniversaryHon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs): I seek leave to move a motion without notice in recognition of 120 years of women’s suffrage.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon JO GOODHEW: I moveThat the House recognise 120 years of women’s suffrage.On 19 September 1893 we became the first self-governing nation in the world where women won the right to vote. The passing of the Electoral Bill that day 120 years ago was the culmination of a process that took 24 years of discussions rallies meetings and numerous petitions. The last of these a monster petition as Kate Sheppard called it was brought into Parliament in September 1893. John Hall a member of Parliament and women’s suffrage supporter brought the petition with over 30000 signatories into the House. He unrolled it down the central aisle of the debating chamber with such force that it hit the wall with a thud. Since then New Zealand has celebrated many many firsts and notable achievements for women: Governors-General Chief Justice Prime Ministers Speaker of the House of Representatives business and community leaders—wonderful trailblazers each of them.Although these women inspire us they do not represent New Zealand as a nation using the talents and abilities of all women to their full potential. The challenge remains to achieve first a critical mass of women around the table and in the widest range of employment options so that gender diversity can bring New Zealand the benefits that research shows are possible. Then we will be far further down the road to addressing equal numbers of women in leadership and governance roles. Then we will have addressed the overrepresentation of women in the statistics as victims of violence. Then we can say that women’s economic independence is improving the gender pay gap has narrowed and better still is no longer there.We need to ask ourselves the question today: how much more can we do to ensure New Zealand is a nation renowned for fully recognising the talents of women and in doing so continues to lead the world? In the words of Kate Sheppard: “Do not think your single vote does not matter much. The rain that refreshes the parched ground is made up of single drops.” Our actions matter every day. These are the single drops that form the nourishing rainfall.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Labour joins with the Government in celebrating 120 years of women gaining the right to vote in New Zealand. It was a forward-looking decision that has helped shape our nation and continues to influence decision making inthis country today. We were the first country in the world to make what must have been a very bold move 120 years ago. Just as the influence ofMāori culture and the Pasifika influence of our international neighbourhood makes New Zealand unique so does the early influence of women in shaping our country’s decision making. Early adoption of social security our proud independent foreign policy and policies that promote an egalitarian society can all find their genesis in women having early and prolonged influence over decisions by using their right to vote. It has indeed helped shape a nation with a unique identity.From Labour’s Elizabeth McCombs who was the first woman to be elected to Parliament in 1983—Grant Robertson: 33.SUE MORONEY: —1933—to New Zealand’s first elected female Prime Minister Helen Clark and the most recent female MP to be elected to Parliament Meka Whaitiri we honour them all. We all carry the hopes and aspirations of those women and men who worked so hard to ensure that women had the right to vote 120 years ago. I certainly had the portrait of Elizabeth McCombs on my work desk for many years before I even entertained the idea of becoming an MP.We were the first in the world to achieve this and that can never be taken away. However the achievements made are not as secure. Would Kate Sheppard and the suffragists feel satisfied with the gender pay gap of 9.3 percent? Would they feel that their efforts in riding and walking the length and breadth of New Zealand gathering signatures were worthwhile if they knew that more than a quarter of New Zealand women suffer sexual abuse in their lifetime? Would they accept 33 percent of their Parliament being women in the year 2013 as being truly representative when women are 51 percent of the population? We all owe it to the vision and determination of those brave fearless pioneering women to ensure that we recognise that there is much work still to be done and to continue the fight to achieve this. Happy Women’s Suffrage Day to all.JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a great honour to stand here today on behalf of the Green Party to mark 120 years of women being able to vote for the representatives in this House. It was not an easy battle back then for the suffragists—24 years 31 petitions seven failed bills and decades of ridicule abuse and antagonism. But they kept fighting not just for the right to vote but for the right to improve the status of women and children. We are here because of them. And the battle did not end in 1893. Groups of women have continued and still continue to fight for representation and equality.We in the Green Party are proud to be in a party that gives voice to the human rights of all women on the planet. We are proud to be in a party withwahinetoa Metiria Turei as our co-leader eight women out of 14 MPs and gender balance in our party structure. We are proud to stand alongside our contemporary suffragists like all the members of theService and Food Workers Union who are fighting to end the exploitation of women living on poverty wages and doing the skilled and important work of aged care. We are proud to stand alongside all the women working in women’s refuges and the sexual violence sector who are still fighting for a space of safety for women in this country.We are proud to stand alongside all thewāhineMāori working to reclaim tino rangatiratanga. We are proud to stand alongside all the women born and affirmed with and without impairments of all cultures who are still striving for a fair go in this country. We are proud to acknowledgePapatūānuku and give her voice to aspirations in this House. We are committed to honouring the efforts of our foremothers in moving forward together with the hopes of all those who have gone before us. Kia ora koutou.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First joins other parties in celebrating Suffrage Day. In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation in the world togrant women the right to vote. That event marked New Zealand as a leader in the emancipation of women and provided an example for other nations to follow. Women in New Zealand gained the right to vote through a sustained campaign for progressive change and that was an outstanding achievement. It is astonishing to think of how relatively recent that event was in terms of human history.While celebrating this day let us also reflect that many women in New Zealand still have a way to go in achieving full equality in the workplace. Internationally for a large part of the world’s female population women do not have equal rights with men. A lot of work remains to be done. New Zealand First considers that it is important to mark this very significant day and in this Parliament we must acknowledge those who fought and continue to fight for equal opportunities for women.Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersGDP Growth—June 2013 Quarter1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This morning Statistics New Zealand released GDP data for the second quarter of 2013. The New Zealand economy grew by 0.2 percent in that quarter with the effects of one of the more serious droughts in a generation having a major influence on that result. Annual growth was 2.5 percent. That is consistent with the Government’s aspirations for growth of 2 to 3 percent which is sufficient to support more jobs and moderate increases in incomes. Previous GDP growth numbers have been revised upwards. So growth for the year is slightly above both our expectations and market expectations. Given the circumstances of a significant drought this result shows broader-based growth in the economy and it is likely to continue.Maggie Barry: What were the main factors affecting growth in the June quarter?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have already referred to the drought earlier this year which saw the largest fall in dairy production volumes in 24 years. Offsetting the drought was a growth in eight out of 11 service industries: an increase in retail accommodation and restaurants focused mainly in retailing; a 2.6 percent increase in business services; and construction activity increased by 2.3 percent mainly in infrastructure. This is further evidence of the Government’s substantial and ongoing investment in infrastructure growth. Private consumption grew by 1.5 percent in the quarter. There was a small reduction in manufacturing output for the quarter related to the drought. But overall despite Opposition allegations that manufacturing is in crisis it grew 1.6 percent for the year.Maggie Barry: How does New Zealand’s growth in the last year compare with other countries’ and what is the outlook for the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our annual growth of 2.5 percent is ahead of the US on 1.6 percent the UK on 1.5 percent Canada on 1.4 percent Japan on 1.3 percent and the euro area on minus 0.5 percent. I think our numbers are roughly the same if not slightly better than Australia’s and Singapore’s. The outlook for the economy continues to be positive. We are looking at consensus forecasts of 2 to 3 percent growth over the next 3 years. This will support continued growth in new jobs and moderate increases in incomes. However although this is an encouraging outlook it is important that we stick to policy that is going to make it easier for businesses to continue to invest anotherdollar and employ another person because that is what will improve the welfare of our households.Hon David Parker: Given that our export and import substitution industries declined by 2.3 percent in the June quarter does he agree that our economy is overly dependent on the weather and that although the sporting hopes of the country in the America’s Cup rely upon the weather the destiny of our economy ought not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree. I knew that Labour was against jobs but being against our agricultural industries seems a bit bizarre for a party that aspires to take part in economic debate in New Zealand. The fact is that this result shows precisely the opposite of what the member is saying. It shows a broad-based recovery where a lot of our non-agricultural businesses including our service industries are showing promising signs of growth. If we stick to the track we are on I believe that it will lead to further diversification of our economy. But let us not knock the success of our core protein production industries. They will be core to New Zealand’s success for the next two decades.Maggie Barry: What steps is the Government taking to build a more productive and competitive economy and to increase growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well we are continuing to focus on managing the Government’s finances responsibly on improving the productivity of the 25 percent of the economy the Government controls directly so that when we put taxpayers’ money into our social services we get better protection for vulnerable families more achievement for our young people and better health services for our older people. That contributes to a competitive economy and increased growth. We are also continuing with a broad programme to reduce costs for business cut red tape continue to invest in innovation and do whatever we can to keep interest rates lower for longer so that it will be easier for businesses to hire more people.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Department of Conservation Submission on Plan Change Proposal2.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: Has he ever seen or received a submission or draft submission from the Department of Conservation regarding the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Plan Change 6 which paves the way for theRuataniwha Dam proposal which is critical of it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): A draft 30-page submission was prepared by the Department of Conservation in early July. I never saw that until Tuesday this week. The Department of Conservation’s final submission was included in a briefing to me on 31 July.Hon Ruth Dyson: What did he say to his Department of Conservation officials at the meeting on Monday 29 July in relation to their draft submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I did not have at that meeting a copy of any draft submission. At my regular report—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Give the Minister an opportunity to answer the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I said to the department that it had provided me with two sentences on its decision about what was in the submission. I said I needed a full briefing. I got that full briefing 2 days later.Hon Ruth Dyson: In light of the email sent from the deputy director-general Doris Johnston to other senior Department of Conservation staff at 6 p.m. on Monday 29 July did he say to officials that he wanted to see their submission before it was lodged and that he was concerned about it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I did say that I wanted to see the final submission before it was made. That is what a responsible Minister would do. In respect of whether I said Ihad a concern yes I wanted to be properly briefed. Two sentences on this important issue were not enough.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House on Tuesday 17 September that he did not know that this draft submission existed until that morning when he had discussed it with Department of Conservation officials at the meeting on Monday 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because I did not know that the draft submission the 34-page document existed until Tuesday this week.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House on Tuesday 17 September that he did not know that this draft submission existed until that morning when at a meeting on Monday 29 July he had expressed concern about its content and asked for a copy of it before it was lodged?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s proposition is incorrect. On 29 July I had never seen the draft submission. What I did have advice on was that the department—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice I received was that the department needed to finalise its submission by the end of that week and I said to the department: “I want to see your submission.”Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he or any of his staff instruct the Department of Conservation to not send the full submission to him?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely not.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Department of Conservation Submission on Plan Change Proposal3.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement “No I did not” when asked in this House whether he gave any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes and I also note today the statement by Doris Johnston Deputy Director-General of Conservation confirming this.Dr Russel Norman: Was Deputy Director-General of the Department of Conservation Doris Johnston correct when she said in an email sent on Monday 29 July that he the Minister “is concerned” about the submission “and is likely to query whether we leave it all to the EPA to consider.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the deputy director-general says that the Minister might query—might query—an issue it simply says that the Minister has not yet come to a view and how could I come to a view? I suggest to the member it would not be right for a Minister to come to a view on an important issue when I had received two sentences. I asked for a full briefing which I received on the Wednesday.Dr Russel Norman: Did he or did he not express concern to the Department of Conservation about the draft 30-page submission when he talked to Doris Johnston as Doris Johnston says in her email of 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the statement today put out by Doris Johnston deputy director-general which makes plain that at that meeting on the Monday I sought a full briefing and that was the responsible thing for a Minister to do on an important issue.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been adequately addressed. The member has further supplementary questions if he wishes.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the email from Doris Johnston on 29 July where she says that the Minister is concerned and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient information. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection to that course of action? No there is not. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: How can he stand by his statement in this House that he gave no indication to the Department of Conservation of his views about its submission when the email from Doris Johnston says very clearly that firstly he was concerned about the submission—that is the Minister was concerned—and secondly that the Minister was going to query whether it should be left up to the Environmental Protection Authority?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My statement to the House on Tuesday was absolutely correct and that is having received only two sentences of advice about the issue that before I came to any view I wanted to see a comprehensive submission. I saw that comprehensive submission on Wednesday.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement this morning and earlier in the week that he did not even know that the substantive submission existed until Tuesday this week and how is that compatible with the media statement he issued today in which he says he discussed the issues related to the substantive submission on 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Very easily. In early July a 34-page draft submission was prepared by the Department of Conservation. I did not know about that until this week. What occurred on Monday 29 July was that I was told the department was preparing a submission. I said: “Get me a copy of the final submission.” which I received which was quite different from the original draft.Dr Russel Norman: Does he know the difference between being aware that a submission exists and actually seeing a submission and so does he stand by his statement that he did not even know that the submission existed until Tuesday this week even though he said in his own press release that he discussed the issues about the submission on 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On 29 July the department told me that it was finalising its submission to be made by that Friday. I said: “Before I make any view on it I want to see a copy.” I did on the Wednesday.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister explain how he can have a conversation with Department of Conservation officials on 29 July about their submission when he did not know that the submission even existed until this Tuesday?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was told by the department on the Monday that it is finalising a submission by the Friday. Just because it tells me that it is finalising a submission I will not necessarily know what drafts might exist in the bowels of my department.Andrew Williams: Will the Minister step down while an inquiry is held into this serious issue considering he has been caught with his pants down yet again—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has every right to ask his supplementary question. It is helpful if he uses subtly different language of course.Andrew Williams: Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start again? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to start again. I suggest to him that it would be helpful if he rephrased his question.Andrew Williams: I thought it was pretty good. Will the Minister step down while an inquiry is held into this serious issue considering he has once again been caught in a difficult situation just like he was over the ACC privacy breaches?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Might I say that is a member who should not be asking questions about taking the piss.Grant Robertson: Does he stand by his statement in the House on Tuesday: “I did not give the department an indication of what that submission would be.” in light of Doris Johnston’s statement that he expressed concern and said it could be left to the Environmental Protection Authority?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely and I draw attention to Doris Johnston’s statement today that confirms that what I said on Tuesday was correct.Dr Russel Norman: Is it not a simple fact that the Minister misled Parliament when he said he gave no indication to the Department of Conversation of his views about the submission when the leaked email from Doris Johnston shows that he gave very clear views about the submission that he had concerns about the submission and that he thought it should be all left to the Environmental Protection Authority?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the contrary. All that Doris Johnston’s email says is that the Minister wants to see the final submission. I say again to the House that if I were to make a decision on an important issue like this on the basis of two sentences I would be negligent in my role as the Minister of Conservation.Electricity Market—Competition4.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: What reports has he received on competition in the electricity market in New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Electricity Authority recently released a review of the 2012 What’s My Number campaign. During 2012 there were nearly 25000 additional switches over those recorded in 2010 before What’s My Number with an estimated average saving of $175 per switch and estimated annual savings of almost $4.3 million. The estimated national savings if all consumers switched to the cheapest retailer in their region would be $295 million. As Minister I want to see even more competition in the market consumers taking more and more advantage of competition and retailers continuing to respond to the competitive environment and that is what the Electricity Authority is setting about achieving.Claudette Hauiti: What other reports has the Minister seen on the electricity market?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I have seen comments from the Opposition’s favourite expert ProfessorWolak who agrees with this Government’s focus on competition. “What’s simplest is to say we’re going to make this thing as competitive as possible.” he says. ProfessorWolak also says that a single-buyer policy is “just a sham.” is “bass-ackwards”—look that up on Google—and is “just a nightmare.” The Opposition might want to consider removing him as their favourite expert.Pay Equity—Employment Court Case5.DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to theMinister of Labour: Does he believe women should have equal pay to men for work of equal value?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): Yes. That is why it is outrageous that that member was replaced as junior whip by a man not as good as her.Darien Fenton: When he said that the Government may “intervene in the proceedings” in the Kristine Bartlett equal pay case where she is paid just $14.46 an hour as an aged-care worker what kind of intervention is he proposing?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As that member well knows this party on this side has a very proud tradition in these things. We implemented law—same pay for the same work. At the moment we have a country where there is the lowest gender wage gap inthe developed world. But in relation to court cases as she should also well know it is not appropriate for me to comment on the substance of the case.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I appreciate that when the Minister finally got to his answer there he mentioned the court proceedings he has in the public arena stated that he has an intention to intervene and he should be able to answer on that matter.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a valid point of order. The Minister is perfectly entitled to say that the case is currently before the courts and on that basis he does not want to comment further.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is indeed entitled to refuse to comment on the basis that something is before the court but the Opposition is entitled to question him on public statements that he has made which is what my colleague Darien Fenton did.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. Darien Fenton is certainly entitled to question the Minister and she did so. The Minister is then perfectly entitled to answer it and he answered it in a way that complies with the rules of this House. If the member wants to ask a further question if she has further supplementary questions I guess she can try again.Darien Fenton: Will he guarantee not to intervene with legislation to overturn Kristine Bartlett’s equal pay victory as his Government did in the family carers court decision?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member knows I have concern for vulnerable workers. Chris Hipkins is one of those at the moment. But those matters the member asked about are matters currently under consideration.Darien Fenton: Does he think it is acceptable that 60 percent of minimum wage workers are women; if not why will he not commit to allowing women equal pay following the Kristine Bartlett case?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well of course it would be good if everyone received higher wages but I think we can be very proud that in this country we have the lowest gender wage gap in the developed world.Darien Fenton: Why is he proceeding with the changes in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that will lower the pay and conditions of women workers such as Julie Reason a home support worker who earns $14.10 an hour less petrol per assignment who submitted to the select committee that his bill is going to make it even harder for her to earn a fair wage?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because I think it is important that we always look at arrangements and look at workers’ rights FranMold at the moment is one person—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister might think that low pay is a laughing matter but that was a direct question that deserved a serious answer.Hon Gerry Brownlee: There is no reason to assume that the Minister was not giving a serious answer. The member in her question has quoted individual circumstances. It is not inappropriate that he quote some back.Grant Robertson: Sit down.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh look I will stay standing as long as you think you are the Chair Mr Robertson. At the moment—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for his assistance. The question was relatively simple. It asked why the Minister was proceeding with changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. If he could answer that we can all move forward.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I think that it is important that we look at issues like Part 6A of the legislation. I am aware of proposals to see that extended to all workers and yet despite the Labour Party saying that and David Cunliffe saying that he has just given—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficient answer.Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about Part 6A; it was about the employment relations legislation and the pay and conditions of a home-care worker. It had nothing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Your question started with asking why the member was proceeding with changes to that particular legislation. He has now finally addressed it.Schools Partnership—Science and Religious Education6.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to theMinister of Education: Will she allow creationism to be taught in charter schools; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā hoki koe e te ManaWhakahaeremō tewhakanuiingāwahineitēneitau.[Salutations to you as well for honouring women this year Mr Speaker.]All partnership kura are delivering the New Zealand curriculum TeMarautanga o Aotearoa. Two of the five schools are permitted to offer religious education during school hours as are integrated schools. Any religious instruction will be delivered alongside but not in place of the curriculum.Catherine Delahunty: Would she be concerned to learn that one of the charter schools that is to get taxpayer money intends to give equal weight to the teaching of intelligent design creationism and evolution in the science curriculum?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I invite the member to table the exchange of emails between the Opposition parties that make it very clear what the school in question is proposing to offer. It is very clear that the science curriculum will be taught in the national curriculum and that religious faith instruction will occur alongside of that. There is no definition of creationism even amongst communities of faith and I would commend the member to—and I am happy to table this—refer to a speech given by a former Green Party MP Jeanette Fitzsimons entitled “Living Within the Limits of Creation” where the member talked about both how one constructed economic growth theory and what the Bible had to commend to people.Pērāanōtētahi. Kei temōhio koemōngā kura kaupapa ekōreroanamōPapatūānuku me Ranginui etūnei.[There is a parallel situation. You are aware of references to Earth Mother and the great Sky Father that exist inMāori-medium schools.]Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very interesting answer but I asked whether she was concerned and I am not sure that she explained whether she was concerned about the science curriculum.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now making the mistake of using the point of order system to question or debate the answer that she has been given. The answer addressed the question. If the member has further supplementary questions that is the appropriate way to get more information from the Minister.Catherine Delahunty: What will she do to ensure creationism is not part of the science curriculum taught at South Auckland Middle School given that spokespersonAlwyn Poole told the Green Party that it intends to teach Christian theory on the origin of the planet?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The contract that we have with the partnership kura including South Auckland Middle School is for the delivery of the national curriculum within which the science strand dealing with evolution for year 8 is dealt with. I have seen the email exchanges between the principal and the Green Party and I invite thatmember to table them which would make it clear that the science curriculum will be taught as part of the science curriculum and that any religious instruction will be taught alongside that curriculum. That is what the contract is for.Chris Hipkins: For clarity—is the Minister saying that the contract allows the teaching of creationism as a competing theory with evolution on equal footing?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Legal Aid—Interest on Debts7.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMinister of Justice: What factors were taken into account in setting the interest rate on legal aid debt under regulation 14 of the Legal Services Regulations 2011 at 8 percent?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Legal aid has always been a loan not a grant. The charging of interest on legal aid debt was set by Cabinet in 2011 as one of several changes aimed at bringing the ballooning legal aid debt under control. This was included in the Legal Services Bill when it was first introduced. The regulations provide for interest to be charged at the capital charge rate that is used by departments and Crown entities as it reflects the cost to the Crown of lending that money. Any person who is unable to repay their legal aid debt can apply to the Legal Services Commissioner who can write off the debt if he is satisfied that it could cause serious hardship.Andrew Little: Given that the purpose of the Legal Services Act is to provide “legal services to people of insufficient means;” how does she justify charging interest of 8 percent to the woman inWainuiōmata who has a legal aid debt incurred obtaining orders to protect herself and her children from her abusive ex-husband and who works 30 hours a week in a low-paid job and for whom the $75 a week extra needed to pay off the debt by March next year and the extra needed to pay interest will cause her serious hardship?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As that member well knows if that particular woman would like to contact the commissioner of legal aid—in fact he has already indicated that he is going to be very generous in looking at these cases. The member has already stated that it will cause serious hardship in which case she would not have to repay that particular debt. I would also just like to confirm for the member because he may not be aware that of the $120 million a year that is spent on legal aid at the moment only 25 percent of cases do not have their debt waived. So in other words in only 25 percent of cases does the debt ever have to be repaid.Andrew Little: What does the Minister say to the grandmother in Upper Hutt who owes over $2000 after obtaining orders to protect her grandson—now 9 years old—and who lives on a pension and cannot afford higher payments or interest payments without facing severe hardship?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I would expect that that particular person would also not be one of the people who would need to pay any interest given the—Andrew Little: Well why weren’t they told that?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One of the comments from the member seems to be that he expects that the commissioner of legal aid would know the personal circumstances of all of the 60000 people who have been written to and frankly that is not acceptable. In fact he has already indicated that there is a 6-month period of grace for anyone to write in and explain their circumstances and it would be waived.Andrew Little: Does she accept that people of insufficient means who use legal aid to protect themselves and their children from violent and abusive situations—most of whom are women—have already done the community a favour and that charging 8 percent interest on any debt is just punishing them?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I certainly say to that member that I believe that those women have done the community a favour in holding violent males who abuse women to account and well done to them. Having said that I would say that it is very unlikely that most of them would ever have to repay that debt.Financial Markets—Impact of Legislative Reform8.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Commerce: How will the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 which will be phased in from 1 April 2014 strengthen our financial markets?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): The Financial Markets Conduct Act will strengthen financial markets conduct continuing the rebuild of investor confidence in New Zealand’s financial markets. The new law will provide clearer laws and options for the raising reporting and monitoring of investor capital. It allows for new forms of capital raising such as peer-to-peer lending andcrowdfunding. It introduces new licensing regimes for specific financial service providers including fund managers independent trustees of workplace superannuation schemes discretionary investment management services and derivative issuers. The Act also introduces new duties on fund managers and supervisors with stronger governance requirements and a new system to regulate securities exchanges allowing for new low-cost exchanges. This Act is a key part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda as we continue to rebuild the confidence and trust in New Zealand’s capital markets.Katrina Shanks: How will the Act help to rebuild investor confidence?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The new law will remove uncertainties by providing better information and protection for New Zealanders. This includes a new requirement for issues to prepare a single product disclosure statement tailored to retail investors and two new online public registrars that will offer documents and information to be much more accessible to investors their advisers market analysts and commentators. The Financial Markets Conduct Act is the largest piece of legislation in a suite of reforms in this sector sitting alongside the Financial Advisers Act the Financial Reporting Bill and other bills on the Order Paper.Housing Affordable—First-home Buyers Mortgages and Availability9.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to theMinister of Housing: Does he agree with all of the views expressed by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga about housing on TV3’sThe Vote on 11 September 2013?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I have had a look at the transcript and there are 17 quotes from my colleague and the bulk of them I agree with.Denis O’Rourke: Does he agree with Mr Lotu-Iiga that first-home seekers should lower their expectations and that $130000 for a deposit is not out of their reach?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Sam told me that he thought he could have—Hon Members: Sam!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sam Lotu-Iiga said that he could have expressed himself better and that $130000 is actually a big stretch for many people to get a deposit for a home.Denis O’Rourke: Does he agree that the Reserve Bank’s loan-to-value ratio requirement has killed off the hopes of most of New Zealand’s young first-home buyers; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not; because this Government has announced a trebling of the number of Welcome Home Loans that are exempt from those loan-to-value ratios. Secondly this Government has expanded the KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidy scheme which will mean that twice as many New Zealanders and particularlyin high-cost markets like Auckland will be able to get access to a bigger subsidy from the Government to get a deposit.Denis O’Rourke: Will he give an assurance to home seekers that as a result of the Government’s housing accords and special housing areas legislation at least 15000 new houses will be available in Auckland City by the next election; if not what will the number be?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The numbers in Auckland are very clearly set out in the housing accord that has been unanimously agreed with the Auckland Council: 9000 in the first year 13000 houses in the second year and 17000 houses in the third year. That is 39000 homes. That is more than three times the amount per year that are being built.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would give an assurance and all he did was to give a number of houses referred to in a report. I want to know whether he is going to give us an assurance—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again that is an attempt to debate the answer that has been given. The Minister has very adequately addressed the question with exactly the numbers that are in the accord he referred to and that will be delivered over the next 3 years. The question has been answered.Phil Twyford: In light of the Minister’s answer that he agreed with the bulk of the statements made by the Government spokesperson on TV3’sThe Vote programme would he please tell the House which of the remaining statements by the Government spokesperson he did not agree with?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague made the statement that 1100 homes under $500000 are available in his electorate. He told me he made a mistake: it was 1100 homes in Auckland rather than in his electorate.Denis O’Rourke: Does he dispute the BNZ-REINZ Residential Market Survey dated 14 March 2013 which says “In Auckland an estimated 11% of sales are to people offshore.” and is that a significant proportion of total homebuyers contributing to the housing bubble in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have seen some of those surveys about trying to estimate the number of foreign persons buying homes. The interesting information I had was that they based it on whether people had foreign-sounding names. That is OK if you are a “Smith”; it is a bit dodgy if you are a “Key”. I suspect there are a few other people with foreign-sounding names who might be banned from buying a house if New Zealand First ever gets in Government.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. It asked fundamentally—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The question was answered very adequately. He asked about a particular survey and the Minister then referred to other surveys and adequately addressed that question.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member raising a fresh point of order or is he attempting to dispute a ruling I have already given?Denis O’Rourke: I am asking for clarification. You ruled on a point of order that I had not stated. I would like to have the opportunity to state it.Mr SPEAKER: The member rose questioning the answer that was given by the Minister.Denis O’Rourke: You did not hear the point of order before you ruled on it.Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member one more opportunity to clarify his point of order but I warn the member that if it is an attempt to use the point of order system to further question an answer that has been given by the Minister then that is out of order.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order is simply this: the question was about whether sales to overseas owners were a significant proportion or not. That was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: It was very adequately addressed by the Minister saying he had seen results of surveys whereby the basis of the survey is the surname of a particular probable purchaser. On that basis he said that many surveys were unreliable.Industry Training—Under-representation of Women10.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: Is he concerned about theunderrepresentation of women in industry training particularly in light of labour shortages in many trades and technical areas?Hon TONY RYALL (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): It would be good to see more women involved in industry training. In fact the number is trending up. In 2012 women made up 31.4 percent of industry trainees. Although more men than women are involved in industry training the reverse is true at higher levels of tertiary study. The proportion of the adult population holding a Bachelor’s degree or higher qualification is higher for women than for men. In 2012 more women than men were enrolled in Bachelor’s degrees Honours degrees Master’s degrees and doctorates.Carol Beaumont: What efforts has he made to increase the proportion of women in industry training and given that in 2009 it was 30.8 percent and in 2013 it had dropped to 28.1 percent does he consider those efforts to have been successful?Hon TONY RYALL: I am unable to confirm that last number the member gave but I do know that the Minister has been working closely with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Minister of Women’s Affairs who have been undertaking a number of actions in order to expand the interest that women have in industry training.Carol Beaumont: Given that women make up over 50 percent of the population how does the under-representation of women in industry training assist in achieving the Better Public Services result area No. 6 of increasing the proportion of 25 to 34-year-olds with advanced trade qualifications or supporting the rebuild of Christchurch or achieving the Government’s Business Growth Agenda of delivering vocational education and training that lifts skills?Hon TONY RYALL: Well of course that level of participation does not help those Better Public Services goals because we would want to have more participation from women in the trades. That is why the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has been undertaking a number of projects in this area towards assisting improving those levels of participation.Dr Megan Woods: Given that he received Treasury advice that women would be disproportionately affected by Budget 2013 cuts to student allowance eligibility for those aged over 40 is he concerned that his policies will shut women aged over 40 out of tertiary education and training opportunities?Hon TONY RYALL: I am not in a position to be able to comment directly on the suggestions the member has made but what I can say is that the Government has been working assiduously in order to ensure that there is strong investment in this area and that we are delivering results with increased participation and interest from New Zealanders.Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table the Treasury advice to the Minister for Tertiary Education—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I presume that it is Treasury advice that it is available to all members.Dr Megan Woods: Well I am not sure that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is freely available. It is on the website. It is available.Disability Care—Funded Family Care Policy11.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to theMinister of Health: What progress is the Government making with its funded family care policy?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): When the Government’s $92 million funded family care policy becomes effective New Zealand will be only the third country in the world to pay a wage to some family members who care for their adult disabled children. The new policy being implemented will enable around 1600 disabled adults who meet the high and very high needs eligibility criteria to pay resident family members to care for them at home for up to 40 hours a week if that is their choice. It is expected that from 1 October 2013 this year needs assessment and service coordination organisations will begin assessing people for eligibility for funded family care.Louise Upston: What other progress is being made with the Government’s funded family care policy?Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry of Health has worked with representatives of the disability and carer communities to draft plain language funding rules that will set out the terms and condition for payment. Disability groups have been consulted on appropriate quality and safety monitoring that will be needed for funded family care and advice and guidance materials are being developed to support eligible disabled adults in deciding whether or not to apply for funded family care. Information on how the scheme works and how people can be assessed for funded family care will be available in the next 2 years. This Government is contributing $92 million to the establishment of funded family care and it observes that even in the best of economic times in this country the party opposite could not find even $1 for funded family care.Women’s Affairs Ministry—Advice to Cabinet and Response to United Nations Recommendations12.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to theMinister of Women’s Affairs: Does her Ministry provide gender implications statements on proposed legislative or policy measures being considered by Cabinet?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs): This Government is fully committed to improving outcomes for New Zealand women. All Public Service departments are expected to integrate gender analysis into their policy development. A gender implications statement is required for all papers submitted to the Cabinet social policy committee. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs also provides advice to me as required on the gender impacts of specific papers going to Cabinet committees other than the Cabinet social policy committee.Sue Moroney: So given that the answer to that question was no—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Sue Moroney: Does the Minister think this mainstreaming approach is working when her Cabinet colleagues in the areas of labour justice and tertiary education have just demonstrated today that they are all pursuing legislation and policies that adversely affect women?Hon JO GOODHEW: I absolutely refute the member’s assertion. In fact if we look at this Government’s Better Public Services we will see that we are as a Government working across many portfolios towards reducing long-term welfare dependency an area where women are overrepresented; boosting skills and employment—again that will positively affect women—and reducing crime and offending. In case it has escaped the notice of the Opposition women are overrepresented in our crime statistics as victims.Sue Moroney: Why is her ministry reporting that no action is being taken on 18 of the recommendations made to this Government by the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women including the recommendation to improve representation on the family violence task force and the recommendation to determine the gender impact of collective bargaining reforms—no action?Hon JO GOODHEW: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is reported on each 4 years. Each 6 months the Ministry of Women’s Affairs meets with people who are working towards this and who are interested in the outcomes. I think there were from memory some 46 recommendations. Some of those recommendations this Government—this Government—is never going to sign up to because they include quotas.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document internal to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs that tracks the current situation with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women recommendations.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! The member can object. I take that as an objection. There is objection.Sue Moroney: Has she given any advice to the Minister of Labour over his consideration of intervening—[Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is actually quite difficult to get this important question out when Tau Henare is barracking across the Chamber.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will start her question again please.Sue Moroney: Has she given any advice to the Minister of Labour over his consideration of intervening in the Kristine Bartlett case to ensure equal pay for women in low-paid occupations?Hon JO GOODHEW: No.VotingCorrection—Family Court Proceedings Reform BillMr SPEAKER: Last night when the House in Committee was considering the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill the result of the vote on closure of Part 3 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52. The correct result is Ayes 63 Noes 56. Also the vote on Part 3 as amended was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 Noes 56. The correct result is Ayes 61 Noes 58. The record will be amended accordingly.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 18 September.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes. It does so for 5 months from the date that a film is first released to the public and it will do so for only a further 3 years under this bill. The ban applies only to the importing of films for commercial use and does not prevent consumers from importing films for their personal use.The ban was originally introduced in 2003 by the Labour Government for a period of 5 years to give cinemas enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology. Again in 2008 the ban was extended for another 5 years as they had not fully transitioned to this digital technology. The Commerce Committee received and considered 10 submissions including four accompanied by oral submissions. The committee basically recommended that the bill is passed without substantive amendment. The committee has agreed to extend this time frame albeit for 3 years and will allow retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier. So although over 60 percent of cinemas currently have converted to digital exhibition technology during this period we are confident that the majority of cinemas will convert to digital exhibition technology.Sue Moroney: Are you sure? Have you got your numbers right this time Sam?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes we are. Our Government supports that transition as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition giving consumers full access or earlier access to films. Keeping up with this technology is an ongoing challenge as we discussed in the select committee and the industry will face this like any other technology-reliant industry. We believe that a 5-month ban will continue to protect the exclusivity of cinemas for a limited period while enabling retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier than is currently possible. It is for these reasons that I once again commend this bill to the House.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the legislation in front of us the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this legislation when it was first introduced in 2003 and New Zealand First again supported the principal Act’s retention in 2008. But at the first reading of this amendment bill we recognised that the cinema community had to a certain extent reinvented itself in many areas to be able to market the cinema as it once did as an experience—not just a place to go and watch a film but a full experience for the consumer. So we were concerned that the industry might not need the protections that are outlined in the bill in front of us.At the same time we also acknowledged that many of those inside the industry as has been mentioned by previous speakers had made significant inroads into the evolution of digital delivery. Matakana Cinemas the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre and theatres such as those had made a significant financial investment in screens and projection equipment that are more up to date—again to enhance the experience.But we were somewhat conflicted because at the same time New Zealand First expressed its concern for the New Zealand film exhibitors and the approximately 10000 New Zealanders directly employed inside this industry. Last night we heard that there was a possibility of 163 to 165 jobs being lost should this extension not be left in place. However it is recorded that there are approximately 10000 New Zealanders currently employed inside this industry directly and another 21000 New Zealanders are affected or could be affected indirectly by the possibility that this extension does not take place.Just to address the word “ban” which is part of this legislation it is interesting how language can change the pros and cons of an argument. Perhaps if we were talking about this as a delayed release as opposed to a ban I wonder how people’s positions might have changed at the beginning of the conversation.But I go back to the fact that we expressed concern about the negative impact that the removal of such a staggered protection could have on those 10000 New Zealanders. We had particular concern for rural cinema operators and their employees as all too often we in New Zealand First find that urban arguments and urban solutions are foisted upon our rural communities often with a detrimental effect.It was due to these conflicting concerns that at the first reading New Zealand First withheld its judgment and we abstained from the vote. Since that time—even though we have not had a member on the Commerce Committee which considered and listened to the submissions—we have followed the progress of the committee and we have read the submissions and the report to this House of that committee. What has become clear to us is that this is an evolution not a revolution. This is a situation that needed to develop and it was important that this particular industry was given that opportunity to do so.The financial investment required to step up all cinemas to this digital technology particularly those in rural New Zealand is very significant. We feel that it is appropriate to give this final extension particularly because again as we often talk about we are and have been in a recession. So it is appropriate to give this final extension to these operators to transition their equipment and their business plans through.I just want to touch slightly upon the minority views placed on the record by the Labour Party and the Green Party. I quote from the Labour minority view in the first instance. It says: “The Labour Party is concerned that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs subscription TV or online streaming then they become sceptical of copyright law and use illicit channels.” The Green Party also makes mention of that in its opposition to this bill. The suggestion is that if this extension this delayed release were to remain it would encourage “illegal file sharing in the absence of legal alternatives.”New Zealand First finds it a very long bow to draw that should these delayed protections remain in place we will be driving New Zealanders to illegal acts. There is such a thing as delayed gratification. Let us remember that it is a 5-month delay period we are talking about here from the international the worldwide release date of a major motion picture. That means that when it is released in California 5 months from that day you can buy it in a store from the DVD shelf. That is not a great hardship. It is a film. I think this is a First World problem if people are concerned about not being able to buy their DVD the day after a major release. So we think that that is a very long bow to be placed inside the minority reports.Without taking up too much more time this is a bill that needs to go through this House before 31 October. This will be the last time it goes through this House. We have no doubt of that. The industry does need to take note. This is very very likely to be the final extension for the industry. The time has come to step up. It must transition through. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through the House.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Satsriakaal Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I am personally very passionate about watching movies at the theatre. This bill will help the small boutique cinema halls to upgrade their technology. This bill is extending for 3 years the parallel importation ban on films after their release date and I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member—Hon Ruth Dyson: Dr David Clark.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was getting there Ruth. I call the honourable member Dr David Clark.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I have been called a lot worse. I want to begin by saying that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga spoke earlier in the debate and I would like to put on record from the outset that I do agree with the bulk of the member’s statements. This has been said already of course today. But there are some statements that I struggle to agree with and I do struggle a little with the way in whichhe has characterised the debate that has been had. I know that he will be struggling with the outcome that his party has come to on this because he is someone who believes in the value of markets. But there he is. He stands up and he says what he thinks needs to be said in this debate. But as with the debate on housing and perhaps actually more pertinent in respect of the debate on housing as my colleague Phil Twyford I think has quipped no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it is still a pig. That is certainly true with the Government’s housing policy.But we are here of course to discuss the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill which has been reported back to the House. I sat on the Commerce Committee which debated this bill. We found that there were arguments in favour of and against extending the protection offered to cinemas around the country. We as a committee have recommended in the end to continue with some level of protection albeit a very clearly signalled final episode of protection and a shorter episode of protection. So the bill reduces the delay for parallel importing of films from 9 months to 5 months after a film’s international release date.Labour’s qualified support for the 5-month delay rests on the impact on provincial and rural cinemas that have less capacity to show multiple high-grossing movies simultaneously and less flexibility and ability to cut costs to remain competitive. It is fair to say that there are also other cinemas perhapsarthouse cinemas and the like in medium-size towns that are vulnerable here. I guess I am a little surprised at the stance the Green Party has taken knowing that the stance it is taking if this bill were to be successfully pushed through the House would mean the loss of about 160 jobs we are told. It would mean the loss of small community facilities. It would probably mean the wholesale destruction ofarthouse cinemas in New Zealand. It seems a peculiar stance for the Greens to take and it is sad to hear that they are not concerned to look after the educational opportunities that are in cinemas that they do not value the community that builds around rural and small-town cinemas and that they do not value the jobs that are in the industry.We think that the decision to have essentially a compromise a shorter period of time of protection leading over to a period when the industry must adapt is the sensible solution. It is a solution that takes the middle path by protecting the industry for a period of time while the adjustment is made. It is not like a very hard decision that means jobs are laid off without a transition period and without the ability to make adjustments. It is showing concern for the industry for the community facilities and for the jobs. So that is the point we reached in our deliberations. They were challenging deliberations. I think the discussions in the select committee were good ones they were full ones and they really went across all of the issues so it is a little sad for me to hear that the Green Party does not seem to value those kinds of community facilities. They do not seem to value the jobs or the films that are shown in the cinemas in those smaller communities. However that is where they stand and they have reached their decision. I am sure it was not easy for them to reach that decision either but I do feel it needs to be put on record that that was a different decision from the one that most parties reached.It is also interesting when we think back that this bill was introduced under urgency. It was introduced under urgency in this House. We spent a lot of time debating why that might be after it had languished on the Order Paper for an inordinately long period of time. The kind of relaxed approach this Government is now taking to it betrays that perhaps it was not quite as urgent as it was first projected to be. The speeches have been very short—very short—and they have contained very little detail or explanation of why this is such an urgent matter. In fact Government members seem quite dismissive of the prospect of debating the bill. That is a little surprising but I think it points to the kind of process that this Government is running through. It is trying to rush things throughunder urgency as it tries to catch up on the lost time from bad organisation in this House. I think that is clear—I think that is clear.This bill will expire on 31 October 2016 with the effect that the importing of a film first made available to the public after that date would be allowed immediately on the film being made publicly available. This is a time-limited bill—it is introducing a time-limited measure—and at that point in time we are expecting that cinemas will have adapted. They will have made the necessary adjustments. They will have switched to digital technology if that is what is required. Also we are recognising the changing patterns of consumption amongst ordinary Kiwis who are increasingly looking at other electronic means of gathering these films this entertainment and the educational material that goes with it. We recognise that Kiwis and others around the world will find ways of sharing a community experience as they adapt to online means of sharing and viewing this material. These forums—online forums—are developing all the time where there is a sense of commonly shared experiences. But not all New Zealanders are there yet and so in some ways that is why this bill makes a lot of sense to continue to preserve that community experience for an interim period of time while the industry adapts and while New Zealanders adapt to the rapidly changing technology and that preserves the opportunity to have those community experiences.In our previous reading I noticed in many speeches MrFaafoi’s entrancement withThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute which came into the discussion. That was the first movie he ever went to see. We discussedStar Wars and other movies butThe Smurfs came up again in a speech by a member sitting opposite me here. I think it was Mr Macindoe if I remember correctly. He raised the issue ofThe Smurfs 2 being released this month and the effects and some of us on this side would have liked to name some of the other characters in the House in order to highlight perhaps the levity with which this bill has been debated at times.I think some of the frivolousness in the speeches from Government members reflects the fact that for them this is not really an urgent bill. It is a bill that reflects the Government’s inability to organise its time in the House. The fact is that it has come through late it is now being rushed through after languishing on the Order Paper and those members are not so attached to it one way or another. It is filling space. It is using parliamentary time but it does ultimately achieve something that we find difficult to oppose because it is a transitional measure.To sum up the Labour Party will be supporting this bill because we believe it provides an appropriate interim measure whilst the industry and community adjust to the changing nature of public entertainment and education in the film sector. Thank you.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Nihao Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on the second reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for 5 months from the date of the film’s first release to the public.The film industry is in the middle of a large-scale makeover as cinemas across the country convert to digital exhibition technology. The National-led Government strongly supports the transition to digital exhibition as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition—giving consumers earlier access to films. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to take a 5-minute call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill as it passed the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act in 2003 which this bill amends. The provisions in that Act are set to expire in October so this bill continues those provisions. However the billreduces the delay for parallel importing a film from 9 months to 5 months after a film’s international release. The bill will expire on 31 October 2016 with the effect that importing a film first made available to the public after that date would be allowed immediately on the film being made publicly available.The original Act was only ever considered a temporary measure to allow the industry time to adapt yet here we are today extending that time frame. Labour’s qualified support for the 5-month delay rests on the impact on provincial and rural cinemas such as the one in my own electorate in Palmerston North which have less capacity to show multiple high-grossing films simultaneously and less flexibility and ability to cut costs and to remain competitive. Labour also has reservations that this may end up costing Kiwi families more on an outing to the cinema and that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs subscription TV or online streaming they will simply use illicit means to fulfil their needs. The Government has reneged on a commitment to undertake a wide review of the copyright regime this year and has instead put it on hold.Labour’s 2011 manifesto stated that we would continue to participate in Trans-Pacific Partnership talks but reiterated its commitment to retaining Pharmac in particular as a bottom line which must not be traded away. We feel similarly strongly about intellectual property provisions. There is great concern that undue influence is coming from overseas to strong arm New Zealand into accepting intellectual property restrictions particularly around parallel importing and that that will end up costing Kiwi families more whether it be a night out at the cinema whether it be the cost of medicines or whether it is being able to buy affordable clothing at The Warehouse for instance. All of these things are under threat if the ability to carry out parallel importing is under threat. That is certainly one of the concerns that members on this side of the House have with some of the international negotiations that are being carried out at the moment. In fact in many ways if the Government is to restrict parallel importing it is the very opposite of what we would traditionally think of as free trade.We have concerns about this piece of legislation. We have concerns that the Government has not been able to organise the transition phase and that here we are extending that transition phase even further. We have concerns that it is in fact hard-working ordinary families in New Zealand who are going to be affected by this with one of those most simple pleasures of a night out at the movies potentially costing more and more and more. Of course we have seen this in a thousand different ways—the cost of living going up and up and up and wages simply not being able to keep up with that cost of living. This is just one more way in which potentially it is going to be harder for Kiwi families. So our qualified support for this remains firmly based on an expectation that ultimately these measures will be phased out.We expect from the Government a robust defence of New Zealand’s sovereign right to be able to carry out parallel importing right across a range of commodities and products so that we can keep the cost of living under control as much as possible. Of course that should be balanced with clear efforts to improve wages for New Zealanders so that people have the money in their pockets to be able to buy the simple things in life like a night out at the movies. Unfortunately of course through a suite of legislative changes we have seen this Government working towards a low-wage economy and doing its best to drive wages down. What we saw today during question time was the apparent lack of empathy for people on low wages and a clear view from Ministers and members of that Government that the issue of low pay is nothing more than a joke and that is not good enough.Catherine Delahunty: Mr Assistant Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I can hardly hear the honourable member.Catherine Delahunty: I will make up for that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Good thank you. I call the honourable member Catherine Delahunty.Tēnā koe Ms Delahunty. I do not think the speaker was working properly.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I will take a brief call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill because I was not on the Commerce Committee and my colleague Gareth Hughes did the substantive work on the bill. However I have got some points to make and one of them is that the Green Party loves the movies. The world has certainly changed since I was dragged hysterically screaming out of the Laurel and Hardy films and the Marx Brothers films. The world has changed a great deal and comedy has changed. But we are strongly committed to film and theatre we love culture in all its forms and we support movies. But we have some concerns about whether this bill is the right way to go. We have some very big concerns about the need for a proper revision of copyright and that is where like the previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway we feel that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is already having very negative effects on our public life and on our debates in the sense that we cannot have the substantive debate that we want to have about copyright. We can reduce this to a simple issue but there are actually darker themes behind it.I live in a rural community and I love my theatre and I attend my cinema. But I want to make a comment that has not been made by any other parties to my knowledge. For example what is the real accessibility of the movies to one section of our community? For example my partner has paralysis in his legs. There are theatres we have gone to where it is very difficult for him to get into those theatres. There are theatres in rural New Zealand and in urban New Zealand that are not fully accessible. As my colleague in the Green Party Mojo Mathers has pointed out for the hearing impaired community many films available in the cinemas are not captioned. What has happened is that the illegal download has sometimes been the captioned download. We are not saying that that is right but we are saying that for that community they never—never—get to go to the cinema in rural communities and see the film if the film is not captioned. I believe we are in a state of transition where we were moving towards digital and we are also moving towards accessibility but very very slowly for a very very limited number of films and there is a substantive section of our community who for a range of impairment reasons are not able to access these films but at home they can.So I guess the Green Party is concerned that this extended transition is not actually helping the industry or helping the community to get their act together and make sure that we get full accessibility in all its senses. We do not actually support illegal downloads but we know that they are happening. We know that people are doing it and we know that they will continue to do that if there are continual limitations. That is not because we believe that everyone should have everything at once and they should not wait but the reality is that the digital generation—the e-generation which I am barely part of—has a different view. To some people 5 months is a very long time and they will access the stuff. But more cogent is the issue of accessibility for people with hearing impairments. That is a far more compelling argument in my view.So although we are not supporting the bill we do support a full review of copyright a modern approach to these issues full support for cinemas to be modern and competitive and for DVDs to be available to people who cannot otherwise access the culture that many of us take for granted—and we do. With those words I would like to end my statement. I look forward to a better process because this was a circus. Honestly the urgency was a circus and the whole process at the beginning was notgood. We need to make sure that we can have—not constrained by the phantom of free-trade deals that are not about trade or freedom—the proper conversation we need to have. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. Regional theatres are really important to the communities they are in. I was at one of our local theatres—I have got two in my electorateWhangaparāoa and Matakana. My wife and I were at the Matakana theatre on Monday at a local fund-raiser. It just reminded me of the great experience that a local theatre can give you. It does not matter how flash the home theatre is there is something pretty special about being able to go to your local theatre.Are they committed to making the transition to digital? Well I believe they are and I can speak only from experience. TheWhangaparāoa theatre is currently making the transition to digital and as my colleague from New Zealand First Tracey Martin stated Matakana is also making that transition. In fact of its three theatres two of them are now digitised and the third one will be digital within the next couple of months. So it was great to be able to support them and make sure that they continue to exist and I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 12; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.Third ReadingsThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Minister Judith Collins to address the people’s House.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Happy Suffrage Day to you too. I moveThat the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Family Dispute Resolution Bill the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The legislation will give effect to this Government’s commitment to reform the family justice service so that it encourages less adversarial resolution of parenting issues. Our proposed reforms will provide greater protection for children and vulnerable people. Core features of the current system will remain such as the ability to get immediate access to the court in emergency or urgent situations.The reforms proposed in the legislation are the first significant legislative changes to the Family Court since its inception in 1981. The time is right for reform. Society has changed in the three decades since the Family Court was set up. The make-up and the dynamics of families have changed. A Ministry of Justice review of the Family Court in 2011 found that court processes were complex uncertain and too slow. There was a lack of focus on children and vulnerable people and insufficient support for resolving issues out of court. The review also found significant reliance on court professionalswhich can increase the time applications take to be resolved. The cost of operating the Family Court was increasing at an unsustainable rate.The reforms reflect our increased understanding of the negative effect that adversarial court proceedings can have on children. They recognise that the Family Court should be just one part of a wider system that helps families reach agreement about care arrangements for their children. The majority of couples reach agreements between themselves even now. This legislation recognises that for those who cannot resolve matters it would be desirable to have other options rather than heading straight to the court.In many cases the court is not the best place for helping families settle disputes. To reduce the number of parenting issues proceeding directly to the court the legislation proposes establishing the new family dispute resolution service known as FDR. Before commencing care of children proceedings in the Family Court family dispute resolution will be mandatory for most parents. Exceptions include serious cases such as domestic violence or straightforward matters where parents want their agreements sealed by the court.The harmful impact of conflict on children will be minimised by family dispute resolution with fewer cases expected to go to the court each year. Family dispute resolution will reduce the delays and expense that court processes can involve for parents. Family dispute resolution will be free for the estimated 60 percent of participants who will be eligible for pre-court financial assistance. For those not eligible the cost of family dispute resolution will be less expensive than retaining a lawyer and proceeding to a defended court hearing.As well as family dispute resolution the free and highly successful Parenting through Separation course will be expanded and will also be made mandatory for many parents prior to the Family Court proceedings. If couples fail to reach agreement in family dispute resolution they can still apply to the Family Court. In cases where people do proceed to the court they will be supported to navigate the court system independently for straightforward matters. Improved information services a simplified three-track court system and easy-to-use forms will be introduced.Parents eligible for pre-court financial assistance may be provided with some initial legal advice prior to court entry. They may also be provided with some preparatory counselling to help them make the most of family dispute resolution. Currently up to 3 hours’ pre-court taxpayer-funded counselling is available to anyone on request. Under the reforms the focus will shift from dealing with private relationship issues to resolving parenting disputes and reducing conflict for the benefit of children.In the court Family Court judges will have more options to help resolve disputes. They will be able to refer parties back to family dispute resolution or Parenting through Separation if they believe this will help parents reach agreement. They will also be able to involve lawyers earlier in the court process where they believe that that will increase the chances of success. Providing more options for parents will free up the Family Court to focus on cases that require judgment. It will also target the use of professionals including lawyers to help resolve more serious matters.The legislation will give effect to this Government’s commitment to protecting children and vulnerable people by improving the Family Court’s response to domestic violence. New provisions in the legislation will make non-violence programmes more effective. There will be wider powers to direct people to attend non-violence programmes. There will also be an increased onus on providers to report on the outcomes of non-violence programmes and to identify any ongoing concerns about those who have attended the programmes. To strengthen the Family Court’s response to domestic violence the maximum penalty for breaching a protection order will beincreased from 2 years’ imprisonment to 3 years’ imprisonment. To improve the safety of those at risk new provisions will allow people under a protection order to request provision of a safety programme at any time. The definition of psychological domestic violence will also be widened to include financial and economic abuse such as denying or limiting access to financial resources.In summary this legislation will reduce the stress on families and children because disputes will be settled more quickly and fewer cases will end up in court. When they do end up in court the interests of children will be the primary concern. The Family Court will be freed up to focus on the more serious matters that require legal judgment such as those involving domestic violence. More protection will be afforded to vulnerable people and children at risk. This legislation creates a more comprehensive family justice service which will better meet the needs of families today.I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work that they have done in relation to this legislation including the chairs of the committee—there were two during the process of this legislation Mr Tim Macindoe and Mr Scott Simpson. I would also like to thank all the submitters because their submissions were listened to and there were significant changes to the legislation following the input of the submitters. I commend this legislation to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure of course to address the people’s House on this very important legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—legislation that will affect many people. I address the people’s House not in purple as the Minister of Justice has done but indeed with a heavy heart nevertheless because these are not good bills. This is not good legislation. In spite of the Minister’s best hopes for it or the marketing spin that she at least puts on it we do not anticipate that it will have any of the effects that she anticipates for it. I find it interesting that the Minister says that the legislation will put the interests of children at the forefront of the Family Court’s consideration of family dispute issues. When there was a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed exactly that phraseology to make the interests of children paramount Supplementary Order Paper 254 it was rejected by the Government—rejected by the Government members. This is not legislation to put the interests of children first. It is not even legislation to put the interests of separating couples first. It is about putting the Government’s balance sheet first and foremost. It is about putting the Government’s income and expenditure accounts above all else. It is about cutting cost. That is what has driven this.This legislation started with very noble intentions. It started out as a reform process to address the quite legitimate and well-expressed concerns about the Family Court particularly concerns about delay—we know that there were delays in some cases—and about the fact that more court time and more judge time was being tied up in what might otherwise be described as trivial matters. They were matters as the Minister of Justice described them in some of her contributions to the debate on the legislation of where little Johnny or Jane should spend a particular weekend or a particular Christmas. It was quite proper for the then Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power to convene a process which was a very good process. It started with a meeting of interested parties here in Parliament in 2011. It followed that with a consultation process with those working in the field and those working in the court: the lawyers judges specialists and families as well—those who had used the system—and it also included an expert advisory group. That was a very robust process.But what a pity that the outcome once there was a change of Minister—once there was a new Minister of Justice and Judith Collins took over—was that the legislation did not reflect the work that was done through those very important consultative processes. What came back was a piece of legislation focused on the care of the children issuewhich is important—and it is nearly 40 percent of the Family Court’s work—but it was also about removing the responsibility of the State to ensure good and fair outcomes between couples who were separating and for the management and custody of their children.It not only removed the State’s responsibility but beat up on the lawyers and the professional advisers who have been involved in that process. How interesting it was that probably 80 percent of the submitters whom we had before the Justice and Electoral Committee were lawyers judges and also users of the court. Mums and dads and former partners came to the select committee and said that the person who got them through and who enabled them to understand what was happening who enabled them to understand the agreements they were entering into and the orders that were being made by the court was the lawyer—the large number of parents who came and said that the person who was the most helpful was the lawyer for the child because they were not wrapped up in the emotions of their client they could hear and understand the children and they could assist the lawyers representing the parents to come up with a sensible set of solutions. That is why the evidence before the committee was that between 75 percent and 80 percent of family disputes were resolved in discussions between the parties and their lawyers.And what has this Minister done with the legislation now? In her desperate bid to get lawyers out of the picture and to prevent users of the court from having access to legal advice including by screwing down the right to legal aid—and that is getting harder and harsher even for those who get it—the Minister thinks that suddenly miraculously couples who are in dispute will quite happily sit with each other and one other person in a room and will resolve their issues. It is a Pollyannaish view. We had a sort of address by MarjorieProops from the Minister as part of the debate who said that people should pull up their socks pull themselves together and sort it out. It is completely unreal and unrealistic and it simply does not allow couples going through the devastating time and process of separation to deal with their issues. When people are making agreements that are lasting a lifetime or at least lasting a large chunk of their lifetime and lasting for the period of a child’s life until they enter into young adulthood then actually parents are entitled to have access to advice and to understand the legal ramifications of the agreements they are entering into.This legislation will deprive them of that. They will be expected to participate in a forum where they will not have access to legal advice. They might have had a small amount of advice beforehand but not when they are going through the actual issues and wanting to know the legal impact of what they are agreeing to. They will not have access to that. They will be expected to deal with the person with whom they want to end the relationship or about whom they are grieving at the end of the relationship with only an independent facilitator present whose job then is to help them understand what they are doing and to also represent the best interests of the children. It will be an impossible task. It does not matter what accreditation regime the Minister puts in place through the ministry or anything like that. It will not be a satisfactory situation for those who are reliant on the system to come up with an agreement to resolve their very difficult problems.I think it is a great shame that on a day when we are celebrating such an important anniversary as the emancipation of women the entry of women to the franchise and the beginning of the process of empowering women in our communities we are passing legislation whose most deleterious effects will be felt by women who will lose the voice they have had and the assistance and the support they have had to deal with one of the most difficult situations in any person’s life—man or woman. They will lose that support. Not only that; they have already lost access to legal aid to get assistancethrough that sort of process and many women will be left vulnerable and exposed and on their own. This is a shameful day. It is a shameful day for the Government and frankly it is embarrassing to be member of a House that is passing legislation like this on a day like this.So that is why we remain implacably opposed to this legislation. This is not about effective dispute resolution; this is about a Government desperate to cut costs so that it can bail out its rich corporate mates. TheTīwai Point aluminium smelter Warner BrosSkycity and all of the rest of them are lining up for a handout. This is a Government that is quite happy to take money out of the back pockets of the most vulnerable in our community—to take resources out of those processes and forums and institutions that support ordinary people going about their daily lives—so that it can present a surplus next year and look after its corporate mates. That is how cynical this Government has become. Well mark my words it is coming to an end. Our leader David Shearer has said that the train is leaving the station. There is a song about that. There is another song—there is another song. The world is changing. There is a new world a-coming and we are part of it. We will bring it about and it will be about fairness and equity and a community that cares about its people that looks after its people and that uses the resources of the State wisely and to empower people. That is what we stand for. That is why we are implacably opposed to this dreadful legislation from this shabby tawdry Government. We look forward to the day when this will be tossed out and we will have better legislation that will look after families and look after people in their most difficult times and at their most difficult moments.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Kia ora. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the third readings of these bills now divided from the former Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I also thank the member Andrew Little for what may have been his final speech as Labour’s justice spokesperson and I remind him that yes his leader has said that the train is leaving but the leader is actually David Cunliffe as I understand it not David Shearer as he mentioned. It just goes to show the depth of confusion and malaise and concern that exists in the Labour caucus when the justice spokesperson stands up a week after a change of leadership and still refers to the old leader once removed as the current leader. That just shows the mess that the Labour Party is in.I want to thank the Minister of Justice Judith Collins for bringing this legislation to the House. I would also like to thank the officials who worked very hard and diligently on this piece of work for us at times under great time pressure to achieve deadlines. I would also like to thank the hard-working and diligent members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who across the party divides of the House actually worked I thought in a very collaborative and useful way on this legislation as it went through the deliberations before the committee.It is quite a complicated piece of legislation. It amounts to the first real full reform review of our Family Court justice process since its inception some 30 years ago. The legislation now falls into the omnibus of divided parts. I am not going to go through those individually but in preference I would like to just acknowledge the 386 written submissions that the committee received and also the 217 oral submissions that the committee heard in various places around the country.Many of those submissions were from people who had personal and absolute horror stories to tell us. They told us for instance about the expensive slow drawn-out ineffective and stressful process that the Family Court system had provided for them. Changes made during the select committee process mean that as a result of the work of the committee the legislation is I think better legislation than it was when it came before us at the first reading.The people who come before the Family Court—those who told us their stories at the select committee—often are people who are stressed who are emotional and who are at a vulnerable point in their lives. A relationshipbreakup and the subsequent sorting-out of details can be one of the most difficult things that people can confront in their lives.But that said the vast majority of couples who do go through a relationship split and the fallout that occurs as a result of that actually do sort out their affairs without the need to go to the Family Court. They do so because they are able as adults to come to terms with the changed situation in their relationship and they can work out a way through it—the vast majority do. On this side of the House we take the view that where people can sort things out for themselves they should. Recourse to State-provided services and facilities should not be a course of first action for people who are going through relationshipbreakups. We do not subscribe to the view that the Family Court should be the first option in resolving relationship issues.The reforms that we are considering today mean that the Family Court will be a better more efficient provider of a service for those who actually need it. Let us have a look at why those changes are needed. The Family Court has for a long time been criticised by people who were involved with it as being adversarial and for placing additional stress in already testing circumstances on people who are already vulnerable and under stress. People complain that it is not focused enough on the most serious cases such as domestic violence and people complain that it is negative for children who are subjected to the process.So these reforms being considered today establish a new family dispute resolution process that will absolutely focus our family justice system very clearly towards supporting people to resolve their disputes outside the court system where appropriate. I think that is a good thing. Couples will be required to go through a Parenting through Separation programme and at least attempt a family dispute resolution before applying to the court for parenting or guardianship orders unless there is an exemption such as what might apply where there is a case of violence being involved. I think that is right and appropriate.These reforms will support people to resolve disputes out of court where appropriate and they will ensure that the court when it is needed is focused on the most vulnerable. This legislation and these divided bills are good pieces of reform. They are needed pieces of reform. I thank the Minister for bringing them to the House. I commend these bills wholeheartedly for consideration by the House.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Namaste Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the final reading of the legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. But I do it with some sadness because this is the kind of measure in this area that ought to be supported across the House. There ought to be agreement across the House when we are trying to improve a system. These series of bills do not actually do that and I want to go through the three major drivers to this legislation as we see it.The first driver here is the increasing costs in the Family Court system. Let me talk a little bit about that because it seems to have become a principle by which this Government operates. It says that if something we are doing is costing more then by definition there is something wrong with it and we must reduce it without actually having a look to see why that cost is increasing. So when we do that the only argument we get from this Minister and from this process is that this is out of hand because it costs too much. And because it costs too much we must now find a system that actually destroys the very value of the services provided in the Family Court.The Family Court is 30-odd years old and it has served us well. It is a well-developed system. That is not to say that it cannot be tweaked. It can always be tweaked. But intrying to keep a focus on only the financial driver for this particular area of change what the Government has forgotten to do is to calculate the advantages of that as well. The Government has not done that. We have had no discussion about what the value is of the kinds of services that are provided in the Family Court and through legal aid to those who end up in this particular place. So it is a Government that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. The Government has not demonstrated its understanding of the benefits to those vulnerable people who find themselves in this particular situation.The Government has been very ready to spend large sums of money elsewhere. If we look at that—I think the figure is $13 million. That is what the cost is of this service that is being is cut. If that is all it is then why in a country with a budget like ours and in a country with a soul like we purport to have has it become such a problem that we cannot actually provide the kinds of intensive services our most vulnerable children need—it is mainly children whose parents are separating; it is the adults who make the mess and it is the children who pay the price—and actually get the right services there so that change can occur? Yet we are prepared to spend inordinately much larger sums of money to address some other presumed advantage. The Government has not explained that. The Ministers have not explained that.I think that the financial driver behind this is hard to actually be convinced by. It is what the Government has done for a long time. It may just be that the real driver behind this is the Government trying to hide its own mistakes—the mistakes it made in 2009 with the unaffordable tax cuts etc. The long-term effect of that economic plan is that the Government now has to cobble together even small sums of money from very very good programmes just to balance the books. It is selling whatever it can sell. The Government is cutting programmes like this. In the scheme of things they are very cheap programmes—not expensive at all—and they are doing a lot of good; certainly doing no harm. Yet this legislation puts that aside.I cannot imagine Tim Macindoe actually being supportive of something like that when I know he understands the needs of the children who find themselves in this position. I have respect for the member who knows that providing the right amount of resources the right kind of assistance the right kind of dispute resolution procedures and making sure there are no financial pressures actually resolves the situation. But no this is not what the Government is doing.This is the awful consequence of the Government’s long-term policy. It has made so much expenditure that it need not have made and should not have made. It is not producing the benefits and now the Government is having to cut deep into many of the programmes that are for the vulnerable.The Government has become rather nonchalant about making cuts to programmes for the poor. It has done that all across the board. Whether under the guise of welfare dependency or inefficient programmes etc. it has made all those cuts. And yet the other day when the botulism scare was on the Government offered a couple of million dollars to the companies that were involved and that had to travel to China to sort that out. They did not even ask for that. They did not even ask for that but the Government was very quick to make public moneys available—a couple of million dollars. I heard the interviews with the owners of those companies and they said: “We didn’t ask for this. Nice to have.” How about that kind of thinking when it comes to providing for our vulnerable people?The second driver of this particular legislation is something that the member Scott Simpson talked about a few minutes ago and it is this: the argument has gone that we know that many many more people resolve their disputes themselves. That is true—they do. But from there the logic is so lost. Therefore the Government thinks thateverybody must do that. That belies logic because the very point is that the small number who cannot resolve their difficulties end up in this particular situation. Therefore they are at the sharper end and therefore they do require the kinds of services that the Family Court currently provides. Yet under the guise of that principle—that so many resolve their issues themselves—the Government says we now do not need to provide these services to these more vulnerable groups at the sharp end. It does not make any sense to do that but it is a justification. It is an intellectually dishonest justification when the Government says that for those reasons it will take away all of these services.Well one of the things that have happened is the change in family form over probably the last 20 or 30 years. The family form has changed. The nature of the family today is very different from the traditional families in which many of us were brought up. There are many many different types of families and they form and re-form all of the time. That is happening all over the world. Any cursory view of our family form statistics in New Zealand will show that family form is now different. One of the consequences of the change in family form is that there are more disputes. So it is not surprising that we are programmed to require our courts to actually provide assistance to those family forms. That is what explains the numbers. We have not become inefficient all of a sudden; there are simply more cases.What the Minister has done in this case—because of some perverse attitude towards the law profession and I do not understand this Minister’s attitude to that profession—is that she is actually not even listening to her own expert groups which she brought together to give advice. She is not following that advice. So the logic of this is just not there to follow. This is an ideological trip of this Government. It actually is hostile to the vulnerable.But maybe there is something a little more insincere. I think the Minister and some others have been captured by a number of powerful people who can say “Look what my partner did to me.” and that is because of the services that are available to them in the courts. That ought not to happen and this Minister and this Government have got captured by them. I have heard those arguments as well by some people who want to fight with their partners in court and when they lose they blame the system. Yet the system was designed simply to protect our children.This is an ideologically driven set of proposals. It is based on flawed logic. It is based on a rather miserly attitude to a small amount of money. And it will end up having to be fixed up again some place down the track. So for those reasons we have fought against this legislation and we will change it when we are in Government. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party also categorically opposes the legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The proposed package of reforms will be a significant change to the family justice system the largest since the establishment of the Family Court in 1981. The reforms are stated to be driven by three concerns: one that they will enable the Family Court to focus on the most serious cases; two that the Family Court does not have clear processes so it is difficult to understand and navigate apparently; and three that the Family Court has seen its costs greatly increase in recent years despite no movement in the total number of cases accessing its services.We believe that this legislation is an erosion rather than an improvement of our court system. We believe that although the most vulnerable women and children are likely to bear the brunt of these changes we will all pay. And on Suffrage Day it is particularly galling to see some cornerstone legislation for the protection of women undermined in this House. This legislation is what happens when the Government turnsits eye to how it can reduce costs rather than deliver to its citizens. This legislation is what happens when the Government forgets that it has an important role to play in preventing social disintegration. This is what happens when the Government considers short-term financial lines over long-term savings.The Family Court was established in 1980 following the report of the Royal Commission on the Courts in 1978. The commission through a very thorough investigation recognised that families play a vitally important role in our society and that a specialised forum was required to respond adequately to their needs. From this arose the Family Court as we have it now.Yet over time so much has been added to the court. I think that when we consider some of the administrative difficulties and the complexity of the court considering what has been added to its role over time may help us understand that. It stands in stark contrast to the changes that are being proposed. Since its establishment the Family Court has had added to its jurisdiction the care and protection of children under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989; powers ofwardship which were previously the preserve of the High Court; international child abduction law duties; the enactment of the Care of Children Act 2004; exclusive jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 which was previously shared with the High Court; estates under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955; jurisdiction under health and disability legislation such as the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and of course the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 gave the Family Court power to grant protection orders under this statute which represents a considerable body of work for the Family Court.So it is no wonder that we need to update our legislation and the structure of the court. That is not in question here. The Government held a review. I guess considering all of that it made sense to have a review and to consult and the Government did consult widely. It had 209 submissions and 121 full responses were received. The Minister of Justice in 2012 released a set of proposals for change. These proposed changes are raised in the discussion paper but they did not reflect and this legislation does not reflect the feedback of the community of those with the most experience of the Family Court.What that review asked for was a Family Court review that provided better information on how to resolve disputes; a non-adversarial child-focused family justice system; greater transparency around court processes and accountability of court professionals particularly lawyers; consequences for those who mislead the court or create delay; and an increase in the skills and competency of family lawyers.We know what is in this legislation. What it does is set up a family dispute resolution process that is mediation and facilitation based without representation. It will be mandatory private and non-judicial and will be a cost to those wanting to access that mandatory service. That is an undermining of our basic court process that is not what was asked for by the review and that is not what families in breakdown need.As was pointed out earlier in respect of the philosophy that families should be able to work these things out themselves those that can do. By far the majority of families do and they do not come near the Family Court. The families who come to the Family Court in these situations are the families in conflict who have not been able to work it out themselves. It is absolutely essential for us as a State to be able to help those families out unless we are to all pay for the cost of increased conflict and family breakdown. That is what this is potentially setting up.Alongside this although it is purportedly about increasing the rights of the child in this process it actually limits the role of the counsel for the child. Counsel for the child will now be appointed when there are “concerns for the safety and well-being of the child;” and the judge considers an appointment of the counsel necessary. This is an erosion of that service. It is a displacement of children from their centrality in this legislation. We know that children are the most vulnerable when families are in breakdown. This will have long-lasting consequences.It sets up that when lawyers for the child are appointed or in other situations part of the costs may now be passed on to one or both parties involved in the case. So here we are saving money in the short term considering the Government’s Budget this year next year with no mind to the future cost no mind to the harm and the pain of the families going through this process and no mind to the potential for victims of domestic violence to get caught up in this system if they are not in a place in their life to be able to disclose that they are victims of abuse. They are going to be put in situations of facilitated discussion where we have no guarantee that the facilitator has skills or knowledge around domestic violence. The outcome of that is potentially very dangerous.This legislation is a travesty. It is particularly so I say again to have this in front of the House on Women’s Suffrage Day—120 years of women having the right to vote in this country. To see a piece of legislation that is so important to women’s and children’s safety in front of this House being undermined is embarrassing and it is a sad day. Thank you.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): This legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is about modernising our Family Court system. It is about bringing some 33-year-old legislation into the 21st century.We have heard that back in 2011 a review of the Family Court system was undertaken and there were some serious concerns raised. There were concerns raised that the court lacked sufficient focus on meeting the needs of those children and on achieving sustainable durable outcomes for families. It found that there were complicated court processes lengthy delays. It found that it was adversarial and that it did place additional stress and strain on already strained relationships. It found that it spent too much time on simple private matters that did not need to be resolved in the court that it was complex to use and that it was too slow to resolve those disputes. It was not focused enough on those most serious cases. This legislation is designed to address those concerns.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to go through the stated aims of the original Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and comment on the outcomes in these 10 amendment bills arising from it. Firstly the aim was to encourage faster and less expensive resolution for broken families who have issues to resolve concerning the custody and care of children by requiring parties to participate in the new family dispute resolution process instead of having to go to the court for determination unless necessary especially in cases of family violence. This had potential but has been spoilt by the many other provisions of the reforms.Secondly lawyers were not to represent parties in family dispute resolution but may give initial advice if on legal aid or if paid for privately of course. The problem here is that too few people who will need it will qualify for legal aid. The threshold is far too tough. So some will be well supported—those who do qualify and those who can afford to pay for a lawyer privately—but there will be a large number who fall between these two situations and that is the problem.Thirdly the Family Court was to focus on matters genuinely needing a court decision where protection of vulnerable people and children would be prioritised. Ihave no problem with that but has this been achieved in the legislation? The real issue is whether the alternative family dispute resolution system as set up in the legislation has been set up well enough to take the court’s place. I have no confidence that that will be the case for far too many people.Fourth parties were to take responsibility where possible for their own arrangements concerning the care of children. That sounds fine but the issue here is not so much a statement of the principle of self-responsibility; it is the fact that people do need help through these systems. The worst aspect of these reforms is that the Government is not funding sufficient counselling before a dispute matures in order to make self-responsibility practicable as a way of proceeding in far too many cases. As I have already said the test for legal aid to be provided is far too tough.The point is that there are areas of significant legal challenge to be dealt with by parties who cannot be expected to fully understand them—too many for the Government’s “no lawyer” provisions in these amendment bills. The Government just does not care about this. It thinks saving money is more important. This is a second-class justice approach and the Government cannot now pretend that it is anything else.Fifth the original intention was to try to reduce the exacerbation of family disputes by making it not so easy to get to court—because legal proceedings often make relationships worse—but with the court still there as a backstop. Not only is it not so easy to get to the court now but there are significant barriers to parties in the system as a whole. As it has turned out the legislation will exacerbate rather than reduce areas where there is a power imbalance by forcing parties into processes where one party will have the advantage of representation or advice and another will not.This is not an improved system; it is a worse one. It is all very well to have a simplified and cheaper system but this will be at the expense of the equality of the parties in the system and it therefore risks compromising the system as a whole reducing the success rate and damaging the outcomes for the very people—the children—whose interests the legislation says are to be paramount.Sixth the legislation would seek to be more responsive to victims of family violence. The legislation does expand the definition of psychological abuse and it increases maximum sentences for this from 2 to 3 years and improves the delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes. These parts of the reforms are worthwhile—probably they are the only parts in that category.Seventh the Government was open about its main intention to make the Family Court more efficient and cost-effective. It was always clear that the major objective was in fact to save money and this permeates the reforms from start to finish. Sadly this will as I have already said be at the expense of a fair and effective system that parties will have genuine access to and be able to use effectively.Eighth and last the last of the stated aims was to speed up court applications by reducing the court’s rapidly increasing workload. The reforms may well speed up the Family Court’s workload but they will not necessarily speed up the system for the parties overall. In the end despite a very large number of amendments having been made to the bill as originally introduced in New Zealand First our reservations and our concerns have certainly not been met. By far the biggest concern for us was the reduction in the use of lawyers for the parties and of lawyers appointed to represent the children and secondly the reduction in the availability of legal aid which is now available to only a limited degree prior to but not during any mandated dispute resolution process and if the dispute goes before a judge.New Zealand First does not agree to penny-pinching of that kind resulting in a lack of adequate legal representation and with that severely reduced legal aid entitlements. As a fundamental principle of justice parties with a reasonable need not theregulations should decide whether they need a lawyer. Legal aid for advice before family dispute resolution is free for those under the income threshold for legal aid estimated at about 60 percent of participants so most parties are already legally aided out of necessity. But the availability of legal aid should not be the basis upon which parties decide whether they will have a lawyer or not and there will of course be about 40 percent who may be unable to cope without legal aid. Although family dispute resolution is likely to be less expensive than hiring a lawyer and proceeding to a defended hearing in the court these requirements are so tough that many people will simply not get a lawyer when they really need one so there is a real problem of power imbalances being created as a result.These reductions in legal representation and legal aid are the main reason for New Zealand First opposing the legislation. These reductions are likely to be a false economy anyway because the costs in other areas are likely to increase. Fundamentally if the quality of the process is compromised the resolution will be illusory resulting in another dispute later. Another particular reason for opposition is that the legislation prohibits the court appointing a lawyer to represent the child unless it is “necessary”. The concern is that lawyers would no longer be involved in the initial stages of proceedings under the Care of Children Act. The problem is that the legislation requires the court to have “concerns for the safety or well-being of the child;” and to consider an appointment necessary. That is far too tough. It should be the other way round—the court should appoint a lawyer unless it finds that it is unnecessary to do so.The Government says that parents are expected to represent the best interests of the child in the process but in fact many are actually not able to do that especially in the stressful situations they find themselves in. New Zealand First would have liked to see the fully Government-funded counselling service reinstated—before disputes mature. Not all families will break up if they get counselling in that way.Finally we think that the imposition of interest on legal aid will cause hardship and serious hardship which are the grounds for the legal aid agency setting aside the requirement to pay interest. It is a very high bar—far too high—and low-income people will suffer. And 8 percent is simple Government profiteering. Legal aid is paid for through taxation. The Government should not be charging interest at all on funds from these sources for these public purposes. The State should make a contribution. Charging interest is objectionable and wrong in principle and 8 percent is nothing less than disgusting as an approach to legal aid. The State is not a banker. It should be providing a public service. For all these reasons New Zealand First will certainly vote against this legislation.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in this third reading debate on the legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I believe that this legislation reflects the sensible balance and pragmatic solutions that are rapidly becoming a hallmark of our excellent Minister of Justice in this country. Other Government speakers have spoken about the sorts of sensible reforms that have been introduced. I do not think that the Government should resile from or apologise for taking care and being responsible with taxpayers’ money and the investment we are making in our court system in this country.Other speakers have spoken about the common-sense approach to taking children out of the stressful and harsh environment of a court setting and settling more of these disputes through a family dispute resolution process. I want to focus on one particular aspect of this legislation and that is improving the court’s response to domestic violence because I think this is very important. This legislation better supports vulnerable people including improving responsiveness to domestic violence and itdoes this by expanding the definition of psychological abuse in the Domestic Violence Act to include financial and economic abuse. It increases the maximum sentences for breaching protection orders from 2 to 3 years and it provides greater flexibility in the development and delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes.I think these are sensible reforms that will make a very real difference to people who are at the greatest risk of being the victims of domestic violence. For this reason I commend this legislation to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The brevity of that contribution is reflective of the level of confidence in the equity of this legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and what it is capable of achieving. It could also of course be indicative of the lack of knowledge of that member Mr Foster-Bell about what the legislation is about because what he said bore no relationship to what this legislation has in it. Let us get one point absolutely clear. This legislation has one purpose one purpose alone and that purpose is to save money by cutting spending on the people who are the most vulnerable and the most needy and their ability to get justice in the Family Court system and under family law. It is about cutting spending—the first middle and last of the objectives of this Government.No matter how the Government dresses it up this legislation is not justified by any evidence that it is necessary or that it will achieve the positive objectives that it claims. It is not supported by those who work in the system who understand the system who have been through the system and who are knowledgable about the system. That is epitomised by the fact that the group of experts set up by the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power is utterly opposed to what this legislation does. When the Ministry of Justice came out and said that this legislation aligns with what the Expert Reference Group on Family Court Reform recommended the expert reference group said that that was not honest that was not correct and that was not true. This legislation is based on a lie—on the lie that it is sustained by what the experts set up by the original Minister wanted when it is exactly contrary to what they believe.I want to say this: when I went through what those experts presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee and when I challenged the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins to answer these challenges she was silent. Well she was not silent; she got up and she embarked on a speech replete with personal abuse but she did not answer the key criticisms that the experts on the reference group made. Those criticisms were these. The expert reference group’s submission said: “If this Bill proceeds … the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed.” This legislation if it proceeds will destroy they said the very fabric of the family law and justice system. That was an enormous challenge and what did the Minister say in reply to that challenge? Nothing—that is what she said. There was silence. The submission goes on and says: “The Bill is based on flawed policy development without statistical or research base justifying such fundamental and radical changes.” The Government has moved forward with this legislation without doing the basic work to show whether or not the changes that it is making will work. There is a reason why the Government has done that. It is that the Government does not care whether it works. The Minister does not care about the damage that she will do to the most vulnerable people in our community and that includes the children—most particularly the children. She is interested only in saving money.If I thought that the Government had no option but to cut in this area I would think about whether the legislation was worthy of support. But what I do not understand is why this Government can spend $30 million on the multinational company RioTinto which intends to pull out of this country anyway and destroy the jobs. The Governmenthas got $30 million for that but it has not got the money to ensure justice is delivered to the vulnerable in our society. The Government will pay money to Warner Bros—$16 million on top of the $50 million - odd it has already got—to produce a film that was going to be produced here anyway. The Government will spend those millions of dollars but it will not provide for psychological reports for the kids who might be damaged because of the process of family breakdown. That is not fair. That is not equitable. That is not sustainable. The members on the National backbenches understand that—you can see it in their body language.The Government has money to cut the income tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country but it will withhold legal aid. As the regulatory impact statement—this document in my hand produced by the Ministry of Justice—says the Government will withhold money from those who need it. That is said in the regulatory impact statement comments without any sense of irony. It says: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” Of course that is whom it affects. It says that if those people cannot get legal aid they are likely to be unrepresented. Well boy there were someEinsteins on the group that wrote that! Of course if they do not get legal aid they will not be represented.What will that lead to? Well they own up to this. The Minister of Justice would not own up to it. They say this in the very next sentence: “the opposing party may have a lawyer. This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” Of course that is what this legislation will do. But the Minister does not care. She does not care that inarticulate people cannot have representation to articulate their case so that the judge can hear both sides of the story equally. She does not care that this legislation does not produce justice.Let us have a look at what that expert reference group said. I challenged her on each of these points and on each of these points she remained silent. This group was made up of barristers with 30 years’ experience in the Family Court and psychologists like Fred Seymour who has done incredibly good work to make the Family Court system work and is hugely respected. It is made up of judges and made up of people who the Minister of Justice felt were the most knowledgable the most experienced and the most skilled. They said that this bill is not based on empirical evidence. What did the Minister say? What did she say? Nothing. They say this is “contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children;”. It is contrary to the evidence that exists of what the kids and the families need to see justice done. What did the Minister say? She said nothing. They say it “will create a two-tiered family justice system …”. How do they describe that? They say: “the more vulnerable members of society will have limited access to the services to assist them in the resolution of family disputes … it is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched resulting”—not in savings—“in increased costs to the health education child protection and criminal justice budgets.”This bill will not even save money. It will create economic costs because when you have people not represented before the court the court process slows down. It costs more money. It will create human costs because when people are in fundamental dispute and alienated from their partner who might be abusive you cannot expect them to front up to that person in a committee or a court without representation. It is fundamentally wrong. And anybody who knows the working of the family law system and the Family Court in this country knows that that is wrong. We will come back into this Chamber and we will reverse many of the things that are put in this bill because they are wrong. They are wrong in principle and they are wrong in practice.This bill does not deliver justice. It is a negation of justice. It does not deliver fairness and equity. It denies fairness and equity. It is not about the interests of the families who are in dispute and where their relationship has broken down. It is not about helping the children in that situation. It is putting obstacles in their way. This bill is entirely wrong and shame on the Minister for bringing it through this House and shame on the National members sitting opposite who will vote for it to go through and extend injustice in this country.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I am afraid I probably cannot meet the rhetoric of the previous speaker Phil Goff and his passion and criticism of the legislation. But I do not have any particular desire to do that because I rise feeling that it is a privilege to be speaking on the third reading of the bills that were formerly part of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill introduced by someone who could only be described as a very dedicated and efficient Minister of Justice who has held—Scott Simpson: Competent.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Very competent indeed. Thank you Scott. I will be taking just a short call on this legislation.The legislation is to ensure that those moving through the Family Court procedure—and no one should ever consider that there is much pleasure in that I am sure—are delivered better public services in an efficient effective and responsive manner. Someone told me recently that by the time you reach this stage in a relationship breakdown the worst is over. The increased accessibility that is being provided by this legislation means that the focus can in fact be on resolving disputes and working to protect the needs of those at the heart of the family—children. I believe that this legislation is a good step to ensuring that the Family Court continues on the path to being a place that solves problems rather than as is often the case being a place that makes problems. I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to acknowledge and congratulate New Zealand today as we celebrate Women’s Suffrage Day. It has been 120 years since women were given the right to vote. Today marks a very powerful example of the strength and power of a small nation like New Zealand doing the right thing and leading the rest of the world. I think it is proper during this debate to pay tribute to the many women who suffered physically as well as emotionally during that struggle and even today I suspect there is still a lot of that suffering.I think it is also important to reflect and to acknowledge those men—husbands sons fathers and brothers—who stood shoulder to shoulder with the women in the struggle to defend to protect and to advocate for this fundamental basic right all those years ago and even today. In my mind the struggle of women is the struggle for political freedom. It is the struggle for the right to be respected and to sit at the highest table of decision making in this country. It is the struggle for economic freedom where every woman receives equal pay for work of equal value. It is the struggle for basic freedoms—simple things like the freedom to live where one wants to live work where one wants to work or to travel where one wants to travel. It can even be about simple things like eating what one wants. I think that for the most part women have experienced those struggles and they have a deeper understanding than most people. But I also think that the struggles are similar forMāori Pasifika ethnic communities and all working communities which leads me this debate on the 10 bills that were formerly part of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill.On the commemoration of women’s suffrage this Government is passing into law legislation that will again widen the gap of inequality between those who have economic and political power and those who do not. I suspect that those who will sufferthe greatest as a result of the injustices and the inequality that these bills will throw up will be primarily women and children. The legislation limits access to court-funded counselling. It limits access to legal aid. It establishes a mandatory private non-judicial process which means that the parties to the process have to meet the cost and the cost I understand from the recommendation from the advisers could possibly be about $900. I suspect that if people have to pay that amount of money then they are not going to be able to access justice.So to sum it all up the legislation means that vulnerable communities particularly women and children and young people who may find themselves in disputes requiring legal support and legal aid will find themselves being denied access to justice. They will find themselves being outside the doors of our courts and of support. In my electorate we have theMāngere Community Law Centre. That centre in addition to the others that service the Manukau region experienced the highest need for legal aid and yet we see that this legislation will limit the access to aid for people who require support.There is also an example of the difficulties that I foresee happening. About a week or so ago a family home in Manukau was broken into by police in error. Today that family is still trying to resolve that because the police have failed to admit to the error that they have committed and the family is still waiting for the police to try to resolve that and pay for the damage that was caused. Luckily the woman whose family this is knows a little bit about the law so she was able to step up and say “Look somebody’s done injustice to me.” But I have to say that in that regard there were other families whose homes were also broken into by police while they were looking for the offender.The point I am making is that a lot of vulnerable families have difficulty accessing justice at the moment and since the Government has come into power over the last 5 years we have seen cuts to funding of the sources of support that people would normally receive—legal aid for example. That is the point I am making here. That is what this legislation is going to do. It is going to put more and more vulnerable communities particularly women and children in positions where they will need support but they will not be able to access support. They will need legal aid but they will not be able to access legal aid. They will need justice but they will not be able to access justice.The point I am making is that if we are serious and genuine about supporting and giving strength to our communities about ensuring that they have access to legal aid and to our justice system then of course there has to be a cost to that. Of course we have got to pay for that. That is what society is about. That is what democracy is about. But I note that the Government does not care about that.I will give an example of the need for having support when people are in dispute. In the Samoan world there are two processes that currently exist for giving support to people who are in dispute because we know that if you do not provide that kind of support then there is going to be harm caused generally to those people involved. Often thebreakups that occur as a result of these disputes make it so difficult for resolution. The first example is thefautuaga o matuafautuaga o aiga. It is the ability of parents the ability of elders and the ability of the collective to come together and give counsel and give advice in the form of a meeting to enable the disputing parties to resolve their dispute. It does not matter whether it is a private matter. We know that without outside and external help those in dispute will not be able to resolve that dispute by themselves.I suppose people might recall the movie“Crocodile” Dundee when Crocodile Dundee says “In this small village if one has a problem all we’ve got to do is tell somebody else and they will tell everybody else and very soon we won’t have a problem.” There might be a funny side but the reality is that the constant in the process is the need to have external assistance and support when there are parties in dispute.That is what happens in employment relationships and it also happens in family relationships. Then there isifoga in the Samoan world. If you have seen the movieThe Orator you will have seen a little bit about that and how that takes place. But essentially there is a need for external assistance whether it be legal aid whether it be lawyers to help resolve the dispute that occurs.If you do not have access to that kind of support then what happens to those in dispute? People suffer and relationships break up. Is that truly what we are about? On this side of the House that is not what we are about. We are about building strong resilient communities and those come only from strong resilient families. We accept that as part and parcel of ordinary life there is always going to be dispute and if you accept that you also need to accept that as part of the resolution process part of the reconciliation process and part of the healing process there is a need for legal aid there is a need for legal assistance there is a need for representation and there is a need for justice.I have to say that I agree with what has been said earlier by my colleagues which is that this legislation as it stands denies the basic and fundamental right for ordinary and vulnerable communities in particular to be able to access justice. Shame on the Government for passing this legislation on the day that we celebrate women’s suffrage! And the worst of it is that this legislation is in the name of a woman Minister Judith Collins. I think that a lot of women will be holding their heads down in shame and thinking: “On this particular day when we when we should all be celebrating and being proud of our nation this is her legacy—denying women denying children and denying vulnerable communities access to justice.”KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for this opportunity to stand and support the third reading of the legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I applaud the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins for working on legislation that protects our children and vulnerable people.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Did she write your speech?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: What is that?Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Did the Minister write your speech?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes she did I think. I do not agree with the previous speakerSu’a William Sio and what he said. I do not expect such language from him. I had a lot of respect for him but what he has said I do not agree with totally.The legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from a review of the Family Court. The purpose of the reform is to ensure a modern accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people and is efficient and effective. The legislation encourages faster less adversarial resolution of family disputes requiring parties with children to participate in an out-of-court family dispute resolution process and a parenting information programme before applying for the Family Court. It is another piece of work that is dedicated to safeguarding the vulnerable. I commend this legislation to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Family Dispute Resolution Bill the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bills read a third time.Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill(No 2)Second ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Local Government: I moveThat the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to provide powers for local boards to delegate responsibilities allocated to them under that Act. Such powers were initially provided for through transitional regulations. These will expire on 31 October 2013. This bill replicates the expiring provisions and places them into the principal Act.This bill provides a permanent and necessary solution to the issue of local board delegations in Auckland. There are 21 local boards throughout the Auckland region. They have a significant and wide-ranging role that spans most local government services and activities including making decisions about non-regulatory local matters such as negotiating service delivery standards; developing monitoring and implementing local board plans every 3 years and negotiating local board agreements with the governing body; providing local leadership and maintaining effective relationships with the governing body the community and special interest groups; and identifying and communicating the views of their communities on regional strategies policies plans and bylaws to the governing body and the council-controlled organisations.Local boards provide local communities with an important say in how the services and facilities that make their places unique are delivered. They also provide an important opportunity for local concerns and views to have input into the regional decision-making made by the Auckland Council’s governing body. Only two of Auckland’s 21 local board areas have populations fewer than 45000 people. This figure is around the average number of people who live in cities and districts outside of Auckland. Elected bodies serving populations of this size need flexibility in how they structure their decision making. They need to be able to create committees and subcommittees and to delegate appropriate responsibilities to them.Auckland’s local boards are working well. They are contributing effectively to the governance of the whole region and the communities within it. Members of local boards feel empowered and effective in their roles with 88 percent of existing local board members standing again in the 2013 local elections. The success of the local boardmodel has prompted this Government to make it available in a modified form in other parts of New Zealand. Last year’s Local Government Act legislation allowed for the Auckland two-tier model of governance to be copied exactly in some circumstances—that is where a proposed metropolitan unitary authority has a population of more than 400000 but it did not enable this for smaller populations. Further amendments to the Local Government Act this year will provide the ability for local boards to be established more widely where unitary authorities are established through reorganisation or amalgamation.The Local Government and Environment Committee received only one submission on this bill. That submission came from the Auckland Council and supports the legislation as drafted. The submission represents the views of both the governing body and local board chairs and reiterates that local boards need to be able to delegate their powers in order to function effectively. All local boards have made delegations to council officers and most local boards have delegated responsibilities to individual local board members and/or to committees. The unworkable alternative is that all decisions must be taken by a full business meeting of the local board. The select committee reported back that the bill should proceed unamended and I thank the committee for its prompt consideration of the bill.Transitional regulations currently covering local board delegation powers will expire on 31 October 2013. Auckland Council requested that in order for smooth and efficient local board decision-making to continue there should be no time delay in the passing of the bill. It is concerned that without the ability to alter existing delegations after this year’s local elections it is likely that relatively minor decisions will need to be referred to full business meetings. This will cause delay and will impact on service delivery. Given the agreement of all involved and in order to maintain efficient and effective local government in Auckland it is both practical and desirable that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) be enacted by 1 November this year. I commend the bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): Labour is supporting this bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) at its second reading. It is a pretty uncontroversial technical bill. I mean it is here in the House today only because of incompetence in the drafting by the Government of the transitional legislation for the establishment of the Auckland super-city. It is only because of the Government’s incompetence that we are here spending taxpayers’ money debating this bill which should never ever have been brought before this House. It is fundamental that these local boards have to have the powers to delegate their tasks and responsibilities to the staff of the council. That is fundamental to their operation and yet the Government was so incompetent that it put those provisions into transitional legislation that had a sunset clause. So we should not be wasting time on it in the House today but it is an interesting postscript to the story of the establishment of the Auckland Council.An amalgamation of eight local territorial authorities the biggest local government amalgamation this country has ever seen created the new Auckland Council with more assets than Fonterra and Telecom combined. It was a new model of local government in this country and I think that this is a good opportunity to just reflect on the story of that amalgamation. It started with the far-sighted and visionary work of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance set up by Helen Clark’s Government. It was almost destroyed by the brutish and crude anti-democratic implementation—Carol Beaumont: By Rodney Hide.PHIL TWYFORD: —of the royal commission reforms by Rodney Hide on behalf of the National Government. They did everything they could to subvert the intent of the royal commission. They replaced the royal commission’s recommendations with anextreme centralised model of governance which took power away from communities and away from the regions and put it into the governing body. They corporatised 75 percent of Auckland Council’s assets and operations into these so-called council-controlled organisations which do most of their business behind closed doors.Unsurprisingly the people of Auckland were alarmed. They were alarmed at the threat to their assets because it was very clear to everybody in Auckland over those years when the super-city was being set up that the way Rodney Hide and the National Government went about it was simply with the purpose of setting up the assets in these corporatised entities so they could be flogged off once John Banks won the mayoralty. That was clearly the plan and understandably the people of Auckland were alarmed. So what did they do? They acted in the most rational way that they could in our democratic system and they elected Len Brown a mayor committed to holding on to Auckland’s assets and committed to embracing the community. He is a man whose political style is all about uniting people not dividing them and someone who embraces Auckland’s diverse peoples and who embraces the youthful population of Auckland. It is Len Brown’s inclusive and dynamic leadership as the first mayor of the Auckland super-city that has really snatched victory from the jaws of the National Government’s best efforts to steal Auckland’s democracy and sell off its assets. That is the story so far of the Auckland super-city.I want to remember the debates that we had in this House about for example the establishment of the local boards whose ability to delegate their powers is the issue that this bill seeks to rectify. As I said the National Government opted for a much more heavily centralised model than the royal commission had recommended and it set up a proliferation of local boards—21 of them—with very few real powers. They had no power to own property and no power to make by-laws or regulations. They are there simply as a kind of public engagement mechanism to advocate on behalf of their communities. In spite of the best efforts of the National Government actually I have to say that the local boards have been quite successful. The jury I think is probably out still as to whether it is a successful model for the Auckland Council but by and large they have been successful for two reasons. One is the tireless efforts of good committed community leaders on those local boards working on behalf of their communities and there is the inclusive leadership of Mayor Len Brown and his council which for example involved the chairs of all those local boards in the Auckland Unitary Plan committee which has been working so hard in recent months.The second thing that was such a point of controversy during the establishment of the Auckland super-city was the council-controlled organisations which in a breathtaking move by Rodney Hide and his National Government cronies corporatised 75 percent of the operations of local government in Auckland—extraordinary when compared with any other local authority anywhere else in the country. The predictions that were made in the editorial columns of theNew Zealand Heraldand by many other commentators have been borne out. Those council-controlled organisations have been largely unaccountable to Auckland Council. They have done much of their business in secret and the hand-picked business appointees who are responsible for the governance of those entities—for managing the publicly owned assets of the people of Auckland—have acted largely behind a veil of secrecy. It does not surprise me that Mayor Len Brown has promised a review of those very badly named council-controlled organisations. Len Brown and his council have promised after the local government elections to do a review of those council-controlled organisations to determine whether or not that is the best structure for them and to look I think at bringing some of them back in-house so they are subject to much more democratic control.We argued in this House against Steven Joyce’s insistence that Auckland Transport which spends on transport more than half of the rates that Aucklanders contribute every year—Steven Joyce insisted against the recommendations of his officials in Treasury and in the Ministry of Transport—be set up as a council-controlled organisation and he legislated for it. The only local government transport organisation in the whole country that Parliament has mandated by legislation had to be set up as a corporate entity. That is wrong.It is still our policy to change the law—to legislate to give back that democratic right to the mayor and the councillors of Auckland as the democratically elected representatives to decide what the structure should be. Should it be a council-controlled organisation or should it be run in-house? What do the people of Auckland prefer? We will carry out that promise when we are back in Government.The third thing that I want to mention is debt. Financial prudence was one of the big motivations for the amalgamation. Rodney Hide trumpeted all the savings that he hoped to make. It was going to eliminate duplication and waste. He was much more reticent in this House about admitting that the IT system that his establishment authority imposed on Auckland Council would cost over the decade that followed close to a billion dollars—just for the IT system. It was like pulling hen’s teeth getting the Minister of Local Government in the National-ACT Government to admit the true cost of that IT system. Again this is another example of Len Brown snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. His financial stewardship has allowed the debt to stay within a very reasonable level while this Government has borrowed $50 billion. This National Government has borrowed more money than any other Government in New Zealand’s history. If the mayor that the National Government had wanted to be elected John Banks had won instead of Len Brown we probably would have seen a continuation of what he did when he tripled the debt of the old Auckland City when he was the Mayor of Auckland City prior to the amalgamation. He tripled the debt. Thankfully under Len Brown’s careful financial stewardship we have seen a much better level of financial management.Finally I want to say that the leadership that we have seen from Len Brown and the Auckland Council over the last 3 years has been something that Auckland our biggest city and this country have been crying out for. For the first time since Robbie Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson in the 1960s we have a mayor who has championed the need for a public transport system in Auckland. Len Brown to his credit rolled Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee who for 3 years blocked Aucklanders’ aspirations for a decent modern public transport system and a City Rail Link that will double the capacity of the existing rail network. That is a victory for Len Brown. That is why Len Brown has no credible opponent from the right wing in the mayoral contest this year. That is why he will be elected. That is the story of how Len Brown clutched victory—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has expired.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): As we have heard from previous speakers the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) is a non-controversial bill. It is supported right across the House. This bill is quite simple. All it does is amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to provide the powers for local boards to delegate responsibilities allocated to them under that Act. These powers have already been in place and are working really well. They have been in place for the transitional regulations but those powers expire on 31 October 2013. It is very interesting when the member Phil Twyford was talking about transitional regulations because those transitional regulations were always an interim solution. They were there to give local communities the flexibility to work out andtweak the operations of local boards during the political reorganisation of Auckland. But now is the time for them to become a permanent part of Auckland’s legislation.I have to say that sweetness and light has broken out in the Local Government and Environment Committee because this model has been working so well that we have unanimously supported it going forward. The confirmation of this legislation has been agreed to by the Auckland Council and it has been agreed to by the 21 local boards and their board members. It simply allows local boards to get on with the business of representing and serving their communities. All communities want effective and efficient local government management. There is no doubt about that. It is very important that this is passed in the next few weeks so that those local boards in Auckland can get on with their job in a seamless manner.The success of these local boards in Auckland has prompted changes so the Government has made this kind of model available in other parts of New Zealand. This Auckland model is a two-tier model. It can be copied. Originally it was designed only for metropolitan unitary authorities with a population of more than 400000 but due to demand by local authorities further amendments in the coming year in the next Act will allow smaller councils to have local boards. They will be established more widely across the country. These changes deliver on requests from local government and they will give them a broader range of reorganisation options to enable more efficient and effective provision of local government services and facilities.It is possible that amalgamated local authorities may be able to achieve economies of scale in infrastructure investment and operation and be better able to access specialist expertise and resources. We see that this is a real problem particularly in smaller councils across the country. But it is important that even as they access these benefits they do not sacrifice community input or identity at a local level and this is where this two-tier model can be very successful as we have seen in Auckland. As we go through this reorganisation process the Local Government Commission in consultation with communities undertaking any reorganisation will determine the establishment of local boards and whether that is appropriate justified and desirable. As I have said this bill is non-controversial. All members of the Local Government and Environment Committee supported it. It is supported across the House and I commend it to the House.Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): My colleague Phil Twyford is absolutely correct. We are here debating this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) to try to fix the muck-up that this Government created when it rushed through the Auckland reorganisation. It rushed it through without proper consultation with the people of Auckland. It collapsed that particular process so that now all we are doing is simply amending something that should have been made permanent from the beginning. If the Government had had the foresight if it had taken the time to keep its word by consulting the people of Auckland after the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had completed its work we would not be here. But we are as a result of the muck-up that this Government created in its rush—Hon Member: They’re always doing that.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: It is true—to control Auckland. In its rush to seize the assets of that great region of ours it just overlooked some of the simple things. If it had taken the time taken the advice that was given to it and read the royal commission’s submissions I do not believe that we would be here wasting Parliament’s time and wasting the Speaker’s time in adjudicating over this particular debate.Andrew Little: We should be at home.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: That is right—when I should be at home at this particular time. So look—absolutely we have indicated that Labour will support this. It is atechnical bill. It gives local boards the powers to be able to delegate their responsibilities—as they currently have. Without that local boards are going to have to continue going to the council to carry out their functions.But I think that my colleague Phil Twyford was correct that in debating this particular bill it is timely to remind this House about the background context that led us to all this. Some in this House will remember that this is also an example of National breaking its pre-election promise. I do not know whether you will recall that during the general election campaign in 2008 Mr Key promised the people of Auckland that if National was in power what it would do was receive the royal commission’s inquiry once it was completed receive the options for consideration by the royal commission and then it would comprehensively consult with the people of Auckland in accordance with the Local Government Act.That was the promise made. What happened? The minute that National was in power it refused to consult. It collapsed the process and would not even give proper time to those who wanted to air their submissions. Again we saw there that once National had the reins of power once it was the Government it did not care one iota about that promise that was made. It did not care one iota about the royal commission and did not care one iota about the concerns of the people of Auckland. Instead National imposed the structure on Auckland ratepayers. It was a structure that we believe was flawed. As my colleague Phil Twyford says the jury is still out. It was a structure that was designed to corporatise the Auckland region. It was a structure designed to corporatise local government generally. That was perhaps one of the first shots National fired in this experiment in attacking local government and local democracy. We have seen since then many many other examples. Just to name a few—the override provisions in the housing accord which the Government recently forced Auckland Council to sign up to. If the council did not sign up this Government would ride roughshod over Auckland Council.Phil Twyford: They threatened them.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: That is exactly right. The Government threatened the people of Auckland.Andrew Little: Oh you’re joking—they didn’t!Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Absolutely it did. It dared to threaten the duly elected representatives of the Auckland region. That is what this Government did.Another example is—people will recall—the suspension of elections in Environment Canterbury. Another example of the way that this Government is behaving towards local government is the way that it is gutting the Resource Management Act—gutting the Resource Management Act—to reduce environmental protections and to prevent the consultation process that enables the New Zealand public to have a say about whether it is important to protect the environment or whether we side with the Government and just go all the way for economic development irrespective of what we do to the environment and to the future of New Zealand.It is just a travesty that these guys—this Government—would turn up and give these speeches as if it was doing Auckland a favour when in reality we are helping it to fix a mistake and fix the wrong and the muck-up that they have made. So I would hope that this House will recall—I know that certainly the people of Auckland will—that this Government broke its pre-election promise. I believe that many in this House would have witnessed that the people of Auckland retaliated. Thousands and thousands took to the streets of Auckland and they marched—men women children church groups trade unions community organisationsMāori Pasifika the many nations of the ethnic community teachers cleaners professionals walking side by side.I do not think that the Government remembers the protest of Aucklanders against this Government imposing its flawed structure upon them. This Government could not care less. It went ahead with it. It could not care a damn about the people of Auckland. It went ahead with the restructure and installed the corporate structure. But guess what? The people of Auckland retaliated again. They kicked out the Government’s favourite Mr John Banks and installed instead the people’s mayor His Worship Mayor Len Brown. They kicked out that fella John Banks.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: And Rodney Hide.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: That is right. Well we remember this. The people of Auckland remember this but I do not think John Banks remembers it because it is the same John Banks who could not remember that he had a ride in Kim Dotcom’s helicopter. He could not remember that he received a campaign donation from him. He could not remember that it came from him in the first place. We the people remember Aucklanders remember but John Banks does not remember and certainly this Government here does not remember that it kicked Auckland in the guts.I would say that the only reason these guys flip-flopped around the City Rail Link is that they noted in National’s polling that the people of Auckland were sick and tired of the Government bullying its way through—Simon O’Connor: Sick and tired of 20 percent rate increases.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: —sick and tired of the Government trying to bully its way through treating them with disrespect. That is the only reason why the Government flip-flopped. It is because it saw the writing on the wall. Aucklanders are going to show this Government in 2014 that they have had a gutsful of its bullying tactics that they do not want this Government to be in power. I would not be shouting from that side if I was that young man there.Phil Twyford: What’s his name?Su’aWILLIAM SIO: I cannot remember what his name is. I suspect that many in Auckland are not going to remember what his name is either.Andrew Little: He’s the member forTāmaki.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Oh well—Phil Twyford: That’s Rob Muldoon isn’t it?Su’aWILLIAM SIO: I thought that was Robert Muldoon too. The member forTāmaki—a fine member he is. I am saying “the member forTāmaki” because I suspect that many Aucklanders will not remember his name at all.Phil Twyford: Rob Muldoon was better.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: That is right. To come to the point we are here because of the muck-up this Government created. We are supporting the bill because we should not be here debating this. It is a bill that should have been absolutely formalised right from the beginning. If the Government had done its homework about it if it had taken the time to consult the people of Auckland the people of Auckland would have told it what to do. Many of them did but the Government never listens.I think that come 2014 the people of Auckland are going to retaliate. They are going to retaliate. I know that many members sitting on that particular side are going to be worried come 2014 because the people of Auckland are sick and tired of this Government playing its silly games and bullying its representatives its duly elected representatives. And the fine group of people who are standing for Auckland particularly that mayor that young manTaua’aletoa Len Brown—he is not as handsome as some of us here tonight but nevertheless he is going to be the next mayor because he is the people’s mayor. They trust him more than they trust that lot over there. So he is going to be re-elected this year. I am not so sure about that lot come 2014.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party continues to support this uncontroversial Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) and I am pleased to speak tonight on behalf of my colleague Denise Roche. As others have said it needs to be passed before the local elections happen and the new councils and the local boards are sworn in because otherwise the powers of delegation that now exist will not be passed to the local boards. It is appropriate that we are considering it on Suffrage Day when we are celebrating 120 years since women gained the vote in parliamentary elections. It is worth noting that women were able to participate vote and stand for election in local body elections well before 1893. The Green Party would like to acknowledge and remember the first female mayor in the British Empire. That was Elizabeth Yates who was elected Mayor of Onehunga in 1893. In the last week Green MPs have been out and about around the country talking about suffrage and talking about our power to exercise our democratic right and how ordinary citizens ordinary women campaigned lobbied and put pressure on male MPs to achieve that major change in 1893. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel who gave her valedictory speech last night. I congratulate her and recognise her role in this House and in Cabinet and wish her every success in her campaign to be Mayor of Christchurch because I think that if elected she will bring a new direction to the rebuild in Christchurch one that will be much more engaging with the community and empowering of the citizens of Christchurch.This bill is about making permanent these powers of delegation that the local boards have—the 21 local boards in Auckland. As others have done it is worth looking at a bit of the history there. When they were established the Government both National and ACT promised that the Auckland Council the board structure and the council-controlled organisations would be about efficient and effective local government. There were lots of promises about trimming the fat of local government in Auckland about it being a lean machine and about retaining democracy. We do not think that it has worked as well as that in the sense that where you have got major promises of being a lean machine we now have the same number of people employed in local government in Auckland as were employed before several hundred staff were made redundant in 2010. So you had a huge amount of churn that was unnecessary and Auckland Council has recognised that you cannot reduce the number of people working for the council without reducing services so we need the people to do that work. We have also seen with the council-controlled organisations—and I certainly agree with Phil Twyford about how inaptly titled they are—a loss of democracy and a very secretive decision-making process which we get in organisations like Auckland Transport; Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development; and Auckland Council Investments Ltd.This bill is about a very narrow issue around Auckland. The bigger issue is about these council-controlled organisations their limited accountability and the lack of democracy in terms of the way they work and the fact that they are responsible for more than $25 billion worth of assets but they do not have enough accountability. So there should be legislation to change that. When Nicky Wagner spoke she talked about the Auckland model being rolled out elsewhere. Certainly the Local Government and Environment Committee was in agreement about this bill but the Government’s proposals to take yet another axe to local democracy will be strongly opposed by the Green Party because the proposals reduce democracy. Local boards have nothing like the powers of the Auckland councils that they replaced. Local boards have no ability to levy rates. They have no ability to make by-laws. They can prepare them but they cannot actually sign off on them. Those further changes to local government will be an attack on localism they will be an attack on democracy and they will be an attack on the ability of councils to represent their communities so we will be opposing those.But going back to Auckland and the boards last month Auckland University of Technology’s school of social sciences and public policy released its first research from its super-city project. That was a report calledSuper City? State of Auckland.One of the authors was Professor Judy McGregor. She highlighted some of the problems we have got around the structures at Auckland Council. She said: “While the Super City is functioning well in many areas we are still seeing a lack of clarity about the roles of the Council as governing body and the Local Boards. There is also a perceived lack of accountability of Council Controlled Organisations…It is critical that these relationships are sorted out otherwise we may see more local communities wanting to break away and seek to regain control of local governance and rates revenue.” If the local boards are to represent their communities well they need to reflect the diversity of those communities. TheSuper City? State of Auckland report again said that the diversity of elected representation in Auckland was disappointing; that there were fewMāori and Pacific Island members on either the Auckland Council or the local boards a small number of ethnic councillors and a very small number of ethnic board members nor are there many female directors of the council-controlled organisations.At 31 March this year in terms of those seven council-controlled organisations only 15 out of 51 board members were women. That is only 29 percent. None of the board chairs were women. Not only are they unrepresentative in terms of lacking accountability and not being democratic they do not represent the diversity of people in Auckland. There is obviously a strong glass ceiling still in place at the council-controlled organisation level. Similarly there is an issue with women’s representation around the council table in Auckland. Eight out of our 20 Auckland councillors are women. That is 40 percent. It is a bit better than the 34 percent of women representatives that we have in this House but it is still a minority. On the local boards we had 39 percent women representatives there. So we need better representation of women of ethnic minorities on the boards. We need a better arrangement around the council-controlled organisation structure—much more democratic decision-making is needed there removing that veil of secrecy. We need the Government not to proceed with its major attack on local government that it is planning in rolling out the unitary model elsewhere because in a lot of the regions of New Zealand it is not appropriate. So we support this bill but we will be opposing the changes to local government that the Government is planning to introduce.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise to support this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) along with the support of the Green Party and the Labour Party. I thank them for it. The public listening in members in the House and you Mr Deputy Speaker will possibly be a bit confused—I do not want to say you are confused Mr Deputy Speaker—and intrigued that you can have such long verbose speeches from Labour and Green members attacking the National Party attacking the legislation and yet supporting it. Right across the House we have essentially 121 votes supporting this bill and yet the Labour Party and the Green Party are angry. I do not know why the Labour Party is angry. I know that the Green Party is angry by nature but the Labour Party just seems to be generally angry indeed. But they do support this bill and we thank them for that support.The bill amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable Auckland’s local boards to continue to delegate powers as they have done up to recent times. So this is now fixed in stone through legislation. They are quite able to delegate those powers. They have done it successfully to date. They will continue to do so. As for my vote I am going with the Green Party the angry Labour Party the National Party and every party in this House in supporting this bill. It is the right thing to do.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I am going to disappoint the previous speaker Phil Heatley because I am going to make it the third party that is going to speak not in anger but in an informative way. Firstly I would just like to point out to the previous speaker how you spell the word “democracy”. It is spelt “d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y”. It is something that the National Party members should learn and take home and practise because they do not seem to be able to get it off their lips. They just do not seem to understand the whole principle. They understand the principle of corporatising New Zealand. They understand the idea of selling out to their mates. They understand the idea of 50 percent of the shares in power companies going to 2 percent of New Zealanders. They understand about making sure that their mates all do very well out of the new corporatised New Zealand. But at the end of the day New Zealand itself is worse off in terms of—what is the word—democracy. It is democracy.Here is a little history lesson for you. Back in 1989 there were 27 borough councils in Auckland. They were the Mount Eden Borough Council the Mount Roskill Borough Council the East Coast Bays Borough Council the Papakura Borough Council—all over Auckland there were borough councils. They merged them into a number of cities in 1989 to form Manukau to form Waitakere to form North Shore to form Auckland City and then the outlying districts of Franklin and Rodney. They did that so that you could get critical mass in areas and communities of interest so that they could move forward in those particular communities.However there was a problem across the region because Auckland did need to be supported in terms of its transport its major infrastructure and its connectivity. There was agreement. In fact I know because I helped pass a motion on the North Shore City Council calling for regional cooperation—Maggie Barry: Where did you pass it—on a lemon tree?ANDREW WILLIAMS: No I did not pass it on a lemon tree; I passed it in a council motion. It was to call for regional cooperation in terms of transport major infrastructure and coordination in Auckland but it did not call for the gutting of the Auckland democratic system and it did not call for the Auckland councils to all be returned to 21 local boards. Basically this was a back-to-the-future situation of going back to 21 local boards which previously were 27 borough councils. Now 3 years later we have a situation where this Government wants to roll over that legislation and ensure that those 21 local boards continue to be able to delegate their powers and their responsibilities to committees subcommittees board members and council officers. Unfortunately we have to still support that in terms of the legislation because that is what we are faced with now in Auckland—21 local boards. It would be irresponsible of us not to continue to roll over those powers that were given to them through the transition authority because otherwise on 31 October we would have democracy in Auckland crippled at its knees and the council not able to delegate some of its powers to various entities.So we will be reluctantly supporting this but we will at the same time be giving you something of a history lesson. I will also advise in doing so that I can recall vividly an 800-page royal commission report which had taken several years to prepare and which over 30 well-respected internationally recognised consultants helped prepare and submit on. It had thousands of submissions from all sorts of entities and very very learned people involved in local government and in terms of governance throughout New Zealand submitting on it. That 800-page report cost $4.5 million—the royal commission went to the likes of Toronto London Los Angeles and all sorts of places around the world to compare and come up with its recommendation as to how Auckland would be governed—but it was thrown out and about 9 days later the 800-page report was replaced by Rodney Hide’s 34-page photocopied proposal for Auckland whichbasically made a nonsense of what the royal commission was suggesting. What the royal commission was suggesting—again a history lesson for you—was that yes certainly there was a problem in the integration of Auckland. There should have been an overarching council—an Upper House so to speak which would be a bit like having an Upper House of this House—that would control the big-picture stuff in terms of the transport the roading the infrastructure water and that sort of thing but it would leave the community-based things at local council level so they could get on with running the communities of Manukau of Waitakere of the North Shore and of the central isthmus and get on with their business. That was thrown out and replaced by the 21 local boards.As a result now these 21 local boards are pretty well kneecapped entities. You have an example in the situation last week for instance. The Devonport Food Wine and Music Festival which has been going for 24 years and was fully supported by the North Shore City Council for many of those years and prior to that by the Takapuna Council will not exist in the coming year. It will exist no longer. What is the reason? The reason is that the new Auckland Council will not give it any community funding and now it receives funding from only one local board on the North Shore the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. All the other boards on the North Shore have said that they have other priorities in their local board areas and cannot give funding for the food festival in Devonport which has been going for 24 years. I have had emails from all over Auckland and indeed all over New Zealand and I am sure that the MP for the North Shore Maggie Barry will have had the same response saying what an absolute disaster it is that this iconic local festival is not going ahead simply because the new structure set up by Rodney Hide no longer supports the likes of that festival.And there are other things such as the SPCA Wag ‘n Walk which used to be in Milford. It has gone. It has disappeared. It has gone over the bridge because again the North Shore funding disappeared. It has been taken over the bridge. We used to have Movies in Parks on the North Shore. They have disappeared. Now only one local board on the North Shore in theKaipātiki area is having Movies in Parks this summer. The other boards are not funding it so again half of the North Shore will have it; the other half will not have it. Music in Parks used to be in all the local parks around the whole of the North Shore. Most of the North Shore will not be getting that this summer. Likewise the New Zealand Body Art Awards which started in the Glenfield Tavern about 12 or 13 years ago this year managed to survive only because the likes of myself George Wood and George Gair—three former mayors—stepped into the Auckland Council offices and said: “If you stop funding the New Zealand Body Art Awards it will fail.” We managed to resurrect that. This is what is coming out of these local boards in the Auckland area. Basically it is completely divide and conquer and the whole of the Auckland area is now being run by 21 small little local entities all protecting just their own particular patch. This is back to the future. This is how Auckland used to operate pre-1989 under the old borough councils. I can assure you that if I have anything to do with it in the future we will go back to some form of entity that allows communities of interest such as the North Shore such as Manukau and such as Waitakere to again provide for their communities of interest.It is not in the interest of the local communities at the present time where you can literally go through a patched quilt of situations across the Auckland isthmus where as you drive through this local board it does it this way; as you drive through the next local board it does it that way; and as you drive into the next one it is a different way again. That is not good coordination in Auckland and that sort of thing has got to stop. However we will support this so that these boards do have some powers. On the other hand I can assure you that there are going to be reviews in the future.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Look the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) is a technical bill. It was an extraordinary speech from the previous speaker Andrew Williams who was talking about everything other than this bill which is providing powers for Auckland local boards to delegate responsibilities duties and powers and to continue on in the fashion that they have done for the last 3 years. It makes a good deal of sense and I commend this bill to the House on that basis. Just quickly drawn to question the success of the council over the past 3 years I found the structures take you only so far. The critical ingredient is the quality of the leadership and that is why the elections coming up in the next month are so important. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to pick up on a comment that the Hon Phil Heatley made earlier where he said he wondered why people on this side of the House were so angry about a piece of legislation on which we all agree. Well clearly we are not angry about the piece of legislation. We would not be agreeing with it if we were. I do not think anybody is naturally angry which is what he was suggesting. Being naturally angry requires far too much energy for most people. I think when people are angry there is always a reason for it. When the buttons of local democracy in Auckland are pushed the members opposite will always get an angry response.It should be no puzzle to the Hon Phil Heatley. When local government matters come up the dissension the discontent and the riding roughshod over democratic process that is the hallmark of this Government comes to the fore. It should not be any surprise to the Government. We have seen it do it in Christchurch. We have seen it do it in Auckland. This should be no surprise. When local government representation is denied to people in the usual way then they do get upset. People do get upset. We have been upset by it and it should be no surprise if we start to sound angry about people having their democratic rights and their ability to participate taken away. So let us just settle that one.There is a perfectly good reason why members on this side of the House who come from Auckland do express anger about it. Having lived for nearly 30 years in Auckland I feel the same way. But as I am no longer a representative from the Auckland area but from Nelson I will give over that right to my colleagues who still reside there.What I wanted to say apart from happy Suffrage Day to you Mr Deputy Speaker is that I am delighted in some of the early comments on the purpose of the bill. We know that it amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to enable local boards to delegate responsibilities and duties and powers conferred on them under the Act. Currently they are able to delegate those powers. This provision is in the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Fees and Charges Regulations 2010 but those regulations expire on 31 October this year.Just a few weeks ago I was in this House berating the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges for the complete ineptitude—in fact it was not his piece of legislation but he was carrying it at the time. It was Gerry Brownlee’s Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill where regulations had been disallowed had been reintroduced had had a disallowance motion put on them again but I had withdrawn that disallowance motion because legislation was to come into the House in time for regulations that would see a rolling-over of an existing condition. That all happened out of time. Gerry Brownlee did not get one of those deadlines right and as a result we were passing the legislation weeks after the time the regulations had actually expired. I would like to congratulate the Hon Chris Tremain on getting it right and perhaps he could show the Hon Gerry Brownlee how it is done.The purpose of this bill is that it amends the original Act to put those powers of delegation into the Act itself. Instead of having it just as regulation this bill will amend the primary legislation. That is what Gerry Brownlee should have done but did not. He chose not to or was too lazy to or did not know he had to or for some other reason—all of which comes down to incompetence in the end.Chris Tremain has done the right thing. The bill amends the Act before the regulations expire on 31 October. Whoopee! The Government has got it right. It has got the sequence right and that is one of the reasons why I am absolutely delighted to support this bill. This means that the Act itself which becomes effective from 1 November 2013 will be effective the day after the transitional regulations expire which is great. That is as it should be. And it has been brought to the House for debate. So full marks to Chris Tremain. Go and tell your senior colleagues how it is done. Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). Here we go. It has been harmonious. Even the Greens agree with it. It is uncontroversial. It will pass before the end of October. Everybody supports it. There is not much more to be said. I will no longer waste the time of the House by taking up any more time from the House. In fact it is one of the few occasions when I have agreed with Phil Twyford. We do not need to linger on this but unlike him I am not going to ramble on endlessly about irrelevancies and untruths. I will just leave it there and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carol Beaumont 5 minutes.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Can I also wish everybody a happy Women’s Suffrage Day including yourself Mr Deputy Speaker and start on this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) by—as another speaker has already done but I want to do as well—personally acknowledging the first woman mayor of the British Empire Elizabeth Yates who was the mayor of Onehunga. I work in that electorate. I am a list MP based in the Maungakiekie electorate where Elizabeth Yates was the first woman mayor of the British Empire. It is a great achievement and in fact it was in the same year that women won the right to vote in New Zealand that she was elected mayor—so 120 years ago. She is buried in St Peter’s Church graveyard in the middle of Onehunga. So I think that is an important thing to acknowledge here on Women’s Suffrage Day.As others have said this is a technical bill and we do support it. It was reported back unchanged from the Local Government and Environment Committee where only one submission was received and that was from the Auckland Council which sought the change. But I do want to reinforce what others have said: that the reason we are here is that the Government pushed through under urgency the Auckland Council legislation—and I remember it well; I debated it late into the night with many others—without having adequate consultation without getting it right and with many matters still left up in the air not least of which was the issue of the power of local boards.What this bill does is sort out a potential problem which is the very important matter of allowing local boards to be able to delegate responsibilities to individuals and to committees. This is important so they can go about their job because as others have noted what are called local boards in Auckland which are part of the Auckland Council are in fact organisations dealing with substantial numbers of people. They are the same size generally as the average district or city outside Auckland so they are large. Only two of the 21 Auckland local boards have populations of fewer than 45000 people. So these are not small organisations. They need the power to delegate to get on and do their job.The bill actually also identifies the things that they are not able to delegate which it should do particularly things like communicating the interests of people in the local boards’ areas in relation to strategies policies plans and by-laws and they are not allowed to delegate the ability to promote propose amend confirm modify or to revoke a by-law adopt a local board plan and so on. So we have no question about any of that. That is fine but it is a result of the process that created the Auckland Council which was the process around the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act.I just thought I would talk a little bit about the local board in my area because others have mentioned that there still remains some uncertainty and I think that is true. Boards were not given clear powers in the Auckland Council legislation and there has already been reference made to the work that Judy McGregor and others have done in looking at the state of local government in Auckland. It is fair to say that it is a work in progress that the local boards have been established and that they have gone about trying to do their job. The local residents have tried to figure out what their job is and slowly people are getting a better understanding of it but it is certainly not all sorted.In the area I work in there is a board that has two subdivisions. It is the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. I want to acknowledge the work that it does. I think residents in the area are slowly getting a better understanding of that work. But the board has been involved with others in the community around the Onehunga foreshore project the Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre increased funding for community grants and community events the improved Onehunga Mall the carpeting of fields inWaikaraka Park the Mount Wellington War Memorial Reserve and a range of other things.So I want to acknowledge the board members: Simon Randall Bridget Graham Brett Clark Josephine Bartley ChrisMakoare AlanVerrall and until the elections Leila Boyle who is not standing again. They have done a good job. Housing is one issue that is important in our area and I just want to particularly acknowledge the work the board has done around a housing warrant of fitness. The local board has actually put up a proposal to improve the quality of rental housing in the board’s area and to look at getting better outcomes for tenants. It is an area of high deprivation or part of the area is. This warrant of fitness scheme will be the first of its kind in the country and I want to commend it for that work.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I commend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.Bill read a second time.Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 5 September.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): The Heritage New ZealandPouhere Taonga Bill is a bill that we support wholeheartedly. It is going to help us protect our heritage for the future. That is something that the Government feels very strongly about. You know Crown entities really do need to have something that is very strong about them. The Historic Places Trust has served us well for a number of years but now it really does need to be updated.I think that when you look at what is happening around Auckland and in the area where I am on the North Shore Auckland has the volcanic cones that are going to be regarded as a cluster and that is an excellent thing. I am starting really near the back of this bill as it were because it seems to me that there have been a number of concessionsthat have been discussed in some detail throughout the process. One of the things that did exercise the Local Government and Environment Committee was around the idea of how many buildings should be elevated to those of national treasures if you like. We have got around that by looking at the way that you can combine them and still make safeguards there count for our very important heritage.We want to lift the performance of the public sector. This is all part of that. We are also simply trying to streamline the archaeological consent processes. Applicants have told us have submitted and have written over a long period of time that there have been rather a lot of barriers that have been put up in front of people who just want to do something like extend a kitchen. Then there might be something that is found or might not be found and then a lengthy and rather expensive situation can ensue when they are not allowed to continue on with the work that they need to do. Of course it is very important if there are important archaeological sites but if there are not then it is important that things just get moving. So that is part of what this bill is doing. It is reducing costs for applicants but it is maintaining the current levels of regulatory control.There is a very important element that has been added in. I guess it is an update in the sense that with the New ZealandPouhere Taonga we need to consult more with the tangata whenua and also with the central government agencies. I think that when you are looking at the process of deciding what is important to the history of your nation and to buildings and places it is important that you give proper consultation to the people who need to be consulted.Non-invasive activities—for example walking across a site—are not going to be considered exploratory investigation in the way that they once were. Again this is a simplification of the way that we are approaching these sorts of things. I think it is very important that people are going to be able to access sites with assistance that is deemed necessary. Vehicles machinery equipment and things of that kind need to be able to get on the site without causing too much of a problem and this bill will enable that. I guess too increasing from 12 months to 18 months the time for Heritage New ZealandPouhere Taonga to develop general policy statements is going to increase the time for public consultation which is good. I think that certainly in my electorate on the North Shore Devonport—“the Republic” as they sometimes like to be known—they are extremely engaged with the process of discussing their heritage and being a big part of the consultation process in their community.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.