Volume 654 Week 13 - Tuesday 26 May 2009 
Volume 654 Week 13 - Tuesday 26 May 2009 
[Volume:654;Page:3759] 
Tuesday 26 May 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Confidence 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are talented people who are working hard for New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Transport or indeed in himself given the poor process around briefing people about the Waterview motorway connection—in particular his MP Melissa Lee who was clearly ill-briefed made fundamental errors and then was hung out to dry by the Prime Minister himself? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have enormous confidence in the Minister of Transport. One of the reasons I have confidence in him is that unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do not live in la-la land which is exactly where one sits when one says—as Labour did—it would have $650 million a year to spend on State highways but somehow is prepared to spend $3.2 billion on a tunnel through Mount Albert which is 5 years of spending. It did not happen in the 9 years that Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. It would never have happened under Labour. I have enormous confidence in my Minister of Transport. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Justice who apparently failed to brief all of his parliamentarians that motorways are not part of his crime prevention strategy and that the people of South Auckland should not be stereotyped as criminals? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have enormous confidence in the Minister of Justice. I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise something that is directly related to the justice portfolio. The reason he did not do so is that the Minister of Justice is doing such an outstanding job. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment who he said failed to fully brief him on the suitability of Christine Rankin’s appointment as a Families Commissioner and can the Prime Minister tell us what the Minister failed to properly brief him about? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do have complete confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the reason I do is that the Minister did her own due diligence. In making that appointment to the Families Commission one thing she knew about families was that they like to eat McDonald’s. I wonder how many families saw Shane Jones and Parekura Horomia ducking out from the hikoi yesterday to have a Big Mac and fries. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Gerry is just jealous that he was not there with them! Is it fair for the Prime Minister to blame the debacle around Christine Rankin on Paula Bennett given that when a major division occurred within Cabinet—and clearly the Minister of Justice was opposed to the appointment—it was the Prime Minister who made the decision that the appointment should go ahead? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No it would not be fair to blame the Minister for Social Development and Employment. That was a decision made by Cabinet and supported by all the members of Cabinet. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister remove Christine Rankin from her appointment as a Families Commissioner if public comments made by her in recent weeks are found to be untrue? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the honourable Prime Minister wish to answer the question? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can only accept people at their word and I accept the assurances that Christine Rankin gave to the New Zealand public. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that his Minister of Immigration is fully investigating the allegations made last week in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about phoney job offers made to secure visas about buying off witnesses who might provide evidence against this practice and about dubious support for a business partner who immigration officials believe is a con man all of which relate to Mr Bakshi MP; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am supremely confident and I can assure the member that the Minister of Immigration followed all of the right steps including writing to the New Zealand Immigration Service to say it should ensure that the case was handled completely fairly and it should go to extreme lengths to find the information that was required. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does that relate to the allegations made last week? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That relates to all of the allegations. As I have said if the New Zealand Immigration Service feels that it needs to keep investigating it should continue to do so. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do the assurances that the Prime Minister has given the House just now relate to the allegations made last week? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Agriculture who told the nation on television last week that he had no idea sow crates were widely used in New Zealand when in fact he was briefed on the issue of sow crates by representatives from the Campaign Against Factory Farming in 2005 provided with a scientific publication concluding that the severe confinement of sows in crates was unacceptable from a welfare perspective and received numerous e-cards from members of the public pointing out that thousands of pregnant sows are cruelly confined in sow crates; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Notwithstanding that that question went on just about longer than the documentary on  
Sunday 
 the answer is yes I have complete confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Further to his comments that he found the images screened on the  
Sunday 
 programme very very disturbing does he find it even more disturbing to discover that this is in fact a legal and normal practice in the pig industry and will he be advising his Minister of Agriculture to ban sow crates as soon as possible on the grounds that they are cruel? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As the member will know the Minister of Agriculture is looking at that issue. It is also important to note that a pig code was established in 2005 and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is considering that issue at the moment. Those who sit on that board include members from the SPCA and Federated Farmers. If the images that were displayed on the  
Sunday 
 programme are in any way a reflection of the industry in New Zealand then I will expect changes to be made to that code and to the industry. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Campaign Against Factory Farming where it briefed the current Minister in 2005. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table eight emails from members of the public pointing out that thousands of sows are confined in cruel sow stalls. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those eight emails from members of the public. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Budget 2009—Core Crown Expenditure 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What factors will make up the change in core Crown expenditure in Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As set out in the Budget Policy Statement last December there are three main elements to an increase in Government spending. These are first the automatic stabilisers consisting of increased payments for the increased number of people on benefits as well as automatic annual adjustments to benefits New Zealand superannuation and other income support. The second category is those discretionary decisions that the Government makes around the operating allowance. The third element is the capital expenditure that funds public services and infrastructure. As forecast the Budget Policy Statement of last December forecast a significant increase in Government spending based on increases in all these three categories. 
Craig Foss 
: What changes to entitlements is the Government contemplating? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has stated a number of times that entitlements will not be changed. New Zealand superannuation all income support including welfare benefits all student support and Working for Families programmes will continue at their existing levels because we believe that it is important in this time of economic downturn that people have a sense of security. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that the cost of paying just one of those entitlements—the unemployment benefit—is nearly $800 million a year with unemployment at 7 percent rising to over a billion dollars a year when unemployment reaches 9 percent is it not time that he worried as much about the real human costs of unemployment as he does about pandering to credit rating agencies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government actually has not talked about the credit rating agencies—hardly at all—since it came to office. [ 
Interruption 
] I invite the member to examine the public record. The Government is making decisions on the basis of what is good for New Zealand and those decisions have two objectives. The first is to protect New Zealanders through the worst of the recession and the second is to change the direction of the last Government and actually focus on a productive economy that will produce sustainable new jobs because that is the best thing we can do for those who have lost their jobs. 
Craig Foss 
: How has the Government’s operating expenditure been prioritised? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The easiest part of prioritising the Government’s expenditure has been getting rid of the ridiculous and open-ended commitments made by the previous Government including programmes that just did not work and programmes that were getting under way that were not going to work. As stated in the Budget Policy Statement the Government has directed new spending first and foremost to honouring those commitments on which we were elected. 
Craig Foss 
: What measures will the Budget include to improve New Zealand’s capital stock for future generations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will have to wait for the Budget to actually have those confirmed but I can tell him that in the Budget Policy Statement the incoming Government outlined new capital spending of about $7.5 billion over the next 5 years which is a substantial lift on previous spending. More important than the amount of money is how well it is invested. This Government will be focusing it on long-term investments that open up the bottlenecks in this economy help our exporters become more competitive and help make the economy more productive. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister agree that reducing core Crown expenditure on sectors such as health education and welfare is sustainable only if it is accompanied by structural changes that increase competition; if so why does he refuse to do that in the way that he did with the health sector in the 1990s when he was responsible for large gains in productivity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member I think correctly identifies that there are substantial challenges in the sectors of health and education where the New Zealand taxpayer has invested very large amounts of new money over the last 10 years without much change in outputs. The health system does not treat many more people and the educational levels of our young people have not risen in relation to the amount of money spent. This just goes to show that more money does not fix every problem. This Government will have to be thoughtful about how we manage over the next few years with less new money for health and education. 
Unemployment—Current Rate 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the latest advice on the number of people out of work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that for the March quarter 2009 the unemployment rate was 5 percent—115000 people. Of those 41336 were receiving the unemployment benefit in April. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is the Minister’s ministry calling urgent management meetings in Auckland this week to examine critical staffing shortages at most branch offices if as she stated Work and Income could “cope” on current staffing levels? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As previously said in this House we are currently recruiting for further front-line staff. That staff will go predominantly to Auckland offices and I know that in Waitakere they are looking at taking on another eight front-line staff for whom they are currently recruiting. We expect about 104 new staff by the end of June I think. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How is Work and Income coping with increased numbers of unemployed people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government has focused resources on front-line services to get people back into work as quickly as possible and that is working. As of just the last week within a month of those people coming through the doors of Work and Income to go on a benefit 30 percent of them had not gone on a benefit whether or not they had found work. Work and Income is coping. It does need more front-line staff—there are no two ways about it—but we are certainly focused on that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why then are the positions of 31 front-line field officers—whose job it is to work one-on-one with clients to ensure that clients are receiving the financial support they are entitled to—being disestablished after the assurances the Minister has just given the House and has given in the past that no cuts are happening and that resources are going to the front line? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The chief executive has responsibility for the structure of staffing. He has made those calls and certainly those are calls that I back. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can the 90-day employment trial legislation be “a great example of partnership working for everyone” as the Minister has stated when last week a citizens advice bureau in South Auckland advised that it is seeing one person a day who has been hired and then fired under that legislation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If we looked at the facts I think we would also see many employees who are getting a chance that they were not getting before this legislation was put in place. I am hearing daily that people who were not getting opportunities are now getting them that employers are now taking on people whom they would not normally have taken on and that actually the legislation is working out there. 
Auckland—Land Gifted by Mana Whenua 
4.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has he received any advice on whether constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi apply between the Crown and the mana whenua who gifted land on which Auckland City is built; if so what was that advice? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 No I have not received any such advice. However I note that the principle of partnership was first identified explicitly in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Manukau report 
in 1985 when the tribunal emphasised the obligation on both parties to act reasonably honourably and in good faith. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How is the Government giving effect to those rights and responsibilities in the legislation to enable the new Auckland City governance arrangements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The first thing that the Government has done is to support the establishment of a special select committee which will consider the Auckland governance legislation. Everyone will have an opportunity to make submissions to it. There is also ongoing dialogue between the co-leaders of the Maori Party and the Government on this issue. The Prime Minister recently stated that nothing is off the table until the final legislation is drafted. This reflects the Government’s commitment to acting reasonably honourably and in good faith. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How is it a matter of good faith not to have sought advice about such an important Treaty principle as partnership? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The issues are tolerably clear as a result of all the reports on partnership that have been given by the Waitangi Tribunal over the years including the 2007 report which castigated that member’s Government for the sloppy way in which it had approached negotiations with Auckland iwi. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: In terms of local government reform and the application of the Treaty of Waitangi where does the change in Auckland governance derive its legitimacy from—constitutional law or democracy? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That is virtually a non-question. The answer is that the legitimacy of local government comes from this House in that the Local Government Act was passed by this House. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not the question. The question was in terms of the application of the principles of the Treaty to local government reform. Invite the Attorney-General to skite again and give us a decent answer! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order should not be made in that way. I believe that the Minister did answer the question. 
David Garrett 
: What level of representation on the Auckland Council if any does he believe the descendants of John Logan Campbell are entitled to by virtue of their ancestor’s gifts of land to the city in the past? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: My understanding is that those lands were the subject of a bequest by John Logan Campbell. I am not exactly certain of the details of the bequest but I have a feeling that they are somewhat different from the circumstances surrounding transactions involving Ngati Whatua. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Government willing to establish a forum to be facilitated by the transition committee for the Crown and Auckland rohe rangatira to have dialogue on Auckland City governance based on the partnership principle of the Treaty of Waitangi; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government encourages dialogue between all parties and the select committee process is an example of that dialogue. I suppose yesterday’s hikoi was another form of dialogue between Maori and the Crown although I note that the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia chose to conduct their dialogue over the counter at McDonald’s. 
Street Racing—Deterrents 
5.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What steps is the Government taking to deter illegal street racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Two comprehensive bills that give police and local authorities greater powers to clamp down on illegal street racers and as a last resort crush their vehicles have been introduced today. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill are designed to work in unison to address the problem of illegal street racing in New Zealand. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister received any feedback on the Government’s proposals? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. Police have welcomed the new bills which will help close the current loopholes and provide a comprehensive suite of powers for police and local authorities to tackle this issue. Police agree with the Government that when public safety is at risk appropriate law enforcement is required and reports I have seen suggest that there is political consensus that the existing law needs to be strengthened. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What are the loopholes in the current law? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Illegal street racers are currently able to commit an offence in another person’s car and avoid the full force of the law. Illegal street racers have been known to sell their car to a friend for a nominal amount in order to avoid penalties and/or confiscation. Other loopholes include illegal street racers accruing and failing to pay fines and switching cars in order to avoid being penalised. These bills will help close the loopholes in the existing law. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What guarantee can the Minister give the House that this new legislation will lead to any more boy racers losing their cars than do so currently considering that although courts can already confiscate on a first offence this happens in less than 2 percent of cases? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think that when the member reads the bills he will see that there are very strong provisions; it is very difficult to sell or race a car that has been crushed. 
Economy—Reports 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports from a number of people. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with rating agencies such as Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s who make clear that closing our external deficit and building a more diversified and innovative economy is a greater challenge than reducing New Zealand’s relatively low Government debt; if so why has he gutted KiwiSaver research and development tax cuts and the Fast Forward programme which were critical to reducing the savings gap and getting our economy moving? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The first task of the Government has been to get expenditure and debt under control because they were out of control when the previous Government left office and the global recession made that worse. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with commentator Rod Oram who said: “Two very big dangers arise from the government’s focus on its debt … First it will deliver an excessively conservative budget in order to make its books look good.”—and make the recession worse—“Second it will seriously under-invest in economic transformation”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What reports has he seen on alternative plans for managing the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen very few reports—in fact I do not think I have seen any reports—on alternative plans for managing the economy. Mr Oram just says we should transform it and the Labour Party just says we should spend more and run up more debt. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use a point of order to seek clarification. He can ask a further supplementary question should he wish. 
Maternity Services—Funding 
7.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made with respect to maternity services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Last week the Government announced that it will spend an extra $103.5 million over 4 years— 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
:—$103.5 million over 4 years—to boost maternity services for new parents. This announcement of financial support includes over $38 million for new mothers to have the option to stay longer in birthing facilities if they need extra support and around $10 million for additional visits to general practitioners and lead maternity carers for at-risk mothers during pregnancy. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How difficult was it to find the resources to fulfil these important election promises? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Finding resources to boost health services is a significant challenge in the worsening international and domestic situation. However making matters much worse is the fact that the new Government inherited around $160 million of burgeoning hospital deficits and largely unfunded capital demands of over $600 million. I want to acknowledge the support of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in giving us in the public health service the resources to improve maternity care in this country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with the director of women’s health at Capital and Coast District Health Board who said in relation to the length of stay for new mothers in birthing facilities “It’s always been an issue when we’ve been short-staffed. It has never been a financial issue. It’s because the resource has not been available in terms of human resource.”; and if the Minister does agree with her why did he not do anything about it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government has introduced a voluntary bonding scheme to help keep midwives in the country. The scheme funds incentives for midwives in rural areas and the intake into midwifery education has increased. Speaking of that woman from Capital Coast District Health Board I wonder whether she explained why that district health board under the previous Government was going to pay women $100 Pak ’N Save vouchers to get out of the maternity ward in less than 6 hours. Where is the explanation for that? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Has the Minister seen reports from Southland saying that his announcement will not lead to longer stays for new mothers in Southland Hospital; and is he prepared to admit that his announcement will not even keep up with the baby boom that we are currently experiencing? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: On the issue of Southland District Health Board I have read the comments reported in the newspaper and it is quite clear that the chairman of the district health board is saying that there are opportunities to improve services in primary birthing facilities in Southland. On the issue of keeping up with the birth rate the member may have not been in a position to note that the $40 million extra over the next 4 years will help New Zealand keep up with the growing birth rate. 
Economy and Environment—Government Policies 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is it Government policy to tackle the economic and environmental crises at the same time; if so how? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government’s policy is to maximise New Zealand’s economic opportunities while meeting our environmental responsibilities. Our response to the global economic downturn includes policies that are good for our economy while also being good for the environment. These policies include our $50 million commitment to the development of a national cycleway a new $36 million grants programme for bio-diesel production and other environmentally friendly initiatives which will be detailed in the Budget on Thursday. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that by investing $600 million over the next 3 years in protecting our waterways as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package he would create 4500 jobs restore water quality and protect our “clean green” reputation thereby dealing with both the economic and environmental crises at the same time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the specific policy from the Greens but I can confirm that enhancing the quality of our waterways is important to the Government and we are working on ways to make sure we achieve it on a number of fronts including a good structure for co-management of the Waikato River. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Are there any initiatives in the upcoming Budget that have environmental and economic benefits; if so what are they? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes there are. One initiative I am particularly excited about is the Government’s home insulation programme which the Minister of Energy and Resources has developed in conjunction with Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Greens. The Government’s scheme will help many more New Zealanders make their homes warmer drier and healthier. The economy will benefit from increased employment in the building and construction industry and the environment will benefit from increased energy efficiency. I look forward to the announcements in the Budget. When I see them I will know that they will be funded—unlike the ones promised by the previous Labour Government which were not. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that by investing $2 billion over the next 3 years in new State housing as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package he could create 28000 new jobs and improve the lot of families in desperate need of affordable housing thereby dealing with economic social and environmental issues at the same time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That may or may not be correct. What I can confirm is that the Government is investing albeit modestly in building more State houses. But more important it is actually spending a lot of money on renovating State houses. That work has begun already. All I can say is that the aim of the Government is to no longer be a slum landlord which is the position we inherited from the Labour Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that by shifting $1 billion of investment from new motorways to more sustainable transport options like better buses and trains and safer walking and cycling he could create 40 percent more jobs lower overall transport costs and reduce our oil import bill thereby dealing with the economic and environmental crises at the same time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not necessarily agree with that. I can confirm that the National Government will spend $1.6 billion to upgrade Auckland’s commuter rail infrastructure and that in 2009-10 we will spend $201 million on subsidising public transport services nationally—the highest level ever. The Government has shown a real appetite for building more State highways. We are spending $1 billion a year on it. I think it is an important measure because when cars are sitting idle on State highways that do not work—that are not properly connected—they add very negatively to New Zealand’s environmental output. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of his answers does he disagree with his finance Minister the Hon Bill English who said: “one crisis at a time might just do most Governments.” and will he be talking with his finance Minister about the advantages of joined-up thinking—of dealing with the economic and environmental crises at the same time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I always agree with the Minister of Finance. Secondly I know that New Zealand is very lucky that he will be the Minister of Finance reading the Budget on Thursday. New Zealanders will be grateful on Thursday when they hear the Budget being read out that they are not looking at a picture of Michael Cullen on their TV screens; he knew how to spend money but he certainly could not run a Government efficiently. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
9.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What is the Government’s position on Maori representation for the new Auckland Council? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 On 6 April 2009 Cabinet agreed as noted in Cabinet minute 0912/7 that Maori representation should not be provided for within the new Auckland governance structure. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When you took forward to Cabinet your recommendation to scrap the royal commission’s recommendations for Maori representation who else did you ask other than Pita Sharples who agrees that Maori representation should be scrapped? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the honourable member to restate his question because the Speaker did not actually do any of those alleged things. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When did the Cabinet submission that was made by you Mr Hide to scrap Maori—apologies. Mr Hide when the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat while I am on my feet. I thank the honourable member. Colleagues I ask for a little decorum please. I call the Hon Shane Jones and I ask him to please concentrate. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Did the Minister seek the views of any Maori other than the Minister of Maori Affairs when deciding whether to ditch the royal commission’s recommendation for Maori representation? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes we did consult but the decision was made on the basis of a commitment to the democratic principle of one person one vote and also on the basis of the views of Dr Pita Sharples who felt the royal commission had not gone far enough. He said that the proposals as explained in the royal commission’s report would perpetuate the failure of existing Maori representation. He felt that the proposed mana whenua councillor was unachievable so we felt that there was more work to do in achieving proper iwi engagement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had great difficulty hearing the Minister and I wonder whether he could please repeat his last comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that it was perfectly audible compared with the sound levels in previous exchanges. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in the select committee process and encourage Maori to make submissions to the select committee when he has summarily dismissed their submissions—over 100 went to the royal commission—on this vexed topic of Maori representation? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have faith in parliamentary democracy and the select committee process. I have made it plain what my views are but ultimately the decision will be made by Parliament. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’s a jack-up! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Perhaps if Mr Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia spent less time eating McDonald’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Biofuels—Bio-diesel Production Grants 
10.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the Government doing to encourage the bio-diesel industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Budget will contain funding of $36 million over the next 3 years for grants to bio-diesel producers at a maximum rate of 42.5c per litre of bio-diesel. The initiative fulfils the Government’s pre-election promise of providing an equivalent incentive for bio-diesel to that which is enjoyed by bio-ethanol. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has the Minister received about the Government’s announcement of bio-diesel grants? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have seen a report from the Bioenergy Association of New Zealand whose spokesperson said that the grants scheme looks like great news for bio-diesel producers in New Zealand and will give the sector the confidence it needs to continue to grow and to secure future investment. Clearly on this matter the Labour Party is as usual quite confused in that both its energy spokespersons Mr Hipkins and Mr Chauvel—I note it now takes two to mark this portfolio—described the grants scheme as a bit of a joke. But that was Labour’s previous policy. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has the Minister received about the impact on employment of bio-diesel grants? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have seen a report from the Bioenergy Association of New Zealand stating that the prompt action by the Minister has provided immediate security for 40 direct jobs and 200 indirect jobs and that the implementation of the investment plans will provide a further 100 jobs in the first year of the scheme with the expectation that the industry will grow to provide at least 55 direct jobs in 3 years. Although the focus of the grants scheme is to support new and fledgling industry in New Zealand the employment effects are also very pleasing; so too will be the reduction in New Zealand’s greenhouse gases that will result from increased use of bio-diesel produced in New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister accept that his grants scheme is too little too late for the development of projects such as the Argent Energy 60 million litre bio-diesel plant in the Bay of Plenty and the plants of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in Auckland and Waharoa which have been cancelled or put on hold because of the uncertainty created by his short-sighted repeal of the biofuels obligation; and can he tell the House how many jobs his stop-start policies in the biofuels area have cost New Zealand in the last 6 months? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Most of what the member asserts is a load of rubbish. I note that the bio-diesel industry of New Zealand has greeted this grants programme with a great deal of enthusiasm. As I have said there will be developments that see the industry grow here. The member fails to tell the public that it was the previous Government’s intention to import 60 million litres of unsustainably produced bio-diesel just so it could feel good about New Zealand’s carbon emissions but having little regard for the actual worldwide position. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a news report confirming that Argent Energy’s 60 million litre bio-diesel plant in the Bay of Plenty and the plants of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in Auckland and Waharoa have been cancelled or put on hold as a result of the repeal of the biofuels legislation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the member says it is a news report what is it from? 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is from Radio New Zealand Newswire summarising comments from those organisations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document from Newswire service. Is there any objection? There is. 
Interest Rates—Prime Minister’s Statement 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with John Key’s statement about lenders charging interest rates of 21 or 22 percent that “it is very high you can’t help but feel that they are taking advantage of their customers and I have made that clear to them personally and directly”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister’s statement. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he agree that if lenders charging 22 percent interest per annum are “taking advantage of their customers” then pay-day lenders charging rates of 8 or 9 percent per month compounding to over 2000 percent per annum are in need of even greater scrutiny? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would have thought that the member asking the question would be aware of that problem. Under the previous Government there was an inquiry into loan sharks. We are still trying to find out whether anything was done as a result of it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked the Minister about his responsibilities not about the record of the previous Government. I would appreciate an answer on that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot be too specific with a question like that. We heard from the Minister that an inquiry had been done and that he is trying to find out the outcome of it. 
Amy Adams 
: What is the current average floating mortgage rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The average floating mortgage rate as stated by the Reserve Bank is 6.41 percent which is 4.5 percent lower than it was in June last year when floating mortgage rates peaked at 10 percent. I do not recall hearing complaints from members opposite then when interest rates were much higher for ordinary New Zealanders than they are today. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs says she “is not in favour of imposing controls as they may cause fringe lenders to exit the market and thereby deny some consumers the only source of credit available to them” and that “some lenders have become more flexible in their willingness to help those suffering from indebtedness” is she speaking on behalf of the Government or will his Government follow most other OECD jurisdictions and introduce legislation that prevents the charging of usurious interest rates by so-called pay-day lenders; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If there was a simple answer to the problem then I am sure that the previous Government which looked into it in some detail would have implemented that simple answer. As I understand it the Minister of Consumer Affairs is currently undertaking a review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. A discussion paper will come out in a few months and there will be an opportunity to put forward those proposals. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Consumer Affairs containing the statements I referred to in my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a bill that will be put forward for the next members’ bills ballot. It seeks to impose a maximum interest rate on loan sharks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electoral Finance Reform—Opportunities for Input 
12.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage on the process of electoral finance reform; if so what progress has been made to date? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; an issues paper was released last Friday after consultation with all parliamentary parties. Members of the public have 5 weeks to make written submissions on the issues paper. There are also three public meetings to be held in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch where the public can make their views known. We are seeking a wide range of views in order to create a fair and enduring replacement for the Electoral Finance Act. 
Chester Borrows 
: What is the next stage of the review and will the public have further opportunities for input? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes once the Government has received submissions on the issues paper we will use them to develop a proposal document. All parliamentary parties will be consulted again before we release that document for further public consultation. Submissions on that document will assist us in drafting a bill to reform electoral finance law. Once the bill is before Parliament the public will also have a further opportunity to make a submission on the bill during the select committee process. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that at the last election the National Party and its candidates disclosed the source of only 15 percent of their $4 million of election spending and does he agree that transparency with regard to donations to political parties is a cornerstone of maintaining public confidence in our democracy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No and yes I believe that the issues surrounding donations will be well canvassed during this process. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s appointment of the Hon John Carter Associate Minister of Local Government as chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The appointment of the chairperson of a select committee is a matter for the committee when it first meets. There can be no ministerial responsibility for such a decision. Furthermore the committee has not yet met and elected its chairperson. The ministerial comments relate to actions that are likely to occur in the near future. There is therefore no particular case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for a debate. The application for an urgent debate is consequently declined. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House is in Committee for consideration of the performance in 2007-08 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. A total of 3 hours is allocated for the debate. 
The debate on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2007-08 financial year and to their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A list of the financial reviews available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. Reports on entities yet to be reported cannot be debated. 
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises that they wish to debate. I understand that the first entity members wish to debate is the Human Rights Commission. 
Human Rights Commission 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Greens I praise the work of the Human Rights Commission under the very capable leadership of Rosslyn Noonan. I think its work is even more important today; it is well spelt out in the annual report of the Human Rights Commission. I think the commission is continuing that good work which is relevant in the sense that the Government itself has dropped the ball in this area over the last while particularly regarding international human rights. The current operations of the Human Rights Commission—in particular sending people like Joris de Bres to the United Nations World Conference against Racism and Rosslyn Noonan to the United Nations Committee Against Torture hearing on New Zealand recently—are really holding New Zealand’s end up in the international arena. 
A little while ago when the Government decided that it would not take up the seat that it had long campaigned for on the UN Human Rights Council—instead giving it to the United States—the head of the Human Rights Commission Ms Noonan expressed concern that the withdrawal of New Zealand’s candidacy would be interpreted as a lessening of New Zealand’s commitment to strengthening human rights internationally. Unfortunately not too long after that we saw Ms Noonan’s words come true when New Zealand was one of only eight nations to boycott the United Nations World Conference against Racism held in Europe. It has been quite upsetting when I have questioned the Minister of Foreign Affairs on why New Zealand was not present. It all seems to hinge on clause 63 of the declaration of the earlier World Conference against Racism Racial Discrimination Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban which talked about the Palestinian issue in very objective terms—defending Israel’s right to defend itself but also talking about the foreign occupation that Palestinians suffer in that place. I do not think that New Zealand should line up with Israel considering Israel’s human rights violations. 
It was good that the Human Rights Commission was present at the World Conference against Racism in Europe. Joris de Bres who was the Race Relations Commissioner under the Human Rights Commission even spoke on behalf of several of the non-governmental organisations of the countries that were represented at the conference. He expressed the views of the nations present to the overwhelming majority of the nations in the United Nations that—unlike the official New Zealand delegation—turned up to the conference. Joris de Bres attributed great success to the conference in terms of monitoring and providing education on human rights. Out of that World Conference against Racism there was clear support for New Zealand to sign the international Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which also came out of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s audit of New Zealand’s human rights. The Government would be well placed to agree with the direction of the Human Rights Commission that New Zealand should sign—or at least support—the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
The Human Rights Commission submits regularly to select committees. It states quite clearly that the “three strikes and you’re out” bill is contrary to international law and it points out in its submission that life imprisonment is not used in New Zealand even for war crimes. So why should it be used in this “three strikes and you’re out” provision whereby for committing a much smaller crime than a war crime someone could be imprisoned for the rest of their days? 
It was left to the Human Rights Commission to report back fully on the success of the UN review of New Zealand’s human rights and on some of the problems that the New Zealand Government should continue working on such as the problems in the immigration and counter-terrorism legislation whereby the rights of those affected—people alleged to be terrorists or who have problems in coming to New Zealand—are not fully recognised. Problems with classified information prevent those people from fully understanding their rights. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I say that at least 13 discussions are going on in the Chamber. There is too much—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. There is just too much chatter. Please keep it down. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I join the Green Party member in congratulating the Human Rights Commission on its work under the leadership of Rosslyn Noonan. Engagement has been welcomed from the new Government and we have met on a number of occasions on a range of issues that the commission has wished to bring to the attention of the new Government. 
In response to some of the matters that the member has raised but particularly as Minister of Justice with some responsibility in this area I want to briefly take this opportunity to advise the Committee of some matters that the Government has been working on in this area. Protecting human rights in New Zealand is a daily weekly and monthly process gradually changing opinions and eroding older barriers and quietly building away in the background. Under all Governments both present and past—and I hope future—New Zealand has always taken its human rights commitments seriously. As a country we have been involved with the UN since its inception and are party to most major international human rights instruments. The Human Rights Commission plays an important role as I said earlier in advising the Government on human rights issues and advising the Government on issues both domestic in nature and of course on the international stage. 
On 7 May this year I was fortunate to present New Zealand’s first Universal Periodic Review report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. This was the first time that New Zealand had participated in this review. Civil engagement was a vital element in the development of New Zealand’s Universal Periodic Review report. The commission itself took a leadership role in the run-up to the presentation of the report leading three round-table discussions in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. Ms Noonan was present in Geneva for the presentation of the Universal Periodic Review report for the New Zealand Government and the Government is appreciative of the commission’s input into that process. 
New Zealand’s participation in the review mechanism represents part of our continuing dedication to human rights not just in New Zealand but across the globe. The process that was entered into was a very interesting one. It works something like this. The country that is currently undergoing an examination of its human rights record makes a presentation effectively choosing the length of time it wishes to present for but for the course of the entire presentation which is some 3 hours in scope or which has the potential to be some 3 hours in scope it is allowed to contribute for only 1 hour in total. There is literally a clock running down behind the presentation as it is delivered. 
On behalf of the New Zealand Government I chose in consultation with different organisations to make a presentation that lasted roughly 15 to 20 minutes. Before the process commences member States queue up to ask specific questions make specific recommendations or point out specific shortfalls in the presenting country’s report. In this case it meant that in representing New Zealand we had to respond to 38 I think it was member States’ questions and recommendations during part of this process. If you like it was a little bit like an international question time. We were not quite sure what was coming from some countries and others had already submitted their questions prior to the process beginning. We were fortunate that the mission I believe that is the right phrase in Geneva that represents New Zealand was there to assist me with this process and we had some Ministry of Justice officials there who had particular specialist areas. There were people from the Crown Law Office and from the Department of Corrections. That meant that we had access to immediate knowledge to answer questions from member States. 
We took an approach that was pretty straightforward in that we acknowledged some of the things that the country over time had done well. To be fair to the previous Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson this was one of the areas where we had made considerable progress and were given considerable kudos by the fact that the Hon Ruth Dyson and Don McKay in that case had worked so hard towards achieving those particular goals. 
Questions were asked about some of the protocols declarations and optional protocols where New Zealand had not signed up or become party to some of those instruments and I in my capacity as representing the report was able to put the case for why it was that some of those instruments had been ratified or adopted in a slower more considered way. Part of that stems from the fact that over a long period of time New Zealand has taken the view that it will only ratify or sign up to these instruments where our domestic legislation meets the grade. In other words we view the reservation process as one that should be entered into only in the most extreme or difficult of circumstances and that by and large signing up to one of these instruments should be done in a full way. 
I guess I am signalling to the Committee today that the best way we view and I think the last Government viewed this process is to make sure that all our domestic policy and legislation is in a row prior to signing up rather than the other way around and to take reservations on each of those instruments on the way through. I think that that is a sensible and serious way to engage with the process and shows a fair amount of integrity from successive Governments as to the way they have approached this particular process. 
Speaking to the matters raised by the member from the Green Party Keith Locke about the Durban Review Conference I tell the Committee that New Zealand did not attend that conference in April 2009 as Keith Locke pointed out. It became apparent in the days leading up to the review conference that some consensus was lacking around the matter of whether the conference itself would be productive. However New Zealand is a strong supporter of the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and remains firmly committed to combating all forms of racism racial discrimination xenophobia and related intolerance. One of the issues raised by way of statement from some member States was the issue of a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Members are welcome to look at the report to see how that matter was addressed by the Government in that case. 
Balancing the human rights of New Zealanders against legislative domestic processes—that is making the comparison on an international stage with what is occurring domestically—can be difficult and can be contentious. But one of the things we must realise is that New Zealand historically has had a leading role in this area and should continue to have that in a way that signals we are prepared to lead in this field. But I emphasise this final point: it is no use being a party to some of these instruments unless we are prepared to do what is necessary domestically which is why as I said earlier we have always had a history of having minimal reservations to instruments to which we have become a party. I think that that in itself is a method of engaging in this process that shows a high degree of integrity. There are challenges we still have in this fora as the member who took the first call will understand but I assure him that I take these issues seriously and that we are working as best we can towards those particular goals. 
One of the things I think was essential for New Zealand to do in its first Universal Periodic Review report was to be honest about some of its shortcomings and I believe that the report we submitted was an extremely honest and transparent report. As I said this is an area in which I have taken some considerable interest. Historically it has been an area farmed off to an Associate Minister of Justice; I was determined to keep this matter under my own warrant and I have enjoyed the work immensely. 
Report noted. 
Mental Health Commission 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 If members of the Committee look on the website of the Ministry of Health they will see a photo of the word “HOPE” written in large letters in the sand on a New Zealand beach. It is a still from the world-acclaimed Like Minds Like Mine advertising campaign—the campaign that most recently featured John Kirwan standing tall and telling New Zealanders his story of hope and of recovery. Well despite Tony Ryall’s axing of the mental health target from the focus of district health boards and the Ministry of Health that photo of hope still remains on the ministry’s website illustrating the now-axed target. In my view—and I certainly hope that my view is correct—it is a show of some healthy subversion remaining in the Ministry of Health despite that ministry’s staff now being cut instead of being capped. I will be very interested to see how long after my contribution in the Chamber—and it is now 12 minutes past 3—it will take the Minister of Health to instruct his officials to get that sign of hope off its website. I do not think that it will take very long. 
The Mental Health Commission started about the same time as the Like Minds Like Mine campaign. It is designed to give the Minister independent advice; it acts as an advocate for the interests of service users and their families—that is for one in five New Zealanders. By the late 1990s New Zealanders had reached a level of shame and disquiet about how we treated our own and we began this journey of hope to reduce the stigma and to see mental health issues through the lens of support and recovery. And that has been working. Until now there has been a cross-party agreement in this Parliament to ensure that those with mental illness are supported through recovery. 
Since 2007 the mental health sector has been focusing on a target of having at least 90 percent of long-term clients with up-to-date relapse prevention plans. In the last year over 1500 more clients have had those plans—a 16 percent increase since the first quarter of the year before when this target started to be measured. That is a total of 7476 people—76 percent of all clients—who have up-to-date relapse prevention plans. But now that work is no longer considered a priority by the Minister of Health. The National Government has turned its back on some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders by saying that mental health is no longer a priority. The Government does not think mental health is important enough to rate as a target for the health system in New Zealand so more than 7400 people can now feel shunned by the National Government. Well I say that that is a disgrace. It will be an everlasting shame to the current Government that it treats in that way some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. 
Peter McGeorge the Chairman of the Mental Health Commission recently warned about the increase of mental health problems as a result of the recession. He said that rising unemployment is a critical factor and that every 1 percent increase in unemployment leads to a 2 to 3 percent jump in the number of people at risk of developing mental health issues. There seems no better time to support the most vulnerable in our community and to support those who are now even more at risk of developing mental health problems. Now is exactly the wrong time for the Government to turn its back on those people and to say that it is more important that people can get into accident and emergency departments in a speedy time than it is that someone with a mental health illness can get the support he or she deserves. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 During the Health Committee’s financial review of the Mental Health Commission the commission expressed its concern that district health boards sometimes used the ring-fenced funding that is provided for mental health for other purposes. However its greatest concern was the possible removal or reduction of the funding itself. It acknowledged that the transfer of existing services into the ring-fenced area without additional funds would cause problems. Against that backdrop we have the removal of mental health targets from the Government’s priorities. Although the Minister of Finance has assured us that a target’s removal from the list of priorities does not necessarily mean that funding will not be available we are already— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yeah right! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yeah right! I can see the Tui billboard now. We are already seeing the effects of this policy in real terms on the ground and at the coalface of mental health in our district health boards. 
At a recent meeting of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board with its community mental health providers a note was made to say that recent correspondence indicated that the district health board was spending $1.8 million over and above the expected ring-fenced levels and that total savings of $1.8 million therefore needed to be made in mental health and addiction services for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 years to assist the funding of new Government priorities most of which Nelson Marlborough District Health Board had not been given additional funding for. 
That means unfunded priorities and it means that the additional money over and above the ring-fenced funding for mental health has got to go and that will include no more workforce development. That comes from a Government that has stated that it is absolutely focused on front-line services. How will the Government develop front-line services and how will it recruit and retain people who work in the mental health services if it will not offer workforce and career development to make the sector attractive and to get people in there for the long term so that they can get to know the sector well and build relationships with their clients? How will the Government do that when the money is being stripped away and the sector is no longer a priority? 
As a result of these funding cuts and as a result of mental health no longer being a priority for the National - ACT Government some community providers are already indicating that they may need to move away from district health board contracts. In order to provide the level of service that they feel comfortable with they need to move away from district health board contracts and instead provide services only to fee-paying clients. That is user-pays in the health system. 
Where have we seen that before? We have seen it before in privatised health-care. Despite the token concessions and lip-service paid to its commitment to public health the previous National Government slashed spending in the public sector and introduced part payment within its health reforms. The move was deliberately calculated to reduce demand for health care. People could not access the services that they needed and hospitals were forced to become debt collectors. They had tills at the front door. 
Who can forget Tony Ryall and John Key saying that the market would decide general practitioners’ fees? They said the market would provide. They said that only when the media flushed them out to ask what was not in National’s health policy document and later they did a quick U-turn on that. Already we are seeing the sowing of the seeds towards privatised health-care and user-pays because those mental health services will not be able to provide the services that are necessary given the funding allocations that they will no longer receive because their sector is off the priority list and unimportant. It is not an area that the Government thinks the health system should be focusing on. 
The Health Committee also expressed some concern about the paucity of services that were available to treat addictions in New Zealand particularly for young people. The select committee asked the Mental Health Commission for its thoughts on this point and it noted that addiction services were actually quite new to the blueprint and new to the mental health sector. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate because a couple of things need to be corrected and put on the record. First of all it is incredibly ironic that Labour members have chosen to debate the Mental Health Commission. Of all the entities they could have put up they want to put up the Mental Health Commission and place a big fat target on its back. Quite frankly the previous Government’s performance over 9 years on mental health was absolutely abysmal. 
Hon Annette King 
: It was fantastic! 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You see Labour members are the only ones saying that. They spent $1 billion they extended spending by 75 percent and was anyone better off in terms of their mental health by the end of it? Absolutely not. We can tell by the way that mob is shouting that they know it is absolutely true. If those members talked to the families of mental health patients if they talked to the patients themselves they would hear them say that they were let down by the previous Government. Quite frankly it is pathetic for those members to go on about the axing of Labour’s bureaucratic target. The target was that 80 percent of long-term patients should have a long-term relapse prevention plan. If that target was the sum total of Labour’s plan in mental health it was pathetic. 
When we look at what National inherited from that mob it is incredible. We have to narrow down those targets to crucial stuff that makes a difference. This is what we inherited from Labour: a system overburdened with 13 health priorities 61 objectives an additional subset of 13 health objectives a set of 10 health targets measured through 18 indicators 25 other indicators of district health board performance—not to mention four hospital benchmark indicators assessed through 15 measures and an outcomes framework with nine outcomes measured against 39 headline indicators. No wonder morale in the mental health service is absolutely at rock bottom. Those people focused on meaningless targets but if they had spent some time focused on what would make a difference in mental health they would have focused on very different stuff. 
The Labour Government had 9 years but it did nothing to get mental health into primary care—absolutely nothing. It was the families of mental health patients who had to carry the can when that failed Government failed to provide the access to services that were needed. If Labour members talked to ordinary New Zealanders rather than viewing everything through a political lens they—and Mr Lees-Galloway—would know that it is the families who are left to carry the can. When people cannot get into hospitals when they cannot access primary care when they cannot get to the services—whether the patients are Maori Pacific Island elderly or children—it is the families who carry the can. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members would not be shouting like this if those comments were not true. 
Mr Lees-Galloway is buying into the propaganda. He has been in Parliament for 6 months and already he believes the rhetoric. He said there were funding cuts in health. Why does he not tell members about the $26 million that National has announced to treat people who have eating disorders? It is because he is ashamed. He joined the Labour Party and he knows that Government did nothing for people with eating disorders. It had 9 years it had plenty of opportunity but it did not do it. It absolutely did not do it because there were no votes amongst the anorexic. It was not a politically pressure-pointed issue for Labour. It was an absolutely shameful performance. Now with this $26 million—$6.5 million in this year’s Budget—there is finally some relief for those families with children with anorexia who were never listened to by the previous Government. Labour members have gone quiet because they know the truth; they are ashamed. 
I tell members that Labour’s record on Maori mental health was pathetic. Maori could not get the access to services under the last Government. Why was that? It was because Labour had written off Maori at the ballot box. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What are you going to do Jonathan—one thing? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Ruth Dyson asked for one thing; one thing is $26 million for eating disorders. That is a priority for this Government in this Budget—health and mental health. There is more money and it is new money. Labour members know that and they are ashamed because they let down ordinary New Zealanders over a much-extended period. 
We remember the debate on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill back in 2007. We remember in the Health Committee listening to family after family—[ 
Interruption 
]. Well that guy opposite does not have an eating disorder. Those families could not get access to the services that were needed. They told us that the Mental Health Commission had become ideologically bound up under the previous Government. The commission had lost sight of what it was trying to do in mental health it had lost sight of the interests of patients and families—it was ideologically captured. And what did the previous Government do? It just went along with it for way way too long until the pressure built to such a level that the Government could no longer ignore it. 
In the debate on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill National members said they wanted to have a review clause after 3 years to see whether the Mental Health Commission should have its life extended. I am happy to say that under this new National Government the commission will be doing a great job advocating not only for patients but also for families. 
There is plenty of money in mental health; the problem under the previous lot was that the money was tied up in meaningless bureaucracy. Labour spent so much money and did not know where it was going. When I was in Opposition I asked the district health boards what had happened to the $300 million spent on non-governmental organisations. And do members know what? They could tell us they were spending the money they could tell us which district health boards it went to they could tell us where the money went to from the district health boards in terms of the non-governmental organisations but they could not tell us what it produced. So when Mr Lees-Galloway gets up and talks about cuts in funding it is a complete inaccuracy. 
I can tell members what happened. Pete Hodgson as Minister of Health was given a report by the non-governmental organisations saying that that system was unsustainable because of what the Labour Government was doing to it. And—do members know—he never released that report. Why did Pete Hodgson not want that report to undergo the disinfectant of the light of day? He did not because it showed that the Labour Government had spent $1 billion on mental health it had upped the amount by 75 percent over the 10 years but people were getting less access to services not more. The money was tied up in bureaucracy and no one knew where the money was going. It was an absolute disgrace and it was letting down New Zealanders. 
We only have to do a flick through our media file to see the failings of the last Labour Government in terms of mental health. Look at Hillmorton Hospital—that was a disgrace. Look at the Auckland City Hospital acute unit; again those guys failed. They had 9 years to do something about it and there was nothing they could do—another disgrace. Look at what happened over Lake Alice Hospital. When the Labour Government was in power Cabinet clipped the compensation for the Lake Alice Hospital patients. The Government thought it could get away with that dirty little secret; it was an absolute disgrace. It took $3 million from the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society and it thought it could get away with it. But no the patients themselves brought it to the light of day—the disinfectant of sunlight—and the Labour Government finally had to cough up. 
When Labour members are stupid enough to bring up the Mental Health Commission and open up the debate on mental health one really has to wonder who is calling the strategy shots on the opposite side. When one looks at Labour’s performance in the Chamber over the past 6 months in terms of health in general there have been very very few questions on health. There has not been a single question on mental health and I do not know who made this decision today to actually bring up— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is Melissa Lee’s fired minder! 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh it is the sad old man of the House—Trevor Mallard. He has stirred from his stupor to weigh into a debate that he knows nothing about. The pathetic so-called kaumatua has nothing to add to this debate I can tell members now. 
I go back to the central point which is that $1 billion a year was spent on mental health under those guys opposite. People had less access to services not more. People were not able to get their relatives into acute care when they needed to. The care-in-the-community model had a lot of holes in it. A lot of people were left on the street and families picked up the can. There is no question that when Labour was in Government the only thing it would react to was political pressure. It would do nothing until the pressure was so bad at the ballot box that it could not hold off any longer. National has been in Government for 6 months and what have we done? We have put $26 million into aiding people with eating disorders—that is Labour’s shame. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The work was done under Labour. I did that work! 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Labour never would have done it; that is its shame. National will make sure that we have better primary-care mental health services. We will make sure that people can get the care they need and I tell members that mental health services will be much much better. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating the Mental Health Commission which over many years has done a fantastic job for people with mental illness in New Zealand. I commend the work that it does. As a Government Labour extended the life of the commission not once not twice but three times because we believed that it needed to be in place until we had the best possible mental health services in this country. 
Today New Zealanders have just listened to a political rant from a man who claims to be a doctor. If that is the case he should know something about mental health. I am absolutely ashamed of the speech he has just made. If he knew a single thing about mental health he would know that one of the things that needed to happen in New Zealand was a major change to the way we provided mental health services. The reason why we needed to make a change was that when Labour became Government in 1999 there had been 75 inquiries in the 1990s into failures of the mental health system in New Zealand. The most significant inquiry was the Mason report which set out for us a very clear way forward. 
From my time in Government I know what happened—I was the Minister of Health for 6 years I say to the Minister. I know exactly what priority we put on mental health. First of all we said that mental health was not the Cinderella of the health system and that mental health needed to be right up there as a major issue. We said that it should not be sidelined—it is not something a Government does when it has done everything else—and that it was a major issue for New Zealand. Labour needed to take it seriously. We needed to implement the blueprint on mental health services in New Zealand and we needed a strategic direction as to what we were going to do in the years ahead. We set out to implement that blueprint and to put those services in place. I am particularly proud of what we did in the area of mental health with the support of the Mental Health Commission and with the support of the mental health workforce of New Zealand. 
Let me give the members an example of what we did not have in this country. Today people glibly talk about the need to have mental health services for adolescents and young people. Could we have provided that before we became Government? No we could not have done so. There was no training of mental health workers in child and adolescent mental health. That did not start until we invested in the John Werry centre in Auckland and started training people in the area of adolescent and child mental health. The work to produce such a workforce started under the Labour Government. Anyone who had read what had gone wrong in mental health in New Zealand would know that our problem was a lack of money a lack of a trained workforce and a lack of priority for mental health services. This is such a sad day because that is no longer a priority. I fear that if it is not a priority for the district health boards—because that is the message they will get from the Minister’s statement—the emphasis on improving mental health services for New Zealanders will no longer be there. 
The reason why I ring-fenced the mental health money into district health boards was to ensure they spent it on mental health services. Over many decades when money went into area health boards into Crown health enterprises into hospital and health services and finally into district health boards the easiest money to rob was mental health money. It was taken for whatever else was needed. Acute care always got priority and mental health money was taken. So we ring-fenced that money and we saw the improvement in mental health services over the time that we were in Government. It was a huge improvement—over 27000 New Zealanders every day of the week were receiving mental health services in the community. We improved access to acute mental health services. We built new mental health units around New Zealand. We made it a priority—it must be a priority. Any humane country would make it a priority. 
I went to the World Health Assembly conference in 2001. The theme of the conference was mental health. I happened to chair the plenary session and I listened to Ministers from 40 countries provide their descriptions of the mental health services in their country. I listened to what they were doing. I listened to the Minister from Nigeria—and I heard him today in the form of the Associate Minister of Health. The health Minister in Nigeria said: “We have no mental health problems in Nigeria so we don’t have a mental health system. It’s not a priority.” And that is what we heard today. I heard the French health Minister say: “In France we have a huge mental health problem. The problem is we have too many psychiatrists.” What I heard from countries all around the world was that most of them know there is a problem but some deny it as a problem. We heard today a denial of the problem from the Associate Minister of Health who was trying to say that the previous Government did nothing and to complain about the legacy we have. It was total hogwash. I have never heard more distortion and untruths put together in one speech in my time in Parliament. 
The priority on mental health has to remain. It must remain. It is no good for the new Government to say that it thinks 13 priorities are too many. Well why have any? If everything has the same priority why have any priorities? The Government could just make everything the same. How ridiculous! One has to set priorities and mental health must be one of them. 
A second priority the Government has removed is that of oral health. Good heavens above! There would not be a member opposite who did not write to me when I was the Minister of Health and ask what I was doing about oral health. Members asked what the Government was doing about the provision of child oral health and adult oral health so we set about bringing back the training of dental therapists. Can members believe it? The previous National Government had got rid of all training of dental therapists so how were we going to be able to provide such a service? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The debate is about mental health. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am talking about the priorities that have been put forward by this Government Mr Chairperson. That was the second priority that a National Government got rid of. I noticed that the Minister had quite a good whack at Trevor Mallard; I did not notice that that was in the financial review. 
The big announcement the Government has made in mental health is that it is putting money into eating disorders. New Zealanders should know that the work on the eating disorder approach to be used in New Zealand was actually done by Steve Chadwick when she was Associate Minister of Health. That work was done under a Labour Government and if Labour was still in Government it would have funded this in the Budget. That is the only announcement the Government could make in mental health. I say “Thank God for the Mental Health Commission” because it will not matter what priority the National Government puts on mental health—and it is none—the commission will keep it honest. The Mental Health Commission will keep this Government honest. Its members are fearless; they say what they believe. They have conviction and commitment. The Mental Health Commission will show this Government up for the callous one it is. National does not give a damn about mental health—it never did. 
To hear from the Associate Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman that the former Labour Government put no priority on mental health and that we did not improve it is to hear nothing but hogwash. He will go nowhere as a Minister if he cannot front up with the truth to New Zealand and if he cannot take off his political glasses and see what improvements were made under Labour. I could provide him today with many testimonies from mental health patients and providers who know that huge improvements were made in the 9 years Labour was in Government. 
Report noted. 
Accident Compensation Corporation 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 This year has been a sad year for accident compensation because the accident compensation system has been under attack not from members of the public but from the Minister for ACC Nick Smith. The Minister soon after coming into office claimed that the system was fundamentally broken. He said that unless drastic changes were made to the scheme the costs would rise by $2400 per household. He claimed that the scheme was insolvent. The words he used in the general debate on 4 March were: “The reality is that ACC is effectively insolvent.” When challenged about that on  
Morning Report 
 on 1 April he thought the whole of the country was foolish because when I said: “You’ve been calling ACC insolvent. It is not.” the Hon Dr Nick Smith said: “I have not.” He obviously contradicted his express statement in the House that the scheme was insolvent. 
It is true that accident compensation costs have increased. Why have they increased? There are a number of reasons. The breadth of cover has been increased. Why was it increased? It is because there was unfairness in the previous scheme. I will give members an example. Some seasonal workers had an out-of-season accident—they were knocked over by a drunken driver. Their earnings-related compensation was calculated on the basis of the short period of their earnings prior to their injury. If they were disabled for life they would never get any earnings-related compensation relating to their seasonal earnings even though they paid accident compensation levies and their employer paid accident compensation levies in respect of their earnings. That was an unfairness that was righted by the previous Government—and so it should have been—and that did increase costs. 
There were other areas of increased costs in the scheme and there were some areas where expenses did increase. I have acknowledged previously as has the outgoing chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board Mr Ross Wilson that changes needed to be made to physiotherapy because those cost increases were higher than was predicted. But that comes under the heading of housekeeping and it does not point to a fundamental flaw in the scheme. 
In terms of the outstanding liabilities of the scheme it is true too that they grew. It is also true that the amount of accident compensation that was pre-funded grew from 45 percent of its liabilities in 1999—when the previous Labour Government took over from National—to 64 percent when we left office. The amount of the scheme’s assets increased from $2 billion to $12 billion so to suggest that it was insolvent was a nonsense. National introduced a new definition of insolvency to accident compensation that made wrong every audit certificate the scheme has had since the day it was formed. If that was the measure of insolvency the scheme was insolvent from the day it was formed because it has never been 100 percent pre-funded although it is more pre-funded now than it ever has been in the past. The Government cannot have it both ways. 
What did the commentators say? They saw Dr Smith’s comments for what they were. The Minister’s gross exaggeration was roundly criticised by a number of commentators. An actuary pointed out that National was scaremongering that there was nothing wrong with the scheme and that much of the increase in liabilities arose from the decrease in the rate of return on the scheme’s investment portfolio which meant there needed to be a bigger portfolio in order to fund the tail of claims in years to come. That independent actuary said that there was nothing wrong with the scheme and that this was a case of scaremongering. 
Fran O’Sullivan from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 criticised Dr Smith by saying there was a fine line between using the international financial crisis to create a position to justify fundamental change and downright chicanery. Brian Fallow described Dr Smith’s behaviour as “bizarre” which is very strong language from a moderate commentator. He said that the Minister’s actions were bizarre and that he was causing unnecessary worry and stress to the many thousands of New Zealanders who were reliant upon accident compensation. Vernon Small at the  
Dominion-Post 
 said it was largely a manufactured crisis—manufactured by the Minister for his own ends. Rod Oram did the analysis. He showed that the vast majority of the increase in liability was a consequence of the decreasing rate of return on international finance markets. 
What is the underlying agenda here? It is to go back to prior mistakes. The Government wants to privatise accident compensation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I think the numbers with regard to accident compensation speak for themselves. I will read the actual numbers with regard to the state of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) over the previous Labour Government’s last 3 years in office. That Government increased the liabilities of the accident compensation scheme in just 3 years by $10.5 billion. That equates to $5000 for every household of New Zealand. That is a deterioration of $5000 for every Kiwi household as a consequence of Labour’s management of accident compensation over the last 3 years. 
The members opposite and Mr Parker said they accepted there was a mess with physiotherapy but that it was just housekeeping. I have a housekeeping bill in my home and I tell Mr Parker how expensive his housekeeping bill over the physiotherapy mess that his Government made over the last few years has been. The extra cost of accident compensation in physiotherapy has added $500 million to the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities. That is not a bad housekeeping bill! That is an extra $100 million per year. 
I would like any Labour member opposite to explain why they ignored advice from the Department of Labour because I have very clear advice here from the department stating that the physiotherapy decision was wrong before the Government made it. A further point I ask is this. The changes were made in 2004 to physiotherapy. ACC reported to Ministers in 2005 in 2006 in 2007 and in 2008 that expenditure was out of control in physiotherapy. What did Labour do? It did absolutely nothing—absolutely zip. Labour handed this new Government a hospital pass of which physiotherapy is just part. 
It is the view of this Government that a 24/7 accident insurance scheme along the Woodhouse inquiry principles is absolutely critical. But if we are to save that heritage for New Zealanders we have to deal with the loose financial management of ACC. That will involve levy increases. That will involve changes in ACC—this week the corporation will be announcing redundancies in terms of head office corporate staff which has also grown out of control. That is in line with National’s provisions and promises to put the focus on front-line services. We will review some of the expensive extensions made to the accident compensation scheme by the previous Government but not funded. 
I say this new Government has been left a hospital pass a $10 billion increase in liabilities and we will have a difficult challenge that will require compassion a strong heart and a strong head as we ensure the security of this important New Zealand institution. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the financial review of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). From the Minister for ACC today we have heard a continuation of his manufactured crisis in ACC. I have one question for the Minister: how can the New Zealand accident compensation scheme be too generous if it is still cheaper than the Australian scheme? The National Party likes to compare us with Australia all the time. It says that Australia is better at this and better at that; they are always doing better than New Zealand and we have to catch up. But our accident compensation scheme with 24-hour-a-day cover is cheaper than the Australian scheme. Why then is it too generous for New Zealanders? 
I think the comments made about the Minister’s behaviour which totally embarrassed his colleagues for a number of weeks were picked up on by many commentators. Comments about bizarre actions scaremongering and many others were made at the time about the Minister’s actions. I think that they were true because this was a manufactured crisis to reduce services to New Zealand. 
One other thing the Minister said today is he wants to retain the 24-hour-a-day cover for accident compensation—our iconic cover. He wants to focus on front-line services. Well I have a question for the Minister today. I want to know why the plug has been pulled on the sexual abuse crisis line hat was funded by ACC. That was a 24-hour-a-day service a front-line service. It had over 8000 calls a year yet ACC has just pulled the funding from the 24-hour-a-day crisis service. ACC has funded that service for 8000 callers a year at a cost of about $350000 a year but ACC will not continue that funding in the new financial year and that is a question that needs to be answered. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it will. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No ACC does not intend to fund it. We now have organisations scrabbling around Government departments trying to find money and I know departments have gone to the Minister of Justice looking for money. Why is that sexual abuse crisis line 24-hour-a-day service for New Zealanders not funded by ACC? That has been a crucial service particularly for women who have needed that crisis line. The line provides counselling advocacy and information on a 24-hour-a-day basis. It is a call-out service for women who have been raped. As far as I know that has been covered under ACC for quite some time. Getting advocacy assistance and information at 2 a.m. will not be available through ACC any more; the corporation is not going to fund it. How can the Minister say he wants a 24-hour-a-day front-line service offered by ACC for a mere $350000 a year for—I got it wrong before—8500 calls a year when that money is being chopped? The service must go somewhere else and find the money. Why does ACC not accept that it can provide that service? It picks up other cover; why not pick up that 24-hour-a-day service? 
The service has been a marvellous assistance to many women who have faced sexual abuse in this country. We make a big play about the fact that we are trying to reduce family violence and sexual violence in this country. We have a task force on sexual violence that is aimed at reducing sexual violence and encouraging women to report rape and sexual violence because we know—and the police will tell the Minister this—that the number of women who report rape is the tip of the iceberg. They are frightened to report rape as they know what they will have to go through but that issue can be addressed in another place. 
One of the small assistances they had was the crisis line. I ask the Minister why he is cutting that funding. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister for ACC’s analysis of the financial position that the new Government inherited from the previous Labour Government is I believe an accurate one. To call it a disgrace would be to treat it rather lightly. The question now is what the new Government intends to do about the situation that it inherited. The Minister said that there would be redundancies at the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and there would be increased charges but I say to the Committee and to the Minister that such an approach is not likely to work over the medium term. 
The real problem with ACC is that it is a monopoly and that is the fundamental problem that the changes the Minister is talking about will not overcome. Monopolies always fail and they fail for one simple reason: they are not required to offer cost-effective and good-quality services to attract customers. Monopolies fail to meet consumer demand because consumers simply have no other choice. Monopolies fail to reduce costs because they have no competition to drive out their high-cost structure. Only competition in this area will make the fundamental changes and restore ACC to some level of reasonable performance. 
ACC is bankrupt. There is much confusion on this point—fostered I might add by the Labour Opposition—but the fact remains that if ACC was a private company or corporation it would already be in liquidation. It has what is called an unfunded liability and I ask the Minister what he intends to do about this unfunded liability over time. But the Minister has inherited more problems than just the unfunded liability. It may well be the biggest problem but another reason why ACC is bankrupt is that there are now 1.7 million claims per annum. Almost 40 percent of New Zealanders are making a claim. I note that despite that figure ACC is spending millions advertising its “You’re covered” campaign. What does ACC want to make it—2.5 million claimants? 
According to ACC’s PricewaterhouseCoopers 2008 report only around 5 percent of these claimants could attribute any fault to another party. Yet before 1972 we had a situation where around 5 percent of people who could prove third-party fault got compensation. There is something out of whack here. Now only 5 percent of people say they can attribute fault to someone else. Before 1972 only 5 percent could not show that fault could in fact be attributed to someone else. 
The corporation’s administrative spending is incredible. We have seen a situation where it now spends $468 million in operating costs. By my calculations that amount has increased by 30 percent since 2005—up from $341 million. Doing a quick calculation I think it is now $127 million more than it was 3 years ago. I would be interested in what the Minister in the chair Dr Nick Smith intends to do about that. 
But coming back I say it is really only competition that will rectify this situation. I ask the Minister what he will do about the situation where the scheme shields the negligent. The accident compensation levy schedule is based on aggregates. For example it presumes— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I will take the opportunity to respond to the point that Annette King raised in relation to the very sensitive area of support for women in Auckland who have been sexually abused or raped. I wish to put her correct in terms of this issue. Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central raised these issues with the Associate Minister for ACC Pansy Wong and me late last week. I and the Associate Minister met with officials from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) yesterday to work through these issues. 
The fundamental difficulty is that the funding currently provided in lump-sum form for the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation helpline is outside the legal boundaries of what ACC can legally fund in terms of payment for a service and that has brought about this need for the review and the notification. I and the Associate Minister for ACC who is also the Minister of Women’s Affairs are concerned about the impact of this matter. For that reason the Associate Minister for ACC wrote to ACC yesterday requiring a 3-month extension of the funding which will give us the time frame in which to work with the other Government agencies. The Ministry of Social Development also has an interest in this. It provides funding of about $350000 a year for this service as well. Funding also comes from the Auckland District Health Board. 
Over the 3-month time frame we want to review the service to see that there is fairness in who receives funding. But I want to provide on behalf of the Government an assurance to the people of Auckland who are dependent on that service— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: What about all women of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well a review is taking place right now around the services for people who are affected by both rape and sexual abuse. The Government is looking to receive that report in June and we will not be making any decisions until then. I will say to Ms Chadwick however that Labour had 9 years to address these issues in communities like Nelson. What did the member do? 
Paul Quinn 
: What did she do in Rotorua? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have that reality in Rotorua and in all sorts of places. I would say firstly that Pansy Wong has been absolutely on top of this very sensitive issue in Auckland. She has made the right decision— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When will ACC be sold? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That really is a sign of how desperate the Labour Party in Opposition is. When Labour has left for the incoming Government a $10 billion hole around the accident compensation scheme the greatest intellectual contribution that we can get from those members is the tired old rant of privatisation. This Government is committed to ensuring New Zealanders have security around accident compensation. That will mean addressing the financial mess that Labour left in this area. But as is evidenced in the very correct action that was taken by Pansy Wong yesterday we will do that in a sensible way where key services like those available to victims of rape are not compromised in the process. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Right across New Zealand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They will not be compromised in the way that the financial mess left by Labour would have allowed. 
I seek leave to table the two letters that have been sent by Pansy Wong to the corporation and to the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation Trust so that the Committee can have the true record not the misrepresented view that we heard from the deputy leader— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to table those letters. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will start by talking about the one thing that I agree with in relation to what we have heard from our friends on the other side of the Chamber. The Hon David Parker said this has been a sad year for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). But there sadly any agreement ends. To suggest that the situation ACC finds itself in is somehow manufactured by the new Minister absolutely beggars belief. 
ACC really is an organisation that is simply too important to have that sort of politicking done to it. Last year 1.7 million New Zealanders made a claim with ACC. That is 1.7 million people who had an expectation of a fast and lasting return to work or to independence to the maximum degree possible. 
ACC is one of this country’s largest public institutional investors. It has more than $10 billion invested. It has built up those funds over the last 10 years or so out of a plan that was put in place to achieve what is known as “fully funding the scheme”. Full funding and the solvency of the scheme—we have got into some definitional questions here—are such that the assets of the scheme will meet or exceed the net present value of the future costs of the claims that are currently on the books. We have a situation where a residual claims levy was put in place that was intended to have those claims fully funded by 2014 and new claims coming through should have their costs fully funded by the levies that were collected in each year. 
I have been doing a bit of an analysis of the scheme’s drive towards solvency and I have been plotting the corporation’s performance on this graph. The black line is the goal year on year towards achieving that solvency by means of fully funding accident compensation in the year 2014. As members can see the red line which represents progress towards that target has shown that the corporation was performing extremely well until about 2005-06 when things did not just change but took a veritable U-turn. Suddenly the solvency ratio of the scheme went down. This is very important because we have heard for the last 6 months that this has somehow been caused by an economic downturn— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Market volatility. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —and by market conditions changing. Well let me tell members—and everybody knows this—the corporation was outperforming the market in 2005-06 and in 2006-07. Its rates of return were considerably more than the average that was expected of it and more than what had been budgeted for. The fact is that the downturn in the scheme’s solvency had very little to do in those years with the financial performance in the market. 
If that is the case then what was happening? Well I think that about three things were happening. Firstly there were very poor estimates of the cost of new cover in the scheme. We can think of treatment injury. In 2004 it was expected to cost $8.9 million a year; now it costs something like 10 times that amount. The cost of the endorsed provider network for physiotherapists was meant to be around $50 million. Now it exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars and it is climbing. There is a plethora of such examples. 
There has also been some levy decision-making that I do not think has been very good. Officials went to the previous Labour administration and said they thought the levies should be set at a certain level. What has happened? That level has not been set. Why? Probably because of political expediency. It is sad for the corporation but the chickens are now coming home to roost. 
Thirdly rehabilitation performance has gone south. Claims rates are increasing year on year by 4 or 5 percent despite the efforts at injury prevention and claims duration is increasing. Three-month rehabilitation rates are down by 5 percent. Six-month rehabilitation rates are down by 4 percent. Twelve-month rehabilitation rates are also down. Those rates are a really important indicator of the long-term costs of the scheme and they have gone down. 
What has been most disappointing is the fact that the previous Labour administration knew all that and failed to disclose it despite having had successive opportunities to do so. Labour has used as a smokescreen a report that despite having a finding that Labour was in breach of the Public Finance Act puts some of the blame on to Treasury. I do not think that is acceptable. I will continue to explain what Labour members said. They said that insufficient detailed scrutiny was given to the $305.5 million of new money that Vote ACC needed just in order to sustain the non-earners account alone. Frankly whether it was $285 million $295 million or $305 million really did not matter. The previous Minister for ACC and the previous Minister of Finance knew they had a duty to disclose that situation in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and at other opportunities and they did not take those opportunities. That is a shame on that administration. It is the reason that the accident compensation scheme is in a sad state.  
Accident compensation is too important for New Zealanders to be treated in the manner that they were under the previous administration. New Zealanders deserve to be given greater clarity about what they can expect from the scheme and about the costs of entitlements to the scheme so that we do not have these lurches in levies year on year. Frankly in the last couple of years the lurches have been upwards only. I look forward to working with and for a Government that understands those things and will bring some rigour and discipline back to the accident compensation scheme in future years. 
Report noted. 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Education and Science Committee report on the financial review of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd was not very informative. A number of issues about the way this Crown research institute spends money need looking into. I actually learnt more about the institute from the media—and particularly from Tom Frewen’s article in the  
National Business Review 
—than I did from the select committee’s investigation. 
The article discloses that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd has been through a major rebranding exercise. It has beefed up the number of staff in communications and marketing has ordered new letterheads and a new logo and has extended to a new building. The institute has moved its Auckland offices and undertaken a refit of the new building. The annual report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd reveals only that there was $58 million of capital spending on a number of issues which included accommodation upgrades. It is impossible to find out how much was spent on accommodation upgrades but I understand that the institute has moved from Newmarket to the Viaduct Basin. 
I asked the Minister of Research Science and Technology the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp by how much the rent had increased and the total refit cost of the new building. The Minister refused to answer my written questions on the grounds that the matter was an operational matter that he took no interest in. But I understand that the rent far more than doubled that the old premises were plenty big enough for the staff and that the refit cost around $3 million. If those figures are wrong I would like the Minister to correct them in the Committee but as far as I am aware at the moment those are the figures being talked about. That is $3 million—plus the rest—that could have been spent on science particularly the science that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd does around climate change which is one of the foremost issues of the day. The select committee itself made the very mild observation that it thought that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd could address climate change issues in a more proactive and public way. The money could have helped them do that. 
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd’s mission statement is “to conduct leading environmental science to enable the sustainable management of natural resources for New Zealand and the planet”. But when a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd scientist tries to address climate change issues in a more proactive and public way he or she gets into very deep trouble. One scientist who previously worked at the institute has been the public face of that organisation for years is well known on television and is well loved by the public for explaining clearly what is going on with the weather and climate—that is Dr Jim Salinger. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Nobel Prize that the panel and its leading scientists received. He is world famous. Last month he was sacked for addressing climate change issues in a more public and proactive way and was given 3 hours to clear his desk. Again I invited the Minister to take some responsibility and asked a question in the House but the Minister replied that it was an employment matter for the board and chief executive of the institute and not a matter for the Minister. That is absolutely right when we are dealing with matters of administrative detail but when does a scandal over the sacking of a world-leading Nobel scientist for doing his job—a scandal that reached the pages of  
Nature 
 magazine—become a matter for the Minister? When does New Zealand’s international reputation become a matter for the Minister? It appears to be never for this Minister. 
Salinger is not the only one. Dr Andy Reisinger left the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd and now works for Victoria University where he has more academic freedom. He described the sacking of Dr Jim Salinger as “incomprehensible”. Dr Dave Lowe left the institute 18 months ago and now works independently because he wanted the freedom “to get on with the job”. The problem here is that the institute has a culture where corporate bureaucracy is put above good science. It has a culture where obeying bureaucratic rules is more important than being a world-leading scientist. It has a culture where academic freedom and the freedom to speak out is a sackable offence. I am not talking about criticising the organisation or Government policy; I am talking about the freedom when on the West Coast to ring a television presenter with whom the institute has a contract and say that it is raining so hard the rivers are flooding. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The member who just resumed her seat Jeanette Fitzsimons started her speech by saying that the work of the Education and Science Committee in conducting the financial review of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd was not very informative. I suppose on the details of what are essentially employment issues the report is not informative but on the substance of what the institute does I think it is very informative. I will give some of the information that is contained in this report so that people can get a sense of it. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is a very fine organisation and very focused on the work that is precise to it—in other words the long-range forecasting and consideration of matters relating to our atmosphere. 
In the year in consideration the institute employed in excess of 750 people at some 15 locations across New Zealand. The member was upset that of a $58 million capital spend some $3 million was spent on refitting facilities. I simply suggest that even scientists like to have up-to-date facilities to work in. I do not see too much of a difficulty in an organisation that was able to turn a $10 million profit last year spending some of that money on making sure that facilities are right and appropriate for its workers. 
In that regard it is worth noting that in New Zealand we are often critical of the extent to which there is a Government agency involvement in the sciences. This particular organisation is a commercial organisation but it is owned by the Crown. In the last year its revenues were some $120.7 million and that was money paid to the organisation in one way or another for particular pieces of research for some information and for activity that blends science with our economy and our economic activity. 
I will point to some of those current activities. Firstly one of the activities that the Education and Science Committee wanted to highlight in this report was the ensuring of a secure and sustainable energy supply for New Zealand. A collaboration of Crown research institutes has been brought together under the lead agency the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and funded by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology to give New Zealanders better information about what we need for a future energy supply that can be produced and relied on as a fuel source from sustainable fuel feeding. 
This agency was also involved in achieving higher returns from aquaculture—something quite different. New Zealand is a country that makes a reasonable amount of export dollars from aquaculture. In my view aquaculture has one of the biggest potentials for rapid expansion and the work that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research does in working out the best places to locate aquaculture facilities and the best species to farm etc. is extremely valuable. 
It also undertakes a lot of other fisheries work. For example I know that tuna fishermen will routinely contract with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research for water temperature information and from that information the fishermen will be able to work out where the tuna are most likely to run. The net effect of that is that the fishermen can position themselves for those runs using the least amount of fuel possible and can be at sea for the least number of days possible. Those sorts of mergers between the science of climate monitoring and the activity of fishing indicate how closely science and business can work together. 
The wise allocation of fresh water is part of the work that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research does—it provides the advice stream around that. No one in this Chamber would not understand that the future of our freshwater supplies in New Zealand is a matter that we should all be concerned about. Throughout the country there are issues around the overallocation of groundwater resources and the potential for water storage above ground. Those activities can be augmented by much of the work that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research does in this particular area. I think it is a very good organisation and this is an excellent report; the Committee should be eager to adopt it. 
Report noted. 
Land Transport New Zealand 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee is debating the Land Transport New Zealand financial review which alongside Transit New Zealand—as it was—now makes up the New Zealand Transport Agency for which the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce has full and sweeping authority and power. 
One of the things that the Opposition would like to question the Minister on today is the attitude he has taken to important transport projects in New Zealand. My colleague Darien Fenton will raise some public transport matters with the Minister but I am particularly interested in— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Ask him about Melissa Lee. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I will get to Melissa Lee. Mr Jones should not worry. Labour is happy to talk about her; National never mentioned her at all. In fact all through question time today I listened for her supplementary questions and I waited for her primary questions but they never came along. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you going to do when you get there? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No doubt Tau Henare will be giving a lot of advice to Melissa Lee as to how to run a stellar political career. I think “TAU101” is the advice that will be given in that particular regard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tau just went up the list in Auckland. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No nothing could get Tau up the list in Auckland; I think he is flatlining in that respect. 
Coming back to this transport matter I will talk about the No. 1 roading project for New Zealand—that is of course the Waterview Connection which completes the western ring route. We want to know whether the Minister has had a chance over the adjournment to reflect on the attitude he has taken towards this decision and on the way he has described the debate on this issue. Today in question time the Minister allowed the Prime Minister to describe the Waterview project as a $3.2 billion project. The cost of this project keeps going up and up every time National mentions it. In fact I understand that Mr Joyce is now asking the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to do the costing for the Waterview Connection—if we could build the road via a trip to the moon and back—because he is so keen to try to discredit this most important roading project for the people of the Waterview and Mount Albert communities. We know that Mr Joyce is now able to fund a project at a cost of $1.4 billion which apparently can all come from the National Land Transport Fund but a tunnel option—at $1.98 billion—requires $550 million financing costs to go alongside it. So if the Minister could once again try to succinctly explain to the country why he has cooked the books with regard to the Waterview Connection that would be much appreciated because I think that has been a disgraceful way to handle it. 
The Minister is now presiding over the loss of 365 homes in that community and appears to be quite cavalier about that. The Minister colluded in the last sitting week to ensure that that announcement was made after parliamentary question time had been held so that the Opposition could not ask questions about it. The Government denied the Opposition leave to ask an urgent question about the announcement and in what I regard as a continued abuse of parliamentary procedure it made the announcement from the Minister’s office the very second that the Speaker resumed his seat after having declined an urgent debate on that topic. That action goes along with the abuse of process we have seen over the Auckland super-city legislation in terms of getting a Minister in charge of a bill to chair the parliamentary select committee. That is a theme we are seeing and I want the Minister to reassure the Committee that he is not allowing this cavalier and highly political attitude to pervade his decision around Waterview and around the completion of the western ring route. 
I am particularly interested in what the Minister thinks the impact of losing the Alan Wood Reserve would be for the people of that community. I have had a chance to talk to people who live there— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The member would not know where it is. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Sorry Mr Henare? I will just indulge the member briefly. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You haven’t even been on the select committee. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Who has not been on the select committee? 
Hon Members 
: You. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Waterview proposal has not been to the select committee—that is actually the point about this issue. The Waterview Connection has not been to the select committee but the agency responsible for it has been. Tau Henare in his fifth and final term in Parliament cannot work out how the review of Crown entities works. I used to feel sorry for that member but every time he opens his waha nui he proves why he sits over there. In fact Mr Henare has been over-promoted by sitting there; he should be sitting at the back with his whanaunga Paul Quinn to whom Mr Henare has taught all the parliamentary procedure. Tau Henare is a very very interesting man. 
I want the Minister of Transport to provide an explanation to the Committee and to the people whom I have met in Waterview who have lived there for 70 years and who were told that they would not lose their homes—now that he has reversed that decision and they will lose those homes. Three hundred and sixty-five families will be affected by what the Minister is doing. I want to know from him why the National Land Transport Fund can fully fund a $1.4 billion project with no borrowing but $550 million would be required in financing costs if the twin tunnels had to be built. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the member answer a question? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am happy to answer a question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How come “Cougar Bait” can beat Peters but Quinn can’t beat Peters? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Mallard that that is a question for another day that we will happily come back to. 
Paul Quinn 
: Darren who’s the real shadow leader? Tell me! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I will tell the member— 
Paul Quinn 
: You have to take instructions do you? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Let me give the member some advice: if only he took instruction he might be doing a whole lot better in Parliament right now. If he listened to the advice that his own colleagues give him about his performance he would be in much better shape. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 There are no easy options in respect of the Waterview Connection of course unless the member Darren Hughes is now telling us that the proposal of the previous Labour Government whereby 160 houses would go is not on the table. At the end of the day the difficult thing for all of us unfortunately is that these things are measured in monetary terms. It is an important time to think about that given that this week is Budget week. 
I actually have some questions for the Opposition around the issue of Waterview; I have a couple of questions that I think members opposite need to answer. They can say what they like about the Mt Albert by-election but this Government has been upfront with the voters of Mt Albert and it has said: “This is what we can afford to do. We understand the costs it imposes. We are going to be upfront with you. We are going to talk about Waterview before the by-election so you get the opportunity to make your choices.” 
Of course Opposition members are not taking that approach. They are saying everything is possible and the expenses are not real. In Budget week that is a particularly ironic thing for them to be saying. They have criticised the Government policy statement. They have criticised the new Government’s changes to the policy statement that the previous Government put together which put more investment into the State highway infrastructure. That for the benefit of my learned—and I say that advisedly—friend Mr Hughes is why we can build this particular project from within the National Land Transport Fund. 
Here is the first question for the Labour Party. Its members have been criticising intently the Government’s changes to the National Land Transport Fund. Are they now saying they would endorse those changes? They have to say they would endorse those changes before they would be able to even begin to build the Waterview tunnel. Let us get that clear. I invite the next Labour speaker to advise us whether that is something Labour is planning to do. If Labour is not planning to do that then we know it is all complete puffery and a Labour Government would have to borrow the $2.77 billion or the $3.2 billion. As the Prime Minister pointed out today the cost of borrowing money for and building twin three-lane tunnels is $3.2 billion and that is the direct comparator with building a three-lane option in each direction from within the National Land Transport Fund. Labour members need to tell us whether that is what Labour is proposing to do. 
They need to tell us that as well in terms of the Budget this week because the $3.22 billion or the $2.8 billion if we go with the non - future-proofed option would have to go on top of the Budget spend this week. Whatever debt the Government turns in in its Budget on Thursday would be added to by whatever amount these people say they would spend in order to build Waterview. That is what the country has to face and that is the difficult part. Members can sit there in Opposition and say they will do this that and everything but we find that nobody believes that is what they will do. Voters will look at those members in 3 years’ time and ask whether they can trust them with the Government finances—with taxpayers’ money and with taxpayers’ income. If those members persist in saying that a Labour Government would spend that amount of money on Waterview regardless of the economic situation in New Zealand then I am sorry but they will never get voted back in in this country while they have that attitude. It is simply not conscionable for anybody to make those sorts of statements in a financial sense. If Labour takes that approach that is fine. Will Labour members also say that a Labour Government would find a way to build the central business district tunnel in Auckland and that it would all be costless or that it would build a train line to Manukau out to the airport and that it would all be costless? 
Perhaps the Hon David Cunliffe who has just entered the Chamber would be prepared to answer these questions as the Opposition spokesperson on finance ahead of the Budget being delivered on Thursday. I think Labour members owe that kind of honesty to the people of Mt Albert before they vote in the by-election. Are Labour members really saying that in the current economic environment a Labour Government would go out and bore the deep tunnels at Waterview particularly when this Government has identified an option that addresses a large number of the issues in the Waterview community? It does not address all of them; I am completely open about that. It does cause issues with regard to the Alan Wood Reserve. The only thing I can point out with regard to that is that at the end of the day it is a railway reserve. I know that option is not the whole answer from the people’s point of view. But the questions that Labour members must answer are whether they now endorse the Government policy statement on transport and accept that the Government’s approach is the only reasonable approach to building the Waterview project in Auckland. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand. First of all I say to the Minister in the chair Steven Joyce that he is the one in Government so we get to ask the questions and he has to answer them. It was a bit confused there for a little while. I refer to the Government policy statement. Labour is criticising it. I want to criticise it in particular concerning public transport services infrastructure and the cutting of up to $335 million over the next 3 years. 
I ask the Minister why he has such a motorway fixation. The Government is roads mad. It is very interesting. I live in Auckland unlike many Government members and I have to get around Auckland. I know the issues. The Minister is on record as saying that Aucklanders do not use public transport—they go to work in their cars. Does he know why? It is because of the underfunding of public transport for decades prior to Labour becoming the Government. 
I have news for the Minister. Aucklanders do use public transport. They use the trains. The trains are used to capacity. The Northern Busway is used to capacity. Who was involved in building new infrastructure public transport infrastructure like the Northern Busway and the double tracking of the railways? It was the Labour Government. And people use them. 
I would like the Minister to answer a question. What does he think needs to be done about Auckland’s car ownership? There is a big problem in Auckland with car ownership. Auckland per capita has the second-highest car ownership in the world. On the North Shore car ownership is equal to the first-highest country. That is shocking. People have cars and when we build more roads people get on them in their cars. [ 
Interruption 
] That is true. “Crusher” might take care of a few of them. The more the Government builds roads the more they fill up with cars unless there are alternatives. Labour increased funding over many years by 15 times to fund public transport alternatives so that Aucklanders had a choice. But now we have a Government that has cut back that funding. 
What else has it done? It has cut the regional fuel tax; it has dumped it. That has left Auckland $200 million short. Where is the railway station in New Lynn? Where are the new ferry terminals? Where is the electrification of the railways? Where are the new railway stations and other forms of public transport infrastructure? I say to the Minister that they have been dumped. Aucklanders are extremely disappointed and extremely worried about it and they are desperate for alternatives and for the Minister to give them an answer to the question about the alternatives to driving on clogged motorways other than building more roads. 
He is “Tarmac Man”. At the moment there is a tarmac vision. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank the member for referring to cycleways because National is making a lot of its $50 million for a cycleway. [ 
Interruption 
] No “Crusher” will get their bikes if we are not careful! The $15 million that cyclists are losing was designated for making life safer for commuters. As we know making life safer for commuters gets cars off the road. It means one fewer car on the road and it means less pressure on our roading infrastructure. There is cleaner air people exercise more and communities are healthier. I do not think these simple facts are understood by National. 
In fact there was a great quote in the weekend from Christine Rose from the Auckland Regional Council. She said that we need a city run on fat not oil. Cyclists are trying to encourage this Government to build more safe cycleways throughout the city not across the country. 
The other question I have for the Minister is how he plans to ensure that by removing $41 million from previously budgeted spending on road policing over the next 3 years the road toll does not go up. I want to know what the Minister thinks his legacy will be in terms of road deaths. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I cannot let the moment go without putting some facts right and also responding to the honourable member of course. I notice that she has quoted the noted right-winger Christine Rose from Auckland on the subject of transport. I note also that the member is seeking that the Government do something about car ownership in Auckland. I gained the complete understanding that that meant there was too much of it and that we should therefore somehow control it. I think the good burghers of that city will be interested to know Labour’s view on that. I am wondering what the limits on car ownership are. 
I know it was someone from this side of the Chamber but I remember a Spanish gentleman in the mid-1980s called “Carlos Days” who came out of this Parliament. I just wonder whether the member opposite is actually proposing that “Mr Days” reappear on the scene in New Zealand or whether perhaps she has some other method of control to reduce the number of cars in Auckland. I think that would be an important policy for the Labour Party to announce before the next general election and possibly even before the upcoming by-election. It would be nice to know that Labour is planning to put some sort of limit on the number of vehicles that people are allowed to own—perhaps one per every second house—or maybe it was saying that cars could be driven only on certain days of the week. 
The point that I think the member has not grasped is that we are trying to promote all transport options in Auckland while recognising the history of the city and how it has evolved over the last 150 years in terms of the way people have been transported and while also recognising certain financial realities along that way. I took it from the member’s speech that the Labour Party remains opposed to the Government policy statement; if that is the case then that is fair enough. But as I said Labour members need to be very clear prior to the by-election about what they are actually holding out to the people of Mt Albert. I think that the people of Mt Albert would be pretty concerned if Labour took a policy to that by-election that said it would do this and that and then subsequently prior to the next general election or in a couple of years’ time it then had to turn that policy around. 
Let us also point out in terms of the record on public transport that the previous Labour Government spent $484 million on public transport over the last 3 years— 
Paul Quinn 
: $400? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —$484 million on subsidising public transport over the last 3 years. Over the next 3 years this Government will be spending $633 million. So we are going from $484 million to $633 million which is a 31 percent increase. 
Darien Fenton 
: What were you spending in 1999? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: “Not enough!” says the member “It should be higher.” But that is the same member whose partner in crime Darren Hughes said in the previous speech that the Government needed to invest more in roads and that it could have done that out of the National Land Transport Fund. So Labour members just have to make up their minds what they are taking money from. 
Similarly on the issue of road policing I tell the Committee that this Government will be spending the largest amount ever on road policing over the next 3 years. The sum is going up from $774 million to over $900 million. The member opposite has tried to say I will have the road toll on my hands because I am not lifting that sum to $949 million. Well I am sorry but I reject that assertion; I actually find it quite distasteful. Nevertheless I ask what is so magical about $949 million. Why is it not $989 million $1.2 billion or $1.5 billion? If the issue is all about how much extra money we spend why are we not spending the whole fund on it? I ask Darien Fenton to tell us why we are not spending the whole fund on road policing because her rationale is that more is always better. 
The Labour Government left no plan for how that money would be spent. We have increased it from $774 million to $949 million but Labour had no plan at all. Labour just said that was what it thought the police would want so therefore it would provide it. The trouble is that that is another indication of Labour having no understanding whatsoever of the value of money or the cost to taxpayers. With the Budget coming up this week I think that Labour members should take a bit more care and in the face of the world’s biggest recession since the 1930s look a little more at the money and ask themselves whether they can afford to do what they say they would do. I suspect that that will be the challenge for the Labour Party but it was always the challenge for that party. I suspect that is why Labour did not stay in Government after the last election. People looked at Labour and said they were not actually sure they could trust that particular party with their cheque books any more—that was the issue. 
I think that the discussion about the value of the National Land Transport Fund and how it is spent has been very illuminating but the Government stands by its decisions and thinks that the New Zealand public will do so as well. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments especially directed at Darien Fenton. You see the problem is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s he doing for westies? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh that is right—the member of Parliament for New Lynn yelled out: “Look at that westie!”. Well at least I am a westie. At least I do not pretend to be a westie; at least I do not go home at 5 o’clock clock off and bugger off to somewhere in Ponsonby. But that is all right; we are not here to do that. 
I want to ask how anyone can come up with an idea of a three-lane tunnel that will cost $3.5 billion then forget to figure out where the money is going to come from. How does that work? I mean Labour was in Government for 9 years. Just before it went out it came up with a figure but it did not come up with a method of paying for it. Labour expected the people of Waterview and the people of Auckland to fall for that. Well if they had fallen for it we would still have a Labour Government but—thank God—we have a National Government instead. The National Government has looked at Labour’s dodgy figures from last time it was in Government. Then it has looked at what we can afford. I tell members that most red-blooded—or blue-blooded—Kiwis out there would have looked in their wallet or bank account and said that they have $1.5 billion so they will go and buy a house worth $1.5 billion. But they would not go and buy a $3 billion house when they do not know how much is in the kitty. And that is the big difference between those members and us. 
Yes people will be moved from their houses—unfortunately. But let us look at history as well. When there are big projects to be done people always have to be moved and I am confident that our Government and our Minister of Transport will look after those people as well as they can be looked after. Let us not forget that out of the 300 houses in line— 
Hon Member 
: 365. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I apologise for getting my figures wrong but let us not forget that 160 of the houses are already owned by the Government—already owned by the Government. So what does that mean? It means that there are 160-odd houses that we do not own and the people who live in them are the ones we should be concerned about. 
I say that the merger of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand has been a good thing—a very very good thing. Those two organisations were faced with a $28 million deficit in 2008-09 so I am glad to see that their merging has seen some significant savings found. I think that as the New Zealand Transport Agency goes forward it will do a far better job as one organisation than as the two former organisations. 
I say in closing that I think it is a brilliant move to come up with seven roads of national significance. That says that somebody is thinking about the problems of transport in this country. Somebody finally is thinking about the most significant job of public works we have to get done in the next 15 or 20 years. That job is not only about Waterview; it is about Hastings the Waikato and all the other little blocks we have to put together. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Following on from that very good point my colleague made about the roads of national significance I think it is important that we just take some time out in this debate to reflect on the change we have seen in this portfolio with the new Minister. I think we are very fortunate to have a Minister with great financial expertise as he detailed in his last speech to the Committee in regard to this financial review. The Minister also has good business nous which has been sorely lacking among the Labour members who have tried to take on this portfolio in previous years. The reality is that we see that in those roads of national significance. It is not an unusual concept. It is not something that the previous Labour Government could not have thought up or followed. It is actually something that is done in Australia where the major infrastructural developments are taken away and put in a different pot. That pot has a much simpler system which enables those roads to be built a lot more quickly. 
This has been going on worldwide for many years but consecutive Ministers of Transport under the previous Labour Government failed to do it. Those Ministers thought that their job was just to look after the portfolio and to make sure it did not get too much publicity. They were keen to go into budget rounds to try to pump up what they were doing and to make it look better than it actually was. They had no constructive plan for what was important for New Zealand’s infrastructure going forward. They made no concerted effort at finding out what we actually could do to make our infrastructure programme more viable and effective. I congratulate this Minister of Transport on doing that on taking out the roads of national significance and putting them in a different pot so that we can build those roads and deliver the major infrastructural projects that the Government needs to deliver for this country and that the public expects of this Government. 
That is the vital thing that I think previous Labour Governments failed to do. Those Governments failed to look at transport and this portfolio in a wide sphere. They just looked at babysitting the portfolio and the result is that we have had to make some more fundamental reforms in the sense of the projects of national significance. 
This financial review relates to Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand the two organisations that were put together by the previous Government. Whether that combination will be as effective as was planned is yet to be seen. However it does give us the ability to go forward with the programme we are undertaking. That programme is a result of years of a lack of value for money in transport. There were continual projects and reports on how the transport sector was not performing in the sense that the Government was not getting value for its money and its investment. Through those review processes the previous Government basically tried to hide the problem and said that it would reinvent the wheel. 
Hon David Parker 
: Rubbish! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: David Parker just has to look at the reports that were commissioned while he was the Minister of Transport because those reports say that he was not doing a good job not getting value for money. If he looks at those reports he will see that they say why the Government should reform the transport sector when he says that it was all going fine. The Government made the reform of merging the transport authorities because the existing arrangement was not performing. There was report after report that said the Labour Government had not performed and that is why we have the situation that we have of a combined financial review— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Oh rubbish! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members can say “rubbish” but those are the facts of the matter. That is the reality of what happened and it is what we are dealing with now in Government. 
The current Minister of Transport also needs to be applauded for the way he has looked at the sector from a very commercial point of view. The initiatives in public transport especially in the rail sector indicate a real understanding of what it actually means to run a business and to be in control of all elements of a business and not to farm out parts of the business expecting somebody else to deliver the resources and requirements that we expect from our operations. That is a fundamental change that has gone through in the last few months and it will deliver results in the transport sector. Labour members have been talking about public transport and have been trying to push that angle all through this debate. The reality is that they cannot have it both ways. They want to have public transport anywhere and everywhere but at the same time they want to build the biggest road in New Zealand. 
Report noted. 
Retirement Commissioner 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Retirement Commissioner because of course the Retirement Commissioner is charged with helping New Zealanders prepare for their retirement. It is particularly important to draw attention to this matter in Budget week because here we have the coming together of two great objectives: providing for our senior citizens’ future and making sure that we have enough savings in our economy. 
It is a matter of amazement to the Labour Opposition that this Government is toying with the irresponsible idea of suspending contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. At a time when credit-rating agencies are saying that the No. 1 problem facing New Zealand is our external deficit—not our Government debt—and that a key part of that deficit is actually our savings gap which those payments help address why on earth would we suspend payments? The argument that is put up by members opposite of course is that we would have to borrow money to put money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Well here is some news for those members: the Government has a borrowing plan across the whole of the Government Budget. It is totally arbitrary and totally illegitimate to say that that borrowed money goes on any one component. 
The Government should take the advice of the chief executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund who said in front of the Social Services Committee that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy assets when assets are cheap. It is ironic—is it not—that this Government is led by a former financial trader. Traders typically seek to buy low and sell high; this Government is seeking to buy high and sell low. It is absolutely ridiculous. The bottom line is one that Bill English has often reminded Parliament about. [ 
Interruption 
] Craig Foss is a smart guy and he knows it: there is no free lunch. If we stop paying money in now we will have to do one of a number of things. Either we will have to stop paying out at the same rate later which means raising the age of entitlement or cutting the benefits or we will quite simply have to pay in more later or fund it by some other means. There is no free lunch. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s an Alan Low quote. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Members opposite know that there is no free lunch and Paul Quinn knows it too. I know that it is a long time since that member has seen the inside of a gymnasium: he knows that it is easy to stop going to the gym and hard to start again. That is exactly what the Government is doing with this policy. Paying into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is a form of financial fitness for the Government. Once the Government stops doing that it gets loose and flabby like that member is getting. It is very very important that we maintain this programme for the sake of the Retirement Commissioner and for the sake of our senior citizens. 
What is most amazing about this idea is not how ridiculous the policy is but how National has tried to get away with so much double-speak around it. During the election campaign John Key said: “National is committed to continuing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in its current form and”—wait for it—“with its current contribution rate.” That was before the election when the only thing National was going to cut was taxes. John Key then said on Television One’s  
Agenda 
 programme just 2 weeks before the election that the fund was an investment in our future and that along with having a strong economy we need “to ensure … we pre-fund that liability of the ageing of the population.” He was right then. What has changed now? Only one thing has changed: it is now after the election. There are some things one says when one is trying to get into office; there are other things one says because they are convenient once one gets there. One cannot have it both ways. There is no free lunch. We do not pre-fund superannuation. 
Paul Quinn 
: Cliché after cliché! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When that rapidly ageing member is about to draw his superannuation there will not be any left for him. David Carter is worried because he is closer to retirement than that member and he is a damned sight closer to it after the pig fiasco of last week. 
The voters are about to retire him for his double-speak. But that double-speak pales in comparison with John “a buck each way” Key who lauded the value of the fund before he got elected and then chose to trash it once he was in office. It makes no economic sense; it does not even make any political sense. The reason I am a bit uptight about the fund is that I know it is causing great worry to the many thousands of senior citizens in New Zealand and to people approaching retirement age like David Garrett. The poor man will be out of here with barely a brass razoo to feed his family. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Let me stand to take a call on the Retirement Commissioner. I make the point first of all to the few poor people who may be listening that National proudly says there will be no cuts whatsoever to superannuation. It is locked in securely; we said we would lock it in. It is slightly above 66 percent of the average wage at the moment; it is a little bit more than that. It is with quite some pleasure that I can say that as of 9 April there were 539000 superannuitants and people receiving the veterans pension. I am proud to stand here right now and tell superannuitants that superannuation is locked in and is there as a surety for them. We know that these are tough times for those on a fixed income like superannuation and they need an assurance that that money is there for them. 
Let us talk a little about the work that the Office of the Retirement Commissioner has been doing which is pretty impressive in many respects. There is no doubt that when it comes to the need for people to fund their retirement we should be talking to people earlier rather than later. The office has done work on that such as the www.sorted.org.nz website. It does it in a part-time capacity. I think that given the work that it covers it does an outstanding job in the time that it has got. 
The office has been working in conjunction with the Ministry of Education to teach financial matters in the classroom. That has been very impressive. It was brought in by the previous Government. It is something that the office has been running with and something that we have taken close notice of. We have seen it work for those young people who work out how they can get themselves better sorted financially so that they can accomplish the things they want in life such as buying a home going down to one income in order to raise a family and managing themselves through the most difficult times. 
Superannuation is locked in under this Government. That was a promise that John Key made and it is a promise that he is quite happy to stand up and make absolute. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s unfunded! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If the Labour shadow spokesperson on finance had any idea on how finance worked he would know that what happens with superannuation funding and with benefits funding is that it is there and there is no question about it. 
Listening to him I recognised some of the things he was saying; did he not capture for members that Labour members are still living in 2008? They are still living in the year 2008. They do not comprehend that it is a new year that there are new pressures on families and that there is less money in the bucket. They keep asking us why we are not paying for this why we are not funding that and why this is not happening. I can tell those members that the reality was that as new Ministers we looked round for the buckets of money and we found that we did not have the hundreds of millions of dollars that Dr Cullen had had. If we look for the buckets of money we cannot find even the bucket! That is the reality; that is the tough times we are in. With that reality come tough decisions. We have to make decisions on what we actually want and what sort of country we want to live in. 
This area is one that we are dealing with transparently. We tell the public what is locked in what is there. We guarantee the core benefits which we see as very important. Vulnerable families need surety now that they can walk through the doors of Work and Income and know that their superannuation is there for them. They know that their benefit is there and will be paid quickly. They know that they can turn up there to get those sorts of funds as well. 
Hon Annette King 
: Super is not a benefit. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If the member was listening she would have heard that we are talking about core benefits as well. If she was listening to the speeches she would have heard that we have moved on and are talking about core benefits as well. We are talking about core benefits. We are talking about— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You’re being defensive. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is selective hearing going on—just what suits Labour members. That is another indication of what has been going on. But we are in 2009 people are losing their jobs things are getting tougher and we need to front up and make sure we give that certainty to New Zealanders. We need to recognise that there are tougher decisions to be made and to recognise that there are things that need to be done but we also need to stand by those people who are on superannuation and those people who need our assistance. They need to know that there is regular money there for them and that they can rely on it week after week. There is an absolute guarantee of that. 
I would like to talk a little bit more about the www.sorted.org.nz website and some of the work that has been done with it because after all this debate is about the Retirement Commissioner— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Distract from the real issues! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the website is really impressive. The www.sorted.org.nz website is getting 500000 calculations each month so it looks as though it is really working. I was one of the original ones who locked in some numbers to try out the calculations. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow the excellent Minister the Hon Paula Bennett. She is absolutely right. Right now our superannuitants want certainty; they do not want scaremongering from Labour. They do not need Labour members of Parliament going out and telling people that things are not as they are. National is standing by superannuitants and people should not listen to the scaremongering of Labour members of Parliament. All those members do is undermine people’s sense of well-being by scaremongering. The Minister is absolutely right that we need to give people the certainty and the surety that they are supported during these tough times. That is why she is such a great Minister. 
She is absolutely right when she talks about the website www.sorted.org.nz. That has been a huge success on the part of the Retirement Commissioner—absolutely huge. So many more people are visiting that website now. Last year more than 1.2 million people visited it and more than 220000 booklets have been distributed throughout New Zealand as well. Diana Crossan the Retirement Commissioner says that people are not taking just a cursory look at this website but are taking a really close look at it and using the calculation provision on it. 
It is all about improving people’s financial literacy and that is really really important as well. That is why the Retirement Commissioner is working not just with the over 65s but with our young people in primary schools and with high schools and the tertiary sector. It is about financial education and financial literacy for the whole spectrum of our society. It is about instilling some financial literacy in our generation and in future generations—future adults—to keep that literacy going. It is such a huge step forward in the way the Retirement Commissioner has been operating and I applaud all her efforts in that regard. This is a very big part of the focus of the Retirement Commission. 
The Retirement Commission’s national strategy for financial literacy has a vision about personal financial well-being for all New Zealanders. The sooner we can start educating our young people about the importance of managing money and managing it well the better. There has been a huge disconnect in that regard for a generation and we need to pick up on that improve it and make such a difference in people’s lives as they plan for their future and their retirement security. This is not just about people who are over 65 but it is about our young people as well—getting them to plan and plan ahead for their own retirement. The mission statement states: “New Zealanders are financially well educated and can make informed financial decisions throughout their lives.” 
That is one thing National is really good at—managing money. I have to say that Labour members have never managed money. Mother Hubbard stripped the cupboard—it was bare. 
The Labour Government knew how to spend that money ahead. So if anyone ever wants financial advice I would say: “Never go to a Labour member of Parliament.” They just cannot cut the mustard when it comes to money. That has been proven time and time again. When we took office when the New Zealand public decided they needed a Government that could actually look after them particularly in regard to their money we opened up the books and saw that the cupboard was absolutely bare and then some. Labour spent ahead and spent more than it had. I take as an example the Nature Heritage Fund. Labour spent the next 4 years— 
Hon David Carter 
: They’re laughing! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: They think it is funny. I would not put the Labour Opposition in charge of a piggy bank. 
Let us get back to the Retirement Commissioner as we are wont to do and in particular to www.sorted.org.nz. I think it is so important that we build the financial literacy of all New Zealanders. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The speaker who has just resumed her seat tried to reinvent history and say this Government inherited a poor set of books. The reality as the fourth estate knows and as anyone who is informed knows is that the incoming National Government inherited the third-lowest Government debt to GDP ratio in the world. The previous Labour Government had run surpluses which were criticised every year by National which called for higher tax cuts. Labour ran surpluses and we left the Government books in very good order indeed. 
We heard the Minister Paula Bennett refer to the “few poor people who may be listening”. I do not know what that meant but I can tell members that a lot more poorer people will be listening in future years because without the pre-funding of superannuation it is far less likely that superannuation entitlements will be able to be maintained in the future. The National Party appeared to have a road to Damascus experience about 4 years ago when it changed its mind on the issue of advance contributions in order to pre-fund superannuation. We all know that our population is ageing and that as it ages a greater proportion of people than at present will be reliant on Government superannuation. Intergenerational unfairness as well as real Budget pressures will be created if we do not put some money away now to create a fund for superannuation for that larger number of people. 
We also know of course that about 3 or 4 years ago the National Party was so desperate to get back to the Treasury benches that it would tell people anything that it thought they wanted to hear. So National tried to perpetuate the myth that people could have everything they already had plus tax cuts. During the election campaign John Key promised that he would maintain contributions to the Superannuation Fund at the same rate as was the case previously. We already have a broken promise there but why should we be surprised about that? In a former National Government Bill English cut superannuation and the Muldoon National Government introduced the superannuation surtax. The next National Government under Mr Bolger broke promise after promise on superannuation as well. 
Here again we have a broken promise by National on superannuation. I say to Mr Garrett that he should be listening to this because he knows what National promised during the election campaign and that it has now resiled from its promise and is not pre-funding superannuation. Now we hear Paula Bennett say superannuation is locked in and loaded. Locked in and loaded—what does that mean? That is another metaphor that does not mean much. It sounds like the fire-at-will provision for people who are employed under the 90-day legislation. Superannuation in the future will become as insecure as employment is now under that Minister’s Government. 
Superannuation is very important to New Zealand. It is perhaps even more important that we improve our savings in New Zealand. We have a current account deficit and we have poor levels of private saving. What has the National Government done in response to that? It has cut the generosity of KiwiSaver which instead of having a 4 percent savings level plus a 4 percent employer contribution has been cut to 2 percent plus 2 percent. The National Government has cut out the tax credit that was going to pay most of the employers’ cost and it has also cut out much of the tax credit for employees. We now have reduced incentives for saving and that will inhibit the future performance of New Zealand economically. There will be less investment capital available to our economy and lower savings available to people in their retirement and even more important the Government is cutting the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in breach of its earlier promise. 
In my opinion this is disgraceful politics. This Government came into power on the promise that it would keep on pre-funding superannuation. That promise was explicitly made time and again. It was an issue of political controversy when National was on the opposite side of the debate so it changed its position in order to get on to the right side of the politics. It reversed its stance only to flip-flop again once it was in Government. National has broken its promise to the electorate. Now Mr English says he cannot pre-fund superannuation because National would have to borrow in order to do so. It borrowed for tax cuts—the tax cuts that were so unfair that an incredible one-third of the cuts was delivered to the top 3 percent of income earners. How can that be fair? Of course the people in that 3 percent are not very worried if they do not have their future superannuation entitlement; they do not really need it as much as most people do. But the majority of New Zealanders will still be reliant on superannuation in years to come. It is disgraceful that this Government is not pre-funding superannuation at this time because it makes it less likely that superannuation will be able to be afforded at current rates in the future. 
Report noted. 
Families Commission 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I am so pleased that the Hon David Carter welcomes my contribution tonight with a big smile and a cheer. I have to say that the Families Commission has been in the news a little bit lately. It has made the headlines in the news over the last few weeks. 
This organisation was first established in 2004 so it is relatively new. It is the brainchild and baby of the Hon Peter Dunne. When he was in coalition with a Labour-led Government he put this issue on the table as very important for him so we saw the establishment of the Families Commission. It was set up with three main activities: to listen and to identify issues; to research which means to promote and commission research on issues that matter to the family; and to act to encourage debate to raise awareness and advocacy for the family. If one could identify a major issue that the Families Commission has been closely involved in over the last few years it would be the It’s Not OK campaign. The Families Commission has been a driving force behind the It’s Not OK campaign to reduce family violence. So it has been working up to become I think a very effective commission indeed. 
I believe that the latest appointment of Christine Rankin to the commission shows that it is being set up to be dismantled. Ms Rankin has made it very clear that she does not even know why the commission exists yet she has just been appointed to it. Her appointment was not done in a straightforward way. It was not done in a transparent honest way. It was done by the Minister for Social Development and Employment who took this appointment to the Cabinet appointments and honours committee but failed to tell her Prime Minister the full facts about the appointment that she was making. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s not true. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the Minister that I think many New Zealanders out there know that Christine Rankin is a person who certainly knew how to find the bucket. She knew how to find the bucket. She also knew how to spend up large. She created the culture of extravagance that became very much associated with her time as the chief executive of the Department of Work and Income. She was the person who invented the culture of extravagance. 
We are told she was appointed because she was a long-time advocate against child abuse. Many people including the media have set out to find out what Christine Rankin’s long-term advocacy against child abuse has been. In fact we have been able to find her first public comments against child abuse in July 2007. 
In National Government terms that might be a long time in terms of advocacy. If the Minister was serious about putting a person on that commission who was a long-time advocate I say that I could think of many. I will just name one: Dr Ian Hassall the former president of Plunket. He has been a long-term advocate against child abuse. 
I have to say that there is real concern in the community about the appointment of Christine Rankin. First I tell the Minister that there was no proper consultation. Peter Dunne came into Parliament at the same time as me. I know him to be an honourable man. If he said there was no consultation with him after the initial consultation then there was no meaningful consultation. He is a man of his word. I know that the Maori Party was not properly consulted. I heard what Minister Tariana Turia said about the appointment; the Maori Party was not in the loop. The National Government’s own members were not in the loop. Chester Borrows an honourable member of this House has already raised his concern about the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission. 
Then we get to the issue of due diligence. I served on the Cabinet appointments and honours committee for 9 years and I happen to know what due diligence is. It is not a matter of getting on the blower and giving Christine a call and asking her what she has been up to and whether any of the rumours that are circulating about her are true. That is not due diligence. Due diligence is ensuring that if the Minister appoints someone to the Families Commission she does the work. I tell the Minister in the chair that she did not do the work. I say shame on her. It is a poor appointment. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I think it is helpful to reflect given that we have had a lot of feedback in the last 18 months or so from New Zealanders asking what the Families Commission is and just exactly what it does. It is an autonomous Crown entity whose functions include encouraging debate on issues that affect families. Certainly no New Zealander would say that that was not a good thing. The Families Commission is responsible for promoting and undertaking research about families and helping to shape Government policies that promote or serve the interests of families. It is important that it works in partnership with front-line services and non-governmental organisations to carry out those functions. That is an introduction to what the Families Commission does but where do we find that there are concerns on the part of New Zealanders? 
The Social Services Committee prepared a financial review of the Families Commission and it would be fair to say that the committee acknowledged that there were some things that were good but that it also had some concerns. I will briefly talk about what we as New Zealanders feel we deserve from the Families Commission but also about what does not stack up with some New Zealanders—those people who are feeling the squeeze and want to know that their taxpayer funding is going to very good effect. 
New Zealanders want value for money. New Zealanders want research that translates into action. What is wrong with that? Not a thing. New Zealanders want a voice for their families a voice that connects with how it feels to be in their family. There is no great surprise in any of that. In fact some would say there is no great surprise in some of the recent findings from research that the Families Commission undertook—such as the research that found that teenagers feel they spend enough time with their parents. Actually a lot of teenagers probably feel they spend way too much time with their parents and they would like to put a bit of distance between themselves and their parents. The research showed that teenagers feel they spend enough time with their parents. There was also the finding that as a result of the recession some people are working longer hours. Well hello! Did we need research to work that out? I am not so sure. 
There are also some examples of Blue Skies funding through the Families Commission that gave me cause for concern. I will read out the description of one particular example:  
Strengthening Rural Families: An exploration of industry transformation community and social capital 
. The description states: “This project seeks to understand how rural families adjust to changes in the social and economic landscape and how rural families participate in the accumulation and utilisation of social capital within their communities to bring about balance between paid work community commitments and family life.” I have to say that it sounds a bit waffly does it not? So I wonder what the researchers found out about rural communities other than the fact that rural communities just do. They get on with it. Rural communities do not wonder; they just pull together and get on with it. In terms of studying rural communities one should study what they do not have good access to such as general practitioners oral health professionals pharmacies or high-speed Internet access. Those would be good projects indeed for the Families Commission. But New Zealanders in rural communities in particular just get on with it. 
The Families Commission has a job to do. It needs to be relevant as an advocate for families and for family members. I have a really good example of something the Families Commission did that I believe was incredibly useful. There was a report entitled  
Elder Abuse and Neglect: Exploration of risk and protective factors 
. The Social Services Committee discussed this with the Families Commission and we were told that it was a really good example of the commission’s work having a practical effect because that research has been used by Age Concern in its work with rest homes and the community and in helping it to develop other pieces of work. It is absolutely vital in fact that the Families Commission is seen to be relevant. 
Probably never before in the last two or three decades have New Zealanders been so intent on knowing that their Government and Crown entities are making very good use of the money that New Zealanders pay in their taxes. Right now it is particularly important for those who have lost their jobs to know that their taxpayer funding—the funding that is actually going out there and being used by entities such as the Families Commission—is being put to good use. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It would be a relatively easy task to drill down into any social policy to ascertain the relationship of dysfunctional families to policy responses. We can learn about the effects of low income poor housing and alienation in rates of educational achievement. We are told that the most severely dysfunctional families may constitute no more than 10 percent of the population yet are responsible for 70 to 80 percent of serious criminal offending. We will see ghettoisation effects with pockets of poor health associated with low-income communities—and so it goes on. Yet when we come to the 2007-08 financial review of the Families Commission we read “results are difficult to measure or evaluate”. The lack of logic appals me. How is it that we can report on the evident states of crisis and trauma within some families that we can reveal the chronic the chaotic and the destructive lives their members live and that we can identify families that society would say are failing yet we cannot measure and evaluate the state of well-being that we in the Maori Party describe as whanau ora. It is this uncertainty—long before Christine Rankin’s appointment was even announced—that has made us seriously question the capacity of the Families Commission to live up to its statutory commitment to act as an advocate in the interests of families generally. 
In the same breath as it discloses that the commission is unable to describe the good results it believes it has achieved the report states that the It’s Not OK campaign against family violence has been very successful to date. The concept of success needs further explanation. Is it really successful when there has been a significant rise—39 percent—in family violence notifications? Although more people are evidently reporting family violence would real success not be yielded by a reduction in family violence statistics reflecting an actual reduction in family violence overall? If we are to go on reports we receive from providers and community organisations it appears to be one thing to have an increased demand for services but quite another to have the capacity to respond. So the Maori Party welcomes the Community Response Fund for being able to specifically have the means to channel the increased demand for family violence services. 
In much the same way Age Concern using the Families Commission’s research on elder abuse and neglect in its work with rest homes is surely only partial success restricted by a focus on outputs and activities rather than outcomes. 
This is why the Maori Party has been advocating for work to achieve outcomes emerging out of whanau ora. If we are to really see results in whanau ora we will see a developmental approach that promotes whanau capability. Whanau ora focuses on the whanau as a whole not children elders women or parents as individual subsets of the whole. Why can we not pool the Children’s Commissioner and the Families Commission together to really focus our efforts on whanau ora? 
We went into the relationship agreement with National to achieve significant outcomes in whanau ora and we hope to see the first foundations of this approach laid in a couple of days’ time in Budget 2009. The Families Commission is legislatively required to have regard for the needs values and beliefs of whanau Maori and to the factors that enhance and maintain whanau strengths and resiliences. These are issues we would absolutely support but we do not believe that wonders can work in isolation. We want to see whanau-centred policy that facilitates positive and adaptive relationships with whanau. We also want to recognise the interconnectedness of health education housing welfare employment and lifestyles as elements of whanau well-being. If the debacle over Christine Rankin has shown anything it is that we need commissioners who are totally committed to whanau ora and to respecting the needs values and beliefs of whanau Maori as an essential part of their work. New Zealand does not need cheap shots such as that Maori abuse their children more than anyone else. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the financial review of Crown entities. One of the many things we learn when we come to Parliament is the sheer number of boards agencies and commissions that use taxpayers’ money. We have a list of them and I think we are looking at 60 of them today. We are standing and talking about the Families Commission. When I take a quick look at the long list I wonder how we managed without all of these organisations and how we managed to grow to adulthood without them. 
Let us talk about the Families Commission. Christine Rankin is not the issue; the issue is whether the Families Commission should exist at all. It was established in 2004 with the lofty goals of identifying issues by talking with families and organisations of encouraging debate and of raising awareness. It may just be that I have not been in Wellington long enough but to me that sounds like a bunch of waffle. I note it with interest because it is my hope and the hope of the ACT Party that the Families Commission will be part of the fat that is cut from the National-led Government’s expenditure in this Thursday’s Budget. 
The Families Commission costs $8 million a year to run. Some would say that is not a lot of money. To paraphrase a saying of our grandmothers I say we should look after the millions and the billions will look after themselves. What does $8 million buy? I am told it buys 500 hip replacements 267 coronary bypasses 2280 cataract operations or 6957 grommet operations for children who suffer from glue ear. But what did the $8 million that was spent in the last year on the Families Commission get us other than keeping my Labour colleague Rajen Prasad in a job? What did it give the average family—those outside what the Labour Party now cutely calls the “beltway” as if that makes us somehow special? What did the people for whom the Families Commission is supposedly set up get for $8 million? It got them a nice glossy 66-page brochure. I have a common or garden black and white version here entitled  
Reaching Out: Who New Zealanders turn to for relationship support 
. I wonder how many people have a copy of it on their coffee table at home. 
I have had a bit of a leaf through the brochure and it tells us some quite incredible things. It reads like a sociological thesis written in somewhat down-home language. The section on page 33 is entitled “Informal and Semi-formal Support”. Amazingly it tells us that passive support in relationships is the receipt of advice and information outside personal interaction. Examples include watching  
The 
Oprah Winfrey Show 
 and  
Dr. Phil 
 and that was done mainly by Pakeha and Maori participants. Asian and Pacific people talked to their families—gosh that is amazing! They tended to talk to their aunties rather than to their workmates. Is that not fascinating? I wonder how much that all cost? This ridiculous document tells us things that anyone with a modicum of common sense would have known. Apparently many Pakeha males talk about relationship problems with their mates at work. Well gosh I never knew that! 
What else did we get for our $8 million? In a splurge of activity not long before the last election—and I am sure it had nothing to do with list candidate Rajen Prasad—the commission published a number of recommendations including one to increase paid parental leave from 14 weeks as it is now to 56 weeks. There is a word for that: reckless. Why? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Families actually. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I ask the members who are making a noise who pays for it. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: We do. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: The taxpayer? How high would taxes have to be Mr Prasad? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The Minister responsible for the Families Commission Paula Bennett has developed a bit of a reputation for liking to get stuck into things. Sometimes it is a brawl and sometimes it is a controversy. It seems that she less frequently is prepared to get stuck into an answer. I would like to give her an opportunity to answer this question which the Prime Minister could not answer at question time today: will she remove Christine Rankin if it turns out that she has been lying over the last few weeks about allegations that have been made about her? Will the Minister remove Christine Rankin from the Families Commission? 
Well there we are. That is just about as good an answer as we got from the Prime Minister. So it is all right for the Minister to totally ignore not just common courtesy but also an agreement made with the Hon Peter Dunne in regard to the future of the Families Commission as part of the establishment of the Government. It is all right for the Minister to ignore that and it is all right for the Minister to be squeaked through a Cabinet row by the Prime Minister who then hung her out to dry. And it is good enough for Christine Rankin to be appointed a Families Commissioner getting taxpayers’ money when she herself admitted she did not even know what the commission did. 
Those are fantastic standards that David Garrett and Roger Douglas are backing in this Parliament. That is a fantastic new standard set by Paula Bennett. No wonder John Key has his staff running round the press gallery rapidly distancing him—saying that he had not been told these things. I am sure that he will distance himself further and further from his weakest link—proven to be not only arrogant but also stupid and dismissive—more rapidly than any of us can imagine. 
It is not often that people in this House hear me praise or defend the Hon Peter Dunne. He and I have had more political battles with each other than I have even had with the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. But I want to put on record that I think Peter Dunne is honest and has integrity. I disagree with many of his political beliefs but I have worked with him within my own party and outside it and in the context of a confidence and supply agreement and he has not misled me personally or the party. 
I would not support Peter Dunne’s politics. He said that he went to Paula Bennett and told her he had strong objections about Christine Rankin and that Paula Bennett said that she heard his concerns and would get back to him. Her way of getting back to him was sending him a copy of the press statement stating that Christine Rankin had been appointed. That is about as arrogant and stupid as any Minister could possibly get. 
I want to raise another concern about Christine Rankin. There is a long list of concerns and they have been aired publicly; some of those concerns are very personal and very tragic and they have been denied. But I raise another question that I am sure the Minister has been alerted to because Wellington is a village. We all know what other people talk about and hear about in this little village. 
Hon Member 
: You want to hear what I know about you! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When Christine Rankin was with David Garrett’s colleague on  
Dancing with the Stars 
—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members cannot use the word “you”. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. When Christine Rankin was on  
Dancing with the Stars 
 with Rodney Hide—I think she made it to only the first round; that was a pretty strong indication of public opinion—she was raising money for a trust called For the Sake of Our Children. This was the good cause that she was raising money for. 
The three people who texted “Christine” to  
Dancing with the Stars 
 to donate their tuppence ha’penny were donating to an organisation that employed two people and did no research did no service delivery but did only advocacy. The two people employed by For the Sake of Our Children were Christine Rankin and her son. That is a very unusual charitable organisation for which one would say publicly on television: “I am dancing for a good cause.” 
Report noted. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is really concerned about the way in which the National-led Government seems to be transforming the housing portfolio into another outreach of the hard-line law and order policies on which it campaigned in the last election. Just as some children and young people aged 12 to 17 are headed into military-style youth training camps in another wing of this blitzkrieg on crime the Housing New Zealand Corporation is being increasingly used as a way of winning the Sensible Sentencing Trust vote. 
The question of so-called problematic tenants was raised many times by National MPs under the previous administration. Now that they are in charge they are not backward in coming forward to find ways to make sure the Housing New Zealand Corporation takes action to deal with those deemed undesirable. First of all in March this year came the news that the Housing New Zealand Corporation would no longer take cases of what it deemed to be severe antisocial behaviour to the tenancy tribunal. Instead the Housing New Zealand Corporation itself would make the decision and issue a termination notice requiring the tenant to quit in 90 days or even less. 
Just this morning we discovered that the Housing New Zealand Corporation—quietly and under the radar—had inserted a new clause in its standard tenancy agreement. This clause requires tenants to have express permission from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to live on a property if they are on bail on parole or on home detention unless they are already registered on the tenancy agreement. At first blush this does not sound too onerous. However on closer inspection there are ramifications that cause substantial disquiet to those of us who care about the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens. 
I have several questions I would like the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley to answer. For example what will happen if a family member who lives away from home and is not on the tenancy agreement gets into trouble? The Housing New Zealand Corporation will not want the person on the property but he or she will have nowhere else to go except back to his or her mother father sister or brother. Is the Minister happy for that person to end up on the streets in the local mental health acute unit or back in prison? Will he put more money into homeless shelters mental health services or emergency housing as a result? I somehow doubt it. 
I wonder what approach the Housing New Zealand Corporation will take to people who are on the waiting list for housing and who are on bail parole or home detention. Although the corporation says that its policy is not to take criminal matters into account when handing out tenancies I will be very interested to hear how this is implemented in practice in the months ahead. I will also be interested to hear about the luck people in this situation have or do not have in achieving a State tenancy in the current environment when numbers on the waiting lists are growing without a parallel acceleration in the acquisition or building of new State houses. 
State houses are supposed to be the housing of last resort for those who need it most for the most vulnerable in our society. People who are in trouble with the justice system are certainly in this category. The Green Party believes that people should not be presumed guilty before conviction and that even if they are guilty they should not face the double jeopardy of being penalised twice for offences—once by the court and once by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. I do not know whether Mr Heatley and the corporation have even thought about the economic and social implications of their latest move. Plenty of research shows that people are far more likely to reoffend if they are homeless or are disconnected from friends and family. If the State is not willing to help those most in need very few other options are available. Telling people to take their chances in the private market is not a viable answer for most of the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s problematic tenants now or in the future. I do not know why the State thinks that private landlords are more likely to take its rejects—unless the latter are really hard-out criminals with enough money and enough front to play high-rent fake-ID tenancy games. I doubt that that is something the State really wants to encourage either. 
These new Housing New Zealand Corporation policies are a recipe for increased rates of crime poverty ill health and homelessness. I hope the Minister will think again about the potential impacts of the path on which he and the corporation have embarked and consider whether there might be more constructive and proactive ways of working with tenants to make sure that people are safe without pushing some of those most in need out on to the streets or into institutions. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. Kia ora tatou katoa. It makes for a fairly depressing read to look at the 2007-08 financial review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and to learn that “HNZC’s key initiatives on service delivery for Maori were not met in 2007/08.” I ask what the penalty is for the systematic failure. Does the chief executive get her pay docked are contracts withdrawn or are individuals held to blame? I have not seen this happen for myself. 
Reading on we find that not only has the corporation seen a slight increase in the number of people presenting with urgent housing needs but also it appears likely that there will be challenges in reducing waiting lists. We would remind the Committee that the operating premise for the Housing New Zealand Corporation is to provide State housing for people on low incomes or with unique housing needs. Maori inevitably fall into both categories. We know that some 67 percent of all Maori are renting or boarding and that homeownership is still in the hands of the relatively few. These housing needs are also unique in response to the Crown’s article 3 obligations to invest in all the rights and responsibilities of Maori gaining equal citizenship. 
So we would expect this commitment to be demonstrated in the most appropriate and enduring application of the estimated $15 billion value of the Crown entity’s assets. I am sure that we have all experienced enough horror stories about wet damp mouldy State houses and the direct impact that they have had on the health of tenants but I can say that from the day that we in the Maori Party came into coalition with National healthy housing has been a huge priority for us. So we were delighted a couple of months ago to support the injection of an extra $104 million into State housing upgrades. 
We have been concerned about the squalor that some tenants have lived in. It is a reality that is demonstrated in this financial review with the understatement that “The Housing New Zealand Corporation has allowed some of its housing stock to becoming run down.” I reckon! There has been talk about the State being a slum landlord turning a blind eye to housing that has fallen into a disgusting state of disrepair. We know that many rural renters in particular have suffered from poor property conditions less choice and lower levels of maintenance. 
We are hoping that that was then and this is now. We have certainly appreciated the willingness of the Minister of Housing to work constructively with the Maori Party. We have made clear the aspirations and enthusiasm of iwi and hapu groups to take control of their housing options and it appears possible that the Housing Innovation Fund will enable these same aspirations to be achieved. 
Of course it is not just about addressing the urgency of need for tenants. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is in a position to work with Maori housing providers and iwi on how we can actively be involved in upgrade work and advancing papakainga housing. I have real evidence of this involvement in action. In fact last Friday I was in Te Puke with Simon Bridges and the people there—Tapuika—and was able to see the great initiative they have taken in conjunction with Ngati Tuheke Makahae Marae and Rangiuru 2G Trust to lessen the struggle of building homes for their people on Maori land. The possibility of building papakainga housing on multiple-owned Maori land has challenged our people for decades. The Maori Party has consistently raised the issues around investing in better utilisation of Maori land and we are absolutely delighted that the Government has been so responsive in its readiness to listen to the aspirations and solutions of tangata whenua as they come up with their own solutions.  
It is about time that the great land mass owned by Maori in the western Bay of Plenty for example—we are talking about 22000 hectares—is now able to be utilised for affordable housing on ancestral land. It is not just my electorate of Waiariki that is benefiting; Northland’s three district councils are also coming to the party to deliver a unified approach to papakainga land. The far north Whangarei and Kaipara district councils are working with Te Puni Kokiri and Te Hauora o Kaikohe to establish some clear processes to enable housing subdivisions in residential unit construction on multiple-owned Maori land. We are really pleased that the new approach of listening to the ideas that Maori have for developing their own housing solutions on their land is starting to bear some fruit. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the subject of the policy that was revealed today about banning people on bail from applying for a State house. It seems to be a Draconian policy. I really hope we will hear from the Minister as to why this policy has been adopted. It is just not appropriate for a social housing agency to set itself up as judge and jury on the innocence or guilt of people appearing before the courts. I would have thought that the Minister in the chair Maurice Williamson has some real sympathy with that position and will be able to tell the Committee why on earth this policy has been adopted. We all know in this country that under the law people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise but the current Minister seems to consider his agency to be above the law in adopting this policy. It is a plain fact that many people on bail are never convicted of the offences they are charged with. The delays in the court system mean that people can remain on bail for a year or more before their case is even heard. 
The Housing New Zealand Corporation as one of the previous speakers noted is a housing provider of last resort. It has 68000 properties nationally housing 200000 people. More than 30000 State housing households are on an income of between $210 and $300 per week and more than 38000 tenants pay between $51 and $100 per week. That shows just what the situation is and what this provider was set up to be. It is there to provide a home for families in need but the decision about banning people who are on bail from applying for a house could actually force families into homelessness or into a situation whereby parents are forced to separate either from each other or from their children in order to ensure that they are housed. Surely neither of these scenarios is appropriate nor acceptable. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on the performance of the 2007/08 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this evening on the Crown entities debate. I seek leave from the House for the House to rise early this evening for the 6 o’clock dinner break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Building Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. I begin by acknowledging the previous Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Shane Jones who actually introduced the bill into the House just before the end of the last parliamentary term. I would particularly like to pass on my extreme thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee which I believe worked very well together in refining the bill and bringing some minor amendments back to the House that I think all of the members of the committee across all parties were in reasonably general agreement with. It was nice finally to be involved with a bill that was not terribly controversial. 
This bill takes some initial steps to reduce compliance costs under the Building Act 2004 and to streamline the building consent process. I stress to the House that the bill really is only the beginning of a very long process of reducing that red tape and compliance. The bill has now been considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee which was exceedingly well chaired by Chris Auchinvole and I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill and for expediting its passage through the select committee process. It has been a marvellous process. Given the current economic downturn it is important that the bill be progressed quickly so that the sector can benefit from the initiatives in it. 
I take the opportunity now to outline the three simple yet effective initiatives that this bill covers. The bill introduces a streamlined building consent approval process for house designs that are replicated on a substantial basis in order to remove the duplication that occurs when councils have to approve the same or very similar building designs over and over again. Under the bill group home builders will have the opportunity to apply to the Department of Building and Housing for a national multiple-use approval for standard house designs that they use repeatedly. A national multiple-use approval can be included as part of a building consent application to fast track the approval process by councils. The national multiple-use approval is designed to streamline the building consent process for group home builders reduce duplication of process by councils and reduce costs for homeowners. 
The select committee has recommended what I think are two very practical changes to the bill as introduced in relation to the national multiple-use approvals. The first is to provide for regulations that allow minor customisations to be made before and during the construction phase to house designs that already have a national multiple-use approval. This provision will allow for some flexibility and individuality of design by homeowners while still remaining within the scope of that central approval. The second change recommended by the select committee is to provide for regulations that put a limit of a recommended 40 working days on the time taken by the Department of Building and Housing to process a national multiple-use approval. I think that is a realistic time frame and imposing this limit by regulation means that at some stage later another Minister might decide that even 40 working days is too much and may want to bring the length of time back. I believe that these refinements will help to ensure that the national multiple-use approval is commercially viable for group builders. I know they will welcome it—in fact they have been desperately waiting for this legislation to get through. 
The second initiative in the bill is to introduce a streamlined process for making minor variations to building plans after a building consent has been granted. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is that one of Shane Jones’ ideas? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: If the member had been listening with his ears open he would know that at the beginning of my speech I gave Shane Jones a lot of credit. I have already given him some praise. 
The bill enables regulations to be made that define when a variation to consent building work is minor and therefore does not require a formal amendment to the building consent. Again I think most of us in this House will see that as a very sensible move. I know that on a number of occasions when people wanted to make a minor change by slightly moving a hand basin a cupboard or a shower box it quite regularly meant they had to go back to the old consent grinding mill. This initiative will mean that those minor variations can be made without that being necessary. It will save time cost and frustration for building consent applicants as well as for councils. 
The third initiative in the bill is to make obtaining a project information memorandum—known as a “PIM”—voluntary. The initiative will remove the cost of obtaining a project information memorandum for building consent applicants when the information in the memorandum is not considered relevant for a particular building project. Critical notifications previously attached to a project information memorandum will now be attached to the building consent. Councils will continue to promote applying for project information memoranda and doing so early on in the building project. The initiatives in the bill will reduce the time and transaction costs involved in the building consent process for homeowners developers builders and councils and are indeed—as I said earlier on—the first step in the significant amount of reform that is required of the Building Act 2004. 
Once again I give my thanks to the select committee—and in particular to Chris Auchinvole the chair—for the committee’s rapid consideration of the bill. All members of the committee from all parties worked well and the committee has made pragmatic recommendations. I acknowledge the submitters who made written and oral submissions on the bill and the building sector for its input into the formulation of these initiatives. I commend this bill as reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe te Assistant Speaker i tenei po. Let me stand and reflect from our side of the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee acted in an expeditious manner. The members seized themselves of the issues. As we have heard they were modest in number as a consequence of the quality of thinking and architecture that went into the original bill if not the policy. 
We have very little to differ over but let us just rehearse some of the reasons why this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) was necessary. The first reason was that after the leaky homes episode broke it was evident that excessive liberalisation had taken place in the building industry in the regulatory approach used to manage the effects of poor building or of builders who were operating either without following plans or in a way that was just not up to it. As is often the case in our country the pendulum swung. It was my view for the period of time that I was the Minister for Building and Construction that the pendulum had swung too far. This was an attempt to maintain a level of confidence amongst house purchasers and also within the building industry so that regulatory creep did not thwart initiative within the industry. 
I am particularly glad and I am sure that I speak for my colleagues that the current Minister embraced the initiative originally brought forward by Shane Jones— 
Hon David Parker 
: The Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —the Hon Shane Jones and has been happy to claim it as work for himself. Of course we look for some distant sign that the Minister will be able to replicate and emulate this kind of thinking as he takes the portfolio forward in areas such as the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board but that is for another day. 
In my view the notion that central government should be involved in allocating building consents makes a great deal of sense. It enables those developers and architects of houses that are of a relatively uniform nature to gain consents that reduce the costs they face by getting a consent within every single territorial authority and being confronted by gratuitous levels of variability. So in that regard I think that the officials have done quite a reasonable job in striking the balance between not only expeditious processing and committing themselves to a time frame but also preventing entities companies developers and other commercial interests from being put through a protracted process. 
There was a member of the select committee who feared that the national multiple-use approval system would lead to a homogenisation of ticky-tacky houses. I completely understand that all members of the select committee are entitled to form their views but I think that view was misguided. 
At all times those of us who have our pen above the regulatory pad need to bear in mind that what we pass as law or as regulation can easily fall into the hands of sub-national levels of Government. Their attempt to give effect to that law drives industry either completely nuts or imposes costs on the members of the industry or the actual people who simply want a dwelling for them and for their families that is safe warm secure and will not leak. This national multiple-use approval system will offer that in a way that does not impose unnecessary levels of delay or gratuitously high levels of costs. 
The notion of the project information memorandum attracted a fair bit of anxiety from people who felt that the interests of those who suffer mishaps etc. and who are condemned to live life with a physical handicap might not be taken care of and the Historic Places Trust felt that those buildings that fit within its category might be torn down without people having to go through a necessary process and knowing what the historical value of the building is. That is all very fine. The select committee formed a view and the Minister has carried it on. Indeed members on this side of the House felt there was an unnecessary level of bureaucratic burden. 
Possibly the last thing I would say about this bill is that when the original response was derived as to how to deal with shonky builders—not only in Auckland but predominantly in Auckland—in the residential house construction sector there was a fear that every nook and cranny crevice and sliver of opportunity for wretchedness had to be rooted out. It would appear that we exceeded what was necessary. That is why there are minor variations and customisations if people want to change. In fact I know of some people who have been known to do house alterations and have 11 metre gaping holes in their dwellings. Things of that nature would need a building consent. But if someone is going to change a window or a door or build a little bit of a whare outside for the teenagers after they have discovered the pleasures of life that have since passed this generation by why should one need a building consent? [ 
Interruption 
] I congratulate the member on recognising that my rugby playing abilities have not departed despite being at the age of having been born in 1959. 
But there is a range of amendments that need not require the full attention of a consenting agency and Kiwis ought to be able to attend to those problems to get on with life and to hire a decent builder. If they do not have the presence of mind to hire someone who can do the mahi do the work and if they do not make a decision as simple as that then why should ratepayers and taxpayers constantly be burdened with meeting the costs of their perfidy? We are not having any of that. That is why this is a very good minor variation section. 
In all I just hope that the bureaucrats are encouraged by the Minister to pass the necessary regulations in a mercifully short period of time and that they are adequately resourced because this bill is designed to make the industry and the sector more efficient. As I said earlier it reflects a great deal of effort from the officials. But the quality of the legislation is reflective of the quality of the mind lying behind its architecture. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). Indeed it was the first bill to progress through the Local Government and Environment Committee when chaired by me. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank members. What a nice bill to start with! There was a suggestion at the select committee that the bill should be renamed the “Shane Jones Building Amendment Bill”. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Modesty precludes me. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It did not preclude the member at the meeting. The suggestion was voted down. Fair tribute has already been paid by the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson to the origin of the bill; that has been recognised. There are a few very interesting aspects to the bill one of which is the percentage of houses that are built in New Zealand under the category discussed in this bill. It is a very large percentage. Others may remember; I think about 40 percent of the houses that are built fit into this category—volume builders build volumes. 
Mr Williamson and Shane Jones—honourable gentlemen both—have given a thorough analysis of the bill which saves me a couple of pages of my notes. The bill will make the amendments to the Building Act 2004 necessary to achieve the purpose of increasing the flexibility and the efficiency of building consent processes in order to facilitate an increased supply of affordable homes. It is indeed a shame that the Act has to be amended so soon but it is a good thing to do; it is necessary because the original Act imposed massive costs and complexities on the construction industry. It crippled the industry in some ways with excessive bureaucracy and administration—something the Labour Party unfortunately is highly fond of or was highly fond of. Thanks to its overzealous desire to burden the industry and consequently the homeowner with high compliance costs fewer New Zealanders were able to fulfil their dreams of owning the home that they would have owned if such cumbersome law had never been enacted. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What’s your proof? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I think it speaks for itself. We have only to ask around. The fact that this bill has been given some priority in treatment is proof that the Government is committed to improving home affordability and it is commendable that it is receiving support from both sides of the House. 
I point out however that the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will simultaneously make buying a home potentially more affordable and also ensure that the homes and buildings built are of good quality. There is no forsaking or compromising of the quality aspect of the regulation. We went into the last election with a clear manifesto that the new Government would put a high priority on reducing unnecessary compliance and that it would increase efficiency and reduce costs. That is what this Government is about. This bill is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to that manifesto. I am delighted to be chair of the select committee that handled this bill. It was as I said earlier a nice bill to proceed with. It came forward and it was simple straightforward and meritorious. 
I think it is prudent to summarise the points I made when speaking to the first reading as to what significant changes will occur as a result of the bill and why they are necessary. Firstly the bill will mean that instead of the status quo which sees applications assessed by councils on a case by case basis even in cases where the proposed building work is to be replicated within the same subdivision there will be a system of national multiple-use consenting for buildings that are to be replicated several times on a national basis. Instead of the long-winded process whereby developers are required to wait for each building consent to be processed before work can proceed the building design will be approved— 
Hon Member 
: Slow down. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Members can keep up; they should just think quickly. The building design will be approved on a national level and building consents issued at the local level. Decisions made by the local building consent authority will therefore be restricted to site-specific matters and any customisation or variation of a multiple-use consent— 
Hon Members 
: Say that again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Do members want it in Scottish this time? 
Secondly the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will allow major and minor amendments to be distinguished and hence treated differently. For example amendments that are likely to affect compliance with the building code will continue to go through the formal amendment process whereas minor variations—as described by my parliamentary colleague on the other side of the House Shane Jones—will be defined in relation to the national multiple-use purpose approval as a minor modification or additional variation to the plan. Amendments will now go through a far less rigorous procedure obviously reducing compliance costs. 
Thirdly the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will make voluntary the obtaining of a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. Under the original Act a project information memorandum had to be obtained before a building consent could be issued. The original primary purpose of a project information memorandum was to save owners or developers time and money by providing advance warning of issues that needed to be taken into account when developing plans for building work. 
However as most project information memoranda are applied for after a building consent application is made they become somewhat redundant and are now in many ways an unnecessary cost. This Government is in the business of eliminating unnecessary building costs and is not in the order of imposing them. 
The Building Amendment Act (No 2) has been before the Local Government and Environment Committee. The select committee received 17 submissions: nine from local government three from industry bodies three from private companies and one each from a Crown entity and a community advocacy group. They each provided wide support for the purpose and proposals of the bill. Is it not a good sign that this House can put a bill forward to a select committee and those making submissions provide support for it? Key issues raised were around the clarification of the proposals the implementation of the proposals and the details to be included in the regulations. As a result the committee recommended few changes and the general consensus of the vast majority of interested parties was reflective of the fact that this bill is essentially sound. 
The purpose of the recommendations is primarily to ensure greater clarity in the legislation. The main recommendations were as follows. The first was to have an amendment that would explicitly allow minor customisation as prescribed in regulations to be made to plans and specifications that had national multiple-use approval both at the time of applying for a building consent and after a building consent has been issued. The second was to clarify that any permitted customisations would fall within the scope of the national multiple-use approvals and amendments— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Tell us what you really think. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: If the member does not know what it means I will speak to him afterwards. The committee recommended amendments to the definition of “minor variation” and the insertion of a new definition of “minor customisation” to distinguish between plans that do and do not have national multiple-use approval. The third recommendation was to impose by regulation on the Department of Building and Housing a time frame of 40 working days for processing applications for national multiple-use approvals—and let us remember that we are talking about 40 percent of the houses that are built. 
The recommendations are eminently sensible. They will ensure that the national multiple-use approval is commercially viable for group home builders by providing the certainty of a time limit on processing applications and by allowing for some measure of customisation. The changes also provide greater certainty to councils when processing building consent applications that rely on national multiple-use approvals. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will be a clear boost for the building industry at a time when companies are struggling and builders are looking for work. Under the original Act builders were waiting for up to a fortnight at a time to get on-site building inspections done thereby increasing costs which is unacceptable. 
We are embarking on a process to improve efficiency and to reduce unnecessary costs in a number of legislative areas. This is particularly important in the current economic climate. Ordinary New Zealanders are struggling every day with overburdensome compliance costs and regulations and we are doing something about it. With pieces of legislation like the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) coming to fruition we are expecting that unnecessary time delays and costs will become a thing of the past. I am very happy to support the Hon Maurice Williamson in the second reading of this bill as it is time that we recognise the problems inherent in the Building Act 2004 and make sure we fix them. Thank you. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak tonight in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) which was introduced by the Hon Shane Jones. He was such a busy Minister; he got things done. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: There was the small matter of the showers. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Ha ha! It was really quite good to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson acknowledging the very hard work that Shane Jones had done. Too often in this House we just attack each other but when something really good happens we acknowledge it and acknowledging the work of Shane Jones was important. 
I acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Unfortunately I was not on the committee at the time but the chair the member for West Coast - Tasman—or Tasman - West Coast whatever it is; I do not know what it is called but I am sure he goes there not very often but occasionally—got this bill back into the House. 
I think this bill will save a lot of frustration for many people. There have been unnecessary delays over building consents. I go back to the 1980s when I was mayor of a place called Papakura—which is about to become a part of Auckland—and people used to be frustrated then by the use of red pens when examining building plans and building consents. But I think we got too liberal in the 1990s. As the Hon Shane Jones said the pendulum swung too far. In an effort to fix the problems of leaky houses it again swung too far the other way. But I think this will be quite a good bill and it demonstrates really the foresight of someone like Shane Jones. There is nothing like Tories seizing on a good idea. When Tories get a good idea they grab hold of it and on they go; I think that is really good. 
This bill will also save people some money and that has to be good. I imagine that Shane Jones gets piles of mail from people writing to thank him because he is saving them money and that is what this bill will do. 
This bill was part of a coordinated approach to assist the increasing supply of good quality but affordable homes and that is really important at the moment. People want affordable homes. I come from an electorate where the housing issues are fairly glum and where lots of people are in houses they cannot afford—which means there are mortgagee sales and all those sorts of things—or where they have to get the house right to sell again because they have not had the permits for the alterations they have done. They should have had a consent for shifting a door in days gone by. Well those minor alterations to a general plan will not require people to go to that trouble again and I think that that is quite sensible. 
It is interesting to note that about 40 percent of all houses built in New Zealand are built by volume builders. That is quite a large number. People might remember that in the old days people talked about little houses on the hillside that all looked the same. Now it will be an advantage if they are the same in many ways rather than that sameness being looked down on. Efficiencies can be achieved if a system of national multiple-use consenting is introduced to provide a streamlined approval process under the Building Act for buildings that will be copied and built several times on a nationwide basis. That is very important. 
The thing that surprised me about this bill was that there were only 17 submitters. That is not a huge number. I thought that maybe it was a good thing that people generally accepted the recommendations and that not too many people were wanting to stand outside those recommendations. I am sure that the chair of the select committee would have preferred to see something like that for the resource management bill he is trying to get through the committee at the moment. But when we have good legislation that has been well thought out by the Hon Shane Jones and taken up by the Hon Maurice Williamson things progress. So I thank the people who were on that committee and I also thank the chair. It is good to get some things through fairly quickly. When councils looked at the way they have treated people in the past I think that not too many of those councils were keen to come forward and admit that to the select committee. However I think things are changing quite dramatically. 
From time to time we come to the House make speeches and look around but things in here are not the way they seem when they are reported in the paper. 
By way of an example Dr Paul Hutchison was not against the amalgamation of Auckland local authorities into one city authority until he got back to his electorate when he changed. No one will go back to their electorate with the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) saying that it should change. The bill will stay the same but in the case of Auckland the member for Hunua certainly did change. 
Under this bill people will now be able to make real savings in the sorts of houses they build. There will be economies of scale when builders work out that they can put up a pile of similar houses at a cheaper price instead of every house being completely different. For those people who want to get a roof over their head this bill will make things far easier. Variations to consented building work following the granting of building consents will become even more common than they have been. While some variations will require formal amendments to the building consent others will not. I am pleased to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson say that there will be more legislation coming along and I think that is important. This bill is a tidy little package but it will not solve all of the problems that people face at the moment. 
I finish by saying that I am also pleased to see on TV tonight that the National Government seizes all the good ideas. It has picked up not only the home insulation ideas but also Shane Jones’ very good bill which we are debating here and made it its own. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on behalf of the Green Party to confirm that we support the changes to the Building Act as set out in the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) as reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. Unfortunately I was not on the select committee that dealt with the bill so I am not aware of all the detail but I am pleased that although this legislation was originally brought forward by the previous Labour Government the National Government has seen fit to proceed with it in a reasonably timely manner. 
One of the main features of the bill is that it introduces a national multiple-use approvals process. This means that where buildings of the same design are being replicated on a substantial scale they will not each have to go through an individual approval process as they do at the moment. This is a sensible amendment which should mean substantially reduced costs at a time when price is becoming even more of an issue for all involved in the construction development and purchase of housing. I know there were concerns that this multiple-use approval mechanism might mean the encouragement of cheap ugly low-standard houses or units not designed with reference or in relation to particular sites. However I understand that these approvals will still need to go to the local building consent authorities which will need to take relevant local urban design into account. I hope that requirement will provide sufficient protection as it is a fact that all sites are unique. 
As was made patently clear during the inquiry into housing affordability that took place under the previous Government and which some of us took part in the costs of housing in this country are comparatively high and are still a real issue. I believe that the few measures contained in this bill will help to bring costs down and to simplify processes which virtually every stakeholder in the building sector believes have become too lengthy and complex. 
For all these reasons the Green Party commends this bill to the House and at the same time acknowledges what George Hawkins said before that this is only a very small step in the journey we need to make in the area of housing. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will just take a short call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I have the pleasure of being on the Local Government and Environment Committee under the able chairmanship of Chris Auchinvole the member for West Coast - Tasman. I say that it is a pleasure because as a new member one comes into Parliament with the desire to see some sensible things being progressed in a multi-partisan way and the select committee process was an example of that. I agree with all previous speakers that it appears that the idea came from the Hon Shane Jones and was progressed by the National-led Government. 
I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Building and Construction say that this bill was just the start of a process. In our view a great deal more needs to be done in this area. I heard the wonderful phrase “regulatory creep” from Mr Jones and we can all work out exactly what that means. For me I relate its meaning to when Sir Edmund Hillary came down from Mount Everest and wanted to build his house. As I understand it he had some plans drawn up by his father-in-law or someone who knew his father-in-law and the two of them went away and built the house. As we now know the house was nothing very flash but it sheltered the Hillary family for 50 years and probably would have continued to do so for another 50 years if the site had not been bought. In that case there was limited or no red tape—or another expression beginning with “b”. We have come from that situation to one where if we want to move a window we must get a consent. 
I have two examples from my own life. I own a 1918 villa north of Helensville. It is the standard design with no dwangs and no insulation. Originally it had conduit wiring and double-hung windows and members will know the type of design. To me it is utterly absurd that if I wish to build an extra bedroom—which I need to do in order to accommodate my sadly soon-to-be teenaged family—the extension that will cost $50000 or less will need to be built to 2009 building codes. Part of the house will be built to 1918 building codes and part of it to 2009 codes. It makes absolutely no sense that the bit at the end will have to have insulation in the walls and double glazing. I can see some sense in having 2009 wiring because we cannot buy conduit wiring any more even if we wanted to but what sense does the 2009 requirement make? It will add to the cost even to the cost of the plans. 
I said that I have two interests in this issue. My flatmate down here in Wellington happens to be an architectural draughtsman who is also a friend of mine of 20 years’ standing. He tells me that because of the ridiculous level of regulation that has grown up over the past 10 or 20 years the plans that he will draw up for that extension will cost about twice as much in real terms as they would have when we first met. That is not only because of the extra changes that have been made to the plans but also because there are requirements as ridiculous as the one that states that instead of drawing a light fitting and saying that it must conform to “New Zealand standard No. whatever” he has to draw every single light fitting. What sense does that make? It makes absolutely none. I am told by my flatmate that as things stand anyone who cuts a metre-square hole in the wall of his or her house in Wellington is committing an offence. 
We have come a very long way from Sir Ed and from my old mate Bernie Woods who also came back from the war and with Edna built his own house. Bernie was a photographer. I lament that change and I want to see us go back to a sensible situation where ideally I can choose to build my extension without going through all of this nonsense and without a permit if I choose. Provided I give a waiver to the relevant council so that I or somebody else cannot come back at the council later I should be able to do that. That should be my choice. I should be allowed to build my extension to 1918 codes except where I choose to diverge from them in areas such as wiring. 
In supporting this bill I say to the Minister and the National Government that we will be hot on their heels to follow this up and to get further changes. If we cannot get back to Sir Ed’s day we can at least get to somewhere near it where I do not have to get some little clerk in a cardigan to give me permission to build a deck that happens to be 1.2 metres in its dimensions and which I can quite capably build myself. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It has been very interesting to listen to what has been coming out in the House today. We have had extremes of opinion but what underlines the importance of this bill is that we are looking for more affordable housing and more affordable buildings. 
This bill is designed to update and improve the effectiveness of Labour’s 2004 Building Act. As we have heard it is the first step in a more comprehensive review of the legislation that is presently under way. Although the Act was passed in 2004 which was only 4 years ago it already needs to be substantially reviewed. It needs to be amended because it is too complex prescriptive overly bureaucratic and full of regulatory creep. It is costly as well. If we want more affordable houses and buildings we need to fix this Act. 
This amendment is designed to reduce compliance requirements and costs and to improve the efficiency of the building consent process. It is designed to make sure that regulatory processes are as effective and as efficient as possible while always maintaining the quality of construction. We need to reduce the costs for homeowners developers and builders and we must reduce those costs without ever compromising the building quality. 
The bill simplifies and streamlines. It streamlines the building consent process by increasing flexibility and efficiency but it preserves sufficient checks and balances to make sure that quality homes and buildings are constructed. Although the amendments will have only a modest effect on the total cost of the building they are expected to reduce the time and transaction costs involved in the whole consenting process and any drop in price will be readily received by the public of New Zealand. We are well aware that time is money and during the select committee process we were made aware of the frustrations of designers of builders and of property owners in the face of very complex rules and regulations and enormously long waits for consents. Builders told us that they really wanted to comply with the Act but found it almost impossible to get it right. 
The bill has three main amendments. As we have heard discussed tonight the first is the introduction of the national multiple-use approvals. The idea is that these approvals will simplify the consenting of multiple similar buildings. At present volume builders who are builders of large numbers of houses in a subdivision even if those houses are identical have to apply for a consent for each house separately and wait until they have that consent before they can begin building. Once this bill is passed a housing construction company building a large number of similar houses will be able to get the design approved and consented at a national level and be issued with multiple-use approvals. These are multiple-use approvals for similar designs but each consent will still have to be tailored to local conditions and this is how we make sure that the buildings are designed for the people in the areas they live in. It will mean that new homeowners will get the advantage of economy of scale plus the advantage of a more speedy consenting process and homes that can be built more quickly and cost-effectively. 
Secondly the bill goes into a lot of detail and effort to define a new process for managing minor variations and what are called customisations of plans. Anyone who has ever built a house or a building knows that however hard we try however much we plan there are always changes that need to be made along the way. This bill provides a way to do that in a simple and cost-effective manner. Under the 2004 Act even the most minor alteration had to go through the process in exactly the same way as any new building consent. The bill allows regulations to be made that define when a variation is minor and does not require a formal amendment to the building consent. 
It also defines a process for managing minor variations and in the process it clarifies the process for managing major variations. A minor variation can be approved by a building authority by recording it in writing by sending an email or by making a file note or even by putting a handwritten adaptation on the amendment to the plans. The building consent authority will not be required to issue an amended building consent. This will save a whole heap of time and costs for both the applicant and the building consent authority. Quality will be maintained because the amendment will be required to comply with the building code. 
The minor variations or customisations that this amendment will cover are things such as changes in timber treatments or a change from a window to a door. We have heard about our colleague who wants a new door and he will be able to do that as a minor variation. The layout of a room can be changed and the branding or types of insulation can be changed. These are quite different variations from those that are considered major variations which will still require a formal consent. Those are changes like where a deck or carport is put on a building or where a change is made in the type of material—for example from brick to timber—in the type of piling or in the building system. 
The final amendment is to do with obtaining a project information memorandum. This bill makes obtaining that project information memorandum voluntary. Under the present Act all building work requires a project information memorandum. The idea behind that was that when we get a project information memorandum we get all the information that is relevant to do the building. We get it before the work is started so that we can make sure that all the bases are covered. Evidence presented to us in the select committee showed that most project information memoranda were not applied for until it was too late. In other words the process was absolutely useless to those people. Project information memoranda were not valued by builders and therefore were an unnecessary cost. 
Making project information memoranda voluntary means that people who find them useful can access the information but they will not have to pay for the information if they are not going to use it. The costs of obtaining a project information memorandum are not insignificant by the time one has paid council fees and professional fees to make the application. But the biggest expense is the delay in building which seems to happen very regularly. Voluntary project information memoranda will save a substantial amount of money and the Registered Master Builders Federation estimates that at least 30 percent of all projects do not require them at all for things like putting in fireplaces solar panels and internal alterations. 
I support the amendments to the Building Act. They will improve the legislation making it more efficient and effective and the changes will help make new housing and buildings more affordable and cost-effective. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). As has already been mentioned by my colleagues Labour supports this bill. Indeed the bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government in response to some of the concerns that have already been mentioned tonight. I also acknowledge my colleague Shane Jones and the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Chris Auchinvole. 
I thought it would be useful to consider some of the background to this bill. It addresses three major areas of concern. First of all there is the issue of national multiple-use consents. Mr Auchinvole may have already mentioned that 40 percent of all new homes in New Zealand are built by volume builders. Clearly efficiencies could be achieved if a system of national multiple-use consenting was introduced to provide for a streamlined approval process. Although a building design would be consented at a national level a building consent as Ms Wagner has already mentioned would still be required for each new building at the local level. That is important because each building at each site is unique in terms of ground conditions foundations connections to water and other utility services. 
Each building would also be subject to inspection by a local authority. 
I do not think that the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) goes anywhere near to meeting the concerns of our colleague David Garrett from the ACT Party because this bill still requires a building consent in order to ensure quality and safety. That is important. These things are not designed to irritate or to be there for no good purpose; they are there for quality and safety. The measure would reduce the time and effort required to process building consents resulting in quicker approvals. It would also give designers and volume builders a greater degree of certainty. That was the first area of concern. The second concern was in relation to amendments to building consents and essentially it was in response to concerns expressed by participants in the industry that the process for managing variations to building work was adding unnecessary costs and time delays to the process. The third concern which Nicky Wagner has talked about in some detail relates to project information memoranda which are intended to provide a one-stop shop for all information relating to building work requiring building consent. Unfortunately the minority of project information memoranda were applied for prior to building consent applications being made and consequently in most cases the benefit of providing advance warning when planning a building project is not being realised. 
Those three areas were the background to this bill. The purpose of the bill therefore became to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the building consent process and to extend the Department of Building and Housing’s functions and powers to allow it to issue national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that will be replicated on a substantial scale. It also will reduce the statutory time frame for processing a building consent from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes one of those national multiple-use approvals and that is important. It will differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building work and make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum for the reasons I outlined before. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered these concerns and recommended very few changes to the bill so I think the general thrust of the bill was seen as common sense and appropriate in order to respond to those concerns. 
The main change that the committee put up was around the customisation of national multiple-use approvals. I am sure members will be very interested in this bit so I will talk about it in some detail. The select committee has recommended that the bill explicitly allows minor customisations to be made to plans and specifications. A minor variation is around the actual building consent—a minor modification or additional variation to a building consent—whereas a minor customisation is a minor modification addition or variation to the plans and specifications to a building. Those were the matters that were changed by the select committee in considering this bill. 
Labour introduced the bill while in Government for the background reasons I gave before which were essentially to reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process and to reduce both direct and indirect cost to owners and developers associated with the construction process while ensuring—and I underline this—that quality homes and houses are constructed. I think that everybody in the House would accept the importance of that. We have all seen the terrible consequences of the construction of buildings that are not of sufficient quality. Again I think that it is important having listened to comments like those made by our ACT colleague to realise that the failure of good-quality regulation actually leads to some very very unfortunate side effects that really damage people. The bill was also designed to ensure that quality homes and houses are constructed. People often like to make the comment that Labour is into unnecessary regulation or unnecessary compliance costs and I think that a bill like this shows quite the reverse. It shows that we are about making sure that things are efficient and effective and that we do not want unnecessary regulation or compliance costs but we do think that the balance to ensure quality and safety is also important. 
The bill was part of a significant package of work by the previous Labour Government in the area of increasing the supply of good-quality affordable homes. Labour has a very proud history in the area of housing. In our last term in Government we increased the housing stock by a net increase of over 7500 homes. It is worth noting that in the last term of the Labour Government we celebrated 70 years since the first State house was built in New Zealand. 
A number of initiatives were put in place to ensure that people could start to access good-quality affordable homes. That challenge remains today. I am certainly not saying that we managed to sort out all the problems but we looked at initiatives like KiwiSaver to make it possible for people to save for their first home deposit and we enhanced assistance for first-home buyers by widening the scope of the Welcome Home Loan programme and introducing a shared equity programme. We reduced the national average rent for State houses and reduced the nationwide State housing turnover. Again when people make accusations that the previous Government was a slum landlord they forget that an intensive maintenance and modernisation programme was put in place around improving our State houses through Labour’s Healthy Housing programme. We completed improvements to over 9500 properties and retrofitted more than 16500 homes. Funding was put in place to insulate State houses and all remaining State houses were to be insulated within 5 years. 
Initiatives like the Hobsonville development were started to assist in providing affordable homes. One of the very sad things that happened in recent times concerned that Hobsonville development. Plans to include 500 State houses in the development were fought by John Key—the now Prime Minister—when he was in Opposition as the local MP. The plans ended up being axed because he made certain promises to people in his electorate and said that they would not be inflicted with things like State houses in their area because we do not want that sort of thing around here thank you very much! That was a shame. The previous Labour Government did start that development and it was going to be a substantial mixed housing development. 
In its last term the previous Government also passed legislation that enables territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their local area and we announced a review of public land for potential new housing developments and a boost for the not-for-profit sector reduced compliance costs for starter homes and the cutting of red tape through initiatives like this bill. My point is that this is an area that Labour sees as fundamental. The whole issue of quality affordable housing is one of our core principles because after all we all know that housing is of fundamental importance to people. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 For many hard-working New Zealanders 9 years of a Labour Government has meant that the dream of owning their own home has slipped further from their grasp. I stand to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill means that housing affordability will get a little bit closer for those who have a dream of owning their own home. 
What are the three initiatives in the bill? The first initiative is the introduction of national multiple-use approvals which will streamline the building consent process for buildings to be replicated on a substantial scale. The second initiative is the provision of a new streamlined process for making minor variations to building plans after a building consent is issued. The third initiative is to make the requirement to obtain a project information memorandum voluntary reducing the time and costs involved for building consent applicants. 
We have had strong support from submitters for both the purpose and the proposals in the bill and the Local Government and Environment Committee has been unanimous on the way forward with this bill. It is important to note though that many submitters have also supported the wider need for a much more significant review of the Building Act. Of course that is a priority for this Government and our hard-working Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson. 
Why are we embarking on this legislation? Of course it was initiated by the previous Government but this Government will be the one that takes it across the line. It is common knowledge that building a house is very time consuming and costly. Homeowners developers and builders face a mountain of compliance costs. The layers of local government bureaucracy are incredibly difficult to navigate and to wade through. There is such an amount of unnecessary paperwork steps and hoops to get through. I am thrilled that this bill will fix a number of those problems. 
In 2008 National pointed out that the Building Act was estimated to have added an extra $20000 to the cost of building a new home pushing homeownership out of the reach of many hard-working New Zealanders. The construction industry is a vital part of our economy and it is currently hurting. Many companies in my electorate in Taupo have already made the tough decision to lay off staff. Other building companies in Taupo are desperately trying to hang on to their staff and their apprentices and to limp through these tough times. They need legislative changes that will make it easier for them to focus on what they do best which is building houses not doing unnecessary paperwork. The Government will keep the focus on cutting red tape and making it easier for people to do business. Changes to the Building Act fit nicely with the Resource Management Act simplifying and streamlining reforms that are also currently with the Local Government and Environment Committee. What a hard-working and harmonious committee it is! 
Let us look at these changes in a bit more detail. Firstly the Department of Building and Housing will be able to issue multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. I tell members that this is not making changes to the product certification process so quality will not be affected. Multiple-use consenting will help drive improvements in housing costs and affordability. Builders of group homes will be able to achieve economies of scale. They will follow a much simpler process and the impact of that will be lower costs. There will also be less time involved in getting a project to completion so companies like Jennian Homes KiwiSpan and Initial Homes which have standard house plans will be able to apply to have their plans approved. Those companies operate up and down New Zealand and they work in multiple district council areas so these provisions will get rid of some of the inconsistencies that they currently face with standard plans. 
Secondly there is also a reduction in the statutory time frame whereby the time for processing a building consent application will be reduced from 20 days to 10 days. That is significant when we consider the amount of time involved in some of those construction projects. Another key purpose of the bill is to differentiate between the major and minor variations to the consented building work which will mean that minor pieces of work do not have to go through a huge drawn-out bureaucratic process and that the amount of time and money involved will be reduced. It is a shame that Mr Shane Jones is not here— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You can’t say that. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: —because I will use an analogy that will help make this point. If we look at the analogy of McDonald’s that company uses a similar approach to standardise what it does. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not think the member needs to make his point of order. Members cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: In terms of this analogy in McDonald’s they have standard recipes and they roll out the recipes up and down the country so it is very efficient it saves costs and it makes it more affordable for members to have a Big Mac. In terms of housing that means Initial Homes can roll out a standard design for one of its homes up and down the country. If customers want to customise their Big Mac and they do not want it with gherkin it is a small variation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is there one in Taupo? 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: What we want to do is make it very simple and very easy for customers with a home from Initial Homes to change a window change where a door is placed or change the use of a room. That is what this bill will do. 
It will also be voluntary for an owner of a building to obtain a project information memorandum from a territorial authority. A project information memorandum is a report provided by a territorial authority to a building consent applicant that provides information about the land and other requirements that might be relevant to a proposed building project. In reality many of these project information memoranda are issued at the building consent stage so it is an additional cost with no value. 
This bill is really important in terms of saving costs making housing far more affordable and more achievable for hard-working New Zealanders. The National Government wants to make sure that through these measures in the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) housing is more effective and more affordable and that the quality is high and that it is efficient to build and construct houses. There is no point having more than one design for one building company that builds these group homes. If we can have one simple plan that is approved up and down the country we will not have the issue of whether it was a McDonald’s in Taupo or in Eketahuna or wherever it was because it will all be the same. That is why this bill makes a lot of sense. 
I hate to admit it but the previous Government did have some sense in introducing this bill but it will be the National Government that takes it over the line. It will be the National Government that reduces compliance costs and red tape. It will be the National Government that makes it easier and more affordable for New Zealanders to get into homes. We are very pleased that this bill is having its second reading. The select committee has been working hard. The submissions have been very much in favour of the bill so that shows that we are on the right track. It is great to see that the select committee members are on the same page and that there is very little dissension in terms of where this bill is heading. 
There was some concern from a member of the Greens that there might be some issues around urban design but in reality it is about getting New Zealanders into affordable housing that is still high quality. I make the point that yes we are talking about driving down and reducing costs and cutting through red tape but we are not talking about compromising quality. It is important that the houses built in New Zealand are of the standard we expect. The measures in this bill that we are talking about do not compromise the quality of housing. Those measures mean that we can build low-cost quality homes. I am very thrilled to stand in support of this bill. It will ensure that home affordability and good-quality housing become an end goal for more of our hard-working ordinary New Zealanders. This bill is the start of a much needed reform of the Building Act and that review is under way. I am thrilled to stand in support of the second reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I will raise a couple of points. I know a number of speakers have gone through the substantive parts of the bill but one of the reasons why I think this bill is so important for New Zealand at the moment is that housing affordability is now a major issue particularly for young people. We have all heard the figure of $20000 as the average cost of compliance per house. That is a massive cost for young people who are trying to get into homeownership. I support this bill because I think it puts us on the road to ensuring that younger people are able to get into their own homes. 
The other point I will make concerns the select committee process. I know that we received a number of submissions from industry bodies private companies Crown entities and community advocate groups. Although we had those submitters the changes to the bill were actually very minor. I acknowledge the work that the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson has put into the bill and also Chris Auchinvole the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I also acknowledge Shane Jones for the work that he did to bring this bill to the House. 
The other thing I will mention in terms of the benefit of this bill is that the changes should also provide greater certainty to councils when they process building consent applications that rely on national multiple-use approvals. That is very important in an electorate like Auckland Central. 
It is also important in the city of Auckland where a number of multiple-use approvals could potentially be made. We have much more on-mass housing than elsewhere and we see that in the city of Auckland and particularly in my electorate of Auckland Central. 
I would also like to comment on some of the substantive parts of the bill. Regarding time frames for processing applications I know the select committee recommended that a time frame of 40 working days be imposed by regulation on the Department of Building and Housing for the processing of applications for national multiple-use approvals. This acknowledges that the processing of these approvals will be a new service. The committee recommended that the regulatory time frame be reviewed within 2 years. The other purpose of this bill is to differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building work so that minor changes can be made without going through a full process and I believe that this will reduce costs and save time. The bill is also about project information memoranda and about making them voluntary. I think that is a very good aspect of this bill. 
From a wider perspective this is part of a package of legislation that is aimed at reducing compliance and regulatory costs in New Zealand. We are working hard on the reform of the Resource Management Act. At a time when businesses are really struggling that reform will enable a reduction in basic compliance and regulation costs for those businesses. A lot of businesses out there are struggling and the message I have received is very clear not only from the building industry in Auckland but also from small businesses of which there are thousands in Auckland and particularly in Auckland Central and which are really looking to be cut some slack. 
That is one of the great things about this bill. Here we see a bill that will enable a reduction in compliance costs and regulation. I believe that we will see the impact quite directly particularly on younger people who are trying to get into housing. Hopefully this will result in a reduction in compliance a reduction in the costs of housing and more affordable housing for young people. Another aspect of the bill that I will touch on includes the reduction in the statutory time frame for the processing of a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes a national multiple-use approval. I know we received a number of submissions on that and I am very supportive of that aspect of the bill. 
Again from a wider perspective this bill is part of our first 100 days in Government. We have simplified and streamlined the Resource Management Act we are reducing consent processing and we are cutting compliance costs. The reform of the Building Act has the same intention as our work on the Resource Management Act and it is part of this Government’s ongoing commitment to cut red tape. At this point I also acknowledge that a number of submitters mentioned that a wider review of the Building Act is needed. That should be part of our second phase of reform which aims to reduce compliance and regulation costs to the industry. Our second phase of reform of the Resource Management Act will focus more on the meaty policy aspects around the environment. 
It is also really important to acknowledge the people who are struggling in the construction and building industry at the moment. The global recession is hurting them and it is not an easy time for them. I think it is important for this House to take the time not only to put through legislation that may in the long run lead to reduced costs in terms of housing but also to think of those people who may be struggling in terms of work. That is why I am very proud of this Government. We are doing everything we can to support small businesses both through reduction of compliance costs and ensuring that those businesses can get access to things like credit. We want to make sure that those workers and businesses stay afloat during times that are tough. 
I reiterate again my support for this legislation. I know a lot of people have worked hard on it not only from this side of the House—and I commend the Minister—but also the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Chris Auchinvole and Shane Jones who was the person who first introduced this legislation. I acknowledge the work on both sides of the House. I acknowledge what this legislation will do for young New Zealanders who may be looking to get into a home in the future and for those small businesses in terms of reducing compliance and regulation. I finish by saying that I commend the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends the Building Act 2004 to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 October 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside of the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(b) and (c). 
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the rights and obligations of both landlords and tenants and provides a way to enforce those rights and obligations. The residential tenancy market has undergone significant change over the 22 years since that Act came into force. More people particularly older people and families with children are renting and they are often renting for longer. The private residential rental market has grown as more people have seen it as an investment opportunity particularly mum and dad landlords. A wider range of rental accommodation is now on offer particularly in terms of apartments and one-third of New Zealand households now live in rental properties. 
The bill updates and clarifies existing rental laws in response to the changes in the structure and nature of the residential rental market. It adjusts the balance of the Residential Tenancies Act enabling landlords to manage their properties effectively and ensuring that tenants have access to stable good-quality accommodation. The bill will protect some of the most vulnerable people—those living in boarding houses—and also address risks for landlords in providing rental accommodation. 
These reforms are long overdue. Both landlords and tenants have been keenly awaiting reform to the tenancy laws since the previous Government commenced a fairly drawn-out review in 2004. That review although well intentioned resulted in the introduction of a bill in May 2008 that would have created inequities added unnecessary cost and adversely affected future provision of rental housing. Not surprisingly given stakeholders’ concerns that bill never progressed even to its first reading. The Minister of Housing Phil Heatley listened to stakeholders’ concerns and acted swiftly and decisively to bring this new improved and more appropriately balanced bill before the House. This Government is intent on ensuring protection for some of the most vulnerable tenants in New Zealand those who live in boarding houses as they are currently not covered by the legislation. We are therefore requesting a shortened report-back time from the select committee. 
This bill will also provide clearer guidance for landlords. Changes to the Act were mooted by the previous Government; this Government is anxious to progress this legislation to give certainty to both tenants and landlords who have been waiting for a long time. We have kept our promise to make sure that renting out houses is not too tough for the thousands of mum and dad property investors who provide houses for almost one-third of the population. We have kept our promise to make sure legislation supports private sector rental options and encourages the supply of affordable and decent rental housing stock. I particularly acknowledge the contributions of time and effort made by the New Zealand Property Investors Federation the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand the Independent Property Managers’ Association the Tenants Protection Association the Manawatu Tenants Union and the Insurance Council of New Zealand towards the development of this bill. 
Key provisions in the bill will extend the Residential Tenancies Act including access to advice information and disputes resolution services to more people involved in renting such as tenants in boarding houses. The bill will clarify the responsibilities for outgoings by introducing overarching principles to indicate when landlords or tenants are responsible for charges such as rates or water rates. It will introduce clearer and fairer processes for terminating and renewing tenancies to provide an appropriate balance between flexibility and certainty of tenure. It will encourage landlords and tenants to comply with their obligations under the Act by increasing the value of existing fines and exemplary damages and by introducing new sanctions. It will provide for most tenancy disputes to be resolved quickly fairly and cost-effectively and it will improve the enforceability of Tenancy Tribunal orders. The bill allows changes to be phased in reflecting the fact that some will require a period of adjustment by landlords and tenants or indeed by both. 
I shall now outline the key changes contained in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It will extend the Residential Tenancies Act’s coverage to more people who are renting such as tenants in boarding houses and tenants in accommodation where more than 20 percent of their rent is for meals cleaning or other services provided. This will give those many thousands of tenants access to the same advice information and disputes resolution services as is available to other people who rent. 
In the case of boarding houses some of the rights and obligations of tenants will differ from those of other tenants because of the different dynamics created by communal living. These differences include the way tenancies are terminated the process for dealing with abandoned goods and the ability for landlords to make house rules. Boarding-house landlords will be able to take bonds from their tenants in the same way that other landlords may do so but the amount of the bond will dictate whether it is required to be lodged with the Department of Building and Housing. Extending coverage to premises where meals or other services are provided will ensure that there is an adequate consumer protection for people renting units in places such as retirement villages. The rules applicable to such tenancies will be the same as for general tenancies. 
The bill clarifies responsibility for outgoings by introducing overarching principles under which landlords will be responsible for charges that are incurred regardless of whether the premises are occupied such as rates and insurance. Tenants will be responsible for charges that can be directly attributable to their occupancy of the premises such as water use. The introduction of these overarching principles will address a frequent cause of misunderstanding and dispute and will ensure that the Act’s provisions are flexible enough to accommodate any future charging regimes adopted by utility and service providers. 
The bill introduces fairer and clearer processes for terminating and renewing tenancies. It provides greater certainty to landlords and tenants by providing for fixed-term tenancies to automatically convert to periodic tenancies when they expire unless the parties enter a new fixed-term agreement or give advance notice that they do not want the tenancy to continue. Landlords will be required to state a reason when terminating a periodic tenancy on less than 90 days’ notice in order to ensure that their grounds for termination are valid. The bill will give a party the ability to end a tenancy on short notice where the premises become uninhabitable due to a breach of the tenancy agreement and where that other party is the landlord it enables a tenant to stop paying rent. 
The bill clarifies the status of a tenancy when a sole tenant dies and it provides a range of options for terminating the tenancy. This will provide an appropriate balance between enabling landlords to regain possession of premises following a tenant’s death and providing friends and family with time to grieve or to negotiate a new tenancy. The bill also requires the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy on application by a landlord where a tenant has permitted his or her associates to assault or threaten specific persons including the tenant’s landlord and neighbours. It also clarifies the circumstances in which the tribunal can terminate the tenancy for rent arrears. 
The bill increases the amount of fines and damages payable for some breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure the sanctions are meaningful and provide sufficient deterrent value. As is the case with owner-occupied properties the standard of rental housing is variable and some landlords take up an unplanned and unsystematic approach to maintaining it. 
This bill brings our residential tenancies law up to date in wide-ranging areas. It addresses the changes that have occurred in the tenancy market over the past 22 years. It strikes an appropriate balance between the different rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. It clarifies those rights and obligations and it provides incentives to make them easier to enforce. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand to speak to the first reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. 
This legislation is a very good example of the many differences between National and Labour and between the way National and Labour approach the issue of housing which is a core issue for the Labour Party. National often claims to be the party of aspiration but it has never understood that aspiration is not simply about personal freedoms and being able to reach out to grasp the opportunity that is there. National members have never really understood that for some people that is just not the reality of their lives. One of the reasons why I joined the Labour Party was that it stood for policies that brought stability and security. Those are two of the most important things that our families businesses and communities can have. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Spare us your clichés and get on with it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: There goes nasty Mr Finlayson—off he goes! 
Labour supports security of employment. Labour has always supported security of employment. Labour does not believe that people should be fired in the first 90 days for something that is absolutely not their fault and that they do not have to be given a reason. Labour believes in security and stability of income; in the minimum wage being increased every year; in Working for Families; in paid parental leave; and in putting redundancy provisions in the law which my colleague Darien Fenton’s Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill does. Labour supports security in the community which is not about falling prey to ineffective knee-jerk reactions to law and order but about actually addressing the causes of crime and creating safer communities. And Labour has always supported security and stability of tenancy in housing. 
Labour appreciates that a home is incredibly important to a family and that it is what people build their families upon. For many people in the rental market homeownership is not a reality and we need to provide them with security of tenancy. The Government needs to make sure that the law also reflects tenants’ need for stability as well as a landlord’s need for stability. Of course this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is Labour legislation once again. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that it has been changed; members should let me get there. The consultation on this bill started in 2004. Members heard Minister Maurice Williamson speaking as Acting Minister of Housing say that the process had been drawn-out. Well this is an incredibly complex area of law. It covers many many people. The law had not been updated for a long time and Labour wanted to do it properly. We know that the National Government’s approach to consultation is to ram through legislation under urgency and to not ask the community what it thinks. That certainly was not the previous Government’s approach. 
But obviously there is a lot in this bill that Labour agrees with and believes should be done. Labour agrees—because we wrote the legislation—that the jurisdiction of the law should be extended to protect tenants living in boarding houses. Labour believes that we need clarification over who has responsibility for outgoings. Labour also believes that there should be clearer processes for terminating and reviewing tenancies and for encouraging landlords and tenants to comply with their obligations. Labour wants to see tenancy disputes resolved more quickly and at less cost and we want to improve the enforceability of Tenancy Tribunal orders. That is why Labour put those provisions in this bill when we drafted it. That is why Labour will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. But Labour will not give its ongoing support for the bill unless significant changes are made to it in the select committee because they are definitely required. 
We in Labour say that the new Minister of Housing is acting a little bit like a cuckoo. He is constantly going into other people’s nests and claiming that they are his. He claimed that this bill was a result of his desire to quickly bring a review of this law to the House. Well of course that was after the 4 years Labour spent reviewing tenancy law and doing all the work and the consultation. Then the cuckoo Mr Phil Heatley jumped into the nest and claimed that it was his. Labour has seen that with the Tamaki Transformation Programme where Labour did all the work and made sure that it brought together all sectors of the community. Labour got the programme to the point where it could go ahead and then the cuckoo jumped into the nest and claimed that it was his. I look forward to Mr Heatley bringing an original piece of work to this House rather than constantly taking Labour policy and changing it—in this case making changes that Labour believes are not necessary and will in fact damage the situation in law at the moment. 
New Zealand needs legislation that protects tenants and landlords regardless of the Government of the day. That is a very important point because at the moment we have a Minister of Housing who has told the Housing New Zealand Corporation that he wants certain undesirable tenants to be removed from Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. Members saw today that people who are on bail have been told they will not be able to apply for a Housing New Zealand Corporation house regardless of the fact that they might be innocent. Apparently the Housing New Zealand Corporation can be the judge and jury. It can decide that someone is guilty before his or her case is heard in a court of law and therefore should not be allowed in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house. Given the long time it can take for a hearing to come before the court this situation might mean that a parent will have to remove himself or herself from the family. The parent will want his or her family to be able to go into a Housing New Zealand Corporation house but the parent is not eligible and his or her family will become ineligible if the parent stays with them. We think that that is appalling under the law. It is for that reason that Labour will work very hard in the select committee to ensure that protections are put in place to improve that situation and to make sure that Governments that want to purge Housing New Zealand Corporation houses of people whom those Governments consider to be undesirable tenants are not able to do so under the law of the day. 
The Minister of Housing claims that this bill is just about balance about making sure that the Government gets the balance right. Certainly that is the case with this type of legislation. But Labour believes that the changes the Minister of Housing has made to the legislation that we originally introduced to the House have pushed the balance too far in the wrong direction. This bill ignores the balance of power between tenants and landlords as National also did in employment relations law when it ignored the balance of power between employers and employees. Labour will be seeking to address the imbalance at the select committee. 
I will talk about one particular clause—clause 35 “Termination on non-payment of rent damage or assault”—because it is relevant in terms of the actions that we have seen recently from the Housing New Zealand Corporation in evicting tenants. The clause basically states that the Housing New Zealand Corporation can go to the Tenancy Tribunal to evict anyone who “has assaulted or has threatened to assault or has caused or permitted any person to assault or to threaten to assault any of the following persons” which are the landlord any member of his or her family or any neighbours. On the surface of it that seems perfectly reasonable. From what members have seen from the Minister of Housing the clause will obviously apply mostly to Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. If a tenant in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house is being threatening or breaking the law then obviously that situation needs to be dealt with. But the fact is that what members have seen so far is that there is no defence under this clause. The evicted tenant does not have the opportunity to defend himself or herself. 
Labour knows that the Minister of Housing had to introduce clause 35 because the Tenancy Tribunal told him it would not uphold an eviction order under the Residential Tenancies Act in the case of the Housing New Zealand tenants out in the Hutt Valley. The Minister of Housing has to pass this clause if he wants to be able to evict people easily. But the fact is that people are not being given the opportunity to defend themselves. They are not being given the opportunity to put their side of the story. There may well be a situation where someone who does not like his or her neighbour just pops up and says to the Housing New Zealand Corporation “They had a gang member boyfriend who came around. That person intimidated me.” Before any of that is investigated or before any criminal claims are put before a court that family could be evicted just because a neighbour does not like them for some reason or another. Labour does not think that is adequate protection under the law and we will work hard in the select committee to require that this clause be changed to make it clear that that is not what the law intends. 
One of my biggest concerns is that there might be a case of a woman who has been brave enough to take her family—her children—out of a gang environment and into a Housing New Zealand Corporation State house then suddenly the gang member boyfriend comes to her house and is intimidatory and really angry because she left. The neighbours get really upset and they ring up the Housing New Zealand Corporation and say the gang member boyfriend has come around and has been threatening people in the community. According to what the Minister of Housing has already sanctioned and according to this clause that family can be evicted with no recourse and with no questions asked by the Minister of Housing as to what their real situation was. We could see women who have been brave and courageous enough to remove their families and children from those situations evicted from Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. Labour believes that those people are the very people Housing New Zealand Corporation houses are there for and those families are the very families the Government needs to protect. Labour will be working to change this clause when the bill goes to the select committee. 
I will talk briefly about what is not in the bill because that is very important as well. Labour wanted to have professional advocates for tenants going to Tenancy Tribunal hearings. The reason Labour wanted that is that no one can tell me that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is not a professional advocate. Of course it is a professional advocate. There is a huge imbalance of power when a tenant goes into a Tenancy Tribunal hearing against the Housing New Zealand Corporation or one of the many landlord groups that represent landlords. Labour wants the law to allow tenants to have someone go to the hearing with them who is up at that same level as the landlords in order to make sure that that balance is right. That provision has been removed from this bill. 
The Minister of Housing talked about the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill which my colleague Maryan Street brought to this House. He said how terrible it was. The provision in that bill was going to be in this bill under Labour. It would have made sure that if one tenant caused serious damage to a house then the rest of the house’s tenants who had no part in the damage and no ability to stop it were not held liable. That provision was based on a case in Dunedin where a flat was set on fire by one particular flatmate. The flatmate claimed full responsibility and full liability for the fire but the insurance company pursued all four other flatmates whose names were on the tenancy agreement even though they were not in the house at the time had nothing to do with the fire and could not have stopped it if they had wanted to. The flatmate had admitted liability but the insurance company decided that it was not going to get the hundred and whatever thousand dollars from the one guy and it would be better to spread it out across all of them so it pursued them. One young man ended up being pursued for 4 years by the insurance company and was eventually made bankrupt. 
This Government says that is OK. This Government says that is all right. Labour put that provision in the original bill—and Mr Williamson might want to reflect on the words he said about my colleague Maryan Street—because that situation is not OK. It could have been fixed very easily by what Labour tried to do under the original bill. That provision came from a court case in which the judge said the law was incredibly unjust. 
Labour will support this bill going to the select committee because it is a Labour bill. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the first reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It is a bill that the Social Services Committee will welcome. The Hon Maurice Williamson has outlined the purpose of the bill and I begin by saying that it is clear that both National and Labour believe that an amendment bill is necessary. On that point we have some agreement; there are also many points on which we differ. 
One of the first interesting points I will make is that significant changes in the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market have taken place. The number of people living in rental housing has increased with a corresponding decline in homeownership rates. One-third of New Zealanders are renting their homes. Of those people 81 percent rent from a private landlord or trust and 19 percent rent from a public landlord such as the Housing New Zealand Corporation or a local authority. Because 15 months is the average duration of tenancy it is important that we put in place some amendments to residential tenancies so that we can deal with and meet the needs of people who are in that position. Fifteen months is a very short average duration of tenancy. It is interesting to know that in my own electorate of Rangitata 20 percent of households are paying rent. 
Landlords have changed over time. There has been significant growth in the private rental sector as a proportion of the total rental sector including more private landlords. Demographic changes have meant there is an increase in the proportion of family households and older sole people in rental housing for longer periods of time and sometimes throughout their lifetime. 
This bill is entirely necessary. It sets out some significant changes from the original intentions that Labour had for this amendment bill. These intentions set out the differences between the two parties but we believe that we will meet the needs of tenants in a much safer and more appropriate manner. I look forward to seeing this bill in the select committee. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I was very pleased to see the Hon Maurice Williamson bring the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to the House for its first reading tonight. He spoke about another bill this evening. I think this is the most work he has done since he arrived here in 1987. In fact he has probably gone off for a quiet rest now. He has done far more today than he has ever done. 
I am really pleased that this bill is going to the Social Services Committee because Labour will make sure it is well scrutinised. About 44 percent of my friend and colleague Ross Robertson’s constituents live in rental houses. It is over 40 percent in my electorate of Manurewa. When so many people are in residential tenancies of various sorts one needs to be sure that what the Social Services Committee does with this bill will make life better for many New Zealanders. At the moment I do not think it does. However with Moana Mackey on the select committee things will be straightened out somewhat. 
I was interested to hear the last speaker Jo Goodhew say that the average tenancy in New Zealand is only 15 months. That demonstrates why legislation is needed. These people are quite often the ones who are least able to protect themselves. There are some landlords who are not the best. A lot of our landlords are very good but it takes only one or two bad landlords for the whole lot get bad press. We have many people coming to our electorate offices—and I am sure that Ross Robertson’s is the same as mine—about tenancies and bad landlords including unfortunately the Housing New Zealand Corporation. I think that one of the big problems is that some tenants do not know what their commitments are. Yes we sometimes hear that people in State houses do not look after those houses as well as they should. But that is mainly because they do not know what their obligations are or the Housing New Zealand Corporation does not get on with repairs to its houses. 
I was interested to hear what Moana Mackey said about section 35 I think it was. We have mothers with young children come into our electorate offices who are trying to escape from bad partnerships marriages etc. and they want help to get a State house so they can start their life over again. But quite often these people are hounded by gang members who are former partners. Who is going to stand up to a member of the Mongrel Mob and his mates or to a member of Black Power and his mates or any of the other gangs? In the end these people are put under enormous pressure and I think that this is one area that the select committee will need to look at very closely. 
I think there is general agreement that changes need to be made. It is the fine detail in legislation such as this that makes the real difference. When landlords go to hearings they can usually afford to have the best of advice. However a lot of tenants cannot. That means that quite often wealth determines the outcome. I think we also need to remember that when we talk about the obligations of people renting properties we are often talking about the poorest people in New Zealand. Yes many people dream of owning their own home but the reality for many is that that is not an option. If these people fall victim to bad landlords then the whole family suffers. It is interesting to note that people want stable quality housing whether they rent it or own it. If we want good families in New Zealand we have to make sure that there is stable quality housing available for all New Zealanders. 
People want security in their housing. People want stability in their housing. That is why I was somewhat alarmed when the last speaker said that 15 months was the length of the average tenancy. That seems a very very short time. But when one looks at some electorates and sees the turnover in population in areas where there are a large number of rental homes such as in Manukau East Mangere Manurewa and Botany we see so many kids going into schools and coming out of schools. That is something that is often very visible and it means that a family does not have the security and the stability that it needs. Yes it is very easy to talk about bad tenants and bad landlords but both are a minority. We have mainly good tenants and good landlords. This bill will toughen up on some of the actual fines etc. It is sad that we have to go to a system of fines. There are disputes over things such as the cost of water and who pays for it. Landlords can but rarely do impose accounts on tenants for which those tenants are not responsible under their tenancy agreements. 
So it is very important that the bill goes to a select committee. Landlords will come along and make their submissions. Many of the people who live in rental properties will not do that. They possibly will not even know about it. But luckily we have some groups in the community that look out for these people. Usually they are volunteers although on Thursday they will probably find out that they will not have so much money to do that work any more. It is important that these people are heard by the select committee. I hope it will not be a rushed job where if there are lots of submissions people are given only 5 minutes to speak. We saw that with the submissions on the Resource Management Act when people were limited in the amount of time in which they had to put forward their submissions. It is really important that this bill is sent to the Social Services Committee. I will conclude by saying again how good it is to see that the Hon Maurice Williamson who has been here since 1987 had his big day today. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Way back in the 1999-2002 Parliament I sat on the Social Services Committee and heard submissions on a Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill that for the first time aimed at providing better protection for landlords and tenants especially in boarding-house situations. Our committee travelled the length of the country to hear many submissions and spent weeks on consideration of the matters involved. Then the bill simply disappeared into thin air never to be seen again. I thought that this was a great pity after all the work that MPs officials and submitters—and there were many of them—had done on it. So it was with surprise and interest that I noted the return of a Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill—at last—to Parliament under Labour last year and now a different version of the bill this year with National. In a qualified kind of way I look forward to going through the whole process again albeit with somewhat different raw material to work with than the first time around. 
The Green Party is sorry that some of Labour’s original provisions have been lost—for example agents losing the right to charge a letting fee a limit on tenants’ liability for property damage and allowing for payment for professional tenant advocates at tenancy tribunal hearings. 
The latest manifestation of the bill is complex proposing a large number of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. The Green Party supports some of these amendments. For example there is clarification of a whole lot of comparatively minor matters such as provisions relating to the address for service of documents relating to tenancies the fact that landlords must give a reason for terminating a periodic tenancy with fewer than 90 days’ notice the provision that an agreement for sale and purchase must be unconditional before a landlord can give 42 days’ notice and the requirement that a landlord who is overseas for more than 21 days has to appoint an agent. 
However the bigger issue here is that once again the Government is moving to bring boarding houses under the residential tenancies legislation—something the Green Party has always supported. Although we welcome this first step we are also concerned that the bill’s provisions are woefully inadequate in so far as providing security of tenure for boarding-house residents is concerned. In terms of the bill as it has evolved now the devil is in the detail. For example the provisions for landlords to give notice of termination of boarding-house tenancies risk increasing homelessness. The bill provides that a boarding-house landlord can give 28 days’ notice of termination for no reason at all and we believe that tenants deserve greater security of tenure than this implies. 
Clauses permitting a boarding-house landlord to end a tenancy with no notice period whatsoever if the tenant merely threatens to cause disruption to other tenants are potentially subject to abuse. Many people who live in boarding houses are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are often under financial stress and at times coping with physical mental or intellectual impairment. Boarding-house residents deserve the same sensitivity—and in same cases even greater sensitivity—from the law and from landlords that other citizens receive because of these vulnerabilities. I do not think they should be subject to immediate eviction just because in a heated moment they have for example made a comment threatening disruption. 
The 48-hour termination of a boarding-house tenancy if the tenant is more than 7 days in arrears with the rent is also unduly harsh. There are times when tenants will get behind with their rent—for example because of difficulties with Work and Income. Often enough this is because of problems caused by the department rather than by the beneficiary. Such issues can take time to work out and I can see no reason why the 3-week arrears requirement that applies to other residential tenancies before a tenancy can be terminated by the landlord should not apply in the case of boarding houses. 
Provisions in the bill concerning the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of a tenant do nothing to improve the current situation where a caregiving relative is suddenly evicted from his or her home following the death of a family member for whom he or she has been caring. Relatives of a tenant in these circumstances deserve I believe to have at least some security of tenure when the tenant dies even if this is under tightly limited conditions. 
The bill continues and increases from $3000 to $6000 the monetary threshold for the right to legal representation in the Tenancy Tribunal and carries on with the current unfair provisions that permit a corporate landlord to be otherwise represented by an experienced tenancy manager. At the same time the tenant who often knows little or nothing about tenancy law and may well have English as a second language or literacy difficulties is forced to represent himself or herself. This places many people at an unfair disadvantage in Tenancy Tribunal proceedings in a situation where the power imbalance is already significant. 
I hope that during the select committee process and when the bill comes back to the House some of us may be able to persuade a majority of members to amend the bill in a number of areas in ways that will significantly improve it including making provision for tenant advocates as the Labour bill originally intended. Indeed the Green Party would like to have seen a bill before the House tonight that was much closer to Labour’s original bill. We would also like to have seen the shifting of standard tenancy conditions towards more secure and predictable tenure arrangements and the provision of a simple legal framework for long-term as well as short-term tenancies. We are sorry that the bill does not make more progress in this direction. 
However on balance the Green Party has decided to support the bill through its first reading. I will put my energies into listening to submissions and hopefully working with others to ensure that this bill comes back to the House in an improved form before too much time goes by. 
In the time since the first version of this bill came before Parliament all those years ago a lot has changed in the housing situation in this country. More than a million people rent around 450000 properties at this time and the proportion of those of us renting as opposed to those living in their own homes is increasing constantly as homeownership continues to be impossibly out of the reach of many. At a time like this it behoves all of us in the House to work together to improve the legislative framework around the residential rental market for the protection of owners and tenants alike. I hope that a spirit of fairness and justice will underpin our consideration of this bill as we move towards a society in which renting becomes much more the norm than it was in earlier generations and in which it will become even more important that equity and clear process underpin all legislation in this area. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the first reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to take a short call on the bill which will hopefully go some way towards rebalancing the relationship between tenant and landlord. The Act that this bill amends by modern standards is a fairly ancient one. The Act was passed in 1986 and from my memory this is the first time it has been amended. In 1986 we had the Lange-Douglas Labour Government and the Act was a beacon of simplicity and good drafting in its time. But as speakers on both sides have said the market has changed and the nature of renting has changed in the 23 years since the Act was passed. 
This amendment bill began life under the previous Labour Government but was withdrawn by the Minister who is now in charge of the bill the Hon Phil Heatley for very good reasons. It has undergone a substantial rewrite and I commend the Minister and his officials for the work that has gone into improving it and for discussing with our staff the changes proposed. 
I will point out one particular aspect of Labour’s original bill that was removed. But before I do so I will touch on the speech of the previous speaker Sue Bradford. Although she carefully couched the relationship between tenant and landlord as not being a one-sided relationship and said there were some bad tenants as well the landlord and tenant relationship is sadly often portrayed by members on that side of the House as the landlord being a horrid Victorian chap wearing a dark overcoat and appearing out of the gloom to suck the widow’s mite for the rent that is overdue and the hapless tenant as simply the victim of big bad Bill the landlord. The reality of course is very different. There are big bad tenants as well. I am afraid I do not have too much sympathy for gang member tenants who might be subjected to changes under Housing New Zealand Corporation policy but I digress slightly. 
The part that has been removed from the original Labour bill is the one that limited recourse to landlords to the 4-week maximum bond in the case of damage done to the property. Four weeks does not represent a lot of rent and if that provision had stayed in the landlord would have few avenues for recourse if the tenant left the property in a more damaged state than a 4-week bond could cover. It is not hard to do such damage. Sadly Mr Taito Phillip Field is no longer in Parliament to tell Labour members of some of the perils of owning rental properties but if members opposite had listened to property owners in their electorates they would have heard grave concerns being expressed about that part of the bill. 
Most people in this country who invest in property are not the stereotype we think of when we hear the term “property investor”. In fact I believe that even some Labour members are property investors in the sense that they own a nest egg rental property. People who invest in property are by and large mum and dad investors as the Minister said in his speech. They own their own home and one additional property—or perhaps two if they are really entrepreneurial—which is their primary investment their nest egg and their security for retirement. All too often those nest eggs are wrecked by unruly and uncaring tenants. 
We will not hear it said from members on the other side but it would break members’ hearts to hear some of the stories of landlords of reasonable people whose lives have been ruined by their tenants—tenants who have gutted flats of all fixtures and fittings and have even removed the floorboards tenants who have turned their houses or flats into tinny houses or P labs and tenants who have ruined the property’s market value by damage or criminal activity. Labour’s provisions would have made it difficult if not impossible for landlords to seek further compensation. For that reason I am very pleased that the Minister the Hon Phil Heatley has recognised the challenges that so many landlords—the mum and dad investors in this country—face. I am happy to speak in support of this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare e hoa ma i tenei po. The housing market has traditionally been one of the key markers of well-being within society. Some reports indicate that citizens advice bureaux deal with about 60 tenancy-related inquiries a day the bulk of those being about tenancy agreements disputes and bonds. For Maori the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords is a particularly relevant area for review in the context of declining rates of homeownership. Using 2006 census data it can be seen that only 6.7 percent of the number of those who own or partly own their homes are Maori—some 29 percent of the total Maori population. This is a dramatic drop from the data of 2001 where the homeownership rate for Maori was 48.1 percent of the Maori population. The Maori Party is therefore particularly concerned to look out for the life situations for some 67 percent of Maori who rent their homes. 
This bill is set up to care for both sides of the tenancy relationship as other speakers have talked about—encouraging stable tenancies in decent homes while also enabling landlords to better manage them. The passing of the Residential Tenancies Act about 23 years ago now provided the entry point for tightening up the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords. But there were some notable and glaring omissions particularly in relation to those living in boarding houses who continued to move regularly and had few protections in place. 
During the process of researching this legislation I came across a number of horror stories. There was the case of a landlord who insisted that one of his boarders a female migrant should share a room with a new male boarder. She refused and moved out immediately but without being given her bond back because the landlord stipulated that he needed 2 weeks’ notice. There was also the case of the boarder who was informed that the boarding house he lived in was being sold. His landlord wanted him to sign an agreement to stay there for a fixed period and to direct his sickness benefit into the landlord’s bank account. On the other hand there are cases of tenants causing all sorts of havoc to properties such as in Dargaville a couple of years ago when a tenant accidentally burnt a house to the ground while attempting to manufacture P. 
We in the Maori Party will support any moves to review tenancy laws and will seek to ensure that an appropriate balance between tenants’ and landlords’ rights and obligations is provided for in law. We are pleased to be extending the protection of the existing Act to boarding houses. Boarding-house tenants and general residential tenants are not vastly different yet it would appear that for far too long boarding-house tenancies have been afforded fewer rights than general residential tenancies. We know that many boarding houses are often poorly funded and poorly resourced with very little private space and tenants usually share kitchens and bathrooms. Boarding houses may be run down and unsafe with little security. Our young people are often particularly vulnerable in such settings. 
The protections are quite specific and include health and safety standards security house rules access to advice information and disputes resolution services and the requirement that minimum rights and obligations are clear adequate and readily enforceable. This is a very positive step long called for by housing advocates. The Coalition to End Homelessness has recommended that there is a need to improve the standard of boarding houses in New Zealand a standard that is generally very poor. 
Any useful definition of homelessness must include those people who move from one form of insecure accommodation to another and those living in inadequate boarding houses as well as those living on the streets. We are pleased that an initiative has been established to provide some support to our more vulnerable. The bill will enable a staged implementation to allow time for the education of boarding-house landlords regarding the new provisions which we think is good. Housing New Zealand Corporation is also planning to meet with community organisations and with tenants to advise them of the changes. Both decisions suggest that the Minister is committed to giving the affected communities time to consider the implications of this bill. 
The bill also introduces provisions to better protect tertiary student tenants in student accommodation. The bill proposes that tertiary education providers will be required to have agreements with accommodation providers that include disputes resolution processes. Accommodation providers must also have appropriate house rules in place and ensure that student tenants have access to them. In our approaches to the New Zealand University Students Association and Te Mana Akonga the National Maori student body we were told that there have been too many incidents where private accommodation providers for tertiary students have not treated their tenants fairly and have offered accommodation with low service provision of poor quality and with inadequate safety and security. This bill therefore provides a better level of protection for tertiary students staying in student accommodation provided by private providers. 
The bill also sets in motion some changes that we consider are about making the legislation work better. It introduces clearer processes for terminating and reviewing tenancies it will encourage landlords and tenants to comply with their obligations it seeks to improve the enforceability of Tenancy Tribunal orders and it will supposedly provide for the majority of tenancy disputes to be resolved quickly fairly and cost-effectively. 
But this is where we have one of our major issues with the bill. There was a commitment in the Government’s response to the report of the Commerce Committee on the inquiry into housing affordability in New Zealand that the Government will work to ensure that New Zealanders are able to access affordable rental housing. We asked where affordability fitted in when the threshold rose. The bill introduces a new threshold of $6000 for the automatic right to have legal representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. We believe that this is a very high threshold. For many of the constituents I have to deal with $500 would be large enough. We think that that is worth some consideration. Although we understand that tenants and landlords can apply for this right if the situation is complex or if there is a disparity of inexperience and resources between the parties the onus is always on the individual having the required level of knowledge and confidence to put forward his or her case. For us the key question is how the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill will improve the fairness and quality of residential tenancies. 
I have to say in closing that we will support this bill at its first reading because we believe a number of positive provisions have been introduced to enforce the rights and obligations faced by tenants and landlords in tenancies. We will be listening keenly at the select committee to see whether these provisions are sufficient to make the changes we need to achieve affordable rental accommodation that balances the rights of both tenants and landlords. Kia ora tatou. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and to recommend it to the House in its first reading. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2009. As the Minister for Building and Construction said the housing market has changed dramatically and there are any number of different types of arrangements available to people to use the rental market for their needs. It is time to update this legislation. In doing so we should keep in mind that we are talking about the one place in our lives that gives us stability. It is the one place we all try to create where we can house our children be ourselves and develop a base from which to participate in society. It is one place where we can be safe and make sure that our loved ones are safe as well. This is also the base from which we as individuals friends and families care for each other. From there we care for our family members those who come to visit us our elderly and those who might need us in different amounts from time to time. Therefore our home is very important and it is no less important for the individual family or couple that enters the rental market for whatever reason whether by choice or by need. 
John Hayes 
: Or caring landlords. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I will come to that. So it is very important to us from the point of view I have just described. 
The home is important to the tenant and the home in all of its complexity exerts very powerful influences on who we are on our lives and on our successes. At the same time a person who saves money decides to purchase a property as an investment and makes it available to a tenant—whether the tenant is a family or an individual—has also made sacrifices and he or she is entitled to expect a fair return on their investment. Those are the two sides of the rental market in all of its forms. Stripped of all of its complexity there are two competing needs. One is for the investor to get a fair return and to make sure his property is well provided; secondly there is the need for the tenant to continue to live and do the things from their base that we all take for granted. Our tenancy legislation provides a fair balance between those two needs. This amendment bill establishes those rules and clarifies the responsibilities for each party. So the bill has many very good provisions and it addresses the changes that have taken place in that particular market. For example protection is extended under this bill to those tenants who live in boarding houses. We had not thought about them for a long time and the boarding houses that I remember from when I visited many people living in them both in my professional life and in my student days were a very mixed bag. The protections of this bill will be extended to that environment as well. 
The bill also clarifies responsibilities for outgoings by introducing overarching principles to indicate when landlords and tenants are responsible for charges such as rates and electricity. The bill introduces a clearer and fairer process for terminating and renewing tenancies to provide an appropriate balance between flexibility and certainty of tenure. So there are many good things to manage that tension between the needs of the tenant and the expectations of the landlord. The bill encourages landlords and tenants to comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act by increasing the value of existing fines and exemplary damages in producing new censures. It provides for the majority of tenancy disputes to be resolved quickly. There are many provisions that are very useful. 
We know that things can go wrong in tenancy agreements. When they do we require a fair process by which those disputes can be resolved. The proposals here do not give me the confidence that for example there is sufficient assistance by way of advocacy for a tenant who may or may not be in a position to deal with the kinds of difficulties that arise and whether we have given enough thought to that particular situation. I am pleased that the bill will go before the Social Services Committee and we will be looking to see whether the balance we seek between those two sets of competing demands is there and whether the provisions are tilted towards the interests of one and not the other. For example turfing anybody out of a home for whatever reason is a very serious matter and it is not just an economic consideration that needs to be put in place. A system needs to occur that tries to balance those two needs. It ought to address the various aspects of that balance. 
So what systems are in place? We need to inquire into those systems. Some are proposed in this particular legislation but are they the right ones? Certainly as a member of the Social Services Committee I am interested to see what those who have more experience in the contemporary market are saying about this. What are the more modern ways of solving disputes? When a landlord turfs out a family with children for whatever reason—whatever it is that the adults have done to compromise the living environments of the vulnerable members of the family—then in a decent society we balance their rights with those two means. We should try to develop a system that does not favour one side over the other. I know at times that might be difficult. Here we are we have provisions in this bill for when somebody in the home has assaulted somebody else and those provisions then are in a sense quite Draconian. Are they the appropriate ones? Are they the ones that will work? We should at least ask advocates of some sort from both sides who have conceded right from the beginning that there are these two competing needs: those of the investor or the landlord and those of the families that occupy the residence. In a decent society the interests of both are important but certainly the interests of the vulnerable members of a particular family are as important as those of the landlord. 
In the select committee we ought to inquire beyond the proposed provisions of this particular amendment bill and into those systems and whether they should be revamped and or improved. I shall listen very carefully to those who present from their particular experiences and I give an assurance that it will be in the interests of the landlords and those who have made an investment as well as of those families and individuals who are likely to suffer tremendous harm if we do not get that balance right. For example children and vulnerable women who are turfed out into the street and into worse accommodation create for us as a society a bigger bill that somewhere down the track we have to provide money for. We will have to make provisions to address their situation as well. There are some very important competing demands that we shall be looking at in the select committee. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill deals with many issues of great importance to people in my electorate of Hamilton West. I commend it to the House and I wish the Social Services Committee well in its deliberations. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the debate this evening since the House resumed after the dinner break and I am interested to know whether under Standing Order 261 the bill is compliant with the Standing Orders in that respect. I have not seen any evidence of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Attorney-General has not presented a paper. Consequently the bill is in order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my experience it works the other way. The Cabinet legislation committee gets an indication from the Attorney-General and there can therefore be an assurance from the Leader of the House that that indication has been given. There is clearly some doubt on this issue. As for how it could be solved I am not sure whether as has been the case in the past the Leader of the House chairs the Cabinet legislation committee but I can certainly remember Michael Cullen doing that at the time when he was Leader of the House. It was something that he both in the period that he was Attorney-General— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am seeking advice from the Clerk but I will call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Raising this issue is a time-wasting effort on the part of the Opposition. You have ruled appropriately about the bill’s compliance. Your ruling should stand. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am seeking advice and it will be final. As far as I am aware and as far as the advice goes the bill is in order and that is what I have already ruled. But I will seek advice to make sure that we are right by speaking to the Clerk and then the ruling will stand. 
The situation is that if the Attorney-General had felt that this bill did not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act he would have presented a paper. As that is not the case the bill is in order. We will now proceed. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is a Government bill that reintroduces many aspects of a previous Labour bill but with some changes that we find very unpalatable. In speaking to the bill I indicate as previous colleagues have said that we will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. But during that process we will be scrutinising a number of issues very very carefully. Of course that scrutiny will be made difficult by the shortened period of time that this bill will have at the select committee. This is an example of a number of other situations where we have seen an abuse of the select committee process by the Government. So straight up front I again raise some concerns about the process that is being used by the Government when it is dealing with legislation. 
In this particular case we are talking about legislation that is very complex and of fundamental importance. As my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad said this bill recognises changes to the residential rental market since the Residential Tenancies Act came into force in 1986. Those changes are very very important and fundamental demographic changes that for example reflect the increase in the proportion of people who live in rental houses and the consequent decline in homeownership rates. As I said earlier this evening when speaking on the previous bill that was before the House this is an issue of affordable housing. The fact that more people are in rental housing is a direct consequence of the lack of affordable housing. I explained to members opposite earlier that the previous Labour Government put in place many initiatives to try to change that trend to make sure that housing was affordable and to make sure we provided a range of different ways that people could purchase their own home. Certainly I would challenge the current Government to consider that matter. There is a need to ensure that housing ownership is affordable for more New Zealanders. 
In preparing for the discussion on the earlier bill I looked at a very interesting article which I would recommend to the members opposite called “A shortage of living room” by Geoff Cumming and published in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on Saturday 2 May. In that article he goes into quite a lot of analysis of what is going on with regard to the housing market looking at a number of initiatives around affordable housing. He concludes that the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley must have ordered a go-slow in terms of affordable housing. And of course he draws our attention to the attitude of the Prime Minister John Key to affordable housing. In Mr Key’s own electorate he stopped I think 500 affordable houses being built because he did not want them to be in his neighbourhood thank you very much. 
The lack of affordable housing is one of the important changes that have happened that require a review of the principal Act. The other change—again Dr Rajen Prasad started to discuss this—is the increase in private sector landlords in the period since 1986. There are more private sector landlords and many of them as Dr Prasad said are indeed small landlords if you like: people who maybe have one property—like my mother—that is rented out. It is important that that is protected. That rental property is their investment in which they have often invested their life savings. So the issue is about having a balance. 
The important thing here though as well as having that balance and protecting the landlord’s property is the very very fundamental nature of housing: the fact that housing is where people live. They live and bring up their children there. Providing stable housing is something that we have long valued in this country; indeed over 70 years ago the Labour Government brought in State housing in direct recognition of the fact that having decent-quality housing was a fundamental right for New Zealanders. We recognised that that was important. We did not want people to live in slums; we did not want them to live in squalor. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Well the State houses are slums. You left the State houses as slums. You couldn’t repair them for 9 years. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Well actually there was significant investment by the previous Government in upgrading State houses. I would be very happy to go through the statistics with the members opposite. Although I have already done that earlier this evening if members would like me to do it again I am happy to do so. I ask members opposite whether I should go through it again. Perhaps I could go through those statistics again except that there are some very important— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Come and visit them in Panmure! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: There are certainly I say to Councillor Lotu-Iiga houses in Auckland that need updating renovating and maintenance. There is no doubt about that. [ 
Interruption 
] We can actually agree on something; that is fabulous. We can all agree that the housing stock in New Zealand is not perfect and there is indeed a need for greater investment. That is fantastic. Let us agree on that. 
Going back to the bill I say one of the fundamental principles outlined here is the need to provide stable housing. Now why is that? Providing stable housing for people is important in a number of different respects. It is important in terms of people’s health. Having a roof over their heads having somewhere to live and not having to live outside in the elements—all of those are basic rights. There is also a whole series of social needs that go with having stable housing. They include attachment to one’s community: building up contacts friendships and links with community organisations. For children having stable housing is really important because that also provides them with stability in terms of their education. They can go to the local school stay there and build up their own social networks. So providing stable housing is a very fundamental matter. 
This bill tries to provide clarification of the rights and obligations of both tenants and landlords and that is important. But it is also important not to pretend that this is a level playing field. It is a bit like the employment relationship. There are two parties but the consequences of kicking tenants out of a property are much more dramatic for them than any consequences that landlords face as are the consequences for an employee if the employer kicks somebody out of a job. Those people lose their house or their income. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.