Volume 699 Week 76 - Tuesday 24 June 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 699 Week 76 - Tuesday 24 June 2014[Sitting date: 24 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 24 June 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsAustralia—Speaker Northern Territory Legislative AssemblyMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Australia led by the Speaker the Hon Kezia Purick and would wish that she be accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.The Hon Kezia Purick accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.MotionsEgypt—Imprisonment of Al Jazeera JournalistsCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate in relation to the imprisonment of journalists in Egypt.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that action being followed? There is none.CLARE CURRAN: I move That this House condemn the sentencing and imprisonment of three Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt—Australian Peter Greste Canadian-Egyptian Mohamad Fahmy and Egyptian Baher Mohammad—further condemn Egypt’s suppression of the free press which is the cornerstone of a just and stable society and call on the Egyptian Government to review the sentencing and release these journalists.Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersMining in Conservation Areas—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Report1.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party)to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright that joint decision-making with the Minister for Energy and Resources on mining the conservation estate undermines the role of the Minister of Conservation as guardian of that estate and how will he respond to her advice to Parliament that conservation should take precedence?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):No I do not agree. The joint decision making applies only to significant tier 1 mining applications and I actually find it both constructive and useful to have the input of the Minister for Energy and Resources and the expertise of his ministry into such decisions.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh tell the truth. That can’t be true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note Ruth Dyson interjecting opposite. It would just be useful if she and Damien O’Connor were on the same page on such issues. We are a balanced Government that wants jobs and growth as well as conserving our special places and species. Over a third of New Zealand is in public conservation land. That includes a huge amount of minerals. This Government is of a view that we should use those minerals where it can be responsibly done.Te Ururoa Flavell: Will the Minister investigate the opportunity to set aside the 55 ecological areas that are currently in the conservation estate and include them in schedule 4 as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I am open-minded about reviewing areas of stewardship land that are of high value. I note that the member of Parliament for Auckland Central has advanced the stewardship land on Great Barrier Island being upgraded to a conservation park—Hon David Parker: You’ve done nothing for 3 years—3 years you’ve been thinking about that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and that is an idea that I am advancing. Not 3 years; she raised it last year and Labour was in Government for 9 years and did nothing. Our Government’s view is that we do need to protect those very special areas but we also need to acknowledge that there are significant parts of our public conservation land that are old gravels ex-mining areas and the like and it would be foolish to lock it all up.Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister agree that it is too easy to gain a consent to mine on conservation land?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not. We need only look at the approval process for the Bathurst mine on the Denniston Plateau to realise how slow and how difficult it is to get consent for mining on public conservation land. The application for that mine was originally lodged in 2008. I am embarrassed to note that there were over 30 hearings before commissioners before the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court over that particular application and I actually think it shows the opposite—that it is very difficult to get consent to mine on public conservation land.Te Ururoa Flavell: Will the Minister respond to the recommendations of the report with proposals to ensure that mining operations on conservation land provide a net conservation benefit as well as compensating for damage that they cause?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s reports around net conservation benefit is where the new thinking is moving around trying to find this right balance. That was adopted for instance with the Bathurst mine where the department has been able to secure tens of millions of dollars of additional pest control work which will result in thousands more kiwi compared with a very small number that are affected by the mine. So that is why my department is very open-minded about the net conservation benefit approach.Inequality Economic and Social—Income Gap Unemployment and Child Poverty2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that: for most New Zealanders an indicator of how well the economy is doing is whether or not they can keep up with the cost of living”; if so is he satisfied that they currently can?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes and we have official statistics that regularly measure those things. Last year average weekly wages went up 3.2 percent while the cost of living measured by the CPI went up only 1.5 percent. The year before that it was 2.5 percent for wages and only 0.9 percent for inflation. In the year before that it was 3.4 percent for wages and only 1.6 percent for inflation. It is very clear that on average wages have been rising considerably faster than inflation. It is no wonder most New Zealanders think the economy is doing well.Hon David Cunliffe: In light of that answer is it therefore acceptable to him that most figures show chief executive officer pay was 26.4 times that of an average employee last year and that 46 percent of workers did not receive a pay rate increase in the last year at all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the last point the member is quite wrong and that is the labour cost index. The much better measure is the quarterly employment survey.Hon David Cunliffe: As the Prime Minister likes to pick and choose his measures in light of the Robert Walters survey showing that 49 percent of all New Zealand employers are intending to offer no pay increase to staff this year what plans does he have to ensure workers get a fair share of the economy and is he going to speak to Steven Joyce about his limit of 1 percent for Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said last year average weekly wages went up 3.2 percent against costs up 1.5 percent. I must point out that if the member wants to look at the labour cost index as the measure—and I would strongly suggest he does not because it actually excludes so many things—the number of 45 percent of people is exactly the same as it was over Labour’s average last term.Hon David Cunliffe: Would the Prime Minister like to explain to the House and to New Zealanders the difference between average incomes and median incomes and can he confirm that for median income earners—that is one in the middle—the median income has gone down $19 a week since he took office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Seeing the member was so kind to answer his own question I probably will not need to bother.Hon David Cunliffe: I am very pleased that he has confirmed that wages have gone backwards under his Government—wages have gone backwards under National—so therefore is it acceptable to him that 2½ years after the recession has ended there are still 42000 more people unemployed than in December 2008 and will he now support Labour’s target to reduce unemployment to 4 percent?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start off the country has generated 84000 jobs approximately over the last year and 1500 people a week are going off welfare and into work. A target does not make a policy. I remember when the Leader of the Opposition said his target was to get Labour to 40 percent not 23 percent.Hon David Cunliffe: Since the Prime Minister is so fond of polls would he like to comment on the one that says 81 percent of New Zealanders do not like coat-tailing and why he is still considering doing a shady deal with Colin Craig?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding I do not have ministerial responsibility for that I am happy to say this: if the member wants to rule out dealing with the Internet Mana Party which would be coming in under the coat-tailing and say that to the House and to New Zealand today I will take him seriously. But guess what? When you are 23 percent you do not rule anybody out.Hon David Cunliffe: If Labour is prepared to rule out a pre-election coalition deal with the Internet Mana Party will the National Party rule out one with the Conservatives ACT and United Future?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister in so far as there is responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the National Government is going to do notwithstanding that I do not have ministerial responsibility for it is make sure that we are honest open and transparent with the New Zealand public—something that David Cunliffe struggles quite a lot with these days.Metiria Turei: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Does the Prime Minister agree with the research from Otago University that shows that 40 percent of New Zealand’s children in the most deprived communities do not have a raincoat among other essentials?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I cannot support that research but what I can say is that the National-led Government through KidsCan has given considerable resources to make sure that there are things like raincoats and shoes for the most vulnerable children.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the research from Otago University that shows that 65 percent of children in the most deprived communities in New Zealand often go without fruit and vegetables because their families cannot afford to eat well?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again I cannot back up the research. What I can say is that the National-led Government has continued the Fruit in Schools programme. It has also introduced with the support of Fonterra and Sanitarium KickStart Breakfast and in the worst of economic times the Government borrowed billions and billions of dollars to support the most vulnerable New Zealanders.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with Jonathan Boston that the fact that huge proportions of New Zealand’s children living in the most deprived communities in this country go without the basics of life—such as raincoats fresh food and even play dates—showing that “Public help for many families is simply inadequate …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot support the research from Jonathan Boston. But what I can say is that the Government borrowed in excess of $5 billion a year to support the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I think one of the reasons why the Government actually does have widespread support is that New Zealanders recognise that the Government through the worst of economic times has been fair. The second thing the Government has been doing is working hard with New Zealanders to create jobs and the fastest way to move those children out of vulnerable circumstances is to make sure their parents can work. The truth is that under a Greens administration those families would be in the dole queue.Inequality Economic and Social—Income GapHon TAU HENARE (National):My question is to the Minister of Finance.Grant Robertson: Where’s the scarf?Hon TAU HENARE: No this is not about polls.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just ask his question and I would be grateful if there was less interjection from either side.Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you Mr Speaker. What reports has he received on inequality in New Zealand and how do recent changes—Hon Trevor Mallard: Well read patsy.Hon TAU HENARE: Shall I start again?Mr SPEAKER: Yes. [Interruption] Order! The member can start again.Hon TAU HENARE: My question is to the Minister of Finance. What reports has he received—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Keep going.3.Hon TAU HENARE (National)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on inequality in New Zealand and how do recent changes in trends compare to other countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Last week the OECD released an updated report on income inequality for the period 2007 to 2011. The OECD finds that New Zealand is one of six countries out of 33 in which both market income inequality and disposable income inequality were flat or slightly better between 2007 and 2011 a period when New Zealand experienced its own recession plus a deeper recession caused by the global financial crisis—that is the disposable income inequality and market inequality was flat or slightly better over that period. The report also finds that in New Zealand disposable incomes for the top 10 percent of income earners were hit harder in the global financial crisis than the bottom 10 percent of income earners. Across the whole OECD the opposite was true with the bottom 10 percent of disposable incomes falling by twice as much through the global financial crisis.Hon Tau Henare: What does the OECD report say about changes in relative poverty in New Zealand compared with other countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well there are quite a lot of different measures of poverty. The OECD uses a measure called relative income poverty which shows that the share of New Zealand households in relative income poverty fell just marginally from 11 percent in 2007 to 9.8 percent in 2011. Relative poverty is the share of people with less than half of their country’s median income. The OECD also reports on something it calls anchored poverty which is defined using an income threshold fixed in real terms in 2005. Here there was a small increase with New Zealand around the middle of the OECD and below the average change across the OECD. These measures confirm that New Zealand has been able to find a balance in supporting the most vulnerable families through the global financial crisis setting a path back to surplus and getting the economy back to growth without increases in inequality of incomes.Hon David Parker: Does that OECD report on household income show that during the period from 2008 to 2011 the bottom 10 percent of New Zealand households got poorer on average?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It shows as I pointed out in my earlier answer that the bottom 10 percent of household incomes dropped marginally in that period and the top 10 percent of incomes dropped further in that period.Hon Tau Henare: How do the findings by the OECD compare with reports by the Ministry of Social Development on income inequality?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will get an updated report from the Ministry of Social Development in the next month. It is generally considered the authoritative measure of income inequality and hardship in New Zealand. The most recently published full report in July 2013 found that income inequality in New Zealand has been flat or slightly declining in the mid-2000s and that the share of income going to the top 1 percent has been flat in New Zealand since the mid-1990s and well below that in the commonly quoted countries of the US and the UK. The OECD uses data from the Ministry of Social Development’s household incomes in New Zealand’s report and compares it with data from other developed economies.Hon David Parker: Has the data released by Statistics New Zealand from this year’s census shown a marked increase in the gap between average household incomes in wealthier Auckland suburbs compared with lower-income suburbs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it does show something like that but the member is working pretty hard to find what you would expect to find and that is that if on average income inequality is about the same you will find subgroups and you will find communities where income inequality has increased and you will find others where income inequality has decreased. That is what you would expect to find when you decompose national averages. But the national picture is clear: although most people believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer that is in fact not the case in New Zealand despite the fact that we have had a major recession.Hon Tau Henare: What alternative approaches to poverty reduction has he seen and what lessons can we take from these approaches to achieve better outcomes for vulnerable families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the situation is summed up by one authoritative source—the Salvation Army. In 2008 it pointed out that there had been a 70 percent increase in spending on welfare health and education under the previous Government but there was very little social progress. If I can quote it: “measures of progress … should not just be those of how much our economy has grown … more relevant measures could be those of how few people are locked up in prison how few violent crimes have been committed and how much better children in poorer schools are achieving.” We agree with those measures. That is why this Government has set results targets to report on regularly in each of those categories and we are generating better outcomes for New Zealanders as well as holding the rate of income inequality.Export Sector—Performance4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with BERL that “outside of dairy and forestry export receipts have effectively flatlined since April 2009” and that “The risks inherent in such a narrowing of our export base should be of concern to all”; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I would agree generally with the facts as Business and Economic Research Ltd outlined them and they are that export receipts for categories other than the growing ones have been flat which is a bit like saying that apart from the fact that the All Blacks scored some tries and kicked some goals they actually lost to England.Hon David Parker: Having last week disagreed with the head economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research on his assertions about export performance problems in the regions and widening gaps is he now saying that the head economist at Business and Economic Research Ltd is wrong to warn about the serious problems caused by the narrowing export performance of our country?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. Just bear in mind the situation here. New Zealand has had a quite high exchange rate for 4 or 5 years. Exporters have done a great job of making progress against that head wind. In that context we have had higher prices for dairy and that means that by value it has become a slighter bigger proportion of the export cake. But the member seems to be suggesting we would be better off if dairy prices dropped a long way because then we would have a more diversified export cake. Of course that is silly. We have enjoyed the benefit of high prices for that category. Over the next 3 or 4 years we might enjoy the benefit of for instance fast-growing tourism numbers or a growing IT sector. It does not mean we are becoming less diversified.Hon David Parker: How does a 19 percent real decline in non-primary manufacturing exports since 2008 show that the New Zealand economy is getting more diverse?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What it shows is that the prices for some things in this period like dairy products and logs have been higher and therefore they have grown as a proportion of the total. It changes the composition of our exports. Dairy prices however have been dropping and over the next 4 or 5 years as we see a burgeoning IT industry for instance and an increase in tourist numbers it may well be that service exports are the star of the next 4 or 5 years. The good thing is we have got industries that are capable of competing globally. The Government does not believe it is a problem that the dairy industry has been successful and profitable.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can assist the member. I listened to the question; I listened to the answer. Will the member resume his seat please. The question has been addressed. The member has further supplementary questions if wishes to use them.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would appreciate my point of order being heard before it is ruled upon—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not need to listen any further to the member—Hon David Parker: Oh!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question Tim Macindoe.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect Mr Parker was not even able to get out what his point of order was about. I do not know how you knew—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can help the member. The point of order coming from the member was that the question had not been answered correctly. I ruled—[Interruption] Order! If the members wish to stay for the balance of question time—supplementary question Tim Macindoe.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is a fresh point of order.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am seeking some advice from you.Mr SPEAKER: Can we just clarify that the member is now raising a fresh point of order and is not in any way relitigating a decision I have just made? Fresh point of order Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My question is in respect of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings whether a member is entitled to raise a complete point of order as long as it is within those Standing Orders and are you required to listen to the complete point of order?Mr SPEAKER: No there is no obligation on me to listen to the complete point of order. [Interruption] Order! If the member also wishes to stay he will not interrupt when I am on my feet. I do not want to have to warn the Hon Clayton Cosgrove of that again today. There is no obligation on me to listen to a full point of order. Many points of order take too long. If I feel I have got the gist of the point of order I will rule on that point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again can I just clarify that this is not an attempt to waste the time of the House—is it a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: It is not; it is a genuine request that you share—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will now hear the point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker it is a request that you share with the House the source of your prescience so we can all read the future.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order and it is the sort of thing that leads to disorder in this House. Equally if the Hon Trevor Mallard does not start behaving himself today he will not see the balance of question time.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you tell us as a matter of clarification whether the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings of this House have changed?Mr SPEAKER: Will the member please raise his point of order again?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could you please tell us as a matter of clarification and for the edification of all of us whether the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings of this House have changed?Mr SPEAKER: Well over the time that I have been here the Standing Orders and Speakers’ ruling have changed considerably. I am sure—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since yesterday?Mr SPEAKER: Since yesterday? The House was not sitting yesterday. But for the benefit of the member there has been no very immediate change to the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings at all but certainly over the time that I have been here and the time that the member has been here there has been substantial change.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is not what I meant.Mr SPEAKER: The member might want to explain himself further. I will listen.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since the House commenced its sitting today has there been a change in the Standing Orders or the Speakers’ rulings of this House?Mr SPEAKER: I assume the member is now going back and relitigating a point I made earlier. If the member likes to refer to Speaker’s ruling 20/2 he will see that there is no obligation on a presiding officer to hear a full point of order. I presume that is the point the member is making but no Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders do tend to change over time.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again before I hear the point of order I just want to clarify that the member is not in any way relitigating where we have been in this discussion. If it is a fresh point of order I am happy to hear it.Gareth Hughes: It is related to the discussion. I seek to draw your attention to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member will sit down and resume his seat. We have now wasted a considerable amount of the House’s time. [Interruption] Order! We have now wasted a considerable amount of time. If the member wants further clarification on any decision I have made I invite the member to come see me immediately after question time but we are not having continual points of order being raised as a means of relitigating a decision I have made.Tim Macindoe: What recent reports has the Minister seen on New Zealand’s export performance?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s exports are growing—in fact primary production exports passed $5 billion in a single month for the first time in March this year and annual primary production exports exceeded $50 billion for the first time also in March. I have also seen reports that the regions are performing particularly well particularly those chosen by the Labour Party as the worst performing—for instance Northland is at the top of the annual growth stakes. The report also notes that Otago is going well particularly those parts represented by a National MP I might say. International milk and timber prices have moved around in the last few years so looking at shares of exports by value will be affected both by the higher price and the increase in quantities as exporters respond to higher profitability.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association that “If you look at New Zealand as a business you’ve got two products and one customer. That’s not a very good business … in terms of resilience …”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Let us set the context for the share of exports. In in 2013 dairy good exports were 23 percent of all exports; non-dairy agricultural products 22 percent; non-agricultural products 30 percent—so dairy is not the biggest single category—and services exports 25 percent. That contrasts for instance with Australia where hard commodities plus oil and gas constitute 70 percent of Australian exports and the bulk of the hard commodities go to one market in China. So New Zealand has a relatively diversified range of exports. And again—Hon David Parker: It is narrowing.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member is simply wrong. The fact that you get high prices in some periods for some exports does not mean the export base is narrowing. What it means is some exports have done pretty well in the recent years. Over the next 4 or 5 years it might be different exports that have higher prices. Higher prices in Labour’s world are bad. In our world higher prices for exports are good.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a table showing that non-primary manufactured exports are down—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just require the source of the document.Hon David Parker: Well it is a spreadsheet based on Statistics New Zealand information.Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to put the leave. New Zealand statistics are available to all members.Tim Macindoe: What policies would put New Zealand’s outstanding recent export performance at risk as occurred in the 2000s when the export sector was put into recession?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any number of policies that I can think of because I have heard them mentioned: a State-run monopoly electricity system which would raise electricity prices; a $25 carbon tax five times the world price and much higher than required; and of course runaway Government spending that sucked up resources that could otherwise be invested in our successful productive and resilient export sector.Tertiary Education—Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative and South Auckland Developments5.Dr CAM CALDER (National)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What announcements has he made about the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):Last Friday along with my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia I was pleased to announce the latest five groups selected for the Government’s Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative which is working with young Māori and Pasifika people to gain qualifications and apprenticeships and get into work. The Government is investing $43 million in this initiative as part of our Business Growth Agenda to help young people develop skills in important trades that are needed now and in the longer term. Three thousand places are available in this initiative around country. New Zealand’s economy is now growing strongly and there are big opportunities over the next few years for anybody interested in trades careers to train and take up apprenticeships.Dr Cam Calder: What groups will be delivering the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the excellent things about it is that it is being delivered by a range of consortia around the country. All of them announced so far include employers Māori and Pasifika organisations and tertiary education organisations. Contracts have been signed with seven consortia to provide trades training in Hawke’s Bay East Coast Waikato Wellington and Canterbury. Officials have now signed contracts with five more groups including the Te Tai Tokerau Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative in Northland focused on the building and primary industries. In South Auckland Unitec the Manukau Institute of Technology and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa will deliver the Auckland Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative focused on construction and infrastructure. Also in South Auckland the Southern Initiative of the Auckland Council will focus on infrastructure trades.Dr Cam Calder: What other investment in tertiary education is the Government making in South Auckland?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member will know South Auckland is home to one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing and most youthful populations. As the region’s population grows so too does demand for access to tertiary education at higher levels. This Government is very proud of its commitment to lift the number of places in tertiary education in South Auckland. Aside from the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative we have made a number of significant investments. For example we announced that Auckland University of Technology will expand its Manukau campus to around 4000 equivalent full-time students by 2020 and last Friday I was privileged to open the new Manukau Institute of Technology’s $100 million seven-floor business and IT education facility in the Manukau city centre.Oil Gas and Minerals Exploration—Protection of Marine Mammals6.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s decisions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to tender for oil exploration permits in over 3000 square kilometres of the West Coast North Island marine mammal sanctuary—a sanctuary that was established to protect the last 55 Māui’s dolphins left on planet Earth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I am not surprised to see the Greens’ opposition to that because they are fundamentally opposed to everything but I was surprised to see the Labour leader come out and say that. The reason I say that is a very serious point. That is that 40 percent of New Zealand’s gas is included in Pohokura so one can only assume when that gasfield is closed down what will happen to gas prices for New Zealanders. There are 23 permits for oil being drilled there 18 of which were actually issued under a Labour Government. What the leader of the Labour Party is saying today—Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: This time I think he can speak.Mr SPEAKER: Well I appreciate the comment from Grant Robertson.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister understand that there is a difference in the risk to Māui’s dolphins from existing production wells—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask the question.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister understand that there is a difference in the risk to Māui’s dolphins from existing production wells and his Government’s decision to add new risks to Māui’s dolphins from new seismic surveying and new drilling of exploratory wells which is what the Government has approved?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In a sort of phrase I suppose what a load of nonsense. If that was absolutely correct then given that we have been drilling in the Taranaki region since the 1960s and there has never been a situation where a Māui’s dolphin has been killed as a result of that you would think it would have happened at some time in the last 50 years. It is just the mumbo-jumbo that the Greens go on about but—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Russel Norman: Instead of the usual verbal abuse from the Prime Minister will he engage in the science—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask the member to simply ask the supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is one of the Standing Orders of question time that I can refer to the Minister’s answers. He chose to engage in that kind of attack which is his right. I chose to respond to it which is my right as well.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that is strictly true. Many supplementary questions probably are not within the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders. The reason I am asking for the member’s assistance in just simply asking his question is that his initial comments created a lot of disorder so that none of the House could successfully hear the question. I invite the member to ask his supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling effectively says that if Government members start shouting very loudly you will rule the question out of order. That does not seem to me to be a very sound basis for ruling questions out of order.Mr SPEAKER: That is not what I am doing at all. I am trying to assist the member so that he can ask his question and at least it can be heard certainly by me and then I can judge whether it has been addressed. I am trying to assist the member.Dr Russel Norman: No you’re not.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member does not want my assistance we will move to the next question.Dr Russel Norman: Will the Prime Minister for once engage in the science around the issue and is he aware that the world’s largest professional scientific body dedicated to research on marine mammals has asked the Government to stop going ahead with this seismic surveying with the new exploration because it is a threat to the very existence of Māui’s dolphin?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the member is saying is based on a load of mumbo-jumbo. He wants to close down Taranaki and the thousands of jobs that are supported there and what is incredible is that David Cunliffe wants to do that as well. Let us see what Andrew Little thinks about that—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Grant Robertson: That is now the third answer in a row where the Prime Minister has breached the Standing Orders and you have been forced to stand up and bring him back into order. I wonder how long this will go on for.Mr SPEAKER: Hopefully three times is enough. I hope so.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by Nick Smith and by his comments when Nick Smith told the House last week that there had been no sightings of Māui’s dolphins in the oil exploration area?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details to hand but what I do know is that there has not been a single recorded incident involving a Māui’s dolphin and the oil and gas industry in the last 40 years in the Taranaki region.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a map prepared by the Green Party research unit which overlays the sightings—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The tabling of documents is to inform members; it is not to reinforce a political point that has been made.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a new piece of information that should or could be of interest to the House. I do not see that it is at all political.Mr SPEAKER: Well the easiest way to sort this out is that I will put the leave if that is what the member wants and then the House can decide. Leave is sought to table this particular map. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident that his Ministers and his Government are making the right decision with regard to new oil exploration in the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary when the Minister of Conservation is entirely wrong when he states that there have not been sightings of Māui’s dolphins in the oil exploration area when the evidence is to the contrary?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is very confident of the advice on which it based the decisions for the block offers. What I would say to New Zealanders is this: if a Labour-Greens administration gets into power and it closes down every gasfield and every oil field in Taranaki it will be to the cost of New Zealand consumers it will be to the cost of the environment and it is called—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Robertson raised with you the issue—Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?Dr Russel Norman: Yes. Mr Robertson raised with you the issue of the Prime Minister repeatedly abusing the Standing Orders in his answers. I would ask you to address Mr Robertson’s point.Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe—[Interruption] I will listen to the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Stating a fact which is what I am doing is not abusing the Standing Orders. It is quite germane to the answer. The member has asked me about essentially closing down oil and gasfields in the Taranaki. I am simply pointing out that there is wide support in the Opposition to do that and it would have an extremely large impact on the people of Taranaki.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is open to members how long they are here for question time. I will hear from the Hon David Parker.Hon David Parker: What is going on here is an assertion by the Prime Minister that is propaganda under the guise of question time which is meant by you to be controlled to factual answers to questions asked not speculation about other parties’ policies.Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a point except that when I listened to the question the assertion from the member who asked the question was that a particular Minister had been wrong in information that he had given. So I think that widened the answer. I do not believe—[Interruption] Order! I am getting to the stage where I am going to have to ask the Hon David Parker to shortly leave the Chamber. I do not want to do that but when I am on my feet ruling and I am hearing constant interjections from the Hon David Parker that must cease. The question was addressed. I invite—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: This had better be a point of order.Hon David Parker: My point of order was that none of those questions were asked by the Labour Party and the assertions were about the Labour Party and that was not even addressed in your answer Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will reflect on the answer when I consider Hansard later on today.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Dr Russel Norman: It is in relation to your ruling.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have already ruled. I will look at the Hansard afterwards but if the member wants to discuss it further I—as I frequently do—invite him to come and see me after question time.Dr Russel Norman: Given that the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has said that current activities threaten the Māui’s dolphin with extinction how do his proposed activities to increase oil exploration—not existing production but increased oil exploration—help the Māui’s dolphin avoid extinction or is it much more likely that his legacy to this country will be to drive the Māui’s dolphin towards extinction?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the assertion. Secondly conservation was consulted actually as part of the process that we went through. It is really as simple as this. If the member is right then over the last 54 years a Māui’s dolphin would have been killed as a result of the exploration activity. Not one single dolphin has been. So we have had a 54-year experiment and nothing has happened and now the Opposition including Labour wants to close down—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now long enough.Hon Gerry Brownlee: As New Zealand’s domestic oil and gas supplies dwindle what would be the effect on the New Zealand economy if they are not replaced by new discovery?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well of course the country would have to import more of those fuels which would have an effect on our balance of payments; New Zealand would not earn the nearly $1 billion in royalties and taxes it earns a year; and thousands and thousands and thousands of people who are employed in Taranaki a place that we know well would lose their jobs. I look forward to campaigning in Taranaki and telling them: “Here’s your stark choice.” [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I call for order from the Hon Simon Bridges.Housing Affordable—Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas7.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Minister of Housing: What progress has he made with local government in securing Housing Accords under the legislation passed last year and how are they increasing the supply and affordability of housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):The first housing accord with Auckland was signed on 3 October last year and we are on target to exceed the additional 9000 homes and sections in the first year. Next week the Government will formally gazette the third tranche of 44 special housing areas which amounts to a fast-tracked zoning of an additional 18000 sections. The Christchurch Housing Accord is focused on the distinct issues from the earthquake around temporary and social housing and is currently out for consultation. Today I signed with Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown a new housing accord with the capital. The council has identified areas where fast-tracked planning would bring on-stream additional housing and the accord sets a target of an additional 7000 homes and sections over the next 5 years. We are also progressing accords with Western Bay of Plenty Queenstown and Tauranga all of which have different issues but all of which will help with supply and affordability.Paul Foster-Bell: What reports has the Minister received on residential construction activity and how many homes does he expect will be built this year?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Statistics New Zealand last week released its quarterly report on building activity which showed the largest increase in construction activity in 14 years—up 12.5 percent on last year—which is very encouraging. The latest building consent figures are similarly impressive. In the year to April 2014 there were 23000 new homes consented which is up from just 13000 a couple of years ago. Christchurch consents were more than double last year’s consents Auckland’s consents were up by 41 percent and nationally the increase was 27 percent. I am advised that we expect to build 25000 new homes this calendar year which is the largest number in a decade.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that more than a year after he announced the Auckland Housing Accord and promised Aucklanders 39000 houses he has not built a single new house in the special housing areas that anyone is living in and will he also confirm that he is on the phone to any mayor who will take his phone calls begging them to sign up to one of his housing accords because he is so desperate to make it look as if he doing something about the housing crisis?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions—the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony of that question is that only 12 months ago that was the member who was accusing me of not working closely enough with local government and now he accuses me of working too closely with local government.Phil Twyford: How many have you built?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am proud of the fact that building consent figures show that the number of consents this year is up by 27 percent on last year and I would welcome taking Mr Phil Twyford down to the very first housing area show him the bulldozers show him the houses that are being built—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is long enough.District Health Boards—Health Benefits Ltd8.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)to the Minister of Health: What was the original forecast cost for Health Benefits Limited and what is the revised forecast cost now if any?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health)on behalf of theMinister of Health: I am advised that the answer to the member’s question is complex because Health Benefits Ltd’s budget changes as the various programmes advance. Health Benefits Ltd receives a budget allocation of around $6 million per annum for its operating costs. In addition it receives funding from district health boards for each business case to progress business case implementation.Hon Annette King: Have the benefits of Health Benefits Ltd’s finance and procurement supply programme been reduced by at least a third have costs ballooned by 35 percent has the payback period been pushed out to more than 60 years and is the programme now running 2 years late; if not what are the revised projections?Hon JO GOODHEW: I am certainly unable to confirm the veracity of those particular claims but what I am able to confirm is that the Health Benefits Ltd programme’s importance to the health sector is currently this: it was set up to enable district health boards to live within their means to meet the Government’s expectations for health service delivery and to deliver cost savings to each district health board for front-line services.Hon Annette King: Has the Minister been alerted to the prospect that Health Benefits Ltd will not seek re-approval from district health boards before siphoning off more of their health dollars to their Health Benefits Ltd programme that there will be reduced benefits and that the payback period is to be extended and does that sound like a Ponzi scheme rather than a poncy scheme; if not what is it?Hon JO GOODHEW: I am certainly advised that the Minister is well aware that the district health boards will play a very big part in any further cost to them of achieving the savings in the future. I would also suggest that any claims of Ponzi schemes 12 weeks out from an election certainly sound like the sort of political rhetoric we would expect.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer why has Health Benefits Ltd’s work programme been described as “manifesting all the hallmarks of large-scale high-profile public and private sector failure but its similarities with Ponzi schemes are striking.”?Hon JO GOODHEW: That may well be the opinion of someone. However it is the opinion of this Government that the savings that have been achieved by Health Benefits Ltd alongside of district health boards are certainly worthy of happening. I give as examples $16 million this year on banking and insurance $34 million this year on regional shared services initiatives and $6 million on the procurement of gloves which I am told is probably 500 hip operations. It is very important to this side of the House.Hon Annette King: In light of the growing concerns about cost escalation lack of transparency delays in implementation reduced benefits and risk to the health services as quoted by the chief financial officers of district health boards is he prepared to ask the Auditor-General to urgently investigate Health Benefit Ltd’s programme; if not why not?Hon JO GOODHEW: What I can advise the House is that the governance arrangements for the four committees—that is the Finance Procurement and Supply Chain Committee the Procurement and Supply Chain Subcommittee the Finance Subcommittee and the Design Authority—were set in place during the period of March and April this year. I am also advised that the—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that I asked in light of a number of issues was the Government prepared—Mr SPEAKER: The essence of the question is whether the Minister was prepared to ask the Auditor-General.Hon Annette King: Yes thank you Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: That was the question. Could the Minister address that part of that question.Hon JO GOODHEW: I am advised that the Minister is well aware of the concerns of some of the chief financial officers which was certainly part of the member’s question and that the Minister has certainly been encouraging the chief financial officers to continue to work with Health Benefits Ltd to achieve the savings. However it is completely understandable that people who are in the midst of this significant change will be asking questions and will be concerned for their very own jobs.Question No. 6 to Minister—Amended AnswerRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to question No. 6.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation on question No. 6.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to question No. 6 I reflected and used the word “permits” instead of “wells”. What I should have said is that of the 23 wells drilled in the marine mammal sanctuary 18 were drilled by Labour Governments.Student Achievement—Investing in Educational Success Programme9.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore)to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s $359 million investment to raise student achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Earlier this month I announced receipt of and then published the sector working group report on our $359 million investment to lift the quality and consistency of teaching and leadership across the education system. Unions and other sector groups worked closely with the Ministry of Education to produce the report which supports the main features of the initiative. The recommended further work is under way maintaining the momentum to begin implementation from next year.Maggie Barry: What were the findings of the working group report?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The working group welcomed the $10 million teacher-led innovation fund the availability of both relief time for roles and inquiry time for schools and considered the allowances an important incentive. I want to thank the working group for its constructive collaboration over the opportunity to design a big initiative with such far-reaching potential.Maggie Barry: What are the next steps in investing in educational success?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The next steps are ensuring that parents have the information they need; establishing the ongoing advisory group of six respected academics and working group members which has its second meeting today; undertaking work on implementation for a 2015 start; bargaining for variations; and continuing work streams on communities of schools and on selection appointment and appraisal. A group of experts meets this week to begin development of professional standards and criteria. It is great that we are all committed to investing in educational success for all.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from Takapuna Normal Intermediate School principal Owen Alexander who echoed widely held concerns when he stated of the new principal roles: “I couldn’t do it. I have been employed to run my school in the most effective and efficient way to do what is best for my students. To think that I could actually go and spend time giving advice and managing 10 other schools as well would take up more than two days worth of my time and energy”; if so why is she pressing ahead with these new roles when the people who are supposed to do them say they will not work?Hon HEKIA PARATA: So we have one person expressing that point of view—and I have not seen that comment—out of over two and a half thousand. But the comment that I have seen is “Research here and around the world clearly shows that quality teaching has the greatest in-school influence on student achievement. Quality teaching is more likely to happen in a collaborative educational environment than a competitive one. Schools should collaborate teachers should be part of collaborative professional networks and the sink-or-swim mentality of Tomorrow’s Schools needs to change.” That was a speech by Chris Hipkins to the Auckland Primary Principals Association.Chris Hipkins: It was a very good speech. I seek leave to table it.Mr SPEAKER: No; if members really want it I am sure they will find it.Chris Hipkins: Is she satisfied that the policy is robust and will actually lift student achievement when respected school principals including a whole group of principals in Auckland are saying that it lacks evidence to support it it does not stand up to closer scrutiny it does nothing to address inequality and the process around its development has been “professionally insulting”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Canterbury Recovery—Costs of Settlements and Legal Fees10.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How much has the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority spent on legal fees in the last 3 years?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):The legal fees spent by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority are in two parts: departmental and non-departmental. They include the costs of settlement of 7157 residential properties and 255 commercial properties as well as defence of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and a number of other contractual matters that it has had to engage legal services for. The two amounts are for departmental $3.382 million over 4 years and for non-departmental $11.335 million over 4 years. A simple calculation about conveyancing costs of the purchase of 7100 properties alone would tell you that that is reasonable. It is less than 1 percent of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s total expenditure.Hon Ruth Dyson: Was he correctly quoted in the Press this morning in saying: “Labour’s policy of paying the same amount to people who didn’t purchase insurance as those who did is simply reckless.”; if so can he name one insurance company that offers insurance cover for bare land—just one?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do stand by my statements and further can I say that not even the Earthquake Commission offers full cover for land.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did he promise John Key when he came to Canterbury that “no one would be worse off as a result of the quakes” that bare land owners who cannot buy insurance rather than choose not to were going to be offered only 50 percent of the 2007 rateable value of their land when they were red-zoned and that actually they were going to be a lot worse off?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: At the time the statement was made by the Prime Minister we were in fact looking at very substantial devastation of residential property across what are now the red zones of Christchurch. It was some months later when it became clear that there was a difficulty around some properties that may be uninsured. Can I say that the experience so far has been that less than 1.5 percent of those who were affected did not have insurance. The point would be that in a country that has such a heavy commitment to insurance the Government stepping in to say you no longer need that insurance would be reckless.Hon Ruth Dyson: If committing less than $25 million to fairly compensate red zone property owners is reckless as he described our policy pledge yesterday what adjective would he use to describe the Government’s use of $30 million of taxpayers’ money to build a playground in the central business district?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is very easy to conflate two entirely different things to try to create an impression that suits a political view. The reality is that for a Government to say to people in New Zealand: “Do not bother about covering yourselves for natural disaster because the Government will be there to help you.” would be plain reckless.Hon Ruth Dyson: If the Quake Outcasts case to the Supreme Court is successful will he offer the residents a fair payout offer of 100 percent of the 2007 RV; if so will he do it promptly?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As the House will be aware that is a case before the court at the present time. It will be heard beginning on 29 July and I am unable to make a comment about it while it is a live case before the court.Transport Planning—Government Policy Statement and Rail Transport11.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First)to the Minister of Transport: When will the Government provide a comprehensive and integrated land transport plan for New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Last week.Denis O’Rourke: Why is so little priority given to rail and to public transport in the recently released Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2015/16 - 2024/25?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has made a massive commitment to rail having so far spent almost $1 billion on the KiwiRail recovery plan having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new trains for the commuter services in Auckland and Wellington and having spent similarly a lot of money on the electrification infrastructure in Wellington and Auckland. The Government policy statement predicts that over the next 3 years there would be $1.2 billion spent on public transport. I hardly think that is inadequate.Denis O’Rourke: Why is the Government not addressing Auckland’s congestion problems by giving the Auckland City Rail Link the go-ahead right now?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is making a commitment to get Auckland moving. That was seen in our recent decision to accelerate a number of projects in the roading sphere around Auckland. We have made it very clear to the Auckland Council that the targets it sets for patronage on the rail were ridiculous. We reduced them substantially and it is still not getting anywhere near it. It has brought in a previously reputable accounting firm to say “If those targets cannot be reached they are unreasonable and just spend the money anyway.” We are committed from 2020. That remains our position.Denis O’Rourke: Why is the Government not addressing Christchurch’s chronic congestion on the Northern Motorway by ensuring the early introduction of passenger rail from and to Rangiora and other towns north of Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: At the present time there is a request in front of KiwiRail from the regional council there Environment Canterbury. I am not sure exactly where that is at the present moment but the most pressing thing would be to get the northern arterial road out of the city sorted out. It may surprise people in this House to know that Mr O’Rourke was one of the Christchurch city councillors who voted that project down in the early 1990s.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Denis O’Rourke: The statement by the Minister is a misrepresentation—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a valid point of order. The member will have an opportunity at some stage to debate that. To dispute a fact that has been given in an answer is not a legitimate use of a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no doubt that past Speakers have found certain conduct in this House to be totally disorderly. The Minister made an allegation that is entirely incorrect. The member of Parliament voted the other way when he was on the council but do not tell lies—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat because that again is not the way to use a point of order.Denis O’Rourke: Why are there no plans for further rail electrification in the recently released Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2015/16 – 2024/25?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the interjection but the level of the barrage from that member is completely unacceptable. He has asked a question. He should show some courtesy to the House now to allow the Minister to answer it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Where commuter services can be made effective then of course there would be a desire to have a look at those projects. We have done that in Auckland we have done that in Wellington and as I have said before there is a proposal in Christchurch but it does have to stack up.Tax System—Taxpayer’s Simplification Panel and Other Initiatives12.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)to the Minister of Revenue: What is the objective of the Government’s recently announced Taxpayer’s Simplification Panel?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue):The Taxpayer’s Simplification Panel will give New Zealanders a greater say in simplifying modernising and transforming the way we pay tax. We want to hear Kiwis’ opinions on the Inland Revenue Department’s processes for them to tell us about how paying tax can be made easier for them and for them to submit ideas about how things can be done better. As well as individual taxpayers we are keen to hear from small to medium sized business owners about how red tape and tax compliance can be reduced. For them after all every extra hour they spend on compliance is another hour they cannot spend growing their businesses or creating jobs.Paul Goldsmith: How will the Taxpayer’s Simplification Panel work?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s simple.Hon TODD McCLAY: It is simple. The panel is part of the IR4U programme of better engaging with the public. It will consist of representatives of individual taxpayers small businesses and also the tax advisory community. It will be managed by the Inland Revenue Department and will report both to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Minister on a regular basis with recommendations gained from that feedback. This means for New Zealanders that they will have a say in how to make the tax system serve them better.Paul Goldsmith: What other initiatives are under way to help make tax compliance easier for New Zealanders?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government is putting a lot of effort into making tax compliance easier. For example 1 million people now use Voice ID a secure digital identification service that allows taxpayers to verify their identities and access automated tax self-service. More than 1.7 million people have registered for myIR a secure online service that allows people to check their tax details child support and Working for Families details and to submit GST returns. Parents no longer have to be verified in person to get an IRD number for their newborn. Instead they can apply for this IRD number when they register the birth of that child with the Department of Internal Affairs. These and many other initiatives are making paying tax easier and faster for New Zealanders.Questions to MembersParental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Progress1.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: Does the member intend to proceed with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill this year; if not why not?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):Yes I do intend to proceed with my bill extending paid parental leave to 6 months which is set down for its Committee stage debate tomorrow because it has growing majority support in Parliament. The good news is that with one further members’ day left before Parliament rises for the election there is time for my bill to proceed to its third reading and be passed before the election. The only thing that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has actually answered the question right at the start. I have given her some liberty—[Interruption] Order! The answer is long enough.Hon Ruth Dyson: What is the additional cost of her bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks?SUE MORONEY: My bill now has only National standing between it and enactment because National has threatened financial veto. An amendment that I will introduce today means there will be no impact on the forthcoming financial year and therefore no justification for the current Government to use a financial veto. My bill will now be based on the election pledge from Labour to increase paid—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite apart from the fact that that answer was well past what is reasonable for an answer to a member’s question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would be reluctant to ask members to leave. We have got so far through question time without having to do so but this is a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What are the Speakers’ rulings around pre-emption of business as was the centrepiece of that particular answer?Mr SPEAKER: The issue of pre-empting business is technically something that should not be pre-empted in debate earlier but I think the more important thing is that the length of the answer is too long. The question was what the additional cost was. The member very quickly said she is proposing an amendment so there will be no additional cost. That is a sufficient answer to this question. It is not a chance to use this as a speech. I will allow the member to now ask the second question. The answer is completed.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you as you have said you will do to go back and look at the tape and transcript of today and perhaps as just one example compare the length of answers from Sue Moroney with those from Mr Joyce in response to a question from one of his members. You will find they were shorter.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point but questions to members are always handled in a more concise way than questions to Ministers. The second point is that the member himself cannot have it both ways. On many occasions he has interrupted an answer being given by the Minister—quite correctly—and said that the question had been answered and there is no need to add to it. I am ruling the same way for the benefit of the member this time.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am really just speaking to the point of order that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with that—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. I have dealt with that. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will listen to it but to now try to talk to one that I have already dealt with is in itself out of order.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been questions set down to me as a member in charge of a bill and I am attempting to let the House know about an amendment—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. At this rate she will not get to answer her second question. I have ruled that the question has been answered. I cannot be clearer than that.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Feedback2.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: Why is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill necessary?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):There are many reasons. The purpose is to give families the time to spend with their newborn baby in those precious early months and to support exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. Research and evidence shows that this approach will improve the health and education outcomes and the social development of children. It also aims to increase employment opportunities created by longer periods of leave requiring more need for temporary job replacements.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Dr Russel Norman: They used science again didn’t they Gerry. Not science! They used science.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Dr Russel Norman will stand and withdraw that interjection.Dr Russel Norman: I withdraw.Mr SPEAKER: I am hearing a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I have not wanted to bring this up before because we are coming to the end of the Parliament. Everyone gets a bit excited and people do want—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just get to his point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well questions to members are supposed to be about procedural matters not policy which is being outlined in the current answer.Mr SPEAKER: The question was accepted—“why is it necessary”. I was prepared to give the member an opportunity to answer that. I did. It was a fairly long-winded answer again.Hon Ruth Dyson: What support has she seen in favour of her bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks?Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the question Sue Moroney provided the answer is relatively terse.SUE MORONEY: Thank you Mr Speaker. Apart from the support of 99.6 percent of the 3807 submitters on the bill and 62 percent of New Zealanders polled by Colmar Brunton last year I have also seen a press statement from Plunket after the National Government’s decision for a small extension to paid parental leave in Budget 2014. It called for paid parental leave to be increased to 26 weeks as a medium-term goal. That is exactly what my bill does.Points of OrderChamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in ChamberHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is reasonable for me to call attention to the fact that even though there were discussions in the Business Committee a couple of weeks ago there have been further incidents today of people tweeting from in the House making what I could only describe as disparaging remarks about the Chair therefore offending all of the members in this House. I wonder Mr Speaker whether you could subject yourself—I would have to say—to looking at those once you are out of the House today so that there might be a further discussion to see whether some of the positions that were reached recently can be honoured.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour):My understanding is that that matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee.Mr SPEAKER: The member is right. It has been referred to the Privileges Committee and the whole House is aware of that. The member Gerry Brownlee has asked me to have a look at some of those comments; I will.Urgent Debates DeclinedDistrict Health Boards—Health Benefits LtdMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the current concerns regarding the financial situation and mandate of Health Benefits Ltd and the pressure this organisation is placing on district health boards. For a debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Health is answerable to the House for the performance and current operations of Health Benefits Ltd. But a debate cannot be granted on the basis of media speculation about its performance. A case of recent occurrence occurs when a decision for which the Minister is responsible is made and announced. While there may be ongoing concerns there must be a new development of sufficient importance in itself to warrant setting aside the business of the House. While public confidence in New Zealand’s health system is important the requirements for a debate have not been made out clearly today. The application is therefore declined.Parliamentary Service CommissionMembershipHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I move That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) and 17(3) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Gareth Hughes be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Metiria Turei.Motion agreed to.Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) BillFirst ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.Supplementary EstimatesImprest Supply DebateHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I move That the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill be now read a second time. These two pieces of legislation ensure that the Government has supply from Parliament to conduct its ongoing business. It will be interesting to hear from the Opposition members just how they expect to debate these pieces of legislation. We could have a wide-ranging discussion about the recovery of the New Zealand economy and the way it is generating more new jobs and higher incomes but alongside that we are going to have a discussion about the core business of Government which is funded by these pieces of legislation.Can I note that just 3 months out from an election the inherent laziness of the Labour Party is becoming increasingly obvious. It has for the last 3 or 4 years waited for the time when the issues of inequality and public service cuts would fall in its lap. New Zealand’s best and brightest its finest and best-trained political intellects have been sitting around waiting doing no thinking and no work on how Government works in the 21st century because they hoped as we saw in one pathetic example today that the Public Service would by now be covering them burying them in a deluge of leaks about the terrible National Government that has been cutting services hurting communities and dealing harshly with New Zealanders and about how a grateful electorate would then turn to the nice Labour Party because it knows how to do these things better. Labour has been hoping that there would be a deluge of data that would demonstrate to the public at large that the sense of fairness and equality that New Zealanders hold so strongly had been trashed and ripped apart by a nasty Tory Government dealing with a deep recession and a difficult recovery. Well Labour is still waiting because neither of those things has happened.In the absence of the Public Service providing the Labour Party with the raw material for a robust election campaign on public services social services health education law and order welfare and justice for the people Labour has got nothing to say. In anticipation I can say that will become evident over the next few hours as we debate Parliament funding the core activities of the Government. If the Labour members want to get up and talk about inequality they will have to deal with the OECD report that came out in just the last day or two. New Zealand is one of only six countries to report a fall in income inequality. I would not go so far as to claim that it is a fall; I would go only so far as to say that in the period from 2007 prior to the New Zealand recession and the global financial crisis through to 2011 the middle of a difficult recovery the rich and the poor did about equally well which is a very surprising result and one that is very difficult for the Labour Party to campaign on. It wanted to say that in a recession and a difficult recovery the nasty Tories let the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.Well it did not happen. It did not happen. Income inequality is about the same now if not slightly better than it was at the peak of the last economic boom under the previous Labour Government—about the same. And is that not a surprise? It is certainly a surprise to the Labour caucus because it has been waiting to run that as one of the big issues in 2014 just like it has been waiting for the deluge of Public Service leaks. Well I want to take this opportunity after 5½ years of tight budgets—Grant Robertson: Give them a pay increase. Give MoBIE a pay increase.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —to compliment and thank the Public Service for the way that it has consistently refused to play Grant Robertson’s games. He is “Mr Beltway”—“Mr Beltway” who cannot even win the beltway but he is expected to win the 2017 election for the Labour Party. Well he has not even won the beltway because in the beltway the Public Service has worked hard to provide more for less. Through a deep recession and 5 years of tight Budgets the public rating of public services is higher now than it was when the Labour Party was pumping billions into the public sector. The reason is that this Government has made itself accountable to the public for achieving results—for achieving results. Every professional public servant wants to achieve results. It is their intrinsic motivation. It is why they work hard for lower pay than they could earn elsewhere.I will give you just a couple of results. There are hundreds I could pick from but I think this one illustrates a number of interesting points. Data published in April 2014 shows an increase of 23 percent in the number of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1 students in Kaikohe—Kaikohe the very place that the Labour Party parades around the country saying it is an illustration of the failure of everything that this Government is trying to achieve. As it happens Northland is the fastest-growing region in the recent regional GDP statistics. Its economy is growing faster than the rest of New Zealand and in NCEA level 1 23 percent more students are passing. But wait for this: in NCEA level 2 the increase is even larger—24 percent of them. And they have got to get NCEA level 2 to get access to the skilled economy. That is the start line and one-quarter more kids—that is hundreds more students—in one of our most deprived areas are doing a lot better.That is why “Mr Beltway” Grant Robertson cannot win the beltway—because the Public Service understands what this Government is trying to achieve. That is why despite the fact that we have run tight Budgets we have been able to get better results. I will just explain how tight those Budgets have been. In the 5 years up to 2008 the last Labour Government pumped in $2.5 billion extra discretionary spend each year on average—$2.5 billion. This Government has over a 5-year period pumped in an average of $250 million per year—one-tenth of the new expenditure for much better results. In fact the Labour Government did not know whether it was getting results because its measure of whether it cares is how much of other people’s money it spends on a problem. Of course what that does is fund the problems not solve them. What we are doing is solving the problems. That is why this Government is so confident in its fiscal management. We know that when you help people resolve their issues and provide more support now for a pay-off later you save money. What works for the community works for the Government’s books.We have now got a couple of hours to hear from Labour about its ideas for modernising government in New Zealand. We have got a couple of hours to hear from Labour about all the deep thinking of those people trained at the best universities and in the Prime Minister’s office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet no less of the best Prime Minister ever according to them. We are waiting for the progressive forward-looking inspiring thinking about the core business of government that is to support New Zealanders in their aspirations. I do not think we will hear that. I think we will hear a tired recital of the worn-out slogans of the handful of interest groups and unions that still support the Labour Party. Labour needs to know that even the people who feel compelled to vote for it are going around telling their friends that National is doing a great job of running the Public Service.In particular I want to compliment our Ministers who have spent a lot of time building a political consensus and enforcing accountability and responsibility. They are out there on the front line talking to the New Zealanders who need and deserve our support because they have done a great a job. They have done a great job. So here is the challenge for Labour: can “Mr Beltway” actually win the beltway? Because if he cannot even win the beltway he certainly cannot win the election.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Well there is a member who should know all about the beltway. It is time for Bill English to get out of Messines Road once in a while. He should get out of Messines Road—a lovely part of Wellington Central I might say—and actually see what is going on in New Zealand because an out-of-touch Government is going to deliver an out-of-touch speech like that.Here are some facts and figures for Bill English. Unemployment in Northland is at 8 percent—8 percent of New Zealanders in Northland are unemployed. If he wants to talk about statistics about how people are going how about this for a statistic: 13.2 percent of Māori are unemployed 13 percent of Pasifika people are unemployed and 22.3 percent of 15 to 19-year-olds are unemployed. That is the legacy of the National Government. That is the legacy of a Government that looks after its mates and does not care about the rest of New Zealand.Mr English talks about the Public Service and what we hear from the Public Service. Well what we hear from members of the Public Service is that yes they do work hard and they will work for the Government of the day. But if you cut the police budget year on year you are not going to get the proper service that New Zealanders expect from them. If you cut the courts’ budget every year New Zealanders will not get fair access to justice. If you cut the Ministry for the Environment’s budget and the Department of Conservation’s budget every year then the environment will decline and that is the record of the National Government.This is not a Government that cares about spreading fairly the benefits of economic recovery. This is a Government that says: “We and our mates will hang on to that.” This is the statistic that John Key should worry about: chief executive officer pay is now 26.5 times that of the average employee in companies in New Zealand. That is up over 4 percent since National took office. That is the legacy of the National Government—the benefits are accruing to the very wealthy while others struggle. Forty-six percent of New Zealanders got no pay increase in the past year. A survey out today says that 49 percent of employers are not expecting to give a pay rise next year. That is not a fair share of economic recovery.We on this side of the House know that what National is doing is what National always does which is to manage the economy for itself and its mates. It is not about trying to lift the aspirations—Hon Dr Nick Smith:That doesn’t work anymore after Donghua.GRANT ROBERTSON:Here is Nick Smith interjecting. How about making housing affordable for New Zealanders?Hon Dr Nick Smith: The accord’s done in Wellington. Just did an accord in Wellington.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is a measure of inequality. Once upon a time Dr Smith if you worked in a job in New Zealand and you worked hard you would be able to come home with enough money to save up and buy your own home. That dream is gone. That dream has gone for the next generation.There is a lot of talk at the moment about what will be the defining characteristics of a future Government. I can tell you today that the defining characteristic of a future Labour Government will be that we are for future generations. We are not looking in the rear-view mirror like the National Party; we are saying that a future generation of New Zealanders deserves to be able to buy their own home. That is something New Zealanders have held on to for years and years—the fact that if you work hard and save hard you will be able to buy your own home. That dream is gone.Nick Smith is presiding over reports and accords and gazetting things and consents. People do not live in consents Dr Smith; they live in houses. He is not building enough houses to make them affordable for New Zealanders to buy today. The legacy of this Government is one where they look after the few the wealthy get wealthier and most New Zealanders struggle. It is only those at the very very top who benefit from the National Government. That needs to change in New Zealand.We need to get back to the core egalitarian values that have stood New Zealand in good stead. That means that everybody gets the right to a good education that we make sure that State schools are the best schools in the world and that we make sure that we invest in the best teachers in the world—not coming up with some half-baked hare-brained scheme to take a principal out of school for a couple of days a week because it sounds good but actually investing in every single school and making sure that every single person in New Zealand who wants to work can get a job. Having an ambition for full employment as the Labour Party has is not something that John Key should laugh off and say is impossible. It is impossible only because the Government does not have the political will to stand up and say: “We will make that our priority.”Why not pick up the Labour Party’s policy from the last election which I give credit to Phil Goff for? Why have 18 and 19-year-olds being paid the dole when you could give a subsidy for an apprenticeship so that that person can get skills and work? That would be a policy that a Government that really cared about getting New Zealanders into work would undertake. But that government will not because it will sit on its laurels and let 8 percent of people who live in Northland be unemployed. That is not on.What is required is a proper regional development policy—not another set of Mr Joyce’s lovely glossy documents but practical work on the ground that will make sure that jobs can be created. That is what the Labour Party is committed to. It is about getting alongside regions and saying: “We’ll support you to create those jobs.”What it is not is from on high in Steven Joyce saying: “I have got a silver bullet. I have got a silver bullet and I am going to put that in play in the oil and gas industry.” That is not enough. Disaster recovery is also not an economic plan Mr Joyce. Disaster recovery is what is driving the so-called economic growth in New Zealand. If Mr Joyce was actually committed to this he would be supporting a region like I do not know Dunedin and making sure that it has still got a manufacturing capability at Hillside and making sure that it has still got research and development under way at Invermay. But no he washes his hands of those regions because it does not fit his narrow ideological frame about what makes for a silver bullet.The Labour Party is interested in innovation investment and industry in the regions. We are going to make sure that we invest in the infrastructure. Those members do not care about the people of Gisborne. They do not care about keeping a rail line open up there. They do not care about the people of Ōpōtiki and making sure that they have got a wharf where they can take their aquaculture products and bring them back into port. They do not care about that because they want to dictate from on high what they think will work and it will not. We want to see industry development plans. We have already announced them in manufacturing and in forestry. There is more coming in information and communications technology and other areas. We know that a Government should be an active partner in the economy not sitting back deciding that the market will look after it all. That does not work. That does not work.Hon Steven Joyce: Hang on make up your mind. Either I’m running it or market is.GRANT ROBERTSON: This man over here said “Make up your mind.” He should make up his mind about whether he actually supports New Zealanders or whether he wants to dictate to them from his little narrow ideological frame and we know that it will not work.We are debating the supplementary estimates. I want to say this about the Government’s Budget. Bill English has been quite fond lately of making comparisons with the All Blacks in terms of how we do things around here. Well if you put off your ACC premium reductions of nearly $500 million for a year that is a little bit like saying that the points the All Blacks scored in the second test in Dunedin are going to be fast-forwarded to the game in Hamilton because we want to make that result look a little better than the one in Dunedin. That is the kind of smoke and mirrors in this Budget. The Government reduces the Canterbury recovery budget by $500 million and finds a never-seen-before $375 million loan for a transport project in Auckland all to get itself to its wafer-thin surplus to make it look good. That is the National Government—smoke and mirrors; making sure it looks good without the substance being there.What we need is a focus on the core Kiwi values: work home and families. We need to make sure there is an opportunity to do the job. If the jobs are there they should be done. We need to make sure that New Zealanders get access to homes—access to buy homes and to warm dry rentals. We need to make sure that families and children in particular have the best start in life.We heard from Bill English today that apparently inequality is not getting worse. Well how about this from the Salvation Army report? We know that between the last two censuses the median income of somebody in Mission Bay or St Heliers went up by $6100 in that period of time. If you were living in Māngere or Ōtāhuhu it went down by $200. Up by $6100 in the wealthy and rich bits of Auckland and down by $200 in South Auckland—that is how inequality grows. It grows because a Government lets that happen. It does not lift the minimum wage. It does not work towards a living wage. It does not introduce a capital gains tax. It does not make those paying the top tax rate pay a fair rate. That is what National has done. It has created those two Aucklands. New Zealanders need to know that wherever they live they have a fair chance at life and a fair chance of getting ahead. That is what they will get with a Labour Government.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Where does one begin after that speech by Grant Robertson? I have not heard such an empty pile of baseless rhetoric in a long time—in fact not since I heard my last David Cunliffe speech. Where do we start with Mr Robertson? Mr Robertson tries to lecture a National Government about the Budget when he has opposed every single expenditure-saving initiative that this Government has done over the last 6 years. In areas that I have some interest in—for example in tertiary education—the only new policy Labour has announced is to stop the reductions in adult and community education that we made back in 2010. The news in tertiary education is that if Labour was re-elected it would reinstate Moroccan cooking class subsidies. That is the extent as Bill English was talking about of the deep thinking that has not been occurring in the New Zealand Labour Party. It is empty baseless rhetoric and it is actually quite sad.The other one is ACC—declaring somehow that the National Government has given insufficient cost cuts to people from ACC. It was the Labour Party that made the ACC’s costs blow out. Now Robertson is lecturing the National Government about how to behave responsibly with ACC. That I am afraid is one of the reasons why Labour is struggling to connect with New Zealanders—it is that New Zealanders know the record. They know what the Labour Party was like. They have not forgotten. Mr Robertson can stand up and pretend that things were not the way they were but actually New Zealanders have a longer memory than that.The good news is actually that all these views that the Labour Party has of New Zealand and New Zealanders are wrong. All of them are wrong. All of them are massive exaggerations—and in fact delusions—about how New Zealand actually is. Is there an export crisis? No. Is there a regional crisis? No. Is there a current account crisis? No. Is there a manufacturing crisis? No. Is there an immigration crisis? No there is not. And if this is a housing crisis explain to me how you can have a lift in construction of housing of 17 percent in one quarter in New Zealand—an increase of 17 percent—to the biggest level of activity since 2002. I sense that crisis is receding as well. What is actually happening is none of those things. It is a crisis crisis. There are insufficient crises for the Labour Party to be able to convince and bamboozle New Zealanders that somehow it should be given another shot.The true story is that the New Zealand economy is going very well. It is one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD. The balance of payments was asked about earlier in this House this afternoon. It is down to 2.8 percent of GDP which is the lowest figure by a long way in a long time. We inherited by the way nearly 8 percent. What we owe the world has dropped down a good 20 percent of the economy. Is that not amazing? This country owes the world 20 percent of its economy less than when National first came into office. That is a very impressive figure which is a tribute to the hard work of New Zealanders.Our goods exports have just passed NZ$50 billion in 1 year for the time. Not only is that a good thing but also it is at just about the highest New Zealand dollar rate that we have ever seen which means that the amount of goods going offshore is even greater than that number suggests. We have seen another interesting statistic and that is the drop of outward migration to Australia. That rightly worried New Zealanders for a long time. In 2008 when we came in 35000 New Zealanders in that year in net terms—a net 35000 New Zealanders—moved off to Australia. Then it dropped a bit. Then it went up a bit after the Christchurch earthquakes. Now last month just 200 New Zealanders moved across to Australia in net terms. The month before just 200 moved. That is 400 over 2 months. That is an annual rate of 2000 or 3000 a year. New Zealanders are voting with their feet all right. They are voting with their feet to stay in this country and experience the job opportunities in this country.I want to touch on regional New Zealand. Mr Robertson has made at least one trip now to the regions I think since he has been the Labour spokesperson on regional development. That is very exciting for him I am sure. He got very excited. He went to Rotorua I understand and met Tāmati Coffey apparently who is apparently a normal “Rotoruaian”. I am not sure about that. But anyway let us talk about regional economies because regional economies have led New Zealand out of the global financial crisis. We have got a range of policies in our Business Growth Agenda which Mr Robertson would do well to read. It is 120-odd pages. It will keep him up for about a month. It is 120 pages but here is what is not in it: there is no reference to a carbon price at five times the world price in National’s economic policy. There is no reference to high water levies like Mr Parker wants in National’s economic policy. There is no reference to banning oil exploration in the Taranaki Bight which both the Labour Party and the Green Party have declared they want. There is no reference to a capital gains tax that would hit 100 percent of New Zealand businesses but—whoops—hits only 25 percent of New Zealand houses. And there is no mention of a wacky monetary policy that would have the whole world confused.Those are not in National’s economic policies and regions around the country will breathe a sigh of relief about that because 13 of our 16 regions are dependent on the natural resources economy—13 of our 16. The Greens can pretend that is not the case but it is and this Government understands that. We understand you have to balance the jobs of regional New Zealanders against environmental constraints and if you do it well you can get improvements in both outcomes but not if you treat the whole thing like a cartoon and look to ban oil prospecting and knock the dairy industry over as is proposed by the Greens and even Labour. That is what we are dealing with.The other thing that is really important to regional New Zealand is trade deals. They are very important. Access to other people’s goods markets is crucial to regional New Zealand. If you look around this House the weirdest thing about that at the moment is there is only one major party in this House that is unambiguously in favour of doing more trade deals for New Zealand exporters and that is the National Party. The Labour Party does not know what it thinks. The Green Party as always is opposed and that is the reality of it.Hon Phil Goff: Oh rubbish—just rubbish.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Goff you are sadly in a party that has moved to the left around you. That is the reality of the situation—the unambiguous support for trade deals in the Labour Party has gone. Mr Goff has been rolled by his mates. Shane Jones knew it. That is why Shane Jones left. He knew all these things that I have just laid out.That is why regional New Zealand ain’t going anywhere near the Labour Party. The Greens can talk about promoting exports by buying everybody a 3-D printer—apparently that is the gig; a 3-D printer is what you need to succeed in the Green world so they must be printing 3-D money—but all these other things get the knock. All these other industries get the knock. New Zealanders know it is not real. New Zealanders know that you cannot do these things. New Zealanders know that you cannot have the attitude of the Opposition which is to push a whole lot of imposts on New Zealand businesses and expect them to keep growing jobs for Kiwis.Sue Moroney: Oh what rubbish. Talk about your own policies.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is what we have done and are doing—84000 jobs in the last year Sue Moroney. Think about that for a minute. That is because this Government is supporting the growth of businesses with policies that enhance their competitiveness on the world stage not reduce their competitiveness on the world stage. Our job now now that the economy is growing well is to ensure that we remove those capacity constraints and that is what we are doing. Our job is to ensure that we are encouraging skills growth in the New Zealand economy that we are encouraging engineering and information and communications technology and science that we are encouraging innovation with big investments in the innovation space that we are encouraging more free-trade deals that work for New Zealand exporters that we are encouraging the growth of capital in New Zealand and that we are encouraging the natural resources sector by working with iwi and Māori and getting Treaty settlements done so that there are stronger investors in regional New Zealand.We are encouraging all those things through our Business Growth Agenda and through the financial decisions of this Government. That is why New Zealanders are supporting not just the economic policies but the fiscal policies of this Government. It is because they know what it means in terms of great jobs and great growth for New Zealand. Thank you.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party to talk in this imprest supply debate which is rather a broader debate about the Government’s economic and social policy performance and about what the alternatives might be. Contrary to the Government’s position the world is changing. Climate change is becoming a central issue for Governments around the world if not for the New Zealand Government. Many Governments around the world are investing in sustainable transport and putting their investments towards that rather than in the direction that this Government is going. People all around the planet are embracing the importance of the environment and protecting the environment even while we have a Government in New Zealand that is hell-bent on destroying the environment.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: This is the kind of world we are inheriting. It is changing. Of course the Government members say “Rubbish.” but the world is changing even if the National Party does not realise it.It is also important to realise that the issue of inequality which characterised the policies of Government in New Zealand through the 1980s and 1990s driving an increase in inequality has now become a global problem. Even very orthodox organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both very concerned about the impacts of inequality even as our Government increases inequality and does not consider it to be a serious issue.In a world where we have these new challenges and issues that were once put to one side have come to the fore we have a Government stuck in the last century. It is most unfortunate for New Zealand because instead of embracing the opportunities for the 21st century we are kind of locking ourselves into the 20th century. We need some new ideas and we need some modern thinking in order to take advantage of the opportunities and the amazing innovation that is going on around the planet. We need a Government that can recognise that and can see that we need new ideas to solve these old problems and that we need some new ideas to solve the new problems as well. The Green Party is very much oriented towards that. We will in Government focus on investing in children and our environment. We will help New Zealand to embrace the economic opportunities that are coming our way rather than turning our back on them as is the current Government’s practice.Let us compare some of the reality against the current Government. National’s focus is on coal and oil. That is one of its major economic development strategies. On “Planet Key” the Prime Minister goes and opens the national headquarters of Bathurst Resources coal which is a coalmining company that wants to destroy a beautiful natural ecosystem on the Denniston Plateau where we have a kiwi habitat in order to extract coal. The Government is very focused on supporting the oil industry so it has opened up a marine sanctuary to oil exploration even though it is likely to drive those last 55 Māui’s dolphins towards extinction as a result of the impact of seismic surveying which is like a very loud noise underwater which deafens the dolphins and drives them towards more dangerous places. There is also the risk with exploratory drilling of oil spills. This is not about the existing production facilities in Taranaki; this is about new exploration. That is National’s focus. So you would think that what must be happening around the world is a huge focus on the oil and coal industry.In fact the fastest-growing sector in electricity generation right now globally is the renewable electricity sector. The International Energy Agency is the organisation that keeps the statistics on this on behalf of the New Zealand Government and other Governments and it says to us that the fastest-growing sector internationally is renewable electricity generation. Yet we have a Government in New Zealand that is firmly focused on the 20th century—even on the 19th century when coal was king—and is very focused on coal and oil as in the 19th and 20th centuries while the whole world is embracing renewable energy. Of course New Zealand could be a global leader in renewable energy particularly in electricity because we have considerable experience in it. We are in fact world leaders in geothermal electricity generation but it is very difficult for those companies to take advantage of that situation because we have a Government that directs all its support towards the fossil fuel industry rather than supporting the renewable electricity industry. Where New Zealand could be taking a lead we are instead facing and supporting the industries of a bygone century. We are getting locked into what the Secretary-General of the OECD called stranded assets as we lock ourselves into these very old carbon-intensive industries. So while the National Government is heading down a coal and oil path the reality is that the rest of the world is going towards renewable electricity.Let us think about some of the other issues where this Government is heading down a different path—climate change. When you look at the Government’s own projections on greenhouse gas emissions New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are to increase by 50 percent in net terms over the next decade and that is according to the Ministry for the Environment’s projections under current policy settings. There is no other country within the group of advanced countries that is planning to increase its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent in the next decade. You would struggle to find any country on the planet that is going to increase its net emissions by 50 percent in the next 10 years. There will be some countries but no other advanced industrialised countries. So New Zealand’s climate change policy is deep denial. The Government as in so many things is in denial about the science and does not want to confront the science around climate change. So it is proposing to increase New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent over the next decade. When you think about it from the point of view of the planet of course it is a disaster. When you think about it from the point of view of New Zealand’s economy it is a disaster as well because we are locking ourselves into carbon-intensive industries which over time will become stranded assets and will be extremely poor-quality value producers for the New Zealand economy in the future.The Green Party by contrast has looked to the world. In the rest of the world we are seeing action on climate change. In the rest of the world many countries are introducing real prices on carbon. The Green Party has put forward a climate tax cut plan whereby we would introduce a price on greenhouse gas emissions in the New Zealand economy in order to drive innovation. The revenue that is raised from that climate tax cut from the carbon tax is returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. Households would be better off because the first $2000 of income would be taxed at zero percent—that is the tax cut for households—and companies would face a lower company tax rate with a reduction in 1 percent in the company tax rate from 28 percent to 27 percent.The climate tax cut is all about saying that we do need a price on greenhouse gas emissions. The OECD is absolutely clear that this is a cornerstone of any country’s climate policy. So we need a price on greenhouse gas emissions. But we want to make sure that the revenue that is generated by that price on greenhouse gas emissions is returned to households and companies in the form of a cut in income taxes—so the first $2000 is tax-free—and a cut in the company tax rate. That means that New Zealand businesses that are innovating and are becoming less carbon-intensive get a double win. On the one hand they get an advantage over their competitors because they face a carbon price. If they are carbon-efficient they get an advantage because of that. In the second place they get another advantage because they have a lower company tax rate. So it is a win-win for the New Zealand economy and pushes our economy in an ever - so very gently way at a pretty low price towards a more efficient economy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions which prepares us for the economy of the 21st century where those who have low carbon-intensive economies will prosper and those who lock themselves into very carbon-inefficient economies—like New Zealand’s where we have much higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP—will suffer as the world starts to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.Unfortunately the Government is looking backwards to the 20th century and the 19th century by locking New Zealand into this high carbon - intensive economy while the Green Party is very much focused on innovation and on taking advantage of the opportunities that are in the world. The Green Party looks out to the rest of the world while National looks inward and does not understand what is going on in the rest of the world.There are a few other I think salient points with regard to the Government’s economic strategy. If you look at tourism Tourism New Zealand is currently seeking ideas for how to protect the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand because it is being degraded by all the stories about the degradation of New Zealand’s natural environment—in particular the extensive pollution of our fresh water. Our rivers and our lakes are highly polluted. There is another way other than propaganda or public relations to protect “100% Pure New Zealand” and that is to actually take action to clean up our rivers and lakes. The Green Party will take action to clean up our rivers and lakes. It is entirely doable. It is not easy to do but we will do it. Under the current Government it is literally subsidising increased water pollution to the tune of $400 million so the taxpayer is having to subsidise more water pollution.When you look at transport the Government is increasing spending. Tens of billions of dollars are being spent on new motorways while the rest of the world is embracing public transport—that is buses trains and ferries. The rest of the world is also embracing walking and cycling to make more livable cities with lower carbon emissions and much cleaner air. That is the opportunity for New Zealand. We have a Government heading in the wrong direction. It tells us that we must have more cars and more roads. Actually the reality is that the whole world is heading towards having much more carbon-efficient transport much more livable cities and much greater support for public transport walking and cycling. The Green Party will take New Zealand down that path.When it comes to the primary sector of course our entire primary sector exports are built on being clean green and safe. The Government is intent on destroying that brand by undermining the environmental foundations of it. The Green Party will clean up our natural environment and hence protect our “clean green and safe” brand which is the foundation of our food export sector.In all these different ways the Green Party I think is demonstrating the way forward while National has its face to the past and does not understand the opportunities and the realities of the 21st century globe in which we live. Thank you.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):I find it a bit galling to have a lecture on being outward-looking from a member from the Green Party which is the well-renowned protectionist anti-trade party in the House that does not want to engage in globalisation with the rest of the world. It turns its mind inwards and yet Russel Norman gives us a lecture on being outward-looking.I stand for a genuinely open outward-looking dynamic economy that is able to foot it in an internationally competitive world can generate the sorts of living standards to which we all aspire and can provide the opportunities so that New Zealanders of all shapes and sizes and ages can gain the best for themselves and for their families. I stand for an economy that is able to give them great opportunities in the world so that they do not feel that they have to make a lifestyle choice or a second-hand choice to live in New Zealand but can really achieve their potential.It is only through having a strong economy that people can have access to the best health care. I have never met anybody in my travels around Epsom or anywhere else in New Zealand who is not interested in having access to the best cancer treatment that money can buy and the latest medicines that money can buy. All these things cost money and that can be obtained only through having a strong economy. A strong economy allows you to invest in quality education and to pay teachers properly it enables you to pay for pensions for elderly people and to take care of the vulnerable and that is why I am firmly of the view that this Government is taking this country in the right direction. After 6 years we are heading in the right direction but there is still a long long way to go. It is my hope that in the next 3 months New Zealanders will make the right decision to enable us to continue with this progress.New Zealanders also want a Government that they can trust a Government that keeps its promises and a Government that is working together with all New Zealanders to build that stronger economy. Under the strong and stable leadership of John Key who has the unanimous support of a united caucus behind him—and it has certainly been an eye-opener for me to come into a political party with 59 members. The natural state of affairs in any political environment would be infighting competition trouble and strife. That is the natural state of affairs in politics and yet I am part of a caucus of 59 that is united and has one vision behind a strong leader in John Key. That has led to a period where we have had an extended time of predictable consistent and stable Government and that is so essential for growing the economy.Before I came to Parliament I spent much of my time writing business history and the main thing that I learnt from looking at successful New Zealand companies was just how difficult it is. One of the last books I wrote was on Bill Gallagher and his company which exports electric fences all around the world. I caught up with him down at the Fieldays a couple of weeks ago. Although the company managed to produce the best electric fences in the world one year every year somebody from somewhere else—from Taiwan or Sweden or somewhere else—was coming up with something better and if it stayed still it would be left behind so there was the constant relentless business of staying one step ahead of the competition. The business would be hit from the side from one thing or another the exchange rate would go up or you would have earthquakes in Canterbury which meant that insurance costs in New Zealand went up. The consumers in Germany who buy the products do not care a hoot about insurance costs in New Zealand. They just want their things at the same price so companies are relentlessly encouraged to innovate in order to find better ways of doing things and maintaining their competitiveness.So to maintain a business—whether it is out in the country or is one of the countless services businesses in Epsom and Parnell that are exporting services all over the world—and to employ people businesses have to take risks. They are more inclined to take risks if they have confidence about what the Government is doing. If they have confidence that there is a basic stability in the environment in New Zealand then there is an element of predictability. Confidence leads to investment investment leads to jobs and wealth and that is what grows the economy. The latest data from Statistics New Zealand shows that economic growth is indeed picking up providing further evidence that our economic programme is making the country more productive and competitive.The main measure that we use GDP has increased by 3.8 percent in the year to March. That is a tremendous performance in the international context compared with only 3.5 percent in Australia 2 percent in the United States and 0.9 percent in the European area. Statistics New Zealand data also shows that the economy grew by 1 percent in the 3 months to 31 March—a very strong reasonably broad-based approach with positive contributions from construction mining agriculture retail trade and accommodation. So these are the latest in a run of encouraging economic indicators.The challenge for us as a country is to extend this period of growth that we have seen over the last couple of years and that indeed is fundamentally the object of the Business Growth Agenda which is a work in progress. So the six areas that we have been working on over the last 6 years—and we will continue to have a very substantial work programme if we have the opportunity over the next 3 years to continue in Government—are dealing with all the areas that enable New Zealand businesses to be more competitive internationally. So it is opening up access to export markets and I reiterate the concerns of Steven Joyce that we are now in a Parliament where free trade is very much a questionable thing. We think that Labour is still with us but it equivocates more and more. The Greens are implacably opposed. New Zealand First is implacably opposed.Then we look at the capital markets where we have made so much progress with the mixed-ownership model and the strength of capital markets in New Zealand. There is a lot more work to be done there. In terms of innovation this latest Budget led to a huge amount more investment in encouraging New Zealand firms to be more innovative and in providing them with the research capability through Callaghan Innovation and the many programmes that it offers. We hear constantly about the area of inequality notwithstanding the inaccuracy of so many claims and I do note that the OECD announced just today that New Zealand was one of only six developed countries in which both income inequality and disposable income inequality was flat or slightly better between 2007 and 2011 which really shows just what nonsense we have been hearing about the so-called growth of inequality. We have been very successful on that score.But what I would say is that the fundamental driver of inequality is the gap in skills that is emerging. You know 30 or 40 years ago in New Zealand if you had only your muscles to offer to the market you could still do quite well in many industries. That is not the case today and it certainly will not be the case in 20 years’ time. So fundamentally the most important thing we can do to reduce inequality is make sure that everybody gets access to a good education and that is what has been very much the focus of Hekia Parata’s work.If we look at infrastructure the thing that concerns Aucklanders most I think is that we live in a city that is growing dynamic and doing well and people want to come here and they do not want to leave. That is great and the city is growing but when you have a situation like that you do have to invest in infrastructure so that the city keeps moving. We are making a significant contribution around the public transport area but you cannot ignore roads and we do not. Certainly in my area the continuation or the completion of the Waterview tunnel will make a massive difference to congestion around the streets of Epsom and throughout the Auckland isthmus. That is the sort of investment we have to make to make the city grow.When you take the overall picture and see the progress that the country is making under the leadership of John Key and this National Government you have to ask yourself why on earth given all this progress we are making the country would want to lurch off in a strange direction under the leadership of David Cunliffe overturn monetary policy and introduce a whole lot of new taxes. I have never believed that all the problems of the world could be solved by the introduction of a capital gains tax but that seems to be David Parker’s view of the world. Then we hear Grant Robertson talking about new higher rates of taxation. Have they not learnt from France’s most recent example Hollande’s high 75 percent tax rate that high taxes redistribute people not income and wealth? People will just move to avoid taxes.So we are going to overturn the electricity market and become a world leader in carbon taxes—why on earth would we take such a risk when we are making good progress? And why would we risk contrasting a stable Government under John Key with an unstable Government with Hone Harawira Dotcom and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all with David Cunliffe? On that basis I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. About a month ago there was a fair bit of excitement in the debating chamber that was indirectly associated with an event of actually national significance. It may well have been reported upon by Al Jazeera because her grand auntie is a reporter at Al Jazeera and I suppose I need to tell the House that Te Hare Makarini Te Ōhaere Flavell Fox on 31 May at 1.15 a.m. came into the world. Can you give me a clap please Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is absolutely awesome that I am a koro now—I am a koro now. You have probably had a few shots—10? Oh my gosh! Well I am happy to have just one right now. So I just want to report to the House that that’s what has happened. Congratulations to me—thank you very much. You are probably asking the question: what the hang has the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill got to do with the birth of my moko my No. 1 moko my beautiful moko? Well I will hopefully be able to tell you about that over the next 10 minutes or so. It is linked because I suppose in the end like any koro you want the very best for your mokopuna for your children and that I suppose is basically what I want to talk about for the next 9½ minutes or so.As the House will know this legislation seeks authorisation of the individual appropriations and changes contained in the supplementary estimates for the year ending 30 June 2014. Encompassed in the volumes is the landscape for the world that I hope Te Hare my beautiful mokopuna will inherit. I am not thinking just about her about my mokopuna as stunning as she is. The truth is that according to a report done by Statistics New Zealand our nation is blessed with far younger populations in Māori electorates than in the general population. In figures released today the 2013 census revealed that although the median age for the Māori population in Māori electorates was 24.4 years old the average age in general electorates is much older at 38 years of age. So in the priorities in policy Budgets and legislation that the Māori Party has always followed we have unashamedly been focused upon our mokopuna our rangatahi and the central role of whānau of families. It makes sense. These young majorities are the foundation of our future workforce.We really need to get that part right and not wait for the latest political party gimmicks or try to bedazzle the young as vote-catchers. The Māori Party has heard from many many young leaders who resent the implication that their vote can be bought by a costly social media campaign or glitzy marketing. They have told us that they want the difference to be about whānau now and about health education employment training warm housing opportunities for innovation and for inspiration to flourish.So let me take a look at the world we have committed to for my beautiful moko Te Hare to grow up in. At this point in time her health and well-being are our primary concern. As a result of negotiations the Māori Party entered into with National she will now benefit from free visits to the general practitioner and free prescriptions until she is a thriving teenager of 13 years. Thank goodness Koro does not have to pay.Te Hare has been born into a nation in which rheumatic fever was not identified by Governments in the past as the health crisis it has now become. Addressing rheumatic fever is a recommendation from the Ministerial Committee on Poverty which was negotiated in the relationship accord between the Māori Party and the National Government. Just a month ago Budget 2014 invested an extra $20 million to combat New Zealand’s high rate of rheumatic fever bringing the Government’s total investment to more than $65.3 million over 6 years. When the free clinics open up later this year over 200000 children and young people in high-risk areas will have access to prompt care and treatment for sore throats and it is about time too. For too many years previous administrations neglected the health of our most vulnerable children and I for one am proud that the Māori Party has stood up and pointed out the obvious—that health matters.Another priority for us has been to focus on the close relationship between health and housing. As a result again of the pressure brought to bear by even having a Ministerial Committee on Poverty the Government has now agreed to expand healthy homes initiatives in Northland Waikato the lakes area where I am from Bay of Plenty Tairāwhiti Hawke’s Bay Capital and Coast and Hutt Valley district health boards.Another aspect of health for our mokopuna is of course her niho—her teeth. During Budget 2014 Tariana Turia announced $10 million was being invested into supporting whānau ensuring they are enrolled for the free local dental service and given lots of support to maintain great oral hygiene. The Māori Party is going to go even further though and we are encouraging all of our whānau—indeed all of the nation—to eliminate sugary beverages from their diets in the interests of a healthy lifestyle.What is really exciting about that is that in Budget 2014 we also provide ourselves with an opportunity to launch an initiative that will definitely help shape the world of our mokopuna and that is Moving the Māori Nation. This is an approach that will support whānau to take a collective approach to health and well-being by participation in sporting recreational and cultural activities. One only has to look at the amazing number of families that are involved and getting into things through waka ama Iron Māori Tri-Māori ki-o-rahi and tribal cultural activities like pā wars to see the whole new level of energy amongst our communities.That energy was given further steam through Budget 2014 by the focus that we have given to innovation entrepreneurship and investment. The burgeoning Māori economy was given an injection of goodwill through an extra $8 million fund to support innovation and investment readiness as well as $6 million for building the capability and branding and leveraging of Māori tourism and trade.In order for Te Hare to take advantage of all these opportunities firstly she needs a top-quality education for her knowledge and then her attitudes to be refined with a full range of training skills to open the door really wide. In the weekend I had the privilege of attending the Te Ranga battle site service and ceremony at Pyes Pā in Tauranga. In particular I was moved by “Ngā Roimata O Te Ranga” a recounting of the events of 21 June 1864 in haka and song. It made me appreciate just how significant the announcement by my colleague Dr Pita Sharples of a new educational initiative to support and strengthen the teaching of Māori history in years 1 to 13 in schools and kura is going to be. We need our stories and our knowledge to be valued and that is where the new investment in establishing a Māori centre of research excellence takes that concept even further.Bringing the debate back to my beautiful magical little mokopuna once she has flourished in her insulated home and benefited from a quality and culturally competent education system she will be strong and well and of course a champion in every sporting event and then we will need to look at what employment and training avenues are in front of her. And there is a wonderful surprise ahead of her. The Māori Party in collaboration with the Government has invested $43 million in the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative to help younger people develop skills in trades that are needed right now and in the longer term. That is 3000 places by 2015 to encourage young Māori and Pasifika people to gain qualifications New Zealand Apprenticeships and employment.The Māori Party is proudly whanau-centred—every day of our political term and in every aspect of our lives. Whānau ora is a way of being. It is not a line in a manifesto or a substance of a press release. It is a transformation of whanau which results in long-term vision determined by the whānau themselves by the family members themselves. Our basic approach to Budget 2014 and indeed to our portfolios right across parliamentary and ministerial responsibilities is underpinned by the knowledge that if we do not transform our families we will not see the difference that we really want to see. The system in every sector serves to fragment families to put them in silos and to segregate them. It puts them in compartments and individual components while all of the time there is a steady focus group of nannies aunties mums and dads who are all watching keenly on every sphere. In closing the Māori Party is distinguished by our focus on whānau our determination to take a collective approach. We are proud that our party has delivered on our commitment to create a world that is going to be fit for my beautiful beautiful moko Te Hare.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):It is a delight to speak after the speaker from the Māori Party particularly as he speaks with such pride of his mokopuna. In fact I look forward that she may be here in 20 years’ time sitting behind you as we continue to cooperate between the National Party and the Māori Party.Jacqui Dean: Very optimistic.SIMON O’CONNOR: I am very optimistic yes—very optimistic. I am optimistic because we have heard nothing good from the Opposition speakers—in fact Opposition speakers who are very much in the practice of theory rather than practice itself. We heard from the last speaker from the Māori Party about practice versus theory. There are others particularly those trying to capture the Māori vote who are just about knocking things down and who have very little experience. They just want to throw theory about.What we have heard from the Māori Party in cooperation with the National Government has been real practical gains for this country. We heard about the whole health programme—the fact that if you are up to 13 years of age you can get free health care through your general practitioner. We have heard about the work on rheumatic fever. It was a shocking statistic when we came into Government. It was something that we wanted to address and we cooperated with the Māori Party to bring that about. It is the difference between theory and practice. All we hear from the other side is theory. It is the National Government reality versus a sort of utopian viewpoint if you like particularly from the Green Party although as I begin to think about its policies it is more of a dystopia. It is quite a breakdown.The Opposition talks about being forward-thinking. The only irony particularly from the Green Party but from the Opposition in general is that when it talks about being forward-thinking it is forgetting the lessons of the past. It is from the lessons of the past that we are able to competently move into the future. One need look no further than this whole talk around equality and what is wanting to be pushed forward there. One of the lessons we know from history particularly when it comes to equality and socialism is that socialism—communism is probably more accurate from what we heard from Dr Russel Norman—relies on restraint to bring about its ends in equality. Tocqueville mentioned that. I mention him as I might a few other academics not simply because they are names but they are people who have lived experienced and written about this. We in the current day and age can learn. It is from restraint.The best example is something around transport. We heard a whole lot of talk around transport—more public transport and cars. We are against cars! A society that is based on freedom first and then equality allows people to have the choice. On this side of the House we believe that Kiwis are smart enough and able enough to make the decisions that are best for them and for their families. A restraint model a socialist model decides what is good and what is bad and ultimately makes the choice for other people. The search for a supposed equality in this case say around public transport instantly reduces the freedom of people. Another thinker Milton Friedman of all people said that if you have equality before freedom you get neither. Freedom is ultimately incredibly important and it is something that this Government is focused on.You see this throughout this Government’s policies. It is backing Kiwis to do the best for themselves their families and their community. It is about setting up an environment in both senses of that word—an environment that helps Kiwis prosper now and well into the future. It is about ultimately theory versus practice and on this side of the House it is about walking the talk and not just simply talking. National is promising to do good things and it has been over the last 6 years. The difference in what we have heard today in this discussion and debate is a lot of talk from the other side but no promises being delivered. When we start to look at the economy here in New Zealand we have 2 to 4 percent economic growth over the next 4 years and an economy currently growing at 3.8 percent. We have got a $372 million surplus next year growing to $1.3 billion the year after. These are real facts.What have we heard from the other side? What is Labour’s primary suggestion around growth? It is a capital gains tax. I think my colleague Paul Goldsmith put it right. That is the one and only golden policy silver bullet bronze medal idea to try to move this economy forward. Capital gains taxes have not worked overseas. They are unnecessarily complicated and they will not work for years.Hon Annette King: That’s a ridiculous comment.SIMON O’CONNOR: Annette King says that is ridiculous. [Interruption] Exactly! We are back to theory and practice here. Some of us will read the facts and will look overseas. Let us have a look at Australia. We know what works in practice but in the little theoretical world over there—no no—those members say that it is the panacea that will solve all things. It has been the panacea for almost 30 years. And now it is stupid. Now we move into the ad hominem arguments. We really should have just sat down. The predictability of the Labour Party—it is tiresome if not boring.There is $1 billion of dollars of new spending in the Budget. It is not reckless spending. We heard the Minister of Finance note that billions of extra dollars were being spent by the Labour Government before thankfully it went out of Government in 2008. Moving into the unproductive sector is not going to help the economy at all. We have been very prudent in our approach—as I said $1 billion. What do we hear from the left instead? It is about more spending massive spending. The solution to everything is more spending on welfare more spending on superannuation more spending on housing more spending on parental leave more on health more on youth more on Māori and more on the environment—more magic beans for everybody. That is the left’s approach. Taxpayers in this country know that every time there is a push for more it is coming out of hard-working taxpayers’ pockets. That is what they understand.Once again some in the Opposition say we are spending more on roads. Yes we are spending more on roads in cost line and within a budget that is restrained—that is restrained. That is called balancing the budget and working appropriately which is something that Labour never understood in Government and still does not understand. It still does not understand it.We are also seeing the Government working towards a net debt of 26 percent. That is the Crown’s debt. There is a whole issue with private debt from New Zealanders. [Interruption] Oh we have upset the left now. We come right back to that whole theory and practice. They talk a lot but in practice they cannot match the record of this Government. Government debt will peak at about 26 percent and over the next few years will drop down to 20 percent of GDP. That is something we can rightly be proud of. Average wages are going up. They are expected to rise by about $7600 to $62300 by 2018. These are real facts. These are real happenings.On the other side Labour policy basically talks of an arbitrary legislated change. Labour members think this will actually make a real impact. The experts say that if you just arbitrarily raise the rate because some Anglican reverend has come up with an idea it will just cost thousands of jobs. But again the theory is what matters not the practice. They do not care. We want to bring about—actually we have about 170000 new jobs in the next 4 years. What do we hear from the other side particularly from the Greens? We hear talk of a smart Green economy. It sounds nice. It is a good theory. It just does not mean anything. Give us one example of this smart Green economy. In some ways to me it always sounds like we are taking money out of the productive sector and simply putting it into blue-sky research. It is really not smart Green jobs but jobs solely within the academic field. It is just a little nuts.We have invested in education. We know of a lot of the wins we have had here. I am very proud of what has been happening in Tāmaki. I mentioned before the new school buildings we put at St Thomas’s school the work at Selwyn College and so forth. I am happy to report to the House that what we are really proud of lately actually is that one of my schools—Stonefields School—has now got a green star accreditation. That means that the building of this public school is in that high ranking of environmental quality. That is a green school under National. But did we hear anything from the Greens about this? Of course not. The Greens are much better at knocking things down than actually building them up. We on this side are very proud of our environmental record. But also with regard to our cooperative side Stonefields School has just opened a cooperative agreement if you like in the new hub for the Sommerville Special School helping some of our most vulnerable in that area. That is absolutely fantastic.Carol Beaumont: How are the evictions going in Glen Innes north?SIMON O’CONNOR: I am hearing someone from the other side yelling about Glen Innes. We have an incredibly proud record there as new homes are being built. Our people are engaging with the various dental and health initiatives through the schools. They are setting up gardens in the schools. They are positive for their community. And the fundamental difference between this side here and the other is that we go into those communities and we tell them that they are worthwhile they have quality they have opportunities and we are there to support them—not continue to make excuses for them and to hold them down. We are very different.I want to finish on that note because I am conscious that the bell has gone. The Opposition is holding them down in theory and practice.Last week this House almost unanimously passed the Vulnerable Children Bill. I acknowledge the Labour Party’s support for this. It is a bill to protect our young people with things such as screening people who are going to be looking after our kids. Do you know who voted against it? The Greens and Mana. I am absolutely shocked at that behaviour.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai):I am very happy to be speaking in the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill debate.David Bennett: You don’t even know what a Ponzi scheme is.Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes I know what poncy is and I was talking about the Minister of Health. However in terms of what I want to do today I want to use this opportunity to actually speak about Health Benefits Ltd. I believe—and this has been sent to me in many leaks now—that Health Benefits Ltd is becoming the Novopay of the health system. In fact I have been told that Health Benefits Ltd is going to make Novopay look like it was just a little problem indeed. I believe that the Minister needs to front up on this issue and tell New Zealand what is happening in the Crown organisation that he set up that was supposed to save money in the health sector.Tony Ryall has been pouring money into a scheme that is now being described by those in the district health board sector as a Ponzi scheme. So where did it all start? Tony Ryall launched his flagship project—the centralisation of services and supplies all around reducing back-office costs and duplication—called the Finance Procurement and Supply Chain programme. It was to be run by Health Benefits Ltd. Originally we were told it was going to save $500 million over 10 years. District health boards were required to put $88 million of their health dollars into Health Benefits Ltd towards the cost of running it.By September 2012 Tony Ryall was meeting resistance to the programme from boards throughout New Zealand. They could see their health dollars going into Health Benefits Ltd and saw very few rewards coming out for the money invested. Any rewards that were coming out were coming from their own efforts not from this fast-growing empire which now covers four floors of two buildings in downtown Auckland.Tony Ryall then threatened to use special legal powers to force the hospital bosses to do his bidding. He now wanted them to save $700 million. The threat came after flaws in the plan were exposed in a high-level review that questioned where the savings were coming from. This review came from Ernst and Young. It found that any savings—and this was in 2012 so we are talking 2 years ago—were based on assumptions that were out of date and that the basis on which they were calculated was not clear. Documents obtained under the Official Information Act showed that the path has been very rocky indeed with communication breakdowns between the boards and Health Benefits Ltd. District health boards repeatedly told the Ernst and Young review panel that they felt Health Benefits Ltd was doing it to the district health boards rather than doing it with them. So Tony Ryall then wrote to the boards not contemplating any resistance from them at all and said he would force the boards into a partnership as a last resort if they did not do it voluntarily. He could do that if he wanted to because he had granted himself new powers 2 years before that in a law designed to streamline health board purchasing and administration. So there we have it set up for what has happened over the last 2 years.I have had many reports released to me many leaked letters and the most significant came only a few weeks ago. It is significant because it is a letter written by the chair of the district health board national chief financial officers to the chair of the district health board executives. So in other words the chair of all the chief financial officers of all the district health boards wrote to the chair of the chief executive officers of all the district health boards. This is what they had to say in their letter: “The DHB CFOs as a group are writing to express profound concern at the mounting risk to the delivery of health services brought about by the Finance Procurement and Supply Chain … work programme and the lack of transparent and timely information from Health Benefits Ltd (HBL) to District Health Boards in relation to material changes to the programme including to costs benefits impacts and risks.” They went on to say “we are increasingly concerned at advice we have received from HBL in relation to benefits erosion”. They are unable to qualify what the benefits are at this time.They go on in the very very sobering letter to say that “After careful consideration at our recent national meeting [we] consider it necessary to formally bring to the attention of national [chief executives] our grave and collective concerns about the FPSC work programme its cost escalations implementation delays benefits erosion and escalating risk profile.” They say that “DHBs are well advanced in restructuring processes associated with this programme and are now facing significant risks in relation to the retention of the staff necessary to enable the continuation of current service …”. They say: “The confidence of CFOs in the FPSC programme has been severely diminished.”I brought that to the attention of the Minister of Health. He was not the least bit interested. As usual he batted it away.I have to say there has been a pattern to this because I first started asking questions and putting in Official Information Act requests last year. It has been almost impossible to get any information out of Health Benefits Ltd. It has been almost impossible to get a single answer out of the Minister—smoke and mirrors—and now I believe that what we are seeing is a huge cover-up of a programme that has gone badly awry.The latest document given to me and to Radio New Zealand National on Friday following questioning of the Minister last week was written by a senior manager within district health boards. It is called “Exposing the Myths of Health Benefits Ltd: the Risk to the New Zealand Health System”. It says that the New Zealand health sector is pursuing through Health Benefits Ltd a path of centralisation that is creating the biggest single risk to the delivery of public health services in New Zealand in a generation at a time when the system is under extraordinary cost and service delivery pressure. It says that despite the apparent logic of the centralisation rationale not only does the work programme of Health Benefits Ltd manifest all the hallmarks of large-scale high-profile public and private sector failures but its similarities with Ponzi schemes are striking. The document goes on to say that despite its veneer it is destroying significant value and bringing about extraordinary risks to the health system.That document said that the costs have ballooned from $88 million to $130 million and they are growing. The benefits have been reduced by one-third the payback period of investment has gone from 10 years to more than 60 years there is nothing of substance that has been delivered 2 years into the investment the programme is now running 2 years late and there are close to 400 jobs that are in a state of flux throughout provincial New Zealand as a consequence. The district health boards have been alerted to the prospect that Health Benefits Ltd will not seek re-approval from district health boards for increased commitments. In other words it is going to take the money whether the boards approve or not. It is not going to seek approval for reduced benefits and extended payback periods. This is a travesty. This is a disaster. This is health money that should be going into health services and I believe that there is a cover-up that has to be exposed.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):That was great drama from the member Annette King. I can assure you that the picture in the three health boards that are covered by my electorate—the Wairarapa central Hawke’s Bay and the Manawatū—do not reflect the picture that has just been presented to this House by that speaker. Mind you what would one expect this far out from an election?I want to focus my comments on the topic today which is around the supplementary estimates and to focus on three areas: foreign affairs trade and defence. Over the past 5 years the National Government has significantly strengthened New Zealand’s international footprint enhanced our international reputation and established a base for long-term prosperity based on stronger trade and economic partnerships. Looking ahead there are significant opportunities for New Zealand as countries in the Asia-Pacific region develop rapidly and demand more of what we produce. Our Business Growth Agenda is putting in place reforms to help businesses perform well particularly with the tradable and export sectors. That is how people in my community earn their living. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr McCully has also strengthened our leadership role in the Pacific and he has made New Zealand a formidable candidate for election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2015-16 term.The integration of NZAID—this will get them going—into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure greater efficiency and coherence has created a model that is now being followed by others for example Australia as other nations seek to achieve more with constrained budgets. Having held the development budget at around $550 million a year as we coped with the twin impacts of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake there is now room for future growth and the supplementary estimates support steady increases from 2015.Investment in the Official Development Assistance programme is going to increase by nearly $220 million for the 3-year period starting in 2015-16. Total expenditure over this period is going to be $1.89 billion compared with nearly $1.67 billion in the current 3-year period. This Government is making a commitment of major proportions to our neighbours. This increased vote after the recent pause because of the Christchurch earthquake will be spent primarily addressing the challenges faced by developing countries in our Pacific neighbourhood. The additional investment in aid and development funding will also support new strategic investments in the region particularly in agriculture food security renewable energy and disaster risk management. As with the current aid programme investment will have a focus on delivering results that make a tangible difference to the lives of people and as our Budget in 2014 has already proposed the increased forecast expenditure under Vote Official Development Assistance has increased to nearly $550 million.The key features of our development policy under a re-elected National Government—which is looking increasingly likely—will be to maintain a focus on the Pacific with over 60 percent of our development budget committed to that region. We will also use partnerships to ensure that our aid funds are leveraged as was the case with a brilliant initiative from Minister Mr McCully when he led in March last year the Pacific renewable energy programme which generated a partnership with other countries around the planet and provided $635 million of new capital for energy projects just in the Pacific. We are also seeking more flexible instruments to add to the tool kit to ensure strong development outcomes. We are working and creating strong relationships between our aid programme and other Government agencies New Zealand businesses and Trade and Enterprise to ensure a “New Zealand Inc.” approach.This week’s papers have reported that our Prime Minister has just returned from a visit to New York and Washington where the main focus was to reinforce New Zealand’s bid to secure a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2015-16. He reported this morning in our caucus that he had received a very strong positive response. We never see the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr McCully because he is working hard to campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Last week he was in Iran Ghana and America. He is absolutely the peripatetic Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has boosted New Zealand’s profile internationally and as a result has demonstrated that New Zealand is a committed and collaborative multilateral player. McCully has reinvigorated New Zealand’s links with countries from emerging regions for the long-term benefit of New Zealand.Early in the term of the next Government—I think on 18 October—New Zealand will face this contest for a 2-year term on the Security Council a role we last held over 20 years ago. Our country has a strong international brand recognised for being fair-minded and constructive in our behaviour. The National Government under John Key’s leadership has worked really hard to build a case for New Zealand’s election to the Security Council through a campaign designed to provide lasting benefits for our reputation and influence overseas.In recent years we have enhanced the relationships with our partners as I have said. We have continued the momentum with our traditional close partners—and I am thinking here of Australia the United States Canada and the United Kingdom—including in this year 2014 becoming a guest of the G20 when it meets in Australia. We have focused on the Asia and Pacific regions consolidating relationships in the ASEAN area and we have recently appointed an ASEAN ambassador who will be based in Jakarta. We have increased our ambition in our relationship with China and the Prime Minister has set new trade targets by 2020. Tim Groser our Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs has led 31 high-level trade missions to Asia Latin America and the Pacific. Under McCully’s leadership we have opened new posts in Abu Dhabi Addis Ababa Myanmar Barbados and Honolulu and we are soon going to open a new consulate-general in Chengdu China. We have strengthened our ASEAN relationships including with the establishment of this new ambassador in Jakarta who will be separate from the New Zealand ambassador to Indonesia.What we are doing is seeking new diplomatic and economic opportunities for New Zealand and we are taking a “New Zealand Inc.” approach across all Government agencies. We have been doing this in China the Gulf Cooperation Council Australia and ASEAN. We have particularly strengthened our key partnership with Australia. We have transformed our diplomatic and security relationship with the United States. Just look at what was on our television sets last week. We have reinforced China as our largest trading partner and we have enhanced our leadership role in the Pacific which as I said now gets 60 percent of our budget.Before I end I would just like to make a few comments about defence because if I do not nobody else will. We have allocated $535.5 million in ongoing extra operational funding over the next 4 years and the Government’s investment of $100.9 million in 2014 and 2015 is the first stage of an allocation of the $535 million in operational funding. This will enable the New Zealand Defence Force to maintain and improve its current mix of capabilities it will help us sustain and grow numbers over time and it will allow the Government to continue to modernise and upgrade the New Zealand Defence Force’s capability. These are good pieces of legislation and I fully support them. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which sets out a great array of financial figures and projections. There are in fact hundreds of cost figures in this bill.The probity of financial figures is vital; indeed it is central to any discussion involving Government finance so it is all the more egregious that the Government made its so-called surplus the centrepiece of its 2014 Budget. Yes balancing the Government’s Budget is an important economic objective but it has to be real balancing not the manufactured phony fiddling of the books that National did in the 2014 Budget to create a surplus.The 2014 Budget took the expression “smoke and mirrors” to a whole new height. For example the Budget is not really balanced when all sorts of creative accounting has been applied to the Christchurch rebuild costs. The Government has forecast a surplus of close to half a billion dollars in the Budget. At the same time it was reducing the current budget for Canterbury earthquake matters by about the same amount. Recently the Prime Minister indicated that the Government will have to spend a further $5 billion because the Christchurch rebuild costs will escalate. So on the one hand costs for Canterbury earthquake matters were written down for the 2014-15 Budget whilst on the other hand the same Government was forecasting an additional $5 billion for Christchurch over coming years which leads to the conclusion that the almost half-billion-dollar surplus comes at Christchurch’s expense or is the worst form of creative accounting.The people of Christchurch know they have been sacrificed so the Government can boast about its books. Holding back vitally needed money to rebuild Christchurch in order to generate the so-called surplus amounts to being a crime against its own people or another example of the Government fiddling the books. The facts are clear: the Government has jacked up the numbers from an insurance deal when the remains of AMI Insurance were taken over. AMI you will remember was turned into Southern Response Earthquake Services and that is where the fiddling started. The proceeds from this sale amounted to $252 million which is placed in Government bonds rather than in settling insurance claims. A Government deal with Southern Response required it to thereafter put surplus cash on its books into Government bonds as well. This has been boosted by money coming in from reinsurance companies—all going into Government bonds. So hey presto magic we have another deception against Christchurch and an impacting on the Budget surplus. It is shameless deception.Other areas of Budget duplicity include police funding which has been frozen. Now we have the police having to face an impossible choice: do they deal with vulnerable children or go after organised crime? Also border protection is reduced despite all the risk to biosecurity that that entails. Nothing has been learnt from the Psa incursion that struck the kiwifruit industry. Also defence capability is being undermined. Conservation is being cut despite all the environmental risks. The only genuine way to balance the Budget is to grow the economy and most important that requires a realistic and sustainable exchange rate.New Zealand First has a bill to reform the Reserve Bank to give it powers to take account of employment and exports not just the inflation rate. A flexible monetary policy will give a realistic exchange rate that will allow many regional industries including manufacturing to survive and thrive. New Zealand First also has policies including tax incentives research and development support and accelerated depreciation to support a broadly based manufacturing sector and not just rely on an increasingly narrow range of dairy agricultural and log exports. Dairy and forestry now account for 40 percent of export receipts. That is a highly vulnerable position for this country’s economy.New Zealand First also has policies to support regional development such as our royalties for regions policy whereby we would return 25 percent of Crown royalties back to their origins—the regions where the original mining or extraction was done. This would greatly benefit many regions throughout New Zealand by returning that 25 percent of Crown royalties directly back to where mining has an effect. We will tighten the rules of foreign ownership of land and housing something that this Government is afraid to do. New Zealand First will ensure that businesses stop draining New Zealand wealth by investing in speculating on New Zealand land and housing from abroad.What New Zealand needs is a comprehensive economic strategy and plan. New Zealand does not need a “smoke and mirrors” Budget that is taking money out of Christchurch that is fiddling the books and that is removing money from the likes of the police border protection defence and conservation just so that the Government comes up with a paper-thin surplus of $270-something million. There is no sign of that coming from the National Government after 5½ years of office. This is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and it is not going forward. New Zealand First has policies that will do so.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):I just want to put a few things straight for the public out there who were listening to the speech from the member who has just resumed his seat Andrew Williams. The New Zealand economy grew by more than 3.8 percent in the year to March. That is the third highest among the world’s most developed countries and growth is forecast to reach 4 percent next year. This is a far cry from what we inherited in 2008 it is a far cry from what you would get under a Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government and it is a far cry from what the Australians see happening in their country at the moment.There are a couple of policies that have been mentioned by other speakers today that I think we should talk about. The last speaker touched on one. It is one policy that has come through from the Greens New Zealand First and Labour and it is the attack on the productive sector of New Zealand. They do not want New Zealand farmers to deliver the products that the world wants on the world stage. They do not want New Zealand to be a strong agricultural producer going forward. They do not want that to happen and they are going to bring in a series of policies to achieve that purpose. The first of those is carbon pricing. This is not a carbon tax. Everybody would expect some kind of carbon tax to raise money and for that money to then be spent on environmental initiatives. Carbon pricing does not do that.All that is proposed under the Greens’ policy which would be favoured by Labour and the New Zealand First Party is to tax the productive sector of New Zealand. The farming sector of New Zealand would have to pay more taxes so that they can redistribute that as tax cuts for New Zealanders. That is all it is. It has got nothing about achieving any environmental purpose. It is pure politics. It is a transfer of income from the productive sector to the sectors that are in the rest of the New Zealand economy. That is what the Labour Party the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party will stand for at the next election.Andrew Williams: Come on—are you joining us?DAVID BENNETT: See either they are joining them or they are not. That is the question for the Greens. Are they going to them or not? They do not answer do they because they know they are. That is what New Zealanders have to be aware of. That policy will mean that the productive sector of New Zealand the agricultural sector that has been delivering great economic returns for New Zealand in the past few years will be hamstrung by carbon pricing and that will reduce its competitiveness which will reduce the competitiveness of the New Zealand economy in total.The next policy they want to do is around a capital gains tax. Again it is another policy that does not achieve its purpose. It is a policy that attacks the productive sector of New Zealand. The one part of the New Zealand economy that will be paying for a capital gains tax is New Zealand businesses and farms that generate the income for this country going forward. It will—Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s wrong with that?DAVID BENNETT: “What’s wrong with that?”—that is what Rajen Prasad said. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with attacking the productive sector of the New Zealand economy? That is exactly what the Labour Party thinks. It does not believe there is any problem in attacking the productive sector of New Zealand. Labour believes that the productive sector is a cash cow that you can hit until the cows come home does it not Mr Prasad? Labour believes that you can go after that sector all day and all night and it is not going to make any difference to the New Zealand economy. That is the fundamental misunderstanding that the Opposition has.The Opposition does not understand where the bread is buttered in New Zealand and where the money comes from to pay for our schools to pay for our roads and to pay for our hospitals. That money has to be earned overseas. New Zealand is a great agricultural producing country and to attack that productive sector through a capital gains tax and a carbon price will hurt that sector. You will see as Mr Goldsmith said earlier that those increases in taxes will not lead to what Mr Prasad and others are saying will happen. They will lead to capital being moved out of New Zealand less capital investment in our productive sector and therefore less revenue for our country as a whole and less economic growth for our economy.The third area that I think New Zealanders need to be aware of is the anti-immigration stance that will be taken by those three Opposition parties. They do not believe in having a free and open New Zealand where we make the most of the opportunities we have in the modern world. They believe in an isolated island that can put up barriers and that it is not good enough to have anybody else coming in; the people who are here now are the limit. That is what the New Zealand First Party has always stood for. [Interruption] That is what the New Zealand First Party has always stood for and will always stand for because it is against immigration it is against an open and free New Zealand. It is a disgraceful day for the Labour Party to agree to that. They are so silent over there now because they know in their heart of hearts they do not agree with it either.Chris Hipkins: We’re bored.DAVID BENNETT: You are not bored; you are listening mate. You will be listening to the end of the election campaign as well. When we look at New Zealand going forward New Zealand has an economy that is growing. This is something that we did not inherit when we came into Government. In the last 5 years of the Labour Government there was a 50 percent increase in Government expenditure. We have got that under control. Mortgage rates for those homeowners about whom the Labour Party members were talking were at 10.9 percent under Labour; under National they are at about 6 percent.Food prices were up about 10.9 percent in the last year of the Labour Government. They are up 1.5 percent under this Government here today. House prices went up 96 percent over the 9 years of the Labour Government but they have gone up only 28 percent under this Government. Electricity prices went up 72 percent under Labour but only 20 percent under this Government. The current account deficit—the thing the Greens always talk about—was 7.9 percent under Labour but it is only 3.4 percent under this Government. Many New Zealanders left and went to Australia at that time because they understood what the Labour Government would mean to them and to this economy going forward.Denis O’Rourke: What about $60 billion of debt?DAVID BENNETT: The debt that New Zealand has accumulated has been to rebuild Christchurch a city I thought you would have been most comfortable to see rebuilt and to keep this country afloat in the most difficult of economic times. So the New Zealand First Party obviously does not want to rebuild Christchurch. But I have got news for all transport lovers in New Zealand. When you see the New Zealand First transport policy you will be amazed. New Zealand First wants to have passenger trains going from Wellington to Wanganui. Every other city in New Zealand will be serviced by a passenger train network.Trevor Mallard is smiling and nodding and saying that is great as well so it is good to see that the Labour Party is supporting that as well as New Zealand First. That is the kind of rhetoric that those parties will engage in during the next 3 months. They will be reckless with their promises. They will not have costed out their promises at all. They will make a lot of promises to New Zealanders that will not be held up.This is an economy that is doing well. This is a country that is doing well. It has got good strong leadership prudent economic management and a willingness and desire to make its way in the modern world. We need to celebrate our successes in agriculture and other trading industries which provide a lot of the mainstay of income that is generated in this country. We do not need to attack them and see them as some kind of cash cow that will enable the Opposition parties to deliver their election promises.We should be looking forward as a country that grows and makes the most of its opportunities not one that looks back and tries to hijack and take advantage of the hard work of New Zealanders that has gone on before. This is an important election for New Zealanders because they have that choice. At that election they will choose a progressive country that looks forward takes advantage of our opportunities as a food producer and openly embraces immigration. They will choose a country that does not say no to people coming into this country. They will choose a country that does not look backwards does not try to redistribute money and does not try to move the deckchairs around to try to achieve the Opposition’s election promises. That is the choice New Zealanders will have and it is a choice that New Zealanders will hopefully make the right decision on. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I do believe that New Zealanders will make a positive progressive choice at this year’s general election and I think that that will result in this National Government being turfed out. I think New Zealanders have had enough of this arrogant Government telling them how good they have got it when they are watching their wages go backwards when they are watching future generations being shut out of the housing market when they are watching the education system and the health system being run down under this National Government. I think New Zealanders are ready to make a positive progressive change at this year’s election and I think that that will see the election of a Labour-led Government.We are seeing under this Government that although National tells everybody how good their lives are wages have stagnated. New Zealanders are not getting ahead under National. In fact wages are barely keeping pace with inflation while people look across at Australia and they see the Australian workers getting paid more. John Key stood in the Westpac Stadium a few years ago and decried the exodus to Australia and yet he has done nothing—done nothing—to address that. Unemployment doubled under this National Government—doubled under this National Government—and remains disgracefully high in this country. Bill English and John Key go around and say how getting unemployment down is a hoax and it will never happen. That is National’s vision. Those members do not care that unemployment is high. They do not care about the fact that we have literally 147000 unemployed people in New Zealand. John Key and Bill English say that doing something about that is unrealistic.Well we in the Labour Party have a more positive attitude than that. Our attitude says that every New Zealander who can get out there and work should have the opportunity to do so. That means they should have a job they can go to and it should not just be any old job; it should be a well-paid job as well.Phil Twyford: With a living wage.CHRIS HIPKINS: With a living wage where they can be well supported and where they can support their families. That is the aspiration of this party. The aspiration of that Government is all about making sure the people at the top of the economic pile are well looked after. They have completely shut out any concerns being raised by those who are struggling to make ends meet. We in the Labour Party simply do not think that is acceptable. We will make sure that all New Zealanders get their fair share of the recovery.When future generations of New Zealanders the generation that will vote for the first time at this year’s election go to the polls they will be asking themselves what kind of country they want to inherit from the current generation of political leadership. Do they want to inherit a country in which they have no prospect of buying their own home? Do they want to inherit a country where large numbers of them will earn lower wages here in New Zealand than if they move overseas move offshore? Do they want to inherit a country where all of the valuable assets have been sold off—sold off—by the Government and nothing is left for future generations? I think that they will decide that is not the type of country they want to inherit and they will vote for a positive progressive change at this year’s general election.I want to talk particularly about the education system. If there is one sector that needs a positive inspirational vision at the moment it is the education system. In the education system at the moment we have got a Government that is obsessed with narrowing down the focus of the whole system on to a few measurable targets—a few measurable targets that do not bring out the best in every child that do not place high trust in the teaching profession that tell schools and teachers they are not to be trusted; they are to be treated as factories and they are to be measured on their outputs as if kids were units of economic production rather than the unique individuals that they actually are.The Government wants to implement this new policy of expert teachers and executive principals which will take the really good teachers out of the classroom and will take the really good principals away from the schools that they are currently working in. I used an example in question time today of a school principal who said: “How on Earth am I supposed to continue to manage my own school and oversee 10 others at the same time? It’s simply not feasible.” The teaching profession is saying this is not feasible and it is not workable. This Government is too arrogant to listen to that and it is going to plough ahead. Hekia Parata when she was interviewed about this on television a couple of weeks ago refused to rule out legislating for this change to take place. So even when the entire teaching profession puts up their hand and says “We have got concerns about this. We have got concerns about the workability of it.” the Government will not listen. It will say “We will railroad over the top of feedback from the profession”—the feedback of the experts in the classroom—“and we will say ‘Thou shalt do this.’ ” and it will legislate it.But that of course is not surprising from this Government because this Government does not even trust the teaching profession enough to have a say in how its profession is governed. The Government is proposing legislation through this Parliament that will mean that the teaching profession has no say over who forms the board of its own regulatory body. We would never do that to lawyers or to doctors or to nurses or to any other profession. In fact I have got speeches and I have quoted them in the House before of the National Party decrying the real estate industry’s lack of influence over its own governing and regulatory body. And yet National was willing to stand up in the House and defend the real estate agents. But when it comes to the teaching profession—no nothing. National is quite happy to ride roughshod over the teaching profession and say that it is not to be trusted.I think that is wrong. I think we should trust the teaching profession. I do not think there is a single teacher in this country who goes into the classroom every day and thinks “Gosh! I am really aiming to do a bad job today.” Every teacher who goes to school does so because they want to make the future better for future generations of New Zealanders. I congratulate them on that. I say on behalf of the Labour Party that we trust in the teaching profession and we respect the teaching profession. In our case it is not hollow sentiment; we actually believe it. It will be absolutely evident in the policies that we will be promoting.We have a Government here that wants to remove the requirement for registered and qualified teachers in charter schools. National does not want these schools to be accountable to the same accountability mechanisms as every other school in the country. They do not even have to teach to the curriculum in the way that every other school in the country does. And National is willing to shovel millions—tens of millions of dollars—of taxpayers’ money into charter schools with very little accountability even to the point where if someone establishes a charter school gets millions of dollars in Government funding and then closes before the end of their supposed contract there is no ability to recoup that money. There is not a single clause in that contract that allows the Crown to recoup that cost. So these schools can go and splash cash buying huge assets and the Government does not have a leg to stand on if one of those schools were to close. That is simply wrong.We have got a Government here where its solution to student achievement is to introduce national standards which are neither national nor standard. They are no measure of benchmarking student performance because the way they are assessed at schools varies dramatically and they are no basis of comparison whatsoever. Now the Government is talking about using them as the precursor for performance pay and for making school funding decisions based on national standards results.Well most teachers in the country would be pretty happy just to be paid their current pay on time let alone performance pay. At the moment some of them are struggling to be paid at all because of the absolute debacle that is the Novopay payroll system which nearly 2 years after it was implemented still does not work. We have still got people struggling with historical problems and not being paid because of the disaster that is Novopay. “Mr Fix-it” has quickly morphed into “Mr Excuses” because he has not got any answers to the Novopay problem other than to pretend that nothing is wrong any more. It has all been fixed according to Steven Joyce yet there is feedback on a daily basis from within schools that teachers still are not being paid on time they are still struggling and they are still being distracted from the valuable work that they have to do in teaching the future generations of kids. It is time to fix the Novopay problem.There is a better way in the education system. It starts with quality early childhood education and runs right the way through the whole system. The Labour Party is committed to quality early childhood education to funding centres that have 100 percent qualified staff for those qualified teachers and to making sure that kids get access no matter where they live to quality early childhood education. It means recognising that we have a huge diversity of students in our education system from those who have special learning needs and who are falling behind to those who have special learning needs because they are well ahead. It was Gifted Awareness Week last week and we want to make sure that all of those kids are supported so that they can achieve to their full potential. What this Government does not get is that underachievement is not just about kids who are falling behind; underachievement is any child who is not achieving to their full potential. They could be incredibly bright well ahead of their peers but if they are not achieving to their potential then that is a waste as well and they are underachieving as well.We have to support every student in our schools to make sure that they are achieving to their full potential and that starts with a much higher trust in the teaching profession. We have got to set the teachers free cut the red tape and allow them to get on with the job that they are there to do. They are passionate about teaching. They are passionate about future generations of New Zealanders. Let us let them get on with the job. Let us put some trust in them. Let us stop bagging them in the way this Government does.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):Well the Opposition’s speeches in the House today fact-free and filled with inconsistency—as indeed are many of the members on Opposition benches—have clearly illustrated to us yet again that they are totally unaware and out of touch with what New Zealanders really need and want. The day-to-day reality of how most of us live our lives—not spending more than we earn saving for our retirement and working hard so that our families can get ahead—is almost a totally unknown quantity to these Opposition parties. We have heard a surfeit of evidence to support that this afternoon.Labour and its big-borrowing big-spending dogma-driven mates the Greens are determinedly ignorant about the issues that matter to us. The Prime Minister today in question time—just to remind you Mr Speaker—called it the Greens’ “economic lunacy”. Bill English in leading this debate on appropriations today raised many good questions and challenged the Opposition members to show us their plan their new initiatives instead of adopting their usual approach which is to fund the problems and not solve the problems which I thought was a very neat phrase he came out with. Opposition speakers today have not delivered anything new but let us look closely at the prospect of change.What would New Zealand have to lose if they elected that motley crew maybe with the “IMP Party” thrown in to boot the “Hone and Kimi” unholy alliance? Let us add up the risk to the voters if they embrace these deviant couplings. For starters they would destroy the fragile recovery and squander all the hard-won gains—gains that have been fought for by hard-working New Zealanders and led by our outstanding Prime Minister John Key and the Minister of Finance Bill English. The alliance of the hard left would rule the show and I would imagine totally torpedo our steadily climbing economic growth. To seal their shonky deals would cost all of us in this country in the billions.Let us just take one recent example that emerged today in the House and was last week mentioned in the House in question time. This is the nonsense specifically that the Greens are peddling around the Māui’s dolphin. They are trying to scaremonger and to ban all oil exploration in an area off the cost of Taranaki where there has not been one single incident involving the Māui’s dolphin over the past 44 years. That is despite 23 oil wells being drilled—not a single incident not a single sighting not a single problem. There have been more than 700 fishing trips where there have been independent observers on board—not a single sighting of the Māui’s dolphin.However it has been very clearly and scientifically documented that some 95 percent of the risk to the dolphins is from set netting which is a practice that has resulted in the Minister of Conservation Nick Smith doubling the area of protection because he does take that threat seriously. We do care as a Government because we do care about the real threats to this endangered species but we do not make up imagined threats to suit the political agenda as the Greens are doing. They would—and we have heard it today and repeatedly—make up these imagined threats. Really what they are going to be doing is sacrificing the economy of Taranaki and I reckon the whole country actually in order to attract the oxygen of publicity that they need to survive politically. If they get their way what would be the likely outcome for Taranaki? The Prime Minister started to spell it out today as did Nick Smith. By shutting down the Pohokura gas field which is essentially what the Greens are trying to do they shut down 50 percent of New Zealand’s gas resources. It would cost around 5000 jobs and it would cripple our ability to produce the gas we need to function as a country. That would mean we would probably have to turn on the coal-fired power station at Huntly. That would mean that our greenhouse emissions would go through the roof. We would end up having to import more of the fuels which would have a very bad effect on our balance of payments. New Zealand would not earn the nearly $1 billion in royalties and taxes that we get every year off those industries. It is precisely that sort of “loony tunes” reckless and irresponsible behaviour that would send New Zealand down the wrong economic path.There are on an upward-looking note many good reasons to measure the success of the economy as has been managed by Bill English and this John Key - led Government over the past nearly 6 years. If you measure the success of the economy by our GDP our gross domestic product has increased by a very healthy 3.8 percent. That is just in the year to the end of March. That makes New Zealand the third-fastest-growing developed economy in the world. Our 3.8 percent annual growth compares very favourably indeed with the 3.5 percent they have managed to get in Australia the 2 percent in the United States and around 0.9 percent through Europe. Our economic growth understandably is the envy of many other countries because it is broad-based. It has positive contributions from the construction industry from mining from agriculture and from the retail trade and accommodation sectors.There is even more to celebrate as that growth in the economy is matched by even higher levels of consumer and business confidence—business confidence being at around a 20-year high. So for those who do not evaluate their economic prospects in terms of GDP if they want to bring it closer to home and measure it more in terms of jobs and higher incomes the good news is once again delivered by this Government. In the past year alone 84000 more jobs were created. The Budget last month forecast an additional 170000 jobs by mid-2018. More jobs equal more opportunities for New Zealanders and then we will all be better off. If we stick with this Government’s programme even more New Zealanders will see the gains in their own wallets. The average full-time wage is expected to rise by $7600. That would mean that the average wage would be about $62300 over the next 4 years. This follows you will recall around a $3000 increase in the average wage over the past 3 years.To see how much progress we have made you need only look back to the previous Labour Government’s record. Maybe I will not dwell on that actually; I think enough time has been spent on its failed policies. The previous speaker Chris Hipkins spoke about education. Let us look at some of the initiatives that we have managed to put in place. Hekia Parata and the Associate Minister of Education Nikki Kaye despite the tight financial constraints have increased total spending on early childhood primary and secondary education. It is going to come out at around $10.1 billion this year. National as a Government is investing $155.7 million over 4 years in early childhood education. This is an area I think where we have had noticeable success and we have really made some gains. We did not just talk about it; we delivered on it. That is a hallmark of this Government. Giving children the best start in life is something that this Government believes in very strongly indeed. It is we believe one of the greatest investments we can make in the future of our children.With early childhood education we have targeted around 98 percent participation by next year to 2016. We have already hit 93 percent. We are looking very likely to achieve that goal in rapid time. I think the amount of money that we have spent on early childhood education is almost double that—$800 million under Labour and $1.5 billion under this Government. When it comes to health as many know that was one of the big spending areas in this Government and it is something that I think the Hon Tony Ryall has managed particularly well over the past 5½ years. Bringing in the policy of free general practitioner visits for under-13s—extending it out to that—has cost around $90 million but it is money very well spent. The earlier a child can get to the doctor the better their health will be ultimately. As I have said in speeches in my own North Shore electorate some things are priceless and children’s health is definitely in that category. The ability for parents not to have to worry about the money and to be able to get their children to the doctor in a timely fashion is an enormous addition to strengthening families. That is something very close to the heart and soul of this Government.Budget 2014 is going to deliver more than $32 million over the next 4 years to further improve cancer services and for the 20000 New Zealanders each year who are given the sentence that they have cancer that they have to live with it and that they have to go through the treatment the measures that we are putting in place to allow psychological counselling and support I think are going to make an enormous difference to their quality of life.Paula Bennett has also continued to deliver and in this Budget there have been huge gains for the most vulnerable. This Government is determined to protect the most vulnerable—particularly those who suffer from abuse and neglect. The tragic statistics are indeed sobering. I think that when you look at the fact that more than 50 children have died in the past 5 years because of extreme abuse it is imperative that we step in with policies with money with backup and with rigorously thought-through and well-argued support structures for families and always putting children at the heart of the equation which is something that the Hon Paula Bennett does very very well.So I am very proud of this Budget. I am very proud of this Government. That is why I commend the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill to the House. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I want to talk about housing in this estimates debate. Housing was the gaping hole in the Government’s Budget. In the face of great expectation from the public that the Government would use the Budget to do something constructive about its housing crisis very little was forthcoming. I want to start by drawing the House’s attention to a story that ran in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday about a poll that it had done of New Zealanders who own their own homes. This is interesting because for a long time in this country it has been the conventional political wisdom that house prices going up is a good thing. The idea has always been that when house prices go up it means people are getting richer. They are acquiring extra value from that. For that reason I think Governments for a long time have thought that it is fine to just let house prices go higher and higher.Well something really interesting has happened in the last few years. The New Zealand Herald poll showed that half of the homeowners whom the New Zealand Herald polled said they were either worried or very worried by rising house prices. That I think is remarkable because these are people who on the face of it are benefiting from the fact that their house values are rising but they told the New Zealand Herald poll that they were very worried about this.I think this explains why housing has become such an explosive issue in the last few years. What the people told the New Zealand Herald poll was that they were worried that their kids would never be able to own their home—that they were locked out of the dream of homeownership—and secondly they were worried that the housing crisis and ever-escalating house prices could lead to a housing bust that would threaten the economy and could lead to people losing their shirts as they did when the global financial crisis hit the United States.I think this is very very significant. It is clear to the people here. Half of the homeowners told the New Zealand Herald that they were worried or extremely worried that we have a housing crisis. The symptoms are there for everybody to see. Let us look at what those symptoms are. We have rapidly falling rates of homeownership. That was very clear from the census data that came out a few months ago. House prices in Auckland are skyrocketing. The median house price in Auckland is now over $700000. If you look at house price inflation over recent months—annualised—it amounts to house prices in Auckland going up by $72000 every year. Is it any wonder that people cannot save fast enough to keep up with house price inflation?A year ago the Reserve Bank was so panicked by the housing crisis that it introduced these loan-to-value ratio lending restrictions which mean that no matter where you are in the country even if you are in Balclutha Dunedin Wanganui Palmerston North or Gisborne—places where there is no housing crisis—you still have to find a 20 percent deposit. Depending on where you are that could be $60000 $70000 or $80000 before you can even get in the door and talk to the bank manager about a mortgage.In Canterbury because of this Government’s near-criminal negligence in failing to deliver a speedy residential rebuild after the earthquakes rents have gone up by more than 30 percent since the earthquakes. People are living in the most disgraceful conditions because this Government has taken a hands-off approach to the rebuild. Fewer than 1000 of the 12000 to 15000 houses that are needed in Canterbury right now have actually been built.We have seen the running down of Housing New Zealand. There are 700 fewer State houses now than there were a year ago. There are around 3000 vacant State houses around the country while people are shuffled off to the private rental market and living in often substandard conditions.The OECD says we have got a housing crisis. It pointed out that we have some of the most overpriced housing in the world. The IMF said the same thing. The Reserve Bank noted the other day that the housing crisis in Auckland poses one of the biggest threats to our economy but John Key and this National Government are in denial about this. They do not believe that there is a housing crisis. Well the first step to addressing the problem is actually acknowledging you have a problem but National has not even got to the first step.By contrast Labour has a positive agenda for change and if you look at our housing policy it has so many bold constructive elements to it. The next Labour-led Government will take serious measures to address the housing crisis. With KiwiBuild we will build 10000 affordable houses every year and sell them to first-home buyers. What is National’s solution? It is drawing lines on a map with its housing accords hoping that if it changes the zoning rules somehow the market is magically going to build these houses. We can see that that is not happening because in Auckland where the Government announced a housing accord more than a year ago Nick Smith has not built a single new house in the special housing areas that anyone is living in.Labour will tackle the speculative forces that are driving house prices higher and higher in Auckland. We will do something about the demand side. A capital gains tax that excludes the family home will dampen down the out-of-control frenzied speculative activity that the IMF report proved conclusively is responsible for driving up housing prices in Auckland. National on the other hand refuses to do anything about the demand side. It will not even collect the facts on the effect of offshore speculators outbidding New Zealand first-home buyers and driving up house prices in Auckland. Even though the Reserve Bank says it would be helpful if the Government collected the data National refuses to do it. Well Labour will change the law so that only New Zealand citizens and New Zealand residents can buy houses in this country. There is no benefit to New Zealand from having offshore speculators buying houses in New Zealand and farming them for capital gain.Labour has a policy which David Parker has put out there that will tackle monetary policy reform that will lower interest rates and that will benefit New Zealand homebuyers and homeowners as well as New Zealand businesses. Labour will tackle the structural imbalances in our economy—the lack of savings and the lack of exports which mean that we have not paid our way as a country for more than 40 years. We will tackle those. Those are the very causes of the risk premium which means that when foreign banks are lending to New Zealand banks they charge extra. That explains why New Zealanders are paying higher interest rates on their mortgages than homeowners in Australia the US and the UK.Labour will tackle the surge in net inward migration.David Bennett: Shame on Labour.PHIL TWYFORD: That is going to mean that in the next year David Bennett with a projected 42000 extra migrants coming to New Zealand Auckland alone will have to build an extra 14000 houses.David Bennett: So what’s the matter with that?PHIL TWYFORD: Well Mr Bennett do you know how many extra houses are being built in Auckland? It is about half that. We are on track to build only about half the number of houses that are needed to house the surge in inward migration that is happening under this Government. John Key refuses to even acknowledge that that is an issue. That is negligent. Labour will fine-tune the flow of skilled migration coming here so that New Zealand gets the benefit of skilled migrants without putting unsustainable pressures on our housing market.Labour will set minimum standards for rental properties to guarantee that every rental property in New Zealand is warm and dry. National refuses to do that. The most it can offer is this lame commitment by Nick Smith to carry out a pilot scheme of the warrant of fitness of State houses. It is not needed. State houses are already all insulated. What we need is action to set standards in the private rental sector to make sure that those 285000 children who are growing up below the poverty line and living in largely private rental properties at least have a warm dry home to grow up in. Labour will guarantee that they get that. Instead of running down State housing in the middle of a housing shortage as National is doing Labour will actually build State houses. We will increase them. That is the obvious thing to do; National refuses to do it.Labour will solve the housing crisis. We have done it before in the first Labour Government’s massive programme of State house building. In the 1950s and 1960s successive Governments intervened on the side of first-home buyers and gave us the highest rates of homeownership in the world. We have done it before and we will do it again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):Well that was a very enlightening contribution by the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Twyford. He was able to tell this House about Labour’s housing policy which is going to magic up houses into being. It has an aspirational target of 10000 houses a year over 10 years so it is going to build—it is going to magic up—100000 houses in New Zealand. Let us just think about that because magicking houses just by saying you are going to do it is not actually achieving the building of those houses. So the member who just resumed his speech says it is going to happen—Denis O’Rourke: Resumed his speech?JACQUI DEAN: —resumed his seat thank you—but he did not say how. I can tell the House why he did not say how and that is because he simply does not know.Hon Member: Hasn’t got a clue.JACQUI DEAN: He does not have a clue. It sounds good. It sounds like a great sound bite like all the rest of the hyperbole we are getting across the House from a more and more desperate Labour Opposition as it sees its support ebbing away across to the Greens New Zealand First and some other minor parties. The language is getting more and more heated and fanciful but you cannot simply magic up houses into being for people who need them.So that is why today I was very pleased to read that the Queenstown Lakes District Council has now become part of the housing accord legislation. That is a piece of work undertaken by the Hon Nick Smith that far from just magicking houses into being is making some pretty critical steps amongst many others into making houses happen. You see another thing that Labour does not quite understand is that although the Government might build social housing it is not the Government that is going to magic up those 100000 houses over the next 10 years. It is not the Government that is going to do that—no it is not. It is the developers those people who are prepared to take a stake in New Zealand’s future and provide houses. It is they who are going to be building those houses.Let us have a look at Queenstown and its region which have experienced very strong provincial growth. My colleague from Otago might be able to help me. Growth in the Otago region—is it around 4.5 percent?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Over.JACQUI DEAN: Over 4 percent. Growth is extremely strong in the Otago region. We are going to need houses in Queenstown as well as houses in Christchurch Auckland Wellington and the Bay of Plenty so it is very pleasing to see that what is actually going to make the houses get built is being put into place under the housing accord legislation. So what is going to be provided for in Queenstown is the fast tracking of the planning process. The member who has just resumed his seat is absolutely kidding himself if he discounts as he seems to that getting the planning process right and getting it done in a timely fashion is absolutely critical to the ability of developers to put their money where their mouth is and build houses for New Zealanders.The housing accord legislation also provides councils with consenting tools that will make those developments possible to happen. That is such good news for Queenstown. There is so much growth in the region that we need to anticipate that growth. That is something that Labour has always failed to do. “Oh woe is me!” those members said “We’re going to fix it.” Well when will they ever acknowledge that they were a large part of the problem because in the 9 years that they were in Government they absolutely ignored the growth in population in Auckland. So that member who has just resumed his seat has no credibility in this area.This is a good Budget. As part of the work this Government is doing is around affordable housing for New Zealanders it is a good Budget. Nick Smith is a good Minister and we are tackling this problem.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Brendan Horan—5 minutes.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent):Today I want to examine what the Government is doing in the supplementary estimates for a once-proud and burgeoning industry that is now after successive Governments’ neglect in dire need. I am talking about some of the hardest workers in the country—grassroots New Zealanders who are up at 4 a.m. and on the job. I am of course referring to the New Zealand racing industry. Currently trainers are talking about shutting up shop. Many top trainers have left or are leaving the country and becoming top trainers overseas. That is an export that we do not need—David Bennett: Good on you—going after Winston’s trade. Ha ha! What a double-cross—excellent.BRENDAN HORAN: —there is one we do though. Look at the Moroneys Stephen Gray in Singapore Paul O’Sullivan in Hong Kong to name just a few.We need a Minister for Racing who is dedicated to racing—one portfolio one Minister—and for that Minister to have the guts and determination to lift stakes centralise racetracks cut the number of race days and supply tax cuts for breeders of broodmares especially the hobby trainer and the smaller breeder. Currently over one-third of broodmares both thoroughbred and standardbred have disappeared. Breeders are finding they are getting less for their foals than the cost of servicing growing the foal and getting it to the market. In 2 years’ time we will have such a shortage of young horses that our $1.6 billion industry which is teetering now will fall over the brink.There is the equivalent of some 17000 full-time workers the heart and soul of racing. There are some 52000 workers involved actively in racing on a daily basis. Earlier today I spoke to a trainer. For him to send a horse to a midweek meet costs him some $700 in transport feed grooming and staff. Those are his direct costs. If the horse does not win the trainer comes home with nothing. You know that something is seriously wrong with racing when our top trainers are struggling to make a dollar and leaving our country in droves.I urge the Minister as I have urged him before to raise stakes within a year. Weekday meetings should have a $15000 minimum and Saturday races should carry a minimum of $30000. By cutting out the Monday and Friday races in the thoroughbred industry we will have extra money that can go straight into stakes. We need a Minister who will do the hard yards and either extract payment from offshore bookies or legislate and enforce that and punish people who gamble with those offshore bookies. They contribute nothing to the New Zealand racing industry. But I think the Minister will find if he talks to these bookmakers that they would rather contribute to our industry than lose the big-money punters from New Zealand. There are more things that must change but I reiterate that stakes must be raised.Tracks must be maintained to a safe and reliable level. Last year we had a record number of abandoned race days and this year we are on target to beat that. I would remind the Racing Board that it is its duty to look after the interests of stakeholders and that includes track upkeep and safety.Moving on race fields legislation must be introduced and the Racing Act must be made fit for purpose. Section 16 has to be changed. I do not mind if other parties plagiarise or steal these ideas because it is racing that is suffering and racing will survive if we implement these ideas.Racing needs heroes. It already has them but it is just a question of presentation. Harness racing needs heroes. They need to be given more incentive to ply their trade. We need vision from the Minister and innovative thinking. I suggest that the top 10 drivers from each island be contracted and paid a base fee. The top 20 drivers would compete throughout the country with four 10-horse fields as part of each premier race meeting.There are other things we could do. The industry needs to evolve. The Government needs to move with the times and value and retain people in the industry and attract those from outside. The racing folk who I know are some of the hardest-working people in the country deserve a strong voice. The industry should be exciting energetic and vibrant but sadly it has steadily declined. However we can turn it round. It is just a question of vision and leadership—inseparables that the New Zealand Independent Coalition provides. The New Zealand Independent Coalition is determined to save the racing industry.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):I rise to take a call on the supplementary estimates on behalf of the Green Party. I came to Parliament because I am really passionate about the opportunity that New Zealand has to become a much smarter greener place to live. I think it can be an even better place to live. Before entering politics I worked as a transportation planner because I was interested in finding smart solutions to some of the traffic problems that we face in Auckland and also because I know that in 2014 it is the time for us to be investing in the infrastructure that is going to help future generations reduce climate emissions and respond to the many challenges that are facing us. I can tell you that there is no technical barrier to responding to the challenge of climate change to resolving some of our worst congestion problems in our biggest cities and to reducing the costs of transport and yet for some reason there is a big political barrier.This National Government has shown us in its Budget that it has no vision for New Zealand; it is here simply to defend the status quo and look after its mates. The solutions that it is providing for us are going to do nothing to reduce the transport costs that households face every day they are going to do nothing to reduce our reliance on imported oil or reduce our $8 billion oil bill and most of all they are going to do nothing to help us respond to the most pressing issue of our time which is of course climate change.Recently Lord Stern the world’s most authoritative climate economist issued a very stark warning that the financial damage caused by global warming will be considerably greater than the current models predict. So we have a very stark choice. We can continue to do things the way that we always have in which case we will get more greenhouse gas emissions and catastrophic climate change which is going to cost us a whole lot of money. But it is also not just the economic costs that we are worried about; it is actually the threat to our children and their children. So the reality is that we have to face upThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JULIE ANNE GENTER: We live in an interesting time. The world is changing and we need fresh ideas and modern thinking to solve old problems and to seize new opportunities. The biggest change that we face of course is climate change. Before the dinner break I mentioned that Lord Stern the world’s most authoritative climate economist recently issued a stark warning that the financial damage caused by global warming will be considerably greater than the current models predict. So we have a stark choice here in New Zealand. We can continue to do things as we have always done in which case we will get more greenhouse gas emissions and catastrophic climate change and that is going to cost us a huge amount of money. And it is not only that; it is a threat to the future of our children and their children.Unfortunately this National Government is definitely on track with its Budget to continue the status quo. Its vision for New Zealand stopped in the 20th century. For example its vision for New Zealand is a few more motorways—which will just lead to more congestion and more pollution more mining and drilling—and an economic strategy that is linking us to increased carbon emissions in the future right at the time when we need to be decreasing them.National likes to talk down New Zealand when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Little New Zealand is only a small percentage of global emissions so we do not have to do our share! I have news for John Key. A group of 4.4 million people anywhere in the world would be only a tiny percentage of emissions but in most parts of the world outside New Zealand 4.4 million people generate far fewer emissions than we do here in New Zealand. We are the fifth-worst in the rich world per capita and we are second-worst in terms of the growth of our emissions since 1990. That is down to a failure of successive Governments through the 1990s and the early part of the 2000s. But we are now on track to have a major emissions blowout and that is down to the lack of vision from this National Government.We know that the countries that embrace a low-carbon future first will enjoy the greatest benefits—the greatest economic benefits social benefits and environmental benefits—of embracing that change. I believe that New Zealand can be a leader. We are small but we punch above our weight. The truth is that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from greening our economy and it takes just a few simple steps.How do we do it? Firstly polluters have to pay the cost for the damage that they cause. If polluters do not have to pay they will free ride on the rest of us. That is just Economics 101. If businesses are making a profit off greenhouse gas pollution or water pollution or any other type of pollution they have an unfair advantage over those businesses that are trying to make a living responsibly which is not fair. That is why the Greens proposed the climate tax cut which has been praised by a wide range of commentators. We put a price on climate pollution but we give the revenue back to households and business. So polluters pay for the damage that they cause but most important they have an incentive to clean up their act. Households and businesses get to keep the rewards if they save energy and reduce climate pollution. It is win-win.But it is not enough just to put a price on pollution. The Government needs to be supporting business and itself investing in infrastructure for the future—infrastructure that is not going to tie us in to high carbon emissions. For some reason this National Government is completely stuck in the 20th century particularly when it comes to transport. Just when everyone else in the world is starting to realise that more motorways just cause more congestion this Government is throwing a colossal amount of money at a few expensive uneconomic motorways that will only make congestion worst and increase overall transport costs to households and businesses.I do not know what the worst part of these motorways is. Firstly they are not going to reduce congestion. We know that. That is a fact. It has been proven all around the world that new motorway lanes do not reduce congestion in the medium term. Yes sure you can build a road and for a few years there might be a reduction in congestion but if you make it cheaper and easier for people to drive more people end up driving and ultimately there is no reduction in congestion. You can look at any city in the Western World—anywhere in the Western World where they have put money into roads—but the congestion reduction lasts at best only a couple of years so it is a total total waste of money.But the worst part is that motorways increase the overall costs of transport to the economy because households and business without other choices are locked in to the high costs of having to pay for vehicles and fuel to run them. The motorways are not going to reduce congestion. They are not going to help business. They are not going to reduce carbon emissions or our huge $8 billion oil bill which contributes to our current account deficit. They have a huge opportunity cost because that is billions of dollars we are not spending on the infrastructure that Kiwi families need to get around.The National Government likes to say that the Greens are against everything. I have to say that that is entirely untrue. We have been campaigning for smart cost-effective solutions across a range of areas. Perfect examples are our solutions for home insulation which this Government has unfortunately discontinued but they did manage to insulate hundreds of thousands of homes. That was a Green idea that had not only energy efficiency benefits and job creation benefits but most of all health benefits. Those are the kinds of smart Green ideas. The Greens have been campaigning for the City Rail Link which is the next essential step in completing Auckland’s transport network. We are here and we have practical ideas for the future that are not only going to look after the economy but actually going to create a better planet and a better place for all New Zealanders a fair society where all children have a go. We have practical solutions to address child poverty to address some of the failures in our education system and to build the infrastructure that is going to enable us to respond to the challenges of climate change and to have a successful future for all New Zealanders. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Well I think it is a pleasure to take a call on the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill. I want to say this: we on this side of the House look forward to the change of Government in September this year. The people of New Zealand especially those in the regions are looking for a positive message and are looking for positive change in the days and the months and the years that follow September this year.You see this Government is in a desperate bid to sell a myth to New Zealand that average wages have gone up under this Government. National has done it in its quite extensive piece of publicity material that has gone around to households. This what it says: “Our growing economy is creating more jobs and is seeing average wages rise faster than inflation.”—a proposition that so far every National Party speaker in this debate and in just about every other debate has failed to substantiate. Those members cannot justify it and cannot explain it for one very simple reason: it is not true. It is not true. Those members cannot sustain it.Of course if it was correct that under this Government magically wages inflated themselves and people felt better off then you would have to wonder why it was that Bill English in January this year after 5 years of a National Government seeing no real change in the back pockets of working New Zealanders stood up and had to say that Kiwis should expect pay rises this year after years of belt tightening. He went on to say that a lot of households would be looking for benefits through more job security which they have not had and through pay rises that households have not had much of through the last 3 years or 4 years. “So yeah” he said “they have a right to expect some of the benefits.” That is what Bill English said. Well he did not say that today in his contribution to this debate. What he has done today in question time and in the debate is peddle an OECD report that is 3 years out of date. That is the best that National can come up with—information 3 years out of date. But it has not stopped—Jonathan Young: They only released it last week.ANDREW LITTLE: Jonathan Young raises a good point. That report came out only last week which is the reason why this Government has been desperate to peddle it and it hopes that everybody does not notice the date that it closed off on which was 3 years ago.Of course that report does not take account of a number of very important facts including the fact that last year 46 percent of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise. Funnily enough National says that the average annual pay rise has gone up. It actually claims that it is 3.2 percent—it is not—but 46 percent of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise last year. That must mean that there are some people getting whacking great pay rises and of course they are. It is around about the top 1 percent or maybe the top 1.5 percent but it is not ordinary working New Zealanders who now 6 years after this Government came in are looking around and asking where their fair share is. They may well ask where their fair share is because they ain’t going to get much from this Government if it carries on much longer. So we have this myth being peddled that average wages are increasing.It gets worse than that. The thinking members of the National Party know that they cannot possibly justify that. The virtue of being a backbencher is that you can actually depart from what the Ministers are saying because you are not saddled with Cabinet responsibility. The thinking backbenchers—and sadly I have to say that there are only a few of them but Maggie Barry and Simon O’Connor may well rate amongst them—try to look ahead and rather than look at the historical record they have done some crystal ball - gazing. We have had a bit of that in Parliament this afternoon. But anyway they have looked ahead and they say: “Oh listen. Don’t worry working New Zealanders. It’s all right because your pay is on average going to go up by $7600 in the next 4 years.” and nobody believes them. Nobody believes them because it has not happened in the last 4 years and it is not going to happen in the next 4 years. Things are going to get worse because every piece of employment law that this Government has passed has been about making it harder and tougher for hard-working New Zealanders to get a better deal.The National Government still has law changes on its books. Its majority was found guilty in court a few weeks ago so the employment law will have to go out. It was put on ice until after the election because the Government’s majority got found guilty and he left Parliament but this Government still has it on its books. It still has on its books law changes that will make it a lot lot harder for good hard-working New Zealanders to get a decent pay rise.So in their heart of hearts even though the thinking backbenchers of the National Government try to peddle that myth they know that no one—no hard-working New Zealanders; certainly not the two-thirds who earn less than the average wage—is going to be getting a $7600 pay increase over the next 4 years. That is absurd and those members know it. It is not going to happen because there is nothing in this legislation or in this Government’s plans that is going to do anything across the board to improve the lives and the value for working New Zealanders. They will continue to suffer and they have had enough. They have had enough which is why they have rapidly gone off this Government. They have rapidly gone off this Government and that is why this Government has to use figures that are 3 years out of date. That is why some members opposite have to look to figures that cannot be justified when trying to predict what is going to happen 4 years hence. That is the pity of it.So we have 46 percent of wage and salary earners who cannot get a pay rise and we had a private sector survey come out just yesterday. The MP for New Plymouth Jonathan Young said to me about the OECD report: “Well it came out only last week.” Its figures are 3 years out of date but the private sector survey of New Zealand employers is as current as last month. It came out yesterday and it is very telling. Just as the Government’s own figures tell us that 46 percent of workers could not get a pay rise in the last year this survey says that 49 percent of employers say that they do not expect to give their workers a pay increase this year. So the figures more or less line up. The figures match up. Welcome to New Zealand today. If you are a hard-working Kiwi and you are not in the top 20 percent you are going to struggle to get a pay rise. It is OK if you are in a union and it is OK if you are covered by the Remuneration Authority—which we members all are of course—but if you are a hard-working New Zealander and you are doing your bit to help your boss and raising the nation’s productivity do not bother asking for a pay rise because the employers have already told the surveyors that they are not going to give it to you and this Government does not care.This Government does not care that at a time when according to David Bennett the economy is growing by 3.8 percent after March this year—3.8 percent in the year to March this year David Bennett said. And why would David Bennett a man who has been in this House a long time not know? He knows his figures. Why would we baulk at it? But half of New Zealanders cannot get a pay rise. That is the crying shame of New Zealand today. That is the crying shame of this Government. Paul Hutchison might look mournfully at me. I know that he thinks that that is an appalling indictment on the Government that he is about to depart from but the truth is that half of working New Zealanders cannot get a decent pay rise. That is what the surveys are telling us and that is what workers are telling us.The attempt by Simon O’Connor and Maggie Barry to try to cajole people into believing that it is all jam tomorrow is not going to work. What New Zealanders need is a change. They need a Government that is serious about making sure that working New Zealanders share in the benefits of a growing economy and not what we have at the moment which is concentrating ever-greater wealth into the top 1 percent. That is what the National Party stands for.New Zealanders are looking for a Government committed to the regions not like this Government in Taranaki where for the third successive year the GDP per capita has fallen because this Government is not concerned about making investment in the regions. Oh those members all turn up there Minister after Minister and cheer on all the things that they have absolutely no responsibility for but the minute it starts turning to custard they are out of there. So when 250 highly skilled engineering jobs went out of New Plymouth in the first 4 months of this year you did not hear a bean from this Government—not from any representative of it. When more than 100 public sector jobs were sucked out of Taranaki in the last 3 years you did not hear a thing from any member opposite because they do not care about the regions. When you have got one of the most dangerous public roads and most utilised roads in the country in the form of State Highway 3 North and it is now killing people you do not hear anything from the Government opposite about more investment being needed to upgrade that road and make it safe for the travelling public.This Government has forgotten about working people it does not care about them and it does not care about the regions and there is nothing in this legislation that is going to make a blind bit of difference to that. Nothing that New Zealanders hear from this Government in the election campaign this year will mean anything for workers or for the regions in this country which is why people are desperately keen for a change.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The last National call is a split call. Does the member want a bell or is he just going to rely on the whip?Jami-Lee Ross: Rely on the whip.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Righto.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I would like to address just a couple of comments of the previous speaker Andrew Little. Yes indeed we have known some difficult times for some of our engineering companies in New Plymouth and North Taranaki. The day that I received a phone call at 8 a.m. from Fitzroy Yachts I was down there at lunchtime with the Ministry of Social Development. I was told that the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union representative would be there by the end of the week and he did not show up.Hon Member: Rubbish!JONATHAN YOUNG: He did not show up. There were only two union members there. I wonder whether that had anything to do with it. But that previous speaker needs to know that this Government cares for workers that this Government is there supporting workers in all sorts of different ways—Hon Members: Ha ha!JONATHAN YOUNG: —that this Government is there supporting workers in all sorts of different ways. They can laugh they can throw it back but I was there and their representative was not. You know that is true.It is obvious that Taranaki a region that has led GDP per capita is a region that has done that on the strength of its dairying and its agriculture and on the strength of its petroleum exploration and production. I think what the people of Taranaki know and understand is that a Labour-Green coalition Government would bring a recession to our region like none other because what it would do is it would stop any new exploration offshore. That is what we have heard today from Russel Norman. We have heard it day after day week after week. That is what it would stop. I know—and probably most of the members on the other side do not—that unless an exploration company can continue to find resource then it is in a diminishing market and there is a continual need to replace what it produces and what it sells.What we would find as the Green Party putting pressure on the Labour Party started to bring an end to petroleum exploration and production in Taranaki is that confidence in our region would evaporate.We would find that the engineering companies that have supported those industries would have zero confidence that a Labour-Green coalition Government would be able to support their industries. All the talk all the rhetoric about being the worker’s party would be brought to nothing because of those policies that they would push. What we would see is that the most productive region which by the way has a beautiful pristine environment that we love and care for would go into recession and go into high unemployment. Labour members sit there and they scoff and they laugh at that. It shows how much they really care—it really does. It shows that they are indifferent to the mums and the dads the kids and the employment prospects of young people in the region that I call home and obviously they do not.We need to understand that this Government the National-led Government holds the balance well and right. We want to see economic growth and development but at the same time we also protect our environment. We protect the way of life of New Zealanders which is not only about enjoying the environment but also about having a quality of life that they can afford. This means operations it means good schools it means that we have good roads and it means—Minister Brownlee a week ago released the Government policy statement on transport—that we invest in our network for years to come to ensure that we are able to build the export quantity and volume that we can get to the world. Everything that we have in Taranaki everything that we sell from it goes either on a road or out through the port. We know that transport infrastructure is important. We know that this Government is working very hard to ensure that we can do that.I just want to say that a number of measures that we have put in place for a particularly important sector which is the start-up sector around innovation have been released in our Budget 2014. What we see is that for many companies that are start-up companies which spend a lot on research and development it takes quite a while sometimes years before they come into profit. During that period of time they are obviously expending their resources. They are developing a great tax loss which they cannot recover until they come into profit to write off their loss. What this Government is doing is enabling them to cash out their tax losses so that at 28c in the dollar in the first year they can claim back from $500000 an amount of $140000 and it brings the cash flow back into that start-up company. Today as I was talking to some of these men and women involved in that they said that cash is king. This is what they need. We are a nation that knows how to innovate and we want to support this sector. We want to ensure that we are not just working harder but working smarter. This Government is putting plans and policies into place which I believe this country understands and accepts and embraces. Thank you.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I am pleased to take what I think is the final call in this appropriations debate. I am pleased to take the final call to talk about the good work that the Government is doing and the funding that will come from this appropriations legislation and how it will assist the Government to continue to deliver the results for New Zealanders. We are delivering results for New Zealanders. New Zealanders know when they head to the polling booths in less than 3 months’ time that they can trust this Government to keep delivering the results. I think when they look at which side of this House they can trust to deliver trust to keep their word and trust to do the right thing for New Zealanders they know that the John Key - led Government can deliver for New Zealanders.I have been listening in the House through most of the debate and have listened to the speakers from the other side. You would not think when you listen to speeches from the other side that in this country we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD. You would not realise listening to speeches from the other side that 84000 New Zealanders in the last year gained jobs and in the next 4 years 170000 New Zealanders will be gaining jobs. You would not realise from the speeches from the other side that in the last 2 years average wages have increased by $3000 and unemployment is on its way down. Unemployment will continue to go on the way down and wages will continue to rise as well.I see the Minister of Education is in the Chamber. Let us just remind ourselves that 6 years ago the Labour Government left one in three children leaving school having been failed by the education system. Minister Parata and Minister Tolley before her have changed the education system in this country and now New Zealand children are achieving at higher rates than they ever did under the Labour Government. Those National Ministers of Education who have delivered for New Zealand children need to be congratulated. Crime is coming down. Unemployment is coming down. Reoffending is coming down. Wages are going up. More people are coming off the welfare queue. This Government can be trusted—trusted—to deliver on the things that we say we are going to do.All of a sudden the Labour Party has decided that it wants to focus on the issues that matter. We have been focusing on the issues that matter for 6 years now—6 years now. All of a sudden Labour decided 2 months ago when its members were talking about cups of tea and short trips to the airport that those were the things that mattered. Now all of a sudden when the trust and the integrity and the problems of the Labour leader are called into question they change their tune. They get back in their boxes. They want to start talking about the issues that matter.Sue Moroney: Oh smear campaign! National Party smearing—as they do.JAMI-LEE ROSS: I see that we have Sue Moroney squawking over on the other side. In the last couple of days the Labour list came out. The people on the other side through this appropriations debate will probably be hoping that they will be able to participate in the appropriations debate next year. I have got a bit of news for Sue Moroney because at her list ranking on current polling she will not be here next year to speak in the appropriations debate. For Sue Moroney to be here next year Labour would have to achieve 25.6 percent. At current polling this will be the last time Sue Moroney can squawk in this appropriations debate. Raymond Huo is up the back. He is actually not such a bad guy. He should have a higher list ranking. Certainly I am sure he thinks so. For Raymond Huo to be able to participate in next year’s appropriations debate Raymond Huo and the Labour Party would have to get 29 percent—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a debate about the estimates. I know that the Government has not got much good news of its own to trumpet—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Look I have cautioned the member before about using points of order to make an attack. That is quite out of order. The member started by making a point about the relevance of comments. That was a good point of order. Then she spoilt it. I will let the member continue but it is the estimates debate.JAMI-LEE ROSS: That point of order is probably the last contribution that member will be making in an appropriations debate.We are delivering. We can be trusted. In health in education in law and order and in the economy this Government is delivering. I know Sue Moroney is having a difficult time because the party in this Parliament that is delivering higher paid parental leave for New Zealanders is the National Party. The National Party is delivering higher paid parental leave. The National Party is the party that is delivering an extended period of weeks for New Zealand families to get paid parental leave. That just does not sit too well with Sue Moroney because she knows she will be leaving this place in a few months’ time having failed on that particular policy.I want to touch on housing briefly too because Mr Phil Twyford before the dinner break wanted to talk about housing. Apparently the Labour Party talking about delivering 10000 houses a year is a great big achievement that it is going to be able to deliver. We are already delivering consents at an average of 13000 per year. The interventions the Labour Party is promising in Auckland will not work so the extra regulatory requirements it will be putting in place will actually harm the housing system in Auckland. The best way to deliver on housing which Mr Twyford has not worked out is for the Government to put the regulatory framework in place for the private sector to deliver more houses and that is what we are doing.This country is enjoying higher growth. New Zealanders are seeing that they are coming off the welfare queue getting into jobs and being able to deliver for their families because they are having higher wages and a more productive economy—an economy that supports regions like Taranaki to be able to have strong economic growth. When we look at the other side those members are opposed to growth they are opposed to supporting the regions and they are opposed to New Zealand being a fast-growing economy. New Zealanders know they can trust the National Party and the John Key - led National Government. I am looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders come up with in the polling booths in less than 3 months’ time.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bills read a second time.Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) BillThird ReadingHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Appropriation (2013/14 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) BillThird ReadingHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15 Bill) be now read a third time.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Imprest Supply (First for 2014/15) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 19 June.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is one of a number of moves that have been long needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them when they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the recovery process of victims and their ability to enjoy normal life. As introduced the bill was something of a mess I think and it needed substantial amendments. Most of those defects have now been fixed but the bill is still not as good as it could have been. Although New Zealand First will still vote for the bill because improvement in victims’ rights is an important part of New Zealand First’s policy agenda this should be regarded as a work in progress and as legislation that will need further work by the next Government.Clause 5 defines a violent offender as a person who “(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years …”. As introduced the bill required sentencing to a period of 5 years or more but the definition has been amended to sentencing for 2 years or more. That is now acceptable to New Zealand First. Otherwise the scope of the bill would have been far too narrow and too many offenders would have escaped the net.But I still have some serious concerns about clause 9(1). That clause says: “The court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that—(a) there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim;”. Why does the court have to be satisfied that there will be ongoing effects of the offending? What has that really got to do with it? What would the victim actually have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not believe that that is an appropriate test at all and that clause should have been deleted.Similarly clause 9(1)(b) should have been deleted too. It says that the court must also be satisfied that “the possibility of contact between the victim and the violent offender will be detrimental to the victim’s ability to manage those effects;”. It should not be necessary for the victim to have to prove that either. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 9(1) are by themselves sufficient. They provide that the order must be “… reasonably necessary to avoid contact … taking into account all of the circumstances [of the case].”We should simply leave it to the court to judge whether an order is reasonably necessary taking all those circumstances into account. It is the possibility of unwanted contact that is the real issue and that is the issue that the victim will be particularly concerned about. There should be no inquiry as to ongoing effects or to the victim’s ability to manage them. That is completely unnecessary and is a hurdle that a victim should not have to jump. In fact it could be a disincentive to victims to have to produce that sort of evidence. It may be one of the things that stop them from using this legislation. So it is a shame that those additional tests are there. That is the only notable defect however in this bill and it is something that I hope the new Government will do something about. So New Zealand First will not oppose the bill for that reason; we are just rather disappointed in it and we look forward to an amendment in the future.Clause 11 sets out the effect of a non-contact order and that has now been amended to a temporary non-contact order with the effects of the final order being provided for in clause 11A. An order prohibits an offender against whom an order is made from having any form of contact with the victim. In addition the court may prohibit the offender from entering living in or working within a specified area.I have previously expressed a concern that it is necessary for us to make sure that that will not inhibit an offender from obtaining or maintaining their employment. But new clause 11A has solved the problem and the effects on a final order now have much more comprehensive and refined powers for the court to specify in relation to excluded areas for entry residence and employment. So now the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. That is an inquiry that the court will have to make and it will need to make an appropriate order to balance the needs of the offender and the protection of the victim in that way. So because that is something that has now been achieved in the latest amendments New Zealand First can welcome clause 11A and also the new clause 11B. ther persons whom the offender may encourage to engage in a contact behaviour that the offender might engage in.Overall although the bill does not include all that New Zealand First wanted and there are some serious defects in it still it does most of what New Zealand First would have sought so it is a positive step forward for victims although it is a work in progress and the new Government this year will provide an opportunity to move ahead still further in the protection of victims’ rights by having another look at this legislation.I note that the Sensible Sentencing Trust is promoting the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner as has been done I believe in the United Kingdom. That may or may not be needed. It would depend rather on whether the departments and agencies involved actually now develop a better culture towards victims’ rights because of course the legislation cannot achieve the objective by itself so we are going to rely on the people who work in the area in those departments and agencies to adopt a more supportive culture in terms of victims’ rights. We can wait and see whether they achieve that. If they do not we can look further at the need to appoint a commissioner as proposed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust but it may not be needed and I hope that it is not needed because I believe there is a good possibility that the culture that I spoke of will change as a result of this legislation. So for all of those reasons New Zealand First will be voting for the bill.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):The following scenario I put before the House is of a woman who has been the victim of a violent assault. She is not in a relationship with the offender. However the offender has a number of associates who are also threatening. The offender is in prison—he has been put in prison for a period of more than 2 years—but in the meantime he is using his associates to harass the woman by any means that he can.This bill the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill will provide protection for that victim while the offender is in prison and will also protect that victim from any associates who seek to threaten the victim in any way. I disagree with the previous member Denis O’Rourke. The Law and Order Committee has very carefully considered the rights not just of the victim but of course also of the offender given that once they have done their time in prison an order can prevail with them.Finally just a quick note about temporary non-contact orders. The reason those are in the bill is that they can be imposed without notice so that provides immediate protection for victims. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the third reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which we have in front of us. I want to make a contribution to this debate because the Government’s record on violence against women and children has not been great to be honest but this bill is one small measure that it has made that could well make a difference because I think that what we do know is that probably the people who will most make use of these orders will in fact be women. The statistics are very clear that most of the violent offences—not all but most of them—are perpetrated by men and in most cases the victims are women. That is one thing I would like to be really clear about in this debate because certainly the Labour Party has no difficulty in acknowledging the gender impact of a bill such as this and fortunately in this case gender impact is a positive one. But I would urge the Government to take its gender glasses off and actually make sure that all the bills that it passes through this House do have a gender impact analysis and that the impact is positive for women and for children.This bill creates a new order a non-contact order that victims of a violent offence may apply for to the District Court. It applies to violent offences which is defined as a “serious violent offence” in clause 4. I was pleased that the Labour members on the Law and Order Committee—and I am not one of those members on the select committee—were able to make an important change I think to this bill because originally when it was drafted it was going to apply only to offences where there had been a sentence of 5 years or more. Certainly the Labour Party felt that was far too lenient it was far too light because a lot of the offences can actually carry jail terms of around about 2 years and yet they have been very violent acts—often involving sexual violence—that have been perpetrated. So we argued for and were successful in getting the bill to be amended so that the violent offence could be one where the offender had been sentenced to a term of 2 years or more. That is important because that will cover a lot more of these violent offences. If a person has been a victim of a violent offence and the person was sentenced for 2 years or more they will be able to apply for a non-contact order.The idea of non-contact orders is something that has existed for some time now in the area of domestic violence. I think that although it has proven to be somewhat successful I do need to place on record my very deep concern that on-the-spot protection orders in the domestic violence area are I think being used to replace areas where people should actually face convictions instead. I am deeply concerned about that because many people in this sector tell me that although the use of on-the-spot protection orders is increasing the rate of people being charged with domestic violence is going down at a time when the number of incidents being reported is going up. It worries me that these lesser protection orders the on-the-spot protection orders are being used instead of people being properly placed before the court and facing much much stiffer penalties for the act of domestic violence.I am convinced that this bill will not suffer the same fate and I am convinced of that because these non-contact orders can happen only where there has already been a conviction. So I am satisfied that we will not see the same trend that we have seen in the domestic violence field because in order for these non-contact orders to be used at all a person already must have been convicted for a violent offence. It is going to be used for when those people finish their sentence and to ensure that they cannot continue to intimidate or harass the victim just by their mere presence—just their mere presence because of the violence that has taken place beforehand—and I think that is really useful.But I would urge the Government to take a long and serious look at what is happening in the field of domestic violence. I ask the Government to be transparent about it and I ask the Government to make sure that there is proper reporting on what is happening in the domestic violence area. We know that the number of incidents is going down. We know that the rate of people being placed before the courts is going down and we also know that the number of convictions is going down. That is a story of growing problems with safety for women and children in this country. Where that exists that means that women and children in New Zealand are more at risk and they are less safe than what they were previously. So I think that is an area that the Government needs to look at very closely.Before granting one of these orders a judge must be satisfied that the victim is suffering ongoing effects of the offending. It will be interesting and important to review how this particular part of the bill is happening once it is in operation because we know that sadly when it comes to the victims of violent crime particularly where women and children are involved sometimes the onus of proof becomes very high for them. It becomes very high for them to prove their case and I am concerned I am worried that if a judge has to be satisfied that the victim is suffering ongoing effects of the offending how high is that bar going to be? They have to be satisfied. Further the judge has to be satisfied that the possibility of contact between the victim and the offender would be detrimental to the victim and that the order is necessary to prevent contact between the victim and the offender. There must also be no existing order against the offender such as protection orders and non-harassment orders. So there does seem to be quite a high level of proof that is required from the victim before a judge is satisfied that one of these orders can be placed and I think that that is an area we need to make sure we monitor very closely once this bill becomes an Act and these orders are in place.An order can be for any duration decided by a judge but if there is no time limit it will expire after 2 years unless discharged earlier by the court. So I think we can expect that many of these will be for around about that 2-year area. It will again be something that we need to monitor closely as to whether that provision for the default expiry being 2 years is appropriate or not. I think we will know this only after this bill becomes an Act and has been in place for some time and we have some data to actually measure. But I would encourage the Government to think about ensuring that there are good review provisions for this bill once it does become an Act.Breaching a non-contact order is punishable by a fine of up to $5000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months or up to 2 years if the offender has two or more previous convictions for breach of a non-contact order. So clearly there are consequences for people breaching these orders. That is important because again referring back to the domestic violence scenario—which is not what we are talking about here but this is very loosely based on that—we often find that there is no punishment that there is no consequence for breaching a protection order. Indeed some of the most tragic cases we have seen recently in New Zealand have been as a result of protection orders being breached and nothing being done about that.In conclusion Labour is supporting this bill. We are pleased to see that it has reached its third reading and we look forward to its implementation and to reviewing the ongoing impact of this bill. Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I rise to speak at the third reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. I think that this is a bill we all support for the right reasons. It should not need to be here but the statistics speak for themselves and it is an essential piece of legislation. This is a new stronger restraining order to protect the victims of serious violent or sexual crimes from unwanted contact with their attackers. Why would they ever want anything to do with these people? Why do we not give them the power to actually restrain these offenders from living in their neighbourhoods and approaching them in any way? I suppose I ask why this law has taken so long but at least it is here now.I think we are all familiar with the example in Invercargill where a woman was unable to defend herself and keep the individual who had previously attacked her at bay—an unacceptable situation. Under the current legislation protection and restraining orders are available only for what they term “active harassment” or if there is a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim. Release and parole conditions apply for only 6 months after the offender’s release. Unfortunately this has resulted in a lot of victims having no access to legal protection. That is not good enough and they are revictimised.I think that the unacceptability of a situation where a victim of serious crime may have that unwanted contact with their attacker is something that would keep you awake at night. It is a horrifying situation and I think that when it comes to a piece of legislation that will work well this is it.As other speakers have pointed out when the bill went through the select committee process the committee members changed the qualifying sentence from 5 years to 2 years so if a violent offender has been sentenced to 2 years then that is enough to trigger the threshold and to allow the victim to go to the District Court and apply for this order by way of conditions. I think that is a very good move. I think that the legislation is important and I am very pleased to be able to support it tonight in this House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute split call.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour):It is a split call. Thank you very much. Coming in as one of the final speakers on the third reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill means that I have actually come in quite late to this debate and quite late to the whole kaupapa but I have to say that this is a bill that I truly and sincerely support. I have already said in the House since I have come back to Parliament that addressing sexual violence is one of my main priorities in my time in Parliament. This bill is one of the ways I believe we can really support the victims not just of sexual violence but domestic violence and any sort of violence for that matter. I have seen the example of the poor woman in Invercargill whose rapist was released from prison and came to live next door to her. There was nothing that she or the police could do to move that person on and I just find that totally outrageous. I remember when it came up in the news and I am glad to see that this legislation is actually making a change so that any victims of violence be they men women or children do not have to wake up in the morning look over the fence or out their kitchen window and see the very person who attacked them or abused them right there living in their face and in fact revictimising them every day of their life. So I truly do support this bill.I see that the victim has to go to the District Court to get these non-contact orders applied. One of the things that has come out of the Glenn report is the difficulty people have of being believed and being listened to. I feel really sorry for these people who have to go to a court to talk to a judge fearful that they may not be believed that there really is an issue that the judge needs to take account of so as to issue that non-contact order for them. I would like to think that as a society we could find ways to support those victims to go through that process of approaching the judge at the District Court. Another one of the issues I have heard spoken about when I have talked to victims of domestic and sexual violence is that they do not know where to go or whom to ask to help them through the processes of the system. So that little part concerns me. In fact it is not even a little part; it is actually quite a major for victims to have to stand up and defend or progress their own causes. They often need that somebody there to be a friend to be a support and to guide them along that way.It is said that less than 10 percent of sexual violence and domestic violence actually gets reported. Because of that there are so many more people who really need support to cope with what has happened to them as well as these people who are having the offenders turn up next door to them. We really need to make sure that the system supports people and helps people to report the abuse or the violence that has happened to them so that they do not go through life unsupported and not listened to. We really need to change the system so that people feel they can go and report the various crimes that have been committed against them.I am glad that what was originally in the bill—that a sentence had to be for 5 years before this order applied to the offender—has been reduced to 2 years. The crimes were too serious at the 5-year end of the scale and in fact for anybody who has had any sort of violence against them sexual or physical it does not really matter how violent it is. Even lower levels of offending against them are traumatic and so it is good that we are now looking at the 2-year sentence so that people who have been sentenced for 2 years have these non-contact orders against them.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am pleased to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which the Green Party is very pleased to support. As has already been mentioned this bill was developed in response to the plight of a woman in Invercargill. Her rapist moved in next door to her after he was released from prison and had his friends regularly harass her and make her life unbearable. When the police went to visit this man and suggested that he move and give her some freedom and peace this man—who had been convicted of rape—declined and there was nothing that the police or that woman could do. That was clearly unjust and cruel so it is wonderful to see this legislation in front of the House tonight to make sure that that situation does not happen again. We have heard from Kim McGregor that there are many cases of this happening around the country but mostly we never hear of them. So this I hope will bring relief to women primarily around the country in the future and I thank the Government for that.I do want to raise a few areas that I think we need to be mindful of in the future in terms of the implementation of this legislation and watching how it goes. If there is a breach when an order has been put in place it will require the police to act on that breach and the courts in turn to rule on that breach and convict somebody for it. It is a very real concern at the moment that in a domestic violence situation when there are non-contact orders we have seen the police taking cases to court for what the courts have then deemed to be minor breaches. And the courts have been telling the police off in instances I have been told for bringing such minor things to court and have been throwing the cases back out. This means that the police are becoming in some places less likely to actually charge somebody with what is considered a minor breach.The problem with that is that the abusers breach orders for many reasons. Often one of the reasons is to test whether they can get away with it—whether they can break those barriers and have access to those women. We have seen that in the tragic situation in Dunedin where there had been breaches that were not convicted and children were then killed as a result.We do not have the safety nets and the systems in place at the moment to ensure that everyone within our police and court system understands domestic violence enough in order to ensure that we have standardised responses and protections in our system. The Glenn Inquiry has reinforced what we are hearing in the communities which is that the system is failing. I really hope that this will not be another example of that.This measure primarily will be used for domestic or sexual violence. I do also want to raise another concern which is that this can be used once there is a conviction but we know that only one in 100 cases of sexual violence is currently resulting in a conviction in our courts in this country. That is not justice. Not one of those 99 people will be able to access this order unless they can get a conviction in our courts. The recent data I have had back from the Government around domestic violence also shows that there is only an 18 percent reporting rate to the police and around a 40 percent rate of charging on average. So less than 50 percent of call-outs to the police result in a charge by the police and then the conviction rate in our courts depending on the area in the country is as low as 38 percent for offences relating to domestic violence. Our system is absolutely failing to protect our most vulnerable people and we cannot tick off the safety with this bill sadly.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):I am sure that all members of this House feel total compassion for those who are unlucky enough to be the victims of serious violent and sexual offences in this country. It is hard for us to imagine the horror that those people endure but I am sure we can all understand that they must feel deep trauma at the prospect that at some future date they will again encountering those who have inflicted such cruel and abusive treatment upon them. That is why this Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is so important as it introduces very significant measures. It is a bill that reflects this Government’s unwavering commitment to put the needs and concerns of victims at the heart of our criminal justice system. I want to thank all parties for their support of this measure. I thank those who have contributed to this debate. I warmly commend the Minister of Justice for her initiative in bringing it forward. I strongly support this bill.Bill read a third time.Companies Amendment Bill (No 4)Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2)Third ReadingsHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I move That the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. It gives me great satisfaction to support this legislation at the third reading. This legislation will protect New Zealand’s international reputation as a trusted place to do business. This is an important part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to improve regulation and lift confidence in New Zealand’s capital markets.I would once again like to thank the Commerce Committee and the submitters for their work on and contribution to this legislation. I would also like to express my appreciation for the broad cross-party support received in the House for this legislation. I would also like to thank the sector for its ongoing contribution and its continued engagement in the development of this legislation particularly in including the refinement over the past few months for directors’ duties offences.The Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) will strengthen the rules applying to the registration governance and reconstruction of companies. The Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) mirrors the registration changes so that they apply to limited partnerships. I would also like to quickly outline some of the key initiatives.Firstly the legislation will ensure the integrity of New Zealand’s companies and limited partnerships registration regimes. It will require companies to have a director who either lives in New Zealand or lives in and is a director in a prescribed enforcement country. It strengthens the ability of the registrar to obtain information about who truly owns and controls New Zealand companies and limited partnerships. These changes address the misuse of shell companies registered in New Zealand but do not impede the ease of doing business for the vast majority of New Zealand companies.The introduction of further offences for directors who cause serious loss to a company or to creditors will encourage directors to focus on their key duties and will deter undesirable behaviour. This strengthens the reputation of New Zealand companies for good governance and supports investor confidence. These offences were redrafted in light of submissions to the Commerce Committee. I am confident that we have landed in the right place and that the offences are set appropriately. I have seen recent commentary to support this.Aligning the processes for company amalgamations and schemes of arrangements with the Takeovers Act will ensure that all shareholders of widely held companies can participate in amalgamations and other arrangements in an informed way. This Government is committed to ensuring that our legislative framework promotes investor confidence a key driver of long-term sustainable economic growth. The Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) are key reforms that will strengthen New Zealand’s international reputation as both an easy and trustworthy place to do business. I commend this legislation to the House.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):Labour joins with the Minister of Commerce in supporting the passage of these pieces of legislation the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2). Like the Minister has said we are also a party that is for industry support openness transparency and accountability in respect of our business arrangements in New Zealand and internationally so as to preserve as I think the Minister alluded to the credibility and integrity of our commercial entities in this country.New Zealand does have an international reputation a trusted reputation for doing business. The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation have ranked New Zealand out of 183 countries as the easiest in which to start a business. To be fair much of that work started under the previous Government and has been carried on in a number of respects by this Government. We are trusted in terms of our commerce. We are generally perceived to be clean and open and accountable apart from the odd blip. Without diverting to the negative in this moment of détente between the parties Judith Collins I do not think in her recent activities overseas has contributed in any way shape or form to that trusted incredible relationship that we have in our business arrangements.However moving back to the legislation I would say in passing—and it has become slightly habitual with this Minister—that legislation sits around for a long time. This is an important piece of legislation. This Government has been aware of this legislation yet it has languished for a long long time. It was introduced of course by Simon Power and has languished on the Order Paper off and on as I say for quite a period. It is noteworthy that our reputation has suffered to some extent because the Government has chosen to give this such a low priority. In 2012 we know that New Zealand along with Russia was struck off the prestigious European Union banking and corporate white list over this country’s weak money-laundering and terrorism financing controls. I was Associate Minister of Justice in the last Government when we passed as per our international obligations anti-terrorism anti - money-laundering legislation. This was part of that package in a different portfolio. Being struck off that white list means that banks and institutions in the EU “will not be entitled any more to make simplified research for banks and financial institutions registered in New Zealand”. It also means that European institutions can no longer “accept and acknowledge” customer identification and analysis performed in New Zealand.That would not have happened if this Minister bluntly was on top of his portfolio. I know he is well-intentioned but having this legislation languish and bobble about on the Order Paper and stagger its way through the legislative process has been to the detriment of New Zealand’s reputation. We have had incidents for instance that include a New Zealand - registered company that was used to run a US$25 million Ponzi scheme by its American chief executive owner who is now facing up to 15½ years in a United States jail after pleading guilty. These may be to some relatively insignificant examples of where our system has lost its way but each one of them especially being expunged or struck off that white list in EU terms sends a signal to overseas investors and overseas jurisdictions to put a question mark on New Zealand’s international commercial reputation.Generally these bills—and they are in this case—are bipartisan bills. We all accept and we all support the intent. But what I would say to that Minister Mr Foss is that this legislation and its passage required a heck of a lot more urgency and a heck of a lot more priority than was given by him. He is the Minister of Commerce. He is the person who is in charge effectively of ensuring the credibility and integrity of our commercial and business arrangements. This sat around to the point where we got pinged by the EU. I know and former diplomat Mr Hayes will know that embassies and foreign agencies look at issues like this and they make their own interpretations and they make their own judgments. Mr Hayes of course spent much of his career protecting enhancing and promoting New Zealand’s international reputation in an attempt to progress our commerce internationally. He will know that when things like the EU white list occur capitals others and agencies make judgments and reputations suffer and they take a heck of a long time to repair. It has become a bit of a habit that Mr Foss’ legislation tends to come out with a hiss and a roar and then it simply is put on the back-burner. Maybe it is not considered a priority by Cabinet. Maybe his influence within Cabinet is waning—who knows? Maybe the Government just feels that there are more important things to do. In Government that is always an excuse. There is always something more important to do. But this is integral to the arrangements and the credibility and integrity of our businesses in New Zealand.The Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) of course gives the Registrar of Companies powers to investigate and deal with non-compliance with the Companies Act 1993. This includes the power to flag companies on the register that are under investigation. It allows the removal of companies from the register if they provide inaccurate information or persistently fail to comply with the Act. The registrar will also be able to ban directors of such companies from taking part in the management of any company for up to 5 years. The Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) makes similar changes in respect of the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 so that those misusing New Zealand companies cannot avoid the new regime by registering limited partnerships instead. There is better alignment with the Companies Act and the Takeovers Code to ensure that shareholders understand the effect that changes on company control will have on the value of their shares.We know that shareholders now are increasingly becoming better educated and briefed on the nature of the companies they invest in. That is partially born out I think of many shareholders being burnt by the difficulties that occurred with finance companies some years ago. Our communities and investors are becoming more financially literate. They expect to have far clearer information. They expect to have a greater understanding. There was a time when shareholders—and I talk not about institutions but small mum and dad shareholders if you will—would pick an investment but would not get particularly involved or particularly briefed apart from the annual and quarterly reports in scrutinising the activities of directors and the company as a whole. We know there is greater scrutiny now of director and chief executive officer remuneration. Powers are limited in that respect with shareholders but shareholders are increasingly becoming more active through shareholders’ associations and other entities in scrutinising the activities of companies.The Labour Party supports this legislation. We agree it is necessary. We would have facilitated the passage of it if the Government had determined that it wanted to put some horsepower behind it and get it through in a faster fashion. There has been no explanation from the Government. I see the Commerce Committee chair Mr Young who did an excellent job in terms of putting this through. In fact I suspect that maybe he should be the Minister of Commerce because he can expedite legislation faster than his boss through the select committee process. But we have had no explanation as to why this languished why New Zealand’s reputation suffered through the removal from the EU white list—why that occurred in 2012. Could that have been avoided if the Minister had got his act together got his officials sorted and got this legislation through? In the end it becomes a matter of priorities. I am sure business people will welcome the passage of this legislation because their reputation in terms of international trading and exporting is dependent on a sound accountable transparent environment both in New Zealand and overseas to support their activities and arrangements. I do hope this is the second-to-last piece of legislation in the commerce portfolio where we will be forced to make comments about the lack of speed and haste. The Minister has not managed this process well and I hope he will learn from this and become slightly more efficient in his job.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Just in reply to some of those comments from Clayton Cosgrove I want to highlight the number of pieces of legislation that went through the Commerce Committee that touch on commerce and consumer affairs. I think that members of the Commerce Committee—of which the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove is the deputy chair—would say that we are a very hard-working committee. In fact we would claim to be the hardest-working committee in this Parliament where we measure legislation not by pages but by kilograms. [Interruption] I can see that they are sparking up. A little bit of praise and approval—is it not amazing how much the Opposition members all smile? It is a pity they are not getting it out there in the electorate.We targeted loan sharks and provided more protection for vulnerable families. We updated consumer law to give more protections to individuals reflecting the increasing number of online purchases. We improved financial reporting requirements so that 90 percent of New Zealand businesses no longer need to produce full financial accounts. We strengthened capital markets and created more opportunities through crowdfunding which I think is going to be very enabling for the start-up sector in particular. We tightened the regime for those providing financial advice. We introduced standardised reporting for KiwiSaver funds allowing more informed comparisons. We lowered fees for KiwiSaver default members. This is what this Government has done.We strengthened our reputation as a good place to do business. The previous speaker spoke of what the World Bank was saying about New Zealand—the easiest place in the world to start a business and the third-easiest in the world to do business. So our reputation does stand internationally. We progressed our commitments toward a single economic market with Australia. We strengthened the ability of our trans-Tasman regulatory agencies to work together. We have improved intellectual property settings which allows for innovative local companies to grow and to protect the product they develop.We reduced the costs of businesses as far more reporting can be done online. We have allocated the New Zealand business number to 500000 companies allowing business and the Government to communicate more effectively. What a great Government we are. I have to say that we worked under a very excellent Minister of Commerce the Hon Craig Foss.The debate that took place on the original bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill was one I think that the Commerce Committee probably enjoyed quite considerably. How to protect creditors and consumers but how to not put all the straps on directors so that they are totally bound up by compliance was an issue that we found quite challenging to find the balance on but I believe that we did. The legislation addresses the misuse of New Zealand’s registration scheme by overseas entities as well. It tightens the criteria for company registration and is part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to improve regulation and to lift confidence in New Zealand’s capital markets.One of the underlying themes of our Government is that we have worked very very hard to boost growth and allow jobs to be created in our economy. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families real opportunities for young people safer communities and the high-quality education and health services that all New Zealanders need. These pieces of legislation—the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) which derive from the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill—are important to achieve that. They shore up and strengthen our regulatory environment especially around the area of commerce financial markets investment etc.One of the things that we found through the financial company collapses is that New Zealanders all over this country—particularly the elderly who had retired—had lost confidence. They had so much of their savings burnt up that this Government took it upon itself as a priority to move through that whole sector and to tidy up clean up and tighten up where needed the different regulations and legislation that would enable investors in our country to invest with confidence again in the innovation the bright ideas and the hard-working companies of New Zealanders.I would just like to say thank you very much to my fellow select committee members for the hard work they have done. Thank you to Craig Foss who does a great job as the Minister of Commerce. I am happy to commend these bills to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Before I get into the substance of these bills the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) in their third readings I would just like to make a comment about what the previous speaker Jonathan Young just said around the underlying themes of this Government. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove touched on this in his speech before mine but I would just like to say that one of those themes—we have discussed this quite a bit during the Committee stage particularly—is how instead of boosting jobs and business activity one of the things that this Government will have as its legacy is how it has dragged its heels on making dodgy businesses otherwise known as white-collar crime accountable. I do want to make that point. I have got other points to make but I want to reinforce that point because it is an important point. I do have some concerns about this. Labour is clearly supporting these bills because it is really important that we do and that we get them passed into law.As for the lack of accountability for the dodgy business practices it has taken 6 years to get to this point and this is not the only piece of legislation that this Minister of Commerce has dragged his heels on around these practices. I think it is important that the public knows that and asks some questions about why that is.I want to go back to talking about the original legislation as it was reported back from the Commerce Committee to the House in the second reading. The select committee made these comments around the criminalisation of serious breaches of certain directors’ duties and how we acknowledged as a committee—and it was a hard-working committee; there is no doubt about that—that we had some dilemmas. The dilemma was around how to create that balance for criminalising genuine dodgy behaviour and not criminalising legitimate business risk-taking behaviour.We said that we had sought an appropriate balance between encouraging positive entrepreneurial behaviour and imposing clear and effective sanctions on behaviour that crossed a criminal threshold. We said we recommended no changes other than minor drafting amendments to the relevant provisions but said we would support further consideration of the drafting of these new offences to ensure that those provisions were expressed in a way that provided clear guidance to directors and did not have a chilling effect on legitimate business risk-taking. However when we got to the Committee stage we had a Supplementary Order Paper that did a bit more than that.I want to return to the comments that my colleague David Parker made during the Committee stage when he expressed some real concerns around a possible loophole that this legislation might create. I will just reiterate the importance of why we have got this legislation which is having limitations on companies limiting the liability of investors and the amount that they invest and the importance of having measures in place to ensure accountability when people put their money at risk.But what we have done I fear—and I think my colleague David Parker also feared—is that we may have created some loopholes that might result in us returning it back to this House. I just want to put this on the record because I wonder whether what we have ended up with may have been a softening. I also want to note that we did not and of course could not return to a select committee process for comment around this. I know that the Minister countered that in his responses but it may have been a softening of the legislation that was returned back to this House. If we have any members across that side of the House who would care to comment on this or who have the capacity to comment on this and reassure the House on this tonight it would be useful because I do not know what it was that actually brought that Supplementary Order Paper 403 to the House.I am just going to quickly go through what it does. It removes—and this is what we are voting on tonight and I think everyone should be really clear about that—the so-called reckless trading offence that was in the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill that came back to the House and it replaces it with a new provision that is based on elements of the duty in section 135 of the Companies Act which means that there are accountabilities. The accountabilities are that the criminal provisions apply if the director agrees to or causes or allows the business of the company to be carried on in a manner that causes serious loss to one or more of the company’s creditors where the director knows that a serious loss will be suffered by one or more of those company’s creditors etc. and where one or more of those creditors that suffered the serious loss did not give their prior consent to the carrying on of the business in that manner.That sounds good. All of that sounds good. All of those provisions sound good but there are exceptions and it is the exceptions that worry me. The exceptions are where I fear we have created a loophole and where there has been a softening of this legislation which may require a return to this House at some point. Those exceptions are where the Supplementary Order Paper proposes that directors will not be liable in the following situations. The first is where they believe on reasonable grounds that all the creditors that will suffer the serious loss have been identified and whether they also believe that those creditors have consented to the business being carried on in that manner. The second is where the new offence will not be triggered by the carrying on of the business of the company in accordance with a compromise under Part 14 of the Act a court-ordered arrangement amalgamation or compromise under Part 15; an administration under Part 15A; or a deed of company arrangement made under Part 15A. That all sounds very complicated. The problem I have is that we as members of the Commerce Committee were not given the opportunity to test these changes. We were not given the opportunity to test words such as “the director—believes on reasonable grounds that all the creditors that will suffer serious loss … have been identified; and believes that all those creditors have consented to the business being carried on in that manner.”That goes to intent and I think that criminal provisions where directors are liable have to be really clear under the law. It is my concern—and I think it is also my colleague David Parker’s concern—that there have been some changes brought back to the House that were unable to be tested. They were unable to be tested not only by the members of the select committee but also by any other submitters that might have had a contrary view or a view that would challenge them. We were also unable to challenge the officials who had provided the wording to us.In this sort of legislation where it goes to white-collar crime and where there is the ability for directors who have been implicated in these sorts of dodgy schemes to be really challenged in court we have got problems in our country where they have loopholes to be able to go through. We talk about reputation. Reputation is really important but it relies on really good well-founded well-tested legislation. I have got some concerns about what we have ended up with tonight I have got real concerns about how long it is has taken and I have got real concerns about that Government’s commitment to really addressing white-collar crime.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I rise to speak to the bills divided from the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. The Green Party is definitely going to support this legislation. It was the Green Party that raised these issues a long time ago when we realised that there was so much rorting going on. In fact it was back in September 2011 when we realised that on 28 July 2010 Cabinet under Simon Power decided that it should do something about some of these rorts and some of this money-laundering and the using of New Zealand as a tax loophole effectively. We had through parliamentary questions found that a number of New Zealand - registered companies were being used to commit money-laundering tax evasion and fraud overseas but were coming here. It was through that that there were something like 1800 companies deregistered fairly quickly because they had effectively one address and were doing no business but were just sitting there. There were still at some time after a few to be taken off. It was good to see that there was some movement.But it was that long ago that there was a decision that something should happen and that it was acknowledged. The Minister of Commerce announced in September 2010 the intention to introduce a law in 2011 to tighten up the requirements around company registration and we waited and we waited and we waited. That was in the last Parliament and here we are in the next Parliament—it is fading out and its time is nearly up—and we have to ask where National has been in sorting the rorts. National has clearly been absent.Later in 2011 we were offering the Government help and asking whether we could help it get legislation through to sort these rorts out. We asked it whether we could sort that out. We asked whether we could have just one resident director—and clearly that has been a move made in this legislation—and ensure that directors document their identity better. One bit that seems to have been missed is to obtain an IRD number. Why would they not have an IRD number? Why should it not be included?Then just last year in November—and maybe this was what helped get it moving again—New Zealand was recognised as a tax haven by the Tax Justice Network for the first time ever. The Tax Justice Network produced a most comprehensive report of tax havens and as I say last November it ranked us on its financial secrecy index. That was really really unfortunate because that is a place where countries of real disrepute in terms of tax havens and tax rorts are included. We had a below-average rating and we needed to change that.Out of that in fact Russel Norman who had been promoting the fact that we should have these changes right back in 2011 as I say came up with his own bill and it is in the members’ ballot as we speak. That bill was to help deal with this situation. So it is really good that we have some movement now but we do not think it went far enough. As a result of some of the goings-on back in 2010 and 2011 and clearly previous to that New Zealand was struck off the European Union’s white list in 2012 and that added extra costs to New Zealand exporters doing business in Europe. As I say we have offered to support this legislation and we will support it. This legislation will strengthen the company registration process. Dr Norman’s bill is the Income Tax (Foreign Trust Registration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. That bill will still be worthy on a number of points over and above what we are passing through the House tonight.Our comment is: where has National been? Why has it taken so long when it was clear that our reputation was being impugned internationally and there were extra costs on businesses and yet it has taken from at least 2010 through the time of this National Government and through to where we are now June 2014 to have something actually happening? So we will be pleased to support the legislation for the positive parts of it. We are disappointed with the bits that are not being covered and not requiring registered companies to obtain Inland Revenue Department numbers is part of that as is not addressing some of the problems with nominee directors and not clarifying the confusion relating to beneficial ownership. It is very unfortunate that these things are still lapsing in terms of this legislation and we look forward to their being covered under the next Government. Thank you.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):In addition to the kind birthday wishes I received on 19 June last week from friends family and colleagues across the House I received a couple of wonderful bits of news through the media. The first was—and it might be a bit sad to be pleased about this on one’s birthday but anyway they were a couple of great bits of news—that gross domestic product for the first quarter of this year had risen by 1 percent and New Zealand had moved close to having nearly 4 percent GDP growth for the year.Hon Member: Excellent.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: That is an excellent result for this economy and for New Zealand. The second of three bits of news that came through on 19 June was that we had had a $1.4 billion quarterly surplus for our current account. I must say that that really—Hon Nathan Guy: Put the icing on the cake.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —put the icing on the cake in terms of the birthday treats that were being rolled out. And I saw the anguish across the other side of the House particularly of the Hon David Parker in his contribution to the debate around the current account and how terrible it was. All of a sudden well it actually was not that bad—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —and it was probably one of the better current accounts for some time. But the third bit of good news was the immigration statistics that came through which were the best in 20 years—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is not part of this legislation.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes I know Mr Assistant Speaker that you want me to get to the point but there is a very good point in this which is that all this good news has been the result of much hard work on this side of the House. It has not been due to any one particular silver bullet that we have delivered as the governing party; it has been the result of the hundreds of small steps that we have taken in order to get our economy growing being more productive and being a better place to do business.Today we pass the third readings in this House of the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2). Once again this is legislation that improves the business environment for New Zealand and helps Kiwi businesses and those who are investing in New Zealand to have more productive business relationships in this country. It helps us to grow our economy helps to build jobs in this country and helps to lift wages and that is a superb opportunity.I think—in the few comments that I would just like to make—that New Zealand has an international reputation as one of the best and most trusted places in the world to do business. That is a reputation we have built over many years through many different Governments but today we take another step. I welcome the support across the House from Labour and I see that even the Greens are supporting this particular legislation because once again it takes a positive step in terms of building our international reputation as being one of the most trusted and best places to do business. That is fantastic for our economy it is great for jobs and it is great for wage growth. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2). At times one would wonder whether the Hon Chris Tremain is actually in the same House because having listened to that previous address and his glowing account of what the Government has done in relation to this legislation one really does wonder whether he has followed it through. The fact is that the Government should be hanging its head in shame in regard to this legislation.John Hayes: Oh what nonsense.ANDREW WILLIAMS: It is not that it is not good legislation Mr Hayes from the Wairarapa but the fact is that it has taken so long to get here. The first reading of this legislation was on 24 July 2012. The second reading of this legislation was in July 2013. That was some 2 years after it had been to Cabinet and had been brought to the attention of Cabinet. That was 2 years ago after all parties in this House had already agreed that this legislation needed to be passed. So every Government MP should be hanging their head in shame. Why has this legislation taken at least 4 years to get to its third reading in order to put in place sensible protections in terms of our commerce in New Zealand on the international stage?As a result of the inept incompetence of this Government in this area we were dropped from the white list of the European Union. I used to work as a trade commissioner for the Government of Flanders in Belgium. I spent 10 years going to and from Brussels and understanding the requirements that the European Union laid down and it absolutely appals me as a previous representative in this country of Belgium—of Brussels the capital of the European Union—that this Government can be so inept and so slow at passing some legislation that basically is here to assist New Zealand commerce to ensure that corrupt practices do not take place in this country. As a result of that we were dropped off the white list of the European Union and were taken off what was regarded as a country operating with good corporate governance oversight.John Hayes: Have you been drinking again?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Mr Hayes you have been in trade for many years. If you feel Mr Hayes that you have acted responsibly as a Government in allowing this legislation to take this long to come through this House—leaving this country exposed in the way that it has been—then I am sorry but it is no wonder this Government is consigning you to greener pastures. Quite frankly you should have known better. You should have known better Mr Hayes. Mr Hayes should have been one of the champions to ensure that this legislation got through this House much sooner than it did.John Hayes: Can we have the chairs on the Titanic now?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Now that I have got your attention again this legislation does close a lot of loopholes and avenues for operators who have flouted the law such as requiring that a director be resident in New Zealand which goes some way. There have been activities of window companies and shell companies operating here in New Zealand. Certainly as a result of this legislation some of those discrepancies and anomalies will be closed down. The legislation also gives the ability to the public to be warned about suspect entities by way of a note in the companies register. The public can be warned about anything that is perhaps of concern and a red flag can be raised in terms of some of the activities of an entity that may be operating here in this country in that regard.The legislation also increases the fines. It brings in imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and a fine not exceeding $200000. Again this sends a strong message internationally that New Zealand will not condone practices of those sorts in this country. The legislation basically tidies up a lot of administrative errors in terms of some of the commerce matters under the Limited Partnerships Act and other similar Acts to do with commerce and commercial acts. It is a positive move. New Zealand First has always said that we will support good policy that tightens up laws that support New Zealand companies—and in particular our international trading sector—to be competitive on the world stage.New Zealand has a good reputation in terms of corruption. In fact in recent years the surveys have shown that we have been consistently No. 2 after Finland although after the Oravida saga this year one wonders what the ranking will be in the coming year—Hon Judith Collins: We’re actually No. 1 for the last 8 years you wally.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —once the international people do an evaluation of what the Oravida saga has drawn out in this country—Hon Judith Collins: No. 1 in the last 8 years.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —and Minister Judith Collins’ involvement in that. So it will be very interesting to see when our ranking perhaps drops from No. 2 to perhaps No. 6 or No. 7 whether maybe that Minister the Hon Judith Collins who is sitting there on the other side barking away at the moment will take responsibility for our loss of integrity.Hon Judith Collins: No. 1 in the last 8 years you fool.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Mr Assistant Speaker are you going to intervene in that? I thought that incessant interjection was not condoned in this House.Anyway moving on New Zealand First is pleased to see that this legislation is going through its third readings we are pleased to see that this will be passed into legislation this evening and we are pleased that finally this piece of legislation will be on the books for New Zealand. But for ever and a day this National Government should look seriously at itself and ask why it has taken the best part of 5 or 6 years to ensure that New Zealand commerce is protected to a greater degree in this respect.Dr JIAN YANG (National):The Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) address the misuse of New Zealand’s registration scheme by overseas entities and tighten the criteria for company registration. New Zealand has the best environment for doing business. We enjoy a stable democracy we have a culture that assigns a high value to fairness we value transparency and clear accountability and we also have a very sound legal system so we are a very open economy. This legislation will increase our transparency with minimum compliance costs for companies. Only a very small proportion of the companies registered in New Zealand will need to adjust their circumstances accordingly. This legislation will certainly improve regulation and lift confidence in New Zealand’s capital market. I commend the bills to the House. Thanks.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):I take a call in the third readings of what began life as the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. I think it is pretty fair to say that these bills have broad support across the House but they do not go through these third readings without some sense of criticism from this side of the House. That has been well traversed by a number of speakers who have come before me.New Zealand does have a very good reputation in terms of being able to come here and do business. I think our reputation in business is probably equalled by our environmental reputation. People look at New Zealand and think that it is a pretty fair place and easy place to carry out work but that reputation has come about because of the very stringent attention of this House around corporate governance. I think it was the Minister of Justice who said that it was for 8 years that we have held the first—Hon Judith Collins: 8 years.KRIS FAAFOI: —8 years for the first—Hon Judith Collins: In a row—8 years in a row.KRIS FAAFOI: Eight in a row? Thank you very much for confirming that. So well before the term of this Government New Zealand was seen as the best place to do business. But there has been some concern recently about that potentially slipping back with stories around money-laundering as we have heard before starting to creep into media nationally and internationally. I think that as people have seen New Zealand as a good place to do business that is when the crooks come in and try to use our good reputation to start up a business and to use it for purposes that we would prefer they did not. So there has been some concern for some time and it is good that this legislation is going to be passed on 24 June.But probably one of the more interesting parts of the legislation is the last page where it gives us the dates as to when this legislation was introduced and when it had its first reading. I think someone else may have pointed out that this legislation was introduced to the House on 13 October 2011 and got its first reading on 24 July 2012. I think as Andrew Williams pointed out earlier on in his speech that before this legislation was introduced to the House it would have gone through Cabinet probably some 4 years ago and we have only got to the stage now—on 24 June just months away from the next general election—that this Government has seen it as a priority to progress this piece of legislation. It was just last week that we went through the Committee stage of this debate and the select committee the very hard-working Commerce Committee which I sit on had reported this legislation back to the House some time ago. This legislation has languished on the Order Paper for some time.You have to ask the question about the ability of this Government to walk the walk when it comes to talking tough on cracking down on white-collar crime because it has been big on talking making sure that we can strengthen regulation around business and making sure we can cut red tape around business. But this legislation as I say was introduced I think from my recollection before the last general election and has only been forwarded progressed in this House just before we break for the next general election. So you do have to ask the question about how seriously this Government has taken this legislation. As I say it is a good piece of legislation but why has it taken 3 years for it to get here? The Government would have been forming the legislation well before that for a couple of years so it may have been this Government’s intention to pass this legislation at the beginning of its first term in late 2008 but some 5½ years later we are only now really seeing it come to fruition.It is legislation that is much needed again around that international reputation that we have here in New Zealand. I understand that the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation rate New Zealand as the easiest place out of 183 countries in which to start a business so we do have a reputation to protect. But there have been incidents recently and I have got one here in front of me as an instance of people coming from overseas and using New Zealand businesses as shell companies to basically run frauds. There was a New Zealand - registered company that was used to run a Ponzi scheme which is the flavour of the moment to the tune of US$25 million by an American chief executive and an owner who are now facing up to 15½ years’ jail in the United States after they pleaded guilty to that. This is a very real issue. There are people looking at New Zealand seeing that it is a good place to do business and using the protection of that reputation to commit crimes. That was quite a large one—one of US$25 million. So as I say there has been plenty of local and international media attention.We do need to make sure that we are right on top of this and are not leaving any wriggle room for those crooks out there to take advantage of the good name that New Zealand has. Again that takes me back to the point as to why this Minister of Commerce has taken so long to progress this legislation. If this legislation had been passed in maybe the Government’s first term when it was thinking about this under Minister Simon Power then we might not have had the instance that I have just talked about where that Ponzi scheme was able to be run out of a New Zealand company. Also as other speakers have said since this Government has come into power and has had this idea and this legislation on the cards—but again it has languished—in 2012 New Zealand along with Russia I should add was struck off the European Union’s banking white list because of the country’s weak money-laundering and terrorism finance and controls. That is obviously not a good look for us. We want to make sure that that reputation is upheld but it is not a good look for New Zealand to be in the company of Russia in being struck off that very prestigious EU list.Can I just talk directly to the legislation because it is legislation that will take action that this side of the House is going to support. Certainly on this side of the House one of the things that we are happy with is that this legislation will give new powers to the Registrar of Companies to investigate and deal with companies that do not comply with the Companies Act. I think one of the good things around that is that this includes the power to flag companies on the register that are under investigation. That is something that has not existed. We do think that is a good idea because it will put those on red watch to make sure that if we do have suspicions about people using New Zealand companies as shell companies to undertake illegal activity those companies will be flagged. It will also allow the registrar to remove companies from the register if they do not provide accurate information or they persistently fail to comply with the Act. My understanding through the select committee process is that that was one of the flags that the registrar identified as a trademark of people who potentially could use those companies as a shell company to get ill-gotten gains.I realise that I have got just a little bit of time left but I just did want to stress the point about the amount of time that this has taken to progress. Again to go back to the last page of the legislation this legislation was introduced on 13 October 2011 some time ago and got its first reading and referral to the very hard-working Commerce Committee on 24 July 2012. It is nearly 2 years ago that this was referred to the select committee. I question the Government’s rhetoric around making haste to protect our reputation when this Government has taken so long to progress this legislation. It is legislation that is needed and that has got broad support around this House but we obviously do take umbrage at what the Government is trumpeting—that it is getting tough on white-collar crime and making sure that directors of companies act in a way that we would all expect they should act. But this legislation has languished for 2 years in this House before it has got anywhere close to being passed. It is no secret that this Government can pass pieces of legislation pretty fast to crack down on other forms of crime but when it comes to white-collar crime it is taking its time.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I will take a short call so that we can progress the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) quickly. I want to acknowledge Mr Faafoi’s contribution. It is great that he recognises the quality of this legislation. I do not know what to say about Mr Williams’ contribution talking about his time as a sausage salesman in Brussels. I do not know what relevance it really has to the legislation.This is very good legislation. It seeks to strengthen the rules applying to the governance and registration of companies and limited partnerships and the reorganisation of companies. The measures in this legislation are linked to other work aimed at deterring money-laundering and making it easier for New Zealand law enforcement agencies to find out the ultimate owners and controllers of companies. This is very good legislation and I am very happy to commend it to the House. Thank you.RAYMOND HUO (Labour):I rise to take a call to support the Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2). This is very important legislation. It is urgent legislation and should be passed with a great sense of urgency.The report prepared for the Minister of Commerce who is responsible for this legislation in August 2012 said that New Zealand shell companies allowed money-laundering totalling $1.5 billion a year. The report warned that New Zealand was becoming a domicile of choice for those seeking to engage in illegal activities. Again in 2012 New Zealand was struck off the prestigious European Union banking and corporate white list over this country’s weak money-laundering and terrorism financing controls. Being struck off the white list will put New Zealand banks and corporates in an awkward situation and it will have a negative impact on New Zealand banking and institutions.What is worth reiterating is that this legislation’s genesis came from revelations in early 2010 that a New Zealand - registered company had leased a plane loaded with 35 tonnes of guns and explosives. It was later intercepted in Bangkok trying to smuggle arms from North Korea to Iran. The Government has been aware of those issues for some time and this legislation is part of the measures addressing those problems.It is disappointing that this legislation has received almost no attention since its introduction and has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper. How on earth could such legislation which protects New Zealand’s international reputation and prevents this country from being abused and exploited by those terrorists have received such low priority from this National-ACT Government? Labour however has taken a positive and constructive approach and we support this legislation.This legislation will give new powers to the Registrar of Companies to investigate and deal with non-compliance with the Companies Act. This legislation will allow the removal of companies from the register if they provide inaccurate information or persistently fail to comply with the Act. The registrar will also be able to ban directors of such companies from taking part in the management of any company for up to 5 years. The legislation will make similar changes to the Limited Partnerships Act so that those misusing New Zealand companies cannot avoid the new regime by registering limited partnerships instead. This legislation will better align the Companies Act with the Takeovers Code to ensure that shareholders understand the effect that the changes in company control will have on the value of their shares.And finally this legislation introduces criminal offences for directors who commit serious breaches of their duties to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company and to not carry on business in such a way that risks serious loss to the company’s creditors. To conclude this legislation enhances the registrar’s investigative and deregistration powers. It will help protect New Zealand’s international reputation and prevent this country from being exploited and abused by those terrorists. Thank you.Bills read a third time.Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I move That the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The National Government supports New Zealand’s business growth both in domestic and international markets. This bill will improve the competition regime provide greater protection for consumers and encourage innovation—all key elements of our Business Growth Agenda. New Zealand is a small economy dependent upon export markets. Often this means we have to find innovative ways to do things. The Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill enables this.Effective competition enables and drives innovation and productivity. In contrast anti-competitive conduct including hard-core cartel conduct lifts prices above competitive levels to the detriment of consumers. One of the bill’s objectives is to deter hard-core cartel conduct by clarifying the scope of prohibited behaviour. More specifically it prohibits price fixing market allocation and output restrictions between competitors. Bid-rigging is also prohibited but this conduct is generally considered to fall within the definition of price fixing.A key feature of the regime is the new collaborative activity exemption which enables businesses to assess for themselves whether a proposed collaboration falls within its scope. The first element of the new exemption asks whether there is a collaborative activity. This is an activity carried out cooperatively for a legitimate collaborative purpose. A collaborative activity could include joint research and development sharing risk in a long-term infrastructure investment or delivering an efficient marketing and distribution system through a franchise agreement.The second element of the exemption asks whether engaging in cartel conduct is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the collaborative activity. This element is important because it allows businesses and the Commerce Commission to test whether the participants could achieve a comparable outcome through practical and significantly less restrictive means. I would be looking to the courts to draw on comparable US and Canadian case law when thinking about how the test should be applied in the New Zealand context.Through their usual practices of analysing the options and objectives of their activities businesses should be able to determine whether they meet the exemption requirements. Where businesses are unsure whether an activity might risk breaching the Act they can apply to the Commerce Commission for clearance. Over time as the commission documents its reasons for decisions these clearance decisions should form a body of precedent.The Commerce Committee suggested a number of useful amendments to the bill. These included clarifying the relevant point in time at which a collaborative activity is assessed. The committee also suggested allowing the Commerce Commission to revoke determinations that give clearance to a proposed collaborative activity where there is a material change of circumstances. This is a helpful amendment because it ensures that consumers are not harmed as a result of material changes in market conditions while at the same time it provides procedural safeguards for businesses to undertake long-term investments. The onus would be on the commission to show that the change was material. In addition the commission would be required to give interested parties the opportunity to make submissions.Another important change to the clearance regime allows the commission to assess the arrangement to determine which provisions might be cartel provisions. Notably the committee endorsed the introduction of criminal sanctions for hard-core cartel conduct. This change aligns New Zealand with Australia and some of its major trading partners. The committee noted the view that criminal sanctions should be reserved for conduct that is truly culpable. I am pleased with where the bill has got to on this issue. To attract criminal sanctions a person should have acted with intent or at the very least with a disregard for the consequences. In terms of process where conduct is sufficiently serious the commission would make a recommendation to an independent panel convened by the Solicitor-General. The panel would then determine whether prosecution was appropriate. The process recognises that only serious or recidivist conduct should be subject to criminal sanctions.I turn now to the Commerce Committee’s recommendation to transition the regulation of competition in international shipping to the Commerce Act. I invited the committee to consider the transport issues alongside the bill. Work on this issue was initiated by the Productivity Commission in its international freight services inquiry. The commission recommended that the exemption for international shipping be removed. The committee called for submissions on whether safeguards built into the Commerce Act and the bill would provide sufficient flexibility for international shipping lines to collaborate. Submissions to the committee informed the Government’s decision to transition international shipping to the Commerce Act regime. The changes will bring the industry into line with general competition law. It also puts international shipping in the same position as coastal shipping. This should ensure effective oversight of an industry that is vital to our exporters. It is pleasing to note that the committee endorsed this decision.With a review of the Civil Aviation Act already in progress the committee recommended that transition to a Commerce Act regime be considered as part of that process. I look forward to the outcome of that review.The National Government champions competition. Exemptions from competition law may be considered on a case by case basis but they should always be justified on public benefit grounds. I would like to thank members of the committee for their work. I am very pleased with the outcome and look forward to further enabling firms to compete innovate and trade successfully. This Government understands that a competitive and innovative economy is the best way to build sustainable economic growth which creates jobs and grows incomes. I commend this bill to the House.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):Although the Labour Party again in the spirit of most of these pieces of legislation will support the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I have got to ask the Minister of Commerce—and I am sure that he is going to stay and hang on every word. I am going to make a couple of comments about Supplementary Order Paper 408 which I have proposed to replace section 36. This is quite important because the Government has just said—we have just heard the Minister say—that the National Party is the champion of competition. To a large extent like all parties in this Parliament that would be true except there was a big issue that was raised in this House earlier this year in respect of the grocery trade which the Minister rubbished from the then Hon Shane Jones who was a member of this Parliament and whom he rubbished. He basically went into denial over it.Then it was found out that the Government had been well-informed about the concerns about this issue as far back if memory serves me correctly as the Minister’s predecessor Simon Power in 2009. The current Minister then met with the chief executive officer of the grocery suppliers association Katherine Rich. The file note that he authored in his office or that was authored by his officials at his request or instruction notes the conversation and notes the gravity of the issues. If the issues were not of sufficient gravity one wonders why this Minister would have instructed his officials to make a file note of the conversation to go and rehearse various options and to note that in the file note. Then nothing happened. He stood in this House and said: “I know nothing.” Like Sergeant Schultz he said: “I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing.” So although the Minister stands up and says he is the champion of competition that is limited to only those aspects that interest that Minister.We have proposed a pretty substantial amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 408 in respect of section 36 of the principal Act. I have to say that there are some very eminent entities in this country including the chair of the Commerce Commission the Productivity Commission and many in the telecommunications industry who have called on section 36 to be amended in the way that my Supplementary Order Paper 408 does.Clare Curran: We’re in tune.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says: “We’re in tune.” Hell yes we are in tune.Before I go into the nature of the Supplementary Order Paper I will just deal with the Minister’s response. I sent the Supplementary Order Paper—as is the wont to do in these commerce bills; there is cooperation pretty much—to the Minister on 10 December 2013. He then turned up at the Commerce Committee for the 2014-15 estimates a couple of weeks ago and I asked him whether he would support it. He has had it for nigh on 7 months. He said he would get his officials to look at it. I asked him in the select committee whether he would support it and the answer was no. It was not because he did not agree with it but simply because he wanted to put it through some sort of full policy process. OK fair enough—that is a logical step to undertake. However he had 7 months to do it—7 months to do it—and he did nothing as this bill progressed through. Such is his commitment to stamping out anti-competitive behaviour.Then we see the letter that he wrote me which I received on the 24th of this month. In it he says that although he rejects the Supplementary Order Paper “to this end the Government recently announced its intention to review section 36 as part of its Business Growth Agenda Future Direction 2014 report.” So now we know that the Minister had our idea endorsed by the Commerce Commission and endorsed and called for by the Productivity Commission the telecommunication industries and others for 7 months and he decided to do nothing about it until he got a prod. And then the excuse was that National was going to put it through a full policy process. Given the Minister’s track record on getting a policy process expedited through the bureaucracy the Parliament and the select committee God only knows how long it will be before we actually see if at all any proposed changes to section 36 as called on by external entities. You would think that we were going to write things on tablets of stone.What we are actually changing in the proposal for section 36 is that as it stands the Commerce Commission has to prove the intent of monopolies abusing market power rather than the effect of that behaviour. To give a rather coarse example but a simple one for one or two members opposite it is a bit like saying that in a car accident where somebody injures somebody—breaks their legs runs them over or what have you—we will look at the intent. The intent was not actually to do that to maim the person because it was an accident but we will not look at the effect of the fact that that person may be permanently injured unable to work unable to earn an income—i.e. there is a series of negative impacts on that person’s life. So that is the sort of basic example for Mr Young opposite. In essence the Act looks at the intent but it does not actually look at the impact and actions around the impact of anti-competitive behaviour. It is a simple change but it is an important change. We think that looking at that effect or that impact—actually what happened who got done over why they got done over how that had an impact on that entity or person and what the anti-competitive behaviour was—is extremely important. It is actually the practical outcome of the exercise.As I say the Productivity Commission has called for this the Commerce Commission has called for this and various other industry players have called for this. Given that these bills are relatively non-contentious and are generally almost always supported by the parties we sent the Minister the Supplementary Order Paper 7 months ago in the hope that this could be helpful. We did not make a big song and dance about it. We told the world that we were doing it. We hoped the Minister would take it seriously and 7 months later when he could have embarked upon his major root and branch policy process all we get is a letter dated today that says: “We are going to look at it at some future time as part of a fancy growth and industry agenda and mix it up in the politics of the day.” I think that says more about the Minister than it actually does about what we want to do here tonight. There is an opportunity to pass a simple Supplementary Order Paper to have a major impact on anti-competitive behaviour and give the Commerce Commission particularly some really good grunt in terms of going after this sort of stuff.There is a question I would just like to ask the Minister and I am sure he will give another dissertation as we move through this. Rather than him just saying: “Policy process—that’s what we have to do.” I would like an explanation as to why he did not embark on that 7 long months ago—7 long months ago. He says on the one hand he is the champion of going after anti-competitive activity. He says he is the champion of business. He says he supports this bill. He says he wants to cooperate with other parties and get the best possible piece of legislation out. Yet when he was given the opportunity to do so nothing happened. We would have supported a truncated policy process I have to say and I believe that the industry would have the Commerce Commission would have and the Productivity Commission would have. If we had all come together and said: “Look we think it is the right thing to do but we want to health check it. I am sure we will consult but we do not want to mess around with this. We want to get it done because it is the right thing to do.” this side of the House and I am sure other parties as well would have supported that. But nothing happened.The silence is deafening from this Minister. It is the same Minister who got up and rubbished the grocery issue. He said it was all a lot of hot air and then suddenly the Commerce Commission put seven or eight investigators on the case subpoenas flew around this country like lightning bolts witnesses were brought in and they are taking that issue extremely seriously. But it is a worry when the Minister of Commerce the highest officer within that portfolio decides in an arbitrary way to simply rubbish it and then criticises others by the way for putting up suggestions prior to the Commerce Commission reporting and then sneaks round to the back door and cuddles up to the very organisation that is being investigated by the Commerce Commission in order to do some sort of slipshod deal on a voluntary agreement to in some way prove to us that he is on the case and he is actually doing something. Well the arguments that the Minister puts up round this are riddled with holes. We expect some accountability and at the very least we expect an explanation as to why he will not support Supplementary Order Paper 408.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Well I think just in response to the comments of the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove it is important to understand that the regulator is doing an investigation that must not have political interference and so the Minister of Commerce has made it quite clear that this situation is in the best hands and the proper hands and the appropriate hands. I believe that in due course we will hear back from the Commerce Commission.The Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill here in its second reading is one of those bills that are full of complexity. On the one hand we want to allow pro-competitive collaboration between firms but on the other hand we want to deter anti-competitive hard-core cartel conduct. We want to encourage that sort of cooperation where firms can work together. I think that the underlying test is that it must be of benefit to the consumer and not have predominant benefit to those who collaborate.Obviously in collaboration there is benefit. But in terms of competition we know that competition is a process of rivalry between firms. Firms compete on the basis of price and quality to sell products to customers. The process of competition between firms drives firms to lower costs improve quality or develop better products in a competitive market and these benefits are passed through to consumers.Cartels on the other hand are formed when rival firms agree not to compete with each other by fixing prices or restricting output or allocating markets or rigging bids. Cartels allow firms to raise their prices above the competitive level without fear of losing customers to rivals. This increases the profits of the participants but it does nothing to create a countervailing benefit to consumers through more efficient business operations.So those are the two positions that the Commerce Committee investigated and heard about through submissions that came to our committee. We heard 16 oral submissions even though we received 41 submissions in all. We also received advice from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and from the Ministry of Transport particularly around shipping and of course airlines. One of the things we have been relentless on is working through the whole suite of Acts of Parliament that have needed to be updated in order to be fit for purpose for a modern growing economy.This bill is very important because we know that if we can strip out unnecessary costs in our economy then the benefit that is going to come through to our economy is going to translate into businesses being able to afford to employ more people and being able to give a stronger and more secure future for their employees. That is because the margins of their profitability will increase. It is important that as companies look at their bottom line we have an environment where competition causes them to become more efficient.We have to compete not just here domestically but globally. We have to become a country that competes efficiently and effectively. We have to have companies that can compete against companies in Australia in Asia in North America and in Europe. So if we are hampered and held back by anti-competitive behaviour that continually inflates prices makes the cost of doing business high and passes down those costs to consumers then what we are going to find is that the inefficiency in our economy is going to take away our competitive edge.We are a small nation. We are always faced with the tyranny of distance. We are an export nation so the efficiency of our companies is paramount. I believe that in this bill we have found a good balance. Companies can cooperate together and work together knowing they are all part of the supply chain of a product or service and they can do that in such a way that the consumer benefits. We have also found a balance where we can identify those companies that are anti-competitive and have cartel behaviour. The Commerce Commission has been given a set of tools to be able to work in this particular area.I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their hard work on a very important piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I would like to take a call in the second reading of this bill the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There is a lot to say in response to the chair of the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young in terms of the existing situation in New Zealand around anti-competitive behaviour whether or not we are creating a pro-competitive environment and whether or not this legislation goes far enough which we seriously contend it does not. Unfortunately the Minister of Commerce is refusing to consider a really important amendment to this bill.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.